Police talking rubbish

You are joking smoggysteve , aren't you?. You know we have shared use pavements in the U K . But the majority of pavements are too narrow.
Too my mind it is far safer to be on the road.

Rather depends if it's an empty pavement. This bit says all I need ...

Cyclists should be fined for riding on the pavement if they are dangerous or in any way disrespectful to those on foot.

SmoggySteve wrote:

What is more likely to cause serious harm or death? A car travelling at 30mph + hitting a cyclist or a cyclist travelling at 20mph hitting a pedestrian?

That is a loaded question, loaded with so many variables as to be irrelevant. But I will give examples, a cyclist at 20mph hitting a toddler. What will the outcome be on that? I have one and know from experience they are unpredictable and can just start running rather quickly for no reason that you can predict.

Where I live the paths are actually less than a metre wide. You can get a buggy past a single pedestrian only if the pedestrian is half hanging off the pavement in places. It is on the A6 road which is single carriageway and can just get a car and bus or truck passing each other. It is not ideal for cyclists but the pavement is, IMHO, an impossibility for cyclists. I have seen some use it though and if they tried to get past me on their bike they will be forced into the road, especially if my kid or my partner is there.

BTW I live in a small town in the Northwest. There are a lot of towns in the north with small pavements totally unsuitable for bikes other than perhaps young kids on the grounds of their safety. A cyclist on the road can command their road space by taking the primary. Also road users are increasingly expecting to encounter bikes and are becoming more cyclist aware even if not cyclist friendly. That is what it is like here at least. It is safe enough to be on the roads here. But I understand not everywhere is the same and some places have wide pavements which make sense to have them mixed use. Morecambe, Saltburn and other seaside towns with promenades have such pavements suitable for bikes and pedestrians. These places have signs just like that German one (or similar) to show it is mixed use. UK does have them but making it universal right to cycle on all pavements is not good here.

BTW from my memories of trips to Germany, Netherlands they tend to have more open roads with generally better provision historically as well as in these more enlightened times. As ever I think these countries, and I would include Denmark as well, are something to aspire to but in a way that suits reality of our cramped island. IMHO that means selecting your wins so as not to alienate people. Promenades, disused railways, wider pavements/newer roads with cycling provision built in, etc. are all wins we do have and can repeat in other places. However making riding on pavements universally permitted would be a huge loss in terms of public perception of cyclists. Every time a cyclist uses an inappriate pavement condemnation of the cyclist and all cyclist is bad PR we don't need.

plowmar wrote:

You are joking smoggysteve , aren't you?. You know we have shared use pavements in the U K . But the majority of pavements are too narrow.
Too my mind it is far safer to be on the road.

Isn't the problem that the majority of roads (I'm excluding motorways and d/c) were not designed for cars or bigger vehicles, most pavements not designed for shared use. There are solutions but no government is going to implement them, instead they are throwing £15 billion at the road network to make it 'better' for the motorist, we all know how that's going to work out don't we?

Dippydog3 wrote:

Lymington in Hampshire. Shared path that is no wider than a normal pavement.

On my hybrid when pootling along I use the path and go slowly.
On my road bike, clipped in, I am going faster, and do not feel its safe or convenient on the path, for both me and the pedestrians.

There are many paths near me divided down the middle with one half for pedestrians and the other for bikes and marked as such. These are a reasonable width. I'd guess typically about 3m wide in total (i.e. 1.5m for pedestrian and the same for bikes). I generally don't use these on my roadbike. Why? Well being level with the footpath and distinguished only by a painted line and different coloured surface, most pedestrians treat it as an extension of the footpath and so you can expect to encounter plenty foot traffic encroaching on the bike lane. Pedestrians walking dogs worry me the most. If a dog runs across in front of you trailing a leash attached to a pedestrain you could have a problem! Also the bike path being the road side lane of the path is littered with signposts which are potentially very dangerous if you're not paying attention. last but not least the paths are interrupted regularly by side roads and driveways with inconsistent kerb heights that need to be decended and ascended each time.
This type of cycle path is fine for low speed cycling, say <20km/h. It's certainly not suitable at 30km/h or more.

SmoggySteve wrote:

We have speed limits on roads. 30mph on suburban roads even down to 20 in residential areas. Wider roads allow you to go faster say 60 on a dual carriageway. And 70mph on the motorway. Different things can dictate the speed depending on obstacles or turns, visability etc.

So why is it that people seem to come out with the fact that certain paths would not be suitable for going 20mph or faster. USE YOUR COMMON SENSE FFS. Nowhere do any of use have the right to bomb around as fast as we can on a bike. You can't do so in a car so please drop the argument because its a pathetic one. You cycle to the conditions or find a route that allows you to do so. If you have to slow down on a narrow path for pedestrians then don't complain when cars whizz past you on the road in similar circumstances. Double standards in my eyes.

Not sure if this is in response to my post or not but I suspect it is?

I fully agree that one must ride responsibly for the conditions at hand. This would include riding slower and with particular care for other users when on cycle paths. My interpretation of the footpath adjacent cycle paths in my area (all on the perimeter of residential areas) is that they are intended for children and those intending to cycle at a relatively sedate pace. They are somewhat suitable for this purpose (although I have some design reservations). However, cyclists are also entitled to use the road and I don't think it's anti-social or irresponsible to ride on the road instead of the provided cycle paths if you intend to ride at a significantly faster pace. I DO have the right to cycle at 25-40km/h on these roads which typically have speed limits of 50km/h.

SmoggySteve wrote:

What is more likely to cause serious harm or death? A car travelling at 30mph + hitting a cyclist or a cyclist travelling at 20mph hitting a pedestrian?

Note I am not saying the latter cannot ccause either, its just reduced. As for the state of paths being too narrow, that is a matter for your local council to sort. I ride where possible on the road even in Germany but if there is a decent cycle path I will use that instead. Anyone who thinks pavement riding is unsafe I invite to visit Germany/Holland/Belgium to look at what is possible if the infrastructure is designed correctly.

What are you talking about? Nobody in Holland rides on the pavement. They don't have to, because there are cycle lanes available. For me riding on the pavement is a sign of insufficient or inferior cycling infrastructure. The fact that it happens so often in the UK means a lot of people find the road too dangerous or filled up with traffic. Does not happen in Holland

w00dster wrote:

Here in Milton Keynes we have a shared Cycle / Pavement known as a Red Way. For some of my rides I use the Red Way to get out into the countryside, approx 5 miles for me. I take this as my warm up, so I have no interest in my speed, the return leg being my cool down - again at a slow pace - does screw my Strava average speed up though!
In my opinion it is the responsibility of the cyclist to ensure that they are safe and are not a danger to the pedestrians. A bike can cause injury to pedestrians - the paths are used by families. It can be a pain in the bum when the family and their dog take the entire path, but its up to me to be careful, to watch my speed and to ensure that I am seen. I also use the Red Ways for my commute to work - very handy and very safe. Much safer than the busy roads, especially with all of the dual carriageways and pretty dangerous round abouts we have here.
For New Towns the Red Way infrastructure is a good way to go, but I can understand how this isn't possible to implement in existing towns and cities.
On my rides, as soon as I'm in an area where the roads are safe enough to allow me to jump on them I do so. Mainly because it allows me to get my speed up to a reasonable pace.

I studied in Cranfield University for a year 10 years back so I was in around Milton Keynes regularly. I wasn't cycling at the time but from what I remember of all the roundabouts and dual carriageways it could be a frustrating place to cycle on the roads!

SmoggySteve wrote:

This is how many dutch towns are beginning to shape.

Take note of cyclists on both path and road. Would love to see this concept in the UK but I fear it would never take.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=X-2KVNarB4Hlavn8gqgD&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DsSCks9Q8fNQ&ved=0CB0QtwIwAA&usg=AFQjCNGJ6IowvHVGhHppcafW0xl8Ec2gPQ

That video is about 'shared space' experiments, with cars, cyclists and pedestrians all sharing the same road space. Like Exhibition Road in London. Nothing to do with cycling on pavements. Almost all cyclists in that video, including old grannies and parents with small children on bikes, cycle on the road, apart from a couple avoiding a lorry blocking the road or hopping on or of the pavement to go to or from a shop.