Cycling on the pavement

[User]

 

[wafflycat]

Actually, it's not heartening. That letteer was brought out in 1999. Since then there have been various 'crackdowns' on pavement cycling. And on one I've seen on TV they were stopping all pavement cyclists, not just those behaving badly. I would suggest that said Home Office advice is ignored by those doing the enforcing in such crackdowns. Inbdeed, this has been a subject brought up many times in cycling groups since 1999, where the Home Office advice has been ignored.

Mind you - I just don't cycle on the pavement: don't see the need for it as an adult.

 

[Vikeonabike]

Not sure about other areas, in Peterborough the only area we have cycling on pavement crackdowns is in the City Centre where there are pedestrianised only areas, or major pedestrian routes where there are just too many peds to make cycling either safe or justifiable!

 

[mickle]

I used the cycle facility at the new junction at Cabot circus in Bristol yesterday which actually directs you onto the pavement.

 

[Tony]

Riding out of Lyndhurst a few weeks ago I was using the shared-use path till I could slot into the traffic and speed up. I came up behind an elderly and very posh couple, who were occupying the whole path, and called out "Excuse me".
The woman turned round and let fly with a torrent of abuse, until her husband pointed out the shared-use sign.
No apology, just a grunt. And she still wouldn't move, so he did.
The response is due to the press reports, like the one in the Telegraph that linked from cyclists not stopping at ped crossings to the increasing numbers of deaths there, which are all due to motor vehicles.
Dishonesty and prejudice.

 

[jonesy]

...
The response is due to the press reports, like the one in the Telegraph that linked from cyclists not stopping at ped crossings to the increasing numbers of deaths there, which are all due to motor vehicles.
Dishonesty and prejudice.

Tony, the Telegraph press report was confused about the report they were quoting. If you've still got the article it look at it carefully: the study wasn't about whether cyclists using the road stop for pedestrians at Zebra crossings, it was about how cyclists behave when using zebra crossings themselves to cross the road, as part of a study into the potential use of zebra crossings for cycle routes.

Link to TfL document about that study:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/cyclists-use-of-zebra-crossings.pdf

 

[Tony]

Good god, I'd missed that. The article was a slagfest of "cyclists don't stop...." linked to a report on how many people are killed by car drivers. So you are now saying that even the report itself doesn't involve what the Great Organ was claiming?
Are you suggesting that some journalists may be....sloppy?

 

[spen666]

Actually, it's not heartening. That letteer was brought out in 1999. Since then there have been various 'crackdowns' on pavement cycling. And on one I've seen on TV they were stopping all pavement cyclists, not just those behaving badly. I would suggest that said Home Office advice is ignored by those doing the enforcing in such crackdowns. Inbdeed, this has been a subject brought up many times in cycling groups since 1999, where the Home Office advice has been ignored.

Mind you - I just don't cycle on the pavement: don't see the need for it as an adult.

The Home Office advice is just that- ADVICE

It is not the law and is not a defence to a charge of cycling on the pavement anymore that citing the remarks of someone on here advocating pavement cycling.


That said, it is inappropriate for Home Office to give such advice that is contrary to the law

 

[jonesy]

Good god, I'd missed that. The article was a slagfest of "cyclists don't stop...." linked to a report on how many people are killed by car drivers. So you are now saying that even the report itself doesn't involve what the Great Organ was claiming?
Are you suggesting that some journalists may be....sloppy?

I am indeed, shocking though that may seem!

The TfL study was not about cyclists failing to stop for pedestrians; either the journalist misunderstood, in which case it was very sloppy, because a quick call to the authors would have clarified the matter, or the journalist knew fully well but chose to quote it anyway, even though it had nothing to do with what the article was about. Fool or knave?

 

[Randochap]

Fortunately, the incidents of people being fined for sensible cycling on pavements are rare. Common sense prevails in most places (in Birmingham there are shared use signs popping up on wide pavements all over the place which muddle the issue nicely),

It does indeed. I was back in Birmingham last summer, for the first time in 20 years and saw those things. What a mess. Would I actually be expected to ride on the pavement on one of those? I mean, who designs such abominations?

Without wanting to come off as an absentee critic (because we have more than our share of bicycle-unfriendly issues to deal with in Canada -- though I live in a cycling Mecca) what has become of cycling in the UK?

 

[orbiter]

It does indeed. I was back in Birmingham last summer, for the first time in 20 years and saw those things. What a mess. Would I actually be expected to ride on the pavement on one of those? I mean, who designs such abominations?

Without wanting to come off as an absentee critic (because we have more than our share of bicycle-unfriendly issues to deal with in Canada -- though I live in a cycling Mecca) what has become of cycling in the UK?

• Nobody 'designs' them. they are designated, not designed.
• Nobody is forced to cycle on them but lots of nervous people prefer them to the 'dangerous' roads - and by them are encouraged to ride on any pavement.
• For the majority who don't cause a serious nuisance who cares?
• 'Real' cyclists use the roads as they always have.
• We worry about being forced off the roads but it ain't likely to happen.
  

 

[col]

We just had a shared path built on a busy roundabout,the only problem is the little blue sign which shows an adult and child walking on one side of the sign and a cyclist on the other half of it are on the right at one end and the left on the other end of the path,so you can imagine someone walking on what they think is the right side to walk on is the same as a cyclist coming the opposite way.Im wondering if there is going to be any markings on the path to help the confusion?

 

[col]

Where there is no dividing line, it's a shared use path. Which means anyone can use any part of it. It shouldn't be difficult for users to understand this, and I'd question the intelligence of someone who is physically unable to share a pavement with other users.

If there is a dividing line without markings on the path of who is on which side, this is clearly a mistake which you should report to your council.

You have a lot of people to question then,but this one has bollards down the middle with a little sign on each one,but at one end it says walk one side, the other the other,to me the red smooth side is cycles,the pavement not,but some will go by the sign.Already reported.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

Don't do cycle paths or the pavement. Why people wish to cycle on the pavement, I don't know why.

As MrP says, a quick search on here will answer that. Slightly bizarre question coming from you though, I mean RLJing and riding without lights, why on Earth would anyone be stupid enough want to do those??

 

[summerdays]

I started out cycling on the pavements - very slowly when on busy roads... took me about 6 months gradually building up my confidence on busier and busier roads. If someone had told me off at that stage I would probably of stopped cycling altogether. If it is in a courtious manner giving way to any pedestrians I don't have a problem, but on the pavement the pedestrian definately has the right of way.