Cycling on pavements...

Stone Glider

Generally speaking cycle paths are rubbish and filled with rubbish. It is often difficult to make any sensible rate of progress even without other occupants. I do feel that they have a use on steep climbs where the difference in traffic speeds can become pronounced. However that may be already covered by the provision that a pavement can be used when the cyclist feels at risk by motor vehicles.

I am not the greatest climber so you may think this is "special pleading". The road is usually safer and is less likely to be covered in glass, thorns, dog walkers and all those other encumbrances so much a feature of cycle paths.

downfader

What always amazes me is when people ride on the pavement when the road is practically empty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsUcgCs962I

I filmed this last week. He was in his 50s so should have known better.

chuckcork

I wouldn't mind people ridingon the pavement so much if they didn't have the tendency to pass within 2 inches of me, especially when the road they should be on is empty.

Sooner or later one of these dimwits will run into me and I'll been more than minded to give them a kicking.

gergusmcbergus

i'll admit to the fact that i used to ride on pavements quite a bit, until one day i was bowling along, minding me own business like, when a little elderly disabled man sort of appeared right in front of me,at a T junction in the pavement. I slammed the brakes on and narrowly missed him. thankfully, i wasn't going very fast and was actually paying attention, but if i had been just a little more absent minded, or going a little faster,i could of easily killed the poor fella.
for me, this really put things into perspective,and it doesn't bear thinking about how guilty i'd have felt if i had actually hit him, so for me, its a resounding stick to the roads!

jc4lab

Just returned from Japan...The pavement and cycle paths are the same in many cities and even when not, no one seems to miind if you go on the pavement..Bikes are howver smaller and the folder or traditional boneshaker is more common than the mountain or road bike style but from what I observed there is a more considerate mentality...I am afraid that I dont think it can work here simply because we dont have the same...There is a confrontational abusive culture emerging in our daily lives and any excuse to exchange of abuse is just becoming part of the British nature nowadays...

Sirius631

Anyone seen the trailer for Gillian McKeith's latest fatty bashing program? She is seen cycling on the pavement behind two of her subjects. Why couldn't she have walked, especially when she looks like a complete knob with that cycle helmet on?

GoLance

No. a) You can't go fast on a pavement, and b) Cycling on pavements is for pre-pubescent yobs on BMX bikes.

tarquin_foxglove

jc4lab wrote:

There is a confrontational abusive culture emerging in our daily lives and any excuse to exchange of abuse is just becoming part of the British nature nowadays...

What a load of bo****ks, spouted by a sanctimonious prig.

Stone Glider

Tarquin, don't mess about; say what you realy mean.

ShortRef

Theres mainly 3 stretches of road on my way to school. The first one I avoid and ride on the pavement, since im only 16 and im not comfortable going across the huge roundabout with 3/4 lanes, one that leads to a bypass, one that leads to another 2 lane road and another that leads to dual carriageway (the one I need to go on, or in that direction anyway).

Its very busy in the morning, so this road I avoid. The pavement is usually empty, if theres anyone on it I will ride on the grass.

The second road (theres actually 2 roads I can take). The first is usually completely empty of cars so I ride on the road, the second is the dual carriage way, which I obviously avoid (I hardly ever see cyclists along this road).

The third is one of the main roads that leads to school, there are usually alot of cyslists on the pavements, and a fair amount of peds (not that many though). I cycle along the pavement because theres just too many cars, and its quite a narrow road.

But yesterday, I went into school later than usual and was cycling along the pavement where I passed 3 peds (the road was still fairly busy and I dont like cycling along it, its too narrow). The first 2 stepped to one side about 30 meters before I passed them. I would usually cycle along the grass, unless they step out of the way this far before.

The third pedestrian wasnt going to step to one side, so obviously I cycled to the left side of the path ready to go on the grass. As I was cycling along the grass, this guy shouted

'THIS IS A PAVEMENT NOT A ROAD!!!!!' quite loudly and in a crazy old man way.

I was not in his way at all. Also, I think he was ready to actually step out infront of me so I would cycle into him Obviously im not an idiot.

Though I do laugh at the chavs riding their £75 halfords "mountain bikes" passing peds with 1 inch to spare, jumping on and off roads, crossing roads without looking. Im suprised nobody has died yet.

My mum actually knocked a kid of his bmx because he crossed the road while going too fast, obviously not looking. Had to give him a lift home -.-

spen666

ShortRef wrote:

Theres mainly 3 stretches of road on my way to school. The first one I avoid and ride on the pavement, since im only 16 ...

What is the relevance of that?

it is an offence to ride on the pavement whether you are 3 or 93

spen666

ShortRef wrote:

...... As I was cycling along the grass, this guy shouted

'THIS IS A PAVEMENT NOT A ROAD!!!!!' quite loudly and in a crazy old man way.

I was not in his way at all. Also, I think he was ready to actually step out infront of me so I would cycle into him Obviously im not an idiot.....

clearly you are an idiot.

The pedestrian was 100% correct in what he said.

Stop bleating and start obeying the law

robmanic1

spen666 wrote:

I was not in his way at all. Also, I think he was ready to actually step out infront of me so I would cycle into him Obviously im not an idiot.....

clearly you are an idiot.

The pedestrian was 100% correct in what he said.

Stop bleating and start obeying the law

spen, 10 for content, 1 for presentation.

redvee

Had one this morning in the pouring rain. I sawa him coming towards me so moved into the middle of the pavement and he went to inside. As we got nearer I too went to the inside and we made contact and he apologised saying, 'it's my fault', to which I replied 'yes, you should be on the road' which he did.

ShortRef

spen666 wrote:

ShortRef wrote:

Theres mainly 3 stretches of road on my way to school. The first one I avoid and ride on the pavement, since im only 16 ...

What is the relevance of that?

it is an offence to ride on the pavement whether you are 3 or 93

Because I dont feel comfortable crossing that roundabout, nor do my parents, nor do any other cyclists I ever see will cross this roundabout. Its the busiest, biggest roundabout in the area with quite a few crashes (mainly minor bumps, actually I saw a little collision on the same day) and since the pavement is empty in the morning, it would be far safer for me to cycle on the pavement. If I cycled on the road (assuming I didnt cross the roundabout) I would have to at some point, cross the road to the other side. This is extremely dangerous in the morning and is out of the question completely.

My school is also partially responsible for children (though I am in sixth form) cycling to school, and because of the amount of cyclists in the morning any pedestrians with a problem should either contact the police, or the school (it would be quite hard for one pedestrian to tell off 50~100 kids in the morning on their bikes).

Considering this pavement was about 3 meters in width, and also a grass section next to it (which I use all the time when cycling past pedestrians) which is about 6~9 meters in width, and that the road only has enough room for 2 cars side by side (with about 1~ 1 1/2 meters to spare) and not really enough room for a cyclist and for cars to safely drive by me, I felt it's always safer for me to cycle on the pavement.

When coming home from school however (at about 2 oclock, before school finishes) I will always use the roads. On cycling trips with my friends, we will always use the roads. In the morning, at rush hour and with 100's of cars, I really dont feel safe.

chuckcork

spen666 wrote:

ShortRef wrote:

Theres mainly 3 stretches of road on my way to school. The first one I avoid and ride on the pavement, since im only 16 ...

What is the relevance of that?

it is an offence to ride on the pavement whether you are 3 or 93

1. I wouldn't want to see any child at the age of 3 riding on the road, accompanied or not;

2. You can't as far as I know prosecute a child of 3, offence committed or not.

Perhaps if the road network was designed for something other than large heavy vehicles with engines capable of and expected to move at great speed, but to include for cyclists, then this question wouldn't even come about.

Until that unlikely event there will be many who will feel unsafe on the roads that are pretty much designed to exclude them and will instead cycle on the footpath, legal or not.

ShortRef

spen666 wrote:

ShortRef wrote:

Theres mainly 3 stretches of road on my way to school. The first one I avoid and ride on the pavement, since im only 16 ...

What is the relevance of that?

it is an offence to ride on the pavement whether you are 3 or 93

I read that if you are under 10, you are not under criminal responsibility and therefore cant be charged anyway and if you are under 16, you wont be prosecuted.

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycli ... he_law.php

flester

It's illegal to cycle 'badly' on the road (eg wrong way up a one-way, traffic light violations, dangerous lane changing, poor lighting at night etc.) It should be similar on footpaths - calm courteous cycling on a footpath is not a problem.

spen666

flester wrote:

It's illegal to cycle 'badly' on the road (eg wrong way up a one-way, traffic light violations, dangerous lane changing, poor lighting at night etc.) It should be similar on footpaths - calm courteous cycling on a footpath is not a problem.

It is simialr on footpaths. The only form of bike use allowed along a footpath is walking with a bike

Calm corteous cycling on a footpath may not be a problem for you, but it is for some pedestrians and IT IS ILLEGAL

spen666

ShortRef wrote:

spen666 wrote:

ShortRef wrote:

Theres mainly 3 stretches of road on my way to school. The first one I avoid and ride on the pavement, since im only 16 ...

What is the relevance of that?

it is an offence to ride on the pavement whether you are 3 or 93

I read that if you are under 10, you are not under criminal responsibility and therefore cant be charged anyway and if you are under 16, you wont be prosecuted.

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycli ... he_law.php

You appear to be confusing yourself between legality and prosecution.

To take your example to an extreme level if you are right then it is legal for those under 10 to kill people, rape people or other do such henious acts.

The fact that someone is under the age of criminal responsibility does not mean a crime has not been committed. It simply means the perpetrator cannot be prosecuted for the crime.

As for under 16s, there is no restriction to prevent those between 10 and 16 being prosecuted and I have seen such prosecutions take place.

What example are you setting by encouraging children that it is ok to break the law?

spen666

Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 provides an offence of riding or driving on the footpath.

It states:
72. If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road, made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine, cattle or carriage of any description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway or tether any horse, ass, mule, swine or cattle on any highway so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon.

You will observe if you read the same carefully that there is no mention of age in the legislation at all.

There is nothing to exempt someone under 16 from being prosecuted for this crime

bompington

I don't think anyone here really disputes what the law is or who it applies to; what most people, especially cyclists, would agree is that on most roads it would be unbelievably idiotic for a child to cycle on the road rather than the pavement, and so it is entirely reasonable both for the general public to condone, and for the police to ignore children doing so.

In my opinion, the issue is not really who walks, runs, rides or drives anywhere, it's whether you're moving in a way that compromises anyone else's safety or, for that matter, just gets in their way.

By this interpretation it would be no problem for cyclists to go on the pavement, as long as they were quite clear that they should give way to pedestrians at all times, and for that matter stick to a walking pace. Shame the law doesn't agree.

spen666

bompington wrote:

I don't think anyone here really disputes what the law is or who it applies to; what most people, especially cyclists, would agree is that on most roads it would be unbelievably idiotic for a child to cycle on the road rather than the pavement, and so it is entirely reasonable both for the general public to condone, and for the police to ignore children doing so.

In my opinion, the issue is not really who walks, runs, rides or drives anywhere, it's whether you're moving in a way that compromises anyone else's safety or, for that matter, just gets in their way.

I think you will find that is why we have laws that FORBID the riding of bikes on pavements in the same way that we have laws that forbid the driving of cars on said same pavements

By this interpretation it would be no problem for cyclists to go on the pavement, as long as they were quite clear that they should give way to pedestrians at all times, and for that matter stick to a walking pace. Shame the law doesn't agree.

I disagree. I don't want to have to worry about bikes when I am walking on the pavement. Average walking pace is circa 3-4 miles per hour or less. Are you really suggesting people are riding bikes that slowly? I think you are having a giraffe

bompington

spen666, this really bothers you, doesn't it? I take it someone you know has been killed by a rogue 9 year old riding too fast on the pavement.

spen666

bompington wrote:

spen666, this really bothers you, doesn't it? I take it someone you know has been killed by a rogue 9 year old riding too fast on the pavement.

what bothers me is people choosing what laws they want to obey and what to ignore and then encouraging their offspring to treats laws as an optional extra. What message is that sending out

Also it does cycling no good to have cyclists breaking the law and upsetting other highway users (including pedestrians). It simply increases the resentment of cyclists

By all means call for the law to be changed. But until it is changed, it is the law

ShortRef

I know its the law, and I know the difference between legality and prosecution. But unless the government/councils spend millions trying to police this, in your view, quite a serious issue it really wont be considered as important as other things, and thus the public will chose not to abide by such laws.

bompington wrote:

it's whether you're moving in a way that compromises anyone else's safety or, for that matter, just gets in their way.

In alot of cases you will get idiots riding on the pavement at crazy speeds going in and out of pedestrians. But at the end of the day, in my case, I should be allowed to ride on the pavement if I feel safer than riding on the road (aslong as I dont put pedestrians in any danger, which I dont). And I will continue to, unless a policeman comes up to me and fines me for riding on the pavement on a non-dangerous way.

rally200

No, all laws must be observed, or enforced at all times!

Particularly s.12 Licensing Act 1872

"Offences against Public Order
12. Penalty on persons found drunk -Every person found drunk in any highway or other public place, whether a building or not, or on any licensed premises, shall be liable to a penalty...."

I hope to see the police rounding up all these drunks, wherever they might be found - especially in licenced premises.

spen666

ShortRef wrote:

I know its the law, and I know the difference between legality and prosecution. But unless the government/councils spend millions trying to police this, in your view, quite a serious issue it really wont be considered as important as other things, and thus the public will chose not to abide by such laws.

bompington wrote:

it's whether you're moving in a way that compromises anyone else's safety or, for that matter, just gets in their way.

In alot of cases you will get idiots riding on the pavement at crazy speeds going in and out of pedestrians. But at the end of the day, in my case, I should be allowed to ride on the pavement if I feel safer than riding on the road (aslong as I dont put pedestrians in any danger, which I dont).

That may be your perception, but I''ll bet it is not the view of the pedestrian.

The law is not there for your benefit, but for the benefit of the pedestrian, so your perception is not what is important

And I will continue to, unless a policeman comes up to me and fines me for riding on the pavement on a non-dangerous way.

grayo59

Can I hijack a little and ask a relevant question of spen please?

I run a small window cleaning business and we use waterfed poles with thin (microbore)hoses that often cross the pavement to a van carrying water - if someone is cycling on the pavement and runs over a hose and wobbles off (never happened but concievable) am I liable to be sued for damages.

Further - I alway instruct my guys to put out "trip hazard" cones by the hose - for the sake of pedestrians - would the absence of one of these make any difference in the cycling on the pavement scenario?

Thanks in anticipation.

spen666

grayo59 wrote:

Can I hijack a little and ask a relevant question of spen please?

I run a small window cleaning business and we use waterfed poles with thin (microbore)hoses that often cross the pavement to a van carrying water - if someone is cycling on the pavement and runs over a hose and wobbles off (never happened but concievable) am I liable to be sued for damages.

Further - I alway instruct my guys to put out "trip hazard" cones by the hose - for the sake of pedestrians - would the absence of one of these make any difference in the cycling on the pavement scenario?

Thanks in anticipation.

The fact someone is illegally cycling on the pavement doesn't automatically mean they would not have a claim.

without seeing the system in ioperation and knowing more details it is not safe for me to advise. There is clearly a potential liability, but the actual liability will vary from location to location as other factorschange

however, I would have thought it unlikely that a cyclist cycling in a safe manner ie at low speed on a pavement is likely to fall off riding over a hose. It is more likely to happen to a careless cyclist tanking it along. He would no doubt be held to be at least contributory negligent...