I ride on the pavement.

[Banjo]

No. still going to be off the bike for around a month.

Sorry to hear that. Those barstewards have a lot to answer for. Good luck

 

[John90]

Unlike RLJ-ing and one-way streeting, I find there is very rarely much advantage or convenience to be gained from riding on the pavement so I'm never tempted. If you're doing 5mph and it is advantageous I can't there is any reason not to unless you adhere to the 'it's against the law and therefore wrong per se' principle. Which is of course a defendable position, although not mine.

 

[Cyclopathic]

Unpopular though it may be to some I have no problem with riding on the pavement when it is safe to do so. As a pedestrian I have no problem with bikes on the pavement if they take care and don't go hell for leather.

 

[lulubel]

I don't have any problem with bikes on the pavement if there's room for bikes and pedestrians, and they're not doing silly speeds.

Regarding, riding into the sun, it can be completely blinding. I remember some horrible moments from my bus driving days when I slowed to a complete crawl on main roads because I could barely see a thing in front of me. There's one stretch of road near here that is really bad for about a month in the autumn at the wrong time of day. After my OH hit a pothole that she couldn't see, came off over the bars and landed on her face, we're both very careful to avoid being on the bike at the wrong time of day. It's a bit difficult if you're commuting though, so you just need to do what you have to to stay safe.

 

[carolonabike]

I cycle on the path here. It's a single carriageway 60mph limit road.

The only reason the cyclepath stops is because it's the boundary between South Tyneside (nice wide cyclepath) and Sunderland (no cyclepath). You can see the boundary sign just up ahead. The road is no less dangerous once you cross the track, it's purely a case of lack of joined up thinking on Sunderland council's part. South Tyneside have made real efforts with cycle provision, Sunderland - not so much.

I stay on the path for half a mile until the top of the hill where it widens into a dual carriageway then I go back onto the road.

 

[the snail]

If the sun makes it hard for motorists to see you, then surely it would be difficult for you to see pedestrians too? There was a court case mentioned on here where the judge said a cyclist was justified in using the pavement if it was too dangerous to use the road, so you're probably justified in doing so.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I cycle across this area in the mornings, coming up the road from the left, across the flagged area and then right onto the main road. The lane coming towards the camera from the right is one way (towards the camera), but is buses-only except for loading between certain times.

The whole area is designated as a pedestrian area:

and has no signs indicating "no cycling", so I believe it does not constitute a "pavement by a roadside", making it legal to cycle on there, but the existence of the restricted carriageway does make me wonder whether that is correct.

I did come across a PCSO one morning, but he was cycling up the pavement on the other side of the junction anyway.

 

[Red Light]

I cycle across this area in the mornings, coming up the road from the left, across the flagged area and then right onto the main road. The lane coming towards the camera from the right is one way (towards the camera), but is buses-only except for loading between certain times.

The whole area is designated as a pedestrian area:
[attachment=4691:Pavement1.jpg]
and has no signs indicating "no cycling", so I believe it does not constitute a "pavement by a roadside", making it legal to cycle on there, but the existence of the restricted carriageway does make me wonder whether that is correct.

I did come across a PCSO one morning, but he was cycling up the pavement on the other side of the junction anyway.

Cycling there is fine. The flying motorbike sign is a no motor vehicles sign. It does not apply to bicycles without motors.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Cycling there is fine. The flying motorbike sign is a no motor vehicles sign. It does not apply to bicycles without motors.

Thanks. I realise that the restriction sign is for motor vehicles. I showed the sign to illustrate that the area is designated as a pedestrian zone.

The issue is whether the existence of a carriageway, albeit a restricted one, makes it a footway (a path at the side of a carriageway), in which case it would constitute pavement cycling and therefore be illegal under Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835. I think it probably is fine, as you say, but it isn't necessarily clear cut.

 

[Allirog]

If the road is too narrow for cars to pass me safely then I ride on the pavement.Better to risk a fine than be mown down by an impatient motorist.

 

[albion]

Exactly,if I ever happen ride up Picktree road at A1M J63 I come off the entrance roundabout straight onto the pathway if I consider traffic busy.Truckers will usually give a toot of appreciation if behind when doing so.

 

[apollo179]

The majority of cyclists i see out there cycle exclusively on the pavement. Its only the serious cycling fraternity who use the roads at all. I see nothing wrong with cycling on the pavement in any circumstance where you feel it appropriate so long as you (obviously) also cycle at appropriate speed and care etc.

 

[Jezston]

I often wonder if there should be a change in the law on pavement cycling.

At the moment we have a situation where the law states it is totally illegal no one ever should ride a bike on a pavement unless it's designated shared use, even if it's a 2-year old on a tricycle. Then you have the HO guidance that tells the police yeah but don't actually enforce this unless someone is being a dick.

Perhaps we should have a law that clearly states something like bicycles may be used on the pavement, but at some kind of legally enforceable speed - can't use mph because bikes don't have speedometers - something like 'jogging pace', or whatever a lawyer can come up with. Riding recklessly and without considering for others shall be a distinct crime with a minimum fpn, and the police having the power to seize bikes off numptys.

But then, if we legally allow riding on the pavement, a lot more drivers will believe that's where we belong then, and shouldn't be on the road.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

I was in the throws of getting an old bike running for a mate. It had a few niggles that I was fairly sure I'd cured but wasn't 100% until I'd given it a good ride round. Because I didn't want to be on a 40mph road when/if things went wrong, I rode on the footpath. It's an odd stretch in that before my street it's a shared path, then a footpath and then becomes a shared path again. Sods law that when I was on the footpath bit two bobbies on bicycles happened by.

They stopped and had a pleasant natter about the bike and were about to pedal off, when I commented that I didn't mind being stopped as if a thief had nicked my bike I'd want them stopped. The bobby looked a bit confused and said "oh no, we stopped you because you were on the pavement" and then as an afterthought asked if I live local.

The Police around here aren't very good, but at least he was pragmatic and understanding about why I was on the footpath.