Jump to content

Riding bikes on pavements.....again...


Nero

Recommended Posts

Very interesting. I am really fed up with people, mostly adults, doing this here. So many adults think it is OK because they have kids with them, either on another bike or on the back or on cross bar. Some boys about 20 were racing down Eynella Road pavement accompanied by their dogs and told me it was OK because they had dogs with them and what else could they do. Uh, how about walk the bikes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bikes on Pavements...( 4 year olds being sued )


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/10/29/article-1324871-0BD35E84000005DC-51_468x312.jpg


http://67.199.121.48/_media/imgs/contrib/c9944.jpgFerrari's made of wood ( driving in water )


http://67.199.121.48/_media/imgs/articles2/a97208_r13.jpgColt 45 Mailboxes ( made of bricks...)



Only in America, eh !



W**F

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this story more about ghastly litigious nature of the US than the dangers of riding on pavements. O course chidlren shouldn't ride straight into veryold ladies but should they be sued for an accident? In any case, this is less about the bike problem and more about the fact that the lady was knocked over - could have been done by a running child, or dog,or whatever.


I'm not saying that cycling on pavements should always be allowed but this isn't that helpful an intervention in the debate. Around here it would be great to see more children facilitated to ride on the roads but that requires better road provision I think - slower traffic (20 mile an hour only zones extended throughout ED residential areas), proper cycle paths wherever possible (ideally linking all schools to discourage car school run clogging) and ideally some road crossing facilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes can't agree with cycling on pavements for adults, jury is out for me with kids doing it - don't think I'd let mine do it if I had any but not too bothered by smaller children cycling on pavements. Tragic that someone lost their life.


Incidentally, on Friday a white van driver very nearly ran me over on Old Kent Rd and when I approached him, his passenger said "Well there's no cycle lanes on here so maybe next time, you'll stick to the pavement". Just goes to show you can't please all of the people all of the time. Still the fuzz are booking cyclists in town for it - ?30 a pop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a helpful intervention because it is precisely that - an intervention, designed to show another facet of the argument.

I do think it is silly that a four year old should be sued, but I don't think it silly that a group of mothers can pretend they didn't know - at the very least - the potential for harm that allowing their children to cycle fast along a pavement might have.

Sure, kiddies on little bikes are right to cycle on the pavement, but only if they need to, ie. just because they can doesn't mean they should be doing it as a matter of course. That exemption doesn't stretch to older children, and definitely not to any adult.

Teach the child to push his or her bike along the pavement until they come to a strech of road they feel safer to ride on. That way s'he'll learn about give and take as well as road safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume the parents of the NY kids are the ones coughing up eventually unless they are going to attach some future earnings order to the kids. The parents should have been surpervising the kids and they obviously weren't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

binary_star Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes can't agree with cycling on pavements for

> adults, jury is out for me with kids doing it -

> don't think I'd let mine do it if I had any but

> not too bothered by smaller children cycling on

> pavements. Tragic that someone lost their life.

>

> Incidentally, on Friday a white van driver very

> nearly ran me over on Old Kent Rd and when I

> approached him, his passenger said "Well there's

> no cycle lanes on here so maybe next time, you'll

> stick to the pavement". Just goes to show you

> can't please all of the people all of the time.

> Still the fuzz are booking cyclists in town for it

> - ?30 a pop.

-------------------------------------------------------


OK...


I DO ride on the pavement & the road as often as is safe & necessary


I have been fined for doing it, though once in 20 years is a good investment at ?30 I feel


I will continue to do so & safely too


( the police turn a blind eye generally as they know why we do it )


Lastly....


A simple couple of questions.


How many pedestrians are killed by cyclists on the pavement ?


How many cyclists are killed by motorists on the road ?



I rest my case





W**F

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kiddies (<150cm) on small bikes (wheels less than 15") yes. Anything larger should either ride on the road or be wheeled on foot. Plain and simple AND RESPONSIBLE. Supervising adults/parents should be held fully accountable for the consequences as if they had themselves committed the offence. Unaccompanied kids guilty of serious harm or endangerment to themselves or others should have the bikes confiscated for a period of time and if over 7 be committed to assisting in safety briefings and at physical rehab centres or homes for the elderly (with their parents if under 12).


Adults ride on the road or wheel your bike. Anyone adult cycling over 5mph on a populated footpath should be booked and fined (3 bookings and the bike is confiscated and sold for charity). Large slow-ridden bikes are unwieldy and still hazardous, especially on narrow or crowded footpaths. Only exception is if the road is dual carriageway. Adults DO NOT ride on the pavement to keep their kids company.


All cyclists should dismount at crossings.


Cyclist who ride through red lights or across pedestrian crossings should be forced to pay for any and all medical treatment and damages they incur or cause. This should be deducted at source after Tax and on a payment plan if necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think there's a marked difference between a child riding on the pavement to get from A to B, and a child racing along the pavement with friends - of course that's putting pedestrians at risk and the parents were completely out of order to allow it. Save the racing for the park.


And Woof, I get that sometimes you need to go on the pavement, but if that's the case, how come you don't wheel your bike? Adults riding on the pavement is out of order and I've noticed it a lot more since the advent of the Boris bikes (unconfident cyclists trying them out maybe?) I've had to jump out of the way on quite a few occasions lately and it pisses me right off. If you're on a vehicle then you should be on the road.


Bah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tog_in_sox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cyclist who ride through red lights or across

> pedestrian crossings should be forced to pay for

> any and all medical treatment and damages they

> incur or cause. This should be deducted at source

> after Tax and on a payment plan if necessary.


tog_in_sox, it's difficult to know from your post whether you think there should be separate laws for cyclists, or whether the laws that apply to road users in motorised vehicles should also apply to cyclists (which is already the case). I think the existing laws are fine, but enforcement is an issue. As a balance, I'd like to see a greater enforcement of ASLs at junctions as well since most motorists completely ignore these, leaving no safe space for cyclists to stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey b_s

I'm for all road and pavement users to be held accountable for their actions and made to make amends for the consequences over time not just walk away with a fine.


Enforcement is always problematic. You could waste millions on camera surveillance of all junctions with automated summonses issued to registered owners but that presumes that ownership details are up to date. Better would be strict on the spot enforcement but then you'd need crossing guards (another hate figure to go with parking wardens) so again unwieldy.


I believe all motor vehicle users should have awareness and consideration drilled into them at learning and all licence holders should be required to renew their qualification every 5 years. Failing to show due care, attention and consideration to other road users would result in failure and requirement to attend a remedial programme where better skills could be learned AND they would have to spend time at physical rehab centres assisting RTA victims. Such time would be weekly (half day or 2 eves) plus at least 2 weekend days per month for at least 2 months.


Foreign commercial/professional drivers would have to obtain certification before they could work as drivers or transit this country.


Cycling proficiency and road awareness should be compulsory at school sometime between 7 and 11 resulting in a junior proficiency certificate after practical and knowledge testing. Kids would have a road proficiency programme sometime between 15 and 17 and would have to have passed in order to take their driving licence.


Those causing accidents should likewise be required to attend the above remedial programme and also retake their proficiency/licence test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do see the logic in cycling proficiency tests for the young, especially since children make up a quarter [471kb .pdf] of cyclists killed or seriously injured on Britains roads. It is a frightening statistic given that they're most likely to be killed between 3pm and 6pm (i.e. coming home from school). However if you look at the DfT report linked to above, you'll see that the driver 'failing to look properly' was a contributing factor in 60% of all collisions with cyclists, so cycling proficiency would be no use here.


I think my motivations for advocating cycling proficiency might differ wildly from yours! I'd argue that cyclists are really only a danger to themselves - I haven't looked into it properly, so it's largely my opinion only, but I'm prepared to bet that the number of pedestrian deaths caused by cyclists (even the pavement riding ones) is negligible compared to motorists (guardian article here says 1/600).


I think what it boils down to is that we should be enforcing the existing laws. Red light jumping cyclists are targeted in the City because Police forces now have an obligation to tackle issues raised by local communities and in the City they've nothing better to complain about. There have been similar sting operations to enforce ASLs, but the police just gave motorists a leaflet advising them they were liable for a ?60 fine, but without actually issuing the fine! I know because I was there watching it.


Anyway there's no fence sitting when it comes down to attitudes towards cyclists. All the haters probably do so because cyclists all jump red lights, don't pay road tax and kill kittens and puppies...all whilst wearing lycra, YUK!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting.


I've no problem with the judge questioning the age of liability in civil cases.


However, how about contributory negligence?


"...Juliet Breitman and another child were four years old when they raced their small bicycles on a Manhattan street and ran into Claire Menagh, 87... Ms Menagh - and later her son, acting as executor of her estate - sued the children, arguing they were "negligent in their operation and control of their bicycles..."


Query. What was a doddery 87 year old doing on the sidewalk anyway? Is son negligent for letting her out unaccompanied?


I must follow this case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cycle on a pavement about twice a week, on Grummant Road in Peckham. It's usually empty of pedestrians, i go slow, and if someone is on the pavement i will dismount. The alternative would mean me doing a rather lethal right run onto and then off Lyndhurst Way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

And Woof, I get that sometimes you need to go on

> the pavement, but if that's the case, how come you

> don't wheel your bike? Adults riding on the

> pavement is out of order and I've noticed it a lot

> more since the advent of the Boris bikes

> (unconfident cyclists trying them out maybe?)

> I've had to jump out of the way on quite a few

> occasions lately and it pisses me right off. If

> you're on a vehicle then you should be on the

> road.

>

> Bah.

----------------------------------


I do ride the pavements when they are empty & not at speed


I don't ride up behind people & in busy areas I might just scoot the bike & walk a bit, depending on the human traffic


Sometimes the road is just too dangerous, like up around the Elephant & Castle & the pavements are massive there. I also had the misfortune to see a cyclist under the wheels of a truck just by the London School of printing, it was f'in horrendous.


So I will continue to use all the safe surfaces available, fine me, make me do what ever but I want to see my kids grow up & until the police crack down on mobile phone use ( which has made drivers way less aware of bikes IMHO ) then I'd encourage other cyclists to use the pavements safely


Oh & lastly, when pedestrians are texting, do try NOT to walk out into the road & front of me even though I'm dessed in Flouro, lit up & flashing like a christmas tree, you still seem to get rather miffed at my "big voice"



W**F

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woof, I have no problem with your going on the pavement so that you can see your children grow up - and yes Elephant is hideous - but you should dismount.


I fail to see how the desire not to die under a truck precludes your getting off your bike at Elephant (a little fallacious there don't you think?) And I also can't think of any time of the day or night when the pavements round there would be empty...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Woof, I have no problem with your going on the

> pavement so that you can see your children grow up

> - and yes Elephant is hideous - but you should

> dismount.

>

> I fail to see how the desire not to die under a

> truck precludes your getting off your bike at

> Elephant (a little fallacious there don't you

> think?) And I also can't think of any time of the

> day or night when the pavements round there would

> be empty...

----------------------------


Dismount, a little fallacious....


Rosie, my dyslexic mind is playing havoc here



* has cold shower *



W**F

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • There are genuine risks for engineers working on cell towers, I believe, but the microwave effects attenuate very swiftly with distance meaning that those consumers, and residents, served by the towers are effectively risk free. The worst impact is aesthetic rather than medical, and the communications and computing etc. benefits offered by 5G tend to mitigate these for most people who have and use mobile telephony. Considering what else is out there in our built environment I personally don't think aesthetic objections trump the utility of better communications infrastructure. 
    • I think the concern is the mast being so close to a school as well?
    • There is a planning application to put a mobile phone mast at the top of Dog Kennel Hill.  Residents of Camberwell Grove and their friends in the Camberwell Society are fighting it - defacing their nice conservation area with ugly laminated posters!  They do not benefit from it as reception is fine on their side of the hill. https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=S9IKT2KBN1200 I do not think there are any health hazards from being near phone masts (or at least they are negligible relative to everyday risks we all face).  Anyway, here is what the NHS has to say about them: https://111.wales.nhs.uk/encyclopaedia/m/article/mobilephonesafety/#Risks I imagine this will spark some lively debate!        
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...