# Cycling on pavements.



## eldudino (10 Mar 2010)

Anybody else noticed an increase of people cycling on pavements now that the (ever so slightly) warmer weather is here?

I was walking back from the local shop yesterday lunchtime, earphones in, looked down at my foot (probably a bad habit from being a teenage boy a few years ago), looked up and saw someone on a bike heading right for me. Moments later, along came his lady friend, again on the pavement.

Then on the way home last night I was waiting at some traffic lights and saw a woman come flying down the pavement then across the junction and on to the road at 90º to where she came from.

Oh, and thinking about it, I saw another one using a ped crossing this morning on the way to work!

With the recent spate of reports of accidents involving peds and cyclists on pavements, do I start shouting at these people to get off the pavement and onto the road or do I leave them be?


----------



## Cab (10 Mar 2010)

eldudino said:


> Anybody else noticed an increase of people cycling on pavements now that the (ever so slightly) warmer weather is here?



Only on those roads now so totally ruined by potholes such that they have become slalom courses for cars and some cyclists are, quite reasonably I think, taking a safer route where such occurs.

Turns out that the number of pedestrians hurt on the pavements by cyclists pales into insignificance compared with the number of pedestrians hurt or killed by motorists on the pavement. I wouldn't seek to condone such riding, but it should be viewed in context. It isn't that big a deal.


----------



## eldudino (10 Mar 2010)

Cab said:


> Only on those roads now so totally ruined by potholes such that they have become slalom courses for cars and some cyclists are, quite reasonably I think, taking a safer route where such occurs.



These are on roads where potholes aren't a problem. So that's not the case here, I assume the cyclists I've seen are riding on the pavement as they think it's the right thing to do or it'll save them time at a junction.

I think in the context you mention, with an experienced cyclist looking out for pedestrians - ok. But the cases I've seen are on roads that I cycle every day without any problems. I think that as it's illegal, it is a big deal.


----------



## Arch (10 Mar 2010)

Cab said:


> Only on those roads now so totally ruined by potholes such that they have become slalom courses for cars and some cyclists are, quite reasonably I think, taking a safer route where such occurs.
> 
> Turns out that the number of pedestrians hurt on the pavements by cyclists pales into insignificance compared with the number of pedestrians hurt or killed by motorists on the pavement. I wouldn't seek to condone such riding, but it should be viewed in context. *It isn't that big a deal*.



It is to the person hurt. Or frightened. My old gran was always very worried about pavement cyclists, just because she'd been scared a couple of times by close passes. Cyclists freak pedestrians out for the same reason they freak horses out - relatively silent and fast approach. The stats may show that more people are hurt by cars - that applies across the whole road/pavement network, but I suspect more people are frightened by bikes.

Pavements are safer than roads? Loose paving stones, kerbs, textured paving, bollards, pedestrians? I'd rather take my chance on the slalom on the road.

If it seems appropriate, a sarcastic "Aw, doesn't your mummy let you ride on the road?" is probably a good comment...


----------



## thomas (10 Mar 2010)

eldudino said:


> With the recent spate of reports of accidents involving peds and cyclists on pavements, do I start shouting at these people to get off the pavement and onto the road or do I leave them be?



Leave them be. No point getting worked up.

I don't generally have a problem with pavement cyclists, depending on which pavement. There are some roads where I wouldn't expect someone without a lot of road experience to use the road.

It annoys me a bit more when it's a 20mph zone, or quiet residential zone. I'll tend just to be assertive in these places.



 Arch said:


> The stats may show that more people are hurt by cars - that applies across the whole road/pavement network, but I suspect more people are frightened by bikes.



I'd rather be frightened than hurt any day of the week. lol!


----------



## Arch (10 Mar 2010)

thomas said:


> I'd rather be frightened than hurt any day of the week. lol!




But the point is, someone (especially someone vulnerable like an elderly or frail person) may be frightened dozens of times, and never hurt. That doesn't make the fright any less real for them.

It's easy to be blase about fear when you're fit and healthy and active. But many people are very afraid of a fall that might break a hip, or hurt their back - I know I've been very cagey the last few weeks, with a sore back.

Actually, if people could be trusted to cycle responsibly on the pavements (slowly, no weaving in and out of people), I'd have no problem with it. As ever, it's the thoughtless few who make the rules necessary, and if there's a rule, I like to see it obeyed.


----------



## Cab (10 Mar 2010)

Arch said:


> It is to the person hurt.



True enough, but considering how very few of them there are relative to the numbers harmed on the pavement and on the road by other modes of transport, we devote _far_ too much attention, here and right across the published media, to a relatively trivial issue.


----------



## Cab (10 Mar 2010)

Arch said:


> But the point is, someone (especially someone vulnerable like an elderly or frail person) may be frightened dozens of times, and never hurt. That doesn't make the fright any less real for them.



There are busy roads and pavements next to them up and down the country were the elderly fear to tred due to the thundering past of fast motorised traffic. Why do we give that so little attention?


----------



## Arch (10 Mar 2010)

I know the way things are reported is all skewed - I'd like to see every road death covered nationally, see how long it took people to take notice.

But just because something is less of a problem than something else, doesn't mean it isn't a problem at all....


----------



## Cab (10 Mar 2010)

Arch said:


> But just because something is less of a problem than something else, doesn't mean it isn't a problem at all....



And no one is condoning reckless pavement riding. Its just that we need to keep this in some kind of context; I see pavement riding every day, many times, and the number of instances I see of dangerous pavement riding approaches zero.


----------



## swee'pea99 (10 Mar 2010)

Have to say I don't see that much of it - perhaps because the pavements round here are busy enough with pedestrians that it's simple not a practical way of getting around. But I have to say I'm with Arch here - just 'cos being hurt's worse than being spooked doesn't make it right to spook people. It's discourteous at best. 

As to whether you snarl at transgressors, must admit I tend to refrain from anything beyond giving them the evil eye. Don't need the grief...


----------



## Sam Kennedy (10 Mar 2010)

When I first started cycling, I knew I shouldn't be on the pavement, but I didn't have the confidence to go on the roads. Looking back, I'm so glad I actually stayed on the pavement until I gained more confidence going out with my club.

I always gave pedestrians plenty of space and slowed when approaching them.

Now I cycle on roads 99% of the time, the 1% is when I'm taking my younger brother to school.


----------



## classic33 (10 Mar 2010)

Since some are trying to compare us with motor vehicles, with regards injuries caused. How many on here wouldn't mind people oin cars taking to the pavements to get round something in the road. Be it another vehicle, pothole or a red light?

We seem to ask to be reconised as legal road users, yet we seem to think that when the situations on the roads are not to our liking we should be allowed to use the _footpaths_ as well! Sounds a bit like the "I pay Road Tax" brigade only on two wheels & pedal power.

If you don't feel safe/comfortable on the roads, but wish to use the _footpaths_ then get off & push.


----------



## Norm (10 Mar 2010)

+1 to C33 there, with the addendum of once you start breaking the law, where do you stop? There should be no opportunity for confusion and no grey areas. If "we" expect other people to stick with the rules of the road (or path), then "we" should respect those same rules.

IMO.


----------



## Barbelier (10 Mar 2010)

> And no one is condoning reckless pavement riding. Its just that we need to keep this in some kind of context; I see pavement riding every day, many times, and the number of instances I see of dangerous pavement riding approaches zero.


Can't accept this kind of argument. *It's illegal.....period.*

I have two young children who walk to school every day and a mother over 80 who likes to walk. Why should they even have to worry about pavement cyclists?

Where do you draw the line with such an argument (I hardly ever see dangerous pavement riding so it's not a big deal)? Using that logic is it okay then for motor scooters to do the same so long as they don't actually hit anyone? Motor cycles then? Cars perhaps?

It's illegal for a reason.


----------



## rh100 (10 Mar 2010)

I'm the same as Sam, confidence needs to be built. With the lack of a safe, useful cycle path - rightly or wrongly the pavement ends up being the default option for those lacking confidence - or where the road is simply too dangerous to ride.

Sarcastic comments to people on the pavement don't help the situation or encourage anyone - it just makes you feel big about yourself - very uncharitable IMO and is the domain of a bully.

As for pavement being the wrong place to be - it's not black and white - if the council put up signs and paint lines on the floor - it's suddenly ok and all are happy and not frightened? Don't tell me that people are more aware of cyclists on shared paths - they simply aren't IMO.


----------



## Arch (10 Mar 2010)

rh100 said:


> Sarcastic comments to people on the pavement don't help the situation or encourage anyone - it just makes you feel big about yourself - very uncharitable IMO and is the domain of a bully.



Which is why I said something like 'if it seems appropriate'. I was thinking of grown men and teenagers who clearly don't have confidence issues - at least not by the way they hop and down the kerb when it suits them.


----------



## eldudino (10 Mar 2010)

rh100 said:


> Sarcastic comments to people on the pavement don't help the situation or encourage anyone - it just makes you feel big about yourself - very uncharitable IMO and is the domain of a bully.



What about an unsarky comment like "Please don't cycle on the pavement"? I wouldn't say anything to make myself feel big - I'd only say it in the hope it would avoid an accident (should that ever arise from their pavement riding) and to ensure we don't all get tarred with the same brush.


----------



## rh100 (10 Mar 2010)

Arch said:


> Which is why I said something like 'if it seems appropriate'. I was thinking of grown men and teenagers who clearly don't have confidence issues - at least not by the way they hop and down the kerb when it suits them.



Fair enough - a bug-bear of mine is the road cyclist who bypasses pedestrian crossings on red by scooting around on the pavement - what's the point in that?


----------



## psmiffy (10 Mar 2010)

I am an experienced cyclist and would never contemplate cycling on the pavement in the UK – but I know how a lot of cyclists must feel – I cycled across Poland and had no hesitation in jumping up on the pavement when it got a bit dodgy.

Until more is done to convince cyclists in the UK that the that it is safe to ride on our roads –and a lot of posts by experienced cyclists on here seem to voice the opposite opinion –the same people who shout a lot that pavement cycling is illegal – then pavement cycling will seem to be the preferred mode to many people – particularly those with children - who want /or have to use a bicycle for transport . 

In the main it does very little harm apart from giving the anti-cyclists something to shout about – except where accidents happen because of a few irresponsible people I personally do not care too much about it – not do I take the rants of the “anti-cycling press” very seriously (I suspect the people in power do not listen to them either or they would have cracked down on pavement cycling or provided more cycling facilities by now).


----------



## rh100 (10 Mar 2010)

eldudino said:


> What about an unsarky comment like "Please don't cycle on the pavement"? I wouldn't say anything to make myself feel big - I'd only say it in the hope it would avoid an accident (should that ever arise from their pavement riding) and to ensure we don't all get tarred with the same brush.



well if it's well meant - then best of luck - but I can just imagine some of the replies you'd get 

If I see _irresponsible_ pavement riding - then I think the rider is probably an idiot anyway and any dialogue unlikely to be worthwhile - have never tried it though. You could spend your day stopping people and telling them about lack lights or hi vis etc.


----------



## Cab (10 Mar 2010)

classic33 said:


> Since some are trying to compare us with motor vehicles, with regards injuries caused. How many on here wouldn't mind people oin cars taking to the pavements to get round something in the road. Be it another vehicle, pothole or a red light?



In terms of safety, if it were possible to do so then I don't care one iota. As such is rarely the case, it isn't a question that arises. In terms of the damage caused by such an activity, i.e. pavements aren't built to take such a pounding, I'd generally be opposed to it. But that aside, if someone were to mount a pavement to get around an obstruction _safely_, why should I be bothered?


----------



## Cab (10 Mar 2010)

Barbelier said:


> Can't accept this kind of argument. *It's illegal.....period.*
> 
> I have two young children who walk to school every day and a mother over 80 who likes to walk. Why should they even have to worry about pavement cyclists?
> 
> ...



So, who here condoned pavement cycling? I'm aware of no one. I haven't seen _anyone_ doing so.

Theres a huge difference between saying 'chill out, its not as big a deal as it is made out to be' and saying 'its okay to do it'.

The 'its illegal... period' argument isn't even how Police forces are guided to treat it.


----------



## eldudino (10 Mar 2010)

rh100 said:


> well if it's well meant - then best of luck - but I can just imagine some of the replies you'd get



That was really the point of my OP, do people think it's something worth enforcing and in what way. I don't think a sarcastic comment will help anyone, least of all my front teeth  but some kind of informative discussion about the legality of pavement cycling may help. I'm sure they probably know, and I'd just get this back. Still makes me laugh at how ridiculous that bloke is.


----------



## goo_mason (10 Mar 2010)

I still remember the reaction Magnatom got from a pavement-cycling chap when he told him that cycling on the pavement was for 5yr-olds... 

There is a video of it somewhere, but I can't get on YouTube at work to track it down and provide a link.


----------



## eldudino (10 Mar 2010)

goo_mason said:


> I still remember the reaction Magnatom got from a pavement-cycling chap when he told him that cycling on the pavement was for 5yr-olds...
> 
> There is a video of it somewhere, but I can't get on YouTube at work to track it down and provide a link.



That's the link I've just posted above


----------



## Cab (10 Mar 2010)

rh100 said:


> Fair enough - a bug-bear of mine is the road cyclist who bypasses pedestrian crossings on red by scooting around on the pavement - what's the point in that?



On Milton Road in Cambridge theres an off-road shared use lane, i.e. a pavement that you can legally ride on. There one spot on the way out of town where there is a pedestrian crossing, at which I can legally mount the shared use facility a few yards before, ride along it, get back on to the road, and legally avoid a light that has gone red.

On comparable sections of pavement where the level of risk is near enough identical (i.e. similar visibility, width and surface quality) I, personally, do not care one little bit of someone mounts the pavement to do the same thing. Why should I? What I care about is whether in either situation a cyclist acts responsibly, i.e. on a shared use path or anywhere else you need to show consideration for others present.


----------



## Cab (10 Mar 2010)

Oh, and on my lunchtime pootle in to town and back, I counted six pavement cyclists, none of them causing the slightest bit of harm.


----------



## psmiffy (10 Mar 2010)

Cab said:


> Why should I? What I care about is whether in either situation a cyclist acts responsibly, i.e. on a shared use path or anywhere else you need to show consideration for others present.



I think that is the point - it is about whether people act responsibly and applies equally to people cycling on the road


----------



## eldudino (10 Mar 2010)

Cab said:


> Oh, and on my lunchtime pootle in to town and back, I counted six pavement cyclists, none of them causing the slightest bit of harm _*at that point*_.



What's to say they didn't hit someone 30secs after you saw them?


----------



## Cab (10 Mar 2010)

eldudino said:


> What's to say they didn't hit someone 30secs after you saw them?



Whats to say that any or all of the cyclists I saw on the _roads_ didn't do something stupid 30 seconds after I saw them?


----------



## thomas (10 Mar 2010)

Cab said:


> Whats to say that any or all of the cyclists I saw on the _roads_ didn't do something stupid 30 seconds after I saw them?



Because they're riding where they legally can...duuuhh 

On my old commute there was a women who rode on the pavement. The stretch of road was very busy so didn't blame her. Also, few peds around so not really an issue. I'd always say morning to her and just be friendly which she seemed to appreciate. Better than looking like a moron making some stupid comment about if she's allowed to ride on the road.

@Arch: I do get that some pavement cyclists could be quite scary to the elderly and do get your points. Recently the Police around here started ticketing cyclists at one point after complaints from people who had been knocked over (I don't believe anyone was knocked over, probably just had a close pass/annoyed because it's against the law)....yet when I've gone to the Police after nearly being crushed by a bus (worst than nearly being hit by a cyclist) they couldn't care less.


----------



## Barbelier (10 Mar 2010)

> So, who here condoned pavement cycling? I'm aware of no one. I haven't seen _anyone_ doing so.


Cad, that's not what I said - please read my post properly:


> Where do you draw the line with such an argument (I hardly ever see dangerous pavement riding so it's not a big deal)?





> Oh, and on my lunchtime pootle in to town and back, I counted six pavement cyclists, none of them causing the slightest bit of harm.


Oh that's okay then! So if a motor cycle did the same but "didn't do any harm" you would accept that as well? So matter what the law stipulates people should feel free to ignore it so long as they don't do any harm. Jumping a red light - that's okay because I didn't actually hit anyone!


----------



## BentMikey (10 Mar 2010)

I'm with Cab. Like him I don't ride on pavements and I don't think it's right, but really, it's near the bottom of the list of things harmful to others.


----------



## Cab (10 Mar 2010)

Barbelier said:


> Cad, that's not what I said - please read my post properly:



I did read your post properly, which is why I replied as I did. I think we over-react to this kind of thing, and, further, I think that we over-react to anyone pointing out that we over-react!



> Oh that's okay then! So if a motor cycle did the same but "didn't do any harm" you would accept that as well?



Pretty much. Shouldn't I?



> So matter what the law stipulates people should feel free to ignore it so long as they don't do any harm. Jumping a red light - that's okay because I didn't actually hit anyone!



Nope. I didn't say that, nor do I mean it. But yes, I do think that we get too hot under the collar about cyclists jumping red lights too (as said offense is not a significant cause of accidents on our roads).


----------



## eldudino (10 Mar 2010)

BentMikey said:


> it's near the bottom of the list of things harmful to others.



I agree in principle, it's a pretty benign practice but it can be harmful and it is illegal. 

My argumentative side : 

Waving a knife around in front of you is illegal, most people would stay out of your way for fear of being cut so you're not really likely to do anyone any damage providing they can see you, but if someone runs out of a side street/shop and gets cut then you're doing something wrong and you're going to hurt someone.


----------



## ChrisKH (10 Mar 2010)

eldudino said:


> I agree in principle, it's a pretty benign practice but it can be harmful and it is illegal.
> 
> My argumentative side :
> 
> Waving a knife around in front of you is illegal, most people would stay out of your way for fear of being cut so you're not really likely to do anyone any damage providing they can see you, but if someone runs out of a side street/shop and gets cut then you're doing something wrong and you're going to hurt someone.



Not sure I follow that. Getting back to the pavement cycling, you would be okay with your five year old cycling on the road then as this is clearly illegal otherwise?


----------



## eldudino (10 Mar 2010)

ChrisKH said:


> Not sure I follow that. Getting back to the pavement cycling, you would be okay with your five year old cycling on the road then as this is clearly illegal otherwise?



Bit of a grey area there. A 5 year old cycling on the pavement is quite clearly different to a grown man riding on the pavement. I don't think you can expect 5 year olds to treat the road as an adult does, nor would it be reasonable to expect people driving or riding on the road to have to deal with 5 year old riding abilities!


----------



## Arch (10 Mar 2010)

ChrisKH said:


> Not sure I follow that. Getting back to the pavement cycling, you would be okay with your five year old cycling on the road then as this is clearly illegal otherwise?



A child as young as that is specifically exempted I think. From what I vaguely remember hearing, kids up to 10 or so are exempt.


----------



## BentMikey (10 Mar 2010)

AFAIK no-one is exempt. Not on the basis of age or of wheel size.


----------



## Cab (10 Mar 2010)

Arch said:


> A child as young as that is specifically exempted I think. From what I vaguely remember hearing, kids up to 10 or so are exempt.



They're not. They merely cannot be prosecuted because they're under the age of criminal whats its name. They're still breaking the law and Plod should, technically, stop them.


----------



## Debian (10 Mar 2010)

Arch said:


> A child as young as that is specifically exempted I think. From what I vaguely remember hearing, kids up to 10 or so are exempt.





BentMikey said:


> AFAIK no-one is exempt. Not on the basis of age or of wheel size.



The law applies to footways, not footpaths, as follows:



> It is important to note that most legislation relating to 'cycling on footpaths' actually relates to the riding of cycles on a 'footway set aside for the use of pedestrians' which runs alongside a road. For example, the 'fixed penalties' brought in a few years ago do NOT apply to country footpaths where there is no road. *Fixed penalty notices also cannot be applied to areas such as parks, shopping precincts etc. unless a byelaw has been passed making cycling such areas an offence, nor do they apply to anyone under 16*. Many people (including police officers) seem to think that 'a footpath is a footpath' wherever it is and that the same laws apply. This is not the case.


----------



## Cab (10 Mar 2010)

That a kid on a footpath (running next to a road) cannot be punished with a FPN does not mean that the law isn't being broken, it just means that below the age of criminal responsibility a FPN cannot be issued. Its still illegal.


----------



## Debian (10 Mar 2010)

Cab said:


> That a kid on a footpath (running next to a road) cannot be punished with a FPN does not mean that the law isn't being broken, it just means that below the age of criminal responsibility a FPN cannot be issued. Its still illegal.



Yes, you're quite correct.


----------



## Debian (10 Mar 2010)

However, Home Office advice is:



> "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."



and:



> 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)


----------



## Cab (10 Mar 2010)

Debian said:


> Yes, you're quite correct.



...and while it _is_ illegal, anyone who believes it is appropriate to dissuade a four year old accompanied by an adult from riding on a quiet pavement really would need their head examined.


----------



## Arch (10 Mar 2010)

Cab said:


> They're not. They merely cannot be prosecuted because they're under the age of criminal whats its name. They're still breaking the law and Plod should, technically, stop them.



Oh, ok. I have no problem with a little kid on the pavement anyway. It's the older ones and adults who ought to know better.


----------



## Debian (10 Mar 2010)

Arch said:


> Oh, ok. I have no problem with a little kid on the pavement anyway. It's the older ones and adults who ought to know better.



But see post #45


----------



## Cab (10 Mar 2010)

Arch said:


> Oh, ok. I have no problem with a little kid on the pavement anyway. It's the older ones and adults who ought to know better.



For the most part I agree with that. I just don't particularly get upset when I see it, because for the most part its harmless. In fact I'd say that I see a hell of a lot more bad riding on shared use facilities than I do on pavements.


----------



## Debian (10 Mar 2010)

I must admit that I don't see any problem with responsible pavement cycling and the Home Office advice to police seems to back up that point of view.

There are vast stretches of very fast and sometimes scary stretches of rural road near me that do have footways running alongside them. I seriously doubt that any of these footways have seen a pedestrian in years. I have no qualms at all in cycling on these but whether I do or not depends on my mood, some days I feel quite happy to ride on the road, other days the pavement feels safer.


----------



## Jezston (10 Mar 2010)

Barbelier said:


> Oh that's okay then! So if a motor cycle did the same but "didn't do any harm" you would accept that as well?



People ride _scooters_ on the pavement in Paris all the time. Nutters all of them those Parisians.


----------



## andrew-the-tortoise (10 Mar 2010)

Pavement cycling [especially round blind bends] can be very dangerous - even if its young kids on BMX's.

Thirty years ago [when I was a sprog] we used to bomb around the locality on the foopaths, my mate 'Wally" managed to knock some poor old chap over a garden wall going round a corner. He could have easily killed the frail old lad who was quite shook up.

This rammed home the dangers at an early age!

If people must unlawfully cycle on footpaths [i.e. kids & people new to cycling]; then it is best done on non pedestrian areas - away from driveways, slowing right down on corners and always giving way to any pedestrians. 
Have notice many 'shared paths' I see are just pavements with a bicycle painted on, but that may be another can of worms!


----------



## chap (10 Mar 2010)

When it comes to cycling on Pavements, this is one point I actually have some sympathy for the cyclist - given the pitiful state of affairs concerning cycling infrastructure. However, this is based solely on the condition that they are not cycling in an obnoxious and hazardous manner. 

It is wrong to cycle on the pavements, this should be the domain (if not last refuge) for the pedestrian. However, the roads can be very dangerous - I thought that London can be sketchy but from the sounds of things Manchester is 10 times worse. The issue is with poor provisions for cyclists, rubbish 1m wide lanes (discontinuous, over drain pipes and a myriad of pothole), few workable cycle lanes, and some very aggressive drivers couples with dangerous junctions and careless HGV drivers, there is a lot to look out for. In order to cycle in a city one needs to be much more alert than a car driver, or probably even a bus driver would, whilst it goes with the territory of us being the most vulnerable users of the road (as in those that go along it - discounting pedestrians) few measures are taken to make it any easier for us.

I am not surprised that many people, especially women, who would otherwise cycle do not, and that there is such a rivalry between motor users and cyclists, as we are viewed as doing something akin to an extreme sport AND in many cases it feels like that, and many navigate through this with a degree of aggressiveness and arrogance (usually topped with ridiculous clothing made from Lycra.)

In short, your average cyclists who wants to save some money and get from A to B, I would not be surprised should they chose the pavement. 

Perhaps this is an issue to raise with the oncoming elections...nope we'll just scapegoat and 'get tough' on immigrants


----------



## JamesAC (11 Mar 2010)

Arch said:


> But the point is, someone (especially someone vulnerable like an elderly or frail person) may be frightened dozens of times, and never hurt. That doesn't make the fright any less real for them.
> 
> It's easy to be blase about fear when you're fit and healthy and active. But many people are very afraid of a fall that might break a hip, or hurt their back - I know I've been very cagey the last few weeks, with a sore back.
> 
> Actually, if people could be trusted to cycle responsibly on the pavements (slowly, no weaving in and out of people), I'd have no problem with it. As ever, it's the thoughtless few who make the rules necessary, and if there's a rule, I like to see it obeyed.


+1

The trouble is, you rarely, if ever, see a cyclist cycling slowly on the pavement (ie at or slower than walking pace) - they are always tearing about, weaving between pedestrians. And pedestrians includes young children, parents with kids in prams, visually impaired people, less able people, old folk. 

Stay on the road, if you're a cyclist, where you should be.


----------



## potsy (11 Mar 2010)

We have a lovely wide well marked out shared path (along side Wythenshawe park) that then continues onto an existing pavement where no improvements/modifications have been made to accomodate cyclists yet is still classed as a shared use path.It is narrow,strewn with litter bins bus shelters etc whuch makes it very dangerous for peds and cyclists to safely share this space,so even though it's there I tend not to use it very often.


----------



## brokenbetty (11 Mar 2010)

JamesAC said:


> +1
> 
> The trouble is, you rarely, if ever, see a cyclist cycling slowly on the pavement (ie at or slower than walking pace) - they are always tearing about, weaving between pedestrians. And pedestrians includes young children, parents with kids in prams, visually impaired people, less able people, old folk.



Anyway, if one is only going walking pace it would be easier and safer to get off and walk. It's pretty hard to ride a bike safely through pedestrians at walking pace because your steering and balance are compromised.


----------



## Cab (11 Mar 2010)

JamesAC said:


> +1
> 
> The trouble is, you rarely, if ever, see a cyclist cycling slowly on the pavement (ie at or slower than walking pace) - they are always tearing about, weaving between pedestrians. And pedestrians includes young children, parents with kids in prams, visually impaired people, less able people, old folk.
> 
> Stay on the road, if you're a cyclist, where you should be.



You rarely see joggers going at less than walking pace, they're usually going much faster and often weaving in and out between pedestrians. Would you seek to bar them from using the pavements on those grounds?

Again, I find myself wondering why if it is so very dangerous there are gvanishingly few serious accidents caused by this. 

I agree, it should generally be discouraged, and I don't do it. But its just not that big a deal.


----------



## chap (11 Mar 2010)

Cab said:


> You rarely see joggers going at less than walking pace, they're usually going much faster and often weaving in and out between pedestrians. Would you seek to bar them from using the pavements on those grounds?
> 
> Again, I find myself wondering why if it is so very dangerous there are gvanishingly few serious accidents caused by this.
> 
> I agree, it should generally be discouraged, and I don't do it. But its just not that big a deal.




That argument doesn't work for the same reasons cars shouldn't weave around cyclists. One has far fewer degrees of freedom and flexibility on bike than on foot, stability and reaction times are worse, and breaking time is longer. Furthermore, there is less to cushion any blows which may result.


----------



## Dan B (11 Mar 2010)

JamesAC said:


> The trouble is, you rarely, if ever, see a cyclist cycling slowly on the pavement (ie at or slower than walking pace) - they are always tearing about, weaving between pedestrians.


I see it quite often. It may be that you only _notice_ the inconsiderate cyclists, just because they're the potential threat, and either ignore or don't remember the considerate ones (or it may just be that our experiences differ)

But then, I like to walk at a brisk pace as well and often "weave" between people if the footway is crowded, so it may also be that our notions of walking pace aren't the same


----------



## Sam Kennedy (19 Mar 2010)

Now that I think of it I very rarely cycle in cycle lanes, if at all.
I have no problem using a cycling lane if it is in good condition, and will let drivers behind pass me, but I prefer being further out so I have escape room, and it encourages drivers to overtake properly. I also like to flow as part of the traffic, not to the left of it, it makes manoeuvring a b*tch.

Actually screw it cycle lanes are bad.


----------



## mangaman (19 Mar 2010)

I agree with Arch on this.

I think London and big city cyclists have a skewed view. Even in York there are I guess a quite a few road cyclists.

Living in a small city I reckon pavement cyclists outnumber road cyclists. I often have to skip out of some twat on a bike on the pavement.

Maybe I should do my own experiment, but I rarely see a road cyclist during my (walking) commute, but constant pavement cyclists. I think it doesn't help that Chichester has a complex one-way system, so often cyclists cycle the wrong way around to avoid it.


----------



## chap (19 Mar 2010)

Arch said:


> But the point is, someone (especially someone vulnerable like an elderly or frail person) may be frightened dozens of times, and never hurt. That doesn't make the fright any less real for them.
> 
> It's easy to be blase about fear when you're fit and healthy and active. But many people are very afraid of a fall that might break a hip, or hurt their back - I know I've been very cagey the last few weeks, with a sore back.
> 
> Actually, if people could be trusted to cycle responsibly on the pavements (slowly, no weaving in and out of people), I'd have no problem with it. As ever, it's the thoughtless few who make the rules necessary, and if there's a rule, I like to see it obeyed.




One should look out for those more vulnerable than they are, although I wouldn't hold it against somebody were they to use the pavement for a reasonably paced (i.e. very slow) cycle.

I use the road by default now, however at times I would use the pavement, on fast roads where no feasible alternative side road is available. Certain places are just not well designed for pedestrians.

This is a view prevalent amongst drivers as well, generally many drivers that take up cycling would go on the pavement since they view the road as the place for cars. This makes sense, tonnes of steel hurtling past at 30-50mph in 30mph zones and faster in other parts. Perhaps one should take use the number of pavement cyclists as a marker of cycleability in places with a decent number of cyclists. Or better yet, a place can be seen as safe and cycleable if it would be the norm to see 8 - 12 year olds cycling the route.

Sadly, this is not the case on the vast majority of Britain's roads. This is very much the car drivers country.


----------



## mangaman (19 Mar 2010)

chap said:


> Sadly, this is not the case on the vast majority of Britain's roads. This is very much the car drivers country.



I agree, and most commuting cyclists use pavements in my town.

In big cities, with a critical mass of cyclists things may be different.

Personally I find pavement cyclists threatening. Most aren't Barbie style girls on pink bikes with stablilisers, but blokes cycling on the pavements quickly and unpredictably.


----------



## chap (19 Mar 2010)

mangaman said:


> I agree, and most commuting cyclists use pavements in my town.
> 
> In big cities, with a critical mass of cyclists things may be different.
> 
> Personally I find pavement cyclists threatening. Most aren't Barbie style girls on pink bikes with stablilisers, but blokes cycling on the pavements quickly and unpredictably.




Those cycling at speeds on pavements are highly irresponsible. As for the the other users, fair play to them. 

Below is a link to a blog by a commuter new to the game. Although you can see that he is drawn to cycling for the benefits, which he states throughout the post, he admits that he cycles on the pavements because the roads are (quite rightly perhaps) seen as the domain of the motorist.

http://kormmandos.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/my-foldable-bicycle-dahon-vitesse-d7/


In London we may be approaching critical mass, however there are still many sketchy parts to cycle to the extent that I am now rather uncertain as to how confident I am that the London Cycle Hire Scheme will be a success as opposed to a prolonged and silent massacre. 

In a city where they get rid of articulated buses due to aesthetic reasons... and that they are ill suited to the ancient and winding roads; why would you have articulated and tipper trucks, weighting several tonnes, charging through the city at rush hour? Let's hope they start prioritising safety by imposing strict limits on them immediately. 

They could start by dealing with speed limits, hours of operation, roads allowed, and rigorous safety criteria.


----------



## HLaB (19 Mar 2010)

The other night my eye was distracted for a second by a lot of commotion on my right a Police Bike, Fire Engine and then Ambulance. I glanced back left to see a cyclist jumping of the pavement next to me, he then proceeded to turn down the road the ambulance was taking, muppet!


----------



## StuartG (19 Mar 2010)

I run a local forum. Regularly we get rants about pavement terror cyclists in this part of inner London suburb. Trouble is I rarely see them and I probably do more pavement hours as walker and jogger than most. In fact in the last year I have been 'buzzed' just once (on a narrow bit of pavement fenced off from the road).

Of course in that time I have been countlessly been obstructed by illegally parked vehicles but these do appear to be invisible to others. Very confusing.

People just get angry about what they want to be angry about methinks.


----------



## HJ (19 Mar 2010)

HLaB said:


> The other night my eye was distracted for a second by a lot of commotion on my right a Police Bike, Fire Engine and then Ambulance. I glanced back left to see a cyclist jumping of the pavement next to me, he then proceeded to turn down the road the ambulance was taking, muppet!



Was he playing chicken with the ambulance


----------



## biggs682 (19 Mar 2010)

i ride on pavement on mtb and roads on racer as pavements to rough on racer and my bum , got abuse shouted at me yesterday by a motorist going oppisite way for riding on road


----------



## Davidc (19 Mar 2010)

The big problem is the difference between perception and reality.

There is a perception that cycling on roads is dangerous, and more dangerous than in the past.

The reality is that deaths and serious injuries among cyclists are statistically lower than ever (apart from a small rise in the last set) and that cycling is safer than at any time in most of our lifetimes. The figures for the times when most of us were going around as teenagers on bikes make very bad reading.

Yes - the roads should be much safer than they are, but the perceptions of danger are fuelled not by the real risk but by the helmet pushers, the DM and other newspapers, and so on. There are some parts of the road system which are dangerous owing to being badly laid out or other problems, and need to be avoided, bypassed, walked around, whatever. 

While there is a perception that the roads are too dangerous to ride on people will ride on pavements. It isn't an answer and can be dangerous for the cyclist as well as pedestrians.


----------



## Davidc (19 Mar 2010)

biggs682 said:


> i ride on pavement on mtb and roads on racer as pavements to rough on racer and my bum , got abuse shouted at me yesterday by a motorist going oppisite way for riding on road



Ignore it or if you have to point out that the road is there for cyclists, horses and pedestrians by right and cars are only allowed there under licence.


----------



## summerdays (20 Mar 2010)

Sorry for the number of multiple quotes I hadn't read this thread for some time. 



classic33 said:


> Since some are trying to compare us with motor vehicles, with regards injuries caused. How many on here wouldn't mind people oin cars taking to the pavements to get round something in the road. Be it another vehicle, pothole or a red light?
> .



My 9 yo cycles to school each day - on the road apart from one stretch of 150m where the road is narrow, parked up, and has 2 blind corners at either end. Along this stretch cars come round the corner realise they can't get out the other end due to the parked car slalom course and cars coming the other way and cause all sorts of choas which often results in them driving along stretches of pavements. I have seen my son and also pedestrians have to retreat into front gardens to get by. And even in the school road they also use the pavement with lots of school kids to drive along and pass each other. 

I have also been passed at pinch points by traffic passing the wrong side of a traffic island rather than wait 20 seconds for me to pass the obstruction.



brokenbetty said:


> Anyway, if one is only going walking pace it would be easier and safer to get off and walk. It's pretty hard to ride a bike safely through pedestrians at walking pace because your steering and balance are compromised.



You need to practise more... one of my routes uses a shared bit of pavement near a school. I will happily practise my slow riding skills waiting behind people - still can't track stand properly but I can happily cycle at 2mph or slower and see it as a challenge to enjoy cycling behind at their speed rather than trying to get past - its only 200 m so I don't mind waiting. Plus its good to work on your reaction times if they suddenly stop infront of you which children do.



mangaman said:


> I agree with Arch on this.
> 
> I think London and big city cyclists have a skewed view. Even in York there are I guess a quite a few road cyclists.
> 
> ...



I would definitely say pavement cyclists are significantly in the minority here apart from in some pockets of Bristol - usually but not all of the council estate areas - so Southmead, Knowle, Hengrove. The weird thing about those places are that the roads are relatively clear but I guess the standard of driving can vary alot. 

I can understand why people are scared of cycling along busy roads, and take to the pavement there but I admit I don't know why they do it in places where there isn't very much traffic around. The problem with new cyclists they think about their journey as the route they would take to get there in the car rather than discovering alternative routes along back streets which they wouldn't dream of doing in a car or couldn't because of roads closed to cars.


----------



## martynjc1977 (20 Mar 2010)

When walking and i encounter pavement cyclists i refuse to give way to them and force them to stop or move to the grass verge or back onto the road, unless I'm on a shared path of course. This has led to a few heated arguments and threats of violence lol,


----------



## al78 (20 Mar 2010)

Davidc said:


> The big problem is the difference between perception and reality.
> 
> There is a perception that cycling on roads is dangerous, and more dangerous than in the past.



Correct, there is also the perception that cycling on the road is more dangerous than cycling on the pavement. In reality, accident rates are higher for pavement cyclists than for road cyclists.

One reason for this is that the pavements, unlike the roads are not a continuous network, it will be necessary to leave the pavement to cross side roads, which puts the cyclist in a position where motorists negotiating the junction are not expecting to see other vehicles.


----------



## wafflycat (20 Mar 2010)

Cab said:


> On Milton Road in Cambridge theres an off-road shared use lane, i.e. a pavement that you can legally ride on. There one spot on the way out of town where there is a pedestrian crossing, at which I can legally mount the shared use facility a few yards before, ride along it, get back on to the road, and legally avoid a light that has gone red.
> 
> On comparable sections of pavement where the level of risk is near enough identical (i.e. similar visibility, width and surface quality) I, personally, do not care one little bit of someone mounts the pavement to do the same thing. Why should I? What I care about is whether in either situation a cyclist acts responsibly, i.e. on a shared use path or anywhere else you need to show consideration for others present.



This is but one reason why I intensely dislike 'shared use' farcilities. All of a sudden a magic bit of white paint daubed in the outline shape of a bicycle turns a footpath into something suitable and legal to cycle along. No wonder there's so much pavement cycling - it is actively encouraged by the provision of farcilities. Got to keep off the roads; they're dangerous


----------



## classic33 (20 Mar 2010)

martynjc1977 said:


> When walking and i encounter pavement cyclists i refuse to give way to them and force them to stop or move to the grass verge or back onto the road,




Did that to a bus driver this week who made it clear to me that I was in the wrong for walking on the pavement.

Questioned as to why he wasn't on the road, where he should be. His response was that "there's too many of them(pointing to buses parked up) on the roads making it unsafe to ride on the roads."


----------



## palinurus (20 Mar 2010)

You know the roads are getting dangerous when buses take to the pavements.


----------



## classic33 (20 Mar 2010)

palinurus said:


> You know the roads are getting dangerous when buses take to the pavements.



Nice one. _There's always one_
However at the time he was on a bike, not a bus, on the pavement.


----------



## garrilla (21 Mar 2010)

In general I don't like pavement cycling. Its especially frustrating to see cyclists with full-on safety gear ride on the pavement, it suggest to me that they thought a lot about themselves and nothing about others. I realise that some people are frightened of the roads, but by riding on the pavement all they tend to be do is displacing their fear to more vunerable pedestrians. 

However, I might be a hypocrit. I do ride on the pavement when I take my daughter to school. We ride on the road on the back roads, but she's only 5 and there is no way that I'd let here ride on a main road. We do always prioritise pedestrians though and we're never going faster that 6mph.


----------



## mangaman (21 Mar 2010)

chap said:


> Below is a link to a blog by a commuter new to the game. Although you can see that he is drawn to cycling for the benefits, which he states throughout the post, he admits that he cycles on the pavements because the roads are (quite rightly perhaps) seen as the domain of the motorist.
> 
> http://kormmandos.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/my-foldable-bicycle-dahon-vitesse-d7/



Sorry chap, but a crap, one paragraph blog by one person in Malaysia, who cycles on the pavement to work, doesn't mean it's right.

(btw - his whole commute is only 5 miles and his average spped is 5 mph - I could walk it at that speed if I were brisk)

It means

a) he shouldn't be on a bike without some basic training.
 nothing in this country

Roads may be seen as the domain of the motorist, but they are not.


----------



## Norm (21 Mar 2010)

> Bicycles aren't just road vehicles. They're far more than that.


Hmmm.... yes, I agree, but is there not a danger that by allowing cycling on any pavement, that will just give more ammunition to the "get bikes off the roads" lobby?


----------



## Norm (21 Mar 2010)

Aye, with restrictions on speed, I think it would be a good thing to allow the less confident cyclists to use pavements without concerns for the legalities.


----------



## chap (21 Mar 2010)

mangaman said:


> Sorry chap, but a crap, one paragraph blog by one person in Malaysia, who cycles on the pavement to work, doesn't mean it's right.
> 
> (btw - his whole commute is only 5 miles and his average spped is 5 mph - I could walk it at that speed if I were brisk)
> 
> ...




My reply shows more consideration to your post than you were bothered to apply to a single sentence of mine. However, you are entitled to your opinion, regardless. Happy Cycling.


----------



## marinyork (21 Mar 2010)

> And I'm not saying any pavement, as some wouldn't be suitable. I do think though that it's entirely possible to enable cyclists to get from pretty much anywhere to anywhere using a combination of quieter roads and suitable pavements for shared use.



I'm all for miles of pavement to be opened up to shared use - 1% of pavements round here. From a practicality perspective I'd have thought that even if everything on my wish list got made shared use, a 20 mph default urban limit is far more useful. It'd make many miles of middle category roads much less threatening for pedestrian and cyclists.


----------



## chap (21 Mar 2010)

marinyork said:


> I'm all for miles of pavement to be opened up to shared use - 1% of pavements round here. From a practicality perspective I'd have thought that even if everything on my wish list got made shared use, a 20 mph default urban limit is far more useful. It'd make many miles of middle category roads much less threatening for pedestrian and cyclists.




I agree entirely, although it is how well that this is enforced that counts. Many 30mph roads are drag strips for wayward teens and cretinous adults.


----------



## mangaman (22 Mar 2010)

chap said:


> My reply shows more consideration to your post than you were bothered to apply to a single sentence of mine. However, you are entitled to your opinion, regardless. Happy Cycling.



Sorry to have caused offense. It wasn't meant at all.

My post does look a lot more gratuitously aggressive than intended in the cold light of day. When I wrote it I thought a bit of humour would come across, which when reading it again - is far from the case 

Happy cycling to you too.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (22 Mar 2010)

Cab said:


> And no one is condoning reckless pavement riding. Its just that we need to keep this in some kind of context; I see pavement riding every day, many times, and the number of instances I see of dangerous pavement riding approaches zero.



Using that same context, I see plenty of LGV's and HGV's on the road every single day but I've never seen a cyclist go under one & only a tiny handful of the cycling population die under them every year anyway, so why all the fuss about that?

not a lot of examples doesn't always mean not a lot of a problem.

context is fine in a discussion on a pro cycling forum but unfortunately this is a very public demonstration of 'bad' cycling that is actually illegal and the negativity and bad press it gives us may well be far in excess of the real life damage that it does, but it gives certain types of driver carte blanche to launch into violent and verbal tirades against all of us.

I've been driven into and had abuse screamed at me as a f*****g red light jumping pavement riding c**t. (whilst sat waiting at a red light on the road!) No doubt a driver with a tiny penis and even smaller brain but it was the instant excuse used for deliberately swiping me with his car and screaming out of his window. It is always something that is mentioned when people talk about the ills of cycling and is a regular in what nasty abuse I do get.
like it or not, it is a big deal and it has a disproportionate effect on the perception of all cyclists.


----------



## chap (22 Mar 2010)

mangaman said:


> Sorry to have caused offense. It wasn't meant at all.
> 
> My post does look a lot more gratuitously aggressive than intended in the cold light of day. When I wrote it I thought a bit of humour would come across, which when reading it again - is far from the case
> 
> Happy cycling to you too.




No offence taken, we're all on the same side; it's a velocipedic love-in here!

 ​


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (22 Mar 2010)

A loon went hurtling between peds on a BMX and off down the pavement this morning.

Prompting *me* to be sternly told "WALK!" by one of the near-victims, across a Toucan =/

Dunno what I had to do with it, other than daring to be on a bicycle??


----------



## mangaman (22 Mar 2010)

chap said:


> No offence taken, we're all on the same side; it's a velocipedic love-in here!
> 
> ​



Cool I agree - although I'm not sure about your boxing smiley (4th one). Do you want a fight or something?


----------



## chap (23 Mar 2010)

mangaman said:


> Cool I agree - although I'm not sure about your boxing smiley (4th one). Do you want a fight or something?



Nope, save that for the commuting motorists to do among their-selves


----------



## magnatom (24 Mar 2010)

HJ said:


> Was he playing chicken with the ambulance






HLab wouldn't do a thing like that....would he


(fast forward to about 5 mins 11 )


----------



## goo_mason (24 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> HLab wouldn't do a thing like that....would he
> 
> 
> (fast forward to about 5 mins 11 )



Now admit it - we all stage-managed that entire incident so that we could film it and post it on YouTube. It took us 4 months preparation, as we had to brief the thousands of other cyclists to play along too....


----------



## magnatom (24 Mar 2010)

goo_mason said:


> Now admit it - we all stage-managed that entire incident so that we could film it and post it on YouTube. It took us 4 months preparation, as we had to brief the thousands of other cyclists to play along too....




A fiver a cyclist, wasn't it?!


----------



## chap (31 Mar 2010)

Was reading a blog about Beauty and the bike, and the comments section reminded me of this thread. http://londoncyclechic.blogspot.com/2009/12/beauty-and-bike-short-film.html So without beating a dead horse 

Dangerous roads + poor cycle facilities = less cyclists + more cyclists using the pavement. 

It will be interesting to see the effect of the supercalifragilisticexpi-ultra-highways in London. 


 Beauty and the bike
Beauty and the bike (forum)
London's supercyclehighways (forum)


----------



## Cool_Mint (1 Apr 2010)

I don't mind people cycling on the pavement _slowly_ and where it is safe to do so. 

I occasionally ride on the pavement, such as when I need to make a right-turn into a side-road 100 metres away and it would involve crossing the road through busy traffic and then riding back out into the middle of the road to get to the same junction; in that case it's just dumb to cross back onto the road. 

My objection is to people who ride at speed on the pavements or bully their way through crowds. More than once I've felt tempted to clothes-line a couple of teenagers riding through packed pedestrian areas.


I do also get annoyed at some pedestrians who won't give way; in a town near where I live there is a street separated by a pedestrianized area in the town centre and it takes just 10 seconds to cycle across at walking pace but the shopping-zombies treat me as if I'm invisible, sometimes to the extent that they will almost try to walk through me!I 'm not kidding, even when I get off the bike a whole mob of them will stare straight ahead and walk towards me like a herd of hypnotized cows - and they don't stop.


----------



## lolly (10 Aug 2010)

I don't do that, def illegal. However, often when I come to a pedestrian crossing that's red, I DO hop off my bike, push it across, clear the crossing and get back on, whilst the cars still have to sit there til lights change. The other day someone said to me "that's illegal" - but is it? Would have thought not, as I'm walking, not riding? Would appreciate if anyone knows this for sure though - seen more coppers about town lately and don't want to get stopped! 



rh100 said:


> Fair enough - a bug-bear of mine is the road cyclist who bypasses pedestrian crossings on red by scooting around on the pavement - what's the point in that?


----------



## slugonabike (10 Aug 2010)

Ok, I admit it, I sometimes cycle on the pavement - and I'm going straight to hell!  

I'm a new, slow, 'mature' cyclist and happen to live just off a busy dual carriageway. Having learnt to cycle and bought my first bike I vowed I would start using it for commuting to work (just a couple of miles each way). This necessitates navigating short stretches of the dual carriageway and another busy road, although other bits are much quieter. Initially, I cycled on the pavement for all of the busier stretches but am now gaining confidence and don't do it as much - for instance, I will use the pavement when going the wrong way up the dc but use the road when coming the other way. I will also take to the pavement to save me having to turn right twice across the other road - the pavement here is very wide with a grass verge that I use if there are any peds around (although it's unusual for me to come across any).

On occassion I have been looked at very closely by the occupants of a police car but they obviously had better things to do than stop me. Incidentally, a PCSO told me that she would always cycle on the pavement there as she considered the roads (especially the dc) too dangerous!

Of course, my ultimate aim is to gain enough confidence to cope with any road conditions but I'm afraid that will only come with practice.


----------



## BSRU (10 Aug 2010)

lolly said:


> I don't do that, def illegal. However, often when I come to a pedestrian crossing that's red, I DO hop off my bike, push it across, clear the crossing and get back on, whilst the cars still have to sit there til lights change. The other day someone said to me "that's illegal" - but is it? Would have thought not, as I'm walking, not riding? Would appreciate if anyone knows this for sure though - seen more coppers about town lately and don't want to get stopped!



Yes that is illegal but I doubt any copper would want to waste there time with it.


----------



## dondare (10 Aug 2010)

My dad cycled (on the roads, where there were roads) (and without a helmet) all his life. Now he's 89 and rather frail he can't cycle any more and finds walking difficult. When he does go out pavement cyclists are a considerable worry to him, more than cars on the road ever were when he cycled. 
He still lives in the house where I grew up on the road I learned to cycle on. (Cab would probably know it, I've seen clips from nearby roads.) It's almost as traffic-free now as it was 40 years ago and there's no reason on earth why anyone would illegally use the pavement except that they always do. I would be very happy indeed to see a clampdown on pavement cycling in Cambridge just for my dad's sake.


----------



## summerdays (10 Aug 2010)

lolly said:


> I don't do that, def illegal. However, often when I come to a pedestrian crossing that's red, I DO hop off my bike, push it across, clear the crossing and get back on, whilst the cars still have to sit there til lights change. The other day someone said to me "that's illegal" - but is it? Would have thought not, as I'm walking, not riding? Would appreciate if anyone knows this for sure though - seen more coppers about town lately and don't want to get stopped!




I thought it wasn't illegal ... once you are pushing your bike - you are defined as a pedestrian - for example you can take your bike past a No Cycling sign, and there was a legal case - can't remember the details where a cyclists was knocked down whilst walking their bike and I'm sure the judge didn't allow the defence to claim they were cycling. However if you are scooting the bike rather than walking with it - then you are cycling IIRC. 

I do occasionally use the get off and walk option when there is a really large queue for the lights and there isn't anyway I can filter to the front or get through in a single change of lights. As motorists probably consider it cheeky I usually go a bit beyond the lights before I get back on again.


----------



## Jezston (10 Aug 2010)

I believe I started a thread asking this very question a while back:

https://www.cyclechat.net/


----------



## dondare (10 Aug 2010)

In Southampton there are various kinds of facilities all over the place. One result of this is that cyclists use the pavements where they're not supposed to as well as where they are. Another is that some motorists resent any cyclists who dare to ride on the road regardless of whether there's a legal alternative.
In my view all cyclists should be on the road and all motorists who intimidate or endanger them should be removed from the roads.


----------



## slugonabike (10 Aug 2010)

dondare said:


> In my view all cyclists should be on the road and all motorists who intimidate or endanger them should be removed from the roads.




and when that happens I will joyfully leave the pavement behind!


----------



## BSRU (10 Aug 2010)

summerdays said:


> I thought it wasn't illegal ... once you are pushing your bike - you are defined as a pedestrian - for example you can take your bike past a No Cycling sign, and there was a legal case - can't remember the details where a cyclists was knocked down whilst walking their bike and I'm sure the judge didn't allow the defence to claim they were cycling. However if you are scooting the bike rather than walking with it - then you are cycling IIRC.
> 
> I do occasionally use the get off and walk option when there is a really large queue for the lights and there isn't anyway I can filter to the front or get through in a single change of lights. As motorists probably consider it cheeky I usually go a bit beyond the lights before I get back on again.



I would assume if you get off your bike, lift it onto the pavement then push it past no problems, but pushing it over the stop line is a different matter. A copper would have to be extremely bored to even bother giving you a talking to.

A pedestrian is supposed to cross in between the studs marking the crossing, they should not be on any other part of the crossing.


----------



## dondare (10 Aug 2010)

slugonabike said:


> and when that happens I will joyfully leave the pavement behind!



Then fight for it!!


----------



## dondare (10 Aug 2010)

BSRU said:


> I would assume if you get off your bike, lift it onto the pavement then push it past no problems, but pushing it over the stop line is a different matter. A copper would have to be extremely bored to even bother giving you a talking to.
> 
> A pedestrian is supposed to cross in between the studs marking the crossing, they should not be on any other part of the crossing.



Now, I am certain that pedestrians legally have Right of Way on all parts of the carriageway. So a pedestrian wheeling a bike does as well. Personally I'd rather wait at lights than dismount and wheel.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (10 Aug 2010)

I saw a cyclist riding on the pavement yesterday evening when I nipped down to Aldi

In the same 1 mile stretch I counted


1 car very illegally parked (as opposed to normal illegal parking - on double yellows just after zig-zags and on a junction
at least 8 cars parked illegally obstructing a bus lane during operating hours (stopped counting as I wasn't filling in a traffic survey)
1 car emerging from the wrong way of a one-way-street
1 car driving along the pavement
1 car parked on a corner of a junction
Bloody cyclists eh? Get them registered and then they'll have to follow the rules like car drivers have to


----------



## BSRU (10 Aug 2010)

dondare said:


> Now, I am certain that pedestrians legally have Right of Way on all parts of the carriageway. So a pedestrian wheeling a bike does as well. Personally I'd rather wait at lights than dismount and wheel.



I remember a discussion about this a while ago, as far as I can remember a pedestrian should only cross between the stud markings, I cannot remember if the HC states SHOULD or MUST. I would have thought wheeling a bike on the road is not the same as wheeling a bike on the pavement, although you never know.

Just found it in the HC,
it is a SHOULD.

*18*
At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should


always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing
always cross between the studs or over the zebra markings. Do not cross at the side of the crossing or on the zig-zag lines, as it can be dangerous
You *MUST NOT* loiter on any type of crossing.


----------

