Should I stand my ground on pavements?

1235

Comments

  • dondare
    dondare Posts: 2,113
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    Ooooh I don't know, maybe pedestrians get run over when they're in the road?

    Mostly, yes.
    But.... pedestrians use the pavement, so how do they get run over in the road?
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    Why don't you just tell us the point you're trying to make here?

    In the town where I live, pedestrians are actually able to depart from the pavements and walk into the road... Maybe where you live they can't. It must cut down enormously on their being run over. Inspired.
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • dondare
    dondare Posts: 2,113
    Pedestrians believe themselves to be safe because they use the pavement, away from the dangerous traffic on the road. But they actually have a higher accident rate per mile than cyclists.
    Cyclists who use the pavement to be away from the dangerous traffic believe themselves to be safe, but why should they be if pedestrians aren't?
    Pedestrians get killed crossing roads, which is unavoidable if you're going anywhere except round the block. Pavement cyclists, travelling further than pedestrians have to cross more roads and are even less inclined to stop each time and look right, left and right again than pedestrians are. This is why cycling on the pavement is more dangerous than cycling on the roads.
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • robmanic1
    robmanic1 Posts: 2,150
    biondino wrote:
    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.

    Take your point but they are unlikely to be reversing at 30-40mph therefore injuries are likely to be less severe. Plus there are substantially more cars driving along the roads than reversing out of driveways (at least where I live). I remain unconvinced by the argument for her riding on the roads.
    Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/
  • ride_whenever
    ride_whenever Posts: 13,279
    Cars still crush even at 5-10 mph though
    Neeermad
    Carbon 456
    456 lefty
    Pompino
    White Inbred
  • robmanic1
    robmanic1 Posts: 2,150
    ride_whenever wrote:
    Cars still crush even at 5-10 mph though

    That they do. Pavement is still a safer environment (in my local anyway) for a 12 year old on a bike IMO, unless someone can convince me otherwise?
    Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    Pavement is a safer place to be than the road, no question about that. If the opposite were true pedestrians would walk exclusively in the road to avoid those dangerous pavements... which just flies in the face of all sense and is a ridiculous argument to even consider bringing up.

    Pedestrians' higher accident rate per mile is caused mostly by accidents which occurr while they are in the road. Stop pouting and apply some logic.

    And absolutely, cars are dangerous at any speed, but if I had a young child on a bike in an urban area they wouldn't be on the road, I'd be running with them on the pavement, making sure they're safe.
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • reutercrooks
    reutercrooks Posts: 425
    dondare wrote:
    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?

    how?
  • dondare
    dondare Posts: 2,113
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    Pavement is a safer place to be than the road, no question about that. If the opposite were true pedestrians would walk exclusively in the road to avoid those dangerous pavements... which just flies in the face of all sense and is a ridiculous argument to even consider bringing up.

    Pedestrians' higher accident rate per mile is caused mostly by accidents which occurr while they are in the road. Stop pouting and apply some logic.

    And absolutely, cars are dangerous at any speed, but if I had a young child on a bike in an urban area they wouldn't be on the road, I'd be running with them on the pavement, making sure they're safe.

    My logic is irrefutable, and the conclusion that it leads me to is that cycling on the pavement is more dangerous than cycling on the road. It wouldn't be if the pavement went all the way from where you were to where you wanted to be, but this is never the case. If you ride on the pavement you run the risk of being killed or injured whilst crossing roads, just like those higher-accident-rate pedestrians.
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    OK, so according to your irrefutable logic, being on the pavement is made more dangerous by the fact that SOME of the time you have to be on the road.

    How is this more dangerous than being on the road ALL of the time?

    I mean.... really....
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • Ilikebikes;-)
    Ilikebikes;-) Posts: 5
    I drive my car on the pavement.
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    I drive my car on the pavement.

    :lol:
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • Ilikebikes;-)
    Ilikebikes;-) Posts: 5
    Mr. dondare...you are the brother of Mr.Logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic
    and Lost in Thought, your smile made my night. Goodnight.
  • dondare
    dondare Posts: 2,113
    Ilikebikes wrote: »
    I drive my car on the pavement.

    Is that to avoid paying Road Tax?
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • Littigator
    Littigator Posts: 1,262
    Silly people

    You argue for all the wrong reasons...bikes on pavements = bad, bikes on roads = where they should be, is it not simple, hmm? :?

    Apparently not, ooohh :cry: ...no one denies there may be times or circumstances where pavement riding may be necessary (small children on sparkly barbie bikes should not be on the road theywillbesquished even spenny spen spen must admit this unless he continues to be the LAW ABIDING ROBOT that he is ("I was only following orders mutter mutter"). Whilst bunny hoping across the pavement on stumpy, cockhopper or on a surf matt (whatever that is, is it similar to surf boards I wonder?) is naughty is it not as it makes the poor dear pedestrian intimidated for their safety regardless of the rider's inate skill on his cycle.

    So in conclusion we know where we ought to ride, we can shout at each other but surely we should share and save our wrath for those four wheeled users of the highway because let's face it they are all complete ****S
    Roadie FCN: 3

    Fixed FCN: 6
  • dondare
    dondare Posts: 2,113
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    OK, so according to your irrefutable logic, being on the pavement is made more dangerous by the fact that SOME of the time you have to be on the road.

    How is this more dangerous than being on the road ALL of the time?

    I mean.... really....

    Because crossing roads is especially dangerous.
    If this were not the case, there'd not be so many dead peds. My argument explains the facts; if you don't accept it then what would your explanation be?
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • dondare
    dondare Posts: 2,113
    Ilikebikes wrote: »
    Mr. dondare...you are the brother of Mr.Logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic
    and Lost in Thought, your smile made my night. Goodnight.

    "who is portrayed as being humourless, friendless and emotionless. He takes everything said to him totally literally and is entirely unaware of what is intended when a metaphorical statement is made. "

    No, not me. I have humour in shedloads.
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • Surf-Matt
    Surf-Matt Posts: 5,952
    dondare wrote:
    Ilikebikes wrote: »
    Mr. dondare...you are the brother of Mr.Logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic
    and Lost in Thought, your smile made my night. Goodnight.

    "who is portrayed as being humourless, friendless and emotionless. He takes everything said to him totally literally and is entirely unaware of what is intended when a metaphorical statement is made. "

    No, not me. I have humour in shedloads.

    Hey, try opening that shed one day :wink::lol:
  • dondare
    dondare Posts: 2,113
    Noob.
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • snooks
    snooks Posts: 1,521
    Littigator wrote:
    So in conclusion we know where we ought to ride, we can shout at each other but surely we should share and save our wrath for those four wheeled users of the highway because let's face it they are all complete ****S

    Unless at the time we're a ped (as I was when I started this thread a long long time ago) then as a ped I skip up the hierarchy and can shout and save my wrath for everyone, includeing others on foot :D

    But as a ped I'm likely to get run over on the road, and the pavement, on a drive, in a field, up a mountain...This walking thing will never catch on... :D

    I'm going to get me one of those invalid, sit down things with number plates on so I can ride on the pavement, and down the road, and see what I have to scape off my bumper in the morning!!! :D
    FCN:5, 8 & 9
    If I'm not riding I'm shooting http://grahamsnook.com
    THE Game
    Watch out for HGVs
  • robmanic1
    robmanic1 Posts: 2,150
    Snooks, just make sure you wear a helmet eh! :wink:
    Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/
  • Littigator
    Littigator Posts: 1,262
    snooks wrote:

    I'm going to get me one of those invalid, sit down things with number plates on so I can ride on the pavement, and down the road, and see what I have to scape off my bumper in the morning!!! :D

    I consistently see a guy around the South Ken area and one way bit on his invalid thingy, often when it's dark in the middle of the road at 5mph with no lights on whatsoever

    Come to think of it I haven't seen him lately....hhmmmmm?!
    Roadie FCN: 3

    Fixed FCN: 6
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    Those things are brilliant! When I'm old and fat i am definitely getting one of those...

    But for The Game, do they count as a scooter??? ;)
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    Surf-Matt wrote:
    dondare wrote:
    Ilikebikes wrote: »
    Mr. dondare...you are the brother of Mr.Logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic
    and Lost in Thought, your smile made my night. Goodnight.

    "who is portrayed as being humourless, friendless and emotionless. He takes everything said to him totally literally and is entirely unaware of what is intended when a metaphorical statement is made. "

    No, not me. I have humour in shedloads.

    Hey, try opening that shed one day :wink::lol:

    *giggle*
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • robmanic1
    robmanic1 Posts: 2,150
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    Those things are brilliant! When I'm old and fat i am definitely getting one of those...

    But for The Game, do they count as a scooter??? ;)


    Yeh, full carbon, "tweaked" jobby. Since we're all going to be working well into our 80's, and with them being eco-friendly, could be the answer to all you city-folks problems.
    Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    Because crossing roads is especially dangerous.
    If this were not the case, there'd not be so many dead peds. My argument explains the facts; if you don't accept it then what would your explanation be?

    So crossing roads is more dangerous than cycling on roads? What are you basing your irrefutable logic on here?

    To be clear, being on roads is dangerous. However, I don't condone any experienced cyclist being on the pavement, unless they're hopelessly lost or something equally valid.
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • dondare
    dondare Posts: 2,113
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    Surf-Matt wrote:
    dondare wrote:
    Ilikebikes wrote: »
    Mr. dondare...you are the brother of Mr.Logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic
    and Lost in Thought, your smile made my night. Goodnight.

    "who is portrayed as being humourless, friendless and emotionless. He takes everything said to him totally literally and is entirely unaware of what is intended when a metaphorical statement is made. "

    No, not me. I have humour in shedloads.

    Hey, try opening that shed one day :wink::lol:

    *giggle*

    Ubernoob.
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • dondare
    dondare Posts: 2,113
    lost_in_thought wrote:
    Because crossing roads is especially dangerous.
    If this were not the case, there'd not be so many dead peds. My argument explains the facts; if you don't accept it then what would your explanation be?

    So crossing roads is more dangerous than cycling on roads? What are you basing your irrefutable logic on here?

    The accident rate for pedestrians (who cross roads), which is higher than the accident rate for cyclists (who ride on the road).
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    Where are you getting these statistics?
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • jedster
    jedster Posts: 1,717
    Can I just say that this thread disappeared up its own jaxie on page 2 but I've just come back to it now (I mean surely it couldn't have got to page 10 without some improvement?)and the last couple of pages have seen some admirably surreal comedy.

    Top work everyone! :D

Categories