Cycling on the pavement

[blinder999]

The question was 'Does anyone know what the rules are about cycling on the pavement in London? There are lots of adults who seem to do it around ED - is it allowed? Are children allowed to? What if you're cycling WITH children?'

I merely pointed out the Home Office advice to the Police on the matter. Police use their discretion all the time. Interesting how this subject enrages people so much! Remind me not to get a bicycle. Or a dog.

[mattC]

OldTimer & Huguenot particularly: I was happily ignoring the temptation to rejoin this thread until I read your utterly banal comments.

It astonishes me just how prosaic, and quite frankly, how precious some of you are.

What's troubling me a lot more though, is the fact I chose to come and live here, and in my experience, the like minded tend be attracted to the same things (think who you hung around with at school etc, or the residents on the street where you grew up). Having moved out of the home counties long ago, hoping in part to get away from the sort of middle english, 'Womens Institute' attitudes that are the majority voice on this site , I look to have clearly stepped right back into it. Urghh.

[mockney piers]

Personally I moved away from the home counties to get away from the crushing boredom, bad food and casual violence (far worse than the panic on the streets of LL currently being touted by CRAZYNURSE, gotta love them caps). If I wanted good cycling policies from the council and plentiful cycle paths I'd have stayed in Letchworth. Id also have probably thrown myself off the multistorey carpark too.

I'm failing to connect a desire to avoid being run over with a peculiarly WI outlook on the world.

[Huguenot]

Lol!

'Don't cycle on the pavements' is 'middle english' and 'Women's Institute'?

So what are pavement cyclists? Edgy? Right On? Do they 'Own the Streets'? Do they swerve in and out of traffic and pedestrians at will because they are modern day heroes? Are they immortal?

I take from these postings that their incisive intuition, their supernatural foresight and catlike agility mean that they (more than most) are capable of making the split second decisions that deliver them to their destination ten seconds sooner to save the fair maiden in distress..

Pavement cyclists are real men...

Your post reminds me of one of those road safety ads that cover 13 year-old boys before they're plastered over the tarmac.

The things is that really cycling like this isn't heroic, it's cowardly. Pavement cyclists probably know it too, and that's what really chafes.

[OldTimer]

MattC,

I can assure you that I am far from precious.....in fact quite the opposite....

but...I cannot accept, that simply because somebody has a particular view on what they think is correct or incorrect, that they think they have the right to do as they please .... regardless of the majority.

Surely in an advanced , civilised and democratic society, "we follow the rules"........and if we do not believe these rules to be correct, we campaign for them to be changed....

if we all "cherry picked" only those rules that suited us, and ignored those that did not suit us....then we would be living in a society that is not civilised and heading for an anarchic state.....

oh....and for your information, I am from an immigrant family, so cannot consider myself to be in any way shape or form, "Middle English"......although I cannot see what is particularly wrong with being Middle English....seems that they have in the past, created a wonderful framework, (which millions of immigrants wish to join on an ongoing basis)....and made Britain Great...

and as for the Womens Institute jibe...I cannot for the life of me detect those attitudes, within this forum.

[mattC]

Nope - missed my point entirely.

To even dare think that one can equate hopping on the pavement to drink driving or cash for badges is both tiny minded and extreme.

I already mentioned the sort of circumstances under which I (and many other responsible cyclists) opt to ride the pavement - it simply is not dangerous to anyone, and I liken it to driving a little faster on the motorway at 3AM when even the police don't care if I'm doing 75!

What bothers me is the puritanical stances being taking, apparently ignorant of reality, yet also seemingly intelligent and worldly enough to know that everyone will intentionally break the law from time to time in their lives. Pay cash to a tradesperson? Round down the tax liability? Park a double yellow? Speeding? Smoke/sniff something naughty at Uni?

Many millions of these little 'crimes' are committed everyday by people who wouldn't dream of doing something beyond common moral boundaries - for the vast majority of the population this is a line near enough to the law so that things run just swimmingly. The minority whose boundary is a bit further away are those the rest of society call criminals. Rightly or wrongly, I simply don't believe that there is a further minority out there that have never, and never will, break a single law of the land.

Anyway, I'm getting rather too wound up and agitated by the majority views of the 'in crowd', so I'm off to cool down and to try determine whether you are very nice people taking the piss, or a combination nasty, middle english Guardian readers, who will, in my opinion, bring the end of the world about ;-)

[georgia]

Very nice people just expressing their views I think mattc - as you are also entitled to do

On the subject of cycling, why do some cyclists think they can go through red lights? I have lost count of the number of times I have nearly been run over when crossing a road by a cyclist going through the red light.

[Huguenot]

No Matt - I see your point quite clearly. I've just not accepted that one can contrast aggressive cycling with some other lawless act to prove that the former isn't anti-social. It's a specious argument - I'm not being puritanical, just refusing to allow you to move the goalposts.

If I were to accept the premise (which I don't), I would say that some of those crimes you are listing are at a different scale of lawlessness and antisocial behaviour to others.

Speeding (for an example of relativity) fits into two areas: 75mph at 3am on a motorway, and 40pmh (when 80% of pedestrian accident victims die) in a 30 mph limit (when 80% of victims live).

My conviction in this context is that cycling on pavements fits into the 'bad' area of anti-social behaviour. Parking on double-yellows, blocking disabled access ramps and littering would be other offensive 'petty' crimes. They elevate one's own selfish priorities far beyond those of other members of society.

In order to exact these offences one needs to demonstrate the kind of egocentrism worthy of a 4 year old child.

The reason I don't accept your premise of relativity is that it delegates the decision making to the people often least capable of making good choices, exhilarated by the moment and positively bursting with their own self-righteousness.

I don't believe cycle-couriers should have the discretion to choose under what context they may hurl themselves onto the pavement screaming at passersby to get out of the way leaving a trail of destruction in their wake. Boateng should not be recommending a course of action which would leave them unprosecuted.

As for nasty Guardian readers, you're mixing your metaphors. Middle England reads the Mail, and are often referred to as nasty. You left them behind I think? By contrast Guardian readers are worthy but dull. I suspect it's the dull bit that you are fighting ;-)

[Huguenot]

Well, of course, if cyclists were to walk their bike, they would be able to cross a red light.... :))

[Keef]

God this is boring!

[Huguenot]

BREAKING NEWS ***

Acording to the NHTSA study of 2003, 44.5% of accidents involving cyclists were the direct responsiblity of cyclists who were breaking traffic law or riding recklessly.

Of these two thirds involved cyclists travelling on pavements, or failing to stop at red lights. In around 25% of these accidents it was fatal for the cyclist.

The majority of these cite that because the cyclist was in an unexpected place travelling at unexpected speed in an unexpected direction, neither pedestrians nor drivers could reasonably anticpate their behaviour.

If you bear in mind that the vast majority of cyclists use the road lawfully most of the time, then that's a huge kill rate for those taking MattC's recommendations..

[mockney piers]

Indeed, having witnessed a particularly nasty squish in the city once (very very fatal and deeply unpleasant), I can strongly advise cyclists not to go through red lights and under lorries.

Keef, it's just boring because it's about exercise!!

*yeah yeah, pots..kettles..*

[Keef]

;-) Fair point.

No, there are some painfully petty posts on this thread, from both sides to be fair.

[CrystalClear]

Feel I'm joining this a tad late, but hell, its an excuse to rant....

Everyday I have to cross the pedestrian crossing at Vauxhall Cross, and everyday cyclists, rather than use the road, or walk their bikes, weave in and out of the pedestrians crossing the road, I'm amazed they haven't hit anyone, and I'm curious to know where they are off to at such a rate. However, I think what gets me most is their 'Oi, outta me way, I'm on a bike don't ya know' attitude. It really irks, and it's appallingly arrogant.

Cycling on the pavements in ED? Quite frankly, there's not enough room, so don't do it.

[bald marauder]

So, it looks like the anti-cycling on the pavement crew are heading for victory...

In the spirit of fair and reciprocal policy making - what should happen to pedestrians who walk out in the road without looking in front of cyclists - causing a danger to themselves and other road users? Should we introduce fines? Should we only allow people to cross the road at traffic lights and pedestrian crossings as happens in some other countries? It's not currently against the law in this country - but it is very dangerous - and it happens a lot, particularly in central London. (In fact, several years ago in Bristol I ended up unconscious in casualty because someone walked out right in front of me without looking while I was going, completely legally and carefully, down a hill.) Lots of people do things they shouldn't, the question is a) to what degree is it genuinely a problem, b) is it a problem every time or only in certain circumstances and c) what should be done about it?

[CrystalClear]

I think legislation would be going to far, and that it would be nigh impossible to have a system where you fine offenders (how would you catch them?). I'm equally against banning people from crossing the road except at designated crossing points (again, a little heavy handed). I have no idea how much of a problem this is, but is it always the pedestrians fault?

Take LL for example. There a couple of crossing points, but probably not enough. The cars parked along the side of the road mean cyclist and car drivers (especially), and pedestrians to some extent, have poor visibilty. What do you do? Surely those on wheels should be driving/cycling in a more cautious way, as there is a greater chance that this kind of thing could happen?

(am making this up as I type!)

[mockney piers]

Your question is well timed baldy, as it seems our nanny state is considering introducing jaywalking as an offence in this country.

Personally in terms of legislating the traffic you legislate against the most damaging affecting the most vulnerable.

It makes sense to legislate against cars drinking and driving, or driving on pavements, as it's clearly dangerous. you need to introduce cycle lanes and ban cars from driving on them to protect the softer cyclist from the nasty car, you don't punish the cyclist for wandering off the lane on the the road itself.

Likewise you stop the cyclist careening down the pedestrian pavement. It strikes me as a bit capricious (far be it to accuse this wonderful government of that, ever) to punish a pedestrian for the mere act of crossing a road. If you do it at the wrong moment the punishment is potentially injury, disability and death, so follow the green cross code. To enforce that with the law is overkill (pardon the pun).

[Huguenot]

I never heard the case put fairer...!

[mattC]

"As for nasty Guardian readers, you're mixing your metaphors" . Hugeunot - Just who do you think you are to suggest I'm mixing metaphors? Todays Guardian readers are tomorrows WI brigade - in fact you sound almost there already!

"I don't believe cycle-couriers should have the discretion to choose under what context they may hurl themselves onto the pavement screaming at passersby to get out of the way leaving a trail of destruction in their wake. Boateng should not be recommending a course of action which would leave them unprosecuted"

Well neither do I, and any rational person will appreciate Boateng was talking about people like me who ride the pavement responsibly - the ones you never see doing it, and who never cause accidents ;-)

"The reason I don't accept your premise of relativity is that it delegates the decision making to the people often least capable of making good choices, exhilarated by the moment and positively bursting with their own self-righteousness."

Golly - that's probably the most disturbing and perverted comment so far - reminds me of that funny little book called Animal Farm, where a self appointed elite thought they might decide things for everyone.

Agreed. This is boring.Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[Pierre]

...self appointed elite thought they might decide things for everyone.

we bow to your eliteness, MattC. I'm off to drive down the pavement at 40 while talking on my mobile phone. It's fine as long as I don't hurt anyone, and it makes me feel cool and important.

: P

[Huguenot]

:))