Cycling on the pavement

[DuncanW]

Chick Pea - as a cyclist, you can't just stop every time you cycle past (on the road) a pedestrian on the basis that they may may walk out in front of you. Sometimes you get a feel that they might, if they're on their mobile most commonly, and you would seek to exercise extra caution but it's not that easy to be able to predict who is suddenly going to walk out in front of you with no warning or without looking. Are you saying we should ring our bells at every pedestrian who is on the pavement just in case?

[Jeremy]

Some of the posters on here need to realise that just because there are bad drivers and stupid pedestrians around, that doesn't mean that dangerous cyclists aren't a problem too.

[LadyDeliah]

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.

[Zebedee Tring]

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).

[Jeremy]

Yeah... but in Japan cyclists behave like pedestrians... they generally cycle slowly, along the pavement, for a mile or so to get to the nearest station. The cycling culture is very different.

[Chick Pea]

Some valid points and good to know that a case is not been made for pavement cycling.

I thought jonsuissy was having a moan about how pedestrians make it difficult for cyclists to ride on the pavements.

[alldownhillfromhere]

I know, from extremely painful experience, that the holier than thou attitude of cyclists after they've hit you, on the pavement, makes it all the worse. I was hit, very badly, by a guy on a bike a few years ago by Sloane square. His reaction to my lying, bloodied, on the pavement? "Look where you'r fucking going, cunt!", as he cycled off.

That's the f-word followed by the c-word, by the way.

[pablopuncheur]

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.

[katanita]

I am fascinated by idiotic behaviour on the roads. From drivers who think their "right" to be there and behave any way they like trumps a cyclist's or pedestrian's right to safety, from cyclists who seem convinced that the rules of the road don't apply to them, forcing those crossing on a green man to dodge them as they fly through, and from pedestrians who seem too lazy to check the road before stepping out, despite the extreme possible risk to them from this stupidity. We all make mistakes, have the odd lapse in concentration, but I don't think that's the only explanation. Whenever someone steps out into the road gormlessly and forces me to brake, I want to dismount and go ask them precisely what their thought processes were and what went wrong. (I don't of course, maybe one day I'll do that all day and then write up the results...)

Most of this, laws and morals aside, is just about common courtesy, manners, and having a bit of empathy for our fellow travellers of all kinds. Why do some people find that so hard? It's NOT war out there, we're all just people trying to get somewhere. Like, chill out...

[vic flange]

Having recently moved to London I must say the aggressive behaviour on the roads is astonishing. I've been a driver and cyclist for a number of years in rural areas and on the whole all road users are polite and patient.

I can't cycle on main roads around here, it terrifies me. I see no problem in cycling on the pavement as long as I'm courteous and careful and avoid hitting people where possible.

[LadyDeliah]

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.

[LadyDeliah]

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.

[Chick Pea]

Lady D are you making a case being for pavement cycling? Of course if all cyclists were considerate and slow like vic flange for example, then perhaps there could be room for manouvre but they are not.

The fact that bikes have changed since 1800, you don't see many riders on Penny-farthings, and reach much faster speeds makes the current legislation outlawing pavement cycling even more pertinent - don't you agree?

[LadyDeliah]

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.

[vic flange]

If anything it's pedestrians who are at fault most of the time. The number of times I've been sworn at and threatened after clipping people who weren't looking where they were going, eyes glued to their mobile phones, oblivious to the world.

I'm not a small bloke. I wear hi viz gear. If they were paying a bit more attention rather than playing Angry Birds it wouldn't have been a problem.

[LadyDeliah]

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?

[alldownhillfromhere]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> 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?

Yes, n/a, no, more cycle paths, and more responsibility/less selfishness taken on by cyclists...

[LadyDeliah]

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?

[alldownhillfromhere]

I don't know, I'm not a cyclist, but I'd presume a good place to start would be the cyclists. And no, it's obvious to a blind man that shared space doesn't work. But one thing is for certain, cyclists seem to think that because they feel threatened by motorists, it's Ok to pass that threat onto pedestrians. That has to stop.

[LadyDeliah]

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?

[Zebedee Tring]

You cannot decide which laws that you can obey and those that you can disobey. It's illegal to cycle on the pavement and it's illegal to deposit rubbish on the pavement. You can't say that it's terrible to dump rubbish and that people who do so should be punished, while it's OK to cycle on the pavement.

Arguing that pavement cycling is acceptable because of the lack of cycle lanes is comparable to arguing that rubbish dumping is acceptable because there aren't enough rubbish bins.

[vic flange]

I agree with the litter point. Hitting a discarded drink can can be lethal.

[LadyDeliah]

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.

[Voyageur]

'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.'

Yup - and nobody is going to stop you eh? It's akin to talking to a brick wall. My only hope is that you get hit with enough on the spot fines to deter you.

[Chick Pea]

Voyageur Wrote:

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

> '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.'

>

> Yup - and nobody is going to stop you eh? It's

> akin to talking to a brick wall. My only hope is

> that you get hit with enough on the spot fines to

> deter you.

Hi V - it is perfectly possible and safe to cycle on the pavements but only when the pavement is pedestrian free and wide. Also Lady D is female so as far as I'm concerned that means she is a better ie more concientous rider than the male - yeah I am biased but that's based on expereince.

Talking about cycle lanes, I noticed a few months back whilst driving to Crystal Palace Park that Southwark have installed an innovative new cycle lane along Dulwich Wood Park. Basically the pavement was widened and the outside edge coloured green with a white line that demarks pedestrian and cycle usage - cyclists ride on green bit.

It's not all black and white.

Edited for third time to add: I am not advocating pavement cycling just accepting that it is not always dangerous!