who are pavements for?

[Angelfishsolo]

I wonder if you are looking at the right place. Beyond the white line and beyond the roadside grass is a shared use cycle track of probably 2ft width. Perfectly legal to cycle on but you would only know that by hunting down the signs or, as Cunobelin says, visiting the Council to see if there is a TRO is place.

I will admit to not even seeing that at first. I would consult a map or the authorities before riding anywhere with my children to ensure the legality and their safety. Is that so wrong?

 

[Red Light]

So how would you ride on that road with your family? As I have previously stated if a parent deems a road too dangerous for a child to ride on then that road should not be ridden.

In secondary position. But I am not the issue. I always ride on the road - I used to commute daily ten miles each way along the A10 in the last century and I know the actual dangers are trivial even if it doesn't seem so as traffic flys past you. But there are lots of people who would never ride on it. There is a "pavement" alongside they can legally ride on but confirming its legal is a challenge in itself given the paucity and separation of any blue signs. So is it acceptable for them to ride on it in those circumstances or should they just give up on any thoughts of cycling into Cambridge and instead take the car? And what if the pavement didn't have signs on it? Its still exactly the same pavement. Would it be unacceptable for them to ride on it then?

 

[theclaud]

The original question asks "Who are pavements for?" The answer is Pedestrians (unless otherwise stated) end of.

Pavements, arguably, are for motorists. That's not a sarcastic dig about endemic pavement parking, but a statement intended to prompt you to think about why we need pavements in the first place. Pavements are for motorists in the sense that Keep Out signs are for landowners - the point is about whose interests thay serve, not to whom their messages are addressed.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

In secondary position. But I am not the issue. I always ride on the road - I used to commute daily ten miles each way along the A10 in the last century and I know the actual dangers are trivial even if it doesn't seem so as traffic flys past you. But there are lots of people who would never ride on it. There is a "pavement" alongside they can legally ride on but confirming its legal is a challenge in itself given the paucity and separation of any blue signs. So is it acceptable for them to ride on it in those circumstances or should they just give up on any thoughts of cycling into Cambridge and instead take the car? And what if the pavement didn't have signs on it? Its still exactly the same pavement. Would it be unacceptable for them to ride on it then?

If after asking the relevant authorities if you can or can not cycle on said "pavement" no satisfactory answer can be given I would ride on it as you have taken all necessary steps in order to attempt to comply with the law.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Pavements, arguably, are for motorists. That's not a sarcastic dig about endemic pavement parking, but a statement intended to prompt you to think about why we need pavements in the first place. Pavements are for motorists in the sense that Keep Out signs are for landowners - the point is about whose interests thay serve, not to whom their messages are addressed.

An extremely interesting argument. The answer is still the same though. Pavements serve the interest of the pedestrian.

 

[Red Light]

I will admit to not even seeing that at first. I would consult a map or the authorities before riding anywhere with my children to ensure the legality and their safety. Is that so wrong?

So come on, how many times have you gone in to check the TRO at the Council to ensure the legality? And what map would that be that marks up which bits of pavement are legal to cycle on. You're making this up as you go along aren't you?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

So come on, how many times have you gone in to check the TRO at the Council to ensure the legality? And what map would that be that marks up which bits of pavement are legal to cycle on. You're making this up as you go along aren't you?

The LA's have maps that will confirm TRO's. I do not have to check TRO's for road riding as I do not use pavements. I do however check when taking groups out MTB'ing. OS maps provide enough detail to tell is a trail is classed as a road, bridleway, shared access, etc. This is how I was taught to do it. I was also taught if in doubt don't. What do you not understand?

 

[rowan 46]

I have to agree that the answer to the question. Who are pavements for? is pedestrians. However I do ride on pavements ( carefully ) the police see me doing it and have never stopped me. The law is there to protect pedestrians and it seems more and more police forces are recognising its spirit. ie If you are being careful and considerate they will turn a blind eye. I repeat a careful and considerate driver/ cyclist/ pedestrian harms no one. My guess is that if cycles had been invented today they probably wouldn't be allowed on the road because of h&s.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I have to agree that the answer to the question. Who are pavements for? is pedestrians. However I do ride on pavements ( carefully ) the police see me doing it and have never stopped me. The law is there to protect pedestrians and it seems more and more police forces are recognising its spirit. ie If you are being careful and considerate they will turn a blind eye. I repeat a careful and considerate driver/ cyclist/ pedestrian harms no one. My guess is that if cycles had been invented today they probably wouldn't be allowed on the road because of h&s.

Valid point. In the same way that police will turn a blind eye to cars doing 80/85 on the motorway (most of the time). It doesn't make it legal just acceptable. There are occasions however when you will get pulled for doing so and the excuse "I haven't been pulled before" will not wash.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463525"]
No, you're selectively ignoring parts of my posts so that you don't have to address them.
[/quote]

Which point - The one about no alternative route? I have addressed that but you fail to recognise it. The law makes allowances for children to ride on pavements so let them ride there. My issue is with lone adults who ride on pavements as I have said from the beginning.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463528"]
Don't be daft. The police have important things to do.

I've you've been told not to fine pavement cyclists then why would you check whether a pavement is legal for riding or not?
[/quote]

That comment was in reference to checking if lights have kite marks Mr Paul. It was also sarcastic.

 

[Black Sheep]

I used the footpath today when the temporary red light at the roadworks didn't change to green despite the fact no cars were coming in the opposite direction. 50yds,then back on the road, no peds anywhere.

You can actually treat them as a give way on the assumption that the light is broken, just be aware that the light at the other end may be green and to be careful that you can see oncoming traffic etc

When I was younger I used to be afraid to cycle on the road, it seemed like a 'adult' thing to do, so I do believe that children up to a certain age should be allowed to cycle on the pavement, as it's obvious they're going to be less visible on the road but also might not have the steadiness or nerve to ride right by cars. But now, at 19, it just feels completely wrong to ride on the pavement, I actually feel far less safe on the pavement as it's not as maintained as the roads are, for a start off.

Children upto a certain height, I can't remember the specifics but if a bike has wheels above a certain size and the saddle a certain height off the ground then it's allowed on the pavement

it also only needs to have one brake

But there must be some rationale behind deciding what bits of pavement are suitable for sharing and which not. Any clue what it is because I can't divine it from observing both? And what makes pedestrians capable of sharing on one and incapable on the other?

whichever bits of pavement can be used to fulfill the local authority's cycle lane development quota

 

[theclaud]

An extremely interesting argument. The answer is still the same though. Pavements serve the interest of the pedestrian.

It was a hint that you are oversimplifying. Pavements are differentiated from roads. As you're so hot on legality, I wonder why you're not more interested in the effective exclusion of pedestrians from road space, which they may use or occupy without breaking any law whatever. The pavement is both a means and a symbol of this exclusion, or at best a concession in the face of it. How is that a benefit?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

It was a hint that you are oversimplifying. Pavements are differentiated from roads. As you're so hot on legality, I wonder why you're not more interested in the effective exclusion of pedestrians from road space, which they may use or occupy without breaking any law whatever. The pavement is both a means and a symbol of this exclusion, or at best a concession in the face of it. How is that a benefit?

Have have never said pedestrians may only walk on the pavements so I fail to see why you allude to the fact I did

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463534"]
Several, but wrt your response above, adults carrying children on their bikes.
[/quote]

I would be personally happier on the road. It is upto the parent to decide what he or she feels is best for that child. Take it a stage further - a pregnant mother? Is she better cycling on pavements?