Stupid idea?
Comments
-
Slowbike wrote:
Glad you see it so black and white ...gtvlusso wrote:Yeah - it is a stupid idea;
Pavements are a safe haven for all types of pedestrian; kids, little children, pets, buggies - it is where we teach road safety and road awareness to children - don't f*cking ride on the f*cking pavements......whether it is legal or not - anyone who rides on the pavement is a cnut and should have their feet cut off, IMHO.
Is there not a 1/2way house here?
Built up areas with homes/shops & pavements = no cycling unless marked as shared resource. This is where you're likely to get your kids, pets, buggies etc ...
Away from these areas the pavement traffic is far less and with vehicles often being delimited there is an argument that it is safer for the slower cyclist to be out of their way ...
How many here would admit to riding on a pavement occasionally? I do. You might say it's selfish, but if I haven't inconvenienced anyone then why does it matter?
It is black and white.
The law currently says 'don't ride on the pavement'. Most cyclists will say 'don't ride on the pavement, it gives cyclists a bad name'. All pedestrians would say ' don't ride on the pavement, you might hurt someone'. If you don't feel safe riding on the road, then don't ride a bike at all....consider walking or the bus.
Pavement: legs
Road: Wheels
Don't ride on the damn pavement!0 -
legalise drink driving, with the proviso that, in any incident, it is assumed the drunk driver's fault unless assumed otherwise!
yup, stupid, a very likely next step is that any accident involving cyclists on the road will be contrib. negligence by the cyclist at least if the pavement is available. Pavement cyclists are already going to be liable for collisions so legalising would only make it worse.
The fact that police have the power of discretion, so can let younguns off the hook rather than forcing them to cycle on a busy road, is good enough. Ideally they'd be on the road too, but asking 5 year olds to mix it with a stream of 40-50mph traffic is ridiculous, denying them independent mobility is horrific, and the policitical will to put in decent cycle lanes/paths isn't there, so sometimes it's the least bad option.0 -
Someone at work said about riding on pavements was a good idea. Forget about hitting peds for a second, but dropping up and down kerbs, riding across junctions and as a person mentioned earlier, leaving a house or driveway. Surely thats asking for more close calls..
Road is much safer!0 -
The law says its ok to ride on a pavement that has been designated a cyclepath - these look and feel exactly the same as many more remote pavements.gtvlusso wrote:Slowbike wrote:
Glad you see it so black and white ...gtvlusso wrote:Yeah - it is a stupid idea;
Pavements are a safe haven for all types of pedestrian; kids, little children, pets, buggies - it is where we teach road safety and road awareness to children - don't f*cking ride on the f*cking pavements......whether it is legal or not - anyone who rides on the pavement is a cnut and should have their feet cut off, IMHO.
Is there not a 1/2way house here?
Built up areas with homes/shops & pavements = no cycling unless marked as shared resource. This is where you're likely to get your kids, pets, buggies etc ...
Away from these areas the pavement traffic is far less and with vehicles often being delimited there is an argument that it is safer for the slower cyclist to be out of their way ...
How many here would admit to riding on a pavement occasionally? I do. You might say it's selfish, but if I haven't inconvenienced anyone then why does it matter?
It is black and white.
The law currently says 'don't ride on the pavement'. Most cyclists will say 'don't ride on the pavement, it gives cyclists a bad name'. All pedestrians would say ' don't ride on the pavement, you might hurt someone'. If you don't feel safe riding on the road, then don't ride a bike at all....consider walking or the bus.
Pavement: legs
Road: Wheels
Don't ride on the damn pavement!
If by riding on the otherwise deserted pavement you are not causing an obstruction for traffic then I can't see a downside.0 -
Yep. When a fool on an MTB rode slap into me on the pavement. Before I let him up off the ground he was put straight as to where he should be riding.Feltup wrote:BTW has anyone been brave enough to tell someone to get off the pavement?
If there is a wide pavement, then draw a line down it and make it shared use by all means, but these are usually terrible to ride on, extremely bumpy and I'll stay at just over walking pace until I can get back on the road. I use one on my commute, but I wouldn't ride a roadie down it, it would be a killer! The hybrids 32mm tyres make it tolerable, but no more than that.
It's a very bad idea BTW
0 -
Stupid idea.
But I have to admit, I think it's the sort of thing that should be given some degree of latitude. Eg out of my house I go straight up a long steep hill out of the village. It's steep enough that plenty of people will take a fair, wobbly time to get up it and there is plenty of traffic on the road in the morning and they do often give insufficient space on passing (in a hurry as they are to joing the queue at the roundabout at the top....)
Most cyclists I see climbing that hill do so on the pavement. The pavement is also straight and from the edge of the village to the top there are no houses or side turnings - it is lined by a stone wall all the way. The cyclists climb the hill probably at barely 5mph. Pedestrians seen on the route include the odd jogger and occasional school children but you'll see both from a long way off.
I think legal pavement riding is a stupid idea but I think enforcement of riding in the road in this circumstance would be counter productive. Clearly the cyclists I see are nervous about keeping their line on a busy road and choose therefore to use a barely used footpath - I can sympathise with that.
If an uncompromising line is taken, then really those found at fault shouldn't be fined but taught some cycle-craft so that they feel that they can ride on the road there in future.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rolf F wrote:Stupid idea.
But I have to admit, I think it's the sort of thing that should be given some degree of latitude. Eg out of my house I go straight up a long steep hill out of the village. It's steep enough that plenty of people will take a fair, wobbly time to get up it and there is plenty of traffic on the road in the morning and they do often give insufficient space on passing (in a hurry as they are to joing the queue at the roundabout at the top....)
Most cyclists I see climbing that hill do so on the pavement. The pavement is also straight and from the edge of the village to the top there are no houses or side turnings - it is lined by a stone wall all the way. The cyclists climb the hill probably at barely 5mph. Pedestrians seen on the route include the odd jogger and occasional school children but you'll see both from a long way off.
I think legal pavement riding is a stupid idea but I think enforcement of riding in the road in this circumstance would be counter productive. Clearly the cyclists I see are nervous about keeping their line on a busy road and choose therefore to use a barely used footpath - I can sympathise with that.
If an uncompromising line is taken, then really those found at fault shouldn't be fined but taught some cycle-craft so that they feel that they can ride on the road there in future.
Your example of a steep hill with a barely used pavement is a classic example of a situation where it may be sensible for the cyclist to take to the pavement.
I suppose the difficulty is in identification of when it would be more advisable to ride at a sensible speed on the pavement - one mans of what is acceptable would be different to the next.
Another difficulty is that legalising pavement riding would encourage those (few) motorists to shout at us more about getting in their way - because we "should be on the pavement" ..
So - I don't think it's a stupid idea - just not currently practical!
ps I rode all the way to work and didn't ride on the pavement once ... 0 -
Slowbike wrote:The law says its ok to ride on a pavement that has been designated a cyclepath - these look and feel exactly the same as many more remote pavements.
If by riding on the otherwise deserted pavement you are not causing an obstruction for traffic then I can't see a downside.
Then that's a shared cyclepath!!! Not a pavement!!
So, to sum up:
Pavement: legs
Road: Wheels
Shared Cyclepath: wheels and legs - legs have priority.
The downside is that by riding on any pavement, you tarnish the good name of other cyclists who go out of their way to be good citizens, safe and follow the rules and be civil to the rest of society. However, by riding on the pavement you simply re-inforce a really bad stereotype that the public has; that cyclists are rule breaking morons who don't give a f*ck about anyone else or what is safe.....so, thanks for that.0 -
gtvlusso wrote:Slowbike wrote:The law says its ok to ride on a pavement that has been designated a cyclepath - these look and feel exactly the same as many more remote pavements.
If by riding on the otherwise deserted pavement you are not causing an obstruction for traffic then I can't see a downside.
Then that's a shared cyclepath!!! Not a pavement!!
So, to sum up:
Pavement: legs
Road: Wheels
Shared Cyclepath: wheels and legs - legs have priority.
The downside is that by riding on any pavement, you tarnish the good name of other cyclists who go out of their way to be good citizens, safe and follow the rules and be civil to the rest of society. However, by riding on the pavement you simply re-inforce a really bad stereotype that the public has; that cyclists are rule breaking morons who don't give a f*ck about anyone else or what is safe.....so, thanks for that.
So - the motorist on the dual carriageway with a path just over the verge - he knows it's a pavement and not a cyclepath? - does he care? No - not really ... he just zips past at 70 and probably hasn't even seen the cyclist riding on an otherwise empty bit of tarmacked ground...
The only time ppl seem to be bothered is when cyclists come into friction with other users ... be that pedestrians or drivers ... or when they ride inconsiderately ...
As I said - a footpath and cyclepath often look identical ... so as long as it is prudent to use it and its ridden with greater consideration for other users I'm not bothered ... nor are the Police most of the time ...
Do you want to get off your horse now? Perhaps you can start living in the real world - where we are in full colour ...0 -
Slowbike wrote:gtvlusso wrote:Slowbike wrote:The law says its ok to ride on a pavement that has been designated a cyclepath - these look and feel exactly the same as many more remote pavements.
If by riding on the otherwise deserted pavement you are not causing an obstruction for traffic then I can't see a downside.
Then that's a shared cyclepath!!! Not a pavement!!
So, to sum up:
Pavement: legs
Road: Wheels
Shared Cyclepath: wheels and legs - legs have priority.
The downside is that by riding on any pavement, you tarnish the good name of other cyclists who go out of their way to be good citizens, safe and follow the rules and be civil to the rest of society. However, by riding on the pavement you simply re-inforce a really bad stereotype that the public has; that cyclists are rule breaking morons who don't give a f*ck about anyone else or what is safe.....so, thanks for that.
So - the motorist on the dual carriageway with a path just over the verge - he knows it's a pavement and not a cyclepath? - does he care? No - not really ... he just zips past at 70 and probably hasn't even seen the cyclist riding on an otherwise empty bit of tarmacked ground...
The only time ppl seem to be bothered is when cyclists come into friction with other users ... be that pedestrians or drivers ... or when they ride inconsiderately ...
As I said - a footpath and cyclepath often look identical ... so as long as it is prudent to use it and its ridden with greater consideration for other users I'm not bothered ... nor are the Police most of the time ...
Do you want to get off your horse now? Perhaps you can start living in the real world - where we are in full colour ...
I will dismount my steed when you stop being an idiot and ride on the road or shared cyclepath, where you should, legally and morally be.....There is no excuse for riding on the pavement/footpath at all, ever.
Lets clarify this a bit further and collate the terms; footpath and pavement, as being pedestrian only;
Footpath (referred to as pavement in my posts): legs only
Shared footpath/cyclepath: legs and wheels (legs have priority)
Road: Wheels
It is basic....Don't ride on the pavement/footpath.
If you don't have the confidence on the road, then I would advise not riding a bike - go and play tennis or something.0 -
The only time ppl seem to be bothered is when cyclists come into friction with other users ... be that pedestrians or drivers .....or when they ride inconsiderately ...
As I said - a footpath and cyclepath often look identical ... so as long as it is prudent to use it and its ridden with greater consideration for other users I'm not bothered
The thing is, riding inconsiderately would be perfectly legal under the original suggestion. As long as you don't hit anyone.
Would you want the same rule on the roads?0 -
What - nobody? Even a 5 yo? Blimey - you're harsh!gtvlusso wrote:There is no excuse for riding on the pavement/footpath at all, ever.
It's basic - the difference between a footpath and a shared path or cyclepath is most often signage.gtvlusso wrote:Lets clarify this a bit further and collate the terms; footpath and pavement, as being pedestrian only;
Footpath (referred to as pavement in my posts): legs only
Shared footpath/cyclepath: legs and wheels (legs have priority)
Road: Wheels
It is basic....Don't ride on the pavement/footpath.
and even some roads are no better !!
I have plenty of confidence in my ability to handle a bike. It's not about confidence in MY ability - it's confidence in the unknown driver's ability.gtvlusso wrote:If you don't have the confidence on the road, then I would advise not riding a bike - go and play tennis or something.
I (and many others) would consider riding a footpath IF the road conditions were such that it was deemed necessary or possibly just advisable ... and then riding style would change to suit the locality (ie slow up!)
Your black and white view is quite incredible - have you NEVER EVER broken a law ... EVER?
Laws are all well and good - but even they're not always black and white - thats why we have to have courts - to decide if a law has really been broken - and how many ways are there of breaking a law but not being punished?
I said above that I don't think it would be practical to legalise "riding on the pavement" however, I still have yet to be convinced that nobody should ever ride on a pavement ...
So - perhaps you could enlighten me - on this hypothetical busy dual carriageway with a footpath running beside - no junctions/entrances - visibly clear of pedestrians - just why a 10-15mph cyclist SHOULDN'T ride on the footpath rather than down the road where there are cars and lorries all doing 4 - 5 times their speed.
Is it dangerous for the cyclist? Well - they might encounter more rubbish and have a bumpier ride - chance of punctures or being thrown off ... so cycle more slowly and have a good set of tyres
Is it dangerous for the pedestrian? We've already established there aren't any. With no entrances/junctions either there's little chance of there being any for the duration. And if they do appear then it's easy to stop in time.
Is it dangerous for the vehicles? What - removing an obstruction from the road - how is that dangerous?
The only "danger" is for the cyclist - a potentially higher risk of an uneven ride and puncture vs high speed vehicles - I know which I'd choose!
So, other than the "law" ... just what are your issues with it?0 -
Slowbike wrote:
What - nobody? Even a 5 yo? Blimey - you're harsh!gtvlusso wrote:There is no excuse for riding on the pavement/footpath at all, ever.
It's basic - the difference between a footpath and a shared path or cyclepath is most often signage.gtvlusso wrote:Lets clarify this a bit further and collate the terms; footpath and pavement, as being pedestrian only;
Footpath (referred to as pavement in my posts): legs only
Shared footpath/cyclepath: legs and wheels (legs have priority)
Road: Wheels
It is basic....Don't ride on the pavement/footpath.
and even some roads are no better !!
I have plenty of confidence in my ability to handle a bike. It's not about confidence in MY ability - it's confidence in the unknown driver's ability.gtvlusso wrote:If you don't have the confidence on the road, then I would advise not riding a bike - go and play tennis or something.
I (and many others) would consider riding a footpath IF the road conditions were such that it was deemed necessary or possibly just advisable ... and then riding style would change to suit the locality (ie slow up!)
Your black and white view is quite incredible - have you NEVER EVER broken a law ... EVER?
Laws are all well and good - but even they're not always black and white - thats why we have to have courts - to decide if a law has really been broken - and how many ways are there of breaking a law but not being punished?
I said above that I don't think it would be practical to legalise "riding on the pavement" however, I still have yet to be convinced that nobody should ever ride on a pavement ...
So - perhaps you could enlighten me - on this hypothetical busy dual carriageway with a footpath running beside - no junctions/entrances - visibly clear of pedestrians - just why a 10-15mph cyclist SHOULDN'T ride on the footpath rather than down the road where there are cars and lorries all doing 4 - 5 times their speed.
Is it dangerous for the cyclist? Well - they might encounter more rubbish and have a bumpier ride - chance of punctures or being thrown off ... so cycle more slowly and have a good set of tyres
Is it dangerous for the pedestrian? We've already established there aren't any. With no entrances/junctions either there's little chance of there being any for the duration. And if they do appear then it's easy to stop in time.
Is it dangerous for the vehicles? What - removing an obstruction from the road - how is that dangerous?
The only "danger" is for the cyclist - a potentially higher risk of an uneven ride and puncture vs high speed vehicles - I know which I'd choose!
So, other than the "law" ... just what are your issues with it?
I can't be bothered to read the utter b*ll*cks you have written; Don't ride on the footpath/pavement - Let that be the end of it.
Please stop posting on here as you do not qualify as a 'cyclist' if you ride on the footpath or pavement - don't associate yourself with all the good people on here who keep it safe and give cyclists a good name.
**If you, for example, ran over my 2.5 year old daughter, because you were riding on the footpath/pavement and she appeared; charging out of our blind alleyway at the side of our house - I would not be responsible for my actions. As stated previously - the footpath is provided a safe haven for kids, children, buggies, pets being walked, it is not for bicycles - peds can appear out of nowhere; blind or unseen alleyways, perpendicular paths that are overgrown that lead onto the pavement...anywhere. Kids learn road safety from the footpath, they know that if they cross the road - the safe place for them to be is the pavement - not safe with some idiot on a bike flying down it.....HOW THE F*CK ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO LEARN WHERE THEY CAN AND CANNOT BE WITH THE LIKES OF YOU FLYING ABOUT ON THE PAVEMENT.
Sounds like you need to MTFU - I use a dual carraigeway most days on a fixie.....
**we are not talking about kids/children cycling, we are talking about grown adults cycling on the pavement (I assume you are over 18), so, I suggest you grow up and grow a pair.
**I assume you are cool with cars driving on the pavement and peds walking down motorways?
Law or not, it is a stupid thing to do and not safe.0 -
Ahem
http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/433/cycli ... pavements/Cycling on pavements is often a significant local issue. In response the government passed law enabling fixed ticket penalties to be issues. The then home minister,r Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that: issues a letter about enforcement:
“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.” [1. bike hub]
Similar advice has been giving to police and community support officers that tickets should be given with a considerable degree of discretion, bearing in mind there is a large practical difference between a young children cycling slowly along a road to avoid a dangerous crossing, and an older person riding aggressively on pavement putting people at risk.
Standard middle-Britain getting all uptight about something that shouldn't really be an issue.FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
jds_1981 wrote:Ahem
http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/433/cycli ... pavements/Cycling on pavements is often a significant local issue. In response the government passed law enabling fixed ticket penalties to be issues. The then home minister,r Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that: issues a letter about enforcement:
“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.” [1. bike hub]
Similar advice has been giving to police and community support officers that tickets should be given with a considerable degree of discretion, bearing in mind there is a large practical difference between a young children cycling slowly along a road to avoid a dangerous crossing, and an older person riding aggressively on pavement putting people at risk.
Standard middle-Britain getting all uptight about something that shouldn't really be an issue.
Quite!
But apparently I don't qualify as a cyclist as "I ride on a pavements" and "knock a 2.5year olds over - whilst they are charging out of a blind alleyways" ...
Despite the fact that I never said I rode on those types of pavements or that I rode without due care and consideration ...
but if some twots can't actually read beyond "ride on pavement" then perhaps they are not intelligent enough to raise children ...
@GTVLUSSO - RTFP ... and if you can't be bothered then you can hardly have a valid opinion of it's contents - it's not difficult is it .. or perhaps it is - for you ...0 -
jds_1981 wrote:
I've just read the article - it mirrors my view of pavement use ..
Interesting responses - egWell, if you ever cycle past me on a pavement, I’ll do my best to push you right back into the road, where you belong. Pavement cycling is dangerous, anti-social and the people who do it tend to be thick and aggressive.
Now nice - an "illegal act" results in quite probable ABH ..
All those against bikes on the pavement seem to think that we condone cyclists sprinting along narrow residential pavements with children playing, cars reversing, old people walking and mums with pushchairs ... when nothing could be further from the truth!
They need to open their minds a bit and look at what is REASONABLE.
Do these people need law, rules and regulations to live their whole life for them? Do they lack the ability to see what is and isn't' acceptable ? Who do they think make the laws to start with? God like creatures - or is it really just other people - like you and I ... people who have an understanding of what is reasonable behaviour and what isn't ..
No you don't want all cyclists tearing up and down pavements with no regard for other users, but equally there are situations where it is more sensible for the cyclist to use the pavement - and as long as they do so sensibly then the law is not interested.0 -
No, you don't qualify as a cyclist if you ride on the pavement....The pavement remains pavement, whether it is used by peds or not, no matter where it is in the UK - the definition remains; Pavement: Pedestrians - it is a constant. There is no 'yeah, but.....' It is still a f*cking pavement and the law is still applicable to it as is the scenarios mentioned.
So, if a pavement has no peds on it and is in a rural area, can I drive my car along it?
In my world, the answer is:
No, because it is stupid and not safe - The road is where a car should be - I would not be able to account for something unexpected happening that could cause life changing injuries to an innocent party - legal issues aside, could you live with yourself?
In your world, the answer is:
Yes, because there are no peds and it is somewhere where I won't be caught.
And questioning my ability to raise children is not called for at all in this debate - at all, please retract the personal stuff, it is not fair and I have 3 kids anyway.
"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"
So, as a seasoned commuter, yourself, posting on a cycling forum, you class yourself as 'afraid to cycle on the road' do you?
Is that why you do it - a bit scared is fine, but you SHOULD be on the road with the rest of us.....If we can do it, then I am sure that you can.
@ over 17 + years of cycle racing and cycle commuting in various countries, you are probably right - my opinion is not valid ;-)
Grow up....0 -
Slowbike wrote:No you don't want all cyclists tearing up and down pavements with no regard for other users, but equally there are situations where it is more sensible for the cyclist to use the pavement - and as long as they do so sensibly then the law is not interested.
I still don't see it. I can't remember the last time I rode on the pavement which means that in my opinion the road has always been a better option. I'll sometimes modify my route; for example the first time I rode in to London from the west I used the A40, but every time since I used the A4020 as it's more suitable, I can't imagine a time when I'll modify my route so much that I'll chose pavement over the road.
Don't think I'm some die hard follower of rules and regulations though... my driving licence has had more points than the Team GB Archery Squad and just yesterday I hurt someones feelings.
Also, the law is interested, maybe not very often but I'd be willing to bet that those "cyclists" fined for riding on the pavement in Oxford last week were just riding and not "tearing up and down" pavements.'12 CAAD 8 Tiagra0 -
Shouldn't it be down to councils to provide better/more cycle/shared-use paths?
That way, the wide, empty pavement near the busy DC gets a line or kerb down the middle and a sign showing bikes are allowed to be there.
Cyclists can be out of the traffic if they want to be, drivers don't get the right to shout that we should always be on the pavement and pedestrians can use 'their' side of the path in safety.0 -
gtvlusso wrote:No, you don't qualify as a cyclist if you ride on the pavement....The pavement remains pavement, whether it is used by peds or not, no matter where it is in the UK - the definition remains; Pavement: Pedestrians - it is a constant. There is no 'yeah, but.....' It is still a f*cking pavement and the law is still applicable to it as is the scenarios mentioned.
No need to swear.
There are a lot of places where there aren't specific laws against cycling on paths. e.g. generally where not next to a road. As you can imagine things don't suddenly become more or less dangerous away from roads or because a path has been marked as mixed use.
The justification for this must then surely be that if there is a road available then it's preferable for the cyclist to be on that - hence the fpn. However, if it increases the convenience for cyclists - a route away from roads - then the increase in danger to pedestrians is so little it is reasonable to allow them to mix.
Following on from this, I don't think people should get so wound up about the whole matter.FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
jds_1981 wrote:<snip>
Following on from this, I don't think people should get so wound up about the whole matter.
I think they're channeling the spirit of DDD - exorcycling as it were
Spinning cranks rather than spinning heads though.Chunky Cyclists need your love too! :-)
2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
2011 Trek Madone 4.5
2012 Felt F65X
Proud CX Pervert and quiet roadie. 12 mile commuter0 -
So - the police don't worry about it - but you will ... ok ..gtvlusso wrote:There is no 'yeah, but.....' It is still a f*cking pavement and the law is still applicable to it as is the scenarios mentioned.
Well duh - it's not wide enough for a start .. but if you don't realise that then perhaps you shouldn't be on the road ..gtvlusso wrote:So, if a pavement has no peds on it and is in a rural area, can I drive my car along it?
I never specified you - IMO there is nothing personal to retract.gtvlusso wrote:And questioning my ability to raise children is not called for at all in this debate - at all, please retract the personal stuff, it is not fair and I have 3 kids anyway.
Not for my regular commute no - I cross a pavement as I leave my house and don't come across another till I return home.gtvlusso wrote:"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"
So, as a seasoned commuter, yourself, posting on a cycling forum, you class yourself as 'afraid to cycle on the road' do you?
I'll tell you where I did "ride on the pavement" the other day though - it was beside a busy dual carriageway during rushhour ... I needed to get 1/2way along the stretch and there is a pavement that runs alongside. I joined at the point of a roundabout - 2 lanes of traffic coming on at 4 points - and I would've been heading long the road close by cars trying to transit the bypass quickly.
It's really not a good place to cycle - but there is no other way of getting to the place I had to get to.
I rode slowly and met not one pedestrian ..
I could've got off and walked - it was what .. 2-300 meters ? but nobody met, nobody hurt, nobody inconvenienced - report it to the police if you like - I'm sure they'll be interested.
A bit scared? When there is no need to put yourself in danger then why do it? I'm sure you're right - I just hope you're never Dead Right.gtvlusso wrote:Is that why you do it - a bit scared is fine, but you SHOULD be on the road with the rest of us.....If we can do it, then I am sure that you can.
I don't cycle race - never felt the urge ... ridden a fair bit thoughgtvlusso wrote:@ over 17 + years of cycle racing and cycle commuting in various countries, you are probably right - my opinion is not valid ;-)
No thanks - I'm old enough already.gtvlusso wrote:Grow up....0 -
- blah blah blah - who were you responding to then?!?!? Coward.....slowbike wrote:I never specified you - IMO there is nothing personal to retract
I will be safe in the knowledge that I make my own choices in life and did the RIGHT thing - my soul is prepared, is yours? (Spot the quote?)slowbike wrote:When there is no need to put yourself in danger then why do it? I'm sure you're right - I just hope you're never Dead Right.
And which one of your 'quippy' responses is an actual answer? I'll tell ya' - Not one.
Man up - ride on the road, ride on the dual carraigeway, be attentive (the rest of us manage just fine in all sorts of places and conditions, see posts on this thread - so why don't you?) or walk on the pavement with your bike if the road worries you - it is still that simple. Hopefully a fine upstanding person in uniform will tap you on the shoulder and issue a lovely fine and some friendly, but firm advice if you are ever caught - but thats the thing isn't it;
Riding on the pavement is still illegal - regardless of place/time or anything.....And it still makes cyclists look bad, regardless of place/time or anything - but you don't care about this, this is all about you being a bit sneaky, tenuously trying to justify something that is factually illegal and factually unsafe for others.
Or another cyclists riding by will tell you to MTFU - which is far worse than a fine form the Police.
don't ride on the damn pavement!!!!!!0 -
jds_1981 wrote:gtvlusso wrote:No, you don't qualify as a cyclist if you ride on the pavement....The pavement remains pavement, whether it is used by peds or not, no matter where it is in the UK - the definition remains; Pavement: Pedestrians - it is a constant. There is no 'yeah, but.....' It is still a f*cking pavement and the law is still applicable to it as is the scenarios mentioned.
No need to swear.
There are a lot of places where there aren't specific laws against cycling on paths. e.g. generally where not next to a road. As you can imagine things don't suddenly become more or less dangerous away from roads or because a path has been marked as mixed use.
The justification for this must then surely be that if there is a road available then it's preferable for the cyclist to be on that - hence the fpn. However, if it increases the convenience for cyclists - a route away from roads - then the increase in danger to pedestrians is so little it is reasonable to allow them to mix.
Following on from this, I don't think people should get so wound up about the whole matter.
Apologies - I should not cuss.
The reason that this winds me up so much is that I have dived out of the way coming out of my own damn house onto the pavement because of some nutter flying down the pavement on a bike- we even had the buggy knocked into by a guy riding on a pavement in the middle of the night, no traffic about (trying to get junior mk1 to sleep - if you have kids you will know the midnight run....).....as I turned out of an alleyway onto the pavement, he was flying along the pavement.....he didn't stop and had no lights.
I have even had a lady run into the open door of our car, pavement side as junior was getting out - the lady turned out to be bankrupt and it cost me a new rear door on a Audi (very long time ago) - not cheap.
Whatever time of day, wherever you are; ride on the road. If you are not sure, get off, and walk with your bike on the pavement.....0 -
Ok - last question - because I really don't think you get it ...
You've got 3 kids right? ... I assume you've taught them to ride bikes ..
when they were learning - did they ride on the pavement?0 -
Slowbike wrote:Ok - last question - because I really don't think you get it ...
You've got 3 kids right? ... I assume you've taught them to ride bikes ..
when they were learning - did they ride on the pavement?
Oh - I get it - you think that it is okay to ride on the pavement if no one else is there and you won't be caught. No, it is not alright IMHO - hence why everyone on this thread said 'yes, this is a stupid idea'....
Are you seriously comparing yourself to a 5 year old? So, you know no better than a 5 year old - come on....thats lame, really lame and low. Don't associate yourself with children/kids....are they really cyclists, as you claim to be? Or just kids on bikes?
We are talking about adult commuters using pavements.......or did I miss something?
Don't weasel out of this one.....
**Irrelevant fact; My kids learned in the local park, which was 2 mins walk from the house, well 2 of them did - 2.5 junior mk3 is far too young, the trike is starting to be used.0 -
But that comes down to some people being idiots in general. Kicking that guy in the balls would have probably done more for 'society' than just repeatedly telling slowbike (who at least seems to be attempting to come across as reasonable) to ride on the road.FCN 9 || FCN 50
-
gtvlusso wrote:Slowbike wrote:Ok - last question - because I really don't think you get it ...
You've got 3 kids right? ... I assume you've taught them to ride bikes ..
when they were learning - did they ride on the pavement?
Are you seriously comparing yourself to a 5 year old? So, you know no better than a 5 year old - come on....thats lame, really lame and low. Don't associate yourself with children/kids....are they really cyclists, as you claim to be? Or just kids on bikes?
We are talking about adult commuters using pavements.......or did I miss something?
Don't weasel out of this one.....
**My kids learned in the local park, 2 mins walk from the house, well 2 of them did - 2.5 junior mk3 is far too young, the trike is starting to be used.
I'm not weaselling at all - the OPs question was if cycling on pavements should be legalised as it is a law that is largely ignored ..
I've tried to show you the grey areas of pavement/shared path - but you've point blanked refused to see the similarities ...
Now I question your kids riding - and you now come up with a difference of a cyclist and child riding a bike ...
Surely it's black and white isn't it? It's got wheels - it should be on the road ... except you and I both accept that it's not sensible for a child to ride on the road ...
But you didn't answer - have your kids ridden on the pavement? If you don't want to answer that - did you - as a child ride on the pavement? ... Remember - it's illegal to do so ... that's what the law says.0
