Should I stand my ground on pavements?

Surf-Matt

At no point have I said my pavement cycling is legal - just preferable to gettting knocked off and killed.

I have written to the council suggesting measures to make the roundabout safer for cyclists but no reply so far - I'd MUCH rather negotiate it legally but like 95% of the bikes I see, I take the subway route. It's illegal - I don't like breaking the law, but I'd rather risk a minor ticking off than get knocked off my bike (I've taken the road route three times and nearly been knocked off each time) - as do pretty much the entire cycling population of Truro.

And so do probably 80% of motorway drivers - drive at 70mph and everyone will overtake you. So yes, I tend to cruise at 80ish. And have never had a single point on my license. And those that stop briefly on a single yellow line to pick something up from a shop/pick up kids/etc.
Oh and I hate thieves -and have chased several bikes thieves, made them drop their stolen item, and handed it back to the owner - a real law breaker me.

All on a par with rapists, murderers and paedophiles of course and well worth wasting millions in resources fighting against. :roll:

Get a life.

Beeblebrox

I personally do cycle very briefly through a subway, but as it's around 7:30am it's always deserted.
The only other area where I will get on a pavement is to avoid a horrendous junction right next to work. But I go extremely slowly and dismount if there's anyone on the pavement. Also have a foot ready to ground and just roll along.

It's acceptable - both in my view and the law's - to use a pavement if the alternative is very dangerous and you ride in a cautious and slow manner. And certainly don't make a habit of it.

The far, far greater risk to pedestrians on my route is going through a park where there are large bushes obstructing view at every turn, and a children's playground to boot - and yet that's perfectly legal. Go figure.

bigdavep

Surf-Matt wrote:

Fine Spen. You are a very clever man. I must apologise.

However you cigarette needs a little flick.

Cheers Matt...Thats probably the funniest post I've ever seen...Made my morning.

victor ludorum

spen666 wrote:

I'm also questioning whether we should be teaching our children to break the law. We should be teaching children to obey the law and lear to ride where it is allowed. Children learn by example and if you teach them from the outset to ignore the law, is it any wonder they grow up ignoring the law

Children aren't born knowing how to ride a bike in traffic. They aren't born knowing how to ride a bike at all. Small children weave about, don't pay attention to what's going on around them and are more likely to panic in an encounter with a car. Also, by dint of being below 16, they are below the age of legal responsibility. This means they cannot be reasonably expected to know and comprehend all of the legalities of road usage, which makes them even more unpredictable than the average road user. Expecting inexperienced children to ride on the road is unsafe and unfair both to them and to other road users.

When children are capable of controlling a bike and riding with the necessary care and attention that riding on the road demands then, of course, they should be given the appropriate training and encouraged to do so. That's what cycling proficiency training is for.

In the meantime, the child has to learn how to ride its bike competently. It would be preferable if this were done on the footpaths of a park (where it isn't forbidden by bye-law) but sometimes that isn't possible and it needs to be the pavement.

Yes, it is always preferable to teach a child to respect the law and be considerate of other people, but it is also possible, and desirable to show some flexibility to a vulnerable learner cyclist and, as I have shown, the law makers and enforcers recognise that.

For the record, I never ride on pavements and think that any adult who does (within reason, based on my previous posting) should be fined.

Surf-Matt

Just realised that the subway I ride on is part of cycle path number 3 Very very poorly marked but it's on the 1:25000 OS map. The path runs along many pavements, goes through a pedestranised shopping area (Lemon Quay for those that know Truro) and crosses the main road several times.

So that's sorted then

dondare

My first rides were in the road. It was, and still is, a very quiet road but as soon as I could go further I did and I've never used the footpath at all.
The same road is now used by cyclists (it's in Cambridge, so there are lots) but many ride only on the pavement because that is what they were taught to do as kids. The result really is that the pavements are hazardous for some pedestrians, including my father who is now quite old and quite frail and worries about bein hit on the pavement by a cyclist whenever he goes out. He has no anti-cycling prejudices at all, he always cycled to work and for recreation when he was able to do so and is still a member of the CTC.

victor ludorum

dondare wrote:

My first rides were in the road. It was, and still is, a very quiet road but as soon as I could go further I did and I've never used the footpath at all.
The same road is now used by cyclists (it's in Cambridge, so there are lots) but many ride only on the pavement because that is what they were taught to do as kids. The result really is that the pavements are hazardous for some pedestrians, including my father who is now quite old and quite frail and worries about bein hit on the pavement by a cyclist whenever he goes out. He has no anti-cycling prejudices at all, he always cycled to work and for recreation when he was able to do so and is still a member of the CTC.

It's certainly true that if we get small children riding on the roads from an early age there will be far fewer of them riding on the pavements later...

As to cyclists in Cambridge, pah... I wouldn't let 90% of the people on bikes in Cambridge outdoors, never mind on pavements. But Cambridge is a slight exception. There are more bikes per capita than anywhere else I've seen in the UK, but very few of them are ridden carefully or with any consideration for other road users. I think part of that is the (false) sense that different rules apply to riding a bike in Cambridge. The fact that many riders have hired them from Station Cycles and don't know the first thing about the highway code is another. But then again, I've been shoved off a pavement whilst walking by a group of tourists before, so I don't know if it makes much difference...

victor ludorum

Now you've gotten me started on Cambridge... it's also one of the worst places I've ever ridden for pedestrians suddenly stepping into the road without looking. The taxi drivers extrapolate from impatience at bad cyclists and actively hating all cyclists and seem to go out of their way to drive aggressively. There's never anywhere to lock your bike up, the road surfaces are almost universally appalling and, if like me you commute in but don't have a college room, there are no facilities for showering or getting changed whatsoever (they've apparently put a changing room in underneath the new shopping centre but I've no idea how you get to use it and it's nowhere near where I work anyway).

dondare

How far do you commute in? My dad cycled to work in his smart suit and polished shoes, locked his bike up, took off his clips and got on with his job, which is what people did in those days. No-one expected to be able to shower and change when they got to work, and if anyone needed to is was probably the ones who used public transport rather than the ones who cycled.

victor ludorum

dondare wrote:

How far do you commute in? My dad cycled to work in his smart suit and polished shoes, locked his bike up, took off his clips and got on with his job, which is what people did in those days. No-one expected to be able to shower and change when they got to work, and if anyone needed to is was probably the ones who used public transport rather than the ones who cycled.

Kew.

The problem is the combination of ride and long sit while stewing, then riding again.

Also, 'in those days' people also had mercury fillings and thought smoking was a good idea.

dennisn

Here in the states the "law" is that bicycles are to travel in the same direction as
traffic. However, many times I have seen parents out riding with their children
and going against traffic. I even heard one "adult" say to her kids "always ride facing traffic so you can see the cars coming". When I rode over and politely informed her that she was wrong she looked at me like I was crazy and continued on her way. I get the
opinion that lots of people don't know the "law" so to speak. I could probably count myself among them as I have never read the trafic laws.

Dennis Noward

dondare

victor ludorum wrote:

Kew.

The problem is the combination of ride and long sit while stewing, then riding again.

Also, 'in those days' people also had mercury fillings and thought smoking was a good idea.

Kew to Cambridge? You mean taking your bike on the train, perhaps. That's what I used to do when I still lived in Cambridge and started working in London.

Trains still had guards vans in those days.....

Mr_Cellophane

I stand my ground against a pavement cyclist with my arm outstretched and my fist clenched. Errant cyclists tend to realise they would come of worst. :twisted:

dondare

dennisn wrote:

Here in the states the "law" is that bicycles are to travel in the same direction as
traffic. However, many times I have seen parents out riding with their children
and going against traffic. I even heard one "adult" say to her kids "always ride facing traffic so you can see the cars coming". When I rode over and politely informed her that she was wrong she looked at me like I was crazy and continued on her way. I get the
opinion that lots of people don't know the "law" so to speak. I could probably count myself among them as I have never read the trafic laws.

Dennis Noward

I once found an American website that told cyclists that this was the safest thing to do.

Mark_K

Mr_Cellophane wrote:

I stand my ground against a pavement cyclist with my arm outstretched and my fist clenched. Errant cyclists tend to realise they would come of worst. :twisted:

Yer they would be spliting their sides laughing when your being fined for assult. :roll: :evil:
What sort of atituid/example is that ! Two wrongs dont make a right as my mum used to say and that goes to the OP as well !

snooks

Mark_K wrote:

Yer they would be spliting their sides laughing when your being fined for assult. :roll: :evil:
What sort of atituid/example is that ! Two wrongs dont make a right as my mum used to say and that goes to the OP as well !

OP here, By standing my ground, I'm going to keep walking and not move out of the way, I'm not going to be forced on the road by someone riding their bike on a pavement :evil:

What's wrong with that??...Nothing! So how is that two wrongs? I'm not doing anything wrong

I don't expect peds to move out of my way when I'm cycling on a shared path, so when the sole use of the path is for pedestrians, there's no way, when I'm a pedestrian, that I'll be moving for someone riding their bike.


Except...erm....if they are bigger than me, and they ain't going to move, then I'll step to the side, and let them hit the bollard behind me....:twisted:

victor ludorum

snooks wrote:

Mark_K wrote:

What's wrong with that??...Nothing! So how is that two wrongs? I'm not doing anything wrong

Except...erm....if they are bigger than me, and they ain't going to move, then I'll step to the side, and let them hit the bollard behind me....:twisted:

I think it was Mr_Cellophane's clenched fists, implying a fight in the offing that made a wrong, rather than simply standing one's ground.

Do you carry a bollard round with you for this purpose?

robmanic1

Maybe talking bollards?

snooks

victor ludorum wrote:

Do you carry a bollard round with you for this purpose?

Nope, I'll only walk down roads with bollards on from now on If it hasn't got bollards, I'll walk in the road, less people on bikes there!!! hehe

dennisn

dondare wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Here in the states the "law" is that bicycles are to travel in the same direction as
traffic. However, many times I have seen parents out riding with their children
and going against traffic. I even heard one "adult" say to her kids "always ride facing traffic so you can see the cars coming". When I rode over and politely informed her that she was wrong she looked at me like I was crazy and continued on her way. I get the
opinion that lots of people don't know the "law" so to speak. I could probably count myself among them as I have never read the trafic laws.

Dennis Noward

I once found an American website that told cyclists that this was the safest thing to do.

Ya, who knows how these things happen or why???

Dennis Noward

Mr_Cellophane

victor ludorum wrote:

I think it was Mr_Cellophane's clenched fists, implying a fight in the offing that made a wrong, rather than simply standing one's ground.

I did not mean to imply I adopted a threatening stance. Just one to protect myself and at the same time inflict some pain on the illegal cyclist.

downfader

Crikey, what a thread (havent got the energy to read it all though :oops: )

Pavement riders have been a big annoyance of mine for a while now. It all goes back sme years to when i was about 18/19 and walking my bike through the city center on the pavement. There was a drop curb about 12 feet ahead and being 7am and nobody about I decided to scoot the bike forward with one foot on to the edge and join the road, but as I put my foot on and pushed off a police woman appeared from the corner and shouted at me.

It was quite odd really. I had tried to explan my actions in a reasonable and polite manner (being taught to be respectful to the police by my parents) but all I got back was "Get off the bloody bike, or you'll end up down the station!" :shock: :roll:

I suppose everytime I see a copper riding his bike past hmv on a busy saturday afternoon, or a pedalestrian (as Dondare put it) weaving in and out of shoppers I get a kind of frustration and anger bulding up.

Since that incident, over a decade ago, I have made no effort to ride on the pavement, other than to mount drop curbs and get off the bike immediately and safely.

The second story I have is of a work colleage who was walking through a local market. Sick of cyclists weaving in and out of the shoppers he had decided "to take his time" when he saw them approach. Oneday this guy got impatient and let the front wheel touch this lads ankle. He was furious, but openly kept his calm, as the guy past he stepped into the path of the cyclist and knocked him over into a market stall (unintentional fall, but an intentional block).

The cyclist apparently remonstrated how much of an a***hole my colleage was... until the market stall owner and a bunch of shoppers began shouting their anger at how he should never have been on the pavement in the first place. I think the market stall owner wanted suitable recompense for the damages off the cyclist too.

reutercrooks

victor ludorum wrote:

dondare wrote:

My first rides were in the road. It was, and still is, a very quiet road but as soon as I could go further I did and I've never used the footpath at all.
The same road is now used by cyclists (it's in Cambridge, so there are lots) but many ride only on the pavement because that is what they were taught to do as kids. The result really is that the pavements are hazardous for some pedestrians, including my father who is now quite old and quite frail and worries about bein hit on the pavement by a cyclist whenever he goes out. He has no anti-cycling prejudices at all, he always cycled to work and for recreation when he was able to do so and is still a member of the CTC.

It's certainly true that if we get small children riding on the roads from an early age there will be far fewer of them riding on the pavements later...

quote]

yeah, well, thats because they would all be dead, run over by car drivers.
My kids ride on the pavement and thats where they will stay untill they are old enough and it is safe enough for them to ride on the roads.

reutercrooks

spen666 wrote:

Surf-Matt wrote:

So Spen - still got all your reflectors attached to your bike? One front, one rear and four amber ones on the pedals?

No -don't need them as I do not use bike after lighting up times and as such are not required

Still got a bell fitted to it?

Not required by law- only requirement is on retailers to supply one at point of sale

Do you ever cycle on private land without express permission of the landowner? This includes any National Trust land of course.

Never

Answer no to any of these and you are breaking the law.

Wrong on every count. I have answered no to them and have not broken any laws- better get back to learning the law

Do you cycle at over 18mph on cycle paths?

I never ride on any cycle paths

Well if so, you have broken the law.


Your angry little man comments really do show you up as a complete waste of space.

Oh dear- you seem to be getting very upset at the truth. Cycling on the pavement is illegal. Face the facts you are breaking the law and no amount of protesting by you will change the fact you are behaving like a criminal

Wind your neck in and try and tone down the mass patronisation. You have the emotional intelligence of a bailiff.

I may do, but I am not trying to justify my law breaking unlike you

and those laws are?

dondare

reutercrooks wrote:

victor ludorum wrote:

dondare wrote:

My first rides were in the road. It was, and still is, a very quiet road but as soon as I could go further I did and I've never used the footpath at all.
The same road is now used by cyclists (it's in Cambridge, so there are lots) but many ride only on the pavement because that is what they were taught to do as kids. The result really is that the pavements are hazardous for some pedestrians, including my father who is now quite old and quite frail and worries about bein hit on the pavement by a cyclist whenever he goes out. He has no anti-cycling prejudices at all, he always cycled to work and for recreation when he was able to do so and is still a member of the CTC.

It's certainly true that if we get small children riding on the roads from an early age there will be far fewer of them riding on the pavements later...

yeah, well, thats because they would all be dead, run over by car drivers.
My kids ride on the pavement and thats where they will stay untill they are old enough and it is safe enough for them to ride on the roads.

I was making two points: firstly I learnt to ride on a road that was traffic-free enough to allow me to do so safely; it's still just as traffic free but now cyclists use the footpath beside it instead and this endangers pedestrians; and secondly if children are taught that they must never ride in the road then they never will and this is why there is that problem.

robmanic1

dondare wrote:

I was making two points: firstly I learnt to ride on a road that was traffic-free enough to allow me to do so safely; it's still just as traffic free but now cyclists use the footpath beside it instead and this endangers pedestrians; and secondly if children are taught that they must never ride in the road then they never will and this is why there is that problem.[/quote]

My 12 year old daughter rides on the road, despite my attempts to persuade her otherwise. It scares the crap out of me, not because she's not competant (she has her cycling proficiency), but because I know how many idiots there are driving around. I'd rather she stayed on the pavement as she doesn't ride excessively fast and the risk of her hitting a ped is far less then the risk of her being mown down on the road. There are, however, no excuses for us "grown-ups" to take to the footpaths, as far as I can see.

cee

I was going to write something, but I suddenly realised that halfway through the thread I had lost the will to live. :P

lost-time

Spen, at what age do you think it is OK to ride on the pavement 'til. I'd like to hear your opinion on this. Don't just sprout the law.

passout

Cyclists are hated off -road (MTB'ing) by walkers and horse riders.
Cyclist are hated on the roads by motorists.
Cyclists are hated on pavements not only by some pedestrians but by other cyclists (who are on the road) or so it would seem by this thread.

What's the common denominator here? Yes, cyclists are hated - that includes those of you for whom the sun shines out of your a***e and keep preaching about thise naughty cyclists who dare to ride on the pavement. I'm a 'proper' cyclist because.....blah blah.

If the above applies to you I think you need to step back and look at the big picture. If people are riding with common sense (wherever it may be) and are more or less polite, then does it matter? I would suggest not.

spen666

lost-time wrote:

Spen, at what age do you think it is OK to ride on the pavement 'til. I'd like to hear your opinion on this. Don't just sprout the law.

Depends what you mean by "ok"

The law doesn't allow riding on the pavement at any age [ the enforcement of the law is a different issue]

At what age is it ok for people to break say laws about burglary, paying for items in shops etc.

It is hard to express an opinion about the law without referring to the law