who are pavements for?

[Angelfishsolo]

I find it strange that someone should so unquestionably want to follow every law to the letter.

I do generally follow the law but I often eat my boiled eggs from the illegal end and eat mince pies on Christmas Day. I don't have pedal reflectors on my SPDs, I used illegal LED lights before they became legal and still use illegal flashing ones because there seem to be none that don't have a steady mode and I don't find the legal power limit gives enough light on my main light to be safe . I do go into ASLs via the safest route, not the feeder lane and if its full of vehicles sit ahead of it. I don't wear a helmet when I cycle in Spain

But then as George Bernard Shaw said, The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. YMMV

• In the UK, a change in the law from 21st October 2005, permits a bike to be fitted with flashing lights, rear and/or front.
  At the same time, some loopholes have been closed which previously made LEDs a 'grey area'.

 

[Red Light]

If pavements become shared use paths they are no longer pavements by definition. I am not so much blinkered as obliged to respond in a certain way. I feel it may have been better to say nothing.

If it comes to definitions, they were never pavements in the first place and cycling on the pavement is not illegal per se.

 

[Cyclopathic]

In the light of Monte vedeas information regarding the guidelines to be applied to the laws regarding cycling on the pavement it would seem that it may be possible for an organisation like the ctc to at least if not advocate careful use of the pavement by cyclists at least not have to condemn it out of hand. To agree with and support the guidlines as stated would not I think constitute an unreasonable or overly millitant position. The guidleines seem to be very much based along common sense and designed to focus action against dangerous cycling at dangerous cyclists.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463431"]
That's not the full picture though. Flashing lights are only legal if the steady mode on that light meets BS.

So, as has already been said, the majority of bike lights have a steady mode and so are still technically illegal.
[/quote]

Please explain that. Do you mean that LED lights that have a steady mode that does not meet BS are being sold?

 

[AlickB]

I can't seem to win round here with the pavement issues. I have a 15 mile commute into work every day an the first 9 miles of them go along a fairly busy A road, The drivers in the car give me abuse and tell me to get of the road onto the "cycle path" (no signage and really badly maintained, no way my ass would survive the trip going over those potholes on my road bike lol) and on the patch of path that is suitable (temporary diversion to get past roadworks on a big roundabout, has been signposted for both peds and bikes) I get abuse from the peds that i should get off the pavements!

I tend to just stick to the roads now, seems like less hassle to me...

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463434"]
Yes. There are only a couple that meet the regs.
[/quote]

That is interesting. I wonder how the authorities know is a light meets BS3648 or BS6102/3? Need to read up on those.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I can't seem to win round here with the pavement issues. I have a 15 mile commute into work every day an the first 9 miles of them go along a fairly busy A road, The drivers in the car give me abuse and tell me to get of the road onto the "cycle path" (no signage and really badly maintained, no way my ass would survive the trip going over those potholes on my road bike lol) and on the patch of path that is suitable (temporary diversion to get past roadworks on a big roundabout, has been signposted for both peds and bikes) I get abuse from the peds that i should get off the pavements!

I tend to just stick to the roads now, seems like less hassle to me...

 

[MontyVeda]

Personally I can understand why you and others express the view that it is the law that is the definite factor in this debate, especially as you have to consider your obligation to the ctc. However my view is that I'd like to see some more debate about it but in a calm and less emotive way than tends to be the case.

I think that it has become very clear that there will be very little real concessions made to cyclists by the way of properly designed roads with properly considered cycle paths or other proper and worthwhile aids to cycling as a viable means of transport for all and not just those brave enough and skilled enough to handle modern city traffic. It is because of this that I think other solutions have to be sought albeit not entirely ideal ones. I think that perhaps if cyclist do use pavements considerately that it may just work to show that properly designating more areas as multiple use might be workable. Alongside this I do think that reckless and dangerous cycling should be tackled in a way that will discourage and hopefully all but stop people doing it.

The local council in Lancaster & Morecambe has opened a lot of pavements up to shared use and put contraflow cycle lanes on many one way streets. it seems almost all the pavements I used to cycle along illegally are now shared use. There's not many one way streets that used to nip the wrong way down because its more convenient, but strangely these have contraflow bike lanes now too.

It appears that popular use, regardless of legalities is defining the layout of permitted cycle routes in these two towns.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463438"]
If they've got the kite mark on they're legal.
[/quote]

I found this as well.
Makes for interesting reading. It seems that you can ride with just a flashing rear (light) and be legal.

 

[Red Light]

That is interesting. I wonder how the authorities know is a light meets BS3648 or BS6102/3? Need to read up on those.

Its got labelling to say it does. And to attach the labelling you either need to have it tested or have a recognised quality system in place that allows you to self certify.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Its got labelling to say it does. And to attach the labelling you either need to have it tested or have a recognised quality system in place that allows you to self certify.

I meant when on the bike

 

[Red Light]

I meant when on the bike

You look for the labelling on it.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

You look for the labelling on it.

How will the authorities know if the lights you have on your bike are BS certified?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463445"]
They won't, because they're not stupid. If they're out to catch idiot cyclists they'll ignore those who are appropriately lit, regardless of the law, and stop the unlit ones.

This side-discussion into lighting is useful, because it highlights the need for discretion, in an area I think you'll understand it better.

Have you been riding illegally at night Angel?
[/quote]

Well my smart rear light is always used in flashing mode so I think not .

I see the comparison here but it would seem to be harder to police lighting than pavement usage.

It seems that rather than discretion that authorities are "in the dark" as to whether a light is compliant or not

 

[gaz]

Well my smart rear light is always used in flashing mode so I think not .

I see the comparison here but it would seem to be harder to police lighting than pavement usage.

It seems that rather than discretion that authorities are "in the dark" as to whether a light is compliant or not

I doubt your smart lights have the required eu regs or bs marks on to be legit.