Stupid idea?
Comments
-
Slowbike wrote:Ok so a child doesn't have road awareness - so I assume that once they do they should always ride on the road - what about an adult who hasn't learnt to ride or drive ?
Walk, get the bus or swim (in some parts of the UK recently)
One more time....
'As an adult; do you believe that it is okay for you, on your commute, to ride on the pavement/footpath? Yes or no?
You can still change you answer from 'No', if you wish.0 -
You don't appear to understand the question yourself so why should I give you the answer you so desperately crave?
It's illegal to eat mince pies on Christmas day - makes no sense to us and the law is not enforced - can you not grasp the simple concept of the grey areas of our legal system ?0 -
Slowbike wrote:You don't appear to understand the question yourself so why should I give you the answer you so desperately crave?
It's illegal to eat mince pies on Christmas day - makes no sense to us and the law is not enforced - can you not grasp the simple concept of the grey areas of our legal system ?
Legality aside, we all understand that riding on the pavement is illegal - point of the thread; as you have stated, it is rarely enforced anyhow;
The question, slowbike, is:
'As an adult; do you believe that it is okay for you, on your commute, to ride on the pavement/footpath? Yes or no?
You can still change you answer from 'No', if you wish.
**You have had ample opportunity to answer a straight question** I will not judge you on your answer. The debate will end on reply with your answer - either way.0 -
So our legal system chooses not to enforce a law to the letter - but you want us to obey it to the letter - except for kids.gtvlusso wrote:Slowbike wrote:You don't appear to understand the question yourself so why should I give you the answer you so desperately crave?
It's illegal to eat mince pies on Christmas day - makes no sense to us and the law is not enforced - can you not grasp the simple concept of the grey areas of our legal system ?
Legality aside, we all understand that riding on the pavement is illegal - point of the thread; as you have stated, it is rarely enforced anyhow;
I really can't follow your logic - probably because there isn't any.
Do you always do exactly as you're told?0 -
Slowbike wrote:So our legal system chooses not to enforce a law to the letter - but you want us to obey it to the letter - except for kids.
I really can't follow your logic - probably because there isn't any.
Do you always do exactly as you're told?
This is not about kids, you are not a kid; this is about adults on bikes on footpaths/pavements - I refer you to my previous comment and the comments criminal age of responsibility.
When it tarnishes other peoples reputation and safety - yes I do what I am told and what is safe. I was a confirmed red light jumper, people on this forum persuaded me otherwise, I listened and understood that it was not just because I could jump the light or deemed it safe for me to jump the light; people did not like it because it hurt the good name of other cyclists who did obey the law and it really annoys other road users when cyclists jump lights;
So, the question still stands;
'As an adult; do you believe that it is okay for you, on your commute, to ride on the pavement/footpath? Yes or no?
You can still change you answer from 'No', if you wish.0 -
gtvlusso wrote:
Then yes, it is a cycleway/cyclepath/shared cyclepath and not a pavement, are you retarded or something!?!?!?! We are talking about pavements/footpaths - peds only?!?!?
If it is acceptable to cycle on a path, it should be acceptable to cycle on a functionally identical pavement - being illegal does not make an act immoral, only the other way around*. So unless there are no cyclepaths identical to pavements, either some cyclepaths are immoral to cycle on or some pavements are moral to.
*except possibly where everyone agrees that a convention is important - e.g. driving on the right (here anyway) is immoral because we rely on everyone driving on the left, not because left is inherently a better option - but even then it is the "not following the convention" that is immoral, it just so happens the convention is a legal one.gtvlusso wrote:the more we stick to the rules and the more that we show tolerance, the better we will be treated..........Jeez (get my Mr Grumpy shirt out...)
said no sociologist, ever. Did you not see that auto express thing? If people want to bash a group they'll just make up rules for that group to not stick to.
<devil's advocate> Arguably pavement riding (legal or not) would be quite effective, if twattish, in getting decent segregated paths built as then pedestrians would want the paths too, if only to get the damn cyclists away from them.
</devil's advocate>
FWIW I still think it's a stupid idea.0 -
So, you chose to break the law - I don't know what red lights you jumped so I'm going to assume it was junction lights with traffic - other road users around.gtvlusso wrote:Slowbike wrote:So our legal system chooses not to enforce a law to the letter - but you want us to obey it to the letter - except for kids.
I really can't follow your logic - probably because there isn't any.
Do you always do exactly as you're told?
This is not about kids, you are not a kid; this is about adults on bikes on footpaths/pavements - I refer you to my previous comment and the comments criminal age of responsibility.
When it tarnishes other peoples reputation and safety - yes I do what I am told and what is safe. I was a confirmed red light jumper, people on this forum persuaded me otherwise, I listened and understood that it was not just because I could jump the light or deemed it safe for me to jump the light; people did not like it because it hurt the good name of other cyclists who did obey the law and it really annoys other road users when cyclists jump lights;
So, the question still stands;
'As an adult; do you believe that it is okay for you, on your commute, to ride on the pavement/footpath? Yes or no?
You can still change you answer from 'No', if you wish.
Now you're the new evangelist? You want to enforce a law that the countries law enforcers don't ?
Better hide those mince pies on Christmas day.0 -
Slowbike wrote:So, you chose to break the law - I don't know what red lights you jumped so I'm going to assume it was junction lights with traffic - other road users around.
Now you're the new evangelist? You want to enforce a law that the countries law enforcers don't ?
Better hide those mince pies on Christmas day.
No, I want you to to squirm a bit more before Christmas.
Yes, I was reborn, I listened to other people and agreed that I was wrong. I had jumped lights for years in various countries as pretty much a lone rider - however, cycling has boomed with fuel price hikes and i understood that the actions of one, affect all of us - I am bright enough to understand and adapt - watching you scrabble for excuses is far more fun that listening to this conf call.
So, the question still stands;
'As an adult; do you believe that it is okay for you, on your commute, to ride on the pavement/footpath? Yes or no?
You can still change you answer from 'No', if you wish.0 -
So you're happy now you no longer break the law. Good for you. But are you still eating mince pies on Christmas day?
It affects us all you know - even though we've never met and the only people that see you eat them are your family - its still wrong so I trust you are going to see the error of your ways and stop. It's the law you know.0 -
Slowbike wrote:So you're happy now you no longer break the law. Good for you. But are you still eating mince pies on Christmas day?
It affects us all you know - even though we've never met and the only people that see you eat them are your family - its still wrong so I trust you are going to see the error of your ways and stop. It's the law you know.
Legalities aside, we have covered this already, do not try and hide behind this, we know it is illegal, we know that kids will do what they feel safe doing and what is right to do with kids and their lack of awareness - but this is a question about you and your commute - are you man enough to answer?:
The question, to you, still stands;
'As an adult; do you believe that it is okay for you, on your commute, to ride on the pavement/footpath? Yes or no?
You can still change you answer from 'No', if you wish.
Well, do you punk? Do you? (you are not a punk, but can you spot the quote...?)0 -
lets make this a little easier for you;
I will give you my answer to this:
'As an adult; do you believe that it is okay for you, on your commute, to ride on the pavement/footpath? Yes or no?
No, I do not believe that it is okay for me to ride on the pavement as an adult.
Why, I hear you shout! Because it is not where I should be as a cyclist. I should be on the road. I am too fast for the pavement, I would not be able to stop if someone came out of nowhere in front of me. I would be beyond upset if I hurt someone because I was on the pavement. It tarnishes the name of my fellow cyclists, who do make a considerable effort to be classified as good road and street users.0 -
Are you still up?
The police don't take issue with it, the courts don't. The government don't but you seem to want to?
Are you our new legal enforcer? What are you going to do? Ask the same question over and over until you can triumphantly break their will power?
Sad muppet!!0 -
Slowbike wrote:Are you still up?
The police don't take issue with it, the courts don't. The government don't but you seem to want to?
Are you our new legal enforcer? What are you going to do? Ask the same question over and over until you can triumphantly break their will power?
Sad muppet!!
I am still working; my wife's insistence on a new Mercedes forces 'sad muppetry' to be able to afford life's luxuries.
It is enforced, occasionally, and a fine is issued; happens where I live and we have signs sating that it is enforced on some streets. I will grant you that it is not enforced often, this is not about legality - we all know that it is illegal - but this is not the point; the point is that you seem unable to answer a straight question:
'As an adult; do you believe that it is okay for you, on your commute, to ride on the pavement/footpath? Yes or no?
You have answered in the negative once, but I am giving you time to change that, if you wish. I have answered the question honestly and fairly - you have not.0 -
gtvlusso wrote:lets make this a little easier for you;
I will give you my answer to this:
'As an adult; do you believe that it is okay for you, on your commute, to ride on the pavement/footpath? Yes or no?
No, I do not believe that it is okay for me to ride on the pavement as an adult.
Why, I hear you shout! Because it is not where I should be as a cyclist. I should be on the road. I am too fast for the pavement, I would not be able to stop if someone came out of nowhere in front of me. I would be beyond upset if I hurt someone because I was on the pavement. It tarnishes the name of my fellow cyclists, who do make a considerable effort to be classified as good road and street users.
Ah. Now we have something to work with.
You're too fast for the pavement? What speed is that - what if you cycled slowly? What if you could only cycle slowly? A 5-10mph cyclist isn't a wise move on a dual carriageway is it?
You would not be able to stop? What- do you cycle too fast for the conditions and visibility?
You'd be upset if you hurt someone? Most of us would - what if there was no one to hurt. What if, by riding that bit of road you were more likely to be hrt yourself - when there is a perfectly safe and empty path beside you?
It tarnishes the name of fellow cyclists? an occasional ride on a pavement is going to make no difference - but it's more than that - cyclists get a bad name for cycling badly - jumping red lights or riding "primary" when its not needed. Cyclists get a bad name for riding on busy pavements or barging past pedestrians on shared paths.
Nobody gets cyclists a bad name for cycling down an unused path beside a dual carriageway - nobody cares because it's a sensible place to be.
Don't you see?0 -
0
-
Ah. Now we have something to work with.
You're too fast for the pavement? What speed is that - what if you cycled slowly? What if you could only cycle slowly? A 5-10mph cyclist isn't a wise move on a dual carriageway is it?
You are right - speed is irrelevant, should not be there in the first instance.
You would not be able to stop? What- do you cycle too fast for the conditions and visibility?
I don't - hence I have not had an incident because of this, I am fairly experienced.
You'd be upset if you hurt someone? Most of us would - what if there was no one to hurt. What if, by riding that bit of road you were more likely to be hrt yourself - when there is a perfectly safe and empty path beside you?
Then I would still be on the road, where I should be - see previous comments. Man up and make your presence felt.
It tarnishes the name of fellow cyclists? an occasional ride on a pavement is going to make no difference - but it's more than that - cyclists get a bad name for cycling badly - jumping red lights or riding "primary" when its not needed. Cyclists get a bad name for riding on busy pavements or barging past pedestrians on shared paths.
Then lets all pull together and not do these things that annoy other road users and street users - like riding on the pavement.
Nobody gets cyclists a bad name for cycling down an unused path beside a dual carriageway - nobody cares because it's a sensible place to be.
You should be on the road......in full TT gear and an aero helmet, preferably.
Don't you see?
I see someone who cannot answer a straight question:
'As an adult; do you believe that it is okay for you, on your commute, to ride on the pavement/footpath? Yes or no?
Seriously, can you even answer this or is this beyond your scope?
**Apologies - I could not be arsed with quoting, so, you will have to disect the answers you require.0 -
Kendal Black Drop wrote:
Agreed.....on so many levels, Still Geena Davis in the shower is cheering me up right now....0 -
Man up and make my presence felt? Do you ride fast and busy roads? Ones where the average vehicle speed is 70mph - two lanes of constant traffic? Do you have any concept of the required reaction time the average driver needs to avoid you and not have a collision with another vehicle?
Do you not look at the accident signs and wonder just what happened?
CyclIng is a form of transport - some do it for enjoyment others out of requirement - some do both.
Most of us choose what risks we take - some risks are too great to warrant taking.0 -
Slowbike wrote:Man up and make my presence felt? Do you ride fast and busy roads? Ones where the average vehicle speed is 70mph - two lanes of constant traffic? Do you have any concept of the required reaction time the average driver needs to avoid you and not have a collision with another vehicle?
Do you not look at the accident signs and wonder just what happened?
CyclIng is a form of transport - some do it for enjoyment others out of requirement - some do both.
Most of us choose what risks we take - some risks are too great to warrant taking.
Yes, I do, pretty much daily in fact - The A4174 ring road around North Bristol, dual carraigeway and fast too with lots of round-a-bouts and the A(whatever it is) TT route to Severn Bridge - these are regulars. I have also ridden around Milan and Rome in Italy, where traffic lights and lane discipline has no meaning for anyone. Sometimes, on my commute, I use back roads, sometimes I use the cyclepath and sometimes I use the ring road - depends on my mood and ferocity level.
Anyway, it is late and I am sure that you are a tired and bored as I am:
@slowbike - I am finished with work and really do not wish to continue this on Monday as it is staggeringly dull;
My suggestion is this;
You have been unable to answer a simple question for 3 pages - fair enough, but frustrating:
'As an adult; do you believe that it is okay for you, on your commute, to ride on the pavement/footpath? Yes or no?
I will take your first answer of 'No' as the valid answer as you have given no reason to change this. Which, by definition, nullifies all of your excuses.
In which case, the following statement applies:
Glad to see that you won't be riding on the pavement anymore....
If you choose to do so, it affects all of us - but thats life. Cycling has come along way and there is so much more tolerance and acceptance than there used to be. The more we do ourselves to avoid annoying the general public, the better it will be and the more people will join us.
***I will not respond to this thread anymore***0 -
Ok. Let's make this easy for you.
This dual carriageway - its closed for resurfacing - its a mile stretch and the detour will take you 5 miles out your way.
There is an unused path off the side of the carriageway.
Youre running late - do you
1) ride the detour - good training but you'll miss that conf call
2) walk the mile stretch -15 to 20mins depending on the shoes - bye bye conf call
3) ride the empty path carefully - 10 mins and youll just get to that important conf call in time.
Next week - they're still resurfacing - but the path has been designated at cyclepath. There's a sign atthe en and everything. It's still the same physical path though.0 -
Oh. You've decided to go off.
Shame - I thought you might see some light - but it appears you've been brainwashed into believing the government knows best. they don't always.
Oh well - It's not my loss. There's no dual carriageway on my commute and the path length totals about 500meters - how much do I have to ride for it to count?0 -
Slowbike wrote:Ok. Let's make this easy for you.
This dual carriageway - its closed for resurfacing - its a mile stretch and the detour will take you 5 miles out your way.
There is an unused path off the side of the carriageway.
Youre running late - do you
1) ride the detour - good training but you'll miss that conf call
2) walk the mile stretch -15 to 20mins depending on the shoes - bye bye conf call
3) ride the empty path carefully - 10 mins and youll just get to that important conf call in time.
Next week - they're still resurfacing - but the path has been designated at cyclepath. There's a sign atthe en and everything. It's still the same physical path though.
For the love of god....
I get my phone out, laptop out and dial in where I am sat......Handy working for a massive technology company.
A pavement is still a pavement, a cyclepath is a cyclepath - timescale of the change is irrelevent - simple innit.
And where is the answer to my question, I have answered yours;
'As an adult; do you believe that it is okay for you, on your commute, to ride on the pavement/footpath? Yes or no?0 -
Slowbike wrote:Oh. You've decided to go off.
Shame - I thought you might see some light - but it appears you've been brainwashed into believing the government knows best. they don't always.
Oh well - It's not my loss. There's no dual carriageway on my commute and the path length totals about 500meters - how much do I have to ride for it to count?
Well they did inform me about driving on the left, and so far that has worked out pretty well....
Yes, and your an adult riding a bike on the pavement......How embarrassing for you :oops: :oops: :oops: .And sadly for the rest of us too.
Still not answered.....
'As an adult; do you believe that it is okay for you, on your commute, to ride on the pavement/footpath? Yes or no?0 -
Slowbike wrote:This dual carriageway - its closed for resurfacing ...
My mate and I were out doing a bit of cross biking the other month. After cycling across a couple of fields we climbed over the wall (using a stile of course) to join the bypass. One side of the dual carriageway was closed for resurfacing and the other side had a contraflow with a physical barrier in the middle. We faced the choice of cycling down the contraflow, which would mean there wasn't enough room for cars to pass safely; or, cycle down the closed side which would give us two traffic free lanes of lovely smooth brand new tarmac. I'm sure you can guess which option we went for...
The policemen that drove past us a I cycled no-handed down the closed off carriageway didn't stop...0 -
@slowbike - I am finished with work and just finishing my glass of wine. I really do not wish to continue this on Monday as it is staggeringly dull;
My suggestion is this;
You have been unable to re-answer a simple question for 3 or 4 pages:
'As an adult; do you believe that it is okay for you, on your commute, to ride on the pavement/footpath? Yes or no?
I will take your first answer of 'No' as the valid answer as you have given no reason to change this. Which, by definition, nullifies all of your excuses and the total guff that you have written.
In which case, the following statement applies:
Glad to see that you won't be riding on the pavement anymore....
If you choose to ignore myself and others on this thread (have a read back), so be it, it affects all of us - but thats life. Cycling has come along way and there is so much more tolerance and acceptance than there used to be. The more we do ourselves to avoid annoying the general public, the better it will be and the more people will join us. The more we do to pi$$ the public off, the less we will be accepted and so on.....
I am tired of arguing with someone who is quiet clearly not comfortable cycling on the road - the rest of us are comfortable with it.....so, if I was in your position, I would get the bus or something, utnil such time as they have 'grown'. Quite clearly, I am not going to change you bad attitude and you don't give a frig about who it affects....
Just see if you can answer the question, I bet you can't - wanna know why, because you know that your answer is 'No';
'As an adult; do you believe that it is okay for you, on your commute, to ride on the pavement/footpath? Yes or no?'
***I will not respond to this thread anymore as no one really cares, but if you want to PM me, then do so***0 -
gtvlusso wrote:**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.
I wasn't sure which was more appropriate so I went for both.
Most of the time there is no need to ride on the pavement. But if you do it slowly and pay attention, it's not really a problem.
As someone has said, if we had better infrastructure for cyclists in this country it wouldn't be an issue.0 -
Never has this been more appropriate!
0 -
Thank you! At least I'm not the only one who can apply some common sense.JamesB5446 wrote:gtvlusso wrote:**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.
I wasn't sure which was more appropriate so I went for both.
Most of the time there is no need to ride on the pavement. But if you do it slowly and pay attention, it's not really a problem.
As someone has said, if we had better infrastructure for cyclists in this country it wouldn't be an issue.
No point gtvlusso replying - he can't grasp that simple concept.
0 -
Lol, you're being a muppet too Slowbike. Still failed to answer his question too.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
pangolin wrote:Lol, you're being a muppet too Slowbike. Still failed to answer his question too.
To be fair - he's answered GTVs question, in the affirmative, loads of times; just not directly. But GTVs endless repetition of the same question is a standard tiresome politicians/interviewers ploy to try to force someone answer a complex question with a single word. Clearly GTV thinks he is Paxman or James Naughtie and this is rather beneath him as those two individuals are twerps.Faster than a tent.......0
