DM at it again...

So where do we stand on these legal mixed pedestrian ways where bikes and people can be (example down by the tyne bridge on the quayside - no markings). How do they police that? are there speed limits on these pavements?

amun1000 wrote:

So where do we stand on these legal mixed pedestrian ways where bikes and people can be (example down by the tyne bridge on the quayside - no markings). How do they police that? are there speed limits on these pavements?

They are legal to ride on, so people using them know to expect cyclists as well as pedestrians.

Changing the law re riding ion the pavement would produce a similar position

hey all.

I'm not sure riding on the pavement is wholly illegal.

The home office advice that came out with the legistlation says that you're allowed to hop on the pavement "out of fear of traffic" if you're doing so with "consideration for pedestrians".

(The quotes are from memory)

There may have been a few other caveats too.

E.g. if I'm on a busy narrow road and there's a big old lorry that can't get past and the pavement is clear, I'll happily flick to the pavement and beckon them past. It keeps traffic flowing, keeps everyone happy for minimal effort, and means the driver will probably be nicer to the next cyclist he sees.

UpTheWall wrote:

E.g. if I'm on a busy narrow road and there's a big old lorry that can't get past and the pavement is clear, I'll happily flick to the pavement and beckon them past. It keeps traffic flowing, keeps everyone happy for minimal effort, and means the driver will probably be nicer to the next cyclist he sees.

Or alternatively they might expect the next cyclist they see to do the same as you have reinforced their view that they have more right to be on the road than you? :?

In conjunction with bringing in a new law they should take the opportunity to allow cycling on footways unless specifically prohibited (narrow widths etc.) but with the cyclist baring the brunt of the law in the event of a collission i.e. cyclist takes responsibility for their actions and adapts their riding to suit the conditions. I regularly get light bumps from people cycling on busy footways in Cardiff, some of them could easily knock over a person more fragile than me. They might only be going at 10mph but it is still too fast for the circumstances.

As Spen says, if you don't like the law why not petition for it to be changed? As things stand it is illegal and as Aristotle said "law is reason free from passion". You can't just decide a law is wrong because it doesn't suit you. Also, once cycling on the footway is made legal don't be surprised to hear even more motorists telling you to cycle on the footway and not the road.

BigMat wrote:

Seriously, can you give me an example of where it could possibly be considered safe / not antisocial to drive at 70 in a 30 zone?

On the Westway, coming out of London which is 3 lanes wide. At 4am and there's nothing on it.

There's always a counter argument...

morstar wrote:

PeteMadoc wrote:

spen666 wrote:

By all means change the laws re pavment riding- until then it is illegal and selfish on the part of the cyclist to break the law for his / her convenience- simialrily with breaking other laws

What do I tell my 4 year old daughter?

To ride on the pavement until she's old enough to enter this debate.

No way my 4 year old is riding on the road. I find it truly unsettling when my 8 year old rides on the road.

But it's not illegal for your 8 year old to ride on the pavement - doesn't the law apply to those 14 and above only?

Squillinossett wrote:

I hate anyone that rides on the pavement, even slowly.

BUT, I would be discussed if I saw a parent forcing their child to cycle on the road, it is a clear danger to both the child and drivers alike.

I also doubt their is and officer in the land that would try to prosecute a child for cycling on the path.

You doubt correctly.

Pross wrote:

Is it safe for a small child to cycle on a busy, narrow footway where they could get knocked into the road? Also, one of the major causes of child cycling casualties is from them riding off the footway into the road.

...so safer all round if we enforced the law and made them cycle on the road in the first place then eh?

jim453 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

jim453 wrote:

Take the kids down the park until they're old enough to safely ride on the road.

Because that's really useful when you want to get somewhere.

Perhaps the law wasn't formulated with you and your families travel itinerary specifically in mind.

Anyway, six and seven year olds travelling by bike is not a terribly sensible way of getting anywhere of any distance that is not walkable or pan flat.

Having said that. I can't really remember a time when I did not cycle on the road, granted, not far from home. As I learned to do that I graduated to longer distances and busier roads.

Are there any other laws which you don't fancy the sound of or are intolerably inconvenienced by?

Not quite true, in the summer months we often use bikes as a means to actually get to places. Last summer me and my then 7 year old cycled from Balham to central London, did the Sky Ride and cycled back, a distance of well over 20 miles, a lot slower than if I was on my own granted, but a successful trip nonetheless.

Are strategy for family rides is pretty simple, I'm a adult so I ride on the road, my daughter is a child she rides on the pavement. At junctions I stop in the middle of the road and usher her across.

Really busy roundabouts or junctions we both get off and walk.

Rick Chasey wrote:

mroli wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Seriously, can you give me an example of where it could possibly be considered safe / not antisocial to drive at 70 in a 30 zone?

On the Westway, coming out of London which is 3 lanes wide. At 4am and there's nothing on it.

There's always a counter argument...

But that's not making you any safer.

A kid riding on the pavement, in many circumstances, is.

There's no safety gain for someone donig 70 in a 30. There are many occasions when there is when cycling on the pavement.

Safer from a cycling perspective, debateable if safer from a pedestrian perspective. The law isn't a cyclist or a motorist or a pedestrian and has to be even handed to all parties, but you're putting a cycling skew onto it.

To the letter of the law it is obvioulsy illegal and shouldn't be condoned, but placing all acts into a black/white legal/illegal is obviously crazy as it places pavement cycing and speeding into the same category as murder or people trafficing.

For me the key is in enforcemant and personal responsibility, would you be pulled over for driving a few mph over the speed limit? No, probably not, but should it be condoned?

I think its the same with pavement cycling, not something that should be condoned, but its unlikely to land you in trouble unless you're being a dick.

Police will almost certainly turn a blind eye, but hit someone and you'll have to face the music.

PeteMadoc wrote:

spen666 wrote:

By all means change the laws re pavment riding- until then it is illegal and selfish on the part of the cyclist to break the law for his / her convenience- simialrily with breaking other laws

What do I tell my 4 year old daughter?

Spen666 Just answer the question

I thought that you couldn't be prosecuted if you were under 16 for cycling on pavements, as to whether technically 'legal' or not you'd have to ask an expert.

I was also under the impression there was a wheel size variable there somewhere but that may have been a urban myth or maybe it has changed

My kids ride their bikes the 2 miles to school / nursery on the pavement. I walk with them. They know to get off if theres a lot of people about. A 7 and 4 year old kid riding on the pavement, at dad-jog pace at the most is not, IMO, dangerous.
Them riding on the road with the mumtrucks flying past is, IMO, dangerous.