Cycling on pavements

[titch juicy]

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> 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.

You can tell how paper thin your argument is by the fact you're having to bring extreme and irrelevant (alcohol) examples into it.

A person cycling slowly on a wide pavement for 5 metres has no correlation whatsoever with a person getting behind the wheel of a car, drunk.

But, if that's the line you're going to take; Do you drive a car? Do you ever go above 20mph in a 20mph zone? or above 70mph on a motorway?

[jimlad48]

Yes I drive and no on both counts to speeding. I don't like breaking the law or the highway code and thats why I dont like cyclists on pavements. There is no 'grey area' - the rules are clear, much like the rules are clear for speeding and drink driving. You may not like them but they are there for a purpose.

By riding on a pavement you endanger my and every other pedestrian presents safety and I don't appreciate that. Please stop being so selfish and ride on the road where you are supposed to be.

[titch juicy]

How do you feel about the Road Safety Minister's advice on the subject, and previous guidance issued?

http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3319.html

"Robert Goodwill, road safety minister, has confirmed that cyclists are permitted to ride on the pavement, as long as they do so considerately, according to an article on the road.cc website.

Road.cc says the confirmation came in an email sent to the cycle campaigner Donnachadh McCarthy, in which the minister said that original guidance issued by the Home Office 15 years ago when Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) were introduced was still valid.

Mr Goodwill said: ?Thank you for bringing the issue of cycling on the pavement around dangerous junctions such as Vauxhall Cross to my attention.

?I agree that the police should be using discretion in enforcing this law and would support Paul Boateng?s original guidance."

That guidance from Mr Boateng, issued in 1999, said: ?The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so.

?Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.?

In response, Donnachadh McCarthy said: ?Fining vulnerable cyclists for cycling responsibly on the pavement at extremely dangerous junctions is a bedroom tax on two-wheels as there is no safe alternative for them to cycle on.?"

[red devil]

Sorry Jimbo, don't believe for one minute that at some point in your driving life you haven't gone over the speed limit, or for that matter committed another traffic violation like parking on a double yellow etc...

[jimlad48]

Well sorry but its the truth - I'm a terribly boring law abiding citizen who doesnt break speed limits or get points on my licence.

[titch juicy]

And your thoughts on the Road Safety Minister's comments?

[von]

""Robert Goodwill, road safety minister, has confirmed that cyclists are permitted to ride on the pavement, as long as they do so considerately, according to an article on the road.cc website."

The road safety minister is an idiot. It assumes that most people riding on pavements will indeed be "considerate" of pedestrians. We know that unfortunately a percentage of the population do not fit into that category, instead having a sense of entitlement to do whatever they want. The OP was knocked over in EastDulwich Road, I have also found it to be an increasing problem with bikes sometimes speeding past on the pavement. A few weeks ago about 4 teenage boys from Harris Academy decided to have a race on bikes along the pavement, travelling at high speed and narrowly missing myself and other pedestrians which included parents with toddlers etc. It was so dangerous I emailed the school but have not even had an acknowledgement.

And if one is unfortunate to be hurt by a cyclist there will be absolutely no comeback on them, as unless someone takes a photo at the time there is absolutely no way of identifying the rider if they decide to speed off as happened to the OP.

[titch juicy]

von Wrote:

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

> ""Robert Goodwill, road safety minister, has

> confirmed that cyclists are permitted to ride on

> the pavement, as long as they do so considerately,

> according to an article on the road.cc website."

>

> The road safety minister is an idiot. It assumes

> that most people riding on pavements will indeed

> be "considerate" of pedestrians. We know that

> unfortunately a percentage of the population do

> not fit into that category, instead having a sense

> of entitlement to do whatever they want. The OP

> was knocked over in EastDulwich Road, I have also

> found it to be an increasing problem with bikes

> sometimes speeding past on the pavement. A few

> weeks ago about 4 teenage boys from Harris Academy

> decided to have a race on bikes along the

> pavement, travelling at high speed and narrowly

> missing myself and other pedestrians which

> included parents with toddlers etc. It was so

> dangerous I emailed the school but have not even

> had an acknowledgement.

>

> And if one is unfortunate to be hurt by a cyclist

> there will be absolutely no comeback on them, as

> unless someone takes a photo at the time there is

> absolutely no way of identifying the rider if they

> decide to speed off as happened to the OP.

But he said, "as long as those are considerate"

So he's assuming nothing.

The people that you were talking about weren't considerate, therefore don't fit with what he's saying.

So, are those that are considerate ok?

[Alan Medic]

jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> 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'.

That's what I feel like saying to joggers on the pavement. Find somewhere else to run. Some of them seem to think us pedestrians should move out of the way when they approach. By definition a pavement is for pedestrians and a pedestrian is someone who walks, not runs.

[Seabag]

Isn't a pedestrian just someone 'on foot'

Runners/walkers/hoppers

[titch juicy]

Seabag Wrote:

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

> Isn't a pedestrian just someone 'on foot'

>

> Runners/walkers/hoppers

don't forget the poor scrapers

[Nigello]

Although the word "pedestrian" cannot mean those who use wheels to get about (wheelchairs or mobility scooters) don't forget about this minority that uses the pavement to get around.

[DuncanW]

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> jimlad48 Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > 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'.

>

> That's what I feel like saying to joggers on the

> pavement. Find somewhere else to run. Some of them

> seem to think us pedestrians should move out of

> the way when they approach. By definition a

> pavement is for pedestrians and a pedestrian is

> someone who walks, not runs.

Really - that's a bit hard line isn't Alan?

[titch juicy]

Apparently (I didn't know this) mobility scooters are road worthy.

I was cycling to Rotherhithe the other day on Old Kent Road and as I was turning right onto Rotherhithe New Road, an old boy on a mobility scooter was doing the same! I questioned him and he said it was perfectly legal. I was amazed.

[rendelharris]

titch juicy Wrote:

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

> Apparently (I didn't know this) mobility scooters

> are road worthy.

>

> I was cycling to Rotherhithe the other day on Old

> Kent Road and as I was turning right onto

> Rotherhithe New Road, an old boy on a mobility

> scooter was doing the same! I questioned him and

> he said it was perfectly legal. I was amazed.

Only certain ones - the ones which can do 8MPH (they must have a setting to switch back to 4MPH for pavements). They're even allowed on dual carrigeways with 50MPH limits or lower if they have a flashing orange beacon, which seems just bizarre.

[titch juicy]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> titch juicy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Apparently (I didn't know this) mobility

> scooters

> > are road worthy.

> >

> > I was cycling to Rotherhithe the other day on

> Old

> > Kent Road and as I was turning right onto

> > Rotherhithe New Road, an old boy on a mobility

> > scooter was doing the same! I questioned him

> and

> > he said it was perfectly legal. I was amazed.

>

> Only certain ones - the ones which can do 8MPH

> (they must have a setting to switch back to 4MPH

> for pavements). They're even allowed on dual

> carrigeways with 50MPH limits or lower if they

> have a flashing orange beacon, which seems just

> bizarre.

Yeah, this was a dual carriageway!

[Nigello]

Peering out of the top deck of the 12 about 1930 today 6 out of 7 cyclists (male, "fast" cycles) pedalled over the pedestrian crossing at Peckham library and cut the corner, despite there being plenty of pedestrians. The one who didn't wasn't entirely committed to using the (admittedly badly designed) cycle path that skirts the corner and finally joins up with the camouflaged and too-thin cycle lane. No collisions but not right.

[Seabag]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Although the word "pedestrian" cannot mean those

> who use wheels to get about (wheelchairs or

> mobility scooters) don't forget about this

> minority that uses the pavement to get around.

And what about kids on those little 3 wheel scooter things, the ones with the elastic band collections on, usually powered along by little diddy people.

And those slightly bigger boys and girls, on the strider things with no pedals, which are a cross between being on foot & on wheels.

They should be on the road too no doubt. Surely they should, they're on wheels. Imagine one bumping into you, oh it'd be awful and selfish.

[malumbu]

There is the law/highway code

And then the rule of vulnerability Buses/trucks bigger than cars, cars bigger than bikes, bikes bigger than pedestrians and you respect that (ie appreciate the vulnerability of those smaller than you.

I am very much towards the law, but have become progressively so as I become older, more mature and influenced by others.

If I am driving I am also influenced by some bloody good tuition, including motorcycle training, and that in my youth we were always being stopped by the feds mainly because we were driving old cars, but often they'd then threaten to do you for a bit of dirt on your headlamp. Different days now as the police don't stop motorists any more.

But if I come to a red light at 3 in the morning on my push bike and nobody around, beyond 'letting the side down', it doesn't make the damned difference to humanity that I go through it. I'll also run the red light, as a protest/political statement around Mostyn road in Loughborough Junction, as this is the most pointless/unecessary red light in London, and not far behind it the lights on the South side of Lambeth bridge, which doesn't make any difference as all the motorised vehicles drive nose to tail blocking the roundabout in any case.

Now on Rye Lane I just curse muttering to myself about the dwell times that are far too long, and that there are no pedestrians in any case, and stay put for fear of being seen by Rendel.

My point here is that my Golden rule is however good or naughty I am don't harass pedestians being one myself on a regular basis.

Robert Goodwill has been long gone from DfT, and if he was unwise saying something about cyclists not being prosecuted for cycling on pavements, he was at least being truthful.

At the end of the day it's up to us to behave ourself. I will shout at any cyclist going full pelt through lights with pedestrians on it, and similarly on the pavement. If there is nobody about I may say something or not depending on the situation. I am far far more bothered about driving standards, selfish behaviour, speeding etc. Generally us cyclists are on the side of the angels. Funny story, saw a cop on Rye Lane, and I thought he was on a mobile, before realising he was drinking coffee. Well, still only one hand on the wheel. Then I looked at the number of cars parked on the double yellows and I thought it was pointless saying anything. Driving without proper control, whilst others park dangerously, seem the norm.

Separately there needs to be a campaign for pedestrians to have stop and indicator lights. How many times have I almost walked into someone who just stops to check a text? If you stop to check a text and get an earful then it will be probably me.

[Seabag]

.

[Nigello]

My point was, Seabag, that it is entirely right for those who *have* to use wheels to use the pavement, not those who choose to.

[rendelharris]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Peering out of the top deck of the 12 about 1930

> today 6 out of 7 cyclists (male, "fast" cycles)

> pedalled over the pedestrian crossing at Peckham

> library and cut the corner, despite there being

> plenty of pedestrians. The one who didn't wasn't

> entirely committed to using the (admittedly badly

> designed) cycle path that skirts the corner and

> finally joins up with the camouflaged and too-thin

> cycle lane. No collisions but not right.

I agree both that the cycle lane needs redesigning and that its poor design is no excuse to cut the corner, but it should be noted the "pedestrian crossing" there is in fact a Toucan crossing, meaning mounted cyclists are permitted to use it - that's why it has a green bicycle symbol as well as the green man.

[Seabag]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> My point was, Seabag, that it is entirely right

> for those who *have* to use wheels to use the

> pavement, not those who choose to.

Yeah and I have too, else I endanger my life

Tell me, do you actually commute or ride a bike as one of your main Forms of transport. Or are you ever up on the deck of the bus?

[maxxi]

On a pavement I would rather pass someone ON a bike who was slow and in control than someone walking it along as the latter is twice as wide and twice as likely to give me a rap on the shin with a wayward pedal.

[titch juicy]

Careful Maxxi, i'm not sure some in this thread are ready for sensible comment.