Why is riding on the footpath an offence?

[swansonj]

The quick answer from me is Yes.

There has been a serious collision between a lorry and a cyclist on a road that is almost entirely devoid of 'peds on the accompanying pavements, the road has no cycling provision e.g. wider lanes or optional/mandatory cycle lane. At least one person I have talked to about this has admitted they illegally use the pavement as they feel unsafe on the road. They are not alone in that as I see at least one cyclist using the pavement everytime I travel down this road.

http://www.examiner.co.uk/incoming/serious-crash-wakefield-road-causes-7303155

I understand what you mean, so it's slightly unfair to pick on you. But actually, the fact that you can write this simply demonstrates how far cyclists have already lost the battle. The road DOES have cycling provision - it has a tarmac surface, it has the edges marked, it quite possibly has lighting, it has street signs to tell you where you're going, it has priority markings to let you know when you need to give way to other vehicles and when they should give way to you.

 

[MontyVeda]

Enforced for cyclists too?

Why not? Bearing in mind 'we are the traffic', then traffic rules should apply to all forms of transport, not just motorised transport.

 

[MontyVeda]

No speedo.

Most of the cyclists i see round these parts have never ridden anywhere near 20mph (on the flat anyway)... and a lot of cyclists do have those little computers these days.

The speed of the traffic in a 20mph zone is a good indication of what 20mph is. There's no need to enforce all bicycles to have a speedo fitted in order to apply a little common sense.

 

[MontyVeda]

Come on, you know how speeding law gets caught up on technicalities.

There's a drunk in charge law too... with no 'maximum' blood/alcohol unit to back it up... it's down to the officers discretion as to whether one is in breach of this law or not. What's wrong with just saying "Cyclists in a 20mph zone must not travel at a greater speed than the traffic." ?

 

[theclaud]

True, but if motorists find themselves limited to 20mph and have cyclists overtaking them, the scope for resentment increases (see various discussions on Richmond Park)

The poor dears.

 

[Learnincurve]

This whole debate could be ended if councils were to actually sort out the bike paths. It is very obvious that we have got to the point where many sections of road are so overloaded with cars, vans and lorries that they could very easily be a death trap to cyclists, especially inexperienced ones. It's madness to suggest that cyclists share the road with HGVs barrelling along on narrow roads round blind bends, anyone who has been near chatsworth house will know what I'm talking about, or very busy junctions where car drivers and cyclists have got into this insane loop where car drivers think it's too dangerous for a cyclist to be there so assume they won't be there and therefore don't pay enough attention which is the very reason these junctions are dangerous in the first place.

It's about showing some common sense and thinking for yourselves, you know if a stretch or road you use is dangerous, you know if the stretch of pavement is quiet enough for you to safely ride on or if you should be getting off and pushing your bike. You also know your own level, the simple fact is that someone who has been riding on roads for 5/10/50 years is going to be able to go where a newbie cant. It should also be noted that even in the 1990s people only had one car per household and not one car each, so people trying to learn today have far more to contend with than even someone in their 30s who learned as a teen.

 

[MontyVeda]

You would be creating a new offence of overtaking another road user at a speed below the stated limit.

well... not really... bearing in mind most drivers drive 'at' the speed limit, and quite often a bit faster. I'm taking about guidelines, you seem obsessed with creating new laws.

 

[MontyVeda]

What did you teach them to do if they needed to get the other side?

it's posts like that that make me wonder if the poster is really worth engaging with.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

[QUOTE 3143565, member: 45"]I taught my children to walk on the pavement and not in the road down the A38. It's not really a good comparison.[/QUOTE]
What about roads with no pavement, did you teach to walk on the side of the oncoming traffic, as you should, I see people getting this wrong as some roads round here don't have pavements.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Most of the cyclists i see round these parts have never ridden anywhere near 20mph (on the flat anyway)... and a lot of cyclists do have those little computers these days.

The speed of the traffic in a 20mph zone is a good indication of what 20mph is. There's no need to enforce all bicycles to have a speedo fitted in order to apply a little common sense.

Well, I think if cyclists want to be treated with parity with all other road users then maybe they should be subject to speed limits which would require a speedo to be fitted to enable cyclists to properly observe them.

At the same time we could sort out compulsory helmets, compulsory third party insurance a compulsory test and a minimum age at which cyclists can use the roads.

Maybe the cycling fraternity would get a better hearing if they put their own house in order first instead of constantly banging on about what other road users do wrong.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

[QUOTE 3143598, member: 45"]Yes. You are aware that you can walk on whichever side you choose to though?[/QUOTE]
I am aware.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

Well, I think if cyclists want to be treated with parity with all other road users then maybe they should be subject to speed limits which would require a speedo to be fitted to enable cyclists to properly observe them.

At the same time we could sort out compulsory helmets, compulsory third party insurance a compulsory test and a minimum age at which cyclists can use the roads.

Maybe the cycling fraternity would get a better hearing if they put their own house in order first instead of constantly banging on about what other road users do wrong.

Totally agree.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

You don't let children loose on the road without an understanding of how to cross roads, judge car speeds etc. You don't let people loose in cars without some rudimentary training. Why not the same for cyclists?

Regrettably, all the cycle training in the world won't keep the slower cyclist safe if motorized traffic does not also play by the rules.
I dare say not even the faster cyclist is safe.
Show me a way not to be beeped off the road when I cycle in primary - as per cyclecraft suggestion - at 7/8 mph loaded with groceries, uphill on a left filter lane or primary at 15mph on a double carriage lane approaching the junction, again following cyclecraft's advice.
Show me a way not to be passed simultaneously both on the right and on the left when I'm in the correct lane and correct position to go straight.
Show me a way not to have a car on my right and a motorbike on my left in the bike box when I'm in the centre of it.
Apart from the dangers of impatient drivers, getting shouted at or beeped at is not pleasant.
I will continue to illegally ride short stretch of pavement when I feel it's necessary or walking and pushing the bike.
Did I mention, once I got shouted at by a cyclist on a shared path for being in his way

 

[MontyVeda]

Well, I think if cyclists want to be treated with parity with all other road users then maybe they should be subject to speed limits which would require a speedo to be fitted to enable cyclists to properly observe them.

At the same time we could sort out compulsory helmets, compulsory third party insurance a compulsory test and a minimum age at which cyclists can use the roads.

Maybe the cycling fraternity would get a better hearing if they put their own house in order first instead of constantly banging on about what other road users do wrong.

did you read the last sentence in the post you're replying to? It mentioned something about common sense... something your rant lacks.

 

[morrisman]

Well, I think if cyclists want to be treated with parity with all other road users then maybe they should be subject to speed limits which would require a speedo to be fitted to enable cyclists to properly observe them.

At the same time we could sort out compulsory helmets, compulsory third party insurance a compulsory test and a minimum age at which cyclists can use the roads.

Maybe the cycling fraternity would get a better hearing if they put their own house in order first instead of constantly banging on about what other road users do wrong.

a speedo to be fitted - NO - in my experience it just makes you go faster
compulsory helmets - NO - no scientific proof they do any good
compulsory third party insurance - MAYBE - I have some
a compulsory test - NO - Mainly because it would put people off cycling, plus at what age would it be needed
a minimum age at which cyclists can use the roads - NO - calendar age has little to do with maturity

But apart from that I agree with all you said