who are pavements for?

[Red Light]

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?

I love the way you change the subject to avoid the difficult answers. We were talking about cycling on pavements alongside the road, not on bridleways or byways or white roads. So how does the person that would like to use pavements find out?

I think you will find the LA TRO maps are all about Parking and Waiting restrictions and there are no maps of shared use pavement TROs (although I wouldn't rule out the odd one existing as an exception). Someone has tried to do it for Cambridge. Help yourself to wading through it if you want to find out what might and might not be legal to cycle on.

So lets get back to the question. If you want to cycle from A to B and you don't want to cycle on the road how are you expected to know the legality of cycling on the pavement and how are the police expected to know?

 

[Crackle]

I'm sure this point has already been made back in the annals or anals of this thread.

I used a shared use path that went from a campsite I was staying at to that quaint Welsh town of Bala. I had to get into town on the bikes with the kids and the dog. To all intent and purposes it's a pavement with some blue signs on, no demarcation of any kind. So as you come across people you negotiate your way around with a few smiles, witty remarks or general pleasantries. Anyway, at some point before it gets to Bala, it vanishes into that mysterious place all cycle paths go, except I failed to notice this and continued on, negotiating my way past people with the Crackle train in tow, until it dawned on me that it was getting quite busy and this must now be pavement and so we all got off before I started scything people down with the lead between me and the dog. During this process we passed two parked cop cars, both of whom smiled at us, even though at that point we were pottering along the pavement. Anyway, what's the fuggin difference, just an arbitrary definition, common sense, should and in most cases does, prevail.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I love the way you change the subject to avoid the difficult answers. We were talking about cycling on pavements alongside the road, not on bridleways or byways or white roads. So how does the person that would like to use pavements find out?

I think you will find the LA TRO maps are all about Parking and Waiting restrictions and there are no maps of shared use pavement TROs (although I wouldn't rule out the odd one existing as an exception). Someone has tried to do it for Cambridge. Help yourself to wading through it if you want to find out what might and might not be legal to cycle on.

So lets get back to the question. If you want to cycle from A to B and you don't want to cycle on the road how are you expected to know the legality of cycling on the pavement and how are the police expected to know?

You asked when I have asked the LA about rights of way, I answered. It seems as though not all LA's are equal.

If by "you" you mean "me" as in individual the situation would not arise as I would use the road. If it is a gerneral you I would work on the (probably flawed) assumption that unless otherwise signed (blue signs, NCN markings, white bicycles drawn on path, demarcation lines) that it is pedestrian only.

 

[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?

If a group of pedestrians decided to walk down the middle of the A10 how long do you think it would be before the police were called? Do you think the Police would defend the rights of the Pedestrians?

 

[theclaud]

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

I didn't. I'm just trying to open up the discussion into a consideration of what kind of spaces we are talking about. If the pavement is a constrained, compromised space in the first place, it's little wonder that it gives rise to conflict between its users. The legality of (considerate) cyclists' behaviour is a side issue. Ask yourself why the space that pedestrians feel is theirs is so vulnerable and inadequate that they might consider themselves threatened or endangered by a cyclist bimbling along in the same space at 10mph.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I didn't. I'm just trying to open up the discussion into a consideration of what kind of spaces we are talking about. If the pavement is a constrained, compromised space in the first place, it's little wonder that it gives rise to conflict between its users. The legality of (considerate) cyclists' behaviour is a side issue. Ask yourself why the space that pedestrians feel is theirs is so vulnerable and inadequate that they might consider themselves threatened or endangered by a cyclist bimbling along in the same space at 10mph.

The average ped walks at say 3mp. Being hit at even 10mph will do damage to said ped and possibly the rider.

 

[theclaud]

If a group of pedestrians decided to walk down the middle of the A10 how long do you think it would be before the police were called? Do you think the Police would defend the rights of the Pedestrians?

I'm not sure why you are asking me either of those questions.

 

[Crackle]

The average ped walks at say 3mp. Being hit at even 10mph will do damage to said ped and possibly the rider.

And how is that different on a shared use path?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I'm not sure why you are asking me either of those questions.

Because you stated "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."

 

[Angelfishsolo]

And how is that different on a shared use path?

Peds on a shared path should be expecting cyclists. The damage caused will be no different obviously.

 

[theclaud]

The average ped walks at say 3mp. Being hit at even 10mph will do damage to said ped and possibly the rider.

So is it OK if runners travelling at 10mph+ use the pavement?

 

[Crackle]

Peds on a shared path should be expecting cyclists. The damage caused will be no different obviously.

So no difference whatsoever and it doesn't really matter if they are expecting a cyclist or not, the onus is on the cyclist to pass safely, not the pedestrian to lookout and take evasive action. Besides, by my empirical measurements, 90% don't expect a cyclist or lookout for them.

 

[Red Light]

You asked when I have asked the LA about rights of way, I answered. It seems as though not all LA's are equal.

Wow!!! And so brazen about it too! Go back and read the post you were replying to. I asked how many times you had gone into the Council to check a TRO. And what map marks up the bits of pavement that are legal to cycle on. Not a mention of rights of way in sight.

Perhaps you could post a photo of some of the TRO map with the shared use and segregated pavement TROs marked on it that your unequal LA has provided you so we can see it exists.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

So is it OK if runners travelling at 10mph+ use the pavement?

They are still peds so yes. I believe they would have less inertia that a cyclists if a collision were to occur.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Wow!!! And so brazen about it too! Go back and read the post you were replying to. I asked how many times you had gone into the Council to check a TRO. And what map marks up the bits of pavement that are legal to cycle on. Not a mention of rights of way in sight.

Perhaps you could post a photo of some of the TRO map with the shared use and segregated pavement TROs marked on it that your unequal LA has provided you so we can see it exists.

I have phone my LA to confirm legality of routes. I take them at their word. I have not seen said maps. Phone 01443 494700 between 8:30 - 5:00 Monday - Friday.