# Should cycling be allowed on the pavement?



## Cycleops (21 Jan 2017)

Story on the BBC's site.Apparently the police in many parts of the UK are now not stopping cyclists for this.

Should cycling be allowed on pavements? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38688256

Anyone have any thoughts?


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Jan 2017)

providing the 'pavement' cyclist isn't being a nobber, there's no problem. 

As far as I understand it, the police are advised not to tackle pavement cyclists unless they're being reckless or causing a nuisance to pedestrians. It's a sensible approach.


----------



## MarkF (21 Jan 2017)

Why not? In many areas the pavements are so wide and so lightly used there is room for cycle lane to be introduced anyway, 90% of my commute to work could be on a pavement without hardly ever meeting a pedestrian. Of course that is different to cycling along a suburban pavement outside housing.


----------



## Markymark (21 Jan 2017)

As long as it's safe then yes. The bigger question is on that stretch why are cyclists feeling unable to use the roads?


----------



## CanucksTraveller (21 Jan 2017)

In many circumstances it's absolutely fine, so long as it's considerate. I've no problem with kids and less confident cyclists carefully using the pavement to avoid heavy or fast traffic. The police are turning a blind eye I see.... I suppose that since police time is so stretched, and since motorists rarely get stopped for things like phone use, no seatbelts, fog lights always on, aggressive driving and excess speed etc then I'm quite surprised that any police would even consider a stop for this.


----------



## Drago (21 Jan 2017)

No. "Pavements" are for peds.

Alas, the issue is self perpetuating. The more cyclists feel unsafe and use the path, the less cyclists use roads, the less motorists become accustomed to encountering them, and the less they become skilled and courteous in their dealings with cyclists. 

Then there's the compulsion aspect. If the majority of cyclists end up on the path then the motoring lobby will be clamouring all the louder to keep us off their road? why not, they'll say, seeing as hardly any cyclists now use them anyway?

Ride on the road, but ride with skill, diligence, courtesy and the correct lights etc. If things really are that bad then get off and walk the short distance until it's safe to resume.


----------



## sarahale (21 Jan 2017)

The police quite often catch cyclists at Hampton court bridge, one side is a cycle lane but the other is not.


----------



## ianrauk (21 Jan 2017)

Fine with it as long as everyone is considerate and mindful of others. However as you get tosspot cyclists on the roads you will get tosspot cyclists on the pavements which gives naysayers the ammunition for the classic 'all cyclists blah blah blah'.


----------



## Tin Pot (21 Jan 2017)

sarahale said:


> The police quite often catch cyclists at Hampton court bridge, one side is a cycle lane but the other is not.



The police contributing helpfully to society once again.


----------



## Drago (21 Jan 2017)

The local population will have identified that as a priority, hence the police spending time on it now and again. Surely you can't be upset that they're delivering that which the public have requested?


----------



## chr15b (21 Jan 2017)

I'm in favour of it, when I started getting back into cycling I completely understood the lack of confidence people will have cycling on the roads. So long as those cycling on the pavement are considerate to pedestrians, I don't see the problem.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Jan 2017)

My problem with the article is that nowhere does it mention that pavement cycling is legal where a local authority has redetermined the pavement to shared use. The article reinforces the mistaken, yet widely held, belief that all pavement riding is illegal.


----------



## Drago (21 Jan 2017)

Best ask that question of the Government, who made it compulsory that NPTs (or insert whatever local name they go by) regularly canvass local opinion to determine local community policing priorities, no matter how bizarre or ludicrous they may be. This is how 'motorcycle nuisance' was identified as a local policing priority in my parish last summer, despite no such incidents being reported to the police since 2014...

The good news is our NPT found it very easy to report back 3 months later that they'd eradicated the problem.


----------



## Markymark (21 Jan 2017)

User said:


> Well, yes and no. Yes the local population should have some say but do they have greater ownership of that bit of road than people passing through?


And is policing but public opinion the best way to choose priorities?


----------



## Drago (21 Jan 2017)

The government thinks so.


----------



## User482 (21 Jan 2017)

A short stretch of pavement allows me and my young daughter to cycle to school, as the alternative would be two right turns on and off the busy main road, not something I would contemplate for a five year old . I have taught her that pavement cycling is ok only if she goes slowly and gives way to pedestrians. I would ask what benefit is achieved by preventing us from doing this?


----------



## PK99 (21 Jan 2017)

I snapped my ACL a year ago and have been a "vulnerable pedestrian" since then and have been more aware of pavement cyclists as a direct and immediate hazard. The middle aged pavement cyclist who forced me on crutches into a hedge to avoid him and gave me a mouthful when I suggested he be more considerate and use the road was a particular low point.

Following reconstruction I have been walking a mile to the gym 6 days a week from the start of November. I wish I had kept a log of incidents as most days I have to avoid or am put at risk by pavement cyclists. Particular highlights have been the lady cyclist who passed me from behind without warning at at least 15mph. And the guy in lycra on a decent bike with road clips who squeezed between me and a hedge clipping my arm in the process and giving me a mouthful of abuse for not getting out of his way. Those have been the most egregious examples but there have been many lower level instances.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Jan 2017)

User said:


> That people prefer to, feel the need to, whatever reason, ride on the pavement, it is an expression of our abject failure to provide sufficiently safe roads that they are viewed as safe.


Yes, if cycling on pavements is a problem, identify what pavement cycling is the solution to and work to eliminate that.


----------



## nickyboy (21 Jan 2017)

User482 said:


> A short stretch of pavement allows me and my young daughter to cycle to school, as the alternative would be two right turns on and off the busy main road, not something I would contemplate for a five year old . I have taught her that pavement cycling is ok only if she goes slowly and gives way to pedestrians. I would ask what benefit is achieved by preventing us from doing this?



Cycling slowly and giving way to pedestrians, there is no benefit in preventing this and a lot of benefits in allowing this.

Unfortunately not all cyclists on pavements cycle slowly and give way to pedestrians. If they did then this is 100% a non-issue. I think on balance it should be allowed but I hope the pricks who ride too fast and frighten pedestrians get a bollocking or whatever.


----------



## Phil Fouracre (21 Jan 2017)

This could run and run Personally, it's wheeled transport, so, it belongs on the road. Don't know if it's just round here, but, lots of old, narrow pavements - plenty of scope for a twat on a bike to do a lot of damage, especially if he felt entitled to do it!


----------



## User482 (21 Jan 2017)

nickyboy said:


> Cycling slowly and giving way to pedestrians, there is no benefit in preventing this and a lot of benefits in allowing this.
> 
> Unfortunately not all cyclists on pavements cycle slowly and give way to pedestrians. If they did then this is 100% a non-issue. I think on balance it should be allowed but I hope the pricks who ride too fast and frighten pedestrians get a bollocking or whatever.


Sure, but the problem there is nobbers. And when I'm walking in the city, nobbers in cars concern me far more than nobbers on bikes.


----------



## Cycleops (21 Jan 2017)

Its always been against the law but the Labour government reinforced it in 1999 to include a £50 fixed penalty. I wonder what Corbyn thinks of that?


----------



## Milkfloat (21 Jan 2017)

Drago said:


> No. "Pavements" are for peds.
> 
> Alas, the issue is self perpetuating. The more cyclists feel unsafe and use the path, the less cyclists use roads, the less motorists become accustomed to encountering them, and the less they become skilled and courteous in their dealings with cyclists.
> 
> ...





User said:


> That people prefer to, feel the need to, whatever reason, ride on the pavement, it is an expression of our abject failure to provide sufficiently safe roads that they are viewed as safe.



I agree with both these points, but have no real answer to the conundrum. I cycle slowly on the pavement taking my kids to school, until we can get to the shared use path. I would never use that on my journey on to work.

My thoughts suggest that presumed liability may help. If the cyclist reclaims the street they could be helped and if they chose to cycle on the pavement they would need to be extra careful and to yield to all pedestrians.


----------



## User482 (21 Jan 2017)

Cycleops said:


> Its always been against the law but the Labour government reinforced it in 1999 to include a £50 fixed penalty. I wonder what Corbyn thinks of that?


It was the Labour government that issued guidance on when the penalty should be enforced. As I recall, it was quite sensible (essentially, "don't be a nobber and you can cycle on the pavement").


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (21 Jan 2017)

Drago said:


> No. "Pavements" are for peds.
> 
> Alas, the issue is self perpetuating. The more cyclists feel unsafe and use the path, the less cyclists use roads, the less motorists become accustomed to encountering them, and the less they become skilled and courteous in their dealings with cyclists.
> 
> ...



You must have forgotten that the definition of a road includes pavement. You haven't been retired that long either.


----------



## Racing roadkill (21 Jan 2017)

No, bloody cyclists and their bloody Lycra, cycling on the pavements, running over and killing all pedestrians. Grrrrrrr, and they're not insured, they should pay pavement tax.


----------



## keithmac (21 Jan 2017)

I don't have any issues with children cycling on the pavement but don't agree with adults using it, just my opinion.


----------



## Markymark (21 Jan 2017)

Safe cycling on the pavement should be legal and dangerous cyclisting illegal.

A bit like safe driving is legal and dangerous driving illegal. Nobody suggests we should ban driving because some drive badly.


----------



## Tin Pot (21 Jan 2017)

Drago said:


> Best ask that question of the Government, who made it compulsory that NPTs (or insert whatever local name they go by) regularly canvass local opinion to determine local community policing priorities, no matter how bizarre or ludicrous they may be.



Good grief, we're much closer to mob rule than I'd feared. It's like we're actively choosing the end of western civilisation.

Time to put Ancient Greece and Ochlocracy back in the school curriculum.


----------



## Cycleops (21 Jan 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> Time to put Ancient Greece and Ochlocracy back in the school curriculum.


I'd advocate Latin. Anyone remember "Cavey"?


----------



## sarahale (21 Jan 2017)

I broke my toe whilst out recently and had to cycle home. 

Was in a fair amount of pain and unable to pedal very well so for a very busy section of road, where I had to complete a right turn, I decided to use the pavement and as it was less painful to cycle (using my heel) than walk I stayed on my bike, going very slowly. I met a man walking who I stopped to give way to. He very angrily told me I should not be cycling on the pavement. So I gingerly got off and hobbled onwards pushing my bike. Wouldn't dare use a pavement again.


----------



## Drago (21 Jan 2017)

Did you not cheerfully tell him to fornicate away?


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Jan 2017)

Expanding on User's point

In1999 when the power of various officials was extended to allow them to issue FPNs the then Home Office Minister gave guidance (Edited - The Home Office Minister who gave this advice was Paul Boateng. These are sometimes referred to as Boateng criteria)



> “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”



This was then echoed in advice to the newly authorised ticket issuers:



> “CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.
> 
> I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)




To me that seems reasonable and is where it should stand.

Do 30 plus on a pavement whilst chasing a Strava time and yelling for people to get out of your way, and a ticket is more than deserved

However if it is beside a dual carriageway with a complex junction, and the cyclist is acting responsibly then it is arguable that a ticket should not be issued


The statements of many Forces are in line with the Boateng criteria, and whilst there will of course be a wide grey area in between these two examples where the Police are quite right in looking at whether the cyclist is cycling responsibly, has "good reason" and then decide accordingly


----------



## Ajax Bay (21 Jan 2017)

chr15b said:


> So long as those cycling on the pavement are considerate to pedestrians


The problem is: pavement users (pedestrian) can't rely on this and, just like cyclists would like to rely on considerate motorists (and all would be well(ish) with the world), they perceive, with validity, that cyclists (especially adults at any speed) may pose a threat.


sarahale said:


> I met a man walking who I stopped to give way to. He very angrily told me I should not be cycling on the pavement.


A more reasonable response to the nice man (than @Drago 's euphemistic suggestion above) would be " Thank you, sir. You are absolutely correct" and then just carry on.
@Cunobelin 's contribution is really useful. If you keep it illegal then that allows the police to use their discretion. If you make it legal but say 'if you cycle dangerously on the pavement we'll stop you and do you for that' it's a far more difficult policing challenge. Also if a cyclist knocks down a pedestrian on the pavement, the current illegality make the responsibility clear. And this should and does (IME) encourage cyclists who use pavements for whatever reason to ride sensibly and considerately. YMMV


----------



## SpokeyDokey (21 Jan 2017)

Only if they are not chasing Strava segments.


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Jan 2017)

"Plenty of room for two" is my usual retort on the very rare occasion that a ped tells me off for being on the pavement. 99/100 times though, they don't seem bothered at all.


----------



## Banjo (21 Jan 2017)

Trouble is commonsense doesnt allways prevail.

User482 and his 5 year old are causing no problem to anyone.

Gang of kids at full pelt in the dark no lights and total disregard for safety are a problem.

Which is more likely to stop and hang around to accept a fine?


----------



## Drago (21 Jan 2017)

[QUOTE 4647936, member: 259"]They'll never take @User482 alive![/QUOTE]only because there's no one left to go get him!

Interestingly, PCSOs do not have the power to stop traffic, including bicycles, except under the supervision of a police officer. The only exception is their power to stop vehicles being used in an antisocial manner. So if you're riding on a path and otherwise behaving yourself they've no powers to stop you to be able to give you the ticket.

It's like the child seat regulations. The police have no powers to measure your Childs height or enquire as to their age, so the law is theoretically unenforceable.


----------



## Dan B (21 Jan 2017)

Phil Fouracre said:


> This could run and run Personally, it's wheeled transport, so, it belongs on the road.


Yes, along with prams, pushchairs, Heelys, shopping trolleys and wheelchairs


----------



## Drago (21 Jan 2017)

Shopping trolleys are transport?


----------



## Banjo (21 Jan 2017)

Drago said:


> Shopping trolleys are transport?


Sometimes....


----------



## mustang1 (21 Jan 2017)

sarahale said:


> The police quite often catch cyclists at Hampton court bridge, one side is a cycle lane but the other is not.


Awesome road planning there. Something similar in lea bridge road. I encountered a cyclist coming the wrong way and had a right go at him. Afterwards I felt bad because I guess he didn't know he was riding the wrong way.


----------



## Drago (21 Jan 2017)

Transporting the drunk since 1952.


----------



## Crackle (21 Jan 2017)

Those feckin midgets are the worst. They're always being pursued by someone as well, shouting at them to stop or slow down. They should be targetted in a police crack down.


----------



## HLaB (21 Jan 2017)

Drago said:


> Shopping trolleys are transport?


They are in in East Dumbartonshire


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Jan 2017)

Drago said:


> Shopping trolleys are transport?



Eveyone has raced shopping trolleys with your girlfriend s a passenger...... surely


----------



## Banjo (21 Jan 2017)

Interesting to read that pcso cant stop traffic.

Few years ago our kids went on a scout camp.one of the dads had a massive artic lorry and volunteered to transport all the gear.thid required him doing a 20 point turn to reverse into the lane and again to get out.this guy was an incredibly good driver.

I was nominated to go to the top of the road and "advise" drivers it would be easier to go round the block to avoid the lorry manouvering or they could wait 10 minutes.

Most people were great but along comes some dimwit quoting all the legislation that I was breaking .
I just walked around the back of his car and continued offering other motorists the opportunity to go round the block and avoid the hold up.Of course this means gobshite is stuck there for the duration. :-)

Seems if we had just allowed 10 or 15 minutes of gridlock no laws would be broken.


----------



## 400bhp (21 Jan 2017)

User482 said:


> A short stretch of pavement allows me and my young daughter to cycle to school, as the alternative would be two right turns on and off the busy main road, not something I would contemplate for a five year old . I have taught her that pavement cycling is ok only if she goes slowly and gives way to pedestrians. I would ask what benefit is achieved by preventing us from doing this?



I do the same twice a week and (quite rightly) no one bats an eyelid.


----------



## 400bhp (21 Jan 2017)

Phil Fouracre said:


> This could run and run Personally, it's wheeled transport, so, it belongs on the road. Don't know if it's just round here, but, lots of old, narrow pavements - plenty of scope for a twat on a bike to do a lot of damage, especially if he felt entitled to do it!



What are your views on prams and wheelchairs being in the road?


----------



## 400bhp (21 Jan 2017)

keithmac said:


> I don't have any issues with children cycling on the pavement but don't agree with adults using it, just my opinion.


Where should the adult supervising the child ride?


----------



## Ajax Bay (21 Jan 2017)

400bhp said:


> What are your views on prams and wheelchairs being in the road?


Fine, provided that they are lit in accordance with the regulations (paging @mjr) and occupants are wearing helmets in case they fall out.


----------



## mjr (21 Jan 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> Fine, provided that they are lit in accordance with the regulations (paging @mjr) and occupants are wearing helmets in case they fall out.


There aren't any regulations for lighting them, are there?


----------



## mjr (21 Jan 2017)

400bhp said:


> Where should the adult supervising the child ride?


I've seen them riding on the road alongside the child. Not 100% sure what I think of that but WGAF


----------



## dim (21 Jan 2017)

hard one to answer, as it depends ....

I'd prefer my child to ride on a pavement instead of a busy road, because it would be safer

but .... I'd hate my grandmother or young children to walk on a pavement with yob cyclists (who ride with no hands on the handlebars, or their hands in their pockets or their hands holding their mobile phones while they text on facebook 

(my kids are adults now, and I both my grans passed away a long time ago, but thats the way I'd feel a few years ago)


----------



## mjr (21 Jan 2017)

Remember: cycling like a nobber and putting pedestrians in danger is illegal even on a cycle track or carriageway. It's completely irrelevant to whether cycling should be allowed in any given place.



Drago said:


> The local population will have identified that as a priority, hence the police spending time on it now and again. Surely you can't be upset that they're delivering that which the public have requested?


 When Mr Meldrew goes to whatever replaced the SNAP meetings to rant about people cycling on the pavement it's all hands to the pump and there's crackdown squads of PCs and PCSOs roaming the area a few times before they report back to the next meeting, but when cyclists go there to complain about what's making the roads unsafe then it's always Somebody Else's Problems - nobber motorists are for the Roads Policing Unit in a faraway town to deal with, highway obstructions aren't really obstructions but something for the council parking enforcement officers who have their hands full in the town centre.

So maybe I wouldn't be upset with this crap neighbourhood policing priorities method if what the public requested actually happened, but it ain't!



glasgowcyclist said:


> My problem with the article is that nowhere does it mention that pavement cycling is legal where a local authority has redetermined the pavement to shared use. The article reinforces the mistaken, yet widely held, belief that all pavement riding is illegal.



ITYM "redesignated the footway as a cycle track" ("shared use" doesn't really exist but it's a sneaky way to marginalise cycling and make it seem like a guest on a footway) but I know what you mean.



deptfordmarmoset said:


> Yes, if cycling on pavements is a problem, identify what pavement cycling is the solution to and work to eliminate that.


I use it as a solution in a couple of places where the alternative is two right turns across a busy road or cycle along a quiet wide footway that the council have failed to redesignate due to cost or Mr Meldrews.


----------



## Banjo (21 Jan 2017)

Regular occurence I see is Pushchair edging out onto the road while mum is engrossed in her phone .


----------



## Drago (21 Jan 2017)

Get a few more cyclists to fill out the forms/attend the meetings/whatever method the local plod use to determine the community policing priorities. It's simply a numbers game, and if the cyclists ain't making up the numbers...


----------



## mjr (21 Jan 2017)

Drago said:


> Get a few more cyclists to fill out the forms/attend the meetings/whatever method the local plod use to determine the community policing priorities. It's simply a numbers game, and if the cyclists ain't making up the numbers...


Seriously, it isn't. Any policing of traffic other than cyclists is ruled out of bounds. It's a much better idea for cycling campaigners to get involved with the Casualty Reduction Partnerships if they want to get police help with tackling dangerous motorists and ideally get cyclist policing taken away from neighbourhood policing teams too.


----------



## Drago (21 Jan 2017)

Seriously, it is. I used to be one of the poor schmucks that used to have to hob nob with the public gathering such info.


----------



## mjr (21 Jan 2017)

Drago said:


> Seriously, it is. I used to be one of the poor schmucks that used to have to hob nob with the public gathering such info.


Maybe your constabulary was different or maybe it was an earlier incarnation than SNAP with a different scope.


----------



## Slick (21 Jan 2017)

I did it regularly on about a 50m section of pavement to get on to the Erskine bridge without interrupting traffic joining the M8. I still do it on my new commute on a slightly longer section. The alternative is cycling up hill on a dual carriageway in the fast lane to negotiate a right turn on a roundabout. I know that I should be able to do that, but my risk assessment tells me to remove the risk entirely and cross over on the pedestrian crossing and do a short burst on the pavement.


----------



## GGJ (21 Jan 2017)

Nope, pavements are for pedestrians, roads for bikes and motorised vehicles...let's keep it that way


----------



## Pat "5mph" (21 Jan 2017)

Slick said:


> I did it regularly on about a 50m section of pavement to get on to the Erskine bridge without interrupting traffic joining the M8. I still do it on my new commute on a slightly longer section. The alternative is cycling up hill on a dual carriageway in the fast lane to negotiate a right turn on a roundabout. I know that I should be able to do that, but my risk assessment tells me to remove the risk entirely and cross over on the pedestrian crossing and do a short burst on the pavement.


Your risk assessment was spot on: did you hear about the 2 cyclists that died recently, on separate events, where you mention?
A ghost bike is on that spot now.

Most shared paths in and around Glasgow were just pavements originally.
The most recent one in my area was a concession to cycling because they have enlarged one already fast road: it was scary before, worse now, so they decided to put some signs up, voila', a cycling infrastructure.


----------



## mjr (22 Jan 2017)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Most shared paths in and around Glasgow were just pavements originally.
> The most recent one in my area was a concession to cycling because they have enlarged one already fast road: it was scary before, worse now, so they decided to put some signs up, voila', a cycling infrastructure.


 They should do it properly and rebuild them so they're consistently wide enough and don't have any of the blind corners or turn-on-the-spot bits that pavements often have. There always seems to be money to enlarge roads but rarely money to build cycle tracks.


----------



## User32269 (22 Jan 2017)

I teach my 9 year old lad to ride in the road on quiet residential roads. He still has the potential to drift out right without looking behind. I teach him to not ride too close to the kerb in case he clips a pedal. He can spot crossroads and ride accordingly. We encounter plenty of cars, and I believe this will give him a good grounding for his cycling future. We live on a manic dual carriageway and there is no way I am letting him take his chances on it.
We use the pavement for our final leg. Lights on when dark. Bells sounded for dog walkers and pedestrians. He is courteous and slows down.
I honestly don't care if it's illegal. It's the only way for him to get home in safety.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Jan 2017)

Drago said:


> Get a few more cyclists to fill out the forms/attend the meetings/whatever method the local plod use to determine the community policing priorities. It's simply a numbers game, and if the cyclists ain't making up the numbers...


In my direct experience from four years ago you are wrong. "Cyclists as a group are not recognised as a community and therefore their collective views on community policing priorities cannot be considered."


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Jan 2017)

Drago said:


> Seriously, it is. I used to be one of the poor schmucks that used to have to hob nob with the public gathering such info.


and had you gathered the info then, in Sussex, your superiors would have disregarded it.


----------



## Slick (22 Jan 2017)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Your risk assessment was spot on: did you hear about the 2 cyclists that died recently, on separate events, where you mention?
> A ghost bike is on that spot now.
> 
> Most shared paths in and around Glasgow were just pavements originally.
> The most recent one in my area was a concession to cycling because they have enlarged one already fast road: it was scary before, worse now, so they decided to put some signs up, voila', a cycling infrastructure.


I did hear about both incidents, scary stuff. I don't particularly like being on the pavement, no matter how short the duration, but it can be the difference between getting home or not. I honestly considered giving up cycling to work after both those incidents.


----------



## clockworksimon (22 Jan 2017)

There are lots of things that you should be able to do and be safe but the real world means having to be pragmatic. Just because you have a right to ride on the road and to be safe from other road users doesn't mean it is sensible in many situations. 15 years of riding in Manchester city centre and one 999 trip to A&E bashed the pompous, politically correct university student cyclist attitude from me. Making your children or inexperienced riders ride in high risk situations is highly irresponsible. 

Tactical, prudent riding on pavements is fine by me whether legal or not. I have never been challenged or caused a problem to anyone else. If the pavement is too busy I become a pedestrian until it is safe to get back on the bike and back on the road.

The rise in cycling deaths is awful and the place to make a difference to get more cycling lanes etc isn't whilst putting your life at risk (unless you want to contribute your posthumous statistic!)

Agree completely that the situation should not be like this!!!!


----------



## mjr (22 Jan 2017)

clockworksimon said:


> If the pavement is too busy I become a pedestrian until it is safe to get back on the bike and back on the road.


That one aspect I don't understand: if I wheel the bike, I am wider, wobblier, in the way for longer and much more likely to hit someone with the offside pedal or possibly drop the bike on them. If the pavement is too busy for walking-speed cycling, I'll use the carriageway (possibly pushing the bike on the carriageway while I walk on the pavement) or change route.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> They should do it properly and rebuild them so they're consistently wide enough and don't have any of the blind corners or turn-on-the-spot bits that pavements often have. There always seems to be money to enlarge roads but rarely money to build cycle tracks.


the pavements that have been designated 'shared use' around Lancaster and Morecambe are plenty wide enough. I was using them rather than the busy carriageway long before it was 'legal', and that was when there was already a bus/cycle lane running alongside, which in my book, are one of the worst types of cycle lane. In certain places, there's the advisory 'cyclists dismount' signs where a bus shelter narrows the path, but otherwise, the very broad pavements that have been designated shared use are fine around here.


----------



## mjr (22 Jan 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> In certain places, there's the advisory 'cyclists dismount' signs where a bus shelter narrows the path, but otherwise, the very broad pavements that have been designated shared use are fine around here.


Bus shelters are one example of where purpose built tracks differ from lazy signs-only jobs. Another is side road crossings where cycles should cross either in front of the give way or one car into the side road but pedestrians are often aimed at the wing mirrors of cars waiting to emerge... which I suspect is not helpful for walking too actually but still very common.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> That one aspect I don't understand: if I wheel the bike, I am wider, wobblier, in the way for longer and much more likely to hit someone with the offside pedal or possibly drop the bike on them. If the pavement is too busy for walking-speed cycling, I'll use the carriageway (possibly pushing the bike on the carriageway while I walk on the pavement) or change route.


there is that. My most used stretches of pavement aren't much use between 8am and 6pm so i'll go the longer route within those hours, which admittedly adds no more than a couple of minutes to my journey time. My use of the pavement is lazy and selfish, but barely any peds use them when i'm using them so it's no problem, in my tiny mind.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Bus shelters are one example of where purpose built tracks differ from lazy signs-only jobs. Another is side road crossings where cycles should cross either in front of the give way or one car into the side road but pedestrians are often aimed at the wing mirrors of cars waiting to emerge... which I suspect is not helpful for walking too actually but still very common.


The stretch i'm talking about does have a purpose built track on the opposite side of the road too, so one might think making the pavement shared use was pointless (especially since it already had a bus/cycle lane). Pinch points caused by bus shelters and stopping points at side roads aren't a problem either. It doesn't matter what the mode of transport is, at some point you have to stop, look and wait before resuming the journey. This is often cited as a problem, but it really isn't.


----------



## clockworksimon (22 Jan 2017)

Yes, wheeling the bike takes some care. Bit like wheeling a child buggy does too when it is busy. Like I said, it's taking a tactical and pragmatic approach fo each situation. I have never had any problems with either cycling or wheeling. Despite all this sensibleness I regularly despair of drivers doing crazy things when I am on the road.


----------



## jefmcg (22 Jan 2017)

There is an underlying assumption that cycling on the pavement is safer. Do we know this is true? You are much more vulnerable at side streets and driveways than you would be on the road.

I know of at least 3 deaths of pavement cyclists, probably all doing so legally.

There was an 11 year old class mate of my brother who was knocked down by a car backing out of a driveway while delivering papers.
When I was working on the A4 in west London, a rider opposite my office was knocked off the shared path onto the carriageway by a delivery driver who didn't bother to look. A second vehicle finished the job.
Most recently, a cyclist was knocked and killed, again on a shared path, and apparently it was entirely the cyclists because he failed to notice that one of the vehicles speeding towards over his right shoulder was indicating - if indeed it was.
Due to the above I am very reluctant to use a shared pavement, unless there are very few crossings. There is one near my home that I use occasionally and this caution has twice stopped me colliding with reversing car, and I've see another rider nearly hit by a turning delivery van.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Jan 2017)

A simple tactic for successful pavement cycling...

Slow the chuff down and give way to everyone else, and be prepared to stop at every driveway and side road and blind corner. Which is easy if you slow the chuff down in the first place.


----------



## chriswoody (22 Jan 2017)

It's funny reading all of this and reflecting on what a complete mess cycling provision is in Britain. Here in my corner of Northern Germany pavement cycling is perfectly normal and allowed. For the most part it's segregated and there are different paving stones and signage used to denote which half is for the Pedestrians and which for the Cyclists. Your also expressly forbidden from crossing into the wrong half.

Where the pavements are too narrow for a designated cycle lane, then bikes are either directed onto bikes lanes on the road, or signs will denote that you can share the pavement with the Pedestrians.

The real key difference here, that also answers jefmcg's point above is that the law is very clear in Germany. Pedestrians have absolute right of way, followed by bikes followed by motorised transport. So you HAVE to give way to what ever is below you in the order. So if you hit a pedestrian with a bike, you'll have the full weight of the law fall on you. Same if a car hit's a bike, so in the point raised above, bikes riding on the pavement will sail across side roads without stopping or even looking, safe in the knowledge that car drivers will be going out of their way to look for cyclists and pedestrians doing just that, and giving way to them. 

It all sounds a little crazy, but it works beautifully and everyone tends to get along just fine without hitting or antagonising each other. Of course the German psyche of always obeying the rules no matter what, does help a lot here too!


----------



## jefmcg (22 Jan 2017)

[QUOTE 4649059, member: 45"]"safe" isn't an absolute, its a value of risk.
[/QUOTE]
Obviously I meant "safer". Fixed above.

I think you are missing the point I am making. I am not saying absolutely that cycling on the pavement is more dangerous. I am challenging the assumption in almost every post in this thread that it is safer than the road. Do we know this is true? 


> 1) Terrible event. Isn't that an indication that all pavement use should be banned?


No, but I bet his parents were happy that he was on the footpath rather than the roadway. I bet they thought it was safer. 


> 2) Number of cyclists killed on the roads v number of cyclists killed on shared use paths?


I don't know. That is the question I am asking. Certainly around here, most cyclists are on the roads, not the shared paths, so these two deaths (the one below) within a couple of miles of my home seem disproportionate. They may not be, but it seems so.


> 3) That was a death on the road, wasn't it?


He was on shared facility that crossed a road. A route has to be safe at junctions to be safe. 

Again, I am not assuming that riding on the pavement is more dangerous, I am challenging the almost universal assumption that it is safer.


----------



## jefmcg (22 Jan 2017)

[QUOTE 4649103, member: 45"]I don't think there's a universal assumption that pavement cycling is always safer, but that it generally is.[/QUOTE]
Is it though? Is it generally safer? Do you have figures to back that up?

Or is it like riding in the gutter, or in the door zone? Feels safer, but actually puts you in more danger.


----------



## Sandra6 (22 Jan 2017)

In principal I don't agree with cycling on the pavement -beyond the age of 12 at any rate - but there are times when even I do it. 
Given the choice of sitting behind a line of non moving traffic, approaching a rab, filtering not an option, or taking the pavement for a minute so I can keep moving, I choose the pavement - but that stretch of pavement so rarely has any people using it I don't see it as a problem. I wouldn't choose to cycle all the way on the pavement though. 
The problem with saying it's ok for "considerate cyclists" is that there isn't anyone to govern the consideration. Once it becomes acceptable to cycle along the path then more people will do it, many without consideration and I for one don't want to be jumping out of the way of bikes as I'm walking to the shop.


----------



## PK99 (22 Jan 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> In my direct experience from four years ago you are wrong. "Cyclists as a group are not recognised as a community and therefore their collective views on community policing priorities cannot be considered."



I think that is correct. At a Little Holland proposal meeting a year or so ago, there were several different cycling types identifiable.

The commuter, wanting fast main road commuting routes through the borough into central london

The local mum, wanting safe back road, car free routes to the shops.

The sports cyclist wanting a clear run out of the suburbs into Surrey.

The leisure cyclist wanting access to Wimbledon Common and Richmond Park. 

All with distinct and sometimes conflicting requirements and demands.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Jan 2017)

PK99 said:


> I think that is correct. At a Little Holland proposal meeting a year or so ago, there were several different cycling types identifiable.
> 
> The commuter, wanting fast main road commuting routes through the borough into central london
> 
> ...


Which is why I often say, in here, cycling- and cyclist-wise there is no "us".

I can even be the commuter, the shopper, the sports person and the leisure rider, several times a week.

Though I have not yet been any of them yet this year. #ohtheshame.


----------



## Ajax Bay (22 Jan 2017)

chriswoody said:


> the German psyche of always obeying the rules no matter what, does help a lot here too!


And then making sensible rules and communicating them, with a light touch of enforcement (given the psyche quoted).


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jan 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Is it though? Is it generally safer? Do you have figures to back that up?
> 
> Or is it like riding in the gutter, or in the door zone? Feels safer, but actually puts you in more danger.




Which goes back to the "Boateng" advice

Deal with the situation at the time, make an informed decision at the time and then either let them go, have a word, or issue a ticket as appropriate

Classic example near us with a new section of Dual Carriageway and a poor roundabout

Do we need to wait 5 years, gather statistics and evidence, or simply apply the Bosteng criteria


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Jan 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Is it though? Is it generally safer? Do you have figures to back that up?
> 
> Or is it like riding in the gutter, or in the door zone? Feels safer, but actually puts you in more danger.


Generally try this test.

Find a busy road with a pavement alongside it.
Walk along said pavement for 500m and note how many times you get hit by a car or abused by a driver
Now return to the start.
Walk into the road, start walking along the road for 500m and note how long you survive for. I'll wager you won't get 20 metres.


----------



## chriswoody (22 Jan 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> And then making sensible rules and communicating them, with a light touch of enforcement (given the psyche quoted).



True enough, I took a sneaky shortcut through what I thought was a virtually empty pedestrian area last year. There's a prominent sign at the start to remind cyclists not to use it at that time of day, so I was blatantly in the wrong.

I never saw the Policeman until he stopped me and fined me 15 euros on the spot. Not a massive fine, but it's enough to give you a gentle reminder of the rules.


----------



## User16625 (22 Jan 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> providing the 'pavement' cyclist isn't being a nobber, there's no problem.
> 
> As far as I understand it, the police are advised not to tackle pavement cyclists unless they're being reckless or causing a nuisance to pedestrians. *It's a sensible approach.*



Sensible approach, police!? Yeah rite. Expecting that is a bit like telling my dog not to eat my steak. The only reason they dont dole out fines to dodgy cyclers is because they are already doing it to people who dont stick rigidly and religiously to arbitrary speed limits.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jan 2017)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> Sensible approach, police!? Yeah rite. Expecting that is a bit like telling my dog not to eat my steak. The only reason they dont dole out fines to dodgy cyclers is because they are already doing it to people who dont stick rigidly and religiously to arbitrary speed limits.


Wrong. The whys and wherefores have been explained up thread... did you read them?


----------



## mjr (22 Jan 2017)

clockworksimon said:


> Despite all this sensibleness I regularly despair of drivers doing crazy things when I am on the road.


I would be delighted if they stuck to doing them on the road and didn't keep doing crazy things on the pavement and cycle tracks!


----------



## mjr (22 Jan 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> A simple tactic for successful pavement cycling...
> 
> Slow the chuff down and give way to everyone else, and be prepared to stop at every driveway and side road and blind corner. Which is easy if you slow the chuff down in the first place.


Because no one cycling ever needs to get anywhere at a reasonable speed? 

As I understand it, the jury's out on whether cycle tracks are safer than immediately adjacent carriageways. The biggest factor is "it depends". It's possible to completely negate any safety benefit from the separation by messing up the design of a moderately busy junction. Ideally, track placement should be chosen to minimise crossings (including driveways), which is why London now closes more side road turnings when building tracks, because that was a weak spot in early CSs, as some on here know


----------



## Pat "5mph" (22 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> They should do it properly and rebuild them so they're consistently wide enough and don't have any of the blind corners or turn-on-the-spot bits that pavements often have. There always seems to be money to enlarge roads but rarely money to build cycle tracks.


True this: how there's always more money so the motorist can go faster, while they couldn't even move one of the several bus stops that are bang on in the middle of the new cycle "infrastructure"


Slick said:


> I honestly considered giving up cycling to work after both those incidents.


I've been over the Erskine bridge several times using the path: it should really have easier access/exit, not that semi mountain bike downhill track that there is now.



jefmcg said:


> Due to the above I am very reluctant to use a shared pavement, unless there are very few crossings.


Yes, you are right.
I am very careful to stop and give way at the umpteen crossings.
Once I had a driver wanting to turn around into a no through lay by that crosses the shared pavement: I was riding straight along, she looked at me, indicated, fully expecting me to stop. I did stop, of course: shows you that you need to keep your wits about even on a segregated path!
I am too slow to join the fast road alongside this shared pavement, unless it is 5am on a Sunday. Otherwise I get beeped and close passed.


----------



## User16625 (23 Jan 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> Wrong. The whys and wherefores have been explained up thread... did you read them?



Truth be told I did not. There are several pages in this thread and I only usually read the replies on the 1st and latest pages in such threads. Would take too long to read everything.



User said:


> Has the war against the motorist been won yet?



Its certainly not going in their favor. The upside to the war on motoring, as well as other motoring related issues, is I do more cycling. I used to love motorcycle touring. Now I cant even stand getting on the dam thing. Im also richer too. I bought a MTB last year which is worth more than my motorbike now is (both financially and personally). 

Motorists have plenty to be pissed off about. This "war" isnt gonna improve the bad drivers or make the roads safer for us cyclists. Thats how I see it anyway.


----------



## lutonloony (23 Jan 2017)

semi-related I hope. Using a shared cycle path on the way to work this morning and front light battery died. Am I allowed to cycle without lights on a cycle path? ( did have a mini light running as back up),


----------



## lutonloony (23 Jan 2017)

User said:


> If said cycle path was part of the highway (not all are) then you are required to comply with the Road Veihicle Lighting Regulations.


just the sort of odd question that pops into my brain, to keep me entertained when commuting


----------



## mjr (23 Jan 2017)

User said:


> If said cycle path was part of the highway (not all are) then you are required to comply with the Road Veihicle Lighting Regulations.


And don't think it's as simple as whether a cycle track (no such thing in law as cycle paths) is alongside a carriageway: there are some in Norfolk which are highways with no carriageway - sometimes the carriageway has been removed following bypass construction and sometimes there never was one. Just use lights - I suspect unlit cycling elsewhere would be seen as anti-social behaviour or something anyway.

By the way, the reference numbers for cycle-track-only highways in Norfolk seem to be number-Y-number like 2Y1, rather than the more usual A148/B1145/C67/U0213 format - has anyone else ever seen that? They sometimes escape into the public domain in traffic orders.


----------



## mjr (23 Jan 2017)

I just spoke on BBC Radio Norfolk about this because they seemed determined to cover it despite it not having a Norfolk angle. I shoehorned in the ideas that we know how to stop it (build cycle tracks, including some long-promised ones), that reckless cycling is illegal wherever and that everyone should give way to people walking everywhere.

I questioned whether this is the police in Camden admitting that they can't even keep relatively slow-moving much-more-20mph-than-ours streets safe for cycling, or whether it's a rational and wise decision to focus on motorists, who are involved in 98% of collisions where people walking on the pavement are killed.


----------



## MontyVeda (23 Jan 2017)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> Truth be told I did not. There are several pages in this thread and I only usually read the replies on the 1st and latest pages in such threads. Would take too long to read everything.


Probably worth reading a little more in future... if only to avoid posting nonsense.


----------



## jefmcg (23 Jan 2017)

Cunobelin said:


> Which goes back to the "*Boateng*" advice
> 
> Deal with the situation at the time, make an informed decision at the time and then either let them go, have a word, or issue a ticket as appropriate
> 
> ...


I'm talking about safety - an individual's judgement about which part of the road is better, not enforcement. 

I also don't know what Boateng or Bosteng is.


----------



## jefmcg (23 Jan 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Generally try this test.
> 
> Find a busy road with a pavement alongside it.
> Walk along said pavement for 500m and note how many times you get hit by a car or abused by a driver
> ...



False equivalence.

We all agree that walking on pavement is safer. We are not talking about walking, we are talking about cycling.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jan 2017)

jefmcg said:


> I'm talking about safety - an individual's judgement about which part of the road is better, not enforcement.
> 
> I also don't know what Boateng or Bosteng is.



Paul Boateng was the Home Office Minister who introduced FPNs for pavement cycling and also the advice on their use - I will edit the original post to make that clearer


----------



## derrick (23 Jan 2017)

Cycleops said:


> Story on the BBC's site.Apparently the police in many parts of the UK are now not stopping cyclists for this.
> 
> Should cycling be allowed on pavements? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38688256
> 
> Anyone have any thoughts?


Only for kids.


----------



## mjr (23 Jan 2017)

derrick said:


> Only for kids.


That's very ageist of you! Besides, I'm still young at heart


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jan 2017)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> Truth be told I did not. There are several pages in this thread and I only usually read the replies on the 1st and latest pages in such threads. Would take too long to read everything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The best was the Association of BAD Drivers (ABD)

A couple of years ago their spokesman led a blistering attack on pavement cycling, demanding maximum penalties and a total clampdown to eradicate this threat to the pedestrian, especially the visually impaired and disabled

How right!

Yet a few weeks later the same spokesman was uttering a tirade that a clampdown on illegally parking cars on the same pavements was a "Jihad against motorists", depriving drivers of their freedom, persecuting drivers, pursuing an easy target, a cash cow, and all the other usual sad claims

Amazing how suddenly the disabled, visually impaired and the other "victims" of the cyclists were completely unaffected by a ton of metal driving and obstructing the same pavement


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jan 2017)

lutonloony said:


> semi-related I hope. Using a shared cycle path on the way to work this morning and front light battery died. Am I allowed to cycle without lights on a cycle path? ( did have a mini light running as back up),



The cycle is "in use" and therefore requires a light


----------



## MontyVeda (23 Jan 2017)

I tend not to turn my front light on until I'm on the road, the cycle track is well lit and it saves the battery. I always turn it off when i mount the pavement.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jan 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> I tend not to turn my front light on until I'm on the road, the cycle track is well lit and it saves the battery. I always turn it off when i mount the pavement.





User13710 said:


> I do that too, being an occasional pavement cyclist in a place where I'm riding towards oncoming traffic for a hundred yards or so to get to a safe crossing place on a dual carriageway.


----------



## mjr (23 Jan 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> I tend not to turn my front light on until I'm on the road, the cycle track is well lit and it saves the battery. I always turn it off when i mount the pavement.


I run the lights on at least low power (the ones I can switch) when on the cycle track at night because it's the law and hopefully reduces the number of people calling phone-ins like this morning's ranting about unlit cyclists. Walkers really don't like unlit cyclists, even on cycle tracks.

But @Cunobelin is about right with an appropriate severity of the penalty IMO.

I do sometimes switch my lights off in fog when the cycle track is to the right of the carriageway in my direction of travel because I worry that if the roads are quiet, my generally big/bright rear light might mislead a motorist off the carriageway or into the oncoming traffic lane on a blind bend.


----------



## MontyVeda (23 Jan 2017)

Never had (or heard) a complaint from a ped on a shared use track due to me not having my front light on... and there's no shortage of them. It's one of several laws that I'll happily ignore. PLUS... the people who call 'phone-ins' clearly don't get out much. Otherwise they'd have better things to do.


----------



## mjr (23 Jan 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> Never had (or heard) a complaint from a ped on a shared use track due to me not having my front light on... and there's no shortage of them. It's one of several laws that I'll happily ignore.


In this morning's phone-in, it seemed to be lumped in with not using bells as unnecessarily surprising to people walking on/near cycle tracks. I think when one was asked whether they said anything, their reply was something like "what can you say? By the time you do, they've gone" so I don't think I'd take never hearing a complaint on the street as proof no-one cares. Loads of people seem so scared about being the victim of a Kenneth-Noye-style road rage attack if they criticise another road user.

I don't much care about it either way personally, but it seems to really upset some people and I have the lights anyway (the batteries last >10 hours, or I often use dynamos) so I don't see much reason not to light up.


----------



## MontyVeda (23 Jan 2017)

if they're complaining about us using bells, then they're nobbers and best ignored.

PLUS... people who phone in to 'phone-ins' don't get out much, they've probably never even been on a shared use path.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> In this morning's phone-in, it seemed to be lumped in with not using bells as unnecessarily surprising to people walking on/near cycle tracks. I think when one was asked whether they said anything, their reply was something like "what can you say? By the time you do, they've gone" so I don't think I'd take never hearing a complaint on the street as proof no-one cares. Loads of people seem so scared about being the victim of a Kenneth-Noye-style road rage attack if they criticise another road user.
> 
> I don't much care about it either way personally, but it seems to really upset some people and I have the lights anyway (the batteries last >10 hours, or I often use dynamos) so I don't see much reason not to light up.



Bells are even weirder with reactions

I have a couple of "pingy" small bells that seem to upset pedestrians, yet the mahoosive and loud "ice cream bell" on the Christiania and Delibike seem to invoke a nostalgic response


----------



## User16625 (23 Jan 2017)

User said:


> Yeah... our urban areas are designed round them to the detriment of others. The true costs of their motoring is underwritten by society. *They appear to be able to kill with relative impunity.* How awful for them.



Thats a justice system issue. Murder should generally be a mandatory life sentence. In this country minor issues are over enforced. Major crimes are nowhere near punished enough. 



MontyVeda said:


> Probably worth reading a little more in future... if only to avoid posting nonsense.



Didn't post nonsense. You just disagree with me about expecting the police to be sensible. 

"The courts should use chickens. The judge should slap defendants with dead chickens and my armpits smell of pasta."

Learn to differentiate "nonsense" from something you simply disagree with in future. It makes you sound like a pillock even tho you're probably quite lovely.


----------



## MontyVeda (23 Jan 2017)

Er... I think you'll find that your post I was referring to was indeed nonsense.



> The only reason they dont dole out fines to dodgy cyclers is...


 (quote edited to remove the bulk of the nonsense)

But you don't read entire threads do you, so you probably missed your own post.


----------



## mjr (23 Jan 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> PLUS... people who phone in to 'phone-ins' don't get out much, they've probably never even been on a shared use path.


Or are councillors, or so it sometimes seems! Anyway, I've an excuse for being on the phone-in: they called me!


----------



## jefmcg (23 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Or are councillors, or so it sometimes seems! Anyway, I've an excuse for being on the phone-in: they called me!


That's the only way I have ever ended up on a phone in: they called me and prearranged it.

I wonder how many people on phone ins are genuine callers? Ok, topic for a different thread.


----------



## mjr (23 Jan 2017)

jefmcg said:


> I wonder how many people on phone ins are genuine callers?


Probably none of us. Especially not that former UKIP candidate for police commissioner. The Conservative has shown himself loony enough about cycling - just imagine!


----------



## jefmcg (23 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Probably none of us. Especially not that former UKIP candidate for police commissioner. The Conservative has shown himself loony enough about cycling - just imagine!


Mine wasn't about cycling, it was about Moomba


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Jan 2017)

jefmcg said:


> False equivalence.
> 
> We all agree that walking on pavement is safer. We are not talking about walking, we are talking about cycling.


Repeat the same experiment on a bicycle at walking pace.

What is your dataset to support a claim that cycling on the pavement isn't safer than cycling on the carriageway?


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (24 Jan 2017)

Oh dear BBC News is running this question today.
Cue the patronising hate fest.


----------



## david k (24 Jan 2017)

Slick said:


> I did it regularly on about a 50m section of pavement to get on to the Erskine bridge without interrupting traffic joining the M8. I still do it on my new commute on a slightly longer section. The alternative is cycling up hill on a dual carriageway in the fast lane to negotiate a right turn on a roundabout. I know that I should be able to do that, but my risk assessment tells me to remove the risk entirely and cross over on the pedestrian crossing and do a short burst on the pavement.


I do similar with a short section of pavement on a regular ride


----------



## david k (24 Jan 2017)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> Thats a justice system issue. Murder should generally be a mandatory life sentence. In this country minor issues are over enforced. Major crimes are nowhere near punished enough.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree, but whilst there are many people saying prison is to rehabilitate prisoners not punish this will continue. If someone commits a bad crime, goes to jail, gets out and does the same the process is blamed not the person. 
It shouldn't be surprising that prisoners commit crime, too easy to blame something else, what's happened to people taking responsibility?


----------



## david k (24 Jan 2017)

On BBC now, seems reasonable approach to me


----------



## Shut Up Legs (24 Jan 2017)

derrick said:


> Only for kids.


Or the elderly.
Or those with a physical disability that makes road cycling difficult.
Or the mentally impaired who may need supervision, and of course their supervisors.

Nah... stuff it, just let everyone cycle on the pavement. Bicycles really aren't that dangerous compared to motor vehicles.


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2017)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Oh dear BBC News is running this question today.
> Cue the patronising hate fest.


Missed it. Online last week, local radio yesterday, national TV today... all based on what seems like a local London non-news story... seems like a coordinated attack by the BBC, doesn't it?


----------



## derrick (24 Jan 2017)

Shut Up Legs said:


> Or the elderly.
> Or those with a physical disability that makes road cycling difficult.
> Or the mentally impaired who may need supervision, and of course their supervisors.


That lot goes without saying, It's just common sense, Don't really know what has happened to that, a lot of people don't seem to have any. as for adults riding on normal pavements it's a no from me.


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2017)

derrick said:


> That lot goes without saying, It's just common sense, Don't really know what has happened to that, a lot of people don't seem to have any.


Didn't we know that already? There's even a 380-page now-premoderated discussion on here which frequently demonstrates the lack of common sense and willingness to believe any marketing BS and right-wing attacks on our freedom to ride.  Replies there, please.


----------



## Dan B (24 Jan 2017)

jefmcg said:


> There is an underlying assumption that cycling on the pavement is safer. Do we know this is true?


I don't think there is, _in general_. I think there's a situational risk assessment that cycling on particular bits of pavement is safer than using the adjacent road in those particular places. That's what the tweet that kicked off this debate said

https://twitter.com/MPSCamdenTnSgt/status/819199668991229953


----------



## User482 (24 Jan 2017)

derrick said:


> That lot goes without saying, It's just common sense, Don't really know what has happened to that, a lot of people don't seem to have any. as for adults riding on normal pavements it's a no from me.


So young children should ride unsupervised? That doesn't seem like common sense to me.


----------



## MontyVeda (24 Jan 2017)

If you disagree with pavement cycling, don't do it.
If you think it's OK, do it with consideration to other pavement users (if there are any)

I thinks that's all there is to it.

Of course there's the handful who can't help but preach 'the law', and a handful of inconsiderate nobbers. Don't be either of those.


----------



## jefmcg (24 Jan 2017)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Repeat the same experiment on a bicycle at walking pace.
> 
> What is your dataset to support a claim that cycling on the pavement isn't safer than cycling on the carriageway?


I still don't understand where you are going with this. Cyclists on the pavement are rarely going anywhere near walking pace. 

And coincidently I had a BB failure 15km from home last Friday. I continued at walking pace or just a little faster all the way home on B and A roads. I was neither struck or harassed by any passing vehicles. I would expect at least a few toots if I had been walking on the same roads.


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Jan 2017)

jefmcg said:


> I still don't understand where you are going with this. Cyclists on the pavement are rarely going anywhere near walking pace.
> 
> And coincidently I had a BB failure 15km from home last Friday. I continued at walking pace or just a little faster all the way home on B and A roads. I was neither struck or harassed by any passing vehicles. I would expect at least a few toots if I had been walking on the same roads.




The speed is another issue.

Many years ago (2004)there was a document produce as a "Local Transport Note" that suggested a "Code of conduct for cyclists"

The document was titled Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists ( Annex D: Code of Conduct Notice for Cyclists) and was an advisory that suggested a code that could be adopted 



> Annex D: Code of conduct notice for cyclists
> 
> The following key messages are suggested as the basis for a code of conduct notice for cyclists. The code could be posted at points of entry and at intervals along the route. This will be especially useful when the facility is new.
> 
> ...




I remember discussing it at the time, and felt that 18 mph was a little excessive.

Sutsrans also had a code of conduct for ALL users:



> use the path in a way that is considerate to the comfort and safety of others
> if there is a dividing line segregating cyclists from pedestrians, keep to the appropriate side; this is normally indicated on blue and white road signs and by logos on the road surface
> when it's dark, or in dull conditions, make sure you are visible to others, use lights at night
> be particularly careful at junctions, bends, entrances onto the path, or any other ‘blind spots’ where people could appear in front of you without warning
> ...



... and an additional one for cyclists that was adopted by many including the late CTC



> Give way to pedestrians and wheelchair users;
> 
> Take care around horse-riders, leaving them plenty of room, especially when approaching from behind;
> 
> ...



there are common themes and some disagreements, but are any of them that unrealistic in the context of this thread?


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2017)

jefmcg said:


> BB failure 15km from home last Friday. I continued at walking pace or just a little faster all the way home on B and A roads. I was neither struck or harassed by any passing vehicles. I would expect at least a few toots if I had been walking on the same roads.


Were they fast B and A roads where there's always a high speed differential between motorists and people on bikes? Lots of drivers regard you as near-stopped on such roads even when you're going at a fair lick, which is why one of the top collision types is a cyclist getting side-swiped as a nobber pulls back in before they're clear.



Cunobelin said:


> Many years ago (2004)there was a document produce as a "Local Transport Note" that suggested a "Code of conduct for cyclists"


It only got as far as a consultation draft when it was told to go fornicate itself and never issued. It would have been absurd for government to tell cyclists to go no faster than 18mph while simultaneously telling councils to build for 20mph average cycling speed - it would have been an admission of failure of the still-ongoing system. Of course, the system has failed and councils should have a legal duty to meet the long-standing minimum standard, but there's little chance of that before the end of Localism Lunacy.


----------



## theclaud (24 Jan 2017)

User said:


> Has the war against the motorist been won yet?


Do you mind if I use this somewhere or other?


----------



## albion (9 Nov 2017)

Must have been a quiet news day on Look North. Anti cycling stuff is becoming a fail safe news item. Reid does an OK Boardman impersonation.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb_RTtOpcZ8


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2017)

User said:


> Has the war against the motorist been won yet?


I just wanted to quote this again.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2017)

User said:


> Has the war against the motorist been won yet?


and again,


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2017)

User said:


> Has the war against the motorist been won yet?


and again.

Motorists, as a rule, is cnuts.


----------



## theclaud (9 Nov 2017)

albion said:


> Must have been a quiet news day on Look North. Anti cycling stuff is becoming a fail safe news item. *Reid does an OK Boardman impersonation.*


Ya think? Boardman's in a whole different league when it comes to handling these numpties, his recent grief-related forays into negative press notwithstanding. 'Well the police say they can' was a lousy opener.


----------



## kingrollo (10 Nov 2017)

In answer to the question. 'yes' - but not at speed. Some people who ride on pavement have no common sense.


----------



## classic33 (10 Nov 2017)

Over junior school age, No.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Nov 2017)

It is already allowed in many places. The council puts a white line down a pavement, adds a blue and white sign and calls it a shared use path. The pavements chosen for this do not have any special properties above other ones in the towns. So I do not see any fundamental reason why you should not allow cycling on the pavement without the need for special status. Establish rules of engagement and enforce infractions.


----------



## NickNick (10 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5035612, member: 43827"]That's going to work well on narrow crowded city or town pavements, not.

Despite press reports and comments in internet forums the pavements are not full of cyclists, nor is there a need to be. There are usually roads between pavements, which generally work well for grown-ups on bikes. The idea of creating yet more legal offences/penalties for police or traffic wardens to enforce (or, more likely, not having the time or manpower to enforce) is a complete non-starter. This is just treating cyclists as victims and giving more cause for unreasonable motorists to believe that cyclists shouldn't be on the roads.[/QUOTE]
That's easy for someone who is confident to say, but not everyone has that level of confidence. My wife can't stand being on the road anymore, she used to commute on her bike but got crushed between a 4x4 and railings on side of road, the driver didn't even notice and although she wasn't seriously injured it's had a lasting impact. She doesn't use the bike all that much but when she does she sticks to pavements where possible, goes slowly enough that she's not a threat to anyone and stops for pedestrians. That wouldn't work in e.g busy high street pavements, but the areas she cycles it's not an issue.


----------



## GaGa (10 Nov 2017)

> CanucksTraveller, post: 4647356, member: 13269"]In many circumstances it's absolutely fine, so long as it's considerate. I've no problem with kids and less confident cyclists carefully using the pavement to avoid heavy or fast traffic. The police are turning a blind eye I see.... I suppose that since police time is so stretched, and since motorists rarely get stopped for things like phone use, no seatbelts, fog lights always on, aggressive driving and excess speed etc then I'm quite surprised that any police would even consider a stop for this.
> 
> 
> > Cycling on the pavement around here would be a problem as the pavements are full of cars !


----------



## hoopdriver (11 Nov 2017)

For children and learners there is a certain logic in it, but even there you would be better served by going to a park. Footpaths along streets have their own sets of unpredictable dangers - nasty ruts and lumps in the pavement caused by tree roots, cars backing out of blind driveways, pedestrians, dog walkers with long leads, etc. Footpaths can be stressful places for beginners to ride.

And there is no reason for the experienced to ride on a footpath. I would always prefer the road, for the reasons listed above plus the freedom to move along safely at decent rate of knots. If I came to a stretch of road that was so dangerous or intimidating that I felt uncomfortable riding along it, I would hop off and walk along the footpath until I could sort out an alternate route or until I had walked through or past the section that concerned me.


----------



## summerdays (11 Nov 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> For children and learners there is a certain logic in it, but even there you would be better served by going to a park. Footpaths along streets have their own sets of unpredictable dangers - nasty ruts and lumps in the pavement caused by tree roots, cars backing out of blind driveways, pedestrians, dog walkers with long leads, etc. Footpaths can be stressful places for beginners to ride.
> 
> And there is no reason for the experienced to ride on a footpath. I would always prefer the road, for the reasons listed above plus the freedom to move along safely at decent rate of knots. If I came to a stretch of road that was so dangerous or intimidating that I felt uncomfortable riding along it, I would hop off and walk along the footpath until I could sort out an alternate route or until I had walked through or past the section that concerned me.


My friend has just had an op and can't ride as quick as normal, and found that she received a lot more beeps from motorists who found her pace so slow, than her pre-op cycling. So if you aren't cycling at "a decent rate of knots" then the road experience may be quite different, and in which case dealing with people on the pavement, roots and dog walkers may be preferable.


----------



## Heltor Chasca (11 Nov 2017)

YukonBoy said:


> It is already allowed in many places. The council puts a white line down a pavement, adds a blue and white sign and calls it a shared use path. The pavements chosen for this do not have any special properties above other ones in the towns. So I do not see any fundamental reason why you should not allow cycling on the pavement without the need for special status. Establish rules of engagement and enforce infractions.



Shared use doesn’t work in my opinion. My observations of the NL is that segregation is the way forward. White lines don’t stop dogs, pedestrians, cyclists, delivery trucks etc from ignoring them. Ill discipline in endemic. As for enforcement:


----------



## hoopdriver (11 Nov 2017)

summerdays said:


> My friend has just had an op and can't ride as quick as normal, and found that she received a lot more beeps from motorists who found her pace so slow, than her pre-op cycling. So if you aren't cycling at "a decent rate of knots" then the road experience may be quite different, and in which case dealing with people on the pavement, roots and dog walkers may be preferable.


When I say decent rate of knots, what I mean is a higher speed than I would if I were riding on a footpath. I am no racer, or wanna be racer but a tourer and I ride at a leisurely pace and never have any problems with motorists tooting at me. Perhaps your friend was riding erratically. She could well find herself facing another op though if she is unfortunate enough to have a car back out of a hidden driveway as she goes along the footpath. Motorists do not look for cyclists on a footpath or make allowances for something coming along even at slow cycling (or even jogging) speed.


----------



## summerdays (11 Nov 2017)

hoopdriver said:


> When I say decent rate of knots, what I mean is a higher speed than I would if I were riding on a footpath. I am no racer, or wanna be racer but a tourer and I ride at a leisurely pace and never have any problems with motorists tooting at me. Perhaps your friend was riding erratically. She could well find herself facing another op though if she is unfortunate enough to have a car back out of a hidden driveway as she goes along the footpath. Motorists do not look for cyclists on a footpath or make allowances for something coming along even at slow cycling (or even jogging) speed.


I didn't say she was on the footpath and she is an very experienced cyclist who is just been given permission to start riding carefully on the road after her recent hip op. The only thing that has changed is a loss of power and muscles pulled around meaning she is cycling a lot slower than previously even with her dodgy hip.

I added in her recent cycle trips as I think the speed you travel at on the road does change your experiences. I've found it different when I've had an injury or a cold that means I've cycled slower. If you are cycling slower then the pavement negatives are much easier to deal with anyway.


----------



## hoopdriver (11 Nov 2017)

summerdays said:


> I didn't say she was on the footpath and she is an very experienced cyclist who is just been given permission to start riding carefully on the road after her recent hip op. The only thing that has changed is a loss of power and muscles pulled around meaning she is cycling a lot slower than previously even with her dodgy hip.
> 
> I added in her experience as I think the speed you travel at on the road does change your experiences. I've found it different when I've had an injury or a cold that means I've cycled slower. If you are cycling slower then the pavement negatives are much easier to deal with anyway.


I understand and sympathise. I had to come back after a spinal operation some years ago and was certainly slower and probably more uncertain than normal. I did have the advantage of riding along a cycle track in a seafront promenade.


----------



## hoopdriver (11 Nov 2017)

I prefer not to ride on footpaths for all of the above reasons. I do think it is more courteous to pedestrians not to ride on the footpath.


----------



## Milkfloat (11 Nov 2017)

Heltor Chasca said:


> Shared use doesn’t work in my opinion. My observations of the NL is that segregation is the way forward. White lines don’t stop dogs, pedestrians, cyclists, delivery trucks etc from ignoring them. Ill discipline in endemic. As for enforcement:


 
Perhaps you should look at this - shared use is all over the Netherlands without there being total carnage.


----------



## summerdays (11 Nov 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> Perhaps you should look at this - shared use is all over the Netherlands without there being total carnage.



I cycle over a couple of shared space bridges that are very similar to those busier sections, you just go at the speed of the pedestrians.


----------



## MontyVeda (11 Nov 2017)

Heltor Chasca said:


> Shared use doesn’t work in my opinion. My observations of the NL is that segregation is the way forward. White lines don’t stop dogs, pedestrians, cyclists, delivery trucks etc from ignoring them. Ill discipline in endemic. As for enforcement:


Shared use certainly works up here... Lancaster and Morecambe are connected via a shared use path and hell of a lot of people use it. Without that path, i doubt so many people would be cycling or walking to work. Caton and Glasson Dock are also connected to Lancaster and Morecambe via shared use paths, frequented by cyclists, pedestrians and horses on the weekends. There's not even a white line to ignore... everyone just shares it.


----------



## Heltor Chasca (11 Nov 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> Perhaps you should look at this - shared use is all over the Netherlands without there being total carnage.




Sure. And from experience from riding many miles in the NL, this works in city or town centres (or bridges in Bristol) But it is segregated as soon as you are out of town, on LF routes or zones that the Dutch have concluded it’s best that the bike and the ped are kept separate.

Shared use may work on a few isolated places in the UK, but on our local Greenways, the local rags often have letters written in by aggrieved cyclists, dog walkers etc who just can’t agree on how etiquette of shared paths should work. And this isn’t endemic: Twitter is saturated by people who just can’t share and a “THAT shared path is MINE” attitude.

I hear some extraordinary comments from path users when working on Sustrans NCN routes. There are idiots representing every mode of transport.


----------



## MontyVeda (11 Nov 2017)

Heltor Chasca said:


> Sure. And from experience from riding many miles in the NL, this works in city or town centres (or bridges in Bristol) But it is segregated as soon as you are out of town, on LF routes or zones that the Dutch have concluded it’s best that the bike and the ped are kept separate.


If it works in built up areas where there's lots of peds and plenty of bikes, but out of town, where there's fewer peds and not so many bikes, it's best to keep them apart? Not sure where the logic is.


----------



## albion (11 Nov 2017)

Wrong, walkers, especially dog walkers, are quite aware that, but for it being a national cycle route, the high quality path would been left unsuitable for standard footwear.


----------



## Heltor Chasca (11 Nov 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> If it works in built up areas where there's lots of peds and plenty of bikes, but out of town, where there's fewer peds and not so many bikes, it's best to keep them apart? Not sure where the logic is.



The logic is that when taking in longer journeys, the bike is a faster mode of transport. When shopping, it is fine to pootle along I agree. But when a viable, sustainable mode of transport needs to move large numbers of people from home to work and VV, it needs to be efficient and move faster than walking speed. Connect with a pedestrian and one or both get hurt. It happens.

The NL isn’t without it's problems. Get onto a fietspad on a Saturday or Sunday when the Dutch Road clubs are out riding and you’ll see what I mean. Also ask any Dutch person what they think of sharing space with brommers.

Perhaps it’s just a hierarchy thing. Why do you think cyclists are yelling for segregation? Is it because we like cycling along with tipper trucks and busses? Imagine we lobbied for all combustion engines to pootle along at the same speed as bicycles. Or maybe they should drive along at walking speed? Ridiculous notion I agree.


----------



## MontyVeda (11 Nov 2017)

Heltor Chasca said:


> ... Why do you think cyclists are yelling for segregation? ...


Some are 'yelling' for segregation, some feel segregation is detrimental to their rights as a road user and are 'yelling' for safer roads... different people want different things. That sweeping statement, _cyclists are yelling for segregation,_ just isn't true.


----------



## Heltor Chasca (11 Nov 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> Some are 'yelling' for segregation, some feel segregation is detrimental to their rights as a road user and are 'yelling' for safer roads... different people want different things. That sweeping statement, _cyclists are yelling for segregation,_ just isn't true.



Perhaps and I get your point. I also have many miles under my belt on a bike here in the UK, all over the world and memorably the NL. I know where my cycling experiences have been best.

We could learn from other countries and progress rather than sit back and carry on with the the way our infrastructure has always been just for the sake of democracy.

Here’s a picture comparing the size of a road and a fietspad in the NL. Pedestrian path isn’t exactly puny either.


----------



## MontyVeda (11 Nov 2017)

Heltor Chasca said:


> ...
> 
> We could learn from other countries and progress *rather than sit back and carry on with the the way our infrastructure has always been just for the sake of democracy.*
> 
> ...


Yet we're not doing that. If that were the case we'd have no dedicated cycle lanes, no shared use paths (with or without a dividing line), no contraflows enabling cyclists to legally go the wrong way down a one way street, no toucan crossings, etc...


----------



## Ming the Merciless (11 Nov 2017)

Heltor Chasca said:


> Perhaps and I get your point. I also have many miles under my belt on a bike here in the UK, all over the world and memorably the NL. I know where my cycling experiences have been best.
> 
> We could learn from other countries and progress rather than sit back and carry on with the the way our infrastructure has always been just for the sake of democracy.
> 
> ...



Still got a van parked on their cycle track I see


----------



## classic33 (11 Nov 2017)

YukonBoy said:


> Still got a van parked on their cycle track I see


It's on the pavement, and the grass verge. Clear to see.


----------



## NorthernDave (11 Nov 2017)

I realise that this won't be a universally popular stance, but whenever I see an adult riding a bike on the pavement, my initial thought is that they are letting the side down.
Bicycles are a form of transport and should be on the road.


----------



## classic33 (11 Nov 2017)

NorthernDave said:


> I realise that this won't be a universally popular stance, but whenever I see an adult riding a bike on the pavement, my initial thought is that they are letting the side down.
> Bicycles are a form of transport and should be on the road.


There's bus drivers who refuse to cycle on the roads, due to the fact that there's too many dangerous buses on the road?


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Nov 2017)

NorthernDave said:


> I realise that this won't be a universally popular stance, but whenever I see an adult riding a bike on the pavement, my initial thought is that they are letting the side down.
> Bicycles are a form of transport and should be on the road.


but since so many pavements are shared use these days... you'd be wrong.


----------



## NorthernDave (12 Nov 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> but since so many pavements are shared use these days... you'd be wrong.



Sorry, I meant pavement as in footpath (pedestrians only) - not a shared space where I'd expect to see some cyclists.


----------



## mjr (12 Nov 2017)

Heltor Chasca said:


> Shared use doesn’t work in my opinion. My observations of the NL is that segregation is the way forward. White lines don’t stop dogs, pedestrians, cyclists, delivery trucks etc from ignoring them. Ill discipline in endemic. As for enforcement:


Given that enforcement is , why do you expect people not to walk on the cycleway bit of a segregated cycleway/footway layout? They certainly never seem to worry in Norfolk. British behaviour seems much more anarchic about this sort of rule following than many, including Dutch, so the main effect of segregation is to reduce the available width for cycling while not reducing pedestrian volume in that width.


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Nov 2017)

NorthernDave said:


> Sorry, I meant pavement as in footpath (pedestrians only) - not a shared space where I'd expect to see some cyclists.


In my experience, from a driver's perspective*, they don't know what's shared use and what isn't. I've been told by a bloke driving along the pedestrianised part of the town centre that i'm not allowed to cycle there... yet he can drive his car . My dad moans about cyclists on the pavements, but is unaware that they're actually on a shared use path (admittedly ones with very little signage). Then there's folk like me who regularly cycles up a (often deserted) pedestrian only pavement on my way home from work. It's slightly quicker than taking the 'official' route, and it does avoid the revellers and rampant taxi drivers in the town centre at midnight... or on my way to work where the road bottlenecks. If there's no one using the pavement alongside, then i'll use it.

*I'm not a driver, but often a passenger, listening to whinging drivers.


----------



## mjr (12 Nov 2017)

I've even had a motorist stop their car, lean on the horn and shout at me to get on the road. I wonder if they wanted to park on the cycleway but were worried about passing bikes dinging their precious


----------



## BSOh (12 Nov 2017)

I have only ridden cycle paths up to now as I don't have the confidence to ride on the road. One of the cycle routes in the area goes through busy industrial estate for a section.I went for a ride earlier in the week and must admit in this section I rode on the pavement (slowly) as I was scared of the traffic. And I felt daft for doing so when other cyclists were merrily passing me by on the road.

I bit the bullet on the return journey and 
got on the road. First time since I was a kid. And I was pleasantly surprised. Drivers were courteous and pleasant. Its given me the confidence to go on quiet roads. This makes a massive difference as I can start rides from home rather than driving to a start of a cycle specific route.

Pavement cycling is fine as long as you behave like the grown up you are, are sensible and consider pedestrians, getting off to walk if needed. It is also invaluable for nervous riders like me who want to ride roads but don't yet have the confidence because even going for a cycle route means road sections on occassion.


----------



## petek (12 Nov 2017)

Within reason - cyclists should be allowed to ride on footpaths.
I cycle along a promenade almost daily with no problems at all and no worries either because I have a loud bell plus 3rd party cyclist insurance via CyclingUK.
Prominent signage all along 'our' Parish Council's section of the prom advises.... "Cyclists and Mobility Scooter riders please note that Pedestrians have right of way."


----------



## petek (12 Nov 2017)

User said:


> If the pedestrians have priority, what has the bell got to do with it?


Coming up behind them.
That plus a cheery "Thank you" when I pass them.


----------



## Roadhump (12 Nov 2017)

petek said:


> Within reason - cyclists should be allowed to ride on footpaths.
> I cycle along a promenade almost daily with no problems at all and no worries either because I have a loud bell *plus 3rd party cyclist insurance via CyclingUK.*
> Prominent signage all along 'our' Parish Council's section of the prom advises.... "Cyclists and Mobility Scooter riders please note that Pedestrians have right of way."



I wonder whether the insurance would try to use the fact that a cyclist was cycling somewhere where cycling was forbidden as a reason not to pay out in the event of an incident and subsequent claim....accepted that you seem to be okay here per the signage


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5037101, member: 45"]I've done that, and frightened the life out of them when I appeared beside them.

Much better to politely ring a bell, call out a greeting, or even change up and down a gear so that they know you're behind them.[/QUOTE]
Some folk are just jumpy. I'm one of them.

A mate of mine has an annoying habit of continuously ringing his bell until the ped ahead has turned and looked. To him he's just saying "i'm here". To me it sounds like "Get out of my way". On the paths with a dividing line, i'll use my bell if the peds are on 'my' side. If they're on the ped side I won't bother (unless its a group of joggers). Sometimes the voice is more appropriate than the bell, sometimes neither are necessary... but the bell does have its uses.


----------



## mjr (12 Nov 2017)

User said:


> Maybe, maybe not. The bell is a very restricted vocabulary, and the message conveyed is out of your control.


That's one reason it's better to have a friendly ring instead of a bleeding airzound.


----------



## petek (12 Nov 2017)

mjr said:


> That's one reason it's better to have a friendly ring instead of a bleeding airzound.


Totally agree. Air horns are quite scary IMO.
The Pashley has a nice loud butbquite friendly sounding 'ding dong' bell.
If I had a pound for everytime somebody says "Ice Cream please" as I pass them then I'd have plenty of pounds.


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Nov 2017)

When it comes to shared use paths... the bell is the best bit of kit i've bought.


----------



## petek (12 Nov 2017)

[QUOTE 5037202, member: 45"]@petek?[/QUOTE]
Yep.
A good loud bell solves most issues.
It isn't a panacea though. Some pedestrians are deaf.
Those little flicky 'tiny ting' bells are next to useless IMO.


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Nov 2017)

petek said:


> Yep.
> A good loud bell solves most issues.
> It isn't a panacea though. Some pedestrians are deaf.
> *Those little flicky 'tiny ting' bells are next to useless IMO*.


not in my experience.


----------



## petek (12 Nov 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> not in my experience.


Maybe if one detaches it and hurls it towards the unsuspecting pedestrian by way of warning.
Otherwise, meh.
An inaudible bell is beyond useless.
Chap on the prom the other day riding a road bike.
Tinging away on his little bell like a demented budgerigar and still not being heard.
One press on a Pashley bell gives you a good loud ding dong.


----------



## mjr (12 Nov 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> not in my experience.


Some are better than most, but in my experience most are too quiet and eventually the hammer spring bends (making them quieter) or a plastic part cracks (making them quieter if not silent). Rotary, ding dong, temple or whatever, all tend to be better. Occasionally, you might find an effective little plastic ping ping but they seem rare.


----------



## mjr (12 Nov 2017)

User13710 said:


> I think 'Ding Ding Ding', 'Ping Ping Ping', 'Ding Dong', whatever, no matter how soft or loud, is the cyclists' equivalent of a blast on the horn of a car - 'Get out of my way!' Even if the car driver only intends to indicate that they are there, it sounds imperious and impersonal.


No, you think it does. Maybe that's how you would mean it, but my experience is that most people appreciate a tuneful approach and take it in the way it's intended. Also, as others have mentioned, some bells allow quite expressive playing - everything from a gentle Queen's Bicycle Race to an old fire engine style alarm ringing.


----------



## mjr (12 Nov 2017)

User13710 said:


> Yes, thanks, that's exactly what I said.


You also wrote "it sounds imperious and impersonal", without such qualification. It need not.


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Nov 2017)

petek said:


> Maybe if one detaches it and hurls it towards the unsuspecting pedestrian by way of warning.
> Otherwise, meh.
> An inaudible bell is beyond useless.
> ...


it's not inaudible.


----------



## summerdays (12 Nov 2017)

User13710 said:


> I think 'Ding Ding Ding', 'Ping Ping Ping', 'Ding Dong', whatever, no matter how soft or loud, is the cyclists' equivalent of a blast on the horn of a car - 'Get out of my way!' Even if the car driver only intends to indicate that they are there, it sounds imperious and impersonal.


I'm with you and very rarely use my bell. I much prefer saying good morning etc.


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Nov 2017)

summerdays said:


> I'm with you and very rarely use my bell. I much prefer saying good morning etc.


I've never had a bad reaction from ringing my bell. If people get annoyed at the sound of a bike bell... then they're too grumpy to bother pussyfooting around... but i've never experienced that... only read about it here on CC.


----------



## summerdays (12 Nov 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> I've never had a bad reaction from ringing my bell. If people get annoyed at the sound of a bike bell... then they're too grumpy to bother pussyfooting around... but i've never experienced that... only read about it here on CC.


It's just a perception... on my part as to how I think it sounds to me, bit like using a car horn on the road. My main cycling buddy uses her bell lots.


----------



## Crackle (12 Nov 2017)

I just did 14 miles on a shared path today. No bell, I call out. My standard call is " coming up slowly on your {whatever}" Or I wait or I ride past slowly or the crunching of gravel gives me away or I'm just not heard at all.

The only time I've ever fallen out with someone as a walker on a shared path was someone who approached tinging their bell continuously at me. I may have intimated to him that there was a place where his bell might not be heard, which was overly irritable of me. Someone once rang an electronic thing at me; I went left, right, up, down, I may have even squawked slightly in shock. Someone else tooted one of those clown bells at me. I smiled at that.


----------



## Milkfloat (12 Nov 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> When it comes to shared use paths... the bell is the best bit of kit i've bought.


I find a cheery good morning, no matter the time of day works excellently.


----------



## mjr (12 Nov 2017)

Crackle said:


> I just did 14 miles on a shared path today. No bell, I call out. My standard call is " coming up slowly on your {whatever}" Or I wait or I ride past slowly or the crunching of gravel gives me away or I'm just not heard at all.


In my experience, riding past slowly surprises people if you've not announced your approach unless you're passing really wide, like 3m+ clearance.

As for crunching gravel... you're riding quieter places than me, or it's much noisier gravel.


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Nov 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> I find a cheery good morning, no matter the time of day works excellently.


Before i bought a bell... more than a few walkers on the shared use paths and canal towpath suggested i get a bell (after very slowly approaching from behind, saying hello, excuse me or whatever). I eventually did. 
Since getting a bell, no one has suggested i don't use it (well, no one outside of cyclechat).


----------



## jefmcg (12 Nov 2017)

I've been known to say "ding ding" when approaching a group. 

I keep it light, and thank them as I go past - at least, often a better conversation opener - and closer: I'm not hanging around to make friends.


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Nov 2017)

jefmcg said:


> I've been known to say "ding ding" when approaching a group.
> 
> ...


in the style of Terry Thomas i hope!


----------



## User16625 (14 Nov 2017)

Crackle said:


> I just did 14 miles on a shared path today. No bell, I call out. My standard call is " coming up slowly on your {whatever}" Or I wait or I ride past slowly or the crunching of gravel gives me away or I'm just not heard at all.
> 
> The only time I've ever fallen out with someone as a walker on a shared path was someone who approached tinging their bell continuously at me. I may have intimated to him that there was a place where his bell might not be heard, which was overly irritable of me. Someone once rang an electronic thing at me; I went left, right, up, down, I may have even squawked slightly in shock. Someone else tooted one of those clown bells at me. I smiled at that.




I irritated a walker once. Anyway cycling along and there was said lady walking along canal path. I slow down and wait for opportunity to pass. Old lady heard me and moved to the side so I said "cheers" as I passed. No sooner had I thanked her she started ranting about how I should have made alerted her somehow. (clearly I did?). I returned fire with obscenities matched only by Bismarck's main guns. Also gave the flying V over my shoulder as I could hear here continuing to mutter her pedantry as I cycled off.

Same procedure, similar circumstances as when passing everybody else, yet spectacularly different attitude with this particular individual. I felt she hated cyclists so I had to try my best to justify that hatred. I bet her whole day was ruined lol! Because I know how some people get so upset over daft crap.


----------



## MontyVeda (14 Nov 2017)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> ... I returned fire with obscenities matched only by Bismarck's main guns. Also gave the flying V over my shoulder as I could hear here continuing to mutter her pedantry as I cycled off.
> ...



My advice is next time, don't react. You sound like a right cockwomble.


----------



## jefmcg (14 Nov 2017)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> I irritated a walker once. Anyway cycling along and there was said lady walking along canal path. I slow down and wait for opportunity to pass. Old lady heard me and moved to the side so I said "cheers" as I passed. No sooner had I thanked her she started ranting about how I should have made alerted her somehow. (clearly I did?). I returned fire with obscenities matched only by Bismarck's main guns. Also gave the flying V over my shoulder as I could hear here continuing to mutter her pedantry as I cycled off.
> 
> Same procedure, similar circumstances as when passing everybody else, yet spectacularly different attitude with this particular individual. I felt she hated cyclists so I had to try my best to justify that hatred. I bet her whole day was ruined lol! Because I know how some people get so upset over daft crap.


Wow! You don't come off well here. How much worse was this before it was edited by a moderator?


----------



## User16625 (14 Nov 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Wow! You don't come off well here. How much worse was this before it was edited by a moderator?



I think it was my reference to the other person involved that was removed. I didn't swear, but it wasn't particularly kind either. Sometimes something gets to me and I go a bit OTT (turn into a right cockwomble).


----------

