# Bl**dy pavement riding RLJ's...



## HJ (12 Aug 2009)

To all those who say that RLJing and pavement cycling do no harm, read this!! The ba$tard got what he deserved, it is notable that he had already been banded from driving, but that won't stop the rest of us getting tarred with the same brush....

Now just waiting for someone to pop up and say that Mr Turner should have been wearing a helmet as it might have saved his life, after all it is always the victims fault


----------



## Arch (12 Aug 2009)

You're wasting your breath. I expect we'll now be treated to someone telling us how that doesn't count, because when they break the law it's alwys very carefully and only when there's no one around, and anyway it's safer for them....

Interesting point about him having already been banned from driving, just shows his default level of personal responsibility...


----------



## addictfreak (12 Aug 2009)

I am reading this as the driving ban being part of the same punishment for this offence. Or am I mis understanding it.


----------



## Jake (12 Aug 2009)

should have been longer!


----------



## marinyork (12 Aug 2009)

HJ said:


> To all those who say that RLJing and pavement cycling do no harm, read this!! The ba$tard got what he deserved, it is notable that he had already been banded from driving, but that won't stop the rest of us getting tarred with the same brush....
> 
> Now just waiting for someone to pop up and say that Mr Turner should have been wearing a helmet as it might have saved his life, after all it is always the victims fault



I take your point about getting tarred, as in this case whenever he was driving he did something bad enough to get banned, so rather than a dangerous driver and cycling he metamorphosises into a dangerous cyclist. I don't like the article in general though as I think it is biased. It is not important in the context of his actions he was banned, the red light is also irrelevent and so is the bat out of hell and rabble rousing. I'm not sure he got what he deserved though as by coincidence what was effectively a drunk attempted murder in a car got a mere 3 years on the same day.

The only things that matter are pavement + hill (possibly steep) + sharp bend + speed (may or may not have been going at speed) + elderly and infirm.


----------



## RRCC (12 Aug 2009)

Arch said:


> Interesting point about him having already been banned from driving, just shows his default level of personal responsibility...



I read it that he was banned from driving for this offence - which seems a little strange. (Edit) the police press release confirms this.

Otherwise the sentance was about what a driver would have got - not enough for this degree of recklessness.


----------



## marinyork (12 Aug 2009)

RRCC said:


> Otherwise the sentance was about what a driver would have got - not enough for this degree of recklessness.



Apples and oranges.


----------



## beanzontoast (12 Aug 2009)

Time for a more up-to-date piece of legislation with stiffer punishments reflecting modern roads, pedestrian areas etc methinks. Too many cyclists thinking it doesn't matter if they cycle on the pavement / everyone does it / I'm only on a bike / no-one's going to mind / who's going to stop me etc etc etc...


----------



## marinyork (12 Aug 2009)

beanzontoast said:


> Time for a more up-to-date piece of legislation with stiffer punishments enforcement reflecting modern roads, pedestrian areas etc methinks. Too many cyclists cars road users thinking it doesn't matter if they cycleride/drive on the pavement / everyone does it / I'm only on a bikevehicle / no-one's going to mind / who's going to stop me etc etc etc...



+1.


----------



## beanzontoast (12 Aug 2009)

marinyork said:


> +1.



Yeah - I guess you're right!


----------



## thomas (12 Aug 2009)

RRCC said:


> I read it that he was banned from driving for this offence - which seems a little strange. (Edit) the police press release confirms this.



I think that is a bit silly. If he didn't have a drivers licence would he have been banned? The drivers ban is a bit pointless too as it will only effect him for 5 months, not the full year.

No problem with the rest of it, fair enough if he should go to prison for cycling dangerously.



> You're wasting your breath. I expect we'll now be treated to someone telling us how that doesn't count, because when they break the law it's *alwys very carefully* and only when there's no one around, and anyway it's safer for them....


Cycling on the pavement isn't dangerous. If he was cycling at a safe speed and could stop in the distance he could see it would have been fine. I'm quite happy for people to cycle on the pavement, if they are considerate. If they stop for peds and only tootle along (at about walking speed anyway). This chap was obviously being reckless. It was the excessive speed that caused the accident, rather than just because he was on the pavement.


----------



## User482 (12 Aug 2009)

The guy should have got longer IMO. Just like all the motorists who mow down hundreds of pedestrians each year - I don't make a distinction.


----------



## Dan B (12 Aug 2009)

HJ said:


> To all those who say that RLJing and pavement cycling do no harm, read this!!


I read it. It seems to me that the problem is not that Hall was illegally riding on the pavement but that he was riding like a dangerous and entirely selfish tosser. Even if he'd been legally on the pavement (e.g. it had been a shared use path), or if his victim had been in the road, he would still have been riding like a dangerous and entirely selfish tosser. 

What thomas said.


----------



## mr_cellophane (12 Aug 2009)

thomas said:


> I think that is a bit silly. If he didn't have a drivers licence would he have been banned?



yes, because they ban underage drivers who take cars and drive recklessly. For them the ban doesn't start until they apply for a licence.


----------



## User482 (12 Aug 2009)

The driving ban might apply because he was charged with an offence that applies to all vehicles, rather than cyclists specifically.


----------



## thomas (12 Aug 2009)

mr_cellophane said:


> yes, because they ban underage drivers who take cars and drive recklessly. For them the ban doesn't start until they apply for a licence.



Yet, he could still go out tomorrow and kill someone on his bike....well, when he is out of Prison. Unlike underage drivers, if I didn't have a drivers licence by the time I was 20, it probably shows a lack of interest in learning to drive. Simply get the licence, wait a year for it to expire...and possibly even then not bother driving for another 10 years, or the rest of my life.

The punishment is not equal.



User482 said:


> The driving ban might apply because he was charged with an offence that applies to all vehicles, rather than cyclists specifically.



You are probably right, but (not directed at you) it seems stupid to ban someone from driving a car, when cycles are not licensed vehicles and therefore don't require a driver's licence. If I was to cycle back from the pub over the drink drive limit, should I get the punishment for that *and* loose my driver's licence?

However, 7 months for cycling dangerously and killing someone doesn't sound like much IMO. Maybe turn that into years for something remotely just.

The point of him being on the pavement to jump a red light is only there to make it news worthy as it plays on common sterotypes. Cycling on the pavement is not dangerous. Cycling like a twat is, be that on the pavement or not. In the same way speeding is not necessarily dangerous. However an excessive use of speed is (now that could mean doing 15mph in a 30mph).


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

Banning him from driving is laughable !! It ain't going to stop him riding a pushbike. If i was ever banned from driving i'd ride my bike more.........
Ok, the old fella has died thats tragic. But, is everyone on this forum whiter than white, and never mounted the pavement to go round a red light ? Honest answers !!!
I've done it, and i see it daily.


----------



## wafflycat (12 Aug 2009)

Trevrev said:


> Banning him from driving is laughable !! It ain't going to stop him riding a pushbike. If i was ever banned from driving i'd ride my bike more.........
> Ok, the old fella has died thats tragic. But, is everyone on this forum whiter than white, and *never mounted the pavement to go round a red light ? *Honest answers !!!
> I've done it, and i see it daily.



Indeed I do not. I do not RLJ and I don't cycle on the footpath.


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

WoW........Maybe i should be banned from this forum for being a naughty boy !!!


----------



## purplepolly (12 Aug 2009)

Trevrev said:


> But, is everyone on this forum whiter than white, and never mounted the pavement to go round a red light ? Honest answers !!!
> I've done it, and i see it daily.



No, never done that except when it's a shared path, I don't accelerate to get through the lights when I'm in the car either. And it's not because I'm whiter than white, I'm just not sad enough to have to be constantly shaving 0.04 seconds off my journey. Can't see the point.


----------



## mr_cellophane (12 Aug 2009)

Nope. Done the opposite, dropped off the CP onto the road to take advantage of green lights for the cars.


----------



## Garz (12 Aug 2009)

It seems that the laws need to adjust to banish the modern day reckless idiot! It does'nt matter if it's driving a car/motorbike/cycle, what matters is adequate punishment and transparent rules on the roads/lanes/pavements.


----------



## purplepolly (12 Aug 2009)

mr_cellophane said:


> dropped off the CP onto the road to take advantage of green lights for the cars.



I've been on some where the crossing arrangments for cyclist must have been designed by an army obstacle course expert.


----------



## addictfreak (12 Aug 2009)

Trevrev said:


> Banning him from driving is laughable !! It ain't going to stop him riding a pushbike. If i was ever banned from driving i'd ride my bike more.........
> Ok, the old fella has died thats tragic. *But, is everyone on this forum whiter than white, and never mounted the pavement to go round a red light ? Honest answers !!!*
> I've done it, and i see it daily.




Honest answer Trev

Of course I have!

Dont do it all the time but done it I certainly have. I do however take care not to cause anyone any problems and would not do it if there were peds around. It doesnt make it right of course, and if I did collide with anyone or a vehicle then it would be entirely my fault and I would except my punishment.


----------



## trustysteed (12 Aug 2009)

User3143 said:


> Pavement cyclists are self-gratification artists. If you want to RLJ then RLJ but don't be a bitch and jump on the pavement to do it where there are peds and little old ladies.



what a load of cock. do you really think there's a ped and a little old lady on every street corner? occasionally you may encounter a stretch of pavement with absolutely no-one on it. bizarre but true.


----------



## Garz (12 Aug 2009)

User3143 said:


> I think 7 months is adequate and IMO the guy will be sorry for the rest of his life, he didn't set out that morning to kill someone.
> 
> As for transparency? Clear as day in the HC you must not ride on the pavement.



Bullocks.

Seven months isnt adequate and how do you know the guy is _really_ sorry? Try tell that to the victims family!

Also you think all the grey areas are going to be prevented by a simple 'must not ride on the pavement' ? Give over!

There's a section of road near where I live that in the middle of the road under a bridge, highway barriers split the pavement. Right here there is an 'end of cycle' paint on the road.. I guess your the kind of guy that can teleport over the barrier, oh wait.. you must not ride on the path!


----------



## Gromit (12 Aug 2009)

Trevrev said:


> Banning him from driving is laughable !! It ain't going to stop him riding a pushbike. If i was ever banned from driving i'd ride my bike more.........
> Ok, the old fella has died thats tragic. But, is everyone on this forum whiter than white, and never mounted the pavement to go round a red light ? Honest answers !!!
> I've done it, and i see it daily.



I have never done it, I use the road or a designated cycle path. RLJ is also a no no for me too, I don't do it in my car so why should I when I'm cycling? 

It's stupid and wrong, people always see the bad side of things, and it's people like you who give law abiding cyclists like me a bad name. 

I'm tired of the amount of close passes I get on my commute, by drivers who see me as nothing but a tax dodging criminal. If every cyclist used the roads in the same way I do then we might get the respect we deserve.


----------



## addictfreak (12 Aug 2009)

Trev

Either you and I are total rebels, or we are the only honest ones here!


----------



## trustysteed (12 Aug 2009)

User3143 said:


> What's this? Don't tell me you are a self-gratification artist that rides on the pavement? Learn to ride on the road if you are.



yes, i'm a self-gratification artist that does ride on the pavement at times. i don't go bombing along if there's people on it and i always give them right of way. yes, i know it's not 'right' to be on the pavement which is why i make sure i don't scream along them when people are on them.

but it sees to be only in this country where there seems to be such an issue with pavement riding. having spent some time in france riding around, no-one bats an eyelid or cares if people are riding on the pavements, cycling is so much more accepted.

and yes, i do go through the odd red-light for you to have a pop at if you want. go up the wrong way in a one-way street now and then as well. oh yeah, stopped on a double yellow line at a junction this morning, sure that's illegal but hey, no harm, no foul.


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

Well Addictfreak, I think we're the only honest ones on here.
And yes i am a self-gratification artist.........Most men are !!! I'm being honest again.......This honesty thing is letting me down.
Trustysteed, welcome to naughty boys corner.


----------



## addictfreak (12 Aug 2009)

Trusty

I wouldnt feel to bad mate. Theres a distinct difference between the guy in court and those who use pavement because they do not have the confidence to ride on the road.


----------



## addictfreak (12 Aug 2009)

Oh Trev 

Now you've gone and done it! The righteous cycle zealots will get you.


----------



## purplepolly (12 Aug 2009)

addictfreak said:


> Theres a distinct difference between the guy in court and those who use pavement because they do not have the confidence to ride on the road.



That's true, some of us are capable of using the road, others aren't. We shouldn't be too judgmental.


----------



## marinyork (12 Aug 2009)

Gromit said:


> It's stupid and wrong, people always see the bad side of things, and it's people like you who give law abiding cyclists like me a bad name.
> 
> I'm tired of the amount of close passes I get on my commute, by drivers who see me as nothing but a tax dodging criminal. If every cyclist used the roads in the same way I do then we might get the respect we deserve.



Whilst everyone is entitled to their opinion I think this is a bit low. As has been said many times before cyclists are an outgroup. There's no chance of us getting this respect as it is built on a false non-level playing field. As the transport research laboratory have said motorists quite happily justify things they do wrong and then lambast the cyclists even they they can be conceptualised into the same sort of reasons. The conclusion? We're an outgroup. They'd do it anyway, if it wasn't RLJing it'd be something else. Good behaviour is something which should be an aim in itself. When I've seen people skip junctions by going over the pavement and having to rejoin sometimes it is a danger to themselves and others (other than peds). If it's a danger to you, it's a good idea to be on the road instead.


----------



## addictfreak (12 Aug 2009)

Not all that is in the HC is law!


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

Cyclists will never get respect from car drivers, nor will motorcyclists. It's all because us on two wheels have the ability to pass them with ease while they're stuck in their boxes wasting fuel stuck in traffic.......And do you know what.......I really don't give a sh1t if i get respect or not.


----------



## purplepolly (12 Aug 2009)

addictfreak said:


> Not all that is in the HC is law!



a rule which uses the word 'MUST' is a legal requirement

a rule that doesn't use the word 'MUST' is a recommendation


----------



## purplepolly (12 Aug 2009)

User3143 said:


> or get the bus/take the car.



I wouldn't want them driving anywhere near me


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

User3143 said:


> In all honesty reading this thread has shocked me because I can't believe that some people lack the basic skills or confidence to ride on the road. Go and take some lessons or get the bus/take the car.



I love my bike........The car stays at home !!! You need balls to ride on the road nowadays.


----------



## Baggy (12 Aug 2009)

addictfreak said:


> Not all that is in the HC is law!



But those parts which state you "MUST NOT" do something refer to activities which are road traffic offences.


----------



## addictfreak (12 Aug 2009)

I dont recall anyone saying that they in particular dont have the confidence or skill to ride on the road.

But if youy really thought everyone did then your living in cloud cuckoo land. 
I am extremely confident on road or off. But I have seen many who are not, even some posters on here who are either new or returning to cycling after a number of years.
Perhaps if your so good Lee you should be a little more understanding of those who are not.


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

User3143......You must be god!!
Do you get off on talking to people like they're 15 year olds ??


----------



## Baggy (12 Aug 2009)

Trevrev said:


> You need balls to ride on the road nowadays.


I don't have balls, but I'm happy riding on the road.


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

Master something !!! Cyclist wasn't the thing that popped into my head.


----------



## yenrod (12 Aug 2009)

I've had a few close calls with pavements cyclists: I was thinking *I* get banged up by a cyclist: me (a bigtime cyclist) of all people...


----------



## purplepolly (12 Aug 2009)

Baggy said:


> I don't have balls, but I'm happy riding on the road.



I don't either and I think it's sometimes an advantage - less painful when skidding for one thing.


----------



## HLaB (12 Aug 2009)

If people haven't got the confidence to ride on the road that their problem, perhaps they need encouragements; its wreckless idiots that do have the confidence but still ride dangerously through peds that irk me.


----------



## purplepolly (12 Aug 2009)

HLaB said:


> If people haven't got the confidence to ride on the road that their problem, perhaps they need encouragements; its wreckless idiots that do have the confidence but still ride dangerously through peds that irk me.



I have to admit I don't really see anything wrong with cyclists pottering along the otherwise empty wide pavement alongside a busy road


----------



## addictfreak (12 Aug 2009)

purplepolly said:


> I have to admit I don't really see anything wrong with cyclists pottering along the otherwise empty wide pavement alongside a busy road



Of course not polly and thats what we are talking about. Its about applying a bit of commonsense.


----------



## addictfreak (12 Aug 2009)

User3143 said:


> OK, just don't moan on here when you get a £30 FPN.



Well I have never had a fine of any kind, but if I got one then clearly I have done something wrong and would accept without complaint


----------



## Garz (12 Aug 2009)

User3143 said:


> How can it be a grey area? It's in the HC in black & white - you MUST NOT ride on the pavement.
> 
> Correct though Garz I don't ride on the path I rdie on the road, however if I was to then I wouldn't teleport through the barrier....I would bunny hop it instead.



For grey area read section below lee.

Again as you still have not grasped your obsession to paths, I have explained a situation where you are being forced to get onto a path you stubborn fool. By doing this its blowing a hole in your HC 'must not cycle on the path'.

 




addictfreak said:


> Not all that is in the HC is law!



Exactly AF, I was trying to expand but like explaining to lee is a non starter as he doesnt want to rethink his rigid views. I wasn't implying this particular pavement issue was 'grey area' moreso the whole cycling and paths/roads is a grey area as no council conform to the same format, each road is different.


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

God Lee...You are soooooooo boring !!!


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

Anyway...On a serious note.......Male cyclists wearing lycra shorts.....If anything gives cyclists a bad name and a real cause for abuse......Thats it !!!! You're not helping yourselves guys !!!!


----------



## addictfreak (12 Aug 2009)

Well I have to concede that the not cycling on paths is law. Its just that so many people think the HC is law when it is actually a mixture of law and good practice.

However it is accepted that the police will use commonsense in applying the law depending on who (usually children) is riding on the path.


----------



## addictfreak (12 Aug 2009)

I look rather good in mine Trev


----------



## andrew-the-tortoise (12 Aug 2009)

Does get me vexed when some big tw*t on a BSO tries to squeeze past me when I am walking down the pavement. 
Many years ago, while out jogging I accidentally 'elbowed' one in the shoulder, sending him into some hedges. Wouldn't recommend this as my shoulder has not been the same since.


----------



## purplepolly (12 Aug 2009)

addictfreak said:


> However it is accepted that the police will use commonsense in applying the law depending on who (usually children) is riding on the path.



children are too young too be prosecuted for such an offence.


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

addictfreak said:


> I look rather good in mine Trev



No you don't.....You really don't !! And i've never seen you.....LOL


----------



## addictfreak (12 Aug 2009)

purplepolly said:


> children are too young too be prosecuted for such an offence.



Only if under 10


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

User3143 said:


> *64*
> 
> You *MUST NOT* cycle on a pavement.
> *[Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129]*



But you can.........I won't tell !!


----------



## addictfreak (12 Aug 2009)

Trevrev said:


> No you don't.....You really don't !! And i've never seen you.....LOL



You dont know what your missing


----------



## Garz (12 Aug 2009)

User3143 said:


> How can you be forced to get on a path?



If you deny theres section of roads that do this then you either lack the ability to realise that this does happen, or your just being ignorant and dont want to look embarrassed on the forum. 

This is also the commuter subsection too lee, im sure someone has also experienced this on their commute or there is none on the whole of the british isles..


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

addictfreak said:


> You dont know what your missing



Ok..send me a picture, and i'll give you a very honest answer.....Because i'm a very honest man.


----------



## trustysteed (12 Aug 2009)

i have a 12 mile round-trip commute to work. 10 yards of that is pavement which i ride across. i do 45-60 mile rides on the weekends on my *road*bike. i think i'm fairly confident on the roads but that's only because i haven't managed to find a 50 mile long pavement to ride on!


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

Garz said:


> If you deny theres section of roads that do this then you either lack the ability to realise that this does happen, or your just being ignorant and dont want to look embarrassed on the forum.
> 
> This is also the commuter subsection too lee, im sure someone has also experienced this on their commute or there is none on the whole of the british isles..




Here, Here !!!


----------



## addictfreak (12 Aug 2009)

So Trev your asking for pictures of men in lycra, no denying it its in the forum


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

addictfreak said:


> So Trev your asking for pictures of men in lycra, no denying it its in the forum



I'm digging myself a hole here !!!! 
Anyway......Ban Lycra shorts.....!!!


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

User3143 said:


> But you can't.



Yes you can lee..It's easy.......You try it. Go on be a devil.......
You might even get away without a £30 fine.......
Get some balls on you man!!!! LOL.........
I love your straightness........Er, I think !!


----------



## Garz (12 Aug 2009)

User3143 said:


> *64*
> 
> You *MUST NOT* cycle on a pavement.
> *[Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129]*



OK Lee, you left out other important bits..



> Cyclists have no right to cycle on a footpath away from the road *but only commit an offence where local by-laws or traffic regulation orders create such an offence.*
> 
> Paul Kitson, partner at cyclist-friendly solicitor Russell, Jones and Walker of London says: "There may also be offences committed in relation to 'walkways' (which is a footpath under a walkway agreement) under Section 35 of the Highways Act 1980. *However, the conditions on which these can be ridden is dependent on local council bye-laws, which vary from council to council."*



What was that about grey area again.. im sure i mentioned it somewhere?


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

User3143 said:


> Why would I want to ride on the pavement when:
> 
> It is more hazardous then riding on the road
> 
> It is slower



Go on Lee.....Just bump up then go straight back down again. You can do it.
I'm behind you man.....You can do this !!!


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

Don't even mention that you may buckle a wheel.!!


----------



## purplepolly (12 Aug 2009)

Trevrev said:


> Go on Lee.....Just bump up then go straight back down again. You can do it.
> I'm behind you man.....You can do this !!!



He's obviously not getting through, so I'll repeat. Why on earth would we want to cycle on the pavement? There's a perfectly good road so why would anyone want to cycle on a badly surfaced (or worse paved), narrow pavement that brings them into more greater conflict with traffic at junctions and is full of unpredictable pedestrians, dogs, and, god help us, children. I'm perfectly happy on the road, I don't want to cycle on the pavement at 4mph and have people suddenly walk in front of me.


----------



## wafflycat (12 Aug 2009)

Trevrev said:


> I love my bike........The car stays at home !!! You need balls to ride on the road nowadays.



No, I certainly don't have any of those, but I have no problems cycling on the road. If I, a middle-aged woman can do it with assertiveness (not aggression) and competence, I'd suggest it's well within the abilities of most.


----------



## wafflycat (12 Aug 2009)

Trevrev said:


> Anyway...On a serious note.......Male cyclists wearing lycra shorts.....If anything gives cyclists a bad name and a real cause for abuse......Thats it !!!! You're not helping yourselves guys !!!!



No, not at all. There's nothing finer than a fit bloke's arse in Lycra.


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

purplepolly said:


> He's obviously not getting through, so I'll repeat. Why on earth would we want to cycle on the pavement? There's a perfectly good road so why would anyone want to cycle on a badly surfaced (or worse paved), narrow pavement that brings them into more greater conflict with traffic at junctions and is full of unpredictable pedestrians, dogs, and, god help us, children. I'm perfectly happy on the road, I don't want to cycle on the pavement at 4mph and have people suddenly walk in front of me.



No.......He's not getting through. Lets get this straight.....I ride on the road..But i haven't got a problem with people riding on the paths...I do go on the path to avoid certain things.....But i've already mentioned that.
But so do 98% of the commuters i see every day.
People like Lee will never get through to me!


----------



## trustysteed (12 Aug 2009)

purplepolly said:


> full of unpredictable pedestrians, dogs, and, god help us, children.



again, this is assuming that the pavements are always covered in peds, dogs and children which is nonsense and that the pavement riders do their whole commute on the pavement.

i think it's safe to assume that the people on here who do admit to pavement riding do NOT ride along the pavement for miles or their whole commute. they do so only when they want to take a quick shortcut, avoid a bottleneck, take a left at a junction, etc. and we're more than confident on the road, we just like to treat ourselves now and then.


----------



## thomas (12 Aug 2009)

Garz said:


> Seven months isnt adequate and how do you know the guy is _really_ sorry? Try tell that to the victims family!



So if the guy got life in prison it would make it okay? "Don't worry Mum, he's in prison forever...it was all worthwhile!" Give over, the punishment isn't there to make the victim's family feel better. Now we've got that argument out of the way, 7 months doesn't really sound like that long.

I'm pretty sure any person in this guys situation would be very remorseful.



User3143 said:


> How can it be a grey area? It's in the HC in black & white - you MUST NOT ride on the pavement.



The home office (or someone) has instructed police forces not to bother pavement cyclists when they are being considerate....what is the point of having a black and white law if you don't follow it to the letter?



User3143 said:


> OK, just don't moan on here when you get a £30 FPN.





User3143 said:


> What's this? Don't tell me you are a self-gratification artist that rides on the pavement? Learn to ride on the road if you are.




On my commute there are some roads (when busy) that I would not feel comfortable going down if I wasn't 'experienced'. I would much rather people cycled along the 2 mile stretch at one point which has a pavement that I only ever see about 1 person walking down on a busy day. I would much rather that someone cycled along the pavement, considerately, to build up their confidence and fitness before going on the road.

Pavement cycling is NOT dangerous. It is all about how it is done.

The guy was cycling at an excessive speed. He could have easily have just been on the road and hit someone on a zebra crossing because he didn't see them in time and therefore couldn't stop in time.

If the bloke wasn't cycling 'furiously' and gave enough space to stop in the space he could see to be clear I would be in bed right now.

Also....for everyone on here who is whiter than white...have you ever had a mince pie on Christmas day? It's illegal. Along with a load of other stuff.

I bet £50 I can cycle on the pavement tomorrow without hitting someone.


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

thomas said:


> So if the guy got life in prison it would make it okay? "Don't worry Mum, he's in prison forever...it was all worthwhile!" Give over, the punishment isn't there to make the victim's family feel better. Now we've got that argument out of the way, 7 months doesn't really sound like that long.
> 
> I'm pretty sure any person in this guys situation would be very remorseful.
> 
> ...



A man that talks real sense.......I'm in love with you Thomas !!


----------



## Garz (12 Aug 2009)

Im not going to waste any more effort on this thread as it has gone adrift. I would just like to add that whilst I *do not* cycle on the pavement, or encourage it, that people seem to forget there are situations where this 'illegal to ride on the pavement' is downright daft and un-enforceable due to the way in which the roads have been built and adapted.

There clearly remains to be instances where it * is not * an offence, yet some seem to disbelieve this or continue with their tunnel vision. To me there is just as big fish to fry with cars parking on cycle lanes which dont get penalised, this however belongs in another thread with my friend lee to argue that black is indeed white.


----------



## ed_o_brain (12 Aug 2009)

Pavement cycliing is dangerous.

Most the time it is irritating, annoying, infuriating to pedestrians. But it is still dangerous.

It's dangerous because it helps reinforce the views of some motorists, that we SHOULD be on the pavement, not on the road. And the in turn those motorists try and enforce their views on those of us who choose to cycle on the road, usually by trying to run us off said road.

Riding on the pavement is counterproductive to us all.



When I say pavement, I am specifically talking about the footway. The raised pavement alongside a road provided for pedestrians. Footpaths (as in public rights of way) are different - they fall under different legislation. And whilst we have no right to cycle on them, it's not exactly illegal either. It's upto the landowner.

Cycling on the footway is illegal. Cycling on foot paths is upto the landowner. Cycling on the road is legal, unless a TRO prohibits it.

Black and white to me.


And for the record, if I NEED to use the pavement, I dismount and walk. And I can't actually remember a time when I have NEEDED to use the pavement in many years and many many thousand miles of cycling.


----------



## Tynan (12 Aug 2009)

I've never seen anywhere where the pavement was necessary

everyone I see do it, and it's a lot lately, does it to avoid lights, roadworks or because they're not prepared to wait in heavy traffic


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

ed_o_brain said:


> Pavement cycliing is dangerous.
> 
> Most the time it is irritating, annoying, infuriating to pedestrians. But it is still dangerous.
> 
> ...



Right.......!!! I fed up with this..I am no longer a cyclist !!! Cyclists are very very dull people, as i've just found out.......With a couple of exceptions.
I ride a bike........Thats what i do !!! And i do it well.....Maybe not within the law......But i don't care !!!! I don't care if car drivers hate me !!! I don't care if pedestrians hate me !!!
I will carry on to the end of earth until my hardcases POP !!! hehehehe.........


----------



## Garz (12 Aug 2009)

thomas said:


> So if the guy got life in prison it would make it okay? "Don't worry Mum, he's in prison forever...it was all worthwhile!" Give over, the punishment isn't there to make the victim's family feel better. Now we've got that argument out of the way, 7 months doesn't really sound like that long.
> 
> I'm pretty sure any person in this guys situation would be very remorseful.



Nice post thomas, at least some on this 'discussion' are in the same wavelength or on the fence (unbiased). I do however think this quote is somewhat hypocritical, "7 months doesn't really sound like that long" which is pretty much what I was highlighting.

At the time home office minister Paul Boateng said:



> "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."



Again our laws clear as mud eh lee!


----------



## ed_o_brain (12 Aug 2009)

Trevrev said:


> Right.......!!! I fed up with this..I am no longer a cyclist !!! Cyclists are very very dull people, as i've just found out.......With a couple of exceptions.
> I ride a bike........Thats what i do !!! And i do it well.....Maybe not within the law......But i don't care !!!! I don't care if car drivers hate me !!! I don't care if pedestrians hate me !!!
> I will carry on to the end of earth until my hardcases POP !!! hehehehe.........



Trevrev,
I think joining a cycling forum, making a few sporadic non-inspiring posts and then losing interest to be quite boring. But then to post the same opinion to this thread repeatedly and prolifically is incredibly boring.

Maybe I should consider it a good thing you don't consider yourself a cyclist. You can explain that to the people you annoy next time you illegally share a pavement with them.

[/ot]

I can understand the driving ban. I consider that if someone cannot operate a cycle proficiently with appropriate consideration to other road users, then perhaps they certainly shouldn't be operating a motorised vehicle.

The custodial sentence also seems to be _broadly_ in-line with similar sentences for similar driving offences. In fact, as these kind of accidents are far less common, it's possible the offender had not properly considered the dangers. Not that I beileve this to be any kind of mitigation.


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

ed_o_brain said:


> Trevrev,
> I think joining a cycling forum, making a few sporadic non-inspiring posts and then losing interest to be quite boring. But then to post the same opinion to this thread repeatedly and prolifically is incredibly boring.
> 
> Maybe I should consider it a good thing you don't consider yourself a cyclist. You can explain that to the people you annoy next time you illegally share a pavement with them.
> ...




I've just had a nice refreshing shower to wake me up a little !!! 
Then i come back to you.............YAWN !!!


----------



## purplepolly (12 Aug 2009)

are we being trolled by a teenager


----------



## Garz (12 Aug 2009)

Guys save that for PM and stop being naughty!


----------



## jcb (12 Aug 2009)

*Children.*

Right, once we've all stopped waving our willies (or lack of them) around (in cycling shorts or other), it strikes me there is common ground:

- Any object moving at walking pedestrian speed with the width and visibility of a pedestrian, along a surface designated for pedestrians, would be generally socially acceptable outside of the cycling community notwithstanding what the HC says. It may frustrate some cyclists (including me) as an 'image' problem about cycling, and you may get an FPN. Your choice. You are, at that speed, only as likely to kill someone accidentally as a pedestrian. Question would be, if that's the case why not walk (or walk your bike over the bit you need to traverse if it's short - that's generally what I do).
- If you are moving with the speed and intent of a road-going object, you should be on the road. To ride in such a fashion on the pavement is unacceptable, because it poses an increased risk of injury/death to others as well as yourself.
- RLJing is generally not acceptable, as it poses an increased risk of injury/death to others as well as yourself, as well as being potentially disruptive to traffic flow and thus inconveniencing others. There may be very rare occasions when it is possible to RLJ with no risk to others at all. Again in that circumstance, notwithstanding the written law, it is an individual choice and judgement.
*- When RLJing or using the pavement, you are breaking the law. Thus you regard the law as not applying to you. You therefore are (in my mind) morally absolving all other road/pavement users of criminal and civil liability for similarly illegal and/or dangerous activity inasmuch as it may harm you - e.g., a pedestrian may quite legitimately elbow you in the face if they claim that it was to prevent you running them over, because it was you who chose to step outside the law first. Or, if a motorist is held up by you RLJing at a crossroads, he is then entitled to cut you up, squash you against railings, nudge you forward using their bumper at lights etc. - your choice to step outside the safety afforded to you by the Highway Code and the law.* 

Or do different different standards apply 30 seconds down the road after you RLJ'd?


----------



## marinyork (12 Aug 2009)

jcb said:


> *- When RLJing or using the pavement, you are breaking the law. Thus you regard the law as not applying to you. You therefore are (in my mind) morally absolving all other road/pavement users of criminal and civil liability for similarly illegal and/or dangerous activity inasmuch as it may harm you - e.g., a pedestrian may quite legitimately elbow you in the face if they claim that it was to prevent you running them over, because it was you who chose to step outside the law first. Or, if a motorist is held up by you RLJing at a crossroads, he is then entitled to cut you up, squash you against railings, nudge you forward using their bumper at lights etc. - your choice to step outside the safety afforded to you by the Highway Code and the law.*
> 
> Or do different different standards apply 30 seconds down the road after you RLJ'd?



Utter crap. None of that entitles you to vigilante aggression. In anycase the HC covers your point on that one. Sorry to disappoint you, you can't get away with such a thuggish lifestyle because the highway code actually tells you not to get angry with other people and expect errors/mistakes/deliberate acts. It's fairly good advice. Your route is the road to road rage paradise and bizarrely seems completely at odds with the other fairly sensible things you wrote.


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

*e.g., a pedestrian may quite legitimately elbow you in the face if they claim that it was to prevent you running them over,

LOL........Great...They'd get one back !!!

Sorry......That was so aggressive of me......This just gets better !!!
*


----------



## jcb (12 Aug 2009)

You (perhaps wilfully) misunderstand.

I'm not saying you SHOULD do that as a motorist/pedestrian. I'm not saying you SHOULD RLJ/pavement ride as a cyclist. I'm saying you have lost the moral right as a cyclist to expect reasonable and legal behaviour from other people once you break the law.

PS - 'I disagree' would have sufficed. 6000 posts doesn't entitle you to be boorish and rude IMHO.


----------



## Trevrev (12 Aug 2009)

It's been a pleasure people........Great fun !!! 
Same again tomorrow........I haven't laughed this much since my wife said she loved me......!!!


----------



## MacB (12 Aug 2009)

Trevrev said:


> It's been a pleasure people........Great fun !!!
> Same again tomorrow........I haven't laughed this much since my wife said she loved me......!!!



Yep your contribution has been greaty appreciated.

Has anyone considered why people RLJ and pavement cyle, I'd put forward that it's generally due to impatience. Something we happily complain about with regard to motorists.


----------



## thomas (13 Aug 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> Has anyone considered why people RLJ and pavement cyle, I'd put forward that it's generally due to impatience. Something we happily complain about with regard to motorists.




I didn't see one pavement cyclist today who did it out of impatience. It is because the roads are very busy and off putting, yet they still want to cycle where they are going!

To stop people cycling on the pavement, make the roads safer! Simple.


----------



## summerdays (13 Aug 2009)

User3143 said:


> How can it be a grey area? It's in the HC in black & white - you MUST NOT ride on the pavement.


It is I agree with the following provision:



Garz said:


> At the time home office minister Paul Boateng said:
> Quote:
> "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."





User3143 said:


> In all honesty reading this thread has shocked me because I can't believe that some people lack the basic skills or confidence to ride on the road. Go and take some lessons or get the bus/take the car.



I have to admit that when I returned to cycling about 3 years ago I cycled on the pavement on any road I didn't feel confident on - until I could get to another back street. But I cycled at walking pace and with consideration for pedestrians (that is I gave way to them) but usually where there weren't pedestrians using the path not in busy pedestrian areas. So I do recognise that there are some people out there who lack the confidence to cycle on busy roads. If you live in a city the roads can look very intimidating to a new cyclist. Hence why new cyclists usually call for more off road cycle routes.



User3143 said:


> OK, just don't moan on here when you get a £30 FPN.





addictfreak said:


> Only if under 10



You can't get a FPN if you are under 16. 

In discussions I have had with various policemen they have generally said they are unlikely to fine you if you are cycling with care and consideration at a slow pace. However if you are cycling at speed on the pavements they will certainly stop you and if over 16 may fine you.

I have to admit to cycling on one alleyway regularly but I get off if I meet a pedestrian in the alleyway even though it actually makes me wider to pass. Often pedestrians will wait at one end until you get through rather than try to pass a cyclist and bike - so if you ride the bike you get through fractionally faster. (The alleyway is actually marked as a cycling route on the council's cycling map).


----------



## ed_o_brain (13 Aug 2009)

Reg/Greg,

I'm not sure what the problem is? I think the sentence handed down is appropriate. And I think driving is dangerous and anything that prevents 'generally irresponsible' individuals from doing so is a good thing.

I would be concerned, if in the case of an RLJ cyclist, they were handed a driving ban when the offence is a first offence and there are no aggravating circumstances, as this is in complete disparity with how a motoring offence would be treated. A driver would be awarded penalty points for such an offence, as oppose to a ban.

But that has not happened yet. I don't see any reason for cyclists to be on their guard... yet.

Maybe it is something for the cyclists defence fund to be made aware of, so that in the event POCCA is used inappropriately they are already in-part prepared.


----------



## addictfreak (13 Aug 2009)

Summer I was refering to the age of criminal responsibility which is 10.


----------



## addictfreak (13 Aug 2009)

Fixed penalty notices can actually be given to anyone over 10:

*Penalty notices*

Fixed penalty notices and penalty notices for disorder are both one-off fines issued for anti-social behaviour.
*Fixed penalty notices*

Fixed penalty notices generally deal with environmental offences such as litter, graffiti and dog fouling, and can be issued by local authority officers and police community support officers. 
These notices can be issued to anyone over 10 years old.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/anti-social-behaviour/penalties/penalty-notices/


----------



## Dan B (13 Aug 2009)

jcb said:


> Right, once we've all stopped waving our willies (or lack of them) around (in cycling shorts or other), it strikes me there is common ground:
> 
> - Any object moving at walking pedestrian speed with the width and visibility of a pedestrian, along a surface designated for pedestrians, would be generally socially acceptable outside of the cycling community notwithstanding what the HC says. It may frustrate some cyclists (including me) as an 'image' problem about cycling, and you may get an FPN. Your choice. You are, at that speed, only as likely to kill someone accidentally as a pedestrian. Question would be, if that's the case why not walk (or walk your bike over the bit you need to traverse if it's short - that's generally what I do).
> - If you are moving with the speed and intent of a road-going object, you should be on the road. To ride in such a fashion on the pavement is unacceptable, because it poses an increased risk of injury/death to others as well as yourself.


Good god, a sense of proportion. And in one so new to the forum, too. +1 that man


----------



## summerdays (13 Aug 2009)

addictfreak said:


> Fixed penalty notices can actually be given to anyone over 10:
> 
> *Penalty notices*
> 
> ...



Now I was definitely under the impression that a young person under the age of 16 couldn't be given a FPN for cycling on the pavement.

Is there anyone on here who can clarify this?


----------



## summerdays (13 Aug 2009)

OK I've been off surfing and found on this page the following

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php



> 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)
> 
> CAN CHILDREN CYCLE ON PAVEMENTS?
> According to the Department for Transport (DfT), the maximum fine for cycling on the pavement from the courts is £500. However it is more usually enforced by way of the Fixed Penalty Notice procedure (FPN) which carries a £30 fine if pleading guilty. However, there is a view that the FPN can only be issued to those over 16.
> ...


----------



## hackbike 666 (13 Aug 2009)

Arch said:


> You're wasting your breath. I expect we'll now be treated to someone telling us how that doesn't count, because when they break the law it's alwys very carefully and only when there's no one around, and anyway it's safer for them....




This applies to RLJing as well but when im out there I don't see it being done "responsibly" or for consideration of anyone else.

I could ride on the pavement in Japan though which I found weird and was slightly uncomfortable with but to use the olde saying "I did it very carefully".


----------



## skwerl (13 Aug 2009)

Trevrev said:


> Well Addictfreak, I think we're the only honest ones on here.
> And yes i am a self-gratification artist.........Most men are !!! I'm being honest again.......This honesty thing is letting me down.
> Trustysteed, welcome to naughty boys corner.



Not sure I see the point of asking people for 'honest answers' if you're just going to discount them as lies.


----------



## Trevrev (13 Aug 2009)

skwerl said:


> Not sure I see the point of asking people for 'honest answers' if you're just going to discount them as lies.




This was yesterdays fun !!!


----------



## MacB (13 Aug 2009)

thomas said:


> I didn't see one pavement cyclist today who did it out of impatience. It is because the roads are very busy and off putting, yet they still want to cycle where they are going!
> 
> To stop people cycling on the pavement, make the roads safer! Simple.



do you not see any level of contradiction in your first sentence?


----------



## skwerl (13 Aug 2009)

Trevrev said:


> This was yesterdays fun !!!



it's taken me 24 hours to wade through the mountains of, mainly dull, posts. I'm now unfulfilled. A bit like how you feel at the end of 'The Cube'


----------



## Trevrev (13 Aug 2009)

skwerl said:


> it's taken me 24 hours to wade through the mountains of, mainly dull, posts. I'm now unfulfilled. A bit like how you feel at the end of 'The Cube'



Start another topic, and we can have some more fun......Can you guess i don't take things too seriously !!!!


----------



## addictfreak (13 Aug 2009)

Well summer it seems as usual there is conflicting information out there. As you can see mine is from the Home Office Site ( which doesnt make it accurate of course).

Maybe its one of grey areas that some people dont seem to think exist or maybe its a X-File.

Either way if its confusing to the law how are us mortals meant to understand it. 
I have to add that I dont condone the issuing of FPN to youngsters, I always think education first is the best policy.


----------



## summerdays (13 Aug 2009)

addictfreak said:


> Well summer it seems as usual there is conflicting information out there. As you can see mine is from the Home Office Site ( which doesnt make it accurate of course).
> 
> Maybe its one of grey areas that some people dont seem to think exist or maybe its a X-File.
> 
> ...



I will seek clarification the next time I'm chatting to a policeman (not to say he wouldn't be confused too) and that I remember. Last time I chatted to a teenager about cycling on the pavement he told me he would just cycle off and that the policeman wouldn't follow him if he wasn't wearing a helmet.


----------



## Dan B (13 Aug 2009)

"The Law" and "what the nearest police officer believes the Law is" are two different things. Although anyone talking to a policeman would be advised, in the pursuit of a quiet life, to treat them as the same.


----------



## thomas (13 Aug 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> do you not see any level of contradiction in your first sentence?



nope. Care to elaborate?


----------



## addictfreak (13 Aug 2009)

summerdays said:


> I will seek clarification the next time I'm chatting to a policeman (not to say he wouldn't be confused too) and that I remember. Last time I chatted to a teenager about cycling on the pavement he told me he would just cycle off and that the policeman wouldn't follow him if he wasn't wearing a helmet.




The case in discussion is clearly a tragic one, for both parties. Since it was first reported I have read a letter from the young mans father, which seems to indicate a total different sent of events to those actually reported in the press. And I have to say that I deal with the press (local) on a regular basis and some of there reporting leaves a lot to be desired. I suppose we will never know exactly what happened that day.

Anyway on the police note, I suspect that people riding on pavements is at the bottom of a long list of priorities. I know when I have been in my local town centre, (which is a pedestrian area) I have witnessed people of all ages riding cycles in clear view of police officers and nothing is done or said.


----------



## Garz (13 Aug 2009)

addictfreak said:


> Anyway on the police note, I suspect that people riding on pavements is at the bottom of a long list of priorities. I know when I have been in my local town centre, (which is a pedestrian area) I have witnessed people of all ages riding cycles in clear view of police officers and nothing is done or said.



_shhhhhhhhhhhh_ or Lee-man will go off his rocker and may explode on those around him!


----------



## addictfreak (13 Aug 2009)

Dare I say it, but I also see Police officers riding on the pavement too!


----------



## thomas (13 Aug 2009)

addictfreak said:


> Dare I say it, but I also see Police officers riding on the pavement too!



There was a thread on here ages ago about that. I got criticised for being critical of the police using the pavement.

On the way home tonight I saw a few pavement cyclists (POBs). Was going to upload a video of how "badly" they were inconveniencing people, but I forgot spare batteries for my camera so only got a minutes worth of footage at the start.


----------



## Garz (13 Aug 2009)

Very true actually, this whole thread has got me thinking of the cycle policemen I regularly see riding on pavements the recent being on tuesday in wigston (near leicester). Who's watching the watchers?


----------



## thomas (13 Aug 2009)

Actually, talking about illegitimate pavement users, I saw a horse & horse rider walking along the pavement on Wednesday - is that legal?


----------



## Garz (13 Aug 2009)

User3143 said:


> I won't go off my rocker and have never gone off my rocker, if you are to shoot scared to ride on the road then so be it.



Just going back a few pages here for poor old lee who might just have a goldfish style memory: post no #99



Garz said:


> Im not going to waste any more effort on this thread as it has gone adrift. I would just like to add that whilst I *do not* cycle on the pavement, or encourage it...



As I said, I don't ride on the pavement, I use the road. shoot scared or not the word 'too' is correct not 'to' , lets move on then.


----------



## hackbike 666 (14 Aug 2009)

Lat night at Aldgate was the nearest I have come to seeing a RLJer get run over.Horrendous ride back and an interesting one with a ped at Thatched House Leytonstone.I didn't realise he was pissed but with hhis phone also clasped to his ear and within two drunken steps his was off of the pavement into the road.Amazing footwork there which I don't even think Ronaldo could copy.I still don't know how he came so close to me in the blink of an eye.

Also at Aldgate a few seconds earlier a ped had a close escape with a car.Crossing in traffic like that while he was on crutches,total madness.I don't think the moton saw him till late.


----------



## dondare (14 Aug 2009)

addictfreak said:


> Well I have to concede that the not cycling on paths is law. Its just that so many people think the HC is law when it is actually a *mixture of law and good practice*.



Some of the advice for cyclists is not good. 



addictfreak said:


> However it is accepted that the police will use commonsense in applying the law depending on who (usually children) is riding on the path.


----------



## dondare (14 Aug 2009)

ed_o_brain said:


> Pavement cycliing is dangerous.
> 
> Most the time it is irritating, annoying, infuriating to pedestrians. But it is still dangerous.
> 
> It's dangerous because it helps reinforce the views of some motorists, that we SHOULD be on the pavement, not on the road. And the in turn those motorists try and enforce their views on those of us who choose to cycle on the road, usually by trying to run us off said road.



(Not to mention ignorant traffic police and Circuit Judges.)



ed_o_brain said:


> Riding on the pavement is counterproductive to us all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Origamist (14 Aug 2009)

A few times I have bunny-hopped onto the pavement in order to avoid being squeezed/hit. Once on the pavement, I brake hard and stop, and then get back on the road.


----------



## marinyork (14 Aug 2009)

dondare said:


> Some of the advice for cyclists is not good.



The HC isn't just law. It's a hierarchy of rules and advice. Some of the bad advice is near the bottom of the hierarchy B).


----------



## dondare (14 Aug 2009)

Gromit said:


> I have never done it, I use the road or a designated cycle path. RLJ is also a no no for me too, I don't do it in my car so why should I when I'm cycling?
> 
> It's stupid and wrong, people always see the bad side of things, and it's people like you who give law abiding cyclists like me a bad name.
> 
> I'm tired of the amount of close passes I get on my commute, by drivers who see me as nothing but a tax dodging criminal. If every cyclist used the roads in the same way I do then we might get the respect we deserve.



I'm in 100% agreement with this.



Trevrev said:


> Cyclists will never get respect from car drivers, nor will motorcyclists. It's all because us on two wheels have the ability to pass them with ease while they're stuck in their boxes wasting fuel stuck in traffic.......And do you know what.......I really don't give a sh1t if i get respect or not.



Lack of respect leads to lack of consideration which could get you killed. 
What's really bad is the lack of respect that _you've_ earned could get _me_ killed.


----------



## MacB (14 Aug 2009)

I do feel that it's immaterial to some extent, yes motorists cite RLJing etc but one would suspect the bad drivers will be bad regardless of what goes on around them. I've been looking at this in more detail and have also changed my riding slightly, though I only have 2 sets of lights on my commute:-

set1 going - I turn left at lights from the main thoroughfare, the road is quite fast and narrow. I take the lights as they come, have never filtered up either side and hold my place in the queue. There really isn't any space on the inside and the outside would be too hazardous in this situation.
set1 returning - if need be I filter on outside to my own imaginary ASL at the front. I know the lights sequence and can see the lights that the main road traffic sees. I go when they stop rather than waiting for my lights to change, gives me about a 5 second start. My justification is that I'm turning right onto the main road and really want to avoid an overtake as I turn(it has happened previously), as the road is too narrow and it could force me off. I then adopt primary until past the queue of cars at the lights to stop any vehicles trying to overtake and also forcing me off. This whole thing normally takes me about 10-15 seconds.

set2 going - main road splits into two with right hand lane being right turn only. I filter on outside to an imaginary ASL and then wait my turn. In the past I didn't filter and, as it's a quick change right turn light that pops up, failed to make it through, thus seriously peeing off drivers behind.
set2 returning - again I filter to my imaginary ASL, generally on the inside due to shape of road and fact I'm turning left. I again go by main road light sequence as, when the right turn light comes on then I am safe to turn left onto main road. I do this as it's two lanes at this point(which quickly return to one lane) and I turn right after 50 yards. I have previously been stuck on the inside unable to cross to the right turn feeding bit.

So I'm now an RLJer despite my previous protestations. Neither of these junctions involve pedestrians, I still use my eyes rather than just go when the lights indicate. My defence would be that in both instances I'm making an unorthodox manouever to avoid a higher risk manouever/situation. It's not a speed thing as evidenced by my willingness to wait in the traffic queue.


----------



## Trevrev (14 Aug 2009)

dondare said:


> I'm in 100% agreement with this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don't blame me if you get killed...That'll be your problem. Same as if it's the other way round.
I do what i need to do to get on in life. I take chances. Thats what life is about.
I don't care if people ride on the paths, be it cyclists or horses, I don't care if cars park in cycle lanes.......If cyclists want to jump red lights, thats their choice. If they get hurt, thats their problem. Worry about yourself not about others around you !!


----------



## dondare (14 Aug 2009)

If I get killed I won't be blaming anyone, but my argument is sound. 

It occurs to me that people who behave just however they like only get away with it because of the majority who keep the rules. If society turned to anarchy, then the ones who are anarchists now would be the first to go under.


----------



## thomas (14 Aug 2009)

dondare said:


> If I get killed I won't be blaming anyone, but my argument is sound.
> 
> It occurs to me that people who behave just however they like only get away with it because of the majority who keep the rules. If society turned to anarchy, then the ones who are anarchists now would be the first to go under.




Are pavement cyclists anarchists?


----------



## dondare (14 Aug 2009)

Trevrev said:


> Don't blame me if you get killed...That'll be your problem. Same as if it's the other way round.
> I do what i need to do to get on in life. I take chances. Thats what life is about.
> I don't care if people ride on the paths, be it cyclists or horses, I don't care if cars park in cycle lanes.......If cyclists want to jump red lights, thats their choice. If they get hurt, thats their problem. Worry about yourself not about others around you !!



You want your life to be exciting. I want to leave work this evening and arrive safely home and my wife and kids are hoping for that, too. Most of the members on this forum would also appreciate a danger-free commute. 
The link between the way people behave and how they are treated is undeniable. When cyclists are perceived to behave in complete ignorance or defiance of the law then motorists do not accord them the protection that the law obliges them to; a red-light-jump will be repaid with a dangerously close overtake, for instance.


----------



## dondare (14 Aug 2009)

thomas said:


> Are pavement cyclists anarchists?



The first step towards anarchy is for everyone to decide which laws they will obey and which they will ignore.


----------



## thomas (14 Aug 2009)

I don't believe that someone, sensibly cycling along the pavement is the cause of my close overtakes. In the sense that "ohh, cyclist law break".

Maybe in the sense that "cyclists should be on the pavement"...but in the end of the day, a lot pavement cyclists will build their confidence up and join the road, this gives all of us a bigger presence along with reducing traffic on the roads.

Even if all cyclist used the road we'd still have the "should be on the pavement attitude".

I don't think RLJing is right, however at 1 in the morning if the roads are empty I don't really have a problem with it. I think lights at night (where appropriate) should flash amber - you can go, but be careful.


----------



## Trevrev (14 Aug 2009)

dondare said:


> You want your life to be exciting. I want to leave work this evening and arrive safely home and my wife and kids are hoping for that, too. Most of the members on this forum would also appreciate a danger-free commute.
> The link between the way people behave and how they are treated is undeniable. When cyclists are perceived to behave in complete ignorance or defiance of the law then motorists do not accord them the protection that the law obliges them to; a red-light-jump will be repaid with a dangerously close overtake, for instance.



If you want a danger free commute then you'd be best off on the path !!
We all take risks, even if you don't see it yourself....We all cycle down that busy dual carriage way.....If thats not a risk on a bike then what is !!!


----------



## summerdays (14 Aug 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> though I only have 2 sets of lights on my commute:-



If I'm going into town for example I would have about 18/19 sets of traffic lights I think!! over about 3 miles or less.


----------



## MacB (14 Aug 2009)

summerdays said:


> If I'm going into town for example I would have about 18/19 sets of traffic lights I think!! over about 3 miles or less.



I know it's sickening, I did actually plan commute route to avoid certain stuff but lights never came into the equation. It was only after all the chat on here about lights that I even thought to count them. I had to recount as I couldn't believe only 2 sets in 20 miles. The first set is after 8 miles and the second after 10.3 miles. It's not like we're talking really rural either. I travel from Cove in Farnborough to just short of Maidenhead off the A4. Cut across country, skirt around Wokingham(that's both sets of lights) and then over towards Binfield and on through White Waltham. 

God I'm sad, I've just counted up all the stuff on my commute, so I have:-

2 traffic lights
1 level crossing - very unlucky to get caught at it
7 largeish roundabouts
6 mini roundabouts
15 turns at T junctions or crossroads - doesn't include some turns at roundabouts

That's it, the rest is straight forward riding on the same road - no wonder I don't like cycling in London much


----------



## Garz (14 Aug 2009)

Mac.. that is sad! But its reality so we forgive ya!


----------



## purplepolly (14 Aug 2009)

MacBludgeon said:


> IGod I'm sad, I've just counted up all the stuff on my commute, so I have:-
> 
> 2 traffic lights
> 1 level crossing - very unlucky to get caught at it
> ...



I like level crossings, on one of my routes back from work there's one on a busy line so it's normal to have to wait. I get off and park the bike, open a pannier for something, twiddle with the computer, clean my glasses and enjoy the scenary while smiling at the increasingly impatient motorists alongside. It's hard not to laugh at the revving when the barriers start to rise. Great fun.


----------



## Twanger (14 Aug 2009)

24 sets of lights here.


----------



## asterix (15 Aug 2009)

Trevrev said:


> WoW........Maybe i should be banned from this forum for being a naughty boy !!!



Try P&L, that's the place where people get banned. Although perhaps you are too young?


----------



## hackbike 666 (16 Aug 2009)

So where does this end?Total disregard for other people?

Im going away at the end of August where people have nicer manners.

I hope you RLJers don't moan when you get cut up yet again by a moton either using a mobile phone or not.It's the same thing to me.Disregard by all roadusers for the rules.


----------



## ComedyPilot (16 Aug 2009)

I don't see that many red lights round this way, but stop at 'em all (unless one of those stupid ones that don't 'see' cyclists, then will cross with care.

If I am stopped at one and a 'cyclist' goes through I will tell them what I think of their riding, which will let motorists know not all 'cyclists' jump reds.


----------



## hackbike 666 (16 Aug 2009)

I've got a set of those lights that dont see me generally early in the morning.Used to be fine when they worked via the circuit in the road.


----------



## thomas (16 Aug 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> *Im going away at the end of August where people have nicer manners.*
> 
> I hope you RLJers don't moan when you get cut up yet again by a moton either using a mobile phone or not.It's the same thing to me.Disregard by all roadusers for the rules.




Popping over to Vietnam I hope still 

Second points I'd agree with. If you want to ignore some rules then I don't see why anyone else should be of a higher standard. RLJing where I am is pointless, it wouldn't actually save me any time. I'd much rather set a good example.

I have, occasionally, ignored lights very late at night, but only when there wasn't anyone around....if a cyclists jumps a red light but no ones sees it, did it really happen . Though if I did get caught I wouldn't start fussing if I got pulled over/start complaining about someone on their mobile.


----------



## hackbike 666 (16 Aug 2009)

Well im going to Bangkok but yes i'd like to visit Vietnam.Just reminded me but been so busy with work I haven't got round to it.Where did you stay before you went to Vietnam?

Fair enough I know im ranting about RLJers but this goes across the whole spectrum to people putting their feet on seats of trains.They don't do that in Japan.I doubt if they do it at home at least not without taking their shoes off.

That's what I say nice to get away from the rat-race,that's what a holiday is all about.

Second trip to Bangkok so next year I plan to go to either the Valley of Death or Egypt.Not sure yet.I get bored if I go to the same place more than twice.


----------



## thomas (16 Aug 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> Well im going to Bangkok but yes i'd like to visit Vietnam.Just reminded me but been so busy with work I haven't got round to it.Where did you stay before you went to Vietnam?



Which part are you going? Feel free to PM me with questions 

It depends what you're up for and what you're after. The best place we stayed was Hanoi Backpacker Hostel (one in Hue too). Quite cheap dorm room and it is really good socially.

However, we didn't have any problems with budget hotels. The HCMC one was the worst (no window) but could put up with it for a couple of nights. 

OOHHH, just re-read the question...Don't feel like deleting all the above soo, we flew from heathrow to BKK. In BKK we stayed in Lub D Hostel, which is nice! About £10 a night for a dorm. Not the cheapest place! We had a night and a day, before catching a 19.00 flight over. Had the three weeks, back to Bangkok and stayed in HQ hostel (near Pat Pong). I would stay there again, they had ammmamazzziinnggg duvets and pillows! Freezing cold air con too 

I'm actually looking at doing some Vietnamese lessons with a local firm when back at UNI. I'd like to go again for a bit longer so it'd be nice to speak a bit more. We had some really good times with locals just using the few phrases we learnt.


----------



## hackbike 666 (16 Aug 2009)

Im staying in the Grand China Princess in Bangkok (Chinatown) same hotel again.

I dunno what im up for and what im after.Probably a bit of that Indiana Jones stuff but I am knocking on a bit.


----------



## thomas (17 Aug 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> Im staying in the Grand China Princess in Bangkok (Chinatown) same hotel again.
> 
> I dunno what im up for and what im after.Probably a bit of that Indiana Jones stuff but I am knocking on a bit.




We did a 2 day SaPa trekking trip with Hanoi backpackers which was great fun. Expect to be falling over and incredibly muddy but it was really good fun. Cost a reasonable amount, forget what exactly though. If you do it, you'll have these tribal women follow you. You'll have to spend a few quid and buy something, but make as much use of them as possible (you'll be 'forced' into buying something anyway).


----------



## equicyclist (14 Apr 2010)

thomas said:


> Actually, talking about illegitimate pavement users, I saw a horse & horse rider walking along the pavement on Wednesday - is that legal?



I expect that if its a space set aside for walkers then its not legal but.....if the rider can prove he was avoiding an accident by doing so then may probably get away with it. Riders tend to do so on very busy roads where the cards are not mindful of them as a vulnerable user a bit like children riding their bikes on the pavement really. Safety first.


----------



## Mark_Robson (15 Apr 2010)

I find it hard to believe that the majority of people here haven't at some time ridden on pavements. 
This thread seems to be fixated with commuting and being brave enough to ride on the roads, well I see lots of cyclists who don't have the confidence to ride on the roads as roads are a scary place for the inexperienced. 
When I cycle alone I never use the pavements now, but when I first got back into cycling I used to for most of my journeys, and I make no bones about it, it was because I was frightened of the traffic. 
Saying that when I am out with my two children we often use the pavements and we have done so since they learned to ride. I am weaning them onto the roads but but they don't have enough road sense yet to ride on the roads safely. I have seen many policeman over the years, on foot and on bikes and not one has suggested that what I am doing is wrong. We always give pedestrians the right of way and we are always courteous. 
One of the problems I find is that we have cycle paths that suddenly stop when the path narrows and then restart 100m further along where the path is slightly wider so if it's clear you carry on using the pavement rather than dropping onto the road. If I were to see a parent with a eight year old on the pavement it wouldn't bother me in the least but I would hate to see the eight year old trying to navigate a busy road.
I think that it's easy to be elitist but not everyone who rides a bike is as hardcore or experienced as you lot. The way to get people off the pavements is to make the roads safer and less intimidating. We need a cycle lane either beside or on every arterial road. 

And just to go totally off topic, I have never understood why some people sneer at cyclists who use cycle paths or cycle lanes.


----------



## martint235 (15 Apr 2010)

I personally don't use cycle paths because I find that they can meander quite a lot through side streets in London and I find they slow me down.

Paradoxically the reasons above are also the reasons I think they are invaluable, I certainly wouldn't recommend a timid or new cyclist to brave the Old Kent Road in rush hour. So the two things I DON'T want to happen are:

1. Using cycle paths when present to become mandatory
2. Any less money be put in to developing new ones and improving existing ones.

I certainly wouldn't look down on someone for using one. In fact if they think it's a better place for them then I wouldn't want them in front of me on the OKR.


----------



## Arch (15 Apr 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> And just to go totally off topic, I have never understood why some people sneer at cyclists who use cycle paths or cycle lanes.



I don't think many people on here would sneer at someone for using a cycle lane or path. They might suggest that using a cycle lane (as opposed to a path) tended to put the rider in a bad position, since such lanes are often too narrow and in the gutter, full of debris etc. 

Paths are different. If they go where you want to go, and don't have a stupid barrier every few hundred yards, or take you alone through a dodgy area, they are brilliant. Again, it's not using them that can be a problem, it's trying to rely on them totally and therefore not gaining the skills needed to use the road when necessary.


----------



## dondare (15 Apr 2010)

Pedestrians have a higher accident rate per person per mile than cyclists. How so if the pavements are safer?


----------



## summerdays (15 Apr 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> I find it hard to believe that the majority of people here haven't at some time ridden on pavements.
> This thread seems to be fixated with commuting and being brave enough to ride on the roads, well I see lots of cyclists who don't have the confidence to ride on the roads as roads are a scary place for the inexperienced.
> When I cycle alone I never use the pavements now, but when I first got back into cycling I used to for most of my journeys, and I make no bones about it, it was because I was frightened of the traffic.
> Saying that when I am out with my two children we often use the pavements and we have done so since they learned to ride. I am weaning them onto the roads but but they don't have enough road sense yet to ride on the roads safely. I have seen many policeman over the years, on foot and on bikes and not one has suggested that what I am doing is wrong. We always give pedestrians the right of way and we are always courteous.
> ...



I've said before that when I first returned to cycling I cycled on the pavement and gradually weaned myself onto the road. So I fully understand why anyone in that situation cycles on the pavement. However those type of people I would say tend to cycle politely on the pavement - or at least I did, slowly, giving way to pedestrians and getting off and walking if busy. I'm not saying that a pedestrian wouldn't still be annoyed by such a cyclist - worried they may bump into them. The pavement cyclists that give cyclists a really bad name are those who cycle too fast and look as if they should have the confidence to be cycling on the road.

As to whether an 8 year old can cycle on the road - for me its very dependant on the child's ability (both cycling and road sense), the type and amount of traffic on a road and partially size of bike - when my youngest was on a 20" bike or smaller I felt he didn't really feel he was tall enough to be seen by car drivers.


----------

