What would you do?/Pavement Cycling

2»

Comments

  • snailracer
    snailracer Posts: 968
    If we all cycle on that bit of pavement, the authorities might give up trying to enforce it. Just like cars parked on the pavement :P
  • Drysuitdiver
    Drysuitdiver Posts: 474
    snailracer wrote:
    If we all cycle on that bit of pavement, the authorities might give up trying to enforce it. Just like cars parked on the pavement :P


    check the local byelaws first. some allow pavement parking . which m,akes keeping out of a door zone "fun"
    Veni Vidi cyclo I came I saw I cycled
    exercise.png
  • MyPace
    MyPace Posts: 12
    Definitely the pavement for me there.

    If its a case of "earning respect" vs being alive, i know what i'd choose!
  • fastbatard
    fastbatard Posts: 137
    snailracer wrote:
    Vaseline wrote:
    snailracer wrote:
    According to their own operating guidelines, if you are pavement cycling considerately, you should not (at least in theory) be ticketed by plod.

    Highway code, rule 63: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement (their emphasis)

    Illegal, yes, but the police are supposed to apply discretion whether to ticket you for it, or not:

    "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."
    (Paul Boateng, Home Office Minister 1999).

    "...The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice...I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16." (John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004).

    Very reassuring to read this about Police discretion. I regularly use short stretches of pavement to avoid crossing the dreaded tram tracks after coming a cropper on them. When on the pavement I always slow right down, ride carefully and give way to the very few peds I encounter. I have worried about potentiallly getting a ticket if the Police saw me but would rather that than be injured or worse.

    There's no way I would ride the A3 you have linked to, I would also use the pavement.
  • singlesman
    singlesman Posts: 26
    I think you'll find if you get off your bike,(reverse the procedure you used to get on it) you may find that your legs are capable of propelling you along 500 yards of pavement whilst pushing your bike. :)
  • Drfabulous0
    Drfabulous0 Posts: 1,539
    Down the Road wrote:
    IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO RIDE ON THE PAVEMENT.

    Potential fine is £2500

    If you want respect from motorists we must obey the law of the land.

    I am so sick of hearing this rubbish, why do you presume we all want the respect of the motorist? Me, I just want to ride to work without dying.

    Ride on the pavement, it's only a bike.
    <center><font><b>My Scott</b></font></center>
    <center><font><b>My Kinesis</b></font></center>
  • thelawnet
    thelawnet Posts: 719
    Down the Road wrote:
    And no, cars and bikes are not the same and driving a car on the pavement is not the same thing!

    In the eyes of the law they are.

    Not at all. You might as well say a car and an airplane is the same in the eyes of the law.

    Clearly they aren't, there are more stringent standards for planes than cars because of the greater risk to the public, and equally for cars as against bicycles.
  • thelawnet
    thelawnet Posts: 719
    singlesman wrote:
    I think you'll find if you get off your bike,(reverse the procedure you used to get on it) you may find that your legs are capable of propelling you along 500 yards of pavement whilst pushing your bike. :)

    Walking is slow. Five minutes to walk along there or a minute on the bike. Life's too short to walk alongside thundering dual carriageways.
  • singlesman
    singlesman Posts: 26
    If life is too short to walk for five minuetes and the pavement too dangerous maybe you need a car?
  • Down the Road
    Down the Road Posts: 949
    thelawnet wrote:
    Down the Road wrote:
    And no, cars and bikes are not the same and driving a car on the pavement is not the same thing!

    In the eyes of the law they are.

    Not at all. You might as well say a car and an airplane is the same in the eyes of the law.

    Clearly they aren't, there are more stringent standards for planes than cars because of the greater risk to the public, and equally for cars as against bicycles.

    I can't take a plane down the footpath either ..... What's your point?
    Racing is life - everything else is just waiting
  • thelawnet
    thelawnet Posts: 719
    Down the Road wrote:
    thelawnet wrote:
    Down the Road wrote:
    And no, cars and bikes are not the same and driving a car on the pavement is not the same thing!

    In the eyes of the law they are.

    Not at all. You might as well say a car and an airplane is the same in the eyes of the law.

    Clearly they aren't, there are more stringent standards for planes than cars because of the greater risk to the public, and equally for cars as against bicycles.

    I can't take a plane down the footpath either ..... What's your point?

    uh, cars are instruments of mass destruction, bicycles are not. The consequences of bicyles on the footpath are not comparable to cars or indeed airplanes. (Far) More pedestrians get killed by cars on pavements than by bicycles, even though cyclists routinely use the pavement, whereas cars don't/
  • thelawnet
    thelawnet Posts: 719
    singlesman wrote:
    If life is too short to walk for five minuetes and the pavement too dangerous maybe you need a car?

    ? The pavement isn't dangerous, that's why it was suggested to cycle along it.

    Cars are often slower than bikes, and besides driving cars shortens your lifespan when compared against regular cycling.
  • tenfoot
    tenfoot Posts: 226
    Interesting topic.

    I'd go with the cycling (carefully) on the pavement. I'm sure the local constabulary would rather see you doing that, than have to scrape you off the road.
  • shouldbeinbed
    shouldbeinbed Posts: 2,660
    +1 to the above but if you get pulled doing it don't come complaining

    Would you want Adam Rayner to see you doing it?
  • mattsaw
    mattsaw Posts: 907
    shouldbeinbed wrote:
    +1 to the above but if you get pulled doing it don't come complaining

    Would you want Adam Rayner to see you doing it?

    I'll distract him with doughnuts
    Bianchi C2C - Ritte Bosberg - Cervelo R3
    Strava
  • phillipjohnson
    phillipjohnson Posts: 117
    Personally I would have no qualms about just riding on the pavement if its a dangerous road and there is no cycle path and the pavement isn't busy with pedestrians.

    If it worries you though it might be worth contacting the local constabulary and asking them for their advice/opinion on that stretch of the road. It could put your mind at rest about joining the "most wanted" list ;-)

    I would just take the path though.... there is a difference between bombing down a crowded high street pavement at 30 miles an hour and riding along a deserted path with the intention of giving pedestrians priority if you do come across any.

Categories