Cycling on pavements

[cella]

While walking along East Dulwich Road at lunchtime today a burly cyclist cannoned into my back while cycling on the pavement. He clearly wasn't looking where he was going and despite my loud scream he just cycled off into Adys Road. I was on my own and was left tearful and shaking but if it had been an older person it could have been a different story. Hateful, inconsiderate people.

[robbin]

You mean 'person'?

Sorry to hear that. It can be extremely annoying and dangerous for people to cycle on the pavement and there's no excuse for riding on if you collide with someone.

[titch juicy]

No, I suspect they meant 'People', as in 'people that ride on the pavement'.

[Mick Mac]

I would say its ok for young children but not ok for adults. It might even be illegal, when the Boris bikes first came out there were a spate of on the spot fines for riding on pavements.

[rendelharris]

It's completely illegal. I think there are cases where, as has been done in Dulwich past the gallery, a case could be made for "shared use" pavements - I noticed at the weekend that the road from Stretham Hill down to Tulse Hill would be a prime candidate, ten foot pavements on each side - but until then no adult should ever ride on the pavement, it's stupid, selfish, dangerous and gives other riders a bad name (and I speak as a massive cycling fan/advocate).

[titch juicy]

There are a smattering of shared use pavements around. Lordship Lane down to Dulwich College is an obvious one.

[robbin]

While it is technically illegal for a child to cycle on the pavement, I don't think they can be prosecuted if below the age of criminal responsibility (10 years old). I see in Camden the Police have said (earlier this year) they will no longer prosecute anyone riding on the pavement unless there is a particularly good reason to do so. I think that was a reaction to the perceived dangers of cycling on the road.

Personally, I think cycling on the pavement is ignorant and potentially dangerous (and certainly always dangerous on corners). It also gives decent cyclists a bad name with some people who cannot distinguish between decent cyclists and idiots.

[cella]

Anyway, the opposing views on cycling on pavements have been running and running. I am very against adults riding on pavements and this just reinforces it but my main concern was that he hurtled into me, heard me cry out but still rode off so it's the uncaring & inhumane behaviour I was really highlighting. I hope he lost sleep over it by not stopping to see what damage he'd caused but possibly not.

[Seabag]

I've happily cycled 'on the pavement' for years, and will continue, because it's statistically safer (in places) than using the road. I know it's illegal, but I'm happy to pay the fine (one in 30 years so far, and that was posting a letter on 10 yards of pavement in Fulham)

Elephant and Castle is one good example. Way too dangerous for bikes, so a cut across on the pavement makes sense.

However, riding at anything other than a very slow pace is idiotic, and stoping to walk some bits goes without saying. Everybody's safety is paramount, and pedestrians generally don't mind if you trickle past at a good distance on a wide area.

I've seen the Police many times, they mostly give you the 'I get it look' if youre being sensible.

But to be clear, I do not advocate riding everywhere in this manner, for the greater part the road/cyclepath provision is adequate.

[Nigello]

Adults riding on pavements alongside their offspring is annoying and particularly selfish, using the safety (kind of justifiably) of their kids as a protection against criticism.

[Seabag]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Adults riding on pavements alongside their

> offspring is annoying and particularly selfish,

> using the safety (kind of justifiably) of their

> kids as a protection against criticism.

I see that 'annoying & selfish' is part of your thing.

But the pedestrian rights myth is often perpetuated. I see idiots on foot who could also do with some basic training. However, at times there isn't adherence to the Highway Code and I've not heard or seen a prosecution or thread about the subject.

A couple of 'selfish & annoying' traits I see practiced are as follows:

Stepping onto the zebra crossing at full pace after a 45 degree turn from the kerb, then expecting the car to haul up in double quick time. It's a power play, and a silly one that will get someone killed.

The 'i'm looking at my phone' thing, when crossing the road. Again it will end in death, but in both cases, even with the stupiditity apparent, the motorist will seem at fault.

No one want to hurt anyone in such incidents, but there is a certain mentality that seems to toy with these dangerous practices.

There are provisions within the law, but most people are unaware or ignorant of them, or choose to flaunt them to grind their axe.

[Mick Mac]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Adults riding on pavements alongside their

> offspring is annoying and particularly selfish,

> using the safety (kind of justifiably) of their

> kids as a protection against criticism.

"Particularly selfish"? I'd guess they'd probably much prefer to be doing something else or riding on the road as an adult, but young children have to learn somewhere whilst not being a danger to / endangered by motorists.

I personally ride on the road whilst my son rides on the pavement, but it certainly isn't selfish to protect your children.

[Nigello]

No, but it is selfish to do something that is illegal and potentially dangerous and then use the "but I have special permission - according to myself - to do so because I am doing it to protect my children even though I have no real need to teach them to ride on the pavement when there are plenty of parks nearby".

[Mick Mac]

Children do practice in the park, but they have to get to the park first, and at some stage have to venture out. I'm afraid the pavement is a learning step between park and road that is a practical necessity.

[jimlad48]

I don't mind kids doing it, but nothing annoys me more than cyclists doing it - there is absolutely no excuse or reasons to ride on a pavement - if you need to be on the pavement dismount and walk with the cycle.

I was running last night and a cyclist kept coming down the pavement towards me - I matched his course directly and said politely but firmly 'this is a pavement, ride on the road'. I was delighted to see I forced him off the pavement and hope he learned his lesson.

There is no excuse for riding on a pavement - its up there with jumping red lights as a deeply anti-social and potentially very dangerous thing to do. I always 'call out' to cyclists who do this, politely but firmly and they almost always respond with a four letter tirade of abuse. I refuse to swear back, and always keep my cool - when I say to them "If I am driving and go through a red light and hit you, I will likely injure or kill you. If you are riding and go through red light and hit me, you will likely injure or kill me too. Please respect my safety".

None of them have an answer to that beyond a torrent of foul abuse.

[titch juicy]

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> I don't mind kids doing it, but nothing annoys me

> more than cyclists doing it - there is absolutely

> no excuse or reasons to ride on a pavement - if

> you need to be on the pavement dismount and walk

> with the cycle.

>

> I was running last night and a cyclist kept coming

> down the pavement towards me - I matched his

> course directly and said politely but firmly 'this

> is a pavement, ride on the road'. I was delighted

> to see I forced him off the pavement and hope he

> learned his lesson.

>

> There is no excuse for riding on a pavement - its

> up there with jumping red lights as a deeply

> anti-social and potentially very dangerous thing

> to do. I always 'call out' to cyclists who do

> this, politely but firmly and they almost always

> respond with a four letter tirade of abuse. I

> refuse to swear back, and always keep my cool -

> when I say to them "If I am driving and go through

> a red light and hit you, I will likely injure or

> kill you. If you are riding and go through red

> light and hit me, you will likely injure or kill

> me too. Please respect my safety".

>

> None of them have an answer to that beyond a

> torrent of foul abuse.

Wow, what a charmer. How do you know that cyclist's circumstances? Perhaps they'd had an accident on the road before and were building up their confidence again. I agree that adult's shouldn't cycle on pavements under normal circumstances but if there's room and it doesn't happen often, then it's not really doing anyone any harm. Same as when joggers occasionally use cycle lanes (this happens around Elephant & Castle).

A few years back I was cycling from The Gardens and wanted to use the path that cuts diagonally across Peckham Rye Common. I cycled across the pedestrian crossing and used the pavement for about 5 metres, intending to cut onto the path. A jogger running towards me deliberately changing his line of running to come straight at me; I shouted out, "What on earth are you doing?" to which he replied, "well don't ride on the f'ing pavement then".

Was that you?

[nxjen]

Cycling on the pavement is illegal, potentially dangerous, not to mention scarey for pedestrians when they are overtaken at speed with only a couple of inches gap from behind with no warning. And the cyclists are making out they're the victims? Once I remonstrated with someone cycling on the pavement and I was told not to be so rude!!!

ETA. Seabag: cataloging thoughtless behaviour by pedestrians is no justification for cycling on the pavement.

[jimlad48]

Titch

that wasnt me but I would express same sentiments (minis the swearing). You are a road user and by riding on a pavement you risk my safety. Please stop doing so.

Your argument about confide ce falls down as you would surely not argue a car driver post accident should drive on the pavement to regain confidence? Cyclists are road users, not pedestrians and need to act as such.

[Mick Mac]

titch juicy Wrote:

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

"What on earth are you doing?" to

> which he replied, "well don't ride on the f'ing

> pavement then".

>

> Was that you?

Sometimes joggers can run pedestrians off the pavement too. Some of them appear not to be able to change direction, to accommodate pedestrians or are unwilling to do so. It's a mad world out there and you have to have your wits about you to survive on the pavements of SE22.

[titch juicy]

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> Titch

> that wasnt me but I would express same sentiments

> (minis the swearing). You are a road user and by

> riding on a pavement you risk my safety. Please

> stop doing so.

>

> Your argument about confide ce falls down as you

> would surely not argue a car driver post accident

> should drive on the pavement to regain confidence?

> Cyclists are road users, not pedestrians and need

> to act as such.

I wasn't risking his safety though. I was cycling very slowly for 5 metres on a pavement where there was plenty of room for both. The jogger risked his own safety by changing his course to run directly towards me.

A little common sense is needed. Things aren't always so black and white.

If it were so, then your argument about cyclists being road users should count for children too.

[Mick Mac]

titch juicy Wrote:

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

> If it were so, then your argument about cyclists

> being road users should count for children too.

Except where we are trying to be reasonable about it.

[Rosetta]

Parents accompanying children cycling on pavements need to supervise from the road on their bike.

[titch juicy]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> titch juicy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > If it were so, then your argument about

> cyclists

> > being road users should count for children too.

>

> Except where we are trying to be reasonable about

> it.

exactly my point

[jimlad48]

But if I were to say "I wasn't risking his safety though. I was driving just over the legal limit for alcohol t where there was plenty of room for both" then people wouldn't accept it.

There is no excuse to cycle on pavements as an adult, there is no defence for doing so - saying "but I wasnt risking" assumes that the other person acts in a rational manner - what if they'd sprinted in front of you, or stopped - or thrown their arms out to the side to stretch and hit you by accident? You should not have been there, you are in the wrong and there is no defence for your actions.

[Mick Mac]

Rosetta Wrote:

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

> Parents accompanying children cycling on pavements

> need to supervise from the road on their bike.

I agree and that's been said already. But I'd understand if other parents choose to do it differently.