riding on paths? what can we do!

BorisSpencer

Not directly related, but one thing that makes my blood boil, is people cycling along a pavement, and then expecting to use pedestrian crossings. :evil: :twisted:

Shaggy_Dog

J L wrote:

What about off street footpaths, e.g. through woods etc how do we feel about that, or is that for another thread???????



Discuss

I ride on footpaths unless the landowner specifically asks me not to. It is not illegal to ride a bicycle on footpaths, but technically you are trespassing, if the owner says it's ok you can drive monster trucks on them.

nicklouse

Shaggy_Dog wrote:

It is not illegal to ride a bicycle on footpaths,

Yes it is.

mobilekat

From Kent council rights of way webpage...

Footpath
For walkers only. You are allowed to take a pram, pushchair or wheelchair along a public footpath but please be aware that many routes may not be physically suitable for that purpose. Public footpaths are mostly waymarked with yellow arrows.

Bridleway
For walkers, horseriders and pedal cyclists. Cyclists must give way to walkers and horseriders. Bridleways are mostly waymarked with blue arrows.

Byways open to all traffic
Often just referred to as byway, for vehicles, cyclists, horseriders and walkers. Because of its nature, it is used mainly as a footpath or bridleway. Byways open to all traffic are mostly waymarked with red arrows.


Footpaths are for foot traffic..... As are pavements, if the road is too dangerous, get off push, and then write letters to the coucil, and get local cycle groups involved to improve the junction.


There was a big campaign near us and now there is a brilliant cycle/footpath that runs for 5 miles form a town to a school. It can be done, but only if you play by the rules!

cat_with_no_tail

nicklouse wrote:

Shaggy_Dog wrote:

It is not illegal to ride a bicycle on footpaths,

Yes it is.

Quite, there is a fairly big clue in their titles.

Shaggy_Dog

No, a footpath is a right of way, it doesn't have to physically exist, it is an imaginary line that means "you can go here". That means that no matter what the landowner says, you are entitled to walk on it. If you own the land or have the landowners permission, you can do what you want on it, build a motocross track there if you want, as long as someone can walk from one stile to the other. If you ride on a public footpath you are trespassing, it's the act of trespassing that is illegal not the actual riding on the footpath. If a farmer says you can ride around his field, you can ride around his field, whether there's a footpath there or not!

CycloRos

oh god not this topic again :roll: you're all WRONG! **runs away into the distance**

Anonymous

bails87 wrote:

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Petethebogmonster wrote:

let them stress out and get home in a rage whilst you get home feeling relaxed ready to enjoy your down time

See, that is just ignorant and dangerous. A stressed out psycho behind the wheel is not going to end well.

But if taking primary for one junction is enough to make a driver want to murder someone, then they've got serious psychological problems (and it's them who is 'ignorant and dangerous') and should be in a padded cell, not behind the wheel of a car

In my humble opinion, of course.

But if you're knowingly angering someone, and you're aware that you're doing so, it's a bit dumb to continue doing so.
That's when common sense goes out of the window.
It's all about compromises.

I mean, you never know, that guy driving the car might have just got home early after being fired from his job for something he didn't do, only to see his fiancée in bed with his father and his own daughter.
Intentionally winding people up is stupid, but so is continuing to do so.

cgarossi

I don't ride on town footpaths since it does tend to annoy people. Its too narrow and theres usually people around not expecting bikes.

Best to obey the law really. Not really worth the £30 on the spot fine.

meanwhile

If you ride on the pavement and expect peds to move out of the way for you because you ding a bell... Well, be prepared to be told to go f&*k yourself. With an aardvark.

Otoh, about 50% of accidents happen at junctions. So if this one is especially bad, get off and walk the bike.

projectsome

phal44 wrote:

Meh I dont think people have a right to go mental at you just because you're on the pavement... but then again I wouldn't ding my bell at them either since I know I'm not supposed to be there lol

Unfortunately if you want to guarantee not having any people obstructing you then the road is the only place to be... and even then you have to contend with other cyclists and drivers.

I get angry when people ride on the pavement when I'm walking....

projectsome

u05harrisb wrote:

i cycle too and from work and on the jorney there is a junction with traffic lights where on the way home (rush hour) i have nearly been knocked off, on the way to work i just cycle on the road its not too bad but on the way home again because of the amount of traffic and it being a hill start with lots of parked cars on the edge you have to weave in and out of those and the normal riding by the curb, so on the way home i miss out this junction by taking the pavement along side the road which is about 25meters, im a curtious rider, i ring my bell give plenty of notice please thankyou's etc. i am aware that riding a bike on the pavement is tech. speaking illiegal but today a woman went mental at me must have been 40s-50s and i dinged my bell to warn her she didnt move or turn around sho i said " excuse me could i just get by please?" and the reply i get is woman getting very angry and refusing to move

what should i do in these situations guys? i dont want to do this one section of road because ive been knocked off and had elbows clipped etc several times and its just not worth the hassel

stick a pair of headphones in and pedal like a mad man possessed works for me. cars will avoid you like the plague

Northwind

Cat With No Tail wrote:

Sorry, but that's boIIocks!

Riding on the pavement is illegal, it's not a grey area.

Speeding is illegal too but most motorists speed when they think it's safe. I couldn't personally give a flying **** if riding on the pavement is illegal or legal, I only care if it's safe and reasonable. I use a deserted pavement every single day I commute, rather than ride in the poor cycle lane on the busy dual carriageway that's the alternative, and the law just doesn't come into that decision, it's safer and it troubles nobody. And that's not a grey area.

Shaggy_Dog

I don't think that was what he was trying to say, as he stated

take the lane, keep clear of parked cars and don't use the pavements. Ignore the idiots if they have a problem with you riding in a safe and defensive manner, let them stress out and get home in a rage whilst you get home feeling relaxed ready to enjoy your down time

Riding defensively is not the same thing as trying to wind people up. Eventually a passing opportunity arises and they can be on their way, if it doesn't then it is likely because there is too much traffic to pass safely, in which case overtaking isn't going to be advantageous as traffic lights will ensure that the cyclist gets there first anyway.

My point is, if a cyclist rides properly, in a defensive but responsible manner, he should not impede traffic nor have to worry about his own safety. The most common type of RTA I've been involved in is when someone pulls out of or into a junction in front of me, by taking primary position at those points you not only make yourself more visible to waiting traffic but have more options for evasion if they do decide to pull out. A motorist should not be overtaking at a junction.

bails87

yeehaamcgee wrote:

bails87 wrote:

But if taking primary for one junction is enough to make a driver want to murder someone, then they've got serious psychological problems (and it's them who is 'ignorant and dangerous') and should be in a padded cell, not behind the wheel of a car

In my humble opinion, of course.

But if you're knowingly angering someone, and you're aware that you're doing so, it's a bit dumb to continue doing so.
That's when common sense goes out of the window.
It's all about compromises.

I mean, you never know, that guy driving the car might have just got home early after being fired from his job for something he didn't do, only to see his fiancée in bed with his father and his own daughter.
Intentionally winding people up is stupid, but so is continuing to do so.

But there's a difference between doing something that happens to annoy someone and doing something because it annoys someone.

If I'm driving on local 30 limit roads, I tend to be doing 30. That annoys lots of drivers. I do it because that's the limit, there's usually loads of kids about because I live within a mile of about 6 schools, and I don't want to be done for speeding.

But if the people who want to do 50 down that road are annoyed that I'm doing 30, then they're the one with the problem. Should I speed up to 50 to avoid annoying them?

Likewise, on a NSL road, if, in ice and fog, I drive at 30 because it would be dangerous to go faster and someone gets annoyed, that's very different from driving at 60ish until another car catches up, then slowing to 30 just to wind them up.

mea00csf

agree with all those saying ride in primary position. TBH, no matter how tame a junction looks, i ride in primary. As a car driver i would never overtake anyone going through a junction and it's such a small stretch of road you're not holding anyone up.

The last time i didn't do this was at a single lane roundabout where i was going straight on, some numpty tried to overtake then turn left :roll:

Anonymous

But surely, riding in such a position as to impede others when there really is another way, if it's safe to do so, is to ride without due courteousness towards other road users?

For example, say my car was playing up, and would only do 25mph. I have a legal right to just carry on as normal, holding up everyone behind me. But I wouldn't, I'd pull over and let them pass.

bails87

yeehaamcgee wrote:

But surely, riding in such a position as to impede others when there really is another way, if it's safe to do so, is to ride without due courteousness towards other road users?

For example, say my car was playing up, and would only do 25mph. I have a legal right to just carry on as normal, holding up everyone behind me. But I wouldn't, I'd pull over and let them pass.

Yes, but I wouldn't begrudge you driving through one junction at that speed. If you were deliberately moving out and stopping me from overtaking where there was room, then yeah, that would be silly. The whole point is that if there isn't room to overtake, then don't let drivers try, or they'll attempt it and you might end up injured or worse. Only someone with a serious lack of control would get angry at that, surely?

What is 'the other way' out of interest? Going back to the OP, the options seem to be:
A. Ride defensively through the junction
2. Ride in the gutter, weaving in and out of cars
iii. Ride on the pavement
D. Dismount and walk on the pavement

I'd say the 'right' thing to do would be A, but if you're not confident on the road then choose D. But, as a cyclist (and driver), I'd have absolutely no problem with taking the lane through the junction, it's going to add literally about 3 seconds to the drivers' journeys. As a driver I'd rather a cyclist I was following chose A rather than putting themselves in serious harm by weaving in and out. And as a cycling driver & ped I'd rather they dismounted and rode on the pavement, rather than riding on it, just because it annoys people and puts peds and cyclists at risk.

I know what you're saying about holding people up, but from what the OP says, the cars shouldn't be overtaking anyway, whether he's in primary or not. Riding in primary stops an illegal and dangerous manouvre that only a bad driver would be tempted to perform. If we're talking about riding in the middle of the road just for the sake of it and to teach those pesky drivers a lesson, then yeah, that's stupid, obviously. But that doesn;t sound like the OP's problem at all.

Anonymous

Like I mentioned earlier though, there are roads where it is safe to overtake, but not if the riders are dominating the road.
Roads where you haven't quite got two lanes.
Happens a lot round here.

mea00csf

you're not really talking about the same thing there though are!
Under normal circumstances i ride about half a metre from the kerb, plenty of space for me to maneouvre, plenty of space in 99% of cases for a driver to safely pass within a very short amount of time.
Junctions are probably the most dangerous place to be on a bike, so why take the risk? If it isn't safe for someone to overtake, I put myself in a position where they can't, thereby meaning they can't squeeze me out.
I used to cross a very tight railway bridge, it was single lane, no priority for either direction. There simply wasn't space for a car and bike side by side (some big cars looked a bit anxious!!) Do you really think it's inconsiderate for me to ride in the centre of that bridge for the entire 15m so i'm not squished against the wall or worse, end up over it on the trainline because some impatient driver can't wait 2 seconds?! If someone gets annoyed at that, do you really think i'm the one who shouldn't be on the road?!

Anonymous

mea00csf wrote:

Do you really think it's inconsiderate for me to ride in the centre of that bridge for the entire 15m so i'm not squished against the wall or worse, end up over it on the trainline because some impatient driver can't wait 2 seconds?! If someone gets annoyed at that, do you really think i'm the one who shouldn't be on the road?!

No, not at all, which is why I said

But surely, riding in such a position as to impede others when there really is another way

In that case, there is no other way.

bails87

yeehaamcgee wrote:

mea00csf wrote:

Do you really think it's inconsiderate for me to ride in the centre of that bridge for the entire 15m so i'm not squished against the wall or worse, end up over it on the trainline because some impatient driver can't wait 2 seconds?! If someone gets annoyed at that, do you really think i'm the one who shouldn't be on the road?!

No, not at all, which is why I said

But surely, riding in such a position as to impede others when there really is another way

In that case, there is no other way.

Yeah, and in the OPs case, if he wants to stay on the road, there's no other way.

Glad we got that sorted

Anonymous

Right.
Are people actively trying to disagree with me on anything these days, even when I'm in agreement with them?

bails87

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Right.
Are people actively trying to disagree with me on anything these days, even when I'm in agreement with them?

Eh, no I'm agreeing with you. Riding in the middle of the road for no good reason is stupid. But doing it for a short time, to avoid being squashed is sensible.
Isn't that what you're saying?

Anonymous

bails87 wrote:

Eh, no I'm agreeing with you.

No you're not!






Hook, line and sinker

bails87

yeehaamcgee wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Eh, no I'm agreeing with you.

No you're not!

Oh yes I isn't!

Northwind

This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.

Anonymous

Northwind wrote:

This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.

well i'm sorry but you're just wrong!

bails87

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Northwind wrote:

This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.

well i'm sorry but you're just wrong!

No, you're wrong!

The whole damn system's wrong!

Anonymous

bails87 wrote:

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Northwind wrote:

This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.

well i'm sorry but you're just wrong!

No, you're wrong!

The whole damn system's wrong!

No, YOU'RE wrong.