Riding on the pavement. Illegal / Acceptable?

13

Comments

  • jim453
    jim453 Posts: 1,360
    Well thanks for clearing that up.

    Right guys, print Mr Boatengs letter off and stick it in the front pocket of your dungarees. Tighten up the bolts on your stabilisers and get to it.

    And don't forget to take your coat off when you come back inside or you won't feel the benefit.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    Dungarees? On a bike? Is that legal or acceptable?
  • Tom Butcher
    Tom Butcher Posts: 3,830
    philthy3 wrote:
    The pavement is a narrow thoroughfare, it is not three or four lanes of traffic all travelling in the same direction. All motor vehicles are allowed to be there provided the driver is qualified. A cyclist on the pavement is an obstacle and a danger to pedestrians. Like one of the earlier posters; if you aren't confident enough to get on the road or too young, then use the park or push it until you reach a designated cycle route. This is one copper who doesn't show any discretion with regards to cycling on the pavement other than not issuing a FPN. A bollocking will suffice.

    You are saying you are a policeman ? Absolutely shocking that you should take that attitude - I thought the Home Office guidance outlined above was common knowledge but obviously not in your case. You need to take a look at yourself if your attitude in your job is the same as you have shown in this thread.

    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • Vesterberg
    Vesterberg Posts: 330
    philthy3 wrote:
    The pavement is a narrow thoroughfare, it is not three or four lanes of traffic all travelling in the same direction. All motor vehicles are allowed to be there provided the driver is qualified. A cyclist on the pavement is an obstacle and a danger to pedestrians. Like one of the earlier posters; if you aren't confident enough to get on the road or too young, then use the park or push it until you reach a designated cycle route. This is one copper who doesn't show any discretion with regards to cycling on the pavement other than not issuing a FPN. A bollocking will suffice.

    woo! Big Man. And you wonder why the Police have a reputation for taking on over officious, jobsworth bullies with chips on their shoulders and attitude problems. If you ever gave my daughter a 'bollocking' for riding on the pavement then I'd be straight onto the IPCC and local paper. Tw@t.
  • garryc
    garryc Posts: 203
    Totaly unaceptable...

    ...unless your mums told you not too.
  • freehub
    freehub Posts: 4,257
    I ride on the pavement nearly everyday I cycle, down Corporation Street in Manchester, every single cyclist does that goes up there.

    I can tell you that no one would take a 5-10min detour just to get about 20 meters further down the road.
  • shouldbeinbed
    shouldbeinbed Posts: 2,660
    freehub wrote:
    I ride on the pavement nearly everyday I cycle, down Corporation Street in Manchester, every single cyclist does that goes up there.

    I can tell you that no one would take a 5-10min detour just to get about 20 meters further down the road.

    Corporation St? Printworks past the wheel to the Royal Exchange, between M&S and the Arndale.

    It's a road! & since the bus bollards went in, a nice and quiet one. I see plenty of people cycling on it. I can't honestly say I've ever seen anyone ride on the pavement there, it is totally unnecessary.

    Do you maybe mean the totally pedestrianised Market Street? (Primark to Royal Exch) there isn't even a road there anymore, its cluttered to the hilt with furniture and its usually thronged with people but you can walk it end to end in a couple of minutes, you'd have to be a pretty selfish dick to cycle it. Again, can't think of having seen anyone ride along it. Why a 5-10 minute detour, which way are you detouring?
  • jim453
    jim453 Posts: 1,360
    freehub wrote:
    I ride on the pavement nearly everyday I cycle, down Corporation Street in Manchester, every single cyclist does that goes up there.

    I can tell you that no one would take a 5-10min detour just to get about 20 meters further down the road.


    I suspect you think you are supporting the argument here but you are not. You describe the type of lazy cycling that gives all of us a bad name. You are part of the reason why the law is necessary in the first place, and why it needs to be followed to the letter with no room for discretion or people will take the p###.

    All attempts so far to justify pavement riding have been in the name of safety (busy/dangerous roads) or in order to catch rapists. Your excuse is just laziness, (unless you are a rapist trying to use fair means to escape).
  • StillGoing
    StillGoing Posts: 5,211
    Vesterberg wrote:
    philthy3 wrote:
    The pavement is a narrow thoroughfare, it is not three or four lanes of traffic all travelling in the same direction. All motor vehicles are allowed to be there provided the driver is qualified. A cyclist on the pavement is an obstacle and a danger to pedestrians. Like one of the earlier posters; if you aren't confident enough to get on the road or too young, then use the park or push it until you reach a designated cycle route. This is one copper who doesn't show any discretion with regards to cycling on the pavement other than not issuing a FPN. A bollocking will suffice.

    woo! Big Man. And you wonder why the Police have a reputation for taking on over officious, jobsworth bullies with chips on their shoulders and attitude problems. If you ever gave my daughter a 'bollocking' for riding on the pavement then I'd be straight onto the IPCC and local paper. Tw@t.

    And I'm quite sure the IPCC would tell you to stop being a dick. She's done wrong, got a bollocking for it so stop whining like a little baby.
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • StillGoing
    StillGoing Posts: 5,211
    philthy3 wrote:
    The pavement is a narrow thoroughfare, it is not three or four lanes of traffic all travelling in the same direction. All motor vehicles are allowed to be there provided the driver is qualified. A cyclist on the pavement is an obstacle and a danger to pedestrians. Like one of the earlier posters; if you aren't confident enough to get on the road or too young, then use the park or push it until you reach a designated cycle route. This is one copper who doesn't show any discretion with regards to cycling on the pavement other than not issuing a FPN. A bollocking will suffice.

    You are saying you are a policeman ? Absolutely shocking that you should take that attitude - I thought the Home Office guidance outlined above was common knowledge but obviously not in your case. You need to take a look at yourself if your attitude in your job is the same as you have shown in this thread.

    And which bit of the Janet & John books did you struggle with?
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • Vesterberg
    Vesterberg Posts: 330
    philthy3 wrote:
    philthy3 wrote:
    The pavement is a narrow thoroughfare, it is not three or four lanes of traffic all travelling in the same direction. All motor vehicles are allowed to be there provided the driver is qualified. A cyclist on the pavement is an obstacle and a danger to pedestrians. Like one of the earlier posters; if you aren't confident enough to get on the road or too young, then use the park or push it until you reach a designated cycle route. This is one copper who doesn't show any discretion with regards to cycling on the pavement other than not issuing a FPN. A bollocking will suffice.

    You are saying you are a policeman ? Absolutely shocking that you should take that attitude - I thought the Home Office guidance outlined above was common knowledge but obviously not in your case. You need to take a look at yourself if your attitude in your job is the same as you have shown in this thread.

    And which bit of the Janet & John books did you struggle with?
    He's shown himself countless times to be one of the thick, boorish ignorant plods that give the force a bad name. Not that they're all like that as we know from some of the regular posters. Far from it.
  • mattshrops
    mattshrops Posts: 1,134
    is this thread still going? jaysus im just popping out to shut my testicles in the car door :shock:
    Death or Glory- Just another Story
  • jim453
    jim453 Posts: 1,360
    Vesterberg wrote:
    philthy3 wrote:
    philthy3 wrote:
    The pavement is a narrow thoroughfare, it is not three or four lanes of traffic all travelling in the same direction. All motor vehicles are allowed to be there provided the driver is qualified. A cyclist on the pavement is an obstacle and a danger to pedestrians. Like one of the earlier posters; if you aren't confident enough to get on the road or too young, then use the park or push it until you reach a designated cycle route. This is one copper who doesn't show any discretion with regards to cycling on the pavement other than not issuing a FPN. A bollocking will suffice.

    You are saying you are a policeman ? Absolutely shocking that you should take that attitude - I thought the Home Office guidance outlined above was common knowledge but obviously not in your case. You need to take a look at yourself if your attitude in your job is the same as you have shown in this thread.

    And which bit of the Janet & John books did you struggle with?
    He's shown himself countless times to be one of the thick, boorish ignorant plods that give the force a bad name. Not that they're all like that as we know from some of the regular posters. Far from it.


    Oh right, we mustn't upset the 'good' policemen.

    I never would have had you down as just another pathetic sycophant westerberg but I've been wrong many times before.

    ffs ride on the road and walk on the pavement. And stop crying.
  • I find it a little bit embarassing and worrying that philthy3 is a Poilceman and comes across as an overzealous, angry man with a chip on his shoulder.

    ...what about this scenario?

    A commuter cycles along a road, his destination is on the right hand side of the street, about 100metres ahead. There's little traffic, but approaching is a line of cars (let's say 200m ahead) the cyclist has enough time to cross the street early, intime to avoid waiting for the cars to pass. There are no pedestrians, so he cycles across the road, hops onto the open pavement, and slowly cruises along the pavement to his destination. (ok, it's a wide pavement, no doors opening directly out onto it etc etc)

    What is wrong with that? - if a copper pursued that - that's just ridiculous innit!
  • jim453
    jim453 Posts: 1,360
    Since we are just inventing situations to suit our needs...

    Car stops suddenly (but within the law), child gets out and is mown down by our guy who is rocking along the pavement. She bangs her head and dies.

    Ridiculous.

    Innit?
  • Dunk_911
    Dunk_911 Posts: 239
    Pross wrote:
    how about pedestrianised areas?

    How many people know what this sign means?

    617.jpg

    I had to do some research into sign recognition as part of my dissertation and hardly anyone (including quite a few traffic / highway engineers) knew its full meaning. A lot thought it was a sign where the legend had faded!

    its the light you get on the front of your xbox when it is broken. :roll:
  • Tom Butcher
    Tom Butcher Posts: 3,830
    philthy3 wrote:
    philthy3 wrote:
    The pavement is a narrow thoroughfare, it is not three or four lanes of traffic all travelling in the same direction. All motor vehicles are allowed to be there provided the driver is qualified. A cyclist on the pavement is an obstacle and a danger to pedestrians. Like one of the earlier posters; if you aren't confident enough to get on the road or too young, then use the park or push it until you reach a designated cycle route. This is one copper who doesn't show any discretion with regards to cycling on the pavement other than not issuing a FPN. A bollocking will suffice.

    You are saying you are a policeman ? Absolutely shocking that you should take that attitude - I thought the Home Office guidance outlined above was common knowledge but obviously not in your case. You need to take a look at yourself if your attitude in your job is the same as you have shown in this thread.

    And which bit of the Janet & John books did you struggle with?

    The bit where your wife fucked a chimpanzee because she wanted more intelligent pillow talk.

    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    GiantMike wrote:
    philthy3 wrote:
    By your own rules it should be acceptable in certain circumstances for someone to break into your house and nick your property.

    I can't think of any circumstances off hand but, yes, by my logic (not a rule) it may be acceptable to somebody. In the same way that the very people who complain about cyclists on the pavement would probably consider it acceptable for them to ride on the pavement in certain circumstances.

    This whole debate started because you could not understand that it would ever be acceptable. Can you not think of a single situation where it would be acceptable for a cyclist to ride on the pavement?

    Would it be acceptable for a cyclist to mount the pavement to chase a rapist if the consequence of not doing so was that the rapist got away?

    Could I have answers, please? They are serious questions.
  • StillGoing
    StillGoing Posts: 5,211
    I'm sure it happens many times a day where someone cycles across the pavement chasing rapists, although in 26 years of policing I've never seen or heard of it and I doubt I ever will. OK you want a scenario where I consider it safe to cycle on the pavement; when you're riding a 3 wheel child's tricycle or wearing stabilisers going up and down the pavement outside your house, but getting off each time there's a pedestrian. But that isn't what this thread was about. It was about idiotic adults who see it as their right to cycle along the pavement because they're too scaredy pants or lazy to use the road like every other responsible cyclist who has a brain.

    In 26 years of policing I have never issued a FPN for cycling on the pavement, having read some of the moronic responses on here and the predictable plod insults, I'm sure there's a first time. Just like a driver's attitude will get them away with a bollocking, a cyclist's anti attitude as displayed by some on here would certainly ensure they get the FPN.

    I'm off now to cycle to work on the road but I might just jump onto the pavement if I see a rapist or there's a massive 100 yd queue of traffic blocking my way and I don't feel like getting off and walking..
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • Keith47
    Keith47 Posts: 158
    Whoah! Easy tiger! This is a discussion forum, the idea is we air our views and maybe end up agreeing to disagree, we're all part of the "cycling bretheren" you profess to love, and speaking for myself I'm also a motorist and a motorcyclist, and Oh yeah, a neighbourhood watch co-ordinator. (gotta be worth a few brownie points I reckon? No? Oh well, worth a try :wink: )

    Ok some of the replies may have been overly confrontational, but man you seem to have a very black and white attitude over this. Can you answer me this: Have you EVER exceeded the speed limit in your family car?

    Just to clarify the scenario I experienced (and it's one of only 2 occasions I have cycled on the pavement), There is a very narrow road into a village near where I live, An articulated lorry exiting an industrial estate had made a total hash of things and got completely stuck, blocking the road in both directions. The road is perfectly straight, I could see the pavement was clear for It's entire length (and It is well set back from the road so car doors opening would not have been a problem), so I hopped on the pavement and slowly cycled past then rejoined the road. Can you really, hand on heart say that was even worth a b*ll*king?
    The problem is we are not eating food anymore, we are eating food-like products.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    GiantMike wrote:
    GiantMike wrote:
    philthy3 wrote:
    By your own rules it should be acceptable in certain circumstances for someone to break into your house and nick your property.

    I can't think of any circumstances off hand but, yes, by my logic (not a rule) it may be acceptable to somebody. In the same way that the very people who complain about cyclists on the pavement would probably consider it acceptable for them to ride on the pavement in certain circumstances.

    This whole debate started because you could not understand that it would ever be acceptable. Can you not think of a single situation where it would be acceptable for a cyclist to ride on the pavement?

    Would it be acceptable for a cyclist to mount the pavement to chase a rapist if the consequence of not doing so was that the rapist got away?

    Could I have answers, please? They are serious questions.

    So, still no answer then.

    I think you have missed the point to a lot of the comments on here. I don't think anybody has the right to ride on the pavement regardless of the situation. I wouldn't dream of riding on the pavement if it were full of pedestrians. However, I can think of a situation where it would be acceptable for somebody to ride on the pavement.

    Can you think of a single situation where it would be acceptable for a cyclist to ride on the pavement?
  • shouldbeinbed
    shouldbeinbed Posts: 2,660
    GiantMike wrote:
    GiantMike wrote:
    GiantMike wrote:
    philthy3 wrote:
    By your own rules it should be acceptable in certain circumstances for someone to break into your house and nick your property.

    I can't think of any circumstances off hand but, yes, by my logic (not a rule) it may be acceptable to somebody. In the same way that the very people who complain about cyclists on the pavement would probably consider it acceptable for them to ride on the pavement in certain circumstances.

    This whole debate started because you could not understand that it would ever be acceptable. Can you not think of a single situation where it would be acceptable for a cyclist to ride on the pavement?

    Would it be acceptable for a cyclist to mount the pavement to chase a rapist if the consequence of not doing so was that the rapist got away?

    Could I have answers, please? They are serious questions.

    So, still no answer then.

    Can you think of a single situation where it would be acceptable for a cyclist to ride on the pavement?

    Interjecting simply in the interest of fairness: have a read of the last post on the previous page.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    philthy3 wrote:
    OK you want a scenario where I consider it safe to cycle on the pavement; when you're riding a 3 wheel child's tricycle or wearing stabilisers going up and down the pavement outside your house, but getting off each time there's a pedestrian.

    Not an answer. This is about safety rather than acceptability. I want to know if he could ever consider it acceptable in any scenario. He's refusing to answer the question but its happy to throw insults around.
  • Paulie W
    Paulie W Posts: 1,492
    edited April 2011
    Acceptable to who?

    You, me, the police, society?

    If we work on the basis that the prohibition on cycling on the pavement is about the safety of pedestrians (and to a lesser extent cyclists themselves) there are numerous occasions where cycling on a pavement does not pose any significant safety risks to pedestrian or cyclist.

    Yesterday as I rode along a busy dual carriageway I passed numerous families riding on the pavements on either side of the road. There are rarely any pedestrians on these stretches and the cyclists were mostly going slowly enjoying the sun. When the road passed through small villages it actually directed cyclists on to the pavement which became shared use - something to do with junctions at these points I would guess - before sending you back on to the road after the village. If the pavements along this stretch were wider I expect they would have been designated dual use for the whole length. I suspect that only the most militant of cyclists, policemen, pedestrians would have found this pavement riding as unacceptable.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    Paulie W wrote:
    I suspect that only the most militant of cyclists, policemen, pedestrians would have found this pavement riding as unacceptable.

    Yes, it's the one on here I'm trying to get an answer out of.
  • Tom Butcher
    Tom Butcher Posts: 3,830
    philthy3 wrote:
    I'm sure it happens many times a day where someone cycles across the pavement chasing rapists, although in 26 years of policing I've never seen or heard of it and I doubt I ever will. OK you want a scenario where I consider it safe to cycle on the pavement; when you're riding a 3 wheel child's tricycle or wearing stabilisers going up and down the pavement outside your house, but getting off each time there's a pedestrian. But that isn't what this thread was about. It was about idiotic adults who see it as their right to cycle along the pavement because they're too scaredy pants or lazy to use the road like every other responsible cyclist who has a brain.

    In 26 years of policing I have never issued a FPN for cycling on the pavement, having read some of the moronic responses on here and the predictable plod insults, I'm sure there's a first time. Just like a driver's attitude will get them away with a bollocking, a cyclist's anti attitude as displayed by some on here would certainly ensure they get the FPN.

    So a three year old not dismounting when an adult is in the vicinity would be considered unacceptable for you ? I think most people would think that is just being officious for the sake of it - you've got a uniform so you are going to make damn sure people know it. Even if it is an adult and they are scared to use the road - why in your world does that equate to being something to ridicule - too "scaredy pants". Couldn't you perhaps recognise that they have a genuine and possibly justified fear and use your discretion as to whether they are causing a problem. Use a bit of empathy rather than pouring scorn on them.

    Here's a real scenario rather than a hypothetical. My youngest kids are 9. When they cycle to school they do a stretch of about 100 yards on the pavement while I cycle on the road next to them, then then dismount and cross a road, cycle another 30 yards or so on the pavement while I push my bike, we then cross the A6 and we all cycle on the road the rest of the way. If you think you are going to give us a "bollocking" for that then you are going to look like the biggest fool in the force.

    Apply the law in accordance with the Home Office guidelines and I don't think anyone would object - apply it in accord with your own prejudices and you'll bring your job into disrepute and probably get a fair few complaints made about your conduct - you certainly would if you tried your heavy handed attitude on with me. It's nothing to do with being "anti plod" - far from it - I'm actually shocked that a policeman would feel happy to come out and express your views on a public forum - in my experience the police generally have far more common sense.

    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • StillGoing
    StillGoing Posts: 5,211
    I would expect the adult in charge of their supervision to ensure that the pedestrian wasn't hindered in any way.

    GM, you have had my response, please try reading it. This thread is about idiots habitually riding on the pavements because they see it as either a safer thoroughfare or are too lazy to get off an push. I see no realistic situation where it would be permitable for a cyclist to be on the pavement. If I was a zealot I'd be issuing FPNs. I don't. I tell them to get off and at least have the common sense not to do it infront of me. You have your view, I have mine. The fact that you and the insult thrower don't agree with me worries me not.

    As for speeding; I'm certain we all do. If I get caught I expect to suffer the penalty for it. Where is the argument in that?
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    This thread is not "about idiots habitually riding on the pavements because they see it as either a safer thoroughfare or are too lazy to get off an push". That's in your head. You're making yourself believe it's about that, but it isn't. Read it again, it's not about what you think it is. It's about people occasionally making a conscious decision based on being sensible adults, or a desire to protect their children.

    Nothing I've said has ever been about roaring around on the pavement being a hazard to pedestrians. In fact, my viewpoint is the opposite. People should be considerate to other road users, but that doesn't mean that it's automatically unacceptable to ride on any pavement, ever.
    philthy3 wrote:
    The only time it is acceptable is if it is on part of which is designated a cycle path. If it isn't, get on the road.
    philthy3 wrote:
    It's the frigging law unfortunately. Strewth. MTFU and get off the pavement.
    philthy3 wrote:
    Within the law is acceptable or is that too difficult for you to understand? If you don't like the rules, bugger off elsewhere.
    philthy3 wrote:
    ...if you aren't confident enough to get on the road or too young, then use the park or push it until you reach a designated cycle route. This is one copper who doesn't show any discretion with regards to cycling on the pavement other than not issuing a FPN. A bollocking will suffice.

    The trouble with such an entrenched position, is that you can't retract it without looking like a fool.

    I simply cannot believe that you cannot think of a single situation where it would be acceptable for a cyclist to ride on the pavement, ever, for any reason. It's beyond logic or credibility and I don't think even you believe it.
  • StillGoing
    StillGoing Posts: 5,211
    It's simple; I don't agree with cycling on the pavement. If that irritates you then so be it. I have no desire to retract what has already been said and as this is now boring the pants off of every other member of this board, I'll leave it at that. Ride safe.
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • Pokerface
    Pokerface Posts: 7,960
    I don't stop at red lights in my car in the middle of the night if there is no traffic around. Perfectly acceptable I feel.