# Serious M.T.B. on local pavements.



## Nigelnaturist (26 Sep 2015)

Just recently I have seen several, what appear to be quite serious M.T.B. riders, riding on the local urban pavements, and I just wondered what the view or of the M.T.B. riders on cyclechat are about this.


----------



## fossyant (26 Sep 2015)

Mummy doesn't allow them near the roads. I even see road cyclists bombing it on the promenade in wales and using a crap shared pavement where there is a perfectly good road. Boils my wee wee.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (26 Sep 2015)

fossyant said:


> Mummy doesn't allow them near the roads. I even see road cyclists bombing it on the promenade in wales and using a crap shared pavement where there is a perfectly good road. Boils my wee wee.


I don't see so many road on pavements, though I did see on the other week, boils mine too, if I am in town paved precinct I walk, unless its open to traffic, non market days ect but even then if its busy I walk.


----------



## howard2107 (26 Sep 2015)

Cyclists are the least of the problems where i ride, its dickheads and chavs riding unregistered probably stolen quads on pavements and trails that are a pain.


----------



## potsy (26 Sep 2015)

It's the frivolous mtb'ers that you need to watch out for, those serious ones are not too bad


----------



## Hacienda71 (26 Sep 2015)

potsy said:


> It's the frivolous mtb'ers that you need to watch out for, those serious ones are not too bad


Calling @dan_bo frivolous is a bit off mate. ;-)


----------



## Nigelnaturist (26 Sep 2015)

potsy said:


> It's the frivolous mtb'ers that you need to watch out for, those serious ones are not too bad


I appreciate that, but we need to set the example that certainly adult bikes are not for pedestrian pavements, I also understand peoples fears of road traffic.


----------



## jayonabike (26 Sep 2015)

I really don't see a problem with people cycling on the pavement. It certainly doesn't make my blood boil. I've more important things in my life to worry about.


----------



## Venod (26 Sep 2015)

Nothing wrong with using the pavement if there are no pedestrians about, sometimes it's the safest choice, the road from Carlton to East Hardwick (a road you know Nigel) has a pavement but you hardly see any pedestrians, this should be designated dual use, as long as people are sensible I think pavement use is fine.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (26 Sep 2015)

jayonabike said:


> I really don't see a problem with people cycling on the pavement. It certainly doesn't make my blood boil. I've more important things in my life to worry about.


The first thing is speed, even mobility scooters are supposed to stay at 4mph, I might as well walk at 4mph, most bikes I see on pavements are certainly above this.
@Afnug the A639, not a road I do often, but my recollection is its as bad as the road, if not worse, because there are some bad stretches last time I went down that way.


----------



## MontyVeda (26 Sep 2015)

jayonabike said:


> I really don't see a problem with people cycling on the pavement. It certainly doesn't make my blood boil. I've more important things in my life to worry about.


If i do it, it's fine... if i see others cycling on the pavement i tend to think "Get on the road!" ...but it depends on the pavement, the proximity of peds and the cyclist's speed. And yes, I'm a hypocrite.


----------



## Sara_H (26 Sep 2015)

I often ride in the pavement if the adjacent infrastructure doesn't feel safe. 
Of course, I do it carefully and with great consideration.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (26 Sep 2015)

I never do, never crosses my mind, and the only pedestrian/cycle path I use is one coming up a local hill if the lights are red, its literally about 20ft and is designed for such, this is a personal thing but traffic doesn't bother me, not even on the A1 (though that was a mistake, I fell very ill whilst out on the bike one day and got totally disorientated) 
The M.T.Bikers. I am referring to were coming down the opposite part of the above mentioned stretch of road (not the A1), where the path is no more than a push chair width.


----------



## Hacienda71 (26 Sep 2015)

Whilst I don't mind people riding on the pavement, I do take exception to them pressing pedestrian crossing buttons (unless they are or are with kids) forcing me to stop on my bike to let them cross the road on their bike.


----------



## Drago (26 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> I appreciate that, but we need to set the example that certainly adult bikes are not for pedestrian pavements, I also understand peoples fears of road traffic.


The fears are unfounded. Mile for mile you're far more likely to kick the bucket riding on cycle specific infra structure than on a road.


----------



## summerdays (26 Sep 2015)

The one I vaguely know is not riding on the path to avoid traffic, but thrill seeking down flights of steps and is dangerous IMO! He has been stopped by the police but so far they have just said "naughty naughty please don't do it again".


----------



## MontyVeda (26 Sep 2015)

summerdays said:


> The one I vaguely know is not riding on the path to avoid traffic, but thrill seeking down flights of steps and is dangerous IMO! He has been stopped by the police but so far they have just said "naughty naughty please don't do it again".


not one of these two is it?


----------



## briantrumpet (26 Sep 2015)

Drago said:


> The fears are unfounded. Mile for mile you're far more likely to kick the bucket riding on cycle specific infra structure than on a road.


Have you got data to back that up? This isn't one of those "You're making it up and I want to show you up!" requests, just that it would be genuinely useful to 
shove down the "Get on the f**king cycle path" morons one occasionally has the pleasure of meeting.


----------



## Drago (26 Sep 2015)

It was in the CTC magazine, IIRC not the last one but one before.


----------



## Accy cyclist (27 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> I appreciate that, but we need to set the example that certainly adult bikes are not for pedestrian pavements, I also understand peoples fears of road traffic.




So what's your solution? You appreciate why people fear riding on roads but you want to send out a message that they shouldn't ride on the pavement.


----------



## Hip Priest (27 Sep 2015)

I cycle on the pavement for the mile and a half it takes me to escort my daughter to school. We go at about 7mph and take great care around pedestrians. The route to school via road simply isn't safe for a child (in my opinion) and I refuse to give up and take the car.


----------



## classic33 (27 Sep 2015)

There's one who comes flying down to seperate streets, over the road(blind junction) "getting some air" on a set of steps, and finishes off by going down a pedestrian only precinct.
The roads he comes down are pedestrian only, except for morning and evening(deliveries).
He doesn't care about what he does and has managed to write one bike off this year, having hit someone.

The other ones seen daily are bus drivers, who feel that the roads are
en't safe, because there's too many buses on the roads!


----------



## Globalti (27 Sep 2015)

I don't ride on the pavement, I don't want chewing gum on my tyres.


----------



## NorvernRob (27 Sep 2015)

I see far more MTB's on the footpath than I do on the road. There are lots of trails around here (TPT, a country park and the Peak District) and 90% of MTB riders seem to get to those trails via footpaths instead of the road.

I see one guy in his 40's leave a local factory regularly and he also rides past my house on his way home - MTB, hi-viz jacket and riding on the footpath the entire time.


----------



## Old jon (27 Sep 2015)

In the dim and distant past,
My bicycle was not so fast,
If I did the pavement use,
All my mates would shout abuse.


----------



## sidevalve (27 Sep 2015)

Here we go - It's let's find excuses for cyclists to break the law time. Next will be examples of big bad car drivers breaking the law as though someone else doing something wrong in some way makes it ok. Footpaths - pavements are for PEOPLE - and that includes their children dogs invalid scooters wheelbarrows and anything else they want to use they are NOT for grown adults on bicycles bleating on with some pathetic excuse about the roads being dangerous or it's a short-cut rubbish. You want respect - grow up and take responsibility.
PS I expect a load of flak for upsetting the 'cyclists are perfect and can do as they please brigade' but I am getting a bit tired of this we can do no wrong crap.


----------



## Julia9054 (27 Sep 2015)

One of my good friends is a mountain biker. He is terrified of riding in traffic. Yet he will happily chuck himself and his bike off cliff edges that look like certain death to me!
Takes all sorts.


----------



## Accy cyclist (27 Sep 2015)

sidevalve said:


> Here we go - It's let's find excuses for cyclists to break the law time. Next will be examples of big bad car drivers breaking the law as though someone else doing something wrong in some way makes it ok. Footpaths - pavements are for PEOPLE - and that includes their children dogs invalid scooters wheelbarrows and anything else they want to use they are NOT for grown adults on bicycles bleating on with some pathetic excuse about the roads being dangerous or it's a short-cut rubbish. You want respect - grow up and take responsibility.
> PS I expect a load of flak for upsetting the 'cyclists are perfect and can do as they please brigade' but I am getting a bit tired of this we can do no wrong crap.


 

What about canal tow paths, are we ok to ride on those? They have lots of grumbling pedestrians on them walking their dogs, sticking their fishing rods right across the path,having boozy parties like i witnessed in the summer.


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (27 Sep 2015)

Accy cyclist said:


> What about canal tow paths, are we ok to ride on those? They have lots of grumbling pedestrians on them walking their dogs, sticking their fishing rods right across the path,having boozy parties like i witnessed in the summer.


Yes. there is a permissive cycle access on towpaths, but pedestrians have priority.


----------



## Drago (27 Sep 2015)

I use the steps at a branch of Tesco for training Fed Pedallers, but have their permission to do so and tape the area off while we're at it.


sidevalve said:


> PS I expect a load of flak for upsetting the 'cyclists are perfect and can do as they please brigade' but I am getting a bit tired of this we can do no wrong crap.



Not from me you won't. As a user group were terrible for shrieking blue murder are the perceive poor behaviour from others, while ignoring or sometimes even condoning similarly poor behaviour from our own Brothers and Sisters.


----------



## Richard A Thackeray (27 Sep 2015)

Mod Edited.




Afnug said:


> Nothing wrong with using the pavement if there are no pedestrians about, sometimes it's the safest choice, the road from Carlton to East Hardwick (a road you know Nigel) has a pavement but you hardly see any pedestrians, this should be designated dual use, as long as people are sensible I think pavement use is fine.


Not the busiest of roads anyway, I've rarely seen a car when I've rode up/down it, in either direction


----------



## Hip Priest (27 Sep 2015)

Drago said:


> Not from me you won't. As a user group were terrible for shrieking blue murder are the perceive poor behaviour from others, while ignoring or sometimes even condoning similarly poor behaviour from our own Brothers and Sisters.



I don't think anyone would defend someone bombing along a crowded footpath on a bicycle, or bunnyhopping onto the pavement to avoid traffic lights (both of these I see every day). But the fact is some roads ARE dangerous for inexperienced or nervous cyclists - young & old - and much pavement use is a consequence of that.

I can understand the simplicity of the 'Pavements are not for bikes - end of' argument, but things are a little more nuanced imho.


----------



## briantrumpet (27 Sep 2015)

Drago said:


> It was in the CTC magazine, IIRC not the last one but one before.


Thanks - not yet found, but I found this: http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/cycle-paths-are-unsafe - haven't studied closely yet.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (27 Sep 2015)

I have always been under the opinion that shared cycle paths are unsafe, there is only one I use and that's only 20ft or so, to avoid stopping at a red light on a 10% gradient, there is a give way as you re join the road that has to be observed as well.
I agree with @sidevalve, to many times I see cyclists jump red lights, ride pavements, one thing always springs to mind when I did my HGV is I was taught that someone is always watching.
Riding in traffic is a matter of practise and learning, most drivers are pretty good in this country, though many more could pass a bit further out, this I think is frightening to many and to some degree we as cyclist have to get use to it because its not going to change, I do the WNBR in York to try and rise awareness, however peoples answers seem to be to want to segregate bikes and cars, on a flat road I can be riding about 20mph, I don't want to have to negotiate stupid little give ways over junctions ect. 
However coming back the O.P. it was why do so many M.T.B. ride on pavements when they should be on the roads,


----------



## classic33 (27 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> I have always been under the opinion that shared cycle paths are unsafe, there is only one I use and that's only 20ft or so, to avoid stopping at a red light on a 10% gradient, there is a give way as you re join the road that has to be observed as well.
> I agree with @sidevalve, to many times I see cyclists jump red lights, ride pavements, one thing always springs to mind when I did my HGV is I was taught that someone is always watching.
> Riding in traffic is a matter of practise and learning, most drivers are pretty good in this country, though many more could pass a bit further out, this I think is frightening to many and to some degree we as cyclist have to get use to it because its not going to change, I do the WNBR in York to try and rise awareness, however peoples answers seem to be to want to segregate bikes and cars, on a flat road I can be riding about 20mph, I don't want to have to negotiate stupid little give ways over junctions ect.
> *However coming back the O.P. it was why do so many M.T.B. ride on pavements when they should be on the roads,*


Road bikes are not "in" at present, and you tend to see MTB's more than a road bike, for this reason. But you also have the riding up the kerbs to contend with. Something you're less likely to try as often on narrower tyres.


----------



## Andywinds (27 Sep 2015)

Mtb's on pavements, you do see a few jump bikes in urban locations. not enough to worry about.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (27 Sep 2015)

I did have one guy left hook me Friday, and I found him asked him why usual c*** he came out with, till he said its why I have a license to which I said, well I can drive a HGV with a crane so that sort of makes me higher qualified I think, to witch he had no answer.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (27 Sep 2015)

classic33 said:


> Road bikes are not "in" at present, and you tend to see MTB's more than a road bike, for this reason. But you also have the riding up the kerbs to contend with. Something you're less likely to try as often on narrower tyres.


Don't get me wrong I have seen road bikes on pavements, its just as wrong, though I did sort of feel for the guy as it was a short uphill stretch, problem was is as I was on the road and didn't need to stop for the up coming junction on his side, he would have to (by rights), and another (though this isn't a pavement thing, just bad riding) at the same junction, I had stopped (stop sign, you have to stop), this road bike squeezed by me on the left, I was turning left but away from the kerb straight out, he had too much of a head on me for me to catch him by the time I turned off, so I am guessing he rides a bit.


----------



## glenn forger (27 Sep 2015)

Many cyclists use pavements because speeding drivers or drivers on mobiles have a 98% chance of getting away with it. In England if you run over and kill a swan in brood daylight you get a larger fine than if you'd run over and killed a cyclist:

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/lo...-for-killing-chichester-marina-swan-1-6975518

Every rider you see on the pavement is an indicator of how lawless the roads are.


----------



## classic33 (27 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Don't get me wrong I have seen road bikes on pavements, its just as wrong, though I did sort of feel for the guy as it was a short uphill stretch, problem was is as I was on the road and didn't need to stop for the up coming junction on his side, he would have to (by rights), and another (though this isn't a pavement thing, just bad riding) at the same junction, I had stopped (stop sign, you have to stop), this road bike squeezed by me on the left, I was turning left but away from the kerb straight out, he had too much of a head on me for me to catch him by the time I turned off, so I am guessing he rides a bit.


See road bikes on the pavements as well. Just a possible explantion as to why you'll see more MTB's at present. This time last year it was nearly all road bikes on the pavements, with one or two MTB's.


----------



## Richard A Thackeray (28 Sep 2015)

[QUOTE 3926388, member: 43827"]The only cyclists who ride on pavements in built up areas should be young kids, or those who are still learning. If you're a grown-up get on the road or walk. I'm not talking about riding a few yards to avoid some sort of obstruction, but I see plenty of people riding on the pavement for hundreds of yards, often at speed, with no thought for pedestrians or kids coming out of their houses/drives.[/QUOTE]

A compelling reason for why these scaredy-cats/ignorant people/scrotes shouldn't be on pavemetns


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-32843812


----------



## Venod (28 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> @Afnug the A639, not a road I do often, but my recollection is its as bad as the road, if not worse, because there are some bad stretches last time I went down that way



Your right @Nigelnaturist it is a bad surface I have only ridden on it on the MTB I mentioned it for an example of a footpath that can be used without worrying about pedestrians as there arn't any, and if you do meet someone get on the road or stop to let them past.



Richard A Thackeray said:


> Not the busiest of roads anyway, I've rarely seen a car when I've rode up/down it, in either direction



Agreed @Richard A Thackeray but you get some big trucks down there & the traffic tends to be fairly quick, so if your nervous use the path, there are no pedestrians, its all about common sense & mutual resprect when using pavements.


----------



## Drago (28 Sep 2015)

If you're nervous, use the path...

...by dismounting and walking upon it.

Presence of pedestrians or not has nothing to do with it. By the argument cars could trundle down them if there are no peds and the drivers are careful. Paths are for people - what is so difficult about that?


----------



## Venod (28 Sep 2015)

Drago said:


> If you're nervous, use the path...
> 
> ...by dismounting and walking upon it.





Afnug said:


> its all about common sense


----------



## Karlt (28 Sep 2015)

classic33 said:


> See road bikes on the pavements as well. Just a possible explantion as to why you'll see more MTB's at present. This time last year it was nearly all road bikes on the pavements, with one or two MTB's.


Not around here. Road bikes are almost always on roads; always have been. MTBs are nearly always on pavements. The most stupid example was a really snowy day when the pavements were covered in slush and ice and crap, the roads clear if damp because of traffic melting the snow - and I _still_ overtook a bloke who was riding his MTB over the slippy pavement next to a completely clear road. I'm given to wonder if most of the people around here actually know where cyclists are meant to ride.


----------



## theclaud (28 Sep 2015)

I'm puzzled by what exactly constitutes the 'seriousness' of these urban MTBers. Is Pontefract the new Valparaiso? There are a few gnarly descents in Swansea for the taking, but from my desk I mostly see blokes on cheap mtbs trundling up and down the pavement all day in a manner that can only be described as pedestrian (see what I did there?). On the other hand I'm slack-jawed in admiration and wonder at the skills of the young men on jump bikes in Castle Square. Anyway, this thread is full of the sort of people who would've liked the cops to win in the ET bike chase.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (28 Sep 2015)

@Afnug Got pip at on that road the bit drops down before the short climb to the A1, would mind I must have been doing 23-25mph as its a slight decline and no more than a meter or so, I use to ride that bit quite often, as I would go from here to Darrington than to E. Hardwick.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (28 Sep 2015)

@theclaud I think the three ( I presume male, though not forced to be) I saw coming down the said hill, with lights T6 bright light stuck on there helmets and from what I could make out not some B.S.O. of a M.T.B. either, the others I refer to also are more kitted out in serious equipment than your average rider on a M.T.B.


----------



## cd365 (28 Sep 2015)

Karlt said:


> Not around here. Road bikes are almost always on roads; always have been. MTBs are nearly always on pavements. The most stupid example was a really snowy day when the pavements were covered in slush and ice and crap, the roads clear if damp because of traffic melting the snow - and I _still_ overtook a bloke who was riding his MTB over the slippy pavement next to a completely clear road. I'm given to wonder if most of the people around here actually know where cyclists are meant to ride.


That is my experience as well, I very rarely see a road bike on the pavement but most MTBs are on the pavement.


----------



## User482 (28 Sep 2015)

So long as pavement cyclists slow right down and give way to pedestrians, I fail to see what there is to get worked up about.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (28 Sep 2015)

User482 said:


> So long as pavement cyclists slow right down and give way to pedestrians, and fail to see what there is to get worked up about.


Ok I will put it another way, the more car drivers see cyclists on the pavements the more the will expect us to flout other rules and use as it an argument for segregation, and as we know the motorist movement has more support than the cyclist one, and I think we all know where segregation leads. I for one have had several comments (to say the least) regarding being on a road even where there is no footpath, 
It is this simple in the U.K. it is against the law to ride on footpaths, this actually extends to footpaths across moors ect. unless a right of way has vehicle access you cant ride it on a bike (though cyclist are allowed to use bridleways, which answers the towpath question earlier), I used to do some green lanes in the Huddersfield area in the 90's and you had to know which had vehicle access and those that didn't. Though I think there may have been some reclassification of byways since then.
It seems to me that cyclists believe they can do no wrong.


----------



## User482 (28 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Ok I will put it another way, the more car drivers see cyclists on the pavements the more the will expect us to flout other rules and use as it an argument for segregation, and as we know the motorist movement has more support than the cyclist one, and I think we all know where segregation leads. I for one have had several comments (to say the least) regarding being on a road even where there is no footpath,
> It is this simple in the U.K. it is against the law to ride on footpaths, this actually extends to footpaths across moors ect. unless a right of way has vehicle access you cant ride it on a bike (though cyclist are allowed to use bridleways, which answers the towpath question earlier), I used to do some green lanes in the Huddersfield area in the 90's and you had to know which had vehicle access and those that didn't. Though I think there may have been some reclassification of byways since then.
> It seems to me that cyclists believe they can do no wrong.



It's illegal for young children to cycle on the pavement. Do you think they should all be forced onto the road?


----------



## Karlt (28 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Ok I will put it another way, the more car drivers see cyclists on the pavements the more the will expect us to flout other rules and use as it an argument for segregation, and as we know the motorist movement has more support than the cyclist one, and I think we all know where segregation leads. I for one have had several comments (to say the least) regarding being on a road even where there is no footpath,
> It is this simple in the U.K. it is against the law to ride on footpaths, this actually extends to footpaths across moors ect. unless a right of way has vehicle access you cant ride it on a bike (though cyclist are allowed to use bridleways, which answers the towpath question earlier), I used to do some green lanes in the Huddersfield area in the 90's and you had to know which had vehicle access and those that didn't. Though I think there may have been some reclassification of byways since then.
> It seems to me that cyclists believe they can do no wrong.



In principle I agree, but there are some caveats.

1. The existence of shared use facilities. These indicate that either (a) a bit of white paint and a blue sign suddenly either negates the problem or (b) there was never any real problem in the first place. There is of course a third option, (c) that there is still a problem and it still exists on shared use facilities, but that implies that shared use facilities are a Bad Thing which isn't a popular view.

2. Young children as mentioned; there is a popular belief that bikes with wheels under 20" are considered toys and are exempt, but this is as far as I can see nonsense. It's virtually impossible for a child under 16 to be prosecuted for the offence because it's dealt with by fixed penalty which cannot be applied under that age, but it's still illegal.

3. It doesn't extend to footpaths that are not footways on the highway. Such footpaths do not create a right of way by bicycle, but someone using one is not committing an offence but rather a civil tort, trespass, and as such could not be prosecuted, only sued if damage resulted, or ordered off by the landowner or his agents.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (28 Sep 2015)

@User482 again the O.P. is about serious M.T.B. this wasn't meant as a debate as to the rights and wrongs of all cyclists, I think as adults we should use disgression regarding those under 10 as they can't be guilty of any offence (well normally), so you have to aim that question a bit higher those over 10, 
I could ride local roads when I was young, and don't give this c*** about less traffic, there was enough traffic about in the mid 70's, I rode my Chopper from New Miles to Marple about that time, about 10 miles., twisty country lanes, at 14 I rode from New Miles to Hazel Grove (and back) down the A6, all ways was a busy road that one.
If my memory serves me right in real terms road fatalities have actually come down since then.
Image yourself an older person not steady on your feet but still capable of getting to the local shops, and you see a youth tonking in down the pavement towards you, how you going to feel......


----------



## User482 (28 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> @User482 again the O.P. is about serious M.T.B. this wasn't meant as a debate as to the rights and wrongs of all cyclists, I think as adults we should use disgression regarding those under 10 as they can't be guilty of any offence (well normally), so you have to aim that question a bit higher those over 10,
> I could ride local roads when I was young, and don't give this c*** about less traffic, there was enough traffic about in the mid 70's, I rode my Chopper from New Miles to Marple about that time, about 10 miles., twisty country lanes, at 14 I rode from New Miles to Hazel Grove (and back) down the A6, all ways was a busy road that one.
> If my memory serves me right in real terms road fatalities have actually come down since then.
> Image yourself an older person not steady on your feet but still capable of getting to the local shops, and you see a youth tonking in down the pavement towards you, how you going to feel......



It is illegal for children under ten to cycle on the pavement, and they can be stopped by a police officer for doing so. You appear to be suggesting a common-sense approach, whereby some discretion is applied in law-enforcement in return for some courtesy by the cyclist. The Home Office sees it the same way.

_"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."_


----------



## Nigelnaturist (28 Sep 2015)

Karlt said:


> In principle I agree, but there are some caveats.
> 
> 1. The existence of shared use facilities. These indicate that either (a) a bit of white paint and a blue sign suddenly either negates the problem or (b) there was never any real problem in the first place. There is of course a third option, (c) that there is still a problem and it still exists on shared use facilities, but that implies that shared use facilities are a Bad Thing which isn't a popular view.
> _*A road is a shared right of way and isn't popular from many a motorists point of view*_
> ...



_*a footpath is for the sole use of people on foot, use of any other vehicle is illegal, I am not on about paths on private land but public right of ways. *_
_*A right of way is deemed to be one from an historical point of (Drovers roads ect) or by legislation, they all have categories, footpath, bridleway, B.O.A.T. (by open to all traffic), but like I said these may have changed, there were one or two others I think, but the principle is the same, and for reference all these are open to pedestrians expect motorways or where there are exceptions as in certain dual carriageways usually urban ones.*_


----------



## Nigelnaturist (28 Sep 2015)

User482 said:


> It is illegal for children under ten to cycle on the pavement, and they can be stopped by a police officer for doing so. You appear to be suggesting a common-sense approach, whereby some discretion is applied in law-enforcement in return for some courtesy by the cyclist. The Home Office sees it the same way.
> 
> _"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."_


Didn't stop the officer in Nottingham though, which I actually found appalling.
However a child can not be done in normal circumstance, due to being under the age of criminal consent 10 (not sure thats the terminology) unless I have missed something in my hibernation from the world.


----------



## User482 (28 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Didn't stop the officer in Nottingham though, which I actually found appalling.
> However a child can not be done in normal circumstance, due to being under the age of criminal consent 10 (not sure thats the terminology) unless I have missed something in my hibernation from the world.



There have been several successful challenges against fines, on the basis of the police not applying Home Office guidance. The guidance is - in my view - perfectly sensible, as it amounts to little more than "don't be a dick and the police will leave you alone".


----------



## Hip Priest (28 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> don't give this c*** about less traffic, there was enough traffic about in the mid 70's.....



But there is unquestionably more traffic now. Significantly so. You can't dismiss an incontestable fact as 'cr*p'.


----------



## jefmcg (28 Sep 2015)

howard2107 said:


> Cyclists are the least of the problems where i ride, its dickheads and chavs riding unregistered probably stolen quads on pavements and trails that are a pain. Luckily a couple of weeks ago one got stuck under the front of a bus, causing serious injury to aforementioned chavs.



How is this ok, celebrating serious injury of someone because you think he belongs to a group you despise? How is this any different from cheering on that we see occasionally when a cyclist is hit or killed?

Shame on you, @howard2107 for posting this, and shame on @Globalti, @i hate hills, @Accy cyclist and @Drago for liking it.

And double shame on @Richard A Thackeray ....



Richard A Thackeray said:


> You mean, *sadly*, only serious injury


----------



## Karlt (28 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> _*a footpath is for the sole use of people on foot, use of any other vehicle is illegal, I am not on about paths on private land but public right of ways. *_
> _*A right of way is deemed to be one from an historical point of (Drovers roads ect) or by legislation, they all have categories, footpath, bridleway, B.O.A.T. (by open to all traffic), but like I said these may have changed, there were one or two others I think, but the principle is the same, and for reference all these are open to pedestrians expect motorways or where there are exceptions as in certain dual carriageways usually urban ones.*_



I know. On a public footpath, a right of way, as opposed to a footway by a road, cycling is illegal under the civil law, as opposed to the criminal law. The difference is that you can be fined for riding on a footway (i.e.a pavement by a road); you cannot be fined for riding on a public footpath because no _criminal_ offence is committed - only a civil tort of trespass.


----------



## Hip Priest (28 Sep 2015)

jefmcg said:


> How is this ok, celebrating serious injury of someone because you think he belongs to a group you despise? How is this any different from cheering on that we see occasionally when a cyclist is hit or killed?
> 
> Shame on you, @howard2107 for posting this, and shame on @Globalti, @i hate hills, @Accy cyclist and @Drago for liking it.
> 
> And double shame on @Richard A Thackeray ....



Yeah, I though that was a bit unpleasant too. Kudos for speaking up.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (28 Sep 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> But there is unquestionably more traffic now. Significantly so. You can't dismiss an incontestable fact as 'cr*p'.


However in real terms fatalities are down. more traffic about the same fatalities about 3,000 I think it was, however this is no solace if on a bike or a pedestrian as these figures haven't really fallen.

However most children wouldn't be riding down A roads like I did, but more in the confines of the immediate neighbourhood, which on the whole are still relatively save, apart from the young kids on bikes with no sense riding across the road without looking to get from one pavement to the other, and if a child has the ability to ride down A roads, they will have been taught road skills and sense by like minded people. 
I knew the highway code inside out when I was 12, passed my HGV in 2004 with only 2 minors and one of the highest scores on the theory test to go through the Gillingham test centre at the time.
Its us as cyclist that make us safe not others, read the road understand what is going on, expect that car thats just over took you to take that next left, give yourself space in which to manoeuvre (this applies no matter what you ride/drive), us all the senses you have to stay alert and safe, and remember this no matter what we do life is a risk, we choose to ride on the roads, and allow our children to do what they do, its is our responsibility to ensure they have the skills to stay safe, which I have seen around here from time to time, parents riding as out riders so the younger ones learnt he road. 
I reiterate this issue in this statement, per 100 I see more bad riding than I see bad/dangerous driving, I would go as far to say that in a 100 cyclists and 1,000 motorists, I still see more bad cyclists.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (28 Sep 2015)

Karlt said:


> I know. On a public footpath, a right of way, as opposed to a footway by a road, cycling is illegal under the civil law, as opposed to the criminal law. The difference is that you can be fined for riding on a footway (i.e.a pavement by a road); you cannot be fined for riding on a public footpath because no _criminal_ offence is committed - only a civil tort of trespass.


I would need to look at this further to be able to answer with any thing more definitive.


----------



## glenn forger (28 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> However most children wouldn't be riding down A roads like I did, but more in the confines of the immediate neighbourhood, which on the whole are still relatively save, apart from the young kids on bikes with no sense riding across the road without looking to get from one pavement to the other



What proportion of child fatalities are you blaming the child for?


----------



## Richard A Thackeray (28 Sep 2015)

Yes, maybe fair does!!


However, there doesn't appear to be a 'tongue in cheek smilie'

Wrong choice of words perhaps, but if they'd not stolen it, & been (no doubt) riding it like buffoons, they'd not have buried it in a Bus (also traumatising the driver, & any pasengers who saw it)


----------



## glenn forger (28 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> I would go as far to say that in a 100 cyclists and 1,000 motorists, I still see more bad cyclists.



Then you are bringing your bias to the debate.

There are a million regular cyclist commuters in this country. There are 1.2 million uninsured cars on the road. So law-breaking by drivers is much larger than any law-breaking among cyclists BEFORE YOU EVEN INCLUDE speeding, drink driving, drugged driving, driving with no MOT, driving with poor eyesight, driving while using a mobile etc etc etc


----------



## i hate hills (28 Sep 2015)

jefmcg said:


> How is this ok, celebrating serious injury of someone because you think he belongs to a group you despise? How is this any different from cheering on that we see occasionally when a cyclist is hit or killed?
> 
> Shame on you, @howard2107 for posting this, and shame on @Globalti, @i hate hills, @Accy cyclist and @Drago for liking it.
> 
> And double shame on @Richard A Thackeray ....


Just to clarify . My "LIKE" was for the first sentence , not the second sentence. I have been menaced by chavs / neds before while out cycling and was in agreement with the posters first sentence. Sorry for any confusion and happy to clear that up for you.


----------



## i hate hills (28 Sep 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> Yeah, I though that was a bit unpleasant too. Kudos for speaking up.


Just to clarify my "LIKE " was for the first sentence , not the second sentence. I have been menaced by chavs / neds while out cycling and was in agreement with the posters first sentence . Sorry for any confusion and happy to clear that up for you.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (28 Sep 2015)

glenn forger said:


> What proportion of child fatalities are you blaming the child for?


I didn't say that, what I implied is that youngsters have no sense and put themselves at risk.
The responsibility is on the drive to drive in such away they can stop in the distance they can under all eventualities. 


glenn forger said:


> Then you are bringing your bias to the debate.
> 
> There are a million regular cyclist commuters in this country. There are 1.2 million uninsured cars on the road. So law-breaking by drivers is much larger than any law-breaking among cyclists BEFORE YOU EVEN INCLUDE speeding, drink driving, drugged driving, driving with no MOT, driving with poor eyesight, driving while using a mobile etc etc etc


Ok lets bring into the equation drunk in charge of a bicycle, riding no handed drinking smoking on a mobile and on a pavement yes I saw a guy do all that at the same time, the rest can also be applied to cyclists to some degree though in many cases not a legal requirement.
1.2 million cars uninsured out of what 20 million 25 so lets say 1 in 25, suspect thats quite a bit higher with bikes, again not a legal requirement but if you cause an accident your just as liable. Excluding the idiots that drive prior to a test or training, drivers have to have a attained a certain level of skill, that again is not a legal requirement on bike, maybe if it was people would not have the same fears on the road as they would be trained to ride in such conditions. 
However at the end of the day we as cyclists if we get our judgement wrong are likely to come off worst.


----------



## i hate hills (28 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> I didn't say that, what I implied is that youngsters have no sense and put themselves at risk.
> The responsibility is on the drive to drive in such away they can stop in the distance they can under all eventualities.
> 
> Ok lets bring into the equation drunk in charge of a bicycle, riding no handed drinking smoking on a mobile and on a pavement yes I saw a guy do all that at the same time, the rest can also be applied to cyclists to some degree though in many cases not a legal requirement.
> ...


You make some very valid points there . Cant make up my mind what side of the disscussion to come down on so have replied to you rather than liked it


----------



## i hate hills (28 Sep 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Then you are bringing your bias to the debate.
> 
> There are a million regular cyclist commuters in this country. There are 1.2 million uninsured cars on the road. So law-breaking by drivers is much larger than any law-breaking among cyclists BEFORE YOU EVEN INCLUDE speeding, drink driving, drugged driving, driving with no MOT, driving with poor eyesight, driving while using a mobile etc etc etc


You make some good points too. Not sure where i stand on things . So replied to you rather than liked your post.


----------



## glenn forger (28 Sep 2015)

I liked the bit where he compared drunk driving with cycling while having a fag.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (28 Sep 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I liked the bit where he compared drunk driving with cycling while having a fag.


You missed the bit about drink.
Thats the funny think about extracting quotes, and I can tell you a few things about drink driving to as I was guilty of it, fortunately I never hurt anyone, this how ever is not the place for ways and wherefores, however I was punished heavily and quite rightly so, so don't think drivers get away with it, also no-insurance (however that is very complex as it involves the disappearance of my mother who was never seen again, but basically my mum said the car was insured as a youngster 20 ish you believe your parents ect ect.... doesn't make it right however), I did keep a clean license for 20 years after that and driving up to 60-70,000 miles a year, so I actually have a very good understanding of the roads and how people are and behave on them.
This was meant as a simple question as to why what appear to be serious M.T.Bikers riding on pavements, not the rights and wrongs of everyone on the road pavements ect.


----------



## theclaud (28 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Ok lets bring into the equation drunk in charge of a bicycle, riding no handed drinking smoking on a mobile and on a pavement yes I saw a guy do all that at the same time.



I'm almost tempted to take up smoking and pavement-cycling so that I can pull off the whole shebang at once.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (28 Sep 2015)

theclaud said:


> I'm almost tempted to take up smoking and pavement-cycling so that I can pull off the whole shebang at once.


I know, I did think he could make rather a lot of money in the circus or such like.


----------



## theclaud (28 Sep 2015)

The first time I recce'd the route for the Cardiff-Swansea FNRttC, I crashed rather spectacularly into a hedge because I attempted to answer the phone whilst folding an OS map and going down a fairly steep hill. I don't think multi-tasking is my thing. Unfortunately there was no pavement, and I was on a road bike not a Serious MTB, so I'm not ticking enough arbitrary boxes to inspire disapproving threads on CycleChat. Must try harder.


----------



## classic33 (28 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> I didn't say that, what I implied is that youngsters have no sense and put themselves at risk.
> The responsibility is on the drive to drive in such away they can stop in the distance they can under all eventualities.
> 
> Ok lets bring into the equation drunk in charge of a bicycle, riding no handed drinking smoking on a mobile and on a pavement yes I saw a guy do all that at the same time, the rest can also be applied to cyclists to some degree though in many cases not a legal requirement.
> ...


How about a 25% total. But that's a two year old government supplied figure now.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (28 Sep 2015)

classic33 said:


> How about a 25% total. But that's a two year old government supplied figure now.


So your saying 1 in 4, with todays technology I am surprised there are any cars on the road, or is that there is only 4.8 million cars on the road, either that or those stats are wrong some where either the 25% or 1.2 million uninsured. The three cars in use here are insured the 4th isn't however it has a S.W.O.R.N. declaration and is parked up with a cover over it, stats can be misleading or misrepresented to suit a point of view.


----------



## classic33 (28 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> So your saying 1 in 4, with todays technology I am surprised there are any cars on the road, or is that there is only 4.8 million cars on the road, either that or those stats are wrong some where either the 25% or 1.2 million uninsured. The three cars in use here are insured the 4th isn't however it has a S.W.O.R.N. declaration and is parked up with a cover over it, stats can be misleading or misrepresented to suit a point of view.


The government figure on the number of vehicles on the roads without insurance, MOT or VED.

I've two pass me daily. Police have visited the owners of one(more than once), but its not stopping him.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (28 Sep 2015)

classic33 said:


> The government figure on the number of vehicles on the roads without insurance, MOT or VED.


So one in four has no insurance no mot or ved, just as well they don't do regular checks otherwise there would be no pickup trucks for brake downs, its also just as well cyclists don't need these, some places I ride the bikes are as bad in terms of road worthiness which bikes have got to be by law, even if an mot isn't needed, mind you these are the places I see some of the worst riding and driving.


----------



## glenn forger (29 Sep 2015)

Even if every single cyclist commuter rides no handed on a mobile with a drink and a fag up a one-way street with no lights dressed as a nazi they would still be outnumbered by uninsured drivers. So your claim that law-breaking cyclists outnumber law-breaking drivers is laughable.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Sep 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Even if every single cyclist commuter rides no handed on a mobile with a drink and a fag up a one-way street with no lights dressed as a nazi they would still be outnumbered by uninsured drivers. So your claim that law-breaking cyclists outnumber law-breaking drivers is laughable.


Again quoting out of context, I said per 100 I said I see more bad cycling than driving, there was no reference to breaking the law as such, though some of it might be, so its hardly laughable, its that bad riding motorists sees and calls for segregation (speaking of Nazi's), mind you I only ride a mere 5-7,000 miles a year so what do I get to see not much I suppose.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Sep 2015)

@glenn forger is that figure actual drivers or uninsured cars as I say we have four cars here (well three at the moment the young fella back at Uni) of the four, one is uninsured, but its not used on the road, so according to D.V.L.A. its an uninsured vehicle, and whilst it is illegal an uninsured driver may not be as dangerous as some insured drivers ( I am not advocating it in anyway however), and even if uninsured the driver in the event of any accident is still liable as is a cyclist/pedestrian/horse rider ect...


----------



## User482 (29 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Ok lets bring into the equation drunk in charge of a bicycle.


My bicycle is very well-trained: when I'm drunk, it's in charge of me.

p.s. cycled on the pavement this morning, taking my daughter to school. The shame!


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Sep 2015)

User482 said:


> My bicycle is very well-trained: when I'm drunk, it's in charge of me.
> 
> p.s. cycled on the pavement this morning, taking my daughter to school. The shame!


So its ok to be drunk in charge of a bike (note what the law is "in charge you don't have to be riding it") though it is illegal.
On the second I am not going to condemn you, but I would watch those officers down your way, they can be pretty keen on the letter of the law.


----------



## User482 (29 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> *So its ok to be drunk in charge of a bike* (note what the law is "in charge you don't have to be riding it") though it is illegal.
> On the second I am not going to condemn you, but I would watch those officers down your way, they can be pretty keen on the letter of the law.



Only if I'm not in a hurry, as I have a habit of missing my train.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Sep 2015)

User482 said:


> Only if I'm not in a hurry, as I have a habit of missing my train.


So its ok to be drunk in *charge* of a car then, this sort of smacks of its ok for me but not them, no wonder motorist are p****** off with us, if we think its ok to flaunt the law.


----------



## User482 (29 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> So its ok to be drunk in *charge* of a car then, this sort of smacks of its ok for me but not them, no wonder motorist are p****** off with us, if we think its ok to flaunt the law.



I'm a motorist, don't drink and drive, and am not remotely annoyed if cyclists go to the pub.

You'll have to explain how one flaunts the law. Does it involve elaborate dress and dancing?


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> So its ok to be drunk in *charge* of a car then, this sort of smacks of its ok for me but not them, no wonder motorist are p****** off with us, if we think its ok to flaunt the law.


If you've got it, flaunt it.

But yeah. There are some things it's OK to do on a bike that aren't OK in a car, just as there are some things it's OK to do when walking that aren't OK on a bike, and some things it's OK to do in a car that it's not OK to do while flying a 747. It's all about how much danger your choice of transport exposes the people around you to


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Sep 2015)

The point is if we brake the law, what chance have we got of any sort of equality, and for the record I have been done for being drunk in charge of a bike, and I wasn't even riding it, it wasn't even in my hands at the time parked up outside the hotel, though it was a very long time ago.

I don't drink these days, its also the reason I won't apply for my license back until I know I can trust myself, which my be never, in which case the roads are safer without me driving. 

Also what has this all to do with serious M.T.Bikers on pavements, these are I think usually men on big bikes at sometimes stupid speeds using the pavements as it was an extension of an off road ride. I ask a specific question, not a for a debate into the rights and wrongs of everything motorists and cyclists do.


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> The point is if we brake the law, what chance have we got of any sort of equality


The point is that equality before the law shouldn't be contingent on good behaviour. Nobody says to motorists "you can't have any more motorways until you all stop speeding" do they?


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Sep 2015)

Dan B said:


> The point is that equality before the law shouldn't be contingent on good behaviour. Nobody says to motorists "you can't have any more motorways until you all stop speeding" do they?


Speeding in itself is not dangerous, it is like many things when its done wrong thats the problem, the old adage of drive to the conditions sort of springs to mind, if we all did that there would actually be no need for speed limits, unfortunately human nature being what it is many people don't, why do you think there are so many accidents excluding any sort of under the influence effects, because people just don't read conditions its that simple, when I ride or when I drove, I could tell you almost what everyone was about to do and go, and I believe due to the lack of cycle training/road awareness this leads to an increased rate of cyclist fatalities, its only a belief I can't back it up, don't get me wrong I am by no means a particularly good cyclist, but I still stand by and say that per 100 cyclists and 100 drivers I see more bad cycling than driving, whether they are insured, no ved or mot, whilst these are legal requirements, it doesn't in itself make the driver a bad driver just a bad person, and a lack of respect for the law and other road users, and again whilst not a requirement I suspect as a percentage a greater number of uninsured bikes on the road than cars, it shows just as little respect for other uses as no car insurance.


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Speeding in itself is not dangerous, it is like many things when its done wrong thats the problem


Riding bikes on the pavement ditto really.


----------



## User482 (29 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Speeding in itself is not dangerous, it is like many things when its done wrong thats the problem, the old adage of drive to the conditions sort of springs to mind,



Safe speeding, then?


----------



## MontyVeda (29 Sep 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I liked the bit where he compared drunk driving with cycling while having a fag.


Whenever i have a fag whilst cycling.. the lycra lot don't half turn their noses up.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Sep 2015)

Whilst many cyclists can drive and carry that road awareness across to the cycling, there are many cyclist that don't or haven't driven so are not forced to have that awareness (though this is not always the case), so it could be that compulsory road training is necessary, becasuse at the end of the day you are in charge of a vehicle that can kill, if somewhat less likely to do so than a motorised one, and is that one life lost to a cycling incident less important than those that die in a motorised incident. 

@Dan B I agree however both are illegal, so by definition you shouldn't do it.

@User482 again sort out of context quote, If people drove to conditions and not so much speed limits there wouldn't be the need for speed limits therefore no speeding, but people don't therefore there has to be limits, there are times when any speed can be dangerous.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Sep 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> Whenever i have a fag whilst cycling.. the lycra lot don't half turn their noses up.


Not a problem here I ride solo, though never when riding.


----------



## User482 (29 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Whilst many cyclists can drive and carry that road awareness across to the cycling, there are many cyclist that don't or haven't driven so are not forced to have that awareness (though this is not always the case), so it could be that compulsory road training is necessary, becasuse at the end of the day you are in charge of a vehicle that can kill, if somewhat less likely to do so than a motorised one, and is that one life lost to a cycling incident less important than those that die in a motorised incident.
> 
> @Dan B I agree however both are illegal, so by definition you shouldn't do it.
> 
> @User482 again sort out of context quote, If people drove to conditions and not so much speed limits there wouldn't be the need for speed limits therefore no speeding, but people don't therefore there has to be limits, there are times when any speed can be dangerous.



We've already established that it's illegal for young children to cycle on the pavement.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Sep 2015)

User482 said:


> We've already established that it's illegal for young children to cycle on the pavement.


However it can not be enforced due to the age of criminal responsibility (under 10), and again I come back to the main point of the O.P. it wasn't aimed at children but a question as to why it seems that serious off road bikers seem to ride on the pavements when they really shouldn't be doing so. 
I have covered the fact I understand why certain people feel the need to do so, I have covered about road awareness and the legalities and many other aspects of the riding on pavements and other non related issues, and only one post comes to mind that in it it was said "that whilst he was happy throwing himself off rocks ect, he found the roads intimidating", even that I understand, different skill set. 
If I had wanted a great debate about riding on pavements and other legal issues I would have worded it something like "Riding on pavements why do people do it, and why do motorists drink and drive, drive with no insurance ect........"


----------



## User482 (29 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> However it can not be enforced due to the age of criminal responsibility (under 10), and again I come back to the main point of the O.P. it wasn't aimed at children but a question as to why it seems that serious off road bikers seem to ride on the pavements when they really shouldn't be doing so.
> I have covered the fact I understand why certain people feel the need to do so, I have covered about road awareness and the legalities and many other aspects of the riding on pavements and other non related issues, and only one post comes to mind that in it it was said "that whilst he was happy throwing himself off rocks ect, he found the roads intimidating", even that I understand, different skill set.
> If I had wanted a great debate about riding on pavements and other legal issues I would have worded it something like "Riding on pavements why do people do it, and why do motorists drink and drive, drive with no insurance ect........"



You said if something's illegal, you shouldn't do it. It is illegal for children to cycle on the pavement.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Sep 2015)

User482 said:


> You said if something's illegal, you shouldn't do it. It is illegal for children to cycle on the pavement.


Children are not criminally responsible till 10, what don't you understand about that. 
I also said this post was about what appear to be serious M.T.Bikers on pavements, where is your input on that one.


----------



## glenn forger (29 Sep 2015)

To briefly recap Nige, you are a driver with convictions for driving with no insurance and drink driving and you thought it would be a good idea to register here and offer your advice on safe cycling?


----------



## User482 (29 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Children are not criminally responsible till 10, what don't you understand about that.
> I also said this post was about what appear to be serious M.T.Bikers on pavements, where is your input on that one.



Cycling on pavements is illegal, regardless of your age. What don't you understand about that?


----------



## Milkfloat (29 Sep 2015)

glenn forger said:


> To briefly recap Nige, you are a driver with convictions for driving with no insurance and drink driving and you thought it would be a good idea to register here and offer your advice on safe cycling?


'
You mean like 'set a a thief to catch a thief'? Personally I would prefer to hear from someone who has 'been there and done that' and gone through the system rather than armchair theorists.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Sep 2015)

glenn forger said:


> To briefly recap Nige, you are a driver with convictions for driving with no insurance and drink driving and you thought it would be a good idea to register here and offer your advice on safe cycling?


Never heard of learning, and like I said the insurance is a complex issue, the drink driving I have held my hands up to and stated its something I am making steps to avoid it not happening again, though irresponsible at the time it was something that could of been easily avoided (again you don't know the full circumstances) and quite rightly I was punished heavily for what I did and will be heavily penalised should I require vehicle insurance, on the other hand I drove for a living up to 60-70,000 miles a year for over 20 years with a clean license and not an accident in that time, what I did is more a reflection on me as a person more than my ability to drive well, as both convictions were more about actually breaking the law, than to do with my driving skills, though the drink driving was the more dangerous of the two by far.

The no insurance , well my mother asked me to go get a new tyre fitted to the car, the tyre place was no more than 1/4 mile away, upon leaving the fitting, I had to back out of the entrance due to there being an accident at the main exit, as I was backing out someone collided with me and drove off, someone had got their number plate and suggested as it had happened on private land, to say to the police who were in attendance for the other incident, that it happen as I was backing on to the road, though not a main road, still an illegal move, I was told to produce documents ect which I did bar the insurance, my mother insisting it was insured, forward in time first appearance it was adjourned as my mother didn't turn up with the documents, my mother was at the second and swore to the magistrates it was insured still no documents, adjourned again, by the time the third appearance came around my mother had disappeared, she was never seen again and we found out in 2011 25 years later that she had died in London (she went missing in Manchester in 1986) in 1995 she was just 49 years old, the magistrates though lenient had no choice but to convict me, it's not something I am proud about because apart from that till the drink driving I had an unblemished driving record, I passed both my car and HGV licenses first time, with as I think I have mentioned one of the highest scores in Gillingham and only two minors on the test, how many on here can claim to have passed a test in the last 20 years (apart from those less than 40, and yea I know there will be a few), I took my driving very seriously, sometimes s*** happens in out lives and we don't always deal with it in the correct way.

I was wrong it what I did, I was punished by the law, I don't require condemnation from you, as it is something that has happened quite some time ago now, I have been entitled to get my license back for several years but have choose not to.

There is also a bunch of other psychological s*** as well but I won't bore you with that.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Sep 2015)

User482 said:


> Cycling on pavements is illegal, regardless of your age. What don't you understand about that?


Your responsible, not the child.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Sep 2015)

glenn forger said:


> To briefly recap Nige, you are a driver with convictions for driving with no insurance and drink driving and you thought it would be a good idea to register here and offer your advice on safe cycling?


As for registering here I have been here as long as you, and its not the first time I have mentioned it.


----------



## User482 (29 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Your responsible, not the child.



I'm responsible for driving sober, with insurance.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Sep 2015)

User482 said:


> I'm responsible for driving sober, with insurance.


Still capable of killing someone.

Edit
Oh I forget your perfect and protected it will never happen, trust me things happen beyond your control, just be ready for them, being sober or insured will not protect you from the guilt if you kill someone.


----------



## User482 (29 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Still capable of killing someone.
> 
> Edit
> Oh I forget your perfect and protected it will never happen, trust me things happen beyond your control, just be ready for them.



I never said I was perfect: I cycled on the pavement this morning. I'll leave others to judge the seriousness of my crime.


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2015)

User482 said:


> I never said I was perfect: I cycled on the pavement this morning. I'll leave others to judge the seriousness of my crime.


We need more information. Were you 

[] drinking
[] smoking
[] texting
[] riding no-handed
[] wheelying


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Sep 2015)

User482 said:


> I never said I was perfect: I cycled on the pavement this morning. I'll leave others to judge the seriousness of my crime.


I was judged found guilty and paid for my crime (and continue to), do you think for one moment I am not aware of what may have happened, just the same as every time I go out on the bike, that my actions on the road could be responsible for another's injuries. 
Its funny really that whilst I am prepared to admit to such things and my quite extensive road knowledge and campaign for road safety all be it in a small way, I get pillared for trying to put things I got wrong right, so much for an enlightened society.


----------



## User482 (29 Sep 2015)

Nigelnaturist said:


> I was judged found guilty and paid for my crime (and continue to), do you think for one moment I am not aware of what may have happened, just the same as every time I go out on the bike, that my actions on the road could be responsible for another's injuries.
> Its funny really that whilst I am prepared to admit to such things and my quite extensive road knowledge and campaign for road safety all be it in a small way, I get pillared for trying to put things I got wrong right, so much for an enlightened society.



Yes, it's your extensive road knowledge that has enlightened us all, and never once fallen into the trap of false equivalences.


----------



## Scoosh (29 Sep 2015)

MOD NOTE:
OK, we seem to have reached an _impasse_ here, so time to Close before it gets too personal.


----------

