# who are pavements for?



## gavroche (14 Jul 2011)

I am a pedestrian, a cyclist and a motorist. 
As a pedestrian, it irritates me when I see cyclists using the pavement when they are not entitled to use them.
It seems that many cyclist nowadays, think that it is ok to use the pavement for cycling as it is safer than the roads.
Wrong!!! Cyclists are only allowed the use pavements if these pavements are designated as cycling paths also. 
If the round blue sign is not there, then pavements are for pedestrians ONLY.
We tend to regard cyclists as perfect on here but far from it, we are not. It is also our duty to follow the highway code. Let it be safe. 
Rant over, so now for my shower after a 15 miles ride (on the road of course)


----------



## ian turner (14 Jul 2011)

HE WAS ONLY 5 YEARS OLD FOR CRYING OUT LOUD !!!! HIS BIKE HAD STABILISERS ON !!!!! GIVE HIM A BREAK , YOU WERE YOUNG ONCE !!!!!


----------



## marinyork (14 Jul 2011)

I don't see the fuss. I'd really rather they didn't. Outside London and many city centres there really isn't that much harm in it.


----------



## Alembicbassman (14 Jul 2011)

I used the footpath today when the temporary red light at the roadworks didn't change to green despite the fact no cars were coming in the opposite direction. 50yds,then back on the road, no peds anywhere.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Jul 2011)

marinyork said:


> I don't see the fuss. I'd really rather they didn't. Outside London and many city centres there really isn't that much harm in it.



It's another case of "The law doesn't apply to me". I do my utmost to stay within the boundaries of the law even when breaking said law would benefit me. It narks me when other don't. Rant over.


----------



## corshamjim (14 Jul 2011)

Cyclists and pedestrians coexist reasonably well on the canal towpaths near here, so I really fail to see why the same couldn't be true for our pavements.

I do cycle along a short stretch of pavement every day as it would be utterly pedantic to dismount and remount when there is nobody around to bother about it. I usually tut about a 4x4 which always parks across the pavement too. How dare it get in my way!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Jul 2011)

corshamjim said:


> Cyclists and pedestrians coexist reasonably well on the canal towpaths near here, so I really fail to see why the same couldn't be true for our pavements.
> 
> I do cycle along a short stretch of pavement every day as it would be utterly pedantic to dismount and remount when there is nobody around to bother about it. I usually tut about a 4x4 which always parks across the pavement too. How dare it get in my way!



The law regarding towpaths is different as so are peds expectations when on it.


----------



## Red Light (14 Jul 2011)

gavroche said:


> Wrong!!! Cyclists are only allowed the use pavements if these pavements are designated as cycling paths also.
> If the round blue sign is not there, then pavements are for pedestrians ONLY.



Other than the round blue sign can you elucidate for me what differentiates a pavement were cyclists are allowed, nay encouraged, to cycle and those where they are not? Is it that one is much wider than the other or has a better surface or better sight lines? Only I struggle to see how one is practically any different from the other.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Other than the round blue sign can you elucidate for me what differentiates a pavement were cyclists are allowed, nay encouraged, to cycle and those where they are not? Is it that one is much wider than the other or has a better surface or better sight lines? Only I struggle to see how one is practically any different from the other.



Pavements are for pedestrians only unless otherwise stated. Simples.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463242"]
Who are pavements for? The old, the weary and the broken-hearted.
[/quote]


----------



## gavroche (14 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Other than the round blue sign can you elucidate for me what differentiates a pavement were cyclists are allowed, nay encouraged, to cycle and those where they are not? Is it that one is much wider than the other or has a better surface or better sight lines? Only I struggle to see how one is practically any different from the other.



I cannot answer your question as it is the council who decides when cyclists can use pavements. Ask them.
What I am saying is that there are some rules regarding the use the pavements, so they should be followed. 
It is when people break the rules that accidents happen.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Jul 2011)

gavroche said:


> I cannot answer your question as it is the council who decides when cyclists can use pavements. Ask them.
> What I am saying is that there are some rules regarding the use the pavements, so they should be followed.
> It is when people break the rules that accidents happen.



Agreed 100%


----------



## MontyVeda (14 Jul 2011)

Ah who gives a monkey's... there's a long stretch of pavement between Morecambe and Lancaster which I've always cycled down. A couple of years ago they made it a shared use path as it's wide and next to a very busy road, so i guess i was in the right all along


----------



## gaz (14 Jul 2011)

I don't think we say cyclists are perfect here. Far from it.


----------



## Seigi (14 Jul 2011)

When I was younger I used to be afraid to cycle on the road, it seemed like a 'adult' thing to do, so I do believe that children up to a certain age should be allowed to cycle on the pavement, as it's obvious they're going to be less visible on the road but also might not have the steadiness or nerve to ride right by cars. But now, at 19, it just feels completely wrong to ride on the pavement, I actually feel far less safe on the pavement as it's not as maintained as the roads are, for a start off.


----------



## snailracer (14 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Pavements are for pedestrians only unless otherwise stated. Simples.


In Bristol city centre, the council appears to have deliberately blurred sections of pavement that are pedestrian-only with sections that are shared. I wonder what the psychology is for that?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Jul 2011)

snailracer said:


> In Bristol city centre, the council appears to have deliberately blurred which bits of pavement are pedestrian- only, and which are shared.


How do you mean "blured"?


----------



## Red Light (14 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Pavements are for pedestrians only unless otherwise stated. Simples.



But there must be some rationale behind deciding what bits of pavement are suitable for sharing and which not. Any clue what it is because I can't divine it from observing both? And what makes pedestrians capable of sharing on one and incapable on the other?


----------



## Red Light (14 Jul 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> Ah who gives a monkey's... there's a long stretch of pavement between Morecambe and Lancaster which I've always cycled down. A couple of years ago they made it a shared use path as it's wide and next to a very busy road, so i guess i was in the right all along



No, you misunderstand. One day you were being an irresponsible severe danger to pedestrians using the pavement and the next you were no problem. Its those blue signs - they have a magical effect like that.


----------



## snailracer (14 Jul 2011)

There are brass bike symbols inlaid into the pavement at junctures - very hard to see and quite ambiguous with respect to which stretch of pavement it actually applies to. No blue signs or lines on the pavement.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> But there must be some rationale behind deciding what bits of pavement are suitable for sharing and which not. Any clue what it is because I can't divine it from observing both? And what makes pedestrians capable of sharing on one and incapable on the other?


Ask your L.A.


----------



## Red Light (14 Jul 2011)

gavroche said:


> I cannot answer your question as it is the council who decides when cyclists can use pavements.



But surely from experience and observation you must have observed some differences in characteristics that makes some suitable for sharing and some not.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Jul 2011)

snailracer said:


> There are brass bike symbols inlaid into the pavement at junctures - very hard to see and quite ambiguous with respect to which stretch of pavement it actually applies to. No blue signs or lines on the pavement.


Not great. Try talking to the L.A.


----------



## gaz (14 Jul 2011)

In London as long as you can make the argument that you felt the road was far too dangerous to cycle on and if you cycle safely on the pavement then you wi be fine.
There was an agreement with the mayor and head of the met.


----------



## summerdays (14 Jul 2011)

snailracer said:


> There are brass bike symbols inlaid into the pavement at junctures - very hard to see and quite ambiguous with respect to which stretch of pavement it actually applies to. No blue signs or lines on the pavement.



Whereabouts are you talking about ... I must admit to relying on the Cycle City map (which I know isn't 100% accurate) rather than the local signage.


----------



## snailracer (14 Jul 2011)

Between BRI and horsefair, for example.


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Jul 2011)

You are all so naive...

Shared facility pavements and cycle tracks, or pedestrian specific pavements are NOT for the use of pedestrians or cyclists - they are in fact:

Car parks!







Coach Parks!







It always amuses me that people (quite rightly) get upset about cyclists on pavements, but never ever have a problem with the endemic abuse by motorists.... does the OP never ever see this?


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Jul 2011)

It can also be confusing and difficult to know what is and isn't a cycle facility.

In Gosport cycle facilities are designated by "red"pavements

In adjacent Lee on Solent, the pavement by the promenade is NOT a cycle facility - but the same colour as the designated areas in Gosport

As a result you get a lot of "offenders" who are making a logical, but flawed assumption.


----------



## summerdays (14 Jul 2011)

snailracer said:


> Between BRI and horsefair, for example.



Cycle on the road on the cycle contraflow ... apart from the bits where you have to go up on the pavements at the traffic lights... you are right there is a bike sign imprinted in the pavement. I think pedestrians are used to seeing cyclists as there is a constant flow of them there. Doesn't stop them standing on the bike symbol at the traffic light though  .


----------



## Stu669 (14 Jul 2011)

Ok yes cyclists who use pavements can be a sore area because there will always be arguments on both sides but when we get a cycle path why do peds choose to walk in it? Also why do cars park in cycle lanes? If we are expected to be 3rd rate on the road from motorists and peds hate us, when the gov actually gives us a cycle path why cam peds and motorists get in our way?


----------



## John the Monkey (15 Jul 2011)

Depends which pavement.

The one by the Crewe Road/Weston Road roundabout is for motorists to use to get around the queueing traffic.

The one on the top end of Primrose Avenue, Haslington is for motorists to park on so that they don't (completely) block the road.


----------



## John the Monkey (15 Jul 2011)

Stu669 said:


> Ok yes cyclists who use pavements can be a sore area because there will always be arguments on both sides but when we get a cycle path why do peds choose to walk in it? Also why do cars park in cycle lanes? If we are expected to be 3rd rate on the road from motorists and peds hate us, when the gov actually gives us a cycle path why cam peds and motorists get in our way?



Pedestrians can go anywhere (other than motorways) and have absolute priority. They don't walk much on roads, largely because their right to is abrogated by both law and the behaviour of the motorist.

Cars can park in cycle lanes if there is no other restriction AND the lane is marked with a dashed white line.


----------



## lilolee (15 Jul 2011)

I ride on the pavement when going home from the station. I ride as fast as the slowest pedestrian and when it widens or even when they let me past it is all very polite with thanks all around. 

Yep that's the way to conduct yourself, be polite


----------



## sabian92 (15 Jul 2011)

corshamjim said:


> Cyclists and pedestrians coexist reasonably well on the canal towpaths near here, so I really fail to see why the same couldn't be true for our pavements.
> 
> I do cycle along a short stretch of pavement every day as it would be utterly pedantic to dismount and remount when there is nobody around to bother about it. I usually tut about a 4x4 which always parks across the pavement too. How dare it get in my way!




Because you always get one lycra-clad dickhead blasting down them at 25mph when there's little kids about. 

I personally used to ride on the pavement but only when it was quiet and only when the road was busy, and that was on a MTB with knobblies. Now I'm on a road bike with 23c tyres on, I wouldn't dream of going on the pavement. I use shared use paths but that's it. It's either them or the road.

That said, I have no problem with younger kids using them. They're definitely not in a position to be using the road.


----------



## Fiona N (15 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> ... Its those blue signs - they have a magical effect like that.



Like helmets, eh


----------



## Fiona N (15 Jul 2011)

More seriously, I do get annoyed when I see adult cyclists riding on the pavement when there's no good reason* for it and they're just trying to get around having to stop at traffic lights. This is common around where I live - the traffic junctions have ASLs but some cyclists prefer to bob off the road onto the pavement and cut across the junctions. 

Last week though I saw two middle aged touring cyclists riding along the pavement beside a not-particularly busy but nice wide road. Why? I asked them if their Mum was still forbidding them to ride on the roads and the bloke replied 'it was safer on the pavements', but it's illegal, I replied, no it's not came the answer. What can you do with ignorant idiots like that who just give law-abiding cyclists a bad name? Was their whole tour going to be ridden on the pavements? What happens when they get to a country road with no pavements (statistically more dangerous than urban streets)?


* I should add here that I came across a road closure the other day in a small village with only one road through it. As the only option besides a quick - actually slow careful - trundle along the pavement for 100m was a several mile detour out to the main road back the way I'd come, I did ride on the pavement. That's what I call a good reason. Call me hypocrite if you like


----------



## Fab Foodie (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463242"]
... *the broken-hearted*.
[/quote]
and what becomes of them?


----------



## abo (15 Jul 2011)

Fiona N said:


> More seriously, I do get annoyed when I see adult cyclists riding on the pavement when there's no good reason* for it and they're just trying to get around having to stop at traffic lights. This is common around where I live - the traffic junctions have ASLs but some cyclists prefer to bob off the road onto the pavement and cut across the junctions.
> 
> Last week though I saw two middle aged touring cyclists riding along the pavement beside a not-particularly busy but nice wide road. Why? I asked them if their Mum was still forbidding them to ride on the roads and the bloke replied 'it was safer on the pavements', but it's illegal, I replied, no it's not came the answer. What can you do with ignorant idiots like that who just give law-abiding cyclists a bad name? Was their whole tour going to be ridden on the pavements? What happens when they get to a country road with no pavements (statistically more dangerous than urban streets)?



Nearly all the POBs around here cycle on the path; those not exclusively using the path will hop between road and path depending on whatever is most convenient for them. These aren't just people on BSO's, saw a guy on a Cube Acid blasting down the path this morning, cut in front of my car (was dropping eldes't bike off for servicing as it happens...) and up onto the path on the other side. Luckily the road is double wide so when he left the path I could guess what he was going to do.

And he was doing wheelies (big long ones too, I was a bit jealous...)


----------



## MontyVeda (15 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> No, you misunderstand. One day you were being an irresponsible severe danger to pedestrians using the pavement and the next you were no problem. Its those blue signs - they have a magical effect like that.



I sense a little sarcasm in your post Red Light... however i can honestly state that have never been _a severe danger to pedestrians_


----------



## Red Light (15 Jul 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> I sense a little sarcasm in your post Red Light... however i can honestly state that have never been _a severe danger to pedestrians_



Oh yes you are


----------



## Red Light (15 Jul 2011)

Fiona N said:


> More seriously, I do get annoyed when I see adult cyclists riding on the pavement when there's no good reason* for it and they're just trying to get around having to stop at traffic lights.



But we have local authorities putting in lots of training facilities so they can become good at doing that. They are told ride on this bit of pavement here, ride on that bit of pavement there. And then everyone throws up their hands in horror and can't understand why they then are also riding on another bit of pavement over there too.




> * I should add here that I came across a road closure the other day in a small village with only one road through it. As the only option besides a quick - actually slow careful - trundle along the pavement for 100m was a several mile detour out to the main road back the way I'd come, I did ride on the pavement. That's what I call a good reason. Call me hypocrite if you like



That was not a good reason. There was the option you left out of getting off and pushing for 100m. Sounds a bit like "do as I say, not as I do" to me.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

When I was learning to drive I was told If in doubt don't. A good rule if you are unsure if you can ride on a pavement.


----------



## Fiona N (15 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> That was not a good reason. * There was the option you left out of getting off and pushing for 100m. * Sounds a bit like "do as I say, not as I do" to me.




Actually I would have, had it not been possible to see that the pavement was empty for its full 100m length with no inlet points. The reason I had to ride slowly was that the walk way - which is separated from and above the road - jinks where it rejoins the road


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463279"]
If it's not bothering anyone, then just let them be.

I used to get riled about all kinds of misdemeanours. I'm coming round to Mickle's view of no harm=no problem.
[/quote]
Isn't it the start of a slippery slope to pick and choose which laws to obey?


----------



## marinyork (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Isn't it the start of a slippery slope to pick and choose which laws to obey?



The highway code (and even the law) is actually based on a hierarchy. To pretend as some others do on here that there is complete equality at all times between everything is neither correct or more importantly practical in the world we live in. 

Some people cycling on pavements are so called POBs and there maybe little you can do about it. Others may be beginners getting into it and graduate to completely onto the road soon. Others just a bit here and there. 

Some people just bang on about it because they like doing it. It reminds me of an incident as a kid where someone expected a child to not cycle on a short section of pavement and cross the road (no crossing), cycle along a busy dual carriageway and then recross the road (crossing further down) just to get about 100 yards or so to a set of shops that wasn't the busiest on earth.


----------



## User16625 (15 Jul 2011)

Didnt even knew there were laws reguarding cyclists on pavements. I always cycle on pavements except when crossing roads or where there are no pavements etc. Admittedly I have had many near misses due to dozy dam pedestrians. Absolutely irritating!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

marinyork said:


> The highway code (and even the law) is actually based on a hierarchy. To pretend as some others do on here that there is complete equality at all times between everything is neither correct or more importantly practical in the world we live in.
> 
> Some people cycling on pavements are so called POBs and there maybe little you can do about it. Others may be beginners getting into it and graduate to completely onto the road soon. Others just a bit here and there.
> 
> Some people just bang on about it because they like doing it. It reminds me of an incident as a kid where someone expected a child to not cycle on a short section of pavement and cross the road (no crossing), cycle along a busy dual carriageway and then recross the road (crossing further down) just to get about 100 yards or so to a set of shops that wasn't the busiest on earth.


I fully appreciate the hierarchical nature of the law and there is provision for the law to turn a blind eye. That said I see no excuse for Adults to pavement cycle. When people first learn to drive they (usualy) do so on quiet roads. Cyclists should do the same imo. Pavement riding will never equip a cyclist or POB with the skillset required to road cycle. There are many organisations and individuals qualified to teach road craft. If people don't wish to learn and have no confidence on the road I question if they should be riding at all.


----------



## marinyork (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Ask your L.A.



I have done. In reality what happens is that it's a very hodge podge process of whatever crops up in terms of development. Sometimes you might get the guiding hand of a plan over multiple processes, but it depends what geographic area you're in within an LA. If you're in another area with few developments it's very much pot luck. 

For example on my commute home is a very busy dual carriageway. I and other campaigners have wanted a route along it for years. It'll only come up when a development does, which is now. Many other cities have cycle paths on similar stretches. The odd person cycles along the narrow but almost completely deserted path already. Are people seriously arguing that this is the end of civilisation as we know it, especially as it may get made into a cycle path anyway? Some would even argue it is a waste of my time and effort and council's money making it into a cycle path.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

The Sperminator said:


> Didnt even knew there were laws reguarding cyclists on pavements. I always cycle on pavements except when crossing roads or where there are no pavements etc. Admittedly I have had many near misses due to dozy dam pedestrians. Absolutely irritating!


How dare peds walk on pavements. FYI ignorance of the law is no excuse.


----------



## rowan 46 (15 Jul 2011)

The Sperminator said:


> Didnt even knew there were laws reguarding cyclists on pavements. I always cycle on pavements except when crossing roads or where there are no pavements etc. Admittedly I have had many near misses due to dozy dam pedestrians. Absolutely irritating!



I assume you are joking, in the event you are not. It's up to you to look out for pedestrians, not for for pedestrians to look out for you. I am pretty sure that should a court case result from an incident you will lose. I ride on the pavements occasionally. I know I shouldn't but I am careful, slow and mindful that I am the one who is introducing an element of risk. A pedestrian once stepped into me. I avoided them, stopped and apologised after all I shouldn't have been there in the first place.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (15 Jul 2011)

If something's illegal rather than unlawful, there are ways of opting out of those bits by something deemed as "lawful rebellion". 
I read it expecting war paint and battle cries, but I think it's more a case of getting a form from the Post Office.


----------



## marinyork (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I fully appreciate the hierarchical nature of the law and there is provision for the law to turn a blind eye. That said I see no excuse for Adults to pavement cycle. When people first learn to drive they (usualy) do so on quiet roads. Cyclists should do the same imo. Pavement riding will never equip a cyclist or POB with the skillset required to road cycle. There are many organisations and individuals qualified to teach road craft. If people don't wish to learn and have no confidence on the road I question if they should be riding at all.



In my city one park and a section of pavement generates huge complaints from irate bitter people. The response from the council to the police is please do not prosecute or fine anyone just cycling along there because it is a known junction that has a demonstrable KSI record. The council even tried at various times to have a separate cycle path or cycling allowed, but it was blocked by shouty residents. 

There is something to be said of a bit of tough love and trying to coax people onto the roads, but there's no point being too hard with it, you'll very likely get people jacking it in. You get a lot of disagreement about what 'quiet roads' are. People live in different areas, you have to take this into account. I really don't see a problem with pavement cycling on the odd occasion, especially on bits of pavement that imho should be cycle path anyway i.e. there is a need.


----------



## MontyVeda (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463279"]
If it's not bothering anyone, then just let them be.

I used to get riled about all kinds of misdemeanours. I'm coming round to Mickle's view of no harm=no problem.
[/quote]

I agree. I expect a cyclist weaving in and out of peds on a pavement to get a fixed penalty notice because they are causing a real nuisance. However if I got an FPN for riding on a completely deserted pavement I'd be furious for two reasons... I'm causing no harm to anyone... haven't the police got better things to do?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

ClichéGuevara said:


> If something's illegal rather than unlawful, there are ways of opting out of those bits by something deemed as "lawful rebellion".
> I read it expecting war paint and battle cries, but I think it's more a case of getting a form from the Post Office.


Great, I'll get ond that allows me to speed in my car


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463291"]
This is where it gets interesting. Why should any cyclist have to learn to manage aggressive traffic on a busy 40mph dual carriageway when there's a perfectly appropriate wide stretch of tarmac beside it?

I'll ride up the Bristol Road to work, but I wouldn't expect every cyclist I see to have to learn 'the skillset'. 

In the ideal world a 3-year-old, a pensioner, a student in flip-flops on a bmx, a parent carrying a child on the bike should be able to ride on the road in safety, with drivers making allowances for him/her. That's never going to happen though.
[/quote]
If there is a wonderful shared access path such as the one you mention then it is a perfect option. Many places are not as advanced as Bristol which is a shame but does not excuse adults who ride on pavements instead of roads.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Great, I'll get ond that allows me to speed in my car




I wondered about that. 

I watched a programme about it and the speaker reckoned the basic premise was common law from the Magna Carta, which revolves around causing loss or harm, with any punishment being individual to and reflecting the crime. 
It seems we don't strictly exist as individuals but as a separate entity "the person known as", whatever we're registered as, and it's that registered name that is under contract with UK Plc. who seemingly haven't kept their part of the contract, so (by declaration) you can opt to be covered by common law, not statute.


So according to them speeding's okay, but if excess speed (or any othre negligence on your part) is contributory to the accident, you'll end up both physically and financially worse than the victim and their family. I can't help thinking you're entering some other contract by putting a car on the road myself.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> I agree. I expect a cyclist weaving in and out of peds on a pavement to get a fixed penalty notice because they are causing a real nuisance. However if I got an FPN for riding on a completely deserted pavement I'd be furious for two reasons... I'm causing no harm to anyone... haven't the police got better things to do?


Would you be furious if you got a speeding fine whilst driving on an empty streatch of motorway?


----------



## ClichéGuevara (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Would you be furious if you got a speeding fine whilst driving on an empty streatch of motorway?




Or seeing a length of footpath underused because pedestrians are frightened to walk on it because of the cyclists that hurl up and down it.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

ClichéGuevara said:


> I wondered about that.
> 
> I watched a programme about it and the speaker reckoned the basic premise was common law from the Magna Carta, which revolves around causing loss or harm, with any punishment being individual to and reflecting the crime.
> It seems we don't strictly exist as individuals but as a separate entity "the person known as", whatever we're registered as, and it's that registered name that is under contract with UK Plc. who seemingly haven't kept their part of the contract, so (by declaration) you can opt to be covered by common law, not statute.
> ...


To clarify then. I can get a form, opt out of The Statute of Law and thus be immume to it's power unless I injure another; in which case I am screwed. Is that about right?


----------



## rowan 46 (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Would you be furious if you got a speeding fine whilst driving on an empty streatch of motorway?



to be fair yes I would. I also don't see the problem in riding an empty pavement or crossing a red light on a pelican crossing that is empty because the pedestrian has already crossed. I do however believe in being considerate to other users so If riding on the pavement I slow down and give users a wide berth if it's busy I dismount or don't use the pavement. No harm to anyone, laws are there for a reason the laws on riding on pavements are to protect users. If there aren't any imo they are not applicable. The police however may decide differently and that is part of my personal risk assessement.


----------



## MontyVeda (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Would you be furious if you got a speeding fine whilst driving on an empty streatch of motorway?



One has got nothing to do with the other. So your point is what exactly?

Breaking the law is breaking the law and that's all have to say on the matter?


----------



## ClichéGuevara (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> To clarify then. I can get a form, opt out of The Statute of Law and thus be immume to it's power unless I injure another; in which case I am screwed. Is that about right?



Excuse my ignorance, but rather than the Statute of Law, I thought it was statutory law, that which is determined by Governments, as opposed to Common law, which been determined by local precedent? He reckoned Statutory laws are effectively contracts with the "person" rather than the individual. Then again, I could have misunderstood everything he said and/or everything he said could have been total rubbish.

Anyway, according to the programme I saw, yes, and a bit more too.

One down side seemed to be that the Police couldn't quite seem to grasp the complexities of the argument so locked him up anyway until they could get someone that understood,. which kind of defeated the object in my eyes.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> One has got nothing to do with the other. So your point is what exactly?
> 
> Breaking the law is breaking the law and that's all have to say on the matter?


Both involve hurting on one but yourself. Both may be seen as acceptable to some and both are illegal but there is flexibility within the law regarding the issuing of a fine and points.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463291"]
This is where it gets interesting. Why should any cyclist have to learn to manage aggressive traffic on a busy 40mph dual carriageway when there's a perfectly appropriate wide stretch of tarmac beside it?

I'll ride up the Bristol Road to work, but I wouldn't expect every cyclist I see to have to learn 'the skillset'. 

In the ideal world a 3-year-old, a pensioner, a student in flip-flops on a bmx, a parent carrying a child on the bike should be able to ride on the road in safety, with drivers making allowances for him/her. That's never going to happen though.
[/quote]
As that is never going to happen isn't it better to equip yourself for the reality of the world rather than choose the illegal option that re-enforces the stereotype of cyclists being a law unto themselves?


----------



## User16625 (15 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I assume you are joking, in the event you are not. It's up to you to look out for pedestrians, not for for pedestrians to look out for you. I am pretty sure that should a court case result from an incident you will lose. I ride on the pavements occasionally. I know I shouldn't but I am careful, slow and mindful that I am the one who is introducing an element of risk. A pedestrian once stepped into me. I avoided them, stopped and apologised after all I shouldn't have been there in the first place.




You assumed correct. Wouldnt really get anywar far if I wasnt. A lot of the time im neither on the road or the pavement, its a blast coming down the local mountain at high speed over rough ground. Typicaly peaceful and stunning views too.


----------



## rowan 46 (15 Jul 2011)

The Sperminator said:


> You assumed correct. Wouldnt really get anywar far if I wasnt. A lot of the time im neither on the road or the pavement, its a blast coming down the local mountain at high speed over rough ground. Typicaly peaceful and stunning views too.



Bloody mountain bikers turning our footpaths into muddy trails while I am out rambling


----------



## sabian92 (15 Jul 2011)

The Sperminator said:


> Didnt even knew there were laws reguarding cyclists on pavements. I always cycle on pavements except when crossing roads or where there are no pavements etc. Admittedly I have had many near misses due to dozy dam pedestrians. Absolutely irritating!




Yes irritating, how dare they use the pavement and get in your way (!)

The reason you had many near misses is because they aren't expecting to see you there because it's illegal and you can get a £30 fixed penalty notice for it. Ride on the road from now on - you'll be able to go faster. Cars are not scary, the people operating them are. If you ride as if they're all out to kill you and are courteous, then you'll be fine.

Please don't ride on the pavement. It causes a bad name for the ones who actually do abide by the law (me included as I'm sure most cyclists on here are).


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> Bloody mountain bikers turning our footpaths into muddy trails while I am out rambling


Mountain bikers should not be on footpaths. The clue is in the name


----------



## rowan 46 (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Mountain bikers should not be on footpaths. The clue is in the name



fair enough people who ride mountain bikes on footpaths then


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> fair enough people who ride mountain bikes on footpaths then


That's better


----------



## ClichéGuevara (15 Jul 2011)

The least cranky site I could find about lawful rebellion.

Could be nonsense, but of some interest to some.


Edit. may seem a bit off topic, but the thread's about the legalities/lawfulness of riding in some places but not others.


----------



## Red Light (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Isn't it the start of a slippery slope to pick and choose which laws to obey?



I take it you don't have clipless pedals on any of your bikes.


----------



## Red Light (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> That said I see no excuse for Adults to pavement cycle.



A High Court judge recently said while it was not legal, it was perfectly reasonable for a cyclist to use the pavement if they had concerns about the safety of the roads.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> I take it you don't have clipless pedals on any of your bikes.



I use the black plastic inserts with the amber reflectors when on the road  I also have reflectors front and rear. Anything else?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> A High Court judge recently said while it was not legal, it was perfectly reasonable for a cyclist to use the pavement if they had concerns about the safety of the roads.



So when a driver gets off with a slap on the wrist for killing a cyclist the law is an ass. When it is in favour of the cyclist it is OK? When the law is overturned I will accept it.


----------



## Red Light (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If there is a wonderful shared access path such as the one you mention then it is a perfect option.



I'm puzzled as to why you think its a perfect option. Before the magic blue signs were put up it would have been exactly the same bit of pavement in every way but not a suitable option according to you. They change the legality but they don't change the physical layout or the problems of interactions with pedestrians in any way whatsoever. So what makes one a perfect option and the other unacceptable when the actual pavement is identical?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> I'm puzzled as to why you think its a perfect option. Before the magic blue signs were put up it would have been exactly the same bit of pavement in every way but not a suitable option according to you. They change the legality but they don't change the physical layout or the problems of interactions with pedestrians in any way whatsoever. So what makes one a perfect option and the other unacceptable when the actual pavement is identical?



The difference is that pedestrians now expect to share the path with cyclists. Also it is legal. I was brought up to respect the law and I have principles. Why is that so hard to understand?


----------



## rowan 46 (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The difference is that pedestrians now expect to share the path with cyclists. Also it is legal. I was brought up to respect the law and I have principles. Why is that so hard to understand?



I don't think anybody denigrates you for being law abiding or having principles, but it's a little discourteous to imply that a person who doesn't follow the law has no principles. civil disobedience has had many unfair or stupid laws repealed. I break the law every week because as an englishman I am obliged to practice archery on the village green every sunday punishable by a fine of 6d or 1 week in jail. Its still on the statute books but never enforced. I consider cycling on an empty pavement the same and it appears so do my local police


----------



## Red Light (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The difference is that pedestrians now expect to share the path with cyclists. Also it is legal. I was brought up to respect the law and I have principles. Why is that so hard to understand?



Signing is so poor I bet most of the pedestrians don't have a clue whether its shared use or not.

So do you have clipless pedals on your bikes and do they have reflectors on them? And do you do your two hours of longbow practice a week supervised by the vicar, not eat mince pies in England on Christmas Day and pee in public only over your rear wheel with your right hand on the vehicle. Got to respect the law and your principles you know.


----------



## abo (15 Jul 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> I agree. I expect a cyclist weaving in and out of peds on a pavement to get a fixed penalty notice because they are causing a real nuisance. However if I got an FPN for riding on a completely deserted pavement I'd be furious for two reasons... I'm causing no harm to anyone... haven't the police got better things to do?



In that circumstance, if you're approached by a cop... just ride off


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Signing is so poor I bet most of the pedestrians don't have a clue whether its shared use or not.
> 
> So do you have clipless pedals on your bikes and do they have reflectors on them? And do you do your two hours of longbow practice a week supervised by the vicar, not eat mince pies in England on Christmas Day and pee in public only over your rear wheel with your right hand on the vehicle. Got to respect the law and your principles you know.



Yes the pedal inserts have reflectors. I am not English so the Longbow law does not apply. I hate mince pies and never eat them. I do not pee in public full stop. Anything else?


----------



## Red Light (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I use the black plastic inserts with the amber reflectors when on the road



I take it the smiley means you admit to having no respect for the law.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (15 Jul 2011)

As a Welshman, you'd best avoid Chester city walls after midnight.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> I take it the smiley means you admit to having no respect for the law.



No I mean I comply with the law by having pedals with amber reflectors.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

ClichéGuevara said:


> As a Welshman, you'd best avoid Chester city walls after midnight.



I avoid Chester full stop


----------



## Red Light (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Yes the pedal inserts have reflectors. I am not English so the Longbow law does not apply. I hate mince pies and never eat them. I do not pee in public full stop. Anything else?



Steer clear of Cathedral Close in Hereford or Chester on a Sunday then or us longbow practising Englishmen might decide to legally shoot you. Do you open your boiled eggs at the legal end and have you never ever been drunk in a pub?


----------



## Red Light (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> No I mean I comply with the law by having pedals with amber reflectors.



Yes, I tried those inserts once. Very easy to forget and when you do remember they fall out too easily. Now I just break the law with impunity.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Steer clear of Cathedral Close in Hereford or Chester on a Sunday then or us longbow practising Englishmen might decide to legally shoot you. Do you open your boiled eggs at the legal end and have you never ever been drunk in a pub?


Will do. I hate boiled eggs. I may have broken the pub law in the past but believe me I paid the price. As I am now TT it is a law I will never break again. Next?


----------



## rowan 46 (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463329"]




And to respond to the point about reinforcing views, get to the bottom of it and you'll see that people only have problems with the idiots.
[/quote]

+1


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463329"]
Why should people have to? See quote from an undeniable genius-


Why should those groups (and others) have to mix with idiots on the road, when they can share space perfectly safely elsewhere?

We need to stop comparing bikes with road vehicles all the time. Yes, when on the road they're equal, but bicycles are so much more than that.

And to respond to the point about reinforcing views, get to the bottom of it and you'll see that people only have problems with the idiots.
[/quote]
If cycle paths are available then there is no need to ride on the road I agree. I agree the viewpoint stems from idiots but as has been discussed already cyclists are apparently becoming more hated by the day and the more ligitimate reasons we give people to hate us more fool us.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463334"]
This isn't a legitimate reason though, and if you question people you'll find that they're only bothered about the idiots. And if you ever do meet one of the hot-heads, quote Mr Boateng at them and tell them to shut up.

Preventing those groups, including the examples I've given, from cycling because there are idiots on the road and the LA haven't made proper provision is sad. Very sad. And very unnecessary.
[/quote]
If a motorist drove on the hardshoulder of a Motorway because he was scared of traffic would that be acceptable?


----------



## Mad at urage (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So when a driver gets off with a slap on the wrist for killing a cyclist the law is an ass. When it is in favour of the cyclist it is OK? When the law is overturned I will accept it.


Equating killing someone with riding on the pavement is a ratherstupid argument IMO


----------



## Red Light (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463334"]
This isn't a legitimate reason though, and if you question people you'll find that they're only bothered about the idiots. And if you ever do meet one of the hot-heads, quote Mr Boateng at them and tell them to shut up.
[/quote]

Better still quote Judge Simon Brown in the High Court:

"In my judgment, although it is illegal for cyclists to use the pavement (unless it is specifically sanctioned by a local authority for shared use), when weighing up the danger to himself (cp danger to pedestrians) it was a reasonable decision by the Claimant to ride on the pavements in this area rather than the road in the context of the duty of care owed to himself to take reasonable care for his own safety whilst cycling."


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Equating killing someone with riding on the pavement is a ratherstupid argument IMO


Ok it was extreme. We moan when cars block cycle ways because they have nowhere to park but find it ok to ride on pavements.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Better still quote Judge Simon Brown in the High Court:
> 
> "In my judgment, although it is illegal for cyclists to use the pavement (unless it is specifically sanctioned by a local authority for shared use), when weighing up the danger to himself (cp danger to pedestrians) it was a reasonable decision by the Claimant to ride on the pavements in this area rather than the road in the context of the duty of care owed to himself to take reasonable care for his own safety whilst cycling."


IIRC This case refered to one section of pavement and the circumstancses around the case were rather extreme.


----------



## rowan 46 (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If cycle paths are available then there is no need to ride on the road I agree. I agree the viewpoint stems from idiots but as has been discussed already cyclists are apparently becoming more hated by the day and the more ligitimate reasons we give people to hate us more fool us.



I have only been on this forum a short while and having seen some of the things that go on with other cyclists (I thought it was just me) I am beginning to think that the argument "we shouldn't give people an excuse to hate us " doesn't hold water. The fact is they do and always will providing there are cars on the road. If we can't ride responsibly on pavements and cycleways because pedestrians don't like it how long before we are driven off the roads we know how much drivers hate us. We are an inconvenience to some of them and they will never change. we are and always will be competition for the space they wish to occupy and that's the problem there are too many cars on the roads, However I don't wish to give up my family car it's too useful.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463329"]
Why should people have to? See quote from an undeniable genius-


Why should those groups (and others) have to mix with idiots on the road, when they can share space perfectly safely elsewhere?

We need to stop comparing bikes with road vehicles all the time. Yes, when on the road they're equal, but bicycles are so much more than that.

And to respond to the point about reinforcing views, get to the bottom of it and you'll see that people only have problems with the idiots.
[/quote]
I am guesring "the point" is why should they have to mix......

I say again, if there are cycle paths available then no need at all. If these facilities are not available then adults should learn to road ride. Bikability level 2 covers this for children L3 is aimed at adults. 
Is there a point I have missed?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I have only been on this forum a short while and having seen some of the things that go on with other cyclists (I thought it was just me) I am beginning to think that the argument "we shouldn't give people an excuse to hate us " doesn't hold water. The fact is they do and always will providing there are cars on the road. If we can't ride responsibly on pavements and cycleways because pedestrians don't like it how long before we are driven off the roads we know how much drivers hate us. We are an inconvenience to some of them and they will never change. we are and always will be competition for the space they wish to occupy and that's the problem there are too many cars on the roads, However I don't wish to give up my family car it's too useful.


Many cyclists on this forum prefer to use roads than cycle paths. Cycle paths are useful when they are clear. Peds will always have priority on shared paths but cycling is obviouslx legal. On both cycle path and road we may be hated but we can be 100% legal giving us a much stronger possition to argue our case from. Also I find it funny that pavement cycling is deemed ok but when a driver maker a minor infringment of the law many expect the book to be thrown at the driver.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463343"]
Why should all cyclists be capable of mixing with aggressive traffic? 

The groups I mentioned?...
[/quote]
In those situations I would look at alternate routes or at worst say the a bike is not a viable means of transport for them.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463345"]
Discretion is rightly used in both scenarios by the police. It's not complicated.
[/quote]
Many, especially on the Commuting Forum seem to demonize car drivers who make the slightest of errors.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463348"]
The bike should always be pushed as a viable means of transport. It's the best invention in history, remember? 

There are plenty of examples in cities where pavements could be shared use but haven't been made so. If they're appropriate for this, and their use as such only provides benefits and with no downside, it's ridiculous to suggest that people should choose another form of transport and ignore government and police approval.
[/quote]
Then maybe it would be better to petition the LA or even sustrans to see if the pavements can become shared use paths? I am a huge advocate of cycling but am also an instructor so coule never advocate pavement cycling.


----------



## snailracer (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Many, especially on the Commuting Forum seem to demonize car drivers who make the slightest of errors.


As does the law. Motorists are subject to more laws, for good reason - they are more dangerous.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463349"]
That's right.
[/quote]
So one law for cyclists another for drivers? I think the more we expect to get away with things and then condem others for equaly minor offences the more we will be seen as believing we are above the law.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

snailracer said:


> As does the law. Motorists are subject to more laws, for good reason - they are more dangerous.


So it should be easy to obay the few laws that do apply to us.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463353"]
I would hope that you make your subjects aware of the authorities' acceptance of pavement cycling where appropiate.
[/quote]
Yes all are made aware of the relevent legislation. I will not advocate it however and prefer to find quiet roads to teach nervious students on.


----------



## snailracer (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So it should be easy to obay the few laws that do apply to us.


Or, us cyclists couldn't break as many laws as motorists do, with such risk to life and limb, even if we ignored every law on the books that applied to us.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463355"]
Would you enter an ASL with no entry point on a red light?
[/quote]
I have never come across one TBH. By definition an Advanced Stop Line is provided for cyclists safety so no entry point to said ASL seems most unusual.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463358"]
So the government recognise that in some situations pavement cycling is appropriate and advocate it, but you don't advocate this to your students? Who are you representing?
[/quote]
In Wales pavement cycling is not advocated rather a blind eye may be turned. As I teach adults I feel it appropriate to provide the relevent information but not actively encourage it. I am an independant teaching the CTC's National Standards sylibus.


----------



## rowan 46 (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So one law for cyclists another for drivers? I think the more we expect to get away with things and then condem others for equaly minor offences the more we will be seen as believing we are above the law.



I would hope that people condemn drivers and cyclists for doing dangerous things and not just because they are breaking the law. A responsible cyclist harms no one and I would argue the same for drivers. I don't have a problem with drivers. I have a problem with inconsiderate drivers and the same for cyclists. it is possible to ride on the pavement and be safe the police don't mind as long as you are careful and considerate, the public don't appear to mind as long as you behave respectfully and considerately. Where I agree with you is that fools who have no consideration for others shouldn't be on the road or pavement. This is not a cycling issue it's general society. there are some who wherever they go or whatever they drive are inconsiderate bullies dangerous to others and caring only of their own needs. These people are not figureheads for drivers,cyclists or any other group just nasty people deserving of our contempt. A person who behaves inconsiderately on a road endangers others around them a cyclist who behaves considerately on a footpath endangers noone


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463360"]
There are plenty, so much so that Boris was trying to get the law changed a while ago. 

Would you enter?
[/quote]
I would hold primary but no I would not enter.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I would hope that people condemn drivers and cyclists for doing dangerous things and not just because they are breaking the law. A responsible cyclist harms no one and I would argue the same for drivers. I don't have a problem with drivers. I have a problem with inconsiderate drivers and the same for cyclists. it is possible to ride on the pavement and be safe the police don't mind as long as you are careful and considerate, the public don't appear to mind as long as you behave respectfully and considerately. Where I agree with you is that fools who have no consideration for others shouldn't be on the road or pavement. This is not a cycling issue it's general society. there are some who wherever they go or whatever they drive are inconsiderate bullies dangerous to others and caring only of their own needs. These people are not figureheads for drivers,cyclists or any other group just nasty people deserving of our contempt. A person who behaves inconsiderately on a road endangers others around them a cyclist who behaves considerately on a footpath endangers noone


I would rather stay the right side of the law than rely on discression.


----------



## snailracer (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would hold primary but no I would not enter.


Huh? Well, never mind then.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463365"]
You have a very different view of cycling to me.
[/quote]
Wouldn't it be a boring world if we all thought the same way!


----------



## rowan 46 (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would rather stay the right side of the law than rely on discression.



A fair point, I don't hold your point of view in this respect, but its perfectly legitimate


----------



## ClichéGuevara (15 Jul 2011)

I'm somewhere in the middle on this. 

There are times when I genuinely believe it is safer and beneficial to others for me to go against the letter of the law, and some courts and enforcement officers seem to accept this and apply common sense.


I'm sure there're are other ways of looking at any examples given, but I'll have a bash and am open to suggestion if I'm wrong. 
I live on a narrow street, just over three cars wide with cars parked either side taking it to one lane, so no room for a car and a cycle to pass each other. 
I do ride down the road but it's not unknown for me to go onto the path when it's busy as do many other cyclists rather than confuse oncoming vehicles. I give priority to pedestrians, who are aware that cycles are liable to be on the path. Yes, I could walk, but in all honesty, would you walk or cycle half a mile?

Where I side with Angelfish is when he's teaching. If someone is taught the correct and proper way, that will be their default and they'll not only be aware when they're outside of this, but should naturally default to it whenever they're in a pressure situation.

Breaking the law shouldn't necessarily be seen as breaking the rules, but it should be the exception rather than the norm in my opinion. 



.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> A fair point, I don't hold your point of view in this respect, but its perfectly legitimate


Thank you


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

ClichéGuevara said:


> I'm somewhere in the middle on this.
> 
> There are times when I genuinely believe it is safer and beneficial to others for me to go against the letter of the law, and some courts and enforcement officers seem to accept this and apply common sense.
> 
> ...


Your example is a good one. As my neck of the woods is made up of hellishly narrow streets I am used to this. I would act as I would in a car and give way until I can claim the road. I appreciate others would do diffent and feel this is where discretion comes into play.
Thank you for your support of my teaching methods.


----------



## Red Light (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> IIRC This case refered to one section of pavement and the circumstancses around the case were rather extreme.



Not extreme at all. This is where he was riding on the pavement and where the judge said it was reasonable for all but the most hardened road warriors to ride on there to avoid the road.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Not extreme at all. This is where he was riding on the pavement and where the judge said it was reasonable for all but the most hardened road warriors to ride on there to avoid the road.


I can not see the Photo Map on my phone but would ask why the judge would say "all but the most hardened road warriors" if it was not extremely dangerous.


----------



## Red Light (15 Jul 2011)

snailracer said:


> Huh? Well, never mind then.



Yep, Angelfishsolo is an incredible human being who never breaks any laws whatsoever.


----------



## Red Light (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I can not see the Photo Map on my phone but would ask why the judge would say "all but the most hardened road warriors" if it was not extremely dangerous.



Its just a standard two lane town street. It even has a speed camera just down the road so traffic won't even be speeding. So a High Court judge thinks it perfectly reasonable to cycle on the pavement even there. I disagree with his view of the danger but he's the boss legally.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Yep, Angelfishsolo is an incredible human being who never breaks any laws whatsoever.


What a comment on societx when this is found unusual or even possibly meant as a dig.


----------



## Red Light (15 Jul 2011)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Where I side with Angelfish is when he's teaching. If someone is taught the correct and proper way, that will be their default and they'll not only be aware when they're outside of this, but should naturally default to it whenever they're in a pressure situation.
> .



i agree people should be taught not to cycle on the pavement but that is not the issue. Its the demonising of cyclists that do, especially when there is so much encouragement for people to cycle on some bits of the pavement that look in many cases less suitable for cycling on than the ones they get demonised for.


----------



## Red Light (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> What a comment on societx when this is found unusual or even possibly meant as a dig.



Well you set yourself up for it. I don't believe anyone can go through life without breaking a single law, but that is the person you have set yourself up to be and then used it to judge others. So in the circumstances don't be surprised if some people chip bits off your pedestal.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Its just a standard two lane town street. It even has a speed camera just down the road so traffic won't even be speeding. So a High Court judge thinks it perfectly reasonable to cycle on the pavement even there. I disagree with his view of the danger but he's the boss legally.


I wonder what the reaction would have been if a similar ruling had been made regarging a car parking on a cycle lane. "Only an olympic athelite could be expected to carry items from the car park to the houre" for eg


----------



## JonnyBlade (15 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Other than the round blue sign can you elucidate for me what differentiates a pavement were cyclists are allowed, nay encouraged, to cycle and those where they are not? Is it that one is much wider than the other or has a better surface or better sight lines? Only I struggle to see how one is practically any different from the other.



The key difference is that we are allowed on some but not others. We can pontificate as much as we want as to whether we think the rule is confusing or a nonsense. The fact of the matter is that it's really that simple. Blue sign yes and no sign no!
We get pissed off with cars giving us crap yet some think it's fine to speed along foot paths where pedestrians don't expect to see us ...............


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Well you set yourself up for it. I don't believe anyone can go through life without breaking a single law, but that is the person you have set yourself up to be and then used it to judge others. So in the circumstances don't be surprised if some people chip bits off your pedestal.


I have broken many laws in the past. Now I have no desire to do so. Why is that so strange. I find it strange that you think people need to break laws in order to get through life!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> The key difference is that we are allowed on some but not others. We can pontificate as much as we want as to whether we think the rule is confusing or a nonsense. The fact of the matter is that it's really that simple. Blue sign yes and no sign no!
> We get pissed off with cars giving us crap yet some think it's fine to speed along foot paths where pedestrians don't expect to see us ...............


Thank you.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> i agree people should be taught not to cycle on the pavement but that is not the issue. Its the demonising of cyclists that do, especially when there is so much encouragement for people to cycle on some bits of the pavement that look in many cases less suitable for cycling on than the ones they get demonised for.


Cycle paths legal, pavements not legal. It is as simple as that. Deal with it.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463384"]
No, it's not simple in that respect. I can give examples of pavements where cycling but there are no markings or signs.
[/quote]
How do you know that cycling on these pavements is allowed? A map?


----------



## Red Light (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I can not see the Photo Map on my phone but would ask why the judge would say "all but the most hardened road warriors" if it was not extremely dangerous.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> [attachment=4314:Screen shot 2011-07-15 at 23.16.30.png]


I am now amazed by the judgement!


----------



## Red Light (15 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am now amazed by the judgement!



What he said about it was:

"In my judgment, this piece of road was dangerous for all but the most experienced, traffic fast, confident and dominant of cyclists i.e. the 'serious' cyclist as Mr Ibbotson puts it, as opposed to the ordinary prudent cyclist using a cycle to go to work encumbered with his cycle rucksack."


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> What he said about it was:
> 
> "In my judgment, this piece of road was dangerous for all but the most experienced, traffic fast, confident and dominant of cyclists i.e. the 'serious' cyclist as Mr Ibbotson puts it, as opposed to the ordinary prudent cyclist using a cycle to go to work encumbered with his cycle rucksack."


Well clearly this learned man knows a huge amount about cyclists and their mode of dress and storeage solutions.


----------



## gaz (16 Jul 2011)

that isn't a dangerous road. several lanes at 70mph is a dangerous road and one i would consider cycling on the pavement if there were no other options.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> that isn't a dangerous road. several lanes at 70mph is a dangerous road...


Well said.


----------



## Red Light (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Well clearly this learned man knows a huge amount about cyclists and their mode of dress and storeage solutions.



That doesn't matter. In law his word is the law until the Appeal Court decides differently and is binding on all lower Courts. And knowing what a stickler you are for following the law irrespective, I am sure you will support it without hesitation, deviation or repetition


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> That doesn't matter. In law his word is the law until the Appeal Court decides differently and is binding on all lower Courts. And knowing what a stickler you are for following the law irrespective, I am sure you will support it without hesitation, deviation or repetition


Well as the ruling does not prevent cycling on the road I would have no issues complying with the law.
Could you tell me why you find it strange that someone wants to obay the law of the land?


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> The key difference is that we are allowed on some but not others. We can pontificate as much as we want as to whether we think the rule is confusing or a nonsense. The fact of the matter is that it's really that simple. Blue sign yes and no sign no!
> We get pissed off with cars giving us crap *yet some think it's fine to speed along foot paths* where pedestrians don't expect to see us ...............



Did you actually read the entire thread?


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> ... As I teach adults I feel it appropriate to provide the relevent information but not actively encourage it. I am an independant teaching the CTC's National Standards sylibus.



That explains your 'holier than thou' stance I guess.

What I don't understand is why you appear to be dead against some of the key points highlighted here:




Angelfishsolo, on 06 July 2011 - 08:19:35, said:

The primary legislation which makes cycling on a footway an offence is _section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act_, this provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he “shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers or shall wilfully lead or drive any carriage of any description upon any such footpath or causeway.”

_Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888_ extended the definition of “carriage” to include “bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines.”

The object of _Section 72 Highways Act 1835_ was intended not to protect all footpaths, but only footpaths or causeways by the side of a road, and that this is still the case has been ruled in the high court. The legislation makes no exceptions for small wheeled or children’s cycles, so even a child riding on a footway is breaking the law. However, if they are under the age of criminal responsibility they cannot, of course, face prosecution. _See below._

On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. *However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. *The then Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:

*“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.”*

Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by ‘Community Support Officers’ and wardens.

_“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) _


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> That explains your 'holier than thou' stance I guess.
> 
> What I don't understand is why you appear to be dead against some of the key points highlighted here:
> 
> ...



As you quotes* ".....many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”

*_I teach adults who wish to be road safe. I do not teach adults how to ride (Looking back I did not make that clear) as that is not part of the National Standards Syllabus. If I were to advocate pavement cycling I would be doing my clients a disservice. _


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463398"]
You're moving your own goalposts now.
[/quote]

Not at all - I failed to clarify what I teach ie National Standards Level 3. This is adults only and as such I would not teach pavement cycling. In previous posts I have talked about adults riding on pavements not children. I was under the impression this thread was about Adults riding on pavements. I have no real issue with under 12's on them and yes I know that FPN's can not be given to <16's). That said if I were doing a Nat Standards L2 session I would be teaching children on quite roads and not pavements as per the syllabus.


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Not at all - I failed to clarify what I teach ie National Standards Level 3. This is adults only and as such I would not teach pavement cycling. In previous posts I have talked about adults riding on pavements not children. I was under the impression this thread was about Adults riding on pavements. *I have no real issue with under 12's on them* and yes I know that FPN's can not be given to <16's). That said if I were doing a Nat Standards L2 session I would be teaching children on quite roads and not pavements as per the syllabus.



See this is where the law is a bit of an ass. Although I too have no real issue with the under 12 riding on pavements either, it's the under 12's who are less likely to be aware of people around them and are more likely to get in the way of pedestrians. We all know what kids are like... gormless


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> See this is where the law is a bit of an ass. Although I too have no real issue with the under 12 riding on pavements either, it's the under 12's who are less likely to be aware of people around them and are more likely to get in the way of pedestrians. We all know what kids are like... gormless



and also far less likely to have any road sense hence my willingness to overlook them.


----------



## gaz (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> and also far less likely to have any road sense hence my willingness to overlook them.


So if a 30y/o has no road sense, it's ok for them to cycle on the pavement?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> So if a 30y/o has no road sense, it's ok for them to cycle on the pavement?



No. In my experience adults are far more likely to be pulled for cycling on pavements than are children. The law has provision to turn a blind eye "especially towards children". IMO Adults wishing to follow the route a road takes should be trained in how to ride on the road if no shared facilities are available.


----------



## gaz (16 Jul 2011)

Training isn't always the easiest thing to find and certainly not something that a lot of adult cyclists will look for.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> Training isn't always the easiest thing to find and certainly not something that a lot of adult cyclists will look for.



This is like the argument illegal off-road motorbikers use. The legal trails are too far away, why should I go to a legal place when I have a forest on my doorstep. Doesn't wash I'm sorry.


----------



## gaz (16 Jul 2011)

It was a statement and is nothing like you suggested.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> It was a statement and is nothing like you suggested.



Yes sorry it was a statement not an argument. It does however have the same undertones as the comments illegal off-road bikers use.

My opinion is very clear. Pavements are for pedestrians unless otherwise stated. You may get away with riding on them but your actions are not legal merely unlikely to be pursued by the authorities. As a CTC representative I can not be seen to condone illegal activity.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463409"]
Let's get some perspective - I see many pavement cyclists every day. I've never heard of a single one being fined in Birmingham, adult or child.
[/quote]

We live in different parts of the country.

Bottom line I don't agree with pavement cycling, others do.

The original question asks "Who are pavements for?" The answer is Pedestrians (unless otherwise stated) end of.


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> This is like the argument illegal off-road motorbikers use. The legal trails are too far away, why should I go to a legal place when I have a forest on my doorstep. Doesn't wash I'm sorry.



Yet another irrelevant and inaccurate parallel... you're good at this!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> Yet another irrelevant and inaccurate parallel... you're good at this!



And saying no harm no foul excuses them does it?


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> We live in different parts of the country.
> 
> Bottom line I don't agree with pavement cycling, others do.
> *
> The original question asks "Who are pavements for?" The answer is Pedestrians (unless otherwise stated) end of.*



OK... best let the mods know they should delete every post in this thread that doesn't say 'pedestrians'.

correct me if I'm wrong but forum's are about discussion, not quizzes.


----------



## Cyclopathic (16 Jul 2011)

I have no problem with cyclists on the pavement as long as they are careful and don't hare along like an idiot. I am a pedestrian a lot of the time and in my own experience i estimate that about 1 in 5 cyclists on the pavement are a nuicance. Obviously this is highly subjective and just my interpretation of the matter.

I'd go as far to say that a careful, controlled cyclist is less of a problem on the pavement than a person pushing their bike. From what I see on the roads and pavements in my area I would have to conclude that the whole issue of the nuicance caused by pavement cyclists has been grossly exaggerated and is usually spoken of in hugely emotive terms that reflect one group or anothers prejudices with very little thought to how much of a problem it really is, or isn't as the case may be.

I do not hold with the idea of simply obeying the law for the sake of it. Some laws are not very good laws and some laws are out of date and need revising. The fact that an awful lot of pavements seem to have been redesignated as multiple use really emphasises this point and shows that looking at it in black and white is not the most realistic approach. I will continue to use the odd bit of pavement where I think it is suitable whilst at the same time confronting stupid and dangerous riding where and when I think it is safe to do so. (I don't want to spend an afternoon in A and E having bike parts removed from my anatomy)


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> OK... best let the mods know they should delete every post in this thread that doesn't say 'pedestrians'.
> 
> correct me if I'm wrong but forum's are about discussion, not quizzes.



Yes they are about discussions. Sometimes a question has a very simple answer. The thread moved away from the question and onto pavement cycling. Some agree some don't. In my last post I answered the posted question which has a very simple answer.


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> And saying no harm no foul excuses them does it?



Yes. And i think the concept of _no harm no foul_ is backed up here...



Angelfishsolo, on 06 July 2011 - 08:19:35, said:

The primary legislation which makes cycling on a footway an offence is _section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act_, this provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he “shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers or shall wilfully lead or drive any carriage of any description upon any such footpath or causeway.”

_Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888_ extended the definition of “carriage” to include “bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines.”

The object of _Section 72 Highways Act 1835_ was intended not to protect all footpaths, but only footpaths or causeways by the side of a road, and that this is still the case has been ruled in the high court. The legislation makes no exceptions for small wheeled or children’s cycles, so even a child riding on a footway is breaking the law. However, if they are under the age of criminal responsibility they cannot, of course, face prosecution. _See below._

On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. *However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. *The then Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:

*“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.”*

Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by ‘Community Support Officers’ and wardens.

_“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) _


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463414"]
No, that's not the end of. Yours maybe, but not the government's. And the latter shows a more appropriate, encouraging and supportive view of cycling. 

Of course, if you're teaching people how to cycle on the road then you'll not be teaching them to cycle on the pavement. Unfortunately you're allowing this weighting to blinker you to some important issues, to the detriment of cycling.
[/quote]

If pavements become shared use paths they are no longer pavements by definition. I am not so much blinkered as obliged to respond in a certain way. I feel it may have been better to say nothing.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> Yes. And i think the concept of _no harm no foul_ is backed up here...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would ask one question about the above. Why as the law not changed to allow all cyclist to use the pavements with the provision to fine dangerous cyclists?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463420"]
That definition is irrelevant. 

You say it may be a geographic thing for you. I think you might be right. Come up to Brum some time and I'll show you round.
[/quote]

Should I bring a flack jacket?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463422"]
That, I think, is an important consideration. I suspect that it's because it's far cheaper, easier and quicker to blur the boundaries than go through the legal processes. And laws are strict. With issues like this there has to be and element of discretion, and with the current arrangements we have this.
[/quote]

That is a valid point


----------



## Red Light (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Could you tell me why you find it strange that someone wants to obay the law of the land?



I find it strange that someone should so unquestionably want to follow every law to the letter.

I do generally follow the law but I often eat my boiled eggs from the illegal end and eat mince pies on Christmas Day. I don't have pedal reflectors on my SPDs, I used illegal LED lights before they became legal and still use illegal flashing ones because there seem to be none that don't have a steady mode and I don't find the legal power limit gives enough light on my main light to be safe . I do go into ASLs via the safest route, not the feeder lane and if its full of vehicles sit ahead of it. I don't wear a helmet when I cycle in Spain

But then as George Bernard Shaw said, The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. YMMV


----------



## gaz (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would ask one question about the above. Why as the law not changed to allow all cyclist to use the pavements with the provision to fine dangerous cyclists?


Let's be honest. Laws are not updated and some are very stupid. The laws on bicycle lights are outdated!


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would ask one question about the above. Why as the law not changed to allow all cyclist to use the pavements with the provision to fine dangerous cyclists?



At a guess, to encourage them to use the roads rather than the pavements. However the law does have provision to allow cyclists to use the pavements should they deem it necessary due to personal safety reasons. (that's how i interpret the bold bits in post #183)

All the cyclists here condoning pavement cycling are not saying 'cycle on the pavements all the time', they're saying in certain areas it's safer to use the pavement, and for that reason they do so. It's this fact you seem unable to either grasp or accept. 

I totally respect the fact that you don't condone pavement cycling when teaching road sense to adult cyclists... however is some circumstances the pavement is the best option all round. 

For example, Morecambe road heading towards Lancaster. One lane of traffic, usually slow moving. One bus lane in which cycling is permitted and one very wide pavement. I prefer to cycle in the bus lane because it's a better surface than the pavement, but when a bus is 'coming up my rear'  it has no room to pull out and over take due to the constant slow moving traffic, so either i force the bus to hang behind me or I hop onto the pavement allowing the bus to pass but more importantly, preserving my safety from a potential squeeze through if the bus driver is an impatient pillock.

_(edited for clarity)_


----------



## Cyclopathic (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If pavements become shared use paths they are no longer pavements by definition. I am not so much blinkered as obliged to respond in a certain way. I feel it may have been better to say nothing.




Personally I can understand why you and others express the view that it is the law that is the definitve factor in this debate, especially as you have to consider your obligation to the ctc. However my view is that I'd like to see some more debate about it but in a calm and less emotive way than tends to be the case.

I think that it has become very clear that there will be very little real consessions made to cyclists by the way of properly designed roads with properly considered cycle paths or other proper and worthwhile aids to cycling as a viable means of transport for all and not just those brave enough and skilled enough to handle modern city traffic. It is because of this that I think other solutions have to be sought albeit not entirely ideal ones. I think that perhaps if cyclist do use pavements considerately that it may just work to show that properly designating more areas as multiple use might be workable. Alongside this I do think that wreckless and dangerous cycling should be tackled in a way that will discourage and hopefully all but stop people doing it.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> I find it strange that someone should so unquestionably want to follow every law to the letter.
> 
> I do generally follow the law but I often eat my boiled eggs from the illegal end and eat mince pies on Christmas Day. I don't have pedal reflectors on my SPDs, I used illegal LED lights before they became legal and still use illegal flashing ones because there seem to be none that don't have a steady mode and I don't find the legal power limit gives enough light on my main light to be safe . I do go into ASLs via the safest route, not the feeder lane and if its full of vehicles sit ahead of it. I don't wear a helmet when I cycle in Spain
> 
> But then as George Bernard Shaw said, The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. YMMV




*In the UK, a change in the law from 21st October 2005, permits a bike to be fitted with flashing lights, rear and/or front*.
At the same time, some loopholes have been closed which previously made LEDs a 'grey area'.


----------



## Red Light (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If pavements become shared use paths they are no longer pavements by definition. I am not so much blinkered as obliged to respond in a certain way. I feel it may have been better to say nothing.



If it comes to definitions, they were never pavements in the first place and cycling on the pavement is not illegal per se.


----------



## Cyclopathic (16 Jul 2011)

In the light of Monte vedeas information regarding the guidelines to be applied to the laws regarding cycling on the pavement it would seem that it may be possible for an organisation like the ctc to at least if not advocate careful use of the pavement by cyclists at least not have to condemn it out of hand. To agree with and support the guidlines as stated would not I think constitute an unreasonable or overly millitant position. The guidleines seem to be very much based along common sense and designed to focus action against dangerous cycling at dangerous cyclists.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463431"]
That's not the full picture though. Flashing lights are only legal if the steady mode on that light meets BS. 

So, as has already been said, the majority of bike lights have a steady mode and so are still technically illegal.
[/quote]

Please explain that. Do you mean that LED lights that have a steady mode that does not meet BS are being sold?


----------



## AlickB (16 Jul 2011)

I can't seem to win round here with the pavement issues. I have a 15 mile commute into work every day an the first 9 miles of them go along a fairly busy A road, The drivers in the car give me abuse and tell me to get of the road onto the "cycle path" (no signage and really badly maintained, no way my ass would survive the trip going over those potholes on my road bike lol) and on the patch of path that is suitable (temporary diversion to get past roadworks on a big roundabout, has been signposted for both peds and bikes) I get abuse from the peds that i should get off the pavements!

I tend to just stick to the roads now, seems like less hassle to me...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463434"]
Yes. There are only a couple that meet the regs.
[/quote]

That is interesting. I wonder how the authorities know is a light meets BS3648 or BS6102/3? Need to read up on those.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

AlickB said:


> I can't seem to win round here with the pavement issues. I have a 15 mile commute into work every day an the first 9 miles of them go along a fairly busy A road, The drivers in the car give me abuse and tell me to get of the road onto the "cycle path" (no signage and really badly maintained, no way my ass would survive the trip going over those potholes on my road bike lol) and on the patch of path that is suitable (temporary diversion to get past roadworks on a big roundabout, has been signposted for both peds and bikes) I get abuse from the peds that i should get off the pavements!
> 
> I tend to just stick to the roads now, seems like less hassle to me...


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Jul 2011)

Cyclopathic said:


> Personally I can understand why you and others express the view that it is the law that is the definite factor in this debate, especially as you have to consider your obligation to the ctc. However my view is that I'd like to see some more debate about it but in a calm and less emotive way than tends to be the case.
> 
> I think that it has become very clear that there will be very little real concessions made to cyclists by the way of properly designed roads with properly considered cycle paths or other proper and worthwhile aids to cycling as a viable means of transport for all and not just those brave enough and skilled enough to handle modern city traffic. It is because of this that I think other solutions have to be sought albeit not entirely ideal ones. *I think that perhaps if cyclist do use pavements considerately that it may just work to show that properly designating more areas as multiple use might be workable. *Alongside this I do think that reckless and dangerous cycling should be tackled in a way that will discourage and hopefully all but stop people doing it.



The local council in Lancaster & Morecambe has opened a lot of pavements up to shared use and put contraflow cycle lanes on many one way streets. it seems almost all the pavements I used to cycle along illegally are now shared use. There's not many one way streets that used to nip the wrong way down because its more convenient, but strangely these have contraflow bike lanes now too.

It appears that popular use, regardless of legalities is defining the layout of permitted cycle routes in these two towns.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463438"]
If they've got the kite mark on they're legal.
[/quote]

I found this as well.
Makes for interesting reading. It seems that you can ride with just a flashing rear (light) and be legal.


----------



## Red Light (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> That is interesting. I wonder how the authorities know is a light meets BS3648 or BS6102/3? Need to read up on those.



Its got labelling to say it does. And to attach the labelling you either need to have it tested or have a recognised quality system in place that allows you to self certify.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Its got labelling to say it does. And to attach the labelling you either need to have it tested or have a recognised quality system in place that allows you to self certify.



I meant when on the bike


----------



## Red Light (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I meant when on the bike



You look for the labelling on it.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> You look for the labelling on it.



How will the authorities know if the lights you have on your bike are BS certified?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463445"]
They won't, because they're not stupid. If they're out to catch idiot cyclists they'll ignore those who are appropriately lit, regardless of the law, and stop the unlit ones. 

This side-discussion into lighting is useful, because it highlights the need for discretion, in an area I think you'll understand it better. 

Have you been riding illegally at night Angel?
[/quote]

Well my smart rear light is always used in flashing mode so I think not . 

I see the comparison here but it would seem to be harder to police lighting than pavement usage. 

It seems that rather than discretion that authorities are "in the dark" as to whether a light is compliant or not


----------



## gaz (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Well my smart rear light is always used in flashing mode so I think not .
> 
> I see the comparison here but it would seem to be harder to police lighting than pavement usage.
> 
> It seems that rather than discretion that authorities are "in the dark" as to whether a light is compliant or not


I doubt your smart lights have the required eu regs or bs marks on to be legit.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> I doubt your smart lights have the required eu regs or bs marks on to be legit.



You are probably correct.


----------



## Dan B (16 Jul 2011)

Many bike lights are also illegal due to their brackets: I'd have to look this up to check it, but am pretty sure that a BS-approved light bracket doesn't allow the beam to be pointed upwards or downwards without tools - i.e. any kind of "quick release" bracket probably doesn't conform


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463449"]
No, it's discretion. 

Your second paragraph is interesting. You seem to be more interested in catching lawbreakers than addressing the issues that those laws are in place to address.
[/quote]

_How_ can it be discretion if there is no way of telling if a light conforms to a given standard or not?

My second sentence was simply an observation.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463451"]
In which case you have been riding illegally. 

Does that realisation give you a better view of the issue of law and discretion?
[/quote]

I ask again _"How_ can it be discretion if there is no way of telling if a light conforms to a given standard or not?!" I can see how the policing of dim lights could work but beyond that.......


----------



## gaz (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> _How_ can it be discretion if there is no way of telling if a light conforms to a given standard or not?
> 
> My second sentence was simply an observation.


It will state on the light and it's box if it conforms to the bs or eu standards.

There are only a handful which are legal.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> It will state on the light and it's box if it conforms to the bs or eu standards.



FFS - Once the light is out of the box and on the bike being used at night How can anyone tell if it complies with the requisite standards?


----------



## Dan B (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> _How_ can it be discretion if there is no way of telling if a light conforms to a given standard or not?


But there is a way to tell: stop the cyclist and check his light for the kitemark.


If you're breaking the law then you're breaking the law. There's no get-out clause if you're breaking a law that can't easily be checked, otherwise it'd be OK to murder people provided you're clever enough to make sure nobody can pin the crime on you


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

Dan B said:


> But there is a way to tell: stop the cyclist and check his light for the kitemark.
> 
> 
> If you're breaking the law then you're breaking the law. There's no get-out clause if you're breaking a law that can't easily be checked, otherwise it'd be OK to murder people provided you're clever enough to make sure nobody can pin the crime on you



So the authorities use there discretion by not stopping any bikes? OK fair point.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

Dan B said:


> But there is a way to tell: stop the cyclist and check his light for the kitemark.
> 
> 
> If you're breaking the law then you're breaking the law. There's no get-out clause if you're breaking a law that can't easily be checked, otherwise it'd be OK to murder people provided you're clever enough to make sure nobody can pin the crime on you



Also it is only illegal if riding between dusk and dawn


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463459"]
If there was no discretion then the police would take a different approach. For example they would have campaigns, like mornings spent pulling up RLJers, where then stop all lit cyclists at night to check their lights. 

They don't do this because that would be stupid. Instead, they look at the issue the law is there to address and respond accordingly. 

How do you plead on your own law breaking?
[/quote]

Ok a valid point and well made. I concede you are correct 

As for the charges, I do not ride my bike after dusk muh lord.


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Jul 2011)

Dan B said:


> *But there is a way to tell: stop the cyclist and check his light for the kitemark.*
> 
> 
> If you're breaking the law then you're breaking the law. There's no get-out clause if you're breaking a law that can't easily be checked, otherwise it'd be OK to murder people provided you're clever enough to make sure nobody can pin the crime on you



I'd like to think the police have better things to do than pull up cyclists at night who have working lights on their bikes just to check if those working lights comply to some BS.

Pulling a cyclist at night with no lights, or very dim lights is a public service... but pulling a cyclist with 'visually compliant' lights is ridiculous.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> I'd like to think the police have better things to do than pull up cyclists at night who have working lights on their bikes just to check if those working lights comply to some BS.
> 
> Pulling a cyclist at night with no lights, or very dim lights is a public service... but pulling a cyclist with 'visually compliant' lights is ridiculous.



Hence their apparent use of discretion.


----------



## Dan B (16 Jul 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> I'd like to think the police have better things to do than pull up cyclists at night who have working lights on their bikes just to check if those working lights comply to some BS.
> 
> Pulling a cyclist at night with no lights, or very dim lights is a public service... but pulling a cyclist with 'visually compliant' lights is ridiculous.



Personally I'd agree with you, but if you believe "the law is the law" then you can't have one standard of law enforcement for lights and another more or less slack one for pavements, because that's implicitly an admission that some illegal acts are more heinous than others,


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Jul 2011)

Dan B said:


> Personally I'd agree with you, but if you believe "the law is the law" then you can't have one standard of law enforcement for lights and another more or less slack one for pavements, because that's implicitly *an admission that some illegal acts are more heinous than others,*



I'm more than happy to admit that some illegal acts are more heinous than others.


----------



## al78 (16 Jul 2011)

Dan B said:


> Personally I'd agree with you, but if you believe "the law is the law" then you can't have one standard of law enforcement for lights and another more or less slack one for pavements, because that's implicitly an admission that some illegal acts are more heinous than others,



There is a difference between complying with the spirit of the law, if not the exact letter (non BS lights), and ignoring the law altogether (pavement cycling).


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

al78 said:


> There is a difference between complying with the spirit of the law, if not the exact letter (non BS lights), and ignoring the law altogether (pavement cycling).


Best answer I have read so far.


----------



## gaz (16 Jul 2011)

We are not tired to our bikes so we could easily just get of our bikes and push them, thus becoming pedestrians


----------



## JonnyBlade (16 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463384"]
No, it's not simple in that respect. I can give examples of pavements where cycling but there are no markings or signs.
[/quote]

Well that's a council issue and one that I'm sure they would be held to account over should there be an accident. It should be that simple whether you know of the .05% of occasions when it is not.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Well that's a council issue and one that I'm sure they would be held to account over should there be an accident. It should be that simple whether you know of the .05% of occasions when it is not.


I am not alone


----------



## ufkacbln (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Ok a valid point and well made. I concede you are correct
> 
> As for the charges, I do not ride my bike after dusk muh lord.



Quite right too!


----------



## JonnyBlade (16 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463472"]
How do you sign a significant part of a city centre?

Interestingly you mention accidents. There's no history of bike/ped collisions in the shared-use pedestrianised centre of Birmingham, despite much of the area being unsigned on the ground. 

We can all get on in shared areas. And we do. All day, every day. Blue signs don't change that. The stats and views on pavement cycling don't match the views of a few hot-heads and those who don't share the authorities' discretionary approach.

Who do you think might bring the risk?
[/quote]

Well if pedestrians are strolling along and a fast moving cyclist appears it's not difficult to see who is at risk. The obvious answer is both parties of course. Safety works on the fact that not all path users will be aware cyclists are travelling along and may walk straight into one around a corner perhaps. Blue signs at least make people aware of possible hazards. DISCRETION is a wonderful thing when being brought to book. Beyond reasonable doubt and reasonably practicable are what count. The longer it continues the bigger the risk!
Your view on discretion being ok is dodgy to say the least.
Consider a guy on a road bike travelling at 20mph plus and a lady with young kids (running all over the place) that is a visitor to the area and unfamiliar with the councils discretionary lapse! There has to be a clear line of demarcation for safety sake


----------



## Red Light (16 Jul 2011)

al78 said:


> There is a difference between complying with the spirit of the law, if not the exact letter (non BS lights), and ignoring the law altogether (pavement cycling).



How so?

One set of lights has BS markings and is legal, the other doesn't and is illegal. Apart from the markings you can't tell them apart (as Angelfishsolo has commented)

One piece of pavement has blue signs and is legal, the other doesn't and is illegal. Apart from the signs you can't tell them apart.

Can you run the difference by me again?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> How so?
> 
> One set of lights has BS markings and is legal, the other doesn't and is illegal. Apart from the markings you can't tell them apart (as Angelfishsolo has commented)
> 
> ...



The authorities can clearly see the blue signs, they can not see the minute markings on a light.


----------



## gaz (16 Jul 2011)

How do the police know if tinted windows are too dark?
Well some clearly are against the law and others are harder to judge by the eye.
The police are entitled to stop a cyclist and look at their lights in detail to see if they are legal.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> How do the police know if tinted windows are too dark?
> Well some clearly are against the law and others are harder to judge by the eye.
> The police are entitled to stop a cyclist and look at their lights in detail to see if they are legal.


Was chatting to my local plod earlier and he had no idea what I was on about re lights being legal. He does the polices cycle training!


----------



## Red Light (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The authorities can clearly see the blue signs, they can not see the minute markings on a light.



They're not minute and they are clearly visible if you look - but perhaps you are using your Nelson eye or heaven forbid, using illegal lights. At least you know where to look unlike the blue signs which could be anywhere, that is if they are not hidden by vegetation or missing completely.


----------



## Red Light (16 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Was chatting to my local plod earlier and he had no idea what I was on about re lights being legal. He does the polices cycle training!



Hold the front page!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> They're not minute and they are clearly visible if you look - but perhaps you are using your Nelson eye or heaven forbid, using illegal lights. At least you know where to look unlike the blue signs which could be anywhere, that is if they are not hidden by vegetation or missing completely.


Just to get this straight a police officer for eg could more easily see a kite mark on a light than a blue advisory sign?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Hold the front page!


Yawn.


----------



## ufkacbln (16 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> How so?
> 
> One set of lights has BS markings and is legal, the other doesn't and is illegal.



Not actually the case...... lights can comply with the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 (amended in 1994, 1996, 2001, twice in 2005 and again in 2009) and be legal for use, but not comply with any of the British Standards.

Even so it is possible to perfectly use a light that complies with neither RVLR or British Standards if it does comply with any other European Standard. B&M lights are for instance legal as they have a German K classification.

Equally these laws only apply to the primary lighting.

All my bikes have a set of "legal" lights, but I also run a pair of Dinottes on the back and a 720 Lumen LED on the front. All these are perfectly "legal" as they are a backup system..... and therefore do not need to comply as I fulfil the law with the small cheap LEDs


Most Police take the attitude that if a cycle is well lit and not dazzling other road users ten that is fine, especially as in my case the presence of a BS / K / or other marking on the USE or Dinotte lights is completely irrelevant.


----------



## gaz (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Was chatting to my local plod earlier and he had no idea what I was on about re lights being legal. He does the polices cycle training!



It's like pedal reflectors, you are meant to have them by law. many roadies don't and Police never pick up on it. It's such a minor issue.


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Just to get this straight a police officer for eg could more easily see a kite mark on a light than a blue advisory sign?



You are a policeman who has stopped a cyclist on this wonderful bit of pavement alongside the busy A10 approaching the junction with the M11 that is clearly ideal for shared use - NOT. How far are you prepared to walk and in which direction to find out if it has a blue sign making it legal before you decide whether to make an arrest that may or may not be legal depending on the pavement status. While you are thinking about that, how long is it going to take you to have a look at the cyclist's lights to see if they have a kite mark on them?

Also you are a cyclist passing through and new to the area. What sort of checks should you do to make sure its legal before you ride on it? Do you just give up and ride on the A10 to be sure, spot other cyclists on it and hope they know the legality and are following it or walk up and down it to look for a sign before going back, getting on your bike and cycling on it? 

I'm not aware of any maps or databases the police or cyclists could use that mark which pavements have been converted to shared use and which are still pavements to avoid them having to walk the pavement for hundreds of yards in some cases looking for a sign.


----------



## summerdays (17 Jul 2011)

I find that problems often exist of lack of joined up thinking for example where there is a cycle path under a large roundabout and yet the footpath leading up to the underpass doesn't appear to be shared use. Or you use a cycle path which is going against the traffic and then it ends leaving you without a proper option.





At the lower roundabout I usually use the underpasses out of habit and which direction I'm going - and the pavement leading to the underpasses are shared use. 

At the next motorway junction - I usually use the road, but if I didn't I would either have to get off and walk to the slope down to the underpass or cycle on the pavement which appears not to be shared use. There are no drop kerbs near the underpass to encourage only a short distance on the footpath either. I have used the underpass when I'm with another cyclist who prefers to use them.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=eas...d=2XwJCupigboPSkuOUa_itw&cbp=12,44.79,,1,5.54

It is certainly somewhere that you might expect an inexperienced cyclist to be able to use the argument about feeling safer on the pavement.


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> Not actually the case...... lights can comply with the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 (amended in 1994, 1996, 2001, twice in 2005 and again in 2009) and be legal for use, but not comply with any of the British Standards.
> 
> Even so it is possible to perfectly use a light that complies with neither RVLR or British Standards if it does comply with any other European Standard. B&M lights are for instance legal as they have a German K classification.
> 
> Equally these laws only apply to the primary lighting.



That's not quite correct. They have to comply with the RVLR as currently amended as that is the current law, not the versions that were in force in 1989, '94 etc. but have now been superceded. That requires that are marked as complying with BS6102/3 or an equivalent European Standards unless they are only capable of flashing (I'm not aware of any lights that only flash)

The European bit is a bit unclear because is says "equivalent European Standard" So what is equivalent? The German one probably is because its has higher requirements than the BS one but what about the Greek standard? On that one legally you are in a grey area that will need a High Court case to resolve through Case Law.

The primary lighting point is correct.


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> That's not quite correct. They have to comply with the RVLR as currently amended as that is the current law, not the versions that were in force in 1989, '94 etc. but have now been superceded. That requires that are marked as complying with BS6102/3 or an equivalent European Standards unless they are only capable of flashing (I'm not aware of any lights that only flash)
> 
> The European bit is a bit unclear because is says "equivalent European Standard" So what is Sequivalent? The German one probably is because its has higher requirements than the BS one but what about the Greek standard? On that one legally you are in a grey area that will need a High Court case to resolve through Case Law.
> 
> The primary lighting point is correct.



Sorry, but as with most of this it is even less clear than that. A light CAN comply with a superseded standard if that was extant in the year it was bought. Equally there is no distinction about which European standard you apply. 

I have been stopped twice about my lights, once by a Police Cyclist and once by a Senior Inspector.

In both cases I was quizzed for several minutes over my lighting arrangements - Then in both cases they have taken details and then bought similar for themselves!

The point is what is and isn't safe...... my BS6102/3 lights are totally inadequate, but legal


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Jul 2011)

.........or the classic Cateye AU100:








When it was first brought out it had the lovely BS kitemark........... so was legal?

Nope - because at the time LEDs did not comply, so it was the reflector part that carried the BS endorsement


----------



## snailracer (17 Jul 2011)

Apparently, the term "pavement" has no legal definition:

http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/


----------



## snailracer (17 Jul 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Well that's a council issue and one that I'm sure they would be held to account over should there be an accident. It should be that simple whether you know of the .05% of occasions when it is not.


There is no legal requirement for councils to put up blue signs - those are merely recommended in "guidelines" written by an unofficial quango that got abolished recently. Now you probably could sue the council if they had put up signs and failed to maintain them.


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> .........or the classic Cateye AU100:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There was another anomaly on LED lights that might have been the case for the Cateye. The BS was updated to include LED lights, hence the kitemark on LED lights. However the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations had not been updated at the time and called out an earlier version of the BS that was filament lamps only. So although it had the BS Kitemark for bicycle lights, it did not comply with the law. That was corrected in 2005 when the BS called out in the RVLR was brought up to date.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> You are a policeman who has stopped a cyclist on this wonderful bit of pavement alongside the busy A10 approaching the junction with the M11 that is clearly ideal for shared use - NOT. How far are you prepared to walk and in which direction to find out if it has a blue sign making it legal before you decide whether to make an arrest that may or may not be legal depending on the pavement status. While you are thinking about that, how long is it going to take you to have a look at the cyclist's lights to see if they have a kite mark on them?
> 
> Also you are a cyclist passing through and new to the area. What sort of checks should you do to make sure its legal before you ride on it? Do you just give up and ride on the A10 to be sure, spot other cyclists on it and hope they know the legality and are following it or walk up and down it to look for a sign before going back, getting on your bike and cycling on it?
> 
> I'm not aware of any maps or databases the police or cyclists could use that mark which pavements have been converted to shared use and which are still pavements to avoid them having to walk the pavement for hundreds of yards in some cases looking for a sign.



I would not be on the "pavement" full stop. I would be riding on the road in secondary position.


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

snailracer said:


> Apparently, the term "pavement" has no legal definition:
> 
> http://www.bikehub.c...ng-and-the-law/



I think it probably does now. The High Court was recently quite content to use the term pavement instead of footway throughout a case about cycling on the footway. The Judge even referred in his Judgement to "cycling upon the pavement ..... contrary to Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835"


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would not be on the "pavement" full stop. I would be riding on the road in secondary position.



But do you still think its easier for the police to check the legality of riding on the pavement than the legality of the lights on the bike?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> But do you still think its easier for the police to check the legality of riding on the pavement than the legality of the lights on the bike?



I would question if that is indeed a pavement as the definition of such is "a hard-surfaced path for pedestrians alongside and a little higher than a road". Secondly the "pavement is stationary, the bike is moving so yes _unless_ the officer decides to stop the bike to check it is easier to tell if a cyclist is riding on a pavement illegally rather than tell if his lights conform to BS / EU standards.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> I think it probably does now. The High Court was recently quite content to use the term pavement instead of footway throughout a case about cycling on the footway. The Judge even referred in his Judgement to "cycling upon the pavement ..... contrary to Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835"



The CPS certainly refer to pavements on their web site.


----------



## snailracer (17 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> I think it probably does now. The High Court was recently quite content to use the term pavement instead of footway throughout a case about cycling on the footway. The Judge even referred in his Judgement to "cycling upon the pavement ..... contrary to Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835"


Possibly - the judge may have been using "pavement" in it's colloquial sense. However, whether one can legally cycle on it still depends on the specific legal definition, and "pavement" is not that.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463498"]
Bit of a selfish view though, isn't it? What of the parent taking two children into town on their bike, who can't keep up with traffic and doesn't want to mix with the racing cars?
[/quote]

In that respect yes. I don't know that area. I would ask if an alternate route to the same destination exist as the area of road beyond the white line affords no protection to a cyclist and seems to be akin to gutter riding. This is my issue with all such types of cycle paths, pavements whatever they are.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

snailracer said:


> Possibly - the judge may have been using "pavement" in it's colloquial sense. However, whether one can legally cycle on it still depends on the specific legal definition, and "pavement" is not that.



Agreed 100%


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

snailracer said:


> There is no legal requirement for councils to put up blue signs - those are merely recommended in "guidelines" written by an unofficial quango that got abolished recently. Now you probably could sue the council if they had put up signs and failed to maintain them.



Also Blue signs are advisory not mandatory signs  (unless on a Motorway of course)


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463503"]
I'm talking generally. In big cities there often isn't an appropriate alternative route. It's easy for the confident, fast cyclist to speak as you do, especially as you only have yourself to expose to the risk.
[/quote]

Then I guess the answer lies in how much you want to protect your children v how much risk you want them exposed to. In the photo shown I would see no issue with using the area beyond the white line in terms of legality but I would not trust it to offer my children of myself any protection. I would be happier to ride as a family group with the children in secondary and myself in primary to alert other road users to the potential hazards ahead.


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would question if that is indeed a pavement as the definition of such is "a hard-surfaced path for pedestrians alongside and a little higher than a road". Secondly the "pavement is stationary, the bike is moving so yes _unless_ the officer decides to stop the bike to check it is easier to tell if a cyclist is riding on a pavement illegally rather than tell if his lights conform to BS / EU standards.



Its a "pavement". Its meets the criteria of the 1835 Act for "cycling on the pavement" of being a "footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers". Nothing there about its relative height or surface.

It is fun though watching you wriggle to maintain the pretence that illegal lights are somehow acceptable in your world of absolute adherence to the law.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Its a "pavement". Its meets the criteria of the 1835 Act for "cycling on the pavement" of being a "footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers". Nothing there about its relative height or surface.
> 
> It is fun though watching you wriggle to maintain the pretence that illegal lights are somehow acceptable in your world of absolute adherence to the law.



If it is a pavement that riding on it is illegal but as the law states acceptable in certain circumstances. I am not wriggling to maintain a pretence about anything. If lights are illegal then they should not be used from dusk to dawn. My question is short of stopping a cyclist how would a Police Officer or anyone else other than the cyclist know (especially if the light provided adequate lumen's and complied with the flashes per minute regulations) if the lights were BS / EU approved.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463506"]
Please try not to twist what I'm saying to fit your response. I think you know what I'm saying.
[/quote]

I am answering the question based on the training I have received from the CTC in order to become an acredited National Standards / Bikability Instructor.


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> But do you still think its easier for the police to check the legality of riding on the pavement than the legality of the lights on the bike?



Nope neither is an easy task.

To check the legality of riding on the "pavement" the Officer would need access to the specific Traffic Regulation Order that applied to that stretch.

There have been many cases where the TRO and what is on the road differ. For instance the Council takes out a TRO to build a shared Use facility between A and B, but can only afford to build half.... the rest of the route is still legally ridable despite having no markings to that effect.

Equally A TRO may take effect before the Council builds or marks the path. For instance the stretch between Shearwater Avenue in Fareham and Beaulieu Avenue was "legal" to use as a cycle facility some 4 months before the first signpost went up!

Similarly I know of at least one section in Portsmouth where the cycle track was in place before the TRO was in place, so technically although marked, it was illegal to cycle upon it.

Another case is the "South Bank" in London, where there are lots on NO Cycling signs, the Police can only advise cyclists to dismount, but cannot issue an FPN, due to the lack of the TRO to make the act illegal and hence the "No Cycling" is unenforceable.


Which then brings us to the favourite:









Advisory only, no legal standing whatsoever and totally unenforceable


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> In that respect yes. I don't know that area. I would ask if an alternate route to the same destination exist as the area of road beyond the white line affords no protection to a cyclist and seems to be akin to gutter riding. This is my issue with all such types of cycle paths, pavements whatever they are.



Nope, no alternative route that is not miles away. Link

The white line is not a cycle lane but an edge of carriageway line leaving an area beyond of variable and mostly narrow width. It also runs out just as the road becomes a dual carriageway approach to the M11 roundabout.

So what is your solution for the parent with two children? Perhaps they should leave their children at the roadside while they go off to hunt for signs indicating its legal to cycle. If you come out of Church Road to join the cycle track for Cambridge, your first blue sign or any sign indicating its legal to cycle is over 300yds away. At that point the white line on the road is about a foot from the edge.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Nope, no alternative route that is not miles away. Link
> 
> The white line is not a cycle lane but an edge of carriageway line leaving an area beyond of variable and mostly narrow width. It also runs out just as the road becomes a dual carriageway approach to the M11 roundabout.
> 
> So what is your solution for the parent with two children? Perhaps they should leave their children at the roadside while they go off to hunt for signs indicating its legal to cycle. If you come out of Church Road to join the cycle track for Cambridge, your first blue sign or any sign indicating its legal to cycle is over 300yds away. At that point the white line on the road is about a foot from the edge.



As already stated _I would be happier to ride as a family group with the children in secondary and myself behind them in primary to alert other road users to the potential hazards ahead. 
_
Also keep in mind that whilst cyclists have freedom of the highway it is a parents responsibility to ensure the safety of their children. If as a parent you deem it is not safe to ride on a stretch of road don't. As I have already said riding beyond that white line affords no protection to anyone.


----------



## Dan B (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> My question is short of stopping a cyclist how would a Police Officer or anyone else other than the cyclist know (especially if the light provided adequate lumen's and complied with the flashes per minute regulations) if the lights were BS / EU approved.


There are many opportunities to inspect a cyclist's lights when he is not moving: e.g. at bike racks, at junctions, or when you have stopped him for some other reason. Just because it can't be enforced against a moving vehicle doesn't mean they're not exercising discretion in enforcing it at other times


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would be happier to ride as a family group with the children in secondary and myself in primary to alert other road users to the potential hazards ahead.



Would love to see you ride down the A10 there in primary position. And that's on the A10 just outside Cambridge so in an area where most drivers are used to cyclists being on the roads.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Would love to see you ride down the A10 there in primary position. And that's on the A10 just outside Cambridge so in an area where most drivers are used to cyclists being on the roads.



So how would *you* ride on that road with your family? As I have previously stated if a parent deems a road too dangerous for a child to ride on then that road should not be ridden.


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> As I have already said riding beyond that white line affords no protection to anyone.



I wonder if you are looking at the right place. Beyond the white line and beyond the roadside grass is a shared use cycle track of probably 2ft width. Perfectly legal to cycle on but you would only know that by hunting down the signs or, as Cunobelin says, visiting the Council to see if there is a TRO is place.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Dan B said:


> There are many opportunities to inspect a cyclist's lights when he is not moving: e.g. at bike racks, at junctions, or when you have stopped him for some other reason. Just because it can't be enforced against a moving vehicle doesn't mean they're not exercising discretion in enforcing it at other times



I'm sure that they take every opportunity to do just that. Discretion is turning a blind eye to an offence not not bothering to check for an an offence in the first place.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> I wonder if you are looking at the right place. Beyond the white line and beyond the roadside grass is a shared use cycle track of probably 2ft width. Perfectly legal to cycle on but you would only know that by hunting down the signs or, as Cunobelin says, visiting the Council to see if there is a TRO is place.



I will admit to not even seeing that at first. I would consult a map or the authorities before riding anywhere with my children to ensure the legality and their safety. Is that so wrong?


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So how would *you* ride on that road with your family? As I have previously stated if a parent deems a road too dangerous for a child to ride on then that road should not be ridden.



In secondary position. But I am not the issue. I always ride on the road - I used to commute daily ten miles each way along the A10 in the last century and I know the actual dangers are trivial even if it doesn't seem so as traffic flys past you. But there are lots of people who would never ride on it. There is a "pavement" alongside they can legally ride on but confirming its legal is a challenge in itself given the paucity and separation of any blue signs. So is it acceptable for them to ride on it in those circumstances or should they just give up on any thoughts of cycling into Cambridge and instead take the car? And what if the pavement didn't have signs on it? Its still exactly the same pavement. Would it be unacceptable for them to ride on it then?


----------



## theclaud (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The original question asks "Who are pavements for?" The answer is Pedestrians (unless otherwise stated) end of.



Pavements, arguably, are for motorists. That's not a sarcastic dig about endemic pavement parking, but a statement intended to prompt you to think about why we need pavements in the first place. Pavements are for motorists in the sense that Keep Out signs are for landowners - the point is about whose interests thay serve, not to whom their messages are addressed.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> In secondary position. But I am not the issue. I always ride on the road - I used to commute daily ten miles each way along the A10 in the last century and I know the actual dangers are trivial even if it doesn't seem so as traffic flys past you. But there are lots of people who would never ride on it. There is a "pavement" alongside they can legally ride on but confirming its legal is a challenge in itself given the paucity and separation of any blue signs. So is it acceptable for them to ride on it in those circumstances or should they just give up on any thoughts of cycling into Cambridge and instead take the car? And what if the pavement didn't have signs on it? Its still exactly the same pavement. Would it be unacceptable for them to ride on it then?



If after asking the relevant authorities if you can or can not cycle on said "pavement" no satisfactory answer can be given I would ride on it as you have taken all necessary steps in order to attempt to comply with the law.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

theclaud said:


> Pavements, arguably, are for motorists. That's not a sarcastic dig about endemic pavement parking, but a statement intended to prompt you to think about why we need pavements in the first place. Pavements are for motorists in the sense that Keep Out signs are for landowners - the point is about whose interests thay serve, not to whom their messages are addressed.



An extremely interesting argument. The answer is still the same though. Pavements serve the interest of the pedestrian.


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I will admit to not even seeing that at first. I would consult a map or the authorities before riding anywhere with my children to ensure the legality and their safety. Is that so wrong?



So come on, how many times have you gone in to check the TRO at the Council to ensure the legality? And what map would that be that marks up which bits of pavement are legal to cycle on. You're making this up as you go along aren't you?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> So come on, how many times have you gone in to check the TRO at the Council to ensure the legality? And what map would that be that marks up which bits of pavement are legal to cycle on. You're making this up as you go along aren't you?



The LA's have maps that will confirm TRO's. I do not have to check TRO's for road riding as I do not use pavements. I do however check when taking groups out MTB'ing. OS maps provide enough detail to tell is a trail is classed as a road, bridleway, shared access, etc. This is how I was taught to do it. I was also taught if in doubt don't. What do you not understand?


----------



## rowan 46 (17 Jul 2011)

I have to agree that the answer to the question. Who are pavements for? is pedestrians. However I do ride on pavements ( carefully ) the police see me doing it and have never stopped me. The law is there to protect pedestrians and it seems more and more police forces are recognising its spirit. ie If you are being careful and considerate they will turn a blind eye. I repeat a careful and considerate driver/ cyclist/ pedestrian harms no one. My guess is that if cycles had been invented today they probably wouldn't be allowed on the road because of h&s.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I have to agree that the answer to the question. Who are pavements for? is pedestrians. However I do ride on pavements ( carefully ) the police see me doing it and have never stopped me. The law is there to protect pedestrians and it seems more and more police forces are recognising its spirit. ie If you are being careful and considerate they will turn a blind eye. I repeat a careful and considerate driver/ cyclist/ pedestrian harms no one. My guess is that if cycles had been invented today they probably wouldn't be allowed on the road because of h&s.



Valid point. In the same way that police will turn a blind eye to cars doing 80/85 on the motorway (most of the time). It doesn't make it legal just acceptable. There are occasions however when you will get pulled for doing so and the excuse "I haven't been pulled before" will not wash.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463525"]
No, you're selectively ignoring parts of my posts so that you don't have to address them.
[/quote]

Which point - The one about no alternative route? I have addressed that but you fail to recognise it. The law makes allowances for children to ride on pavements so let them ride there. My issue is with lone adults who ride on pavements as I have said from the beginning.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463528"]
Don't be daft. The police have important things to do. 

I've you've been told not to fine pavement cyclists then why would you check whether a pavement is legal for riding or not?
[/quote]

That comment was in reference to checking if lights have kite marks Mr Paul. It was also sarcastic.


----------



## Black Sheep (17 Jul 2011)

Alembicbassman said:


> I used the footpath today when the temporary red light at the roadworks didn't change to green despite the fact no cars were coming in the opposite direction. 50yds,then back on the road, no peds anywhere.



You can actually treat them as a give way on the assumption that the light is broken, just be aware that the light at the other end may be green and to be careful that you can see oncoming traffic etc



Seigi said:


> When I was younger I used to be afraid to cycle on the road, it seemed like a 'adult' thing to do, so I do believe that children up to a certain age should be allowed to cycle on the pavement, as it's obvious they're going to be less visible on the road but also might not have the steadiness or nerve to ride right by cars. But now, at 19, it just feels completely wrong to ride on the pavement, I actually feel far less safe on the pavement as it's not as maintained as the roads are, for a start off.



Children upto a certain height, I can't remember the specifics but if a bike has wheels above a certain size and the saddle a certain height off the ground then it's allowed on the pavement

it also only needs to have one brake



Red Light said:


> But there must be some rationale behind deciding what bits of pavement are suitable for sharing and which not. Any clue what it is because I can't divine it from observing both? And what makes pedestrians capable of sharing on one and incapable on the other?





whichever bits of pavement can be used to fulfill the local authority's cycle lane development quota


----------



## theclaud (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> An extremely interesting argument. The answer is still the same though. Pavements serve the interest of the pedestrian.



It was a hint that you are oversimplifying. Pavements are differentiated from roads. As you're so hot on legality, I wonder why you're not more interested in the effective exclusion of pedestrians from road space, which they may use or occupy without breaking any law whatever. The pavement is both a means and a symbol of this exclusion, or at best a concession in the face of it. How is that a benefit?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

theclaud said:


> It was a hint that you are oversimplifying. Pavements are differentiated from roads. As you're so hot on legality, I wonder why you're not more interested in the effective exclusion of pedestrians from road space, which they may use or occupy without breaking any law whatever. The pavement is both a means and a symbol of this exclusion, or at best a concession in the face of it. How is that a benefit?



Have have never said pedestrians may only walk on the pavements so I fail to see why you allude to the fact I did


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463534"]
Several, but wrt your response above, adults carrying children on their bikes.
[/quote]

I would be personally happier on the road. It is upto the parent to decide what he or she feels is best for that child. Take it a stage further - a pregnant mother? Is she better cycling on pavements?


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The LA's have maps that will confirm TRO's. I do not have to check TRO's for road riding as I do not use pavements. I do however check when taking groups out MTB'ing. OS maps provide enough detail to tell is a trail is classed as a road, bridleway, shared access, etc. This is how I was taught to do it. I was also taught if in doubt don't. What do you not understand?



I love the way you change the subject to avoid the difficult answers. We were talking about cycling on pavements alongside the road, not on bridleways or byways or white roads. So how does the person that would like to use pavements find out?

I think you will find the LA TRO maps are all about Parking and Waiting restrictions and there are no maps of shared use pavement TROs (although I wouldn't rule out the odd one existing as an exception). Someone has tried to do it for Cambridge. Help yourself to wading through it if you want to find out what might and might not be legal to cycle on.

So lets get back to the question. If you want to cycle from A to B and you don't want to cycle on the road how are you expected to know the legality of cycling on the pavement and how are the police expected to know?


----------



## Crackle (17 Jul 2011)

I'm sure this point has already been made back in the annals or anals of this thread. 

I used a shared use path that went from a campsite I was staying at to that quaint Welsh town of Bala. I had to get into town on the bikes with the kids and the dog. To all intent and purposes it's a pavement with some blue signs on, no demarcation of any kind. So as you come across people you negotiate your way around with a few smiles, witty remarks or general pleasantries. Anyway, at some point before it gets to Bala, it vanishes into that mysterious place all cycle paths go, except I failed to notice this and continued on, negotiating my way past people with the Crackle train in tow, until it dawned on me that it was getting quite busy and this must now be pavement and so we all got off before I started scything people down with the lead between me and the dog. During this process we passed two parked cop cars, both of whom smiled at us, even though at that point we were pottering along the pavement. Anyway, what's the fuggin difference, just an arbitrary definition, common sense, should and in most cases does, prevail.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> I love the way you change the subject to avoid the difficult answers. We were talking about cycling on pavements alongside the road, not on bridleways or byways or white roads. So how does the person that would like to use pavements find out?
> 
> I think you will find the LA TRO maps are all about Parking and Waiting restrictions and there are no maps of shared use pavement TROs (although I wouldn't rule out the odd one existing as an exception). Someone has tried to do it for Cambridge. Help yourself to wading through it if you want to find out what might and might not be legal to cycle on.
> 
> So lets get back to the question. If you want to cycle from A to B and you don't want to cycle on the road how are you expected to know the legality of cycling on the pavement and how are the police expected to know?



You asked when I have asked the LA about rights of way, I answered. It seems as though not all LA's are equal.

If by "you" you mean "me" as in individual the situation would not arise as I would use the road. If it is a gerneral you I would work on the (probably flawed) assumption that unless otherwise signed (blue signs, NCN markings, white bicycles drawn on path, demarcation lines) that it is pedestrian only.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

theclaud said:


> It was a hint that you are oversimplifying. Pavements are differentiated from roads. As you're so hot on legality, I wonder why you're not more interested in the *effective exclusion of pedestrians from road space, which they may use or occupy without breaking any law whatever*. The pavement is both a means and a symbol of this exclusion, or at best a concession in the face of it. How is that a benefit?



If a group of pedestrians decided to walk down the middle of the A10 how long do you think it would be before the police were called? Do you think the Police would defend the rights of the Pedestrians?


----------



## theclaud (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Have have never said pedestrians may only walk on the pavements so I fail to see why you allude to the fact I did



I didn't. I'm just trying to open up the discussion into a consideration of what kind of spaces we are talking about. If the pavement is a constrained, compromised space in the first place, it's little wonder that it gives rise to conflict between its users. The legality of (considerate) cyclists' behaviour is a side issue. Ask yourself why the space that pedestrians feel is theirs is so vulnerable and inadequate that they might consider themselves threatened or endangered by a cyclist bimbling along in the same space at 10mph.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

theclaud said:


> I didn't. I'm just trying to open up the discussion into a consideration of what kind of spaces we are talking about. If the pavement is a constrained, compromised space in the first place, it's little wonder that it gives rise to conflict between its users. The legality of (considerate) cyclists' behaviour is a side issue. Ask yourself why the space that pedestrians feel is theirs is so vulnerable and inadequate that they might consider themselves threatened or endangered by a cyclist bimbling along in the same space at 10mph.



The average ped walks at say 3mp. Being hit at even 10mph will do damage to said ped and possibly the rider.


----------



## theclaud (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If a group of pedestrians decided to walk down the middle of the A10 how long do you think it would be before the police were called? Do you think the Police would defend the rights of the Pedestrians?



I'm not sure why you are asking me either of those questions.


----------



## Crackle (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The average ped walks at say 3mp. Being hit at even 10mph will do damage to said ped and possibly the rider.




And how is that different on a shared use path?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

theclaud said:


> I'm not sure why you are asking me either of those questions.



Because you stated "Pavements are differentiated from roads. As you're so hot on legality, I wonder why you're not more interested in the *effective exclusion of pedestrians from road space, which they may use or occupy without breaking any law whatever*."


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Crackle said:


> And how is that different on a shared use path?



Peds on a shared path should be expecting cyclists. The damage caused will be no different obviously.


----------



## theclaud (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The average ped walks at say 3mp. Being hit at even 10mph will do damage to said ped and possibly the rider.



So is it OK if runners travelling at 10mph+ use the pavement?


----------



## Crackle (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Peds on a shared path should be expecting cyclists. The damage caused will be no different obviously.




So no difference whatsoever and it doesn't really matter if they are expecting a cyclist or not, the onus is on the cyclist to pass safely, not the pedestrian to lookout and take evasive action. Besides, by my empirical measurements, 90% don't expect a cyclist or lookout for them.


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You asked when I have asked the LA about rights of way, I answered. It seems as though not all LA's are equal.



Wow!!! And so brazen about it too! Go back and read the post you were replying to. I asked how many times you had gone into the Council to check a TRO. And what map marks up the bits of pavement that are legal to cycle on. Not a mention of rights of way in sight.

Perhaps you could post a photo of some of the TRO map with the shared use and segregated pavement TROs marked on it that your unequal LA has provided you so we can see it exists.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

theclaud said:


> So is it OK if runners travelling at 10mph+ use the pavement?



They are still peds so yes. I believe they would have less inertia that a cyclists if a collision were to occur.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Wow!!! And so brazen about it too! Go back and read the post you were replying to. I asked how many times you had gone into the Council to check a TRO. And what map marks up the bits of pavement that are legal to cycle on. Not a mention of rights of way in sight.
> 
> Perhaps you could post a photo of some of the TRO map with the shared use and segregated pavement TROs marked on it that your unequal LA has provided you so we can see it exists.



I have phone my LA to confirm legality of routes. I take them at their word. I have not seen said maps. Phone 01443 494700 between 8:30 - 5:00 Monday - Friday.


----------



## theclaud (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Because you stated "Pavements are differzentiated from roads. As you're so hot on legality, I wonder why you're not more interested in the *effective exclusion of pedestrians from road space, which they may use or occupy without breaking any law whatever*."



And you responded with questions about anticipated public and police behaviour in the face of hypothetical events that are irrelevant to the thread. Just to clarify, I meant use or occupy not in the sense of hold a demonstration, but in the everyday sense that people use or occupy public spaces in the course of going about their business.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

theclaud said:


> And you responded with questions about anticipated public and police behaviour in the face of hypothetical events that are irrelevant to the thread. Just to clarify, I meant use or occupy not in the sense of hold a demonstration, but in the everyday sense that people use or occupy public spaces in the course of going about their business.



Which implies pedestrians may walk on roads (doesn't it). I am taking the implication to the next logical step.


----------



## theclaud (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> They are still peds so yes. I believe they would have less inertia that a cyclists if a collision were to occur.



Cyclist at 5mph, runner at 12? Considerate cyclist at 10 mph on a wide pavement, runner expecting everyone else to get out of the way on a narrow one?


----------



## Crackle (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> They are still peds so yes. I believe they would have less inertia that a cyclists if a collision were to occur.



You believe: So who has the greatest inertia. A 85Kg runner doing 10mph or a 65Kg cyclist with a 14Kg bike doing 10mph?


----------



## theclaud (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Which implies pedestrians may walk on roads (doesn't it). I am taking the implication to the next logical step.



I walk on the road a lot. I'm not sure it's logical to assume when I say that that I am talking about walking down the middle of the A10.


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> They are still peds so yes. I believe they would have less inertia that a cyclists if a collision were to occur.



ITYM momentum and given the wide range of rider masses and the relatively small mass of a bike relative to the rider it could be less or it could be more.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Crackle said:


> You believe: So who has the greatest inertia. A 85Kg runner doing 10mph or a 65Kg cyclist with a 14Kg bike doing 10mph?


Same inertia. Bike more likely to cause more injury do to it almost certainly being made of metal.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463557"]
See, again you're only applying it to yourself. 

You need to consider the bigger picture and think about, for example, a mother with three children attached to her bike who chooses quiet roads as much as possible but is unable to avoid a substantial stretch of very busy road with a lovely, wide pavement alongside.
[/quote]
The law makes alowences for this. I am not against this type of riding although I could never advocate it.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463560"]
And unsigned city centres? We get on. In harmony. Outside of the angry internet telling us that we don't, or shouldn't.
[/quote]
Then I am very happy for you


----------



## Crackle (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Same inertia. Bike more likely to cause more injury do to it almost certainly being made of metal.




No. Momentum is a product of mass and speed. As for the bike it may or may not be a part of the collision.


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I have phone my LA to confirm legality of routes. I take them at their word. I have not seen said maps. Phone 01443 494700 between 8:30 - 5:00 Monday - Friday.



So when you kept talking about maps of the TROs provided by the LAs people could refer to you were in fact making it up? Getting a straight answer from you is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463565"]
So, you're not against illegal pavement cycling if it's appropriate and considerate?
[/quote]
I can't say that.


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Crackle said:


> No. Momentum is a product of mass and speed. As for the bike it may or may not be a part of the collision.



No, momentum is a property of a moving mass only, inertia is the property of a mass whether its moving or not. A stationary body has no momentum but it still has inertia.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> So when you kept talking about maps of the TROs provided by the LAs people could refer to you were in fact making it up? Getting a straight answer from you is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.


My Mum used to work for the LA. If I ask the LA for info I know they have maps. Who do you think is responsible for the authorisation of these TRO?


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> My Mum used to work for the LA. If I ask the LA for info I know they have maps. Who do you think is responsible for the authorisation of these TRO?



Yes, they have TRO maps showing all the waiting and parking restrictions just like this one.

I've yet to see a map of cycle track TROs


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I can't say that.



Of course you can't. You've spent so long trying to avoid having to say it you couldn't possibly say it now.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Yes, they have TRO maps showing all the waiting and parking restrictions just like this one.
> 
> I've yet to see a map of cycle track TROs


The LA's authorise the cycleways. I guess they keep no record of what they have authorised then?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Of course you can't. You've spent so long trying to avoid having to say it you couldn't possibly say it now.


I have no personal issue with children riding on pavements. It is adults I have been talking about throughout as well you know.


----------



## JonnyBlade (17 Jul 2011)

me thinks this is becoming a little volatile and ner ner ner ner ner!


----------



## Crackle (17 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> No, momentum is a property of a moving mass only, inertia is the property of a mass whether its moving or not. A stationary body has no momentum but it still has inertia.



Within the context of what he meant rather than what he said.


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Jul 2011)

Actually children are NOT allowed to cycle on pavements, it is illegal.....the difference is that under 10 they cannot be prosecuted as they are below the age of responsibility. There is absolutely no discretion for age in the legislation... Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888 extends the definition of "carriage" to include "bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines, and this is the one that is normally used.

Shame really as most cycles are (technically) defined under the 2003 Pedal Bicycles (Safety) Regulations that describe a bicycle, theoreticaly exempting trikes and unicycles.Equally recumbents do't need bells if the "saddle" is below 63 cms.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> Actually children are NOT allowed to cycle on pavements, it is illegal.....the difference is that under 10 they cannot be prosecuted as they are below the age of responsibility. There is absolutely no discretion for age in the legislation... Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888 extends the definition of "carriage" to include "bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines, an dthis is the one that is normally used.
> 
> Shame really as most cycles are (technically) defined under the 2003 Pedal Bicycles (Safety) Regulations that describe a bicycle, theoreticaly exempting trikes and unicycles.Equally recumbents do't need bells if the "saddle" is below 63 cms.


BTW <16 can not be given a FPN.


----------



## Crackle (17 Jul 2011)

There's only one place this thread is going


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463578"]
Didn't you just say that you were happy for adults carrying children on their bikes to use the pavement? 

And I don't think this is getting heated. This always happens when over-arching statements are broken down.
[/quote]
Granted. I should have said lone or group of adults without children.


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The LA's authorise the cycleways. I guess they keep no record of what they have authorised then?



Yes they do but TRO by TRO and usually in a way that is difficult to search through them to find out whether there is one for a particular location. Keeping no maps does not mean keeping no records, they just tend to be "Beware of the Leopard" records.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463578"]
Didn't you just say that you were happy for adults carrying children on their bikes to use the pavement? 

And I don't think this is getting heated. This always happens when over-arching statements are broken down.
[/quote]
Granted. I should have said lone or group of adults without children.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463583"]
Fair enough. And if it's ok for parents to break the law, why is it not ok for a timid cyclist on the same route?
[/quote]
I would suggest that timid cyclist seek training. What would you think about a timid driver using the hard shoulder?


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Crackle said:


> There's only one place this thread is going



You think this thread's fundamental then?


----------



## Red Light (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would suggest that timid cyclist seek training. What would you think about a timid driver using the hard shoulder?



A driver has to have demonstrated a competence to drive on the roads before they can get a license. Anyone as timid as you suggest would not get a license in the first place or if they did would quickly have it removed. Cyclists are very different and anyone can cycle at any age.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> A driver has to have demonstrated a competence to drive on the roads before they can get a license. Anyone as timid as you suggest would not get a license in the first place or if they did would quickly have it removed. Cyclists are very different and anyone can cycle at any age.


Just because cyclists are unlicenced does not mean they have no responsibility to ensure they are equiped to deal with situations they may find themselves in. What happens to a timid cyclist whem a pavement is closed or blocked?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463589"]
Irrelevant (again). As you've acknowledged now, this isn't about the law.
[/quote]
Are you suggesting that cyclists should be above the law and have special rights granted to them? It seems as though you feel we should be allowed to ride everywhere and anywheqe we choose.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463592"]
It doesn't seem that at all. 

What I do think, and what should be very clear by now, is that an element of discretion is needed wrt pavement cycling, to recognise the huge benefit to society that increasing the number of people cycling brings, and to overcome the unacceptable situation that we've been forced into by king car. 

This discretion is rightfully accepted by the authorities, and now by you.
[/quote]
As long as discretion and legality are understood to be different things I am ok with pavements being used as a gateway to road cycling. I do not see it as an alternativd.


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> BTW <16 can not be given a FPN.



Correct - but they can be dealt with by a Police Officer as having committed an offence


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> Correct - but they can be dealt with by a Police Officer as having committed an offence


Indeed.


----------



## summerdays (17 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> theclaud said:
> 
> 
> > So is it OK if runners travelling at 10mph+ use the pavement?
> ...



One factor you have ignored is that bikes have brakes whereas a runner doesn't.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (17 Jul 2011)

summerdays said:


> One factor you have ignored is that bikes have brakes whereas a runner doesn't.


Take that up with god or naturd as a design flaw.


----------



## MontyVeda (17 Jul 2011)

summerdays said:


> One factor you have ignored is that bikes have brakes whereas a runner doesn't.



yet amazingly they still have the ability to slow down and stop.


----------



## gaz (17 Jul 2011)

Runners have brakes. Just not ones that apply to rims.


----------



## NeilEB (18 Jul 2011)

Not sure if it's just me, but round my area there is a fantastic network of cycle lanes. 

Unfortunately too often there are cars parked on the cycles lanes, making them unusable. Which is a shame


----------



## Red Light (18 Jul 2011)

NeilEB said:


> Unfortunately too often there are cars parked on the cycles lanes, making them unusable. Which is a shame



Probably not. Drivers pass closer if there is a cycle lane than if there isn't.


----------



## NeilEB (18 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Probably not. Drivers pass closer if there is a cycle lane than if there isn't.




Meh the roads are pretty narrow anyway - can just about fit two cars on it (with the parked cars). If a bus comes along, traffic stops anyway.

Just can't see the point of having cycle lanes and then allowing cars to park on them. Particualrly as the lanes are part of the london loop


----------



## JonnyBlade (18 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463592"]
It doesn't seem that at all. 

What I do think, and what should be very clear by now, is that an element of discretion is needed wrt pavement cycling, to recognise the huge benefit to society that increasing the number of people cycling brings, and to overcome the unacceptable situation that we've been forced into by king car. 

This discretion is rightfully accepted by the authorities, and now by you.
[/quote]

Will there be notices within this discretion to suggest that cyclists may or may not cycle on said pavements?


----------



## Dreamcatcher (18 Jul 2011)

gavroche said:


> I am a pedestrian, a cyclist and a motorist.
> As a pedestrian, it irritates me when I see cyclists using the pavement when they are not entitled to use them.
> It seems that many cyclist nowadays, think that it is ok to use the pavement for cycling as it is safer than the roads.
> Wrong!!! Cyclists are only allowed the use pavements if these pavements are designated as cycling paths also.
> ...




Live and let live, why can't we all just get along? Just because they are the "Rules of the Highway code" does not mean that we should all become private officers of the law and demand that everyone strictly adheres to them.


----------



## JonnyBlade (18 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463604"]
I'm not sure what you're asking.
[/quote]


I'm thinking that just leaving something as discretionary isn't safe. Great for regular users and locals that are aware but fast road bikes and pedestrians sounds like a recipe for disaster?


----------



## Dan B (18 Jul 2011)

Even fast road bikes can be ridden slowly. Not seeing a big problem there. If you mean fast cyclists then the simple and obvious answer is Don't Do That Then.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Jul 2011)

Dreamcatcher said:


> Live and let live, why can't we all just get along? Just because they are the "Rules of the Highway code" does not mean that we should all become private officers of the law and demand that everyone strictly adheres to them.



Wherein lies another problem!

Next time you go out, think about just how much you rely on other people doing what is "expected"

As you approach a junction, the reason you blithely sail on through is because you rely on the driver t the junction obeying the Highway Code and stopping!

In virtually every decision you make on tomorrow's ride, you will mentally analyse the road and what the Highway Code says will happen. THese interactions only work if the road users do in fact strictly adhere to these rules.You totally rely on this assumption.

"Accidents" happen when one or other of the participants acts fails to observe the code and acts in an unpredictable way


----------



## Dreamcatcher (19 Jul 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> Wherein lies another problem!
> 
> Next time you go out, think about just how much you rely on other people doing what is "expected"
> 
> ...



We were talking about cyclists on the pavement and in my experience cyclists including me do this usually when there are no pedestrians there and only for a brief time while taking a short cut. I don't understand another cyclist getting irritated by this.

As for blithely sailing on through a junction just because one has the right of way is the action of someone with a death wish. I never, repeat, never assume that other road users will do what is expected of them, that is how I have survived into middle age.

Regards, Chris

P.s. Something I learned from cycling in France in the Eighties is that Red traffic lights do not apply to cyclists. If you remember this you will have a smoother ride with fewer stops and it will condition your legs for fast acceleration!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Jul 2011)

Dreamcatcher said:


> We were talking about cyclists on the pavement and in my experience cyclists including me do this usually when there are no pedestrians there and only for a brief time while taking a short cut. I don't understand another cyclist getting irritated by this.
> 
> As for blithely sailing on through a junction just because one has the right of way is the action of someone with a death wish. I never, repeat, never assume that other road users will do what is expected of them, that is how I have survived into middle age.
> 
> ...


Discresion is aimed at the young and those who ard nervious about riding on the road. Which catagorey do you fall into?
Anyone who RLJs has a deathwish.


----------



## MontyVeda (19 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> *Discresion is aimed at the young and those who ard nervious about riding on the road.* Which catagorey do you fall into?
> Anyone who RLJs has a deathwish.



And those who are in a much safer position on the pavement (IMO a wide one) than on the road/bus lane. 

With regards to RLJ, I'm with you, aprt from the pedestrian crossing near me which is often on red but not a ped in sight because they jaywalk rather than wait for the green man. I sail through that one.

Maybe I should open another thread titled 'is it acceptable to occasionally RLJ on a ped crossing wit no peds?" ... we should be summarising this thread by now.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Jul 2011)

Dreamcatcher said:


> But you do, as do we all.
> 
> Think about it next time you are out...... every time you approach a junction and there is a car, do you stop and let it out? Or do you carry on relying on the fact that they will stop?
> 
> You would not get very far at all if you stop at every side road with a car!


----------



## Dreamcatcher (19 Jul 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> But you do, as do we all.
> 
> Think about it next time you are out...... every time you approach a junction and there is a car, do you stop and let it out? Or do you carry on relying on the fact that they will stop?
> 
> You would not get very far at all if you stop at every side road with a car!



I make eye contact with the driver, I read the body language of the vehicle and I look for an escape route whilst I maintain my progress. Stop? Never!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Jul 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> But you do, as do we all.
> 
> Think about it next time you are out...... every time you approach a junction and there is a car, do you stop and let it out? Or do you carry on relying on the fact that they will stop?
> 
> You would not get very far at all if you stop at every side road with a car!


There are none so blind as those who don't want to see. 
<sarcasm>Pavement cycling is fine as it is of benefit to cyclists </sarcasm>


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Jul 2011)

Dreamcatcher said:


> I make eye contact with the driver, I read the body language of the vehicle and I look for an escape route whilst I maintain my progress. Stop? Never!


and if the driver is looking straight ahead? Do you do the same at green traffic lights?


----------



## gaz (19 Jul 2011)

MontyVeda said:


> With regards to RLJ, I'm with you, aprt from the pedestrian crossing near me which is often on red but not a ped in sight because they jaywalk rather than wait for the green man. I sail through that one.



No such thing as jaywalking in the UK, which is a great thing.
The problem with pedestrian crossings is that there is purposefully a delay on them to stack up pedestrians so road users are stopped for a short a time as possible. This obviously leads to pedestrians walking across the road when it's free because they don't want to wait.


----------



## Red Light (19 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Anyone who RLJs has a deathwish.



Really? Would you like to back that up with some evidence that RLJing is death wish dangerous for a cyclist?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Really? Would you like to back that up with some evidence that RLJing is death wish dangerous for a cyclist?


Cyclist v car in side or headon impact. Cyclist loses. You can quote stats all you want. I cam prove to you that not wearing underware will radicaly reduce your chance of a car crash. Only idiots run red lights and only idiots condone such actions. Fact.


----------



## gaz (20 Jul 2011)

People think of Lucas brunelle videos when rljing comes up. Cyclists blazing through red traffic lights with what appears to be no regards for anyone else of their own safety.

But in reality is it like that? I rarely see cyclists in London just ride through a junction like they own the road, 98% of them slow down, look and move across when it's safe to do so. They are basically treating it like a give way line and those aren't dangerous.

I don't agree with any form of rljing, some don't have a deathwise!


----------



## Red Light (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Cyclist v car in side or headon impact. Cyclist loses.



Yes, but how often does that happen to RLJing cyclists? You must have information that lots of cyclists get killed that way to describe doing it as having a death wish, so I was interested in your evidence. I'm not condoning it, just asking for the evidence that doing it is having a death wish.


----------



## Red Light (20 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> But in reality is it like that? I rarely see cyclists in London just ride through a junction like they own the road, 98% of them slow down, look and move across when it's safe to do so. They are basically treating it like a give way line and those aren't dangerous.



In fact they tend to treat the junction just like a pedestrian would. I've never heard pedestrians crossing a junction being described as having a death wish. I don't condone cyclists doing it but I don't condone wildly exaggerating the dangers of cycling either.


----------



## Dreamcatcher (20 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> In fact they tend to treat the junction just like a pedestrian would. I've never heard pedestrians crossing a junction being described as having a death wish. I don't condone cyclists doing it but I don't condone wildly exaggerating the dangers of cycling either.



+1


----------



## John the Monkey (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> There are none so blind as those who don't want to see.
> <sarcasm>Pavement cycling is fine as it is of benefit to cyclists </sarcasm>



Interestingly, in a discussion on the bike show about the ethics of red light jumping, that was pretty much the conclusion, iirc.

Tangentially related, I saw a chap who jumps one of the lights I wait at again today. Last time I saw him, he said it was because his bike didn't trigger the sensor. (Mine does, but then it's a big, steel tourer). Today, the same chap jumped the same light, even though there was a car ahead (which the sensor would undoubtedly have picked up). f you want a link to this topic, he jumped the light by going around the car ahead on the pavement.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Yes, but how often does that happen to RLJing cyclists? You must have information that lots of cyclists get killed that way to describe doing it as having a death wish, so I was interested in your evidence. I'm not condoning it, just asking for the evidence that doing it is having a death wish.



It is all about probable outcome. A bike v a car will lose. I have no stats and my statement does not need them. (I would need stats if I said "they will almost certainly die")


----------



## apollo179 (20 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> In fact they tend to treat the junction just like a pedestrian would. I've never heard pedestrians crossing a junction being described as having a death wish. I don't condone cyclists doing it but I don't condone wildly exaggerating the dangers of cycling either.


+1
agreed.


----------



## gaz (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> It is all about probable outcome. A bike v a car will lose. I have no stats and my statement does not need them. (I would need stats if I said "they will almost certainly die")


As I said, 98% of them don't cycle through without looking, they treat it like a give way line. So the risks you suggest aren't their as they only go if it's clear.
Obviously a few don't do that.

You can say that in any situation a bicycle vs car, the bicycle will loose, so why bother cycling? Just buy a car.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> In fact they tend to treat the junction just like a pedestrian would. I've never heard pedestrians crossing a junction being described as having a death wish. I don't condone cyclists doing it but I don't condone wildly exaggerating the dangers of cycling either.



I am not wilding exaggerating the dangers of cycling. I am highlighing the dangers of running a red-light. Would you tell you children that it's statistically safe to do so (whilst not condoning it)?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> As I said, 98% of them don't cycle through without looking, they treat it like a give way line. So the risks you suggest aren't their as they only go if it's clear.
> Obviously a few don't do that.
> 
> You can say that in any situation a bicycle vs car, the bicycle will loose, so why bother cycling? Just buy a car.



A car can travel so much faster than a bike that a quick look at relights means nothing. Yes the bike will lose every time; this is why cyclists should make themselves as safe as possible through correct road craft and observation of traffic regulations and road signs.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am not wilding exaggerating the dangers of cycling. I am highlighing the dangers of running a red-light. Would you tell you children that it's statistically safe to do so (whilst not condoning it)?



To be fair the comparison with children is not valid because this discussion is not about children. If it were about children then you would win the arguement hands down and everyone would agree with you. But it isnt. Its about adult cyclists using there road sense to cross the road as expeditiously as possible - just as adult pedestrians do.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> To be fair the comparison with children is not valid because this discussion is not about children. If it were about children then you would win the arguement hands down and everyone would agree with you. But it isnt. Its about adult cyclists using there road sense to cross the road as expeditiously as possible - just as adult pedestrians do.



Ok. If it is a matter of expedience why can cyclists ignore red lights and cars can't?


----------



## gaz (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> A car can travel so much faster than a bike that a quick look at relights means nothing. Yes the bike will lose every time; this is why cyclists should make themselves as safe as possible through correct road craft and observation of traffic regulations and road signs.


As we all know, using give way lines is incredibly dangerous because cars can travel soooo fast.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> As we all know, using give way lines is incredibly dangerous because cars can travel soooo fast.



Hence "as safe as possible".


----------



## apollo179 (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Ok. If it is a matter of expedience why can cyclists ignore red lights and cars can't?



In the real world because cyclists cant get caught by enforcement cameras and cars can. Take enforcement out of the equation and you get cars and bikes and pedestrians all obeying and disobeying red lights to various degrees as they want. Just look at countries where they dont have enforcement cameras - its each man for himself. Im not saying its good , its bad but thats why "can cyclists ignore red lights and cars can't".


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> In the real world because cyclists cant get caught by enforcement cameras and cars can. Take enforcement out of the equation and you get cars and bikes and pedestrians all obeying and disobeying red lights to various degrees as they want. Just look at countries where they dont have enforcement cameras - its each man for himself. Im not saying its good , its bad but thats why "can cyclists ignore red lights and cars can't".



and we wonder why there is so much anti-cycling feeling around.


----------



## gaz (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Hence "as safe as possible".


You make out that rljing is very dangerous and anyone that does it is going to die. Which is not the case.

Your as safe as possible was in reference to general road use not rljing


----------



## apollo179 (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> and we wonder why there is so much anti-cycling feeling around.



I dont see how that follows. I applaud anyone i see bending the rules when the rules are ridiculous.
Just as you would encourage cyclists to command their road space (ie - not cycle in the gutter) i dont see why you dont back cyclists who take the initiative at junctions / lights.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> You make out that rljing is very dangerous and anyone that does it is going to die. Which is not the case.
> 
> Your as safe as possible was in reference to general road use not rljing



I did not say "_*going to die*_" I said a _*death wish*_. Look up the meaning of the phrase you will see it means "an (unconscious) urge die". The two are not the same thing at all. You can turn on a light swith with wet hands and 999 times out of a 1000 you will be OK. You still have a death wish.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I dont see how that follows. I applaud anyone i see bending the rules when the rules are ridiculous.
> Just as you would encourage cyclists to command their road space (ie - not cycle in the gutter) i dont see why you dont back cyclists who take the initiative at junctions / lights.



One is legal the other is not. Junctions (unless there is a solid white line across them) are not the same as red lights.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> One is legal the other is not. Junctions (unless there is a solid white line across them) are not the same as red lights.


Ok ive ammended it to -

I dont see how that follows. I applaud anyone i see bending the rules when the rules are ridiculous.
Just as you would encourage cyclists to command their road space (ie - not cycle in the gutter) i dont see why you dont back cyclists who take the initiative at lights.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Ok ive ammended it to -
> 
> I dont see how that follows. I applaud anyone i see bending the rules when the rules are ridiculous.
> Just as you would encourage cyclists to command their road space (ie - not cycle in the gutter) i dont see why you dont back cyclists who take the initiative at lights.



One is legal one is not.Cars who take initiative are filmed and uploaded to Youtube and the like but bikes are ok for some reason????


----------



## apollo179 (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> One is legal one is not.


Agreed.
The question therefore is - should we follow the law blindly or should we query the law and think for ourselves. And ultimately when we disagree or do not see the point of a law - do we disobey it?
In this pc age the law is increasing becoming discredited . Where laws are introduced that a large, otherwise law abiding, part of the population dont agree with (and some inevitably break), that is when the law is an ass and the law in general becomes discredited.


----------



## d87heaven (20 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Agreed.
> The question therefore is - should we follow the law blindly or should we query the law and think for ourselves. And ultimately when we disagree or do not see the point of a law - do we disobey it?
> In this pc age the law is increasing becoming discredited . Where laws are introduced that a large, otherwise law abiding, part of the population dont agree with (and some inevitably break), that is when the law is an ass and the law in general becomes discredited.




So by that argument is speeding ok then? Almost everyone does it.


----------



## gaz (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I did not say "_*going to die*_" I said a _*death wish*_. Look up the meaning of the phrase you will see it means "an (unconscious) urge die". The two are not the same thing at all. You can turn on a light swith with wet hands and 999 times out of a 1000 you will be OK. You still have a death wish.


Deathwish implies that an act is highly dangerous. But a cyclist has control over when they go, if they treat it like a give way line and go when they see it is safe to go then there is no chance of getting hit. And that is what the majority do.
As I said before, using give way lines isn't dangerous?


----------



## apollo179 (20 Jul 2011)

d87heaven said:


> So by that argument is speeding ok then? Almost everyone does it.


Yes - good point.
Same thing.
Everyone speeds on the motorway.
Speed limit off 70mph = law universally ingnored and law discredited.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Agreed.
> The question therefore is - should we follow the law blindly or should we query the law and think for ourselves. And ultimately when we disagree or do not see the point of a law - do we disobey it?
> In this pc age the law is increasing becoming discredited . Where laws are introduced that a large, otherwise law abiding, part of the population dont agree with (and some inevitably break), that is when the law is an ass and the law in general becomes discredited.



I think that a large majority of people agree that stopping at red lights is a good idea. Thus your argument falls down. If you feel that strongly why not operate within the law to get the law changed. Write to your MP, get a petition going, get spot son local radio, anything to get public attention that is within the law. <flippancy mode>Or if you hate British law so much, move to another country. </flippancy mode>


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> Deathwish implies that an act is highly dangerous. But a cyclist has control over when they go, if they treat it like a give way line and go when they see it is safe to go then there is no chance of getting hit. And that is what the majority do.
> As I said before, using give way lines isn't dangerous?



Do the majority do it? Maybe in cities but across the country? I think not.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes - good point.
> Same thing.
> Everyone speeds on the motorway.
> Speed limit off 70mph = law universally ingnored and law discredited.



Remember that argument the next time you get a speeding fine


----------



## gaz (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Do the majority do it? Maybe in cities but across the country? I think not.


So people in the country just cycle across a red light basically blindfolded? I think not.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I think that a large majority of people agree that stopping at red lights is a good idea. Thus your argument falls down. If you feel that strongly why not operate within the law to get the law changed. Write to your MP, get a petition going, get spot son local radio, anything to get public attention that is within the law. <flippancy mode>Or if you hate British law so much, move to another country. </flippancy mode>


I would say at over half of cyclist ignore lights so thats over half of the cycling population criminalised = law in disrepute.
I can only afford a move to wales so i figure staying put is my best option.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> So people in the country just cycle across a red light basically blindfolded? I think not.



People outside of cities seem to obey traffic laws.


----------



## d87heaven (20 Jul 2011)

I would argue the point that everyone speeds on the motorway. Lorries are restricted for instance, plus some people just abide by the law as much as they can.
What about speeding in towns? what about speeding on A roads, B roads? Loads of people do it.

What about mobile phone use whilst driving? Loads of people do that as well.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Remember that argument the next time you get a speeding fine



thats partly why i took up cycling - to avoid the madness that surrounds car ownership.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I would say at over half of cyclist ignore lights so thats over half of the cycling population criminalised = law in disrepute.
> I can only afford a move to wales so i figure staying put is my best option.



Great. So if the majority of people drove without insurance that would put the law in disrepute would it? I think not. In some areas racial hatred is a majority opinion. Should that be made legal as well?


----------



## apollo179 (20 Jul 2011)

d87heaven said:


> I would argue the point that everyone speeds on the motorway. Lorries are restricted for instance, plus some people just abide by the law as much as they can.
> What about speeding in towns? what about speeding on A roads, B roads? Loads of people do it.
> 
> What about mobile phone use whilst driving? Loads of people do that as well.


Lets be guided by what mr reasonable does. he goes over 70mph on the motorway but goes below the 30mph limit driving past a school.
We are not talking about the lunatic extremes.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

d87heaven said:


> I would argue the point that everyone speeds on the motorway. Lorries are restricted for instance, plus some people just abide by the law as much as they can.
> What about speeding in towns? what about speeding on A roads, B roads? Loads of people do it.
> 
> What about mobile phone use whilst driving? Loads of people do that as well.



It seems to me as though the argument is if enough people do it then the law should be changed. What a load of bollox.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Lets be guided by what mr reasonable does. he goes over 70mph on the motorway but goes below the 30mph limit driving past a school.
> We are not talking about the lunatic extremes.



Does he?Tha majority of people will rive about 30mph in a 30mph zone, that is why speed cameras are deployed so frequently on A and B roads. By your argument of majority makes it right the 30mph law should be lifted.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Great. So if the majority of people drove without insurance that would put the law in disrepute would it? I think not. In some areas racial hatred is a majority opinion. Should that be made legal as well?


If the majority of people drove without insurance i certainly would say that something needs to be looked at and the matter needs investigating - maybe the law needs changing or something else needs doing , but definitely it needs to be looked at - not just blindly plod on following the law - criminalising over 50% of the poulation.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Does he?Tha majority of people will rive about 30mph in a 30mph zone, that is why speed cameras are deployed so frequently on A and B roads. By your argument of majority makes it right the 30mph law should be lifted.


What - whos saying that the 30mph limit should be lifted.
Mr reasonable drives below the 30mph limit.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If the majority of people drove without insurance i certainly would say that something needs to be looked at and the matter needs investigating - maybe the law needs changing or something else needs doing , but definitely it needs to be looked at - not just blindly plod on following the law - criminalising over 50% of the poulation.



I can not get my head around the "blindly following" attitude. As I say if you feel so strongly about "stupid laws" take action, Here's an idea, stand for election on a campaign of getting such laws abolished.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> What - whos saying that the 30mph limit should be lifted.
> Mr reasonable drives below the 30mph limit.



Not by my observations. After all this whole argument is based around what is seen on a daily basis correct. I see only a handful of people obey 30mph speed limits in my area.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> It seems to me as though the argument is if enough people do it then the law should be changed. What a load of bollox.


If enough people do it then the law should at least be questioned and the matter investigated.
Your policy of zombie like law following leaves no room for ammendment , re-appraisal and improving the law , updating the law, where found to be appropriate.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If enough people do it then the law should at least be questioned and the matter investigated.
> Your policy of zombie like law following leaves no room for ammendment , re-appraisal and improving the law , updating the law, where found to be appropriate.



Lets just say that were laws seem perfectly sensible, like stopping at red lights I will do so. If I were arrested for opening a hardboiled egg from the wrong end I "might" be upset. I fail to see why you think stopping at a red light is blindly following the law. By your reasoning we should encourage all road users to run red lights. In fact do away with them all and have give way junctions instead.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Not by my observations. After all this whole argument is based around what is seen on a daily basis correct. I see only a handful of people obey 30mph speed limits in my area.



Sounds like i was wise to refuse your attempts to get me to move to wales - sounds like a very dangerous place.
Please be aware - i am not abandoning - i have to go out now.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Sounds like i was wise to refuse your attempts to get me to move to wales - sounds like a very dangerous place.
> Please be aware - i am not abandoning - i have to go out now.



 be safe out there.


----------



## d87heaven (20 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If enough people do it then the law should at least be questioned and the matter investigated.
> Your policy of zombie like law following leaves no room for ammendment , re-appraisal and improving the law , updating the law, where found to be appropriate.




I might give burglary a go, if we can get enough people to do it then its going to be legal sooner or later......who's with me?

But seriously. There are plenty of routes available to question laws. Is just ignoring laws the right way to go? I bet if RLJs were accountable for thier actions then it wouldn't happen. So to me that says 'as long as I don't get caught then I will do what I want to'. Same with speeding, the roads are essentially unpoliced so* some *people speed.


----------



## d87heaven (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Lets just say that were laws seem perfectly sensible, like stopping at red lights I will do so. *If I were arrested for opening a hardboiled egg from the wrong end I "might" be upset*. I fail to see why you think stopping at a red light is blindly following the law. By your reasoning we should encourage all road users to run red lights. In fact do away with them all and have give way junctions instead.



There is a wrong end???!!!!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

d87heaven said:


> There is a wrong end???!!!!



Apparently so.

Any person found breaking a boiled egg at the sharp end will be sentenced to 24 hours in the village stocks (enacted by Edward VI).


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

d87heaven said:


> I might give burglary a go, if we can get enough people to do it then its going to be legal sooner or later......who's with me?
> 
> But seriously. There are plenty of routes available to question laws. Is just ignoring laws the right way to go? I bet if RLJs were accountable for thier actions then it wouldn't happen. So to me that says 'as long as I don't get caught then I will do what I want to'. Same with speeding, the roads are essentially unpoliced so* some *people speed.



A voice of sanity.  Some people on this forum seem to think that cyclists should be above and beyond the law. I appreciate we have freedom of the highway but we are still obliged to conform to the law.


----------



## Dan B (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> By your reasoning we should encourage all road users to run red lights. In fact do away with them all and have give way junctions instead.


Last time I counted them, my route to work had on average one light-controlled junction every 120 metres. I would positively welcome doing away with about 80% of them and having give way junctions instead, but in the meantime I'm not going to get on anyone's case for treating them as "give way" signs unofficially. Why would I? If you're giving way, _by definition_ you're not getting in anyone else's way


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

Dan B said:


> Last time I counted them, my route to work had on average one light-controlled junction every 120 metres. I would positively welcome doing away with about 80% of them and having give way junctions instead, but in the meantime I'm not going to get on anyone's case for treating them as "give way" signs unofficially. Why would I? If you're giving way, _by definition_ you're not getting in anyone else's way



I'm not hurting anyone if I speed either until some kid runs out in front of me and I can't stop. Have you ever been hit by a RLJr. I have and it is not a pleasant experience to say the least. Anyone who breaks a law just because is it advantageous to them to do so is advocating a lawless society as most people will have at least one law they fell is stupid and thus OK to break.


----------



## Red Light (20 Jul 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I would say at over half of cyclist ignore lights so thats over half of the cycling population criminalised = law in disrepute.



TfL studies for London show its about 16% - about the same as for cars and buses.


----------



## Red Light (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am not wilding exaggerating the dangers of cycling. I am highlighing the dangers of running a red-light. Would you tell you children that it's statistically safe to do so (whilst not condoning it)?



You are wildly exaggerating the dangers of cycling. The only reason you don't think you are is you don't have a clue about the objective dangers of RLJing and are wildly overestimating them.

A TfL review concluded that cyclists were at a lower risk RLJing than waiting at the lights.

About 16% of cyclists on average RLJ in London. Less than 2% of cyclist deaths in London are attributed to RLJing. 3% are attributed to other vehicles RLJing while the cyclist was crossing on green.

The reality is, while it may be illegal and it may be annoying, its certainly not dangerous and doing so is not a death wish. In fact based on the TfL report it could be said to be a life wish.


----------



## Dan B (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Have you ever been hit by a RLJr


I have never been hit by someone treating a red light as a give way sign, because that would be logically impossible: if he had given way to me, he would not have hit me

If you want to argue that head-down fast unswerving don't-stop-for-anything RLJ is bad, nobody sane will disagree. But (1) outside of specific situations like time trials on closed roads, head-down fast unswerving don't-stop-for-anything riding is still bad even when there are no traffic lights involved; (2) many or most people who break the law at traffic lights _don't_ do it kamikaze-style. This has been pointed out to you by several people now and yet you still persist in pretending that RLJ automatically implies a complete disregard for other road users. Why?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> You are wildly exaggerating the dangers of cycling. The only reason you don't think you are is you don't have a clue about the objective dangers of RLJing and are wildly overestimating them.
> 
> A TfL review concluded that cyclists were at a lower risk RLJing than waiting at the lights.
> 
> ...



I think you live in a world were is an act is beneficial to a cyclist then it is OK. I live in a world were I obey laws. As for stats 0.01% of men involved in Fatal RTC were not wearing underpants. Thus stay safe on the road an go commando.

_**If that is the case why is it not legal*_


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

Dan B said:


> I have never been hit by someone treating a red light as a give way sign, because that would be logically impossible: if he had given way to me, he would not have hit me
> 
> If you want to argue that head-down fast unswerving don't-stop-for-anything RLJ is bad, nobody sane will disagree. But (1) outside of specific situations like time trials on closed roads, head-down fast unswerving don't-stop-for-anything riding is still bad even when there are no traffic lights involved; (2) many or most people who break the law at traffic lights _don't_ do it kamikaze-style. This has been pointed out to you by several people now and yet you still persist in pretending that RLJ automatically implies a complete disregard for other road users. Why?



Cyclists like you who feel disregard for the law because it is OK because you feel safe give cyclist a bad name. If treating Red Lights as give way signs is OK then why not say cars should do so as well? I have respect for the law, you seem to have a "can't give a toss if I'm on my bike" attitude.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> TfL studies for London show its about 16% - about the same as for cars and buses.



So by apollos argument it is a law that should be obeyed. BTW there is more of the UK than London.


----------



## rowan 46 (20 Jul 2011)

I don't think anybody is arguing or disagreeing that these things are illegal. I think the argument is more to do with the practicality of some laws. When it comes to cycling some are not reasonable RLJ is a good example. I have on several occasions been stuck at empty junctions at night waiting for the lights to recognise I am there. A car comes along and the lights change thus ensuring that from a standing start I have a car almost up to speed right up my bottom it feels dangerous and probably is. The problem is that traffic law has been written and rewritten for the automobile. We didn't have traffic lights on the roads until the the car came. My point is that traffic law is mostly built around what is good for the car sometimes it's not the best thing for cyclists. I will continue to do things which are illegal if they keep me safe as I cannot rely on the law to protect me. However this does not mean I will endanger others. Riding on a pavement doesn't endanger anybody if there's no one on it or If you are riding carefully looking for hazards. RLJ is not dangerous of itself but can be if its not done correctly. I don't deny they are illegal. 
I think you are labouring under the misapprehension that laws are for our benefit, they are not. They are for the benefit of whichever group has the most political clout. At the moment it is the automobile that benefits from traffic law and some of those laws are not in the best interest of cycle safety. I can almost hear you say change the law then, but that's bull the government will never change the law until we start dropping in our thousands they have other things to do with their time. The chances of a private members bill making it through are almost nil for the same reason. So I will continue cycling carefully on pavements if need be occasional rlj and the police will continue to turn a blind eye as they know a careful cyclist isn't a problem. I may one day be stopped by an officious officer but that's my risk. I understand it will be no defence in court but I do not think that a cyclist riding carefully on the pavement is the same as a driver driving dangerously. Not all laws are equal so to say the law is the law is not a great defence.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I don't think anybody is arguing or disagreeing that these things are illegal. I think the argument is more to do with the practicality of some laws. When it comes to cycling some are not reasonable RLJ is a good example. I have on several occasions been stuck at empty junctions at night waiting for the lights to recognise I am there. A car comes along and the lights change thus ensuring that from a standing start I have a car almost up to speed right up my bottom it feels dangerous and probably is. The problem is that traffic law has been written and rewritten for the automobile. We didn't have traffic lights on the roads until the the car came. My point is that traffic law is mostly built around what is good for the car sometimes it's not the best thing for cyclists. I will continue to do things which are illegal if they keep me safe as I cannot rely on the law to protect me. However this does not mean I will endanger others. Riding on a pavement doesn't endanger anybody if there's no one on it or If you are riding carefully looking for hazards. RLJ is not dangerous of itself but can be if its not done correctly. I don't deny they are illegal.
> I think you are labouring under the misapprehension that laws are for our benefit, they are not. They are for the benefit of whichever group has the most political clout. At the moment it is the automobile that benefits from traffic law and some of those laws are not in the best interest of cycle safety. I can almost hear you say change the law then, but that's bull the government will never change the law until we start dropping in our thousands they have other things to do with their time. The chances of a private members bill making it through are almost nil for the same reason. So I will continue cycling carefully on pavements if need be occasional rlj and the police will continue to turn a blind eye as they know a careful cyclist isn't a problem. I may one day be stopped by an officious officer but that's my risk. I understand it will be no defence in court but I do not think that a cyclist riding carefully on the pavement is the same as a driver driving dangerously. Not all laws are equal so to say the law is the law is not a great defence.


As I have said before - LIttle wonder so many car drivers hate cyclists.


----------



## rowan 46 (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> As I have said before - LIttle wonder so many car drivers hate cyclists.


Selfish inconsiderate drivers hate cyclists, not drivers. And the reason they hate is because they are selfish and inconsiderate they don't require any reason just an excuse and If you are suggesting that we as a society have to cater to these peoples whims you really are talking arse gravy. I harm no one I have cycled for over 40 years without ever hitting another person The fact is if all drivers were as considerate as me there would be no need for me to get on pavements occasionally. By the way I have never been insulted, spat at or tailgated by a driver when on a pavement only when on the road.


----------



## Midnight (20 Jul 2011)

Pavements for Peds - Roads for Riding


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

Midnight said:


> Pavements for Peds - Roads for Riding



Not according to many on here. Pavements are for cyclists if it benefits them.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> Selfish inconsiderate drivers hate cyclists, not drivers. And the reason they hate is because they are selfish and inconsiderate they don't require any reason just an excuse and If you are suggesting that we as a society have to cater to these peoples whims you really are talking arse gravy. I harm no one I have cycled for over 40 years without ever hitting another person The fact is if all drivers were as considerate as me there would be no need for me to get on pavements occasionally. By the way I have never been insulted, spat at or tailgated by a driver when on a pavement only when on the road.



I am not suggesting you cater to such people. I am suggesting you show respect to the law of the land.


----------



## d87heaven (20 Jul 2011)

Although illegal I can safely drive through red lights in my car without any harm. In my eyes it doesn't make it acceptable.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

d87heaven said:


> Although illegal I can safely drive through red lights in my car without any harm. In my eyes it doesn't make it acceptable.



Neither does it in mine. As I say some people on here think that as cyclists they should have immunity from the law.


----------



## d87heaven (20 Jul 2011)

Thread started off about pavements and then went to RLJ it'll be helmets next


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

d87heaven said:


> Thread started off about pavements and then went to RLJ it'll be helmets next



No never helmets


----------



## Red Light (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I think you live in a world were is an act is beneficial to a cyclist then it is OK. I live in a world were I obey laws. As for stats 0.01% of men involved in Fatal RTC were not wearing underpants. Thus stay safe on the road an go commando.
> 
> _**If that is the case why is it not legal*_



Have I said its OK? I've said several times I don't condone it. Just because I contest your characterisation of it as death wish dangerous it does not mean I am saying its OK. 

As for underpants if the number of drivers going commando is greater than 0.01% then going commando would be safer; if its less than 0.01% then its more dangerous. Unless you have both figures your analogy is meaningless. Of course its quite likely commando drivers will be safer because of the subconscious voices of their mothers telling them to wear clean underpants


----------



## rowan 46 (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am not suggesting you cater to such people. I am suggesting you show respect to the law of the land.



If the law of the land showed me some respect perhaps I would but the fact is the law gives little protection to cyclists. I stopped reporting incidents where drivers threatened or abused me just because I had the temerity to use a road they were on years ago. It's a fact the police don't take these incidents seriously so If they will not use the law to protect me I will break a few to protect myself. As to pavements are for peds If they are not using it I will If I feel like it. Riding on an empty pavement hurts no one. The police have never challenged me on it because it's not an issue for them they have discretion to ignore the law in this regard and they do. I have seen cyclists who are not responsible pulled over and rightly so If you want to go fast use a road, if there's no room, walk your bike. 95% of my cycling is on road but I occasionally ride on the pavement and I hurt nobody except the sensibilities it seems of some cyclists. The CTC don't like it stuff them I'm not a member they don't represent my views in their entirety. I have no problem with people cycling carefully on a pavement I have no problem with some people RLJ when it's safe. I do have a problem with anybody who drives\ rides\ walks inconsiderately and if you really have a problem with a cyclist using an empty pavement get a life.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> If the law of the land showed me some respect perhaps I would but the fact is the law gives little protection to cyclists. I stopped reporting incidents where drivers threatened or abused me just because I had the temerity to use a road they were on years ago. It's a fact the police don't take these incidents seriously so If they will not use the law to protect me I will break a few to protect myself. As to pavements are for peds If they are not using it I will If I feel like it. Riding on an empty pavement hurts no one. The police have never challenged me on it because it's not an issue for them they have discretion to ignore the law in this regard and they do. I have seen cyclists who are not responsible pulled over and rightly so If you want to go fast use a road, if there's no room, walk your bike. 95% of my cycling is on road but I occasionally ride on the pavement and I hurt nobody except the sensibilities it seems of some cyclists. The CTC don't like it stuff them I'm not a member they don't represent my views in their entirety. I have no problem with people cycling carefully on a pavement I have no problem with some people RLJ when it's safe. I do have a problem with anybody who drives\ rides\ walks inconsiderately and if you really have a problem with a cyclist using an empty pavement get a life.



If that many people abuse you when on the roads maybe you should ask questions about your riding ability. Or maybe your attitude.?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> As for underpants if the number of drivers going commando is greater than 0.01% then going commando would be safer; if its less than 0.01% then its more dangerous. Unless you have both figures your analogy is meaningless. Of course its quite likely commando drivers will be safer because of the subconscious voices of their mothers telling them to wear clean underpants



It was the first piece of stats are bollox I learned when doing my Computer Science Degree.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> If the law of the land showed me some respect perhaps I would but the fact is the law gives little protection to cyclists. I stopped reporting incidents where drivers threatened or abused me just because I had the temerity to use a road they were on years ago. It's a fact the police don't take these incidents seriously so If they will not use the law to protect me I will break a few to protect myself. As to pavements are for peds If they are not using it I will If I feel like it. Riding on an empty pavement hurts no one. The police have never challenged me on it because it's not an issue for them they have discretion to ignore the law in this regard and they do. I have seen cyclists who are not responsible pulled over and rightly so If you want to go fast use a road, if there's no room, walk your bike. 95% of my cycling is on road but I occasionally ride on the pavement and I hurt nobody except the sensibilities it seems of some cyclists. The CTC don't like it stuff them I'm not a member they don't represent my views in their entirety. I have no problem with people cycling carefully on a pavement I have no problem with some people RLJ when it's safe. I do have a problem with anybody who drives\ rides\ walks inconsiderately and if you really have a problem with a cyclist using an empty pavement get a life.



This is teh same kind of reply that off road motrocyclists use. We are hurting no one. The land is empty. The law is wrong. None of that makes it right.

Any respect I had for you went as soon as I read "If the law of the land showed me some respect perhaps I would"


----------



## Dan B (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Cyclists like you who feel disregard for the law because it is OK because you feel safe give cyclist a bad name. If treating Red Lights as give way signs is OK then why not say cars should do so as well? I have respect for the law, you seem to have a "can't give a toss if I'm on my bike" attitude.


Is this switch in argument to "it's selfish" and "it gives cyclists a bad name" an admission that you now realise it's not after all evidence of a deathwish?


----------



## rowan 46 (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If that many people abuse you when on the roads maybe you should ask questions about your riding ability. Or maybe your attitude.?



How many times do I have to say that the people who have a problem with cyclists don't need a reason. I don't live in rural wales I live in a big city this means that in my 40 years of cycling I have come into contact with a little bit more than 2 tractors and a sheep that's why I have had more abuse than you. nothing to do with my cycling which is safe responsible legal except for the off road bit. I don't RLJ I just don't condemn out of hand those that do.


----------



## Red Light (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> It was the first piece of stats are bollox I learned when doing my Computer Science Degree.



Well you had a crap teacher who didn't understand the importance of exposure measures if you want to draw conclusions on risk.

But you seem to have extrapolated that lesson to all stats are bollox which is bollox.


----------



## Red Light (20 Jul 2011)

Dan B said:


> Is this switch in argument to "it's selfish" and "it gives cyclists a bad name" an admission that you now realise it's not after all evidence of a deathwish?



Admit he's wrong? Porcine Airways now departing from Gate 3. He'll just ignore the question or move the goalposts or change the subject. Oh look he just did!


----------



## asterix (20 Jul 2011)

Pavements? 

..are for people who want to walk on the side.


----------



## Red Light (20 Jul 2011)

asterix said:


> Pavements?
> 
> ..are for people who want to walk on the side.



Those are sidewalks


----------



## Cyclopathic (20 Jul 2011)

There's nothing wrong with occasional and careful use of the pavement by cyclists. Goverment guidelines on the aplication of the law seem to recognise this in advising officers to use their discretion and not to bother overly much with those cyclists who are causing no problem. Obeying a law simply because it is a law is not enough justification when that law is obviously flawed. The fact that dual use of pavements has evolved in places is recognition of the fact that their is need for some flexibility in the law as it stands.

Attention is much better spent on any road user who is actively making a nuicance of themselves. Cyclists who tear along on pavements are being selfish, stupid and dangerous and should get a ticket. On the other hand cyclists who ride carefuly along here and there are in my experience as a cyclist and a pedestrian causing less encumberance to pedestrians than they would if they were to dismount and push their bikes.

There is too much getting cross just for the sake of it and a huge over emphasis of the dangers presented by cyclists on the pavement. A person is more likely to be injured or killed on the pavement by a car than by a bike. The whole issue is usually presented with a hugely skewed perspective and needs a much more reasoned aproach.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

Dan B said:


> Is this switch in argument to "it's selfish" and "it gives cyclists a bad name" an admission that you now realise it's not after all evidence of a deathwish?



Not at all. Something can be wrong for more than one reason.


----------



## briantrumpet (20 Jul 2011)

Could someone with the know-how loop this thread round to the beginning, please (I don't think anyone would notice)? We could then harness all the energy generated by the 'debate', and there would be no need for nuclear power. We could think of this looped thread like wave energy: you keep on going up and down, but don't actually get anywhere.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> How many times do I have to say that the people who have a problem with cyclists don't need a reason. I don't live in rural wales I live in a big city this means that in my 40 years of cycling I have come into contact with a little bit more than 2 tractors and a sheep that's why I have had more abuse than you. nothing to do with my cycling which is safe responsible legal except for the off road bit. I don't RLJ I just don't condemn out of hand those that do.



Rural Wales?????- Your geography is as skewed as your sense of right and wrong. 

f you feel people who don't like cyclists do so for no reason then I is there a reason for the apparent growth in negative attitudes towards cyclists? 

I love the "safe responsible legal except for.... "bit by the way. Put a smile on my face. Are you saying the the pavement riding is not safe, not responsible and not legal?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Well you had a crap teacher who didn't understand the importance of exposure measures if you want to draw conclusions on risk.
> 
> But you seem to have extrapolated that lesson to all stats are bollox which is bollox.



Axctually his very first words to use were the most famous quote about stats "The are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics". He may well have been crap. I passed.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> Admit he's wrong? Porcine Airways now departing from Gate 3. He'll just ignore the question or move the goalposts or change the subject. Oh look he just did!



Oh don't get you panties in a bunch RL. Is it no fun when someone else plays your game ?


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Jul 2011)

briantrumpet said:


> Could someone with the know-how loop this thread round to the beginning, please (I don't think anyone would notice)? We could then harness all the energy generated by the 'debate', and there would be no need for nuclear power. We could think of this looped thread like wave energy: you keep on going up and down, but don't actually get anywhere.


----------



## Dan B (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Not at all. Something can be wrong for more than one reason.


So stop trying to change the subject then. The discussion (which you started) was about danger and you have signally failed to demonstrate that red light jumping is necessarily dangerous. Try again?


----------



## rowan 46 (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Rural Wales?????- Your geography is as skewed as your sense of right and wrong.
> 
> f you feel people who don't like cyclists do so for no reason then I is there a reason for the apparent growth in negative attitudes towards cyclists?
> 
> I love the "safe responsible legal except for.... "bit by the way. Put a smile on my face. Are you saying the the pavement riding is not safe, not responsible and not legal?



The bit I was responding to was the implication that I was a crap rider when on the road . I don't know why I talk to you
I know Its illegal I have said so but I won't stop just because you have a childish tantrum everytime something doesn't jibe with your ctc instructors certificate I will not engage in any more converation with you you started on the insults and all I'm hearing from you now is nah nah nah nah get a life or get a girlfriend \boyfriend whatever it takes to make you a bit more human instead of paragon of stuck up your own arse.


----------



## Red Light (20 Jul 2011)

briantrumpet said:


> Could someone with the know-how loop this thread round to the beginning, please



Click here


----------



## Dan B (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I love the "safe responsible legal except for.... "bit by the way. Put a smile on my face. Are you saying the the pavement riding is not safe, not responsible and not legal?


I see that your computer science education failed to cover De Morgan's laws


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

Dan B said:


> I see that your computer science education failed to cover De Morgan's laws



No, those operators were covered. Logic gates are great fun


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> The bit I was responding to was the implication that I was a crap rider when on the road . I don't know why I talk to you
> I know Its illegal I have said so but I won't stop just because you have a childish tantrum everytime something doesn't jibe with your ctc instructors certificate I will not engage in any more converation with you you started on the insults and all I'm hearing from you now is nah nah nah nah get a life or get a girlfriend \boyfriend whatever it takes to make you a bit more human instead of paragon of stuck up your own arse.



You have a strange definition of insults. Anyway enjoy your anarchic lifestyle.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

Dan B said:


> So stop trying to change the subject then. The discussion (which you started) was about danger and you have signally failed to demonstrate that red light jumping is necessarily dangerous. Try again?



The fact that you can not see why it is not dangerous amazes me. Oh well each to their own. Bye bye to the anarchic chapter of CC


----------



## gaz (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The fact that you can not see why it is not dangerous amazes me. Oh well each to their own. Bye bye to the anarchic chapter of CC


The same can be said for you not being able to see that people dont do it blindly (mostly).


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> The same can be said for you not being able to see that people dont do it blindly (mostly).



Blindly or otherwise why break a law just so you can save a few seconds and place yourself in unnecessary risk? How many cyclists scream blue murder about a car who wants to overtake and can't. I'm sure the same argument has been made on many an occasion. I am also sure the driver believes he/she is doing nothing wrong.


----------



## Dan B (20 Jul 2011)

Every cyclist who has survived negotiating a T junction has the necessary skills to make an adequate risk assessment of whether it is safe to go through a red light or not. Likewise every pedestrian who has previous experience at crossing the road. The additional "unnecessary risk" you refer to is in many cases so small to be unquantifiable, and certainly smaller than many other entirely legal tactics that cyclists often adopt - for example, filtering in traffic.

And if you know what De Morgan's law is, am I to assume that the logical fallacy in your response to rowan ("not safe, not responsible and not legal") was a deliberate attack and not just a mistake?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

Dan B said:


> Every cyclist who has survived negotiating a T junction has the necessary skills to make an adequate risk assessment of whether it is safe to go through a red light or not. Likewise every pedestrian who has previous experience at crossing the road. The additional "unneccessary risk" you refer to is in many cases so small to be unquantifiable
> 
> And if you know what De Morgan's law is, am I to assume that the logical fallacy in your response to rowan ("not safe, not responsible and not legal") was a deliberate attack and not just a mistake?



You assumption is correct.

As for risk v legality. Just carry on. I live in a one horse town in the middle of rural Wales apparently so I have no idea what city life is like. (Ignoring that fact that I have lived and worked in London, Guildford, Reading and worked in Cardiff.


----------



## rowan 46 (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If that many people abuse you when on the roads maybe you should ask questions about your riding ability. Or maybe your attitude.?



There was the first insult Mr lord of the hot air the response was a reply to that


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> There was the first insult Mr lord of the hot air the response was a reply to that



Was that an insult - I though that was an observation. An insult would have been "You are a fat cow".


----------



## rowan 46 (20 Jul 2011)

you know it and I know you implied that I was a crap rider when on the road. That to me is an insult and certainly can't be an observation as we have never met. As for fat that is not an insult as it is certainly true in my case and I have alluded to it and the reasons why in other threads. To get back to topic I agree with angelfish that it is illegal to ride on pavements. I don't agree that riding on an empty pavement is the most antisocial thing a cyclist can do and I don't believe that riding legally would make inconsiderate drivers like cyclists more. they have no reason to hate they just do.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> you know it and I know you implied that I was a crap rider when on the road. That to me is an insult and certainly can't be an observation as we have never met. As for fat that is not an insult as it is certainly true in my case and I have alluded to it and the reasons why in other threads. To get back to topic I agree with angelfish that it is illegal to ride on pavements. I don't agree that riding on an empty pavement is the most antisocial thing a cyclist can do and I don't believe that riding legally would make inconsiderate drivers like cyclists more. they have no reason to hate they just do.



I had no desire to insult you. I simply pointed out an observation that was used during the CTC Nat Standards Course. If you feel I insulted you I apologise.

Everyone needs a reason to hate it is just that with some people it is subconscious.


----------



## gaz (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Blindly or otherwise why break a law just so you can save a few seconds and place yourself in unnecessary risk? How many cyclists scream blue murder about a car who wants to overtake and can't. I'm sure the same argument has been made on many an occasion. I am also sure the driver believes he/she is doing nothing wrong.


I don't do it so I can't say why.
I've asked people and they say because they don't want to slow down, loose momentum etc..

From my observations, rljing in London is rarely done on a busy junction and mostly done at pedestrian crossings where no one is crossing. So there rearly is no to limited danger.

Again fom my observations the people that jump red lights are not the people that complain about drivers, as they just don't care about anyone or anything!
Personally I think people that brake basic road laws are being contradictory if they then complain about others. That is highlighted when a video camera cyclists posts footage online of them doing something dodgy, loads of us will pull them up on it.


----------



## JonnyBlade (20 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463609"]
I doubt you'd get a fast road bike on a pavement.
[/quote]


Another assumption?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> I don't do it so I can't say why.
> I've asked people and they say because they don't want to slow down, loose momentum etc..
> 
> From my observations, rljing in London is rarely done on a busy junction and mostly done at pedestrian crossings where no one is crossing. So there rearly is no to limited danger.
> ...



Losing momentum is a lame excuse IMO. Imagine if a HGV used that excuse (far more valid in that case).
OK. First time ped crossing has been mentioned. Still illegal but far less dangerous I agree. I also agreed about the contradictory nature of cyclists who complain about car drivers but break laws themselves.


----------



## gaz (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Losing momentum is a lame excuse IMO. Imagine if a HGV used that excuse (far more valid in that case).
> OK. First time ped crossing has been mentioned. Still illegal but far less dangerous I agree. I also agreed about the contradictory nature of cyclists who complain about car drivers but break laws themselves.


The type of crossing has never be mentioned. And rljers certainly don't jump every junction, they pick and choose.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Jul 2011)

gaz said:


> *The type of crossing has never be mentioned*. And rljers certainly don't jump every junction, they pick and choose.



That was my point. Anyway I'm off to relax with a good film


----------



## Hip Priest (20 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> That was my point. Anyway I'm off to relax with a good film



White Men Can't Jump (Red Lights)?


----------



## Dreamcatcher (20 Jul 2011)

I have tried to read this thread from the beginning and I have come to the conclusion that Angelfishsolo really does have too much time on his hands...


----------



## summerdays (21 Jul 2011)

[QUOTE 1463729"]
Really? I've never seen anyone blasting down a pavement on a road bike. Have you? Why would they?
[/quote]

Only once ... and the fact of the location together with the expensive bike and saddle far too low all added up to say stolen!


----------



## Red Light (21 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Losing momentum is a lame excuse IMO.



CTC did a calculation of how much energy it took to stop and start again compared to the distance you could cycle for the same energy and its about 100m per stop. Link


----------



## Red Light (21 Jul 2011)

Dreamcatcher said:


> I have tried to read this thread from the beginning and I have come to the conclusion that Angelfishsolo really does have too much time on his hands...



+1. But not enough time to check the facts.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (21 Jul 2011)

Red Light said:


> +1. But not enough time to check the facts.


One thing I am happy to admit to - The CTC seems to be a very schizophrenic organisation. The Nat Standards it teaches emphasises the importance of stopping at traffic lights, junctions, etc whilst the article all but promotes doing the opposite. I am re-evaluating my membership of said organisation.


----------



## Midnight (21 Jul 2011)

I won't cycle on the pavement because...

I don't feel the need to - Road cycling does have it's risks, but those risks can be mitigated with good road craft and good judgement. 

I don't believe pavement cycling IS entirely safe.

Read some of the threads in the Commuting section and you'll see how unpredictable peds can be, and where peds share space with cycles, there is always a potential for a collision. You may well ride the same stretch of pavements a thousand times without incident, but that potential will always be present and IMO it's not worth the risk.

You may be competent enough to cycle along a pavement without incident, and curteous enough to give way to pedestrians, but unfortuntely there are too many cyclists who are not as courteous as you might be. I regularly see teenage Joes on BSOs riding aggressively along pavements, at inappropriate speeds, forcing pedestrians to yield, and woe betide anyone who gets in their way. Now I'm not suggesting for one minute that any CC'ers fall into this category, but if we cycle on pavements then we encourge other, less courteous cyclists to do the same.

There is a powerful motorists lobby in Britain that seeems to be doing it's damnest to force cyclists off the roads. If we condone pavement cycling then aren't we giving them further ammunition?

I'm a little surprised that so many on here won't agree, but that's their prerogative and maybe I'm a little old fashioned. I learned to ride in an era when police would take a sterner view of pavement cyclists and I see no reason to start now. You do your thing and I'll do mine.

Fair weather to you all.


----------

