Share with care - cycling on the pavement.

[Big Tone]

I’ve lost count over the years of how many times Scotland get it right and better than England. Just found this on the intertubes..

“England has 146,000 km of public footpaths, and Wales over 26,000 km, most of them rural. If opened up to cyclists following Scotland’s example, cyclists would benefit from more choice for both leisure and utility travel.”

Adds more weight to my argument. I hope Scotland does get independence; I’d move there I think...

 

[RogueHanger]

In the past, I have rubbed one or two people up the wrong way .................

Badge of honour, to be worn with pride, when rubbing people, on the GD forum, up the wrong way

 

[gasbanni]

Decades ago, there were few cars on most roads but lots of pedestrians on pavements. It made sense for cyclists to ride on the road.

Now, the roads, especially near me, are overloaded with traffic. Unless you were to cycle on the roads in the small hours, I would say to make use of pavements to protect yourself.


Also, I don't think I've ever seen gasbanni make a post without a link to a tabloid article.

You could well be right ! but only out here not in the hot place.
Interestingly use of the word Tabloid has a slight derogatory implication
People slate the DM in the first world war they dared to stand up to the establishment and publish an article about duff shells that was causing needless casualties.........resulted in a scandal that sorted the issue out.

Try and find an article exposing the court of protection in the guardian
DM shouted about this for a long time, Admittedly its the only tabloid I read and as for the BBC not mention of Labour and PIE !!

 

[conny]

Getting back on topic before it goes wildly off into the ether about something totally unrelated.
The salient points of Big Tones post is to ride on them with due care and attention and consideration for pedestrians, It stands to reason that common sense would cause you to either ride VERY SLOWLY, or even walk with your cycle if there were a large number of pedestrians about at certain times of the day.

 

[Jackrae]

One of the major concerns of pedestrians is that cyclists are not legally required to have liability insurance. So, if pedestrians are the risked portion of shared pavements then the risk producers (the cyclists) should be required to have liability insurance.

So, cyclists who wish to use the pavements should have mandatory liability insurance, have "number plates" so that they can be identified, have bells on their bikes, have appropriate reflectors and lights and should. not treat the pavement as a race-track. ie they act in an ethical and responsible manner (as of course should pedestrians)

Then at least most would be happy and the rouge element would have some degree of control placed over them.

Out of idle interest, does anyone know how much per yard/mile or whatever were councils paid by central government to paint those ludicrous white lines down the sides of roads, creating narrow lanes through all the drains, potholes etc and then have the audacity to call then cycle tracks.

 

[Big Tone]

You make a fair point Jack, but I think it's OTT and disproportionate to any real KSI likely to happen. I don't believe in legislating for rare events, the Continental laissez-faire approach

When I was teaching my daughter to ride a bike we both went on the pavement; only when and where safe, and stopped if someone was coming the other way until they passed. What else are people supposed to do, stick it in the back of their 4x4 and drive to the forest of Dean? Oh, there is a local park I suppose I could have used where, (wait for it), we’d be cycling next to pedestrians.

Another thing to consider is the health benefits of course. I have stopped riding to work because of the danger posed to me from cars; made all the worse from drivers using their mobiles and whacking my elbow on two occasions, (one was a taxi driver ffs!).

Since I neither want to die nor have numpties lecturing me on how “you can’t cycle on the path” I now commute using the car or motorbike, which is not as healthy and clogs the roads up more. As Connie says, it’s about being responsible and considerate. (And self preservation actually, in my case).

 

[big-all]

as far as i know its illegal for adults to cycle on the pavement unless its been altered to be shared
in otherwise by default is a footpath for pedestrians only unless otherwise designated for pedal cycles/pedestrians combined and or separately marked pathways

 

[JBR]

One of the major concerns of pedestrians is that cyclists are not legally required to have liability insurance. So, if pedestrians are the risked portion of shared pavements then the risk producers (the cyclists) should be required to have liability insurance.

So, cyclists who wish to use the pavements should have mandatory liability insurance, have "number plates" so that they can be identified, have bells on their bikes, have appropriate reflectors and lights and should. not treat the pavement as a race-track. ie they act in an ethical and responsible manner (as of course should pedestrians)

Then at least most would be happy and the rouge element would have some degree of control placed over them.

Out of idle interest, does anyone know how much per yard/mile or whatever were councils paid by central government to paint those ludicrous white lines down the sides of roads, creating narrow lanes through all the drains, potholes etc and then have the audacity to call then cycle tracks.

I've been arguing for that for months, if not years. Nothing changes.

Thankfully, most cyclists are responsible enough not to cause harm to pedestrians, but the idiots among the cycling fraternity are quite happy to do so if they can be assured of getting away unidentified.

What, apart from administrative costs, is the reason for disagreeing with number plates for bicycles?

 

[Big Tone]

What, apart from administrative costs, is the reason for disagreeing with number plates for bicycles?

Because that’s exactly how things like this start. It goes like this:

1) Nominal fee of 50 pence, just to cover admin costs.
2) Everyone subscribes without complaint
3) Now that it’s been ‘sold’ to us let’s play a little waiting game, so everyone accepts it and thinks it’s good...
4) Some time later. “It is necessary to increase the fee I’m afraid punters. But it’s still only £2. It’s to keep pace with admin and rising costs etc. and blah blah blah.."
Small grumbles from the public but nothing big. They got away with it. More waiting game play...
5) With the increase in cycling it is necessary to increase the fee again. This is to put the infrastructure in place too and for future growth due to the popularity of cycling. Get some statistics and a pretty graph to show this as an immutable fact. (lies and exaggeration are acceptable at this point, even if found out later). As we all know, once a policy is in place it is infinitely more difficult to repeal Maybe a use£ul TV ad as well, to help with the propaganda. Also, due to the popularity we have had to make helmet wearing compulsory. (More kerching).

And so on and so forth and before you know it, a free and healthy pursuit which anyone can afford becomes a different and expensive, for some, animal of "just" £50 a year. (£49 in the Gov's coffers).

But you see, it's all in the good name of ‘in your best interest of course’ with a little help from H&S.

This is not a definitive list BTW. (Please add if you think of more anyone). It goes something like that and then the days where at age 10 or 12 you build a cronk and just get around are a distant memory and we look like the bunch of interfering bureaucratic H&S obsessed to$$ers that we are.

 

[RogueHanger]

There are many examples of pedestrians and cyclists sharing the pathways, not just in this country, but in Europe also.
I remember walking in the cycling lane in Munich, part of the pavement, marked out for cyclists. I was almost physically dragged out of the cycling lane by my friend, who proceeded to admonish me most severly, for wandering into the cycling lane.

 

[festive]

What utterly ****s me off are walkers cursing us cyclists for daring to use the same path as them, esp up near my woodland where the gravel path is 4metres wide, **** off! These people are most probably the same bellends who flash you when you over take them doing sub 20mph on a main road.

Some of them with dogs too meandering everywhere into other people or cyclists.

Did a stint in Zurich and everywhere there where pedestrians walked, there was a cycle lane, worked perfect.

Why for example are cyclist banned from certain beachside areas in the warmer months in Bournemouth? Isn't the solution to add a cycle lane. Cyclists aren't some kind of Class A drug why be treated as such?

 

[Big Tone]

I’ve got another “also”.

What is it with people who think that a bicycle is some kind missile with a spike on the front like in a medieval jousting contest? If a cyclist aimed at me, deliberately or not, I could arguably do more damage to him with a single push. Try doing that with a car or HGV.

How about a reg plate on a joggers ar$e? When one of them come bombing into you, you know about it! All that’s missing is a couple of lightweight wheels which a baby could pick up. Some bikes weigh less than 20lbs but I’ve seen some joggers carrying twice that around there gut! Ah, sorry. It’s got to be in the form of a bike to be dangerous of course...

It’s the way of this pathetic country that there prevails draconian laws or measures because ‘that’s how we have always done it’ or “there is a difference”, when in fact there is not. I read another difference, which is not a difference at all, to do with pathways and pavements. Excuse me! A path or pavement doesn’t discriminate or know what it is. (That which we call a rose, by any other name). It’s an area where legally you can cycle verses one where you cannot, but in exactly the same circumstances. (Again re: My O/P).

RogueHanger is right and if there was a situation where the norm was for cyclists to ride next to pedestrians and then one day someone said “it’s dangerous! All cyclists should be on the road with the fast heavy traffic even though we know many will be killed but at least it gets them away from pedestrians” they’d probably be classed as certifiable!!!

 

[tony1851]

Do take the time to read my post properly. You completely ignore the bit about "just as long as they exercise care, keep the speed down and consider pedestrians" in your reply and mention students charging along regardless of pedestrians... Kinda missed the point of my post...

I did read your post, and was making the point that many cyclists don't take care. I don't doubt you yourself would take care, but that doesn't answer for those who don't, and who can and will cause pedestrians injury.

 

[festive]

MAy i add the only time ive had an incident with a pedestrian is one that walked blindly out onto the road into my path, i ended up in hospital she ended up brushing her coat off.

I dont agree cyclists are hazardous, if they are they are just as bad as walkers.

 

[mattylad]

When I used to cycle to work (long long ago, far far away) part of the journey was on the canal towpath, it being a legitimate shared route for both cycles and pedestrians.

I used to use a bell, I did nit bomb it down but take my time and always give way when I needed to.

However - there was always those walkers who would never move out of the way, totally ignored all requests to let you pass etc and then they just let their dog crap on the towpath and they walk away.

It became a turd dodging exercise.

The sharing aspect remains the same with some footpaths too, if they are next to a high speed major road rather than in a built up estate then why not share them - its not like kids etc will be running up and down them.

Every situation has its place, its best not to mix them up and apply the same situation to all places.

As for some cyclists not caring - well neither do some pedestrians, car drivers, bus drivers, airline pilots or spacemen but that's just us humans.