LadyDeliah

It's clear that cycling is set to increase dramatically in the future and the relevant laws need to be reviewed and changed to reflect this.

Lol Chick Pea, have I got you slightly on board? Yes I do cycle carefully when I'm on the pavement and always give way to pedestrians. On shared use or even dedicated cycle paths I watch out for pedestrians. On the roads I am too busy trying to stay alive so I can get back to my children in one piece.

I'd welcome the chance to fight the fine through the courts. There are more ways than one to facilitate a change in the law.

Are you seriously trying to equate an anti-social activity that although unpleasant, causes no physical harm to anyone, with an activity that helps to prevent a person's possible death or serious injury? Sorry but that's a stupid comparison and in no way analogous. Suffragettes, anti-slavery, Greenham Common, Heathrow 3rd runway protesters all broke the law to highlight things that needed changing. Saying all laws are equal in importance is completely rediculous. Did you know that it was perfectly legal to rape your wife, even if you were estranged until 1996? Expecting others to have respect for laws that are deeply flawed is the mindset of a follower with no imagination or drive to fight for change. I do not respect such laws and will fight in whatever avenue is open to me, to have these laws changed. I will also continue to break the law by cycling on the pavement when I believe my life may be in danger on roads that are designed without any thought of cyclists safety. In 25 years of cycling in London, including on pavements, I have never hit a pedestrian in the pavement. I have however been hit by motorists and pedestrians on the road. Preventing my death or serious injury is more important to me than me than blindly following a law I have no respect for.

So you have no useful alternatives to the current broken, inadequate and dangerous (to all) system? And because you're not a cyclist you're happy for cyclists to be killed on roads rather than risk a blind person be startled by an idiot cyclist?

1.3 million more bikes bought than cars registered in UK in 2011. Only 4 countries in Europe buck the trend, Belgium, Ireland, Spain & Italy. More reason to look at the relative allocation of space to different road users. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/sep/17/recession-transport-bike-sales-overtake-cars Edited for way too many typos resulting from typing on a stupid phone without my glasses!

Many of the current batch of cycle paths are ill thought out and often actually put cyclists in more danger than if they cycled amongst the main traffic. How would you design your cycle paths to combat this and would you not consider shared pedestrian space on very dangerous or very narrow roads?

woodrot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > East Dulwich 2013 > > A land where white middle class graffitti is > welcomed with open arms by everyone ( look, look, > see how ARTISTIC and OPEN MINDED we are, we love > the EDGYNESS of orchestrated ART HAPPENINGS by > HIPSTERS even though its like 10 years past its > prime and is mostly SHITE) but a circus poster > from a circus that has been around for the past > decade, 2x a year on the rye,invokes such anger ( > KILL the ANIMAL ABUSERS, KILL the CIRCUS FLY > POSTER VERMIN, KILL THEM IN THE FACE ) Lol. I love Zippos and the horses are better looked after than the mangey ones that are kept at some riding schools.

For all the people who are vehemently against cycling on the pavement, even where cycling on the road is life threatening, I would be really interested in you answering the following questions: Do you think an increase in cycling is a good thing? If not, why not? If yes, do you think the current arrangements for the rise is cycling are adequate? If not, what changes would you suggest?

I'm talking about taking some of the space from motorists and sharing space with pedestrians where that's not possible. We should look at the developments in shared space with motorists that include removing traffic lighs which assist traffic flow but giving some priority to pedestrians and cyclists. There is plenty of evidence to show that these measures have a huge impact on pedestrian, cyclist and motorist behaviour. Re the laws, they clearly work for no-one, pedestrians or cyclists, so clearly a review is needed. Also laws are man made and not set in stone. There are hundreds of changes in law over any Parliametary term. There is no reason why this should remain the law in the future as it currently suits no-one.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Come the revolution, just hang around lady deliah, > she'll kill anyone attempting to eat our children > dog food. Lol, thanks for that.

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unlike some other posters, I will not resort to > abuse, but the position is quite simple. Cycling > on the pavement is illegal, in the same way that > smoking on a train is illegal. Full stop - or > period (if you're American). The laws date back to the 1800's where cyclists were defined as vehicles. Cars were slow and the majority of traffic on roads was horse drawn. The law is not fit for purpose and as with many other outdated, inadequate laws, needs an overhaul.

pablopuncheur Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This debate should really be about responsible and > considerate road users versus inconsiderate and > irresponsible road users. The mode of transport > they choose is irrelevant. A bad driver has more > in common with a bad cyclist than they do with a > good driver. > > Some folks just seem to think that the world > revolves around them and you should bloody well > get out of the way whether they're a pedestrian, > cyclist or motorist. Unfortunately these debates > always end up into peds v cyclists v motorists and > we just go round and round in circles. > > In relation to this thread I would argue that the > vast number of 'bad' motorists that fly through > the zebra crossing without stopping on East > Dulwich Grove opposite the church (if you've never > used it, just try and see what I mean) both > outnumber and are far more dangerous than the > 'bad' cyclists riding on the pavements on our > local streets but my opinion is that they're > probably the same kind of people and we should be > standing up to all of them. Totally agree. We all need to use these spaces and with an increase in cycling there needs to be made safe space for them to get from A to B in addition to safe spaces for other users of our public space, which clearly includes pedestrians, joggers, parents etc and if course motorists. Currently motorists are given priority over all other users to the detriment of others. Many motorists die in collisions with other motorists so looking at improving safety for all is a no-brainer. In response to those who say that there are many aggressive cyclists, yes that's true. I'm of the opinion though that the current arrangement with a disproportionate amount of our public space being given to motorists, where aggressive motorists rule the roost, has a knock on effect on cyclists and pedestrians alike. Tackle the aggressive dominant motorists, share the space more equitably and the evidence shows that all users become more considerate.

Round and round, isn't anyone getting dizzy yet? By the way to whoever ssid that bikes are traffic, yes they are, but traffic and vehicles are two different things. Many things can make up traffic, vehicles are something specific. There was an article (here or on one of the other cycle bashing threads) that showed Japan defines cyclists at part vehicle part pedestrian. It is clear that cyclists are not equivalent to motorised vehicles and that should be recognised by changes in the law.

Anyone calling troll on these?

For me it's not really something I'd want to do for a number of reasons. I'm not really a sit around talking about problems kind of person, I don't get a lot of spare time, I find my own ups and downs exhausting and don't really have any extra energy for other people's ups and downs, when I'm up I want to party and when I'm down I don't speak to anyone I don't absolutely have to. There are support groups but maybe they are a bit more formal than what you are looking for: http://www.bipolaruk.org.uk/ http://www.bipolarsupportgroup.net/home/index.php

Maybe cycle versions of the dog poo stencils.

As Binary Star says, it is not shared use, it is a cycle path between the road and the pavement. It is not clearly marked but it's a contra flow for bikes. Pedestrians walking on it do not just walk there for a second, many walk along the length of it because they are either unaware that it's a cycle path, or don't care that it's a cycle path. I use it fairly frequently because the alternative is a lot more inconvenient, but the lack of thought that went into this cycle lane is astonishing. There should be some kind of Damned Designs forum for huge wastes of tax payers money like this.

In light of the above, Sue, do you mind editing your post to reflect the fact the cyclist was legitimately cycling on a cycle path (admittedly not easy to see) and your OH wandered into said cycle path. Clearly the cyclist is a nob for not stopping after colliding with him, but I know how frustrating it is cycling through there with pedestrians stepping in front of you all the time or walking along the path with headphones on not listening to requests to get out of the way.

This was brought to my attention by another forumite and I think has to be a first place contender. This poster slapped a bit of wood stain and castors on a pallet and is selling it for ?260. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?9,1175012

Northlondoner, if you think that will save lives, then why not get on your soap box and push for change. I wish you luck in your campaign.

My typos are getting worse! Typing on a iPhone without my reading glasses is not ideal. Too much guesswork involved!

Why what happened?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark Community Wardens will over the next > couple of weeks be holding special patrols along > Lordsihp Lane targetted at pavement cycling. How do we challenge this policy? Is it decided at Police Panel meetings or something?

Interesting article in the changes made in Japan to improve cycle safety. They consider cyclists as part pedestrian part vehicle, which seems to me to be a change in thinking needed in the IK. Courtesy of henryb: http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/cycling-in-japans-cities-japan-has.html?m=1