Should I stand my ground on pavements?
Comments
-
spen666 wrote: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
I'm not asking you to express an opinion on the law. I've not asked or mentioned anything about burglary so why bring that up. I'm not classing riding on the pavement as a similar crime to burglary so there is no point in you posting a comment like that.
OK let's keep this simple...Let's pretend your son or daughter wants to ride their bike. They are, for arguments sake, around 5-6 years old. Is it ok in your opinion to let them ride their bike on the pavement outside your house? Don't bother answering it if you have to state the law...We know what the law is. I'd just like to know if you'd allow the child to ride on the pavement or if you'd make them ride in the road.0 -
i could have sworn that you're allowed on a pavement if your saddle is less than 65cm from the floor, as it counts as a childs bike.0
-
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.
Hurrah! A reasonable point of view! And one that neatly matches my own.
Is the point of this commuting forum to encourage or discourage cycle commuting? When I first started, admittedly only 4 years ago, I wanted, due to my nervousness, to avoid the busy london big roads where possible. I'm from the countryside, you see. As a result I cycled on a pavement for some 200 yards to avoid the fact that that 200yds was the wrong way down a one way street. I couldn't find another route, without going miles out of my way, and naturally didn't want to walk it, so I broke the law.
My question, from that heartwarming tale, is this - would you be happier if I'd stopped cycling rather than cycle on the pavement?
Seriously, the blinkered attitudes of people on here could well be discouraging people. If more people cycle, I'm happy. If they cycle considerately that's great. I'm not overly concerned about the law, and won't be until pedestrians and drivers also stop breaking it.0 -
Which laws do pedestrians break?This post contains traces of nuts.0
-
Well, since you are a law-man yourself, dondare, you will no doubt be aware that littering is an offence, as is spitting, and both of these are still illegal when directed at cyclists, whether they have jumped a red light or not. So the pedestrian who threw a coke can at me in Acton just yesterday broke the law, as have others. Such behaviour, as you know, also construes assault.
Furthermore, I hardly need remind you that under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994, a person is guilty of an offence if they use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour; or display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress. Again, even if that other person is a cyclist.
Does that answer your question?0 -
-
Number 18 of the highway code as well as Laws ZPPPCRGD reg 19 & RTRA sect 25(5)
It's a little-known one though, I grant you!0 -
whyamihere wrote:
As Lost in Thought said. I had to stop at a number of these on my commute and watching ppl stop and fumble with phones or chatting to their mates...even stopping in the middle to tie up a shoelace.
So there 8)0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:Is the point of this commuting forum to encourage or discourage cycle commuting? When I first started, admittedly only 4 years ago, I wanted, due to my nervousness, to avoid the busy london big roads where possible. I'm from the countryside, you see. As a result I cycled on a pavement for some 200 yards to avoid the fact that that 200yds was the wrong way down a one way street. I couldn't find another route, without going miles out of my way, and naturally didn't want to walk it, so I broke the law.
You're going to have to help me out here: the alternative to walking 200 yards - which of course 'naturally' you dont want to do - was to give up cycling. That's what I call commitment!!0 -
'naturally' you, well, I don't cycle in order to walk. In my naivety at the time, I couldn't see an alternative, I was really scared to go on the busy roads, I tried alternate routes and hated it, so eventually thought 'sod it if I want to keep this up I'll have to enjoy it so it's the renegade route for me'...
4 years later I'll go the long way round instead!
I thought I'd ramnbled on for long enough without that snippet - apologies for lack of clarity!0 -
Hmmm. It does say Must Not in the highway code (which I hadn't realised), but I can't find any reference to it in section 25 of the RTRA. I'm also unable to find ZPPPCRGD on the Statute Law database, so I'm unable to look at that, do you have any idea of a title/year of enactment? The highway code wording does say that you're right, I'm interested for my own education more than anything.0
-
It stands for Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions (1997) if that helps.
As for the RTRA, it is there, promise! Maybe try a google search... I can see why you might not trust me and my law-breaking ways, I'm like a modern-day ned kelly!!!
0 -
Got it. It is clearly stated in the 1997 law, but not in section 25 of the 1984 RTRA, unless it's hidden in legalese, and I haven't had a chance to review the rest of the possible sections yet.0
-
It is specifically section 25(5)... if you want to check it out.
Can you tell I've got no work on today, by the way? 0 -
whyamihere wrote:Hmmm. It does say Must Not in the highway code (which I hadn't realised), but I can't find any reference to it in section 25 of the RTRA. I'm also unable to find ZPPPCRGD on the Statute Law database, so I'm unable to look at that, do you have any idea of a title/year of enactment? The highway code wording does say that you're right, I'm interested for my own education more than anything.
Look at this....
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.as ... Id=2223862
Scroll down to section 25 paragraph 5. Thats all I have. HTH.
'' (5) A person who contravenes any regulations made under this section shall be guilty of an offence....''0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:I'm not overly concerned about the law, and won't be until pedestrians and drivers also stop breaking it.
I was just killing time, reading through the last page of the thread and came across this statement. I hear this argument fairly often when people are justifying their breaking the law.
I wonder then, what your response would be if someone in car did something illegal and hit you or caused you other harm. If you had the opportunity to press charges or otherwise get the offender to suffer the consequences of breaking the law, would you ? Do your stated feelings of regarding the law apply to all laws, or just the ones you feel are inappropriate / inconvenient ?
Just to keep the post moderately on-topic. I don't condone riding on pavements. Not because it's illegal. Because it's generally less safe than riding on the road.0 -
Yes, but that doesn't mention stopping on a crossing at all, therefore it is not (by my reading), one of the regulations which can be an offence. The 1997 act does specifically prohibit stopping on the crossing, however, so it's not a particularly important point.lost-time wrote:whyamihere wrote:Hmmm. It does say Must Not in the highway code (which I hadn't realised), but I can't find any reference to it in section 25 of the RTRA. I'm also unable to find ZPPPCRGD on the Statute Law database, so I'm unable to look at that, do you have any idea of a title/year of enactment? The highway code wording does say that you're right, I'm interested for my own education more than anything.
Look at this....
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.as ... Id=2223862
Scroll down to section 25 paragraph 5. Thats all I have. HTH.
'' (5) A person who contravenes any regulations made under this section shall be guilty of an offence....''0 -
I like the assumption by some posters here that if you break the law by say riding on the pavement then that means you must by default break the law in other ways too. Or that you obviously think burglary or murder is ok as you yourself break the law by the pavement riding...
I was driving on a dual carrige way a few days ago. I slowly gained on a car that was doing probably around 66-68MPH. I had been at a steady 70. Now did I overtake very slowly at my continued 70mph taking half a mile to pass him or did I speed up to 75mph+ overtake then pull in and reduce my speed back to a law abiding 70? If I did the latter does that make me a bad and inconsiderate motorist? What would you have done?
PS it was lit dual carrige way 8)0 -
[quote="whyamihere
[/quote]Yes, but that doesn't mention stopping on a crossing at all, therefore it is not (by my reading), one of the regulations which can be an offence. The 1997 act does specifically prohibit stopping on the crossing, however, so it's not a particularly important point.[/quote]
In my interperation the ZPPPCR of 1997 says that the pedestrian must not take too much time crossing ie loitering.
If the pedestrian does then under section 25 [5] of the road traffic regulation act it is an offence.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/240001-a.htm: ''Pedestrians not to delay on crossings
19. No pedestrian shall remain on the carriageway within the limits of a crossing longer than is necessary for that pedestrian to pass over the crossing with reasonable despatch.''
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.as ... Id=2223862:
''(5) A person who contravenes any regulations made under this section shall be guilty of an offence.''
Hang the b*stards all the same......!0 -
I'm obviously causing confusion with flippant statements...
My attitude to the law is basically that as long as I'm not doing anyone any harm then it's OK, and I'm not talking about psychological harm to ardent law-abiders!
I went through a phase of sticking to all the rules, and got fed up of being the miss two-shoes when no-one else seemed to bother. Now I stick to most of them.
And of course I would press charges (or try to) if someone intentionally did me harm. Seriously, I know you're just trying ot make a point, but come on.
An interesting illustration might be that I tried (unsuccessfully) to press charges against a WVM who knocked me off last year, causing me multiple broken bones and spinal trauma, but not against the guy who pulled out from behind a bus into me and left me with a broken wrist and some attractive grazes. The WVM didn't stop, the bus guy did and was extremely apologetic. I don't know why I made that choice... soem misguided ideas on intent I suppose.0 -
dondare wrote:
If you cycle on the pavement your are being anti-social because this society hates pavement cyclists. If anyone sees you or you leave tracks then you'll be making a Daily Mail reader cross regardless of how careful and considerate you're trying to be.
Jeezuz Ker-rist DD hold on there...that's almost a call to arms for every cyclist to career across any pavement in sight...oh the sweet sweet joy of watching those DM readers foam at the mouth in fury!Roadie FCN: 3
Fixed FCN: 60 -
LOL!
A pavement-critical-mass... and see if all the DM readers have outrage-related heart attacks!0 -
Robmanic1 wrote:'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.
When I was a kid I was hit, while riding on the pavement, by a car backing out of a driveway. I reckon there is a substantially greater chance of your child getting hit by a car (or running into the side of one) when riding on the pavement for exactly that reason. When a motorist with often very limited visibility is coming out of a driveway, they will judge when it's clear by whether pedestrians are coming. A bike 4 times further away would arrive at the car just as quickly as a ped but the car wouldn't have been looking it for it and would likely not have seen it.
Having said that, yes, if I had a (small) child I would insist they rode their bike off the road, but in parks etc rather than on pavements.0 -
Surf-Matt wrote:Oh no, here we go...A person walking their bike is MUCH more unstable AND wider than a person riding safely.
!?? Trying to remember the last time I fell over while pushing a bike. Pushing a bike in a straight line is part of the Brit. Schools Cycling Assoc. Trix Bronze awards that we teach to 5-year olds. Admittedly, they only have to do it for 10 rather than 25 metres.
And since the pavement is, apparently wide and sparsely populated with pedestrians at that point/time, surely your width is scarcely germane?Organising the Bradford Kids Saturday Bike Club at the Richard Dunn Sports Centre since 1998
http://www.facebook.com/groups/eastbradfordcyclingclub/
http://www.facebook.com/groups/eastbradfordcyclingclub/0 -
When the motorists on the road pose a bigger danger to the cyclist than the cyclist on the pavement poses to the pedestrians then in a backhanded logical sort of way least potential harm is done if the cyclist takes to the pavement.
Somebody has probably already said this but here it is again... :roll:
In nine times out of ten the car is a bigger danger to the cyclist than the cyclist is to the pedestrian. uh doh!
Can you tell I am a novice...0 -
ride_whenever wrote:i could have sworn that you're allowed on a pavement if your saddle is less than 65cm from the floor, as it counts as a childs bike.
Not heard that one before
What's the source of that?Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
Dotbike Delirious wrote:When the motorists on the road pose a bigger danger to the cyclist than the cyclist on the pavement poses to the pedestrians then in a backhanded logical sort of way least potential harm is done if the cyclist takes to the pavement.
Somebody has probably already said this but here it is again... :roll:
In nine times out of ten the car is a bigger danger to the cyclist than the cyclist is to the pedestrian. uh doh!
Can you tell I am a novice...
More like 99 times out of a hundred but in fact cycling on the pavement does not protect you from cars. Think: how is it that pedestrians get run over?This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
Ooooh I don't know, maybe pedestrians get run over when they're in the road?
Or am I just talking crazy here?0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:Ooooh I don't know, maybe pedestrians get run over when they're in the road?
Or am I just talking crazy here?
0
