Cycling on pavements...

Patrick1.0

whyamihere wrote:

Nobody has a problem with people using the pavement when they feel unsafe on the roads, that's what they're there for. But what I really can't understand is the problem that people have with becoming a pedestrian for those few metres?

Bikerbaboon - You say you're off road for less than 15 metres. If you were to get off the bike and jog, how long would that 15 metres take you? Around 5 seconds? At a guess, you'll save 2 seconds by riding. Are 2 seconds worth annoying someone about people cycling on the pavement, possibly making them that bit less considerate towards the next cyclist they see on the road?

Why should we be apologetic as cyclists? I don't go out of my way to irritate anybody when out riding, but the amount of people who see you coming, and I mean watch you coming down the road towards them, and still just pull out in front of you, or walk across the road when they wouldn't if it was a car at a similar distance and just see it as OK because you're on a bike and it's alright to cut you up. So if I hop on a pavement every once in a while, | don't feel any guilt, I think that for all the times that I have to slam my brakes on or run wide around somebody with zero awareness, I am owed those few metres on the pavement once in a blue moon.

The world is a better place when people take into account the circumstances. Sometimes it's OK for somebody to do something that it wouldn't normally be OK for them to do.

nicklouse

Sometimes it's OK for somebody to do something that it wouldn't normally be OK for them to do.

Sorry but NO.

It should be expected that people do what they should do. Comply with the expected rules/norms.

you don't expect peds to be on the roads do you or cycles on the Motorways.

Mithras

Bearing in mind my current role, I have been looking into various laws and penalties for cycling offences. I was looking at lights etc however I found this relating to cycling on pavements.
It is advice reguarding the pavements issue.

On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. At the time Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by 'Community Support Officers' and wardens.

"CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

Northwind

I use pavements a lot, my commute either takes me along a dual carriageway with a dangerously badly laid out cycle lane, or I can use the wide deserted pavement that goes beside it. Speed isn't an issue because there's nowhere for pedestrians to suddenly appear from, so I ride it exactly as I would on the road. Nobody's disadvantaged or put at risk by it whatsoever.

This is the clincher for me- it's not enough just to make you safer or feel safer, you also have to ensure that you don't make anyone else less safe or feel less safe. there are plenty of pavements where you can do this, just as there are plenty where you can't. Trying to apply one rule to all pavements is obviously absurd.

Danny83

Im sorry but I couldnt be arsed reading all 7 pages so if I repeat someone im sorry but, as a driver I dont think cyclists should be on the road, they have no tax, no insurance and generally ride side by side causing obstructions which I know they are not suposed to do but never the less they still do it. From a cyclists point of view, if I bump someones car what do I do? I couldnt afford to repair someones car, on the pavements im safe from them and them from me, I have never, ever had any pedestrians complain nor a ploice officer stop me, if you use it safely and sensibley why not go on the pavements? We are after mechanically aided pedestrians not motor vehicles. Anyway there will always be someone who thinks differently I just think that as with some of the other posts more cycle specific 'paths' should be made along side roads/pavements and where there arent any the choice should be ours aslong as it is done safely and before some smart arse points out that it is ilegal to cycle on pavements, I know. However if I drive erratically and like an irresponsidble moron the police would pull me and tell me so, so why cannot the law be the same with bikes, if people understand how to behave on them where is the problem and yes some people are muppets and ride pavements like they own the place but then again there are drivers out there like that also. In short I ride on pavements because its easier (show me 1 person who wouldnt choose the easy route given the choice) I feel safer which is the main reason and Im sure any motorist who is saved the inconvience of having to scrape me off there car/van/whatever would agree this is best for both of us, I dont get annoyed by someone on a bike nipping past me at lights or a jam cos ill most likely still beat them home and im warm and dry and in the Uk they are most likely wet and cold so hell they gotta get some perk and if nippin on the pavement to get past let em I say. End of rant I know some will agree and those who dont, well opinions are great cos no one is wrong, you stick to the roads and ill stick to the pavements and I hope you never have to have a close encounter with a car cos gettin runover is not a nice experience, oh yeah did I forget to mention that, being knocked down is not something you want believe me I spent months recovering from it. End of rant...promise.

whyamihere

Oh boy...

Danny83 wrote:

as a driver I dont think cyclists should be on the road, they have no tax, no insurance and generally ride side by side causing obstructions which I know they are not suposed to do but never the less they still do it.

Tax - Not required, we have don't have to pay for the right to use the roads, we already have it (just like horses and peds). If you read the highway code, riding 2 abreast is perfectly acceptable.

From a cyclists point of view, if I bump someones car what do I do? I couldnt afford to repair someones car

So get insurance...

on the pavements im safe from them and them from me, I have never, ever had any pedestrians complain nor a ploice officer stop me, if you use it safely and sensibley why not go on the pavements? We are after mechanically aided pedestrians not motor vehicles. Anyway there will always be someone who thinks differently I just think that as with some of the other posts more cycle specific 'paths' should be made along side roads/pavements and where there arent any the choice should be ours aslong as it is done safely and before some smart ars* points out that it is ilegal to cycle on pavements, I know. However if I drive erratically and like an irresponsidble moron the police would pull me and tell me so, so why cannot the law be the same with bikes, if people understand how to behave on them where is the problem and yes some people are muppets and ride pavements like they own the place but then again there are drivers out there like that also. In short I ride on pavements because its easier (show me 1 person who wouldnt choose the easy route given the choice) I feel safer which is the main reason and Im sure any motorist who is saved the inconvience of having to scrape me off there car/van/whatever would agree this is best for both of us, I dont get annoyed by someone on a bike nipping past me at lights or a jam cos ill most likely still beat them home and im warm and dry and in the Uk they are most likely wet and cold so hell they gotta get some perk and if nippin on the pavement to get past let em I say. End of rant I know some will agree and those who dont, well opinions are great cos no one is wrong, you stick to the roads and ill stick to the pavements and I hope you never have to have a close encounter with a car cos gettin runover is not a nice experience, oh yeah did I forget to mention that, being knocked down is not something you want believe me I spent months recovering from it. End of rant...promise.

I'll address this as one long point, which basically seems to be "I'm careful, why shouldn't I ride on the pavement?".
What happens if, for example, someone steps out onto the pavement from a driveway, behind a hedge etc? You wouldn't be able to see them. This has occurred to me, I stepped onto the pavement and was hit by a cyclist. Other than being on the pavement, he was doing everything right, not going too fast, attempting to check all the driveways, very attentive, stopped to make sure I was ok before proceeding (on the road). Unfortunately, he just couldn't see me past the hedge of the drive I was coming out from. Nobody could have done, no matter how carefully they were riding. I also couldn't see onto the pavement, but assumed that there would be nobody moving at speed, and that is the vital point. On pavements, pedestrians assume everyone will be moving at around the same speed as them. They change direction, they stop suddenly without warning, they're entirely unpredictable. With traffic on the roads, you can generally work out what the vehicles around you are going to do, and they're all travelling in the same direction at the same speed. On normal roads, I really don't see how you can feel safer on the pavement than on the road. Busy junctions are an exception, but the danger zone will be short enough to make it a non-issue to get off and walk.

biondino

Danny83 wrote:

if I drive erratically and like an irresponsidble moron the police would pull me and tell me so, so why cannot the law be the same with bikes

The law is the same with bikes.

Thanks for posting this as it's a handy compendium of the misunderstandings and ignorance of motorists (NB this isn't meant as a criticism but as a recognition that a lot of motorists aren't aware of either the rules or how to behave in relation to cyclists).

Northwind

Danny83 wrote:

and generally ride side by side causing obstructions which I know they are not suposed to do but never the less they still do it.

Right, first of all this is encouraged by most bike training places, and absolutely NOT illegal.

It can be done very badly, often is, but when done right it's simply defensive cycling. If you ride on the roads (I'm assuming you do sometimes) then you'll have had someone overtake too close, it's just a fact of life. Instead of waiting for a gap, people squeeze past in the same lane, which is often dangerous. The highway code says "treat cyclists as if they are a small car" but very few drivers do this, they treat cyclists as an obstacle to be passed as soon as possible by whatever means.

So, it's in cyclists interests to take back control, and one of the ways you can do this is by riding side by side- it immediately forces drivers to do what they should be doing anyway. Of course it's not always appropriate, and all road users should ride or drive responsibly and avoid impeding other people when they can, but that doesn't mean we have to sit in the gutter as idiots pass us by 2 inches from our elbows.

gypsyslikedirt

For me as im only 13 its easier for me to switch from pavement to road on my way down to my local homemade bike park (welhome park) but thats probly coz i live in a small quiet town and when i go down theres hardly anyone on the streets (cars or peds)

Onan

On my daily commute, I use the pavement more than I perhaps should. This is for reasons that have been mentioned by other members: heavy traffic, and people pulling right over to the verge. Sometimes though, I just ride on the pavement because I wouldn't feel comfortable on the road.

I go up a really long hill, on a relatively narrow, busy stretch of road, with bus stops all the way up it, and people pulling out of driveways, on my heavy hybrid with off road tyres, and I just don't fancy doing it on the road. Frankly by the time I'm halfway up, I'm usually doing around 3 miles an hour anyway.

For the most part though, I try to do all of my riding on the road. Anyone who says it's not dangerous is lying though. People have no respect for cyclists on the road, and I have been put in dangerous situations several times in just a year of cycling, by inconsiderate drivers. I can see why many people choose the pavement. Especially older or less fit commuters.

Al_38

Read this thread with some interest...

I firmly believe that bikes are for the road, not the pavement. It is after all a "road" bike not a "pavement" bike.

I do have one exception - on my twice daily travel to the river for training, there is one section where I use the pavement (part pavement / cyclepath) to avoid a roundabout where the drivers seem to see cyclists as moving targets. Still had a PCSO try to fine me for this (till I pointed out the bike signs...).

Other than that - never even if it means weaving through stationary traffic. Would you be happy with a moped on the pavement??
My other major bug-bear is the combined cycle path/ pavements, IMO they are lethal. I had a 24 mile commute over the summer and a few of the country roads I used had these, had about 1 abusive comment a week fromdrivers as to why I should be on them. However considering they frequently had small children on them etc. It would be anti-social to ride on them at any speed. Yes I could go slowly, but it would also take 3 hours to get to work. And no matter how careful any drivers are coming out of drives, if you were on one and a car pulled out in front ofyou, there would be no way to stop. Only the choice between hitting the car or trying your luck with the oncoming traffic. Not a choice I want.

I firmly believe if you want the respect of motorists then you should behave like a car, not something that flicks from car to ped depending on what is faster / more conveinent.

dondare

Danny83 wrote:

Im sorry but I couldnt be arsed reading all 7 pages so if I repeat someone im sorry but, as a driver I dont think cyclists should be on the road, they have no tax, no insurance and generally ride side by side causing obstructions which I know they are not suposed to do but never the less they still do it. From a cyclists point of view, if I bump someones car what do I do? I couldnt afford to repair someones car, on the pavements im safe from them and them from me, I have never, ever had any pedestrians complain nor a ploice officer stop me, if you use it safely and sensibley why not go on the pavements? We are after mechanically aided pedestrians not motor vehicles. Anyway there will always be someone who thinks differently I just think that as with some of the other posts more cycle specific 'paths' should be made along side roads/pavements and where there arent any the choice should be ours aslong as it is done safely and before some smart ars* points out that it is ilegal to cycle on pavements, I know. However if I drive erratically and like an irresponsidble moron the police would pull me and tell me so, so why cannot the law be the same with bikes, if people understand how to behave on them where is the problem and yes some people are muppets and ride pavements like they own the place but then again there are drivers out there like that also. In short I ride on pavements because its easier (show me 1 person who wouldnt choose the easy route given the choice) I feel safer which is the main reason and Im sure any motorist who is saved the inconvience of having to scrape me off there car/van/whatever would agree this is best for both of us, I dont get annoyed by someone on a bike nipping past me at lights or a jam cos ill most likely still beat them home and im warm and dry and in the Uk they are most likely wet and cold so hell they gotta get some perk and if nippin on the pavement to get past let em I say. End of rant I know some will agree and those who dont, well opinions are great cos no one is wrong, you stick to the roads and ill stick to the pavements and I hope you never have to have a close encounter with a car cos gettin runover is not a nice experience, oh yeah did I forget to mention that, being knocked down is not something you want believe me I spent months recovering from it. End of rant...promise.

This is all nonsense. You really do need to consider the facts and think them through.

blackworx

I've read all 7 pages with great interest - lots of really good (and really bad) points raised. After reading it all I can't help giving my tuppence worth - apologies for digging up such an old thread!

At either end of my journey, yes, for a short distance to get to bike stands/front door etc. If there are any peds, or obstructions I can't see around, then I go at walking pace, make eye contact etc., and most of all I don't slide past peds from behind at any speed. Wide berth at all times.

Whilst en route - no way. If you really can't cope with a junction or can't bear to wait in traffic at a choke point where you can't dive up the outside, then pick a different route or get off and walk. As for holding up traffic: tough. If whoever's behind you gets angry, it's their problem. They would get wound up at a tractor or street sweeper in exactly the same way, but would they toot their horns, rev their engines and shout abuse at them? 99 times out of 100 the answer is no. If someone starts abusing you in a situation like that to the point where you don't feel safe, then pull over and let them past - they'll get theirs in the end. You can fail your driving test for hesitation and it's the same for cyclists. If you ride like a victim then you will be one.

People hopping onto pavements to jump traffic queues makes me really angry; it's on a par with jumping reds. What these people are doing is enforcing motorists' lack of respect for cyclists, which ultimately means they are taking my life in their hands with their inconsiderate behaviour. If I'm the next cyclist some tired, angry cabbie sees after watching some twat dive down the pavement at the end of an 8 hour shift, and the cabbie then drives just that little bit more aggressively, it only takes a split second for something really bad to happen and I join the choir invisible.

On the other hand, a bit of courtesy and playing by the rules goes a long way. Just for example: if it's busy and I let that same taxi driver into a junction, then with a bit of luck (and assuming he's got even an ounce of professionalism in him) he'll realise that not all cyclists are red light-jumping, bunnyhopping, ped-scattering, lightless ninjas, and perhaps treat us all with a bit more respect. But from half the sh*t I see on a daily basis, and some of the opinions written down here, change ain't coming any time soon.

[/rant]

@Danny83: Ironically, your post scores a school "grade" level of 20.2, meaning you'd have to be in the 20th grade to understand what it says.

itboffin

Earlier this year I was knocked over by two mountain bikers riding on the pavement at night with out lights, whilst I totally agree that there is never a need to ride on the pavement regardless of how short the trip might be, that knock actually cured my patellar bursitis for which I was very happy,. esp. as I was booked to have a rather nasty and painful operation later that week.

Those two cyclist we're horrified at the time and very apologetic, not really an excuse.

Sickbed

Re the old 'you don't pay road tax' arguement...
I don't drive a car but am I right in thinking that because I pay council tax I'm contributing to the local roads, forest tracks and pavements I ride on?

Grimone

The only time i ever use the path, is if i get to a particularly dangerous roundabout or junction. It seems silly to take the morale highground and use the roads only, if this could involve risking life and limb!

careful

Pedestrians and cyclists definately don't mix.
In Nice, France, a cycle path has been created along the promenade at massive expense. It is clearly marked and is alongside a wide pedestrian route. The cycle path has marked lanes serarating each direction. Crossing places and even traffic lights have been installed. Despite all this effort, it is a complete waste of time and there are frequent accidents, partly because pedestrians still wander onto the cycle path without looking. Also, skaters use the cycle path and take up both lanes as they swerve from side to side. Mum, dad and inexperienced kids on bikes frequently take up the whole path. It is hard to see what more the Council could do, but I believe that it shows there is no future for cycle paths except as a way of gradually driving cyclists off the road. In Minehead, near my home there are the usual mixed cycle/pedestrian routes. There are also by laws making it (arguably) an offence for cyclists to use the road. I am sure there are countless other examples. Fight cycle paths - they will eventually drive us off the roads.

vorsprung

I would have generally agreed with "careful" above about cycle paths/bike lanes being some kind of RAC sponsored plot to remove the rights we have to go on the road. With one or two exceptions like the Bristol/Bath cyclepath.

However, since I started working in the middle of Taunton I have used a few of the paths which are essentially pavements that cyclists are allowed to use. There are very few pedestrians on them and it gets you out of the solid traffic jams and past the lights. I think in Taunton almost no one walks so using the footpath for bikes makes sense.

The main problem with using these footpaths is that you have to cross a large number of side roads which invokes braking and often dodging around gridlocked cars

The "green paint in the gutter" cyclepaths are utterly worthless of course.

spen666

careful wrote:

Pedestrians and cyclists definately don't mix.
In Nice, France, a cycle path has been created along the promenade at massive expense. It is clearly marked and is alongside a wide pedestrian route. The cycle path has marked lanes serarating each direction. Crossing places and even traffic lights have been installed. Despite all this effort, it is a complete waste of time and there are frequent accidents, partly because pedestrians still wander onto the cycle path without looking. Also, skaters use the cycle path and take up both lanes as they swerve from side to side. Mum, dad and inexperienced kids on bikes frequently take up the whole path. It is hard to see what more the Council could do, but I believe that it shows there is no future for cycle paths except as a way of gradually driving cyclists off the road. In Minehead, near my home there are the usual mixed cycle/pedestrian routes. There are also by laws making it (arguably) an offence for cyclists to use the road. I am sure there are countless other examples. Fight cycle paths - they will eventually drive us off the roads.

What bylaws are these?
AFAIK a bylaw cannot extinguish a right to use a national highway

bigjim

no such thing as road tax. It is vehicle tax which goes in central pot. Roads are paid for by the local council except motorways which are maintained by county council. so you are correct.

passout

Blah blah cliche cliche.........who cares?

downfader

Hmm I was standing waiting for the bus yesterday, bus comes around the corner so I stick my hand out to flag it and this guy brushed past on a bike. Dark clothes, no lights and nearly riding over my feet. I politely told him he should be using the road, and just as he sheepishly said "sorry" he nearly knocked a lady down next to me.

beverick

bigjim wrote:

Roads are paid for by the local council except motorways which are maintained by county council. so you are correct.

Not true. Only roads 'adopted' by the local authority (under the terms of section 38 of the Highways Act 1980) are maintained by them and this can include motorways, especially 'Urban' motorways such as the A64(M) and A58(M) in Leeds.

The road surface on or under most rail bridges (including those crossing disused railways) are the responsibility of Network Rail. Those over and under waterways may be the responsibility of British wateways.

'Unadopted' motorways are either maintained directly by the Highways Agency or by third party management companies paid directly by the Department for Transport, the Highways Agency or through tolls.

Private roads are exactly that and the responsibility of the owner (individual, groups or companies) to maintain to accepted standards. Private roads are more common than you may think. Roads approaching and through industrial estates, ports and docks, retail or business parks are quite likely to be 'unadopted' and be the responsibility of the landlord to maintain.

Bob

mingmong

Have to admit it, I do ride on the pavement on my MTB.

I'm always very courteous to other pedestians

alfablue

MingMong wrote:

Have to admit it, I do ride on the pavement on my MTB.

I'm always very courteous to other pedestians

Please stop, however courteous it unnerves pedestrians - I am one sometimes and it unnerves me to see a cyclist approaching - I mean, they are obviously rubbish cyclists or they wouldn't be on the pavement! Jow can I trust them not to hit me? Why should pedestrians have to deal with this hazard and be nervous and worried on what is rightly their territory?

Also contributes to the anti-cyclist stigma, often quoted by cyclist haters as a justification (along with, dare I say, RLJ).

NaB

alfablue wrote:

MingMong wrote:

Have to admit it, I do ride on the pavement on my MTB.

I'm always very courteous to other pedestians

Please stop, however courteous it unnerves pedestrians - I am one sometimes and it unnerves me to see a cyclist approaching - I mean, they are obviously rubbish cyclists or they wouldn't be on the pavement! Jow can I trust them not to hit me? Why should pedestrians have to deal with this hazard and be nervous and worried on what is rightly their territory?

Also contributes to the anti-cyclist stigma, often quoted by cyclist haters as a justification (along with, dare I say, RLJ).

+1
Certainly riding on pavements is always wrong. I don't use bike lanes but it always pi***es me off to se someone either driving or parking in it. Seeing someone cycling towards me when I'm walikng on the pavement inspires the same reaction.

jimmypippa

OK, I have noticed something that confuses me:

On my commute, I see severa;l people riding on pavements including on pavements filled with clutter, and where the rpad is not remotely busy. I can understand if the road is bust, but often I am the only traffic.


Why ride on cluttered pavements when there is a perfectly good quiet road next to the pavement? Maybe they just like the experience of riding on and off the kerbs at junctions

Has anyone else noticed this?

downfader

jimmypippa wrote:

OK, I have noticed something that confuses me:

On my ocmmute, I see severa;l people riding on pavements including on pavements filled with clutter, and where the rpad is not remotely busy. I can understand if the road is bust, but often I am the only traffic.


Why ride on cluttered pavements when there is a perfectly good quiet road next to the pavement? Maybe they just like the experience of riding on and off the kerbs at junctions

Has anyone else noticed this?

You' re not alone. I see it all the time. Maybe they think the road is going to swallow them up. :?

Beeblebrox

There's a row of five or so smallish roundabouts on my commute - there is a cycle/foot path that runs the entire length - but if I use it, it means I have to cross five roads on a roundabout - and unless you believe every driver uses their indicator perfectly every time, it's incredibly hard to cross even one road.

It is a lot easier and safer to stay part of the traffic stream - not to mention quicker, with less obstacles (there are lovely metal grills blocking the path at every crossing point - why!?) and with no glass and pedestrians.

Erm, my point is, the combined cycle/foot paths are absolutely rubbish.

wolleur

It is clearly defined, use the road as using the pavement is illegal.

Not normally a pedant concerning the letter of the law but it makes a lot of sense in this case.

Besides you can't draft on the pavement