Pavement Cyclists

[fiftiesfresh22]

Probably done to death.

Pavement cyclists are a menace on the street on which I live (reasonably busy road, narrow footpaths (not shared) wide verges both sides. There are several alternative quieter roads very close by which cyclists could use if they feel unsafe/not confident to ride on the road down here, all of which end up on the same main road at the end, literally a minute away from each other. But still some choose to ride on the even narrower pavements down those.

So todays offering...walking my dog on the footpath, on his non-extendable, standard lead as always, from behind me come two cyclists who I did not see or hear approaching obviously, who ''buzzed'' me {passed very close at speed) and made me jump. Thankfully my dog was on the other side of me, and as I startled I said ''FGS''. To which one of them turned & said ''FGS? you should have your dog on a very tight lead...'' along with something else which I could not hear as they continued riding away. I guess it was probably along the lines of ''so that we can pass''.

The arrogance of some cyclists (who we are led to believe are in the minority) who believe that the footpaths are their domain if they see fit, pedestrians are in THEIR way, and it is the pedestrians responsibility to walk looking over their shoulder/with eyes in the back of their head etc in order to facilitate the cyclists illegal journey., all without challenge. So many times I see elderly/mobility scooter bound/parents with toddlers & prams/dog walkers being passed at speed & close quarters. This of course is facilitated by the fact that the law is interpreted, not upheld, and pavement cyclists are completely ignored, even when witnessed by passing police, both on foot or in a vehicle and now of course we also have electric scooters.

Oh dear. I'm sorry you got a shock from being nearly knocked over, but I wouldn't be gloating that someone actually did, as he may have been seriously injured.

63 does not say anything about ringing your bell being fine when you’re cycling on a pavement. Take a look at rule 64 instead - “You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement”. Bell or no bell.

Rule 64 does not apply to children- or those accompanying them.

Trust me, we cycle past a police station.

I love how there is clearly a sensible cyclist in here explaining it from the perspective of a parent accompanying a child, with balanced points and yet people are still finding ways to shit on them, purely because they are cycling.

Remember the video of the child being accompanied on a road by a parent and a car almost hitting him? Or the video where the little boy was seriously injured after being knocked off by a car? And everyone said how the child should be on the pavement? And now we have people shitting on a parent for cycling with their child pj the pavement.

Thank you.

No-one is legally allowed to cycle on a pavement - despite what you say.

Nobody is shitting on them. Merely pointing out that pedestrians have right of way.

No @albapunk , posters are pointing out that cyclists are not allowed to cycle on pavements and that anyone ringing their bell at pedestrians (who are legally allowed to be on pavements) can do one. There are guidelines for using shared paths - but pavements are not shared paths.

They are if you're 5.

Five year olds always come with an adult.

Indeed, far too much is being inferred. Adults aren’t allowed to cycle on the pavement so you need to find a safer road.

this is what cycling uk says:

Independent cycling means riding on the road. Children cycling on the pavement is illegal, but there is no criminal liability for children under the age of 10, and it is tacitly accepted by everyone that the pavement is where younger children will ride.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/cycling-guide/cycling-road-children

I ding my fucking bell when people are walking in the cycle lane. It is not my fault the cycle lane is shared with the pavement.

Do you realise how entitled you sound @DatumTarum ?

Well yes.

I'm his mother, I'm supposed to stick up for him.

Maybe you should walk with him rather than cycle (illegally) on the pavement. Win win.

That's not safe. I need to be faster than him.

While you’re sticking up for him you’d do well to teach him about the laws that apply to cyclists - the last thing pedestrians need is another entitled cyclist who genuinely believes they can cycle on pavements legally and can ring their bell to get the pedestrians to move.

If you're an adult and you cycle on a pavement then you are a selfish entitled cunt thinks the law does not apply to you. Period.

Cycling threads always go the same way: disabled pedestrians talking about how terrified they are and how frequently they're knocked to the ground or assaulted by illegal cyclists, people sharing horror stories of the harm inflicted by illegal cycling (like the guy who ran a red light at speed in Mortlake despite not having enough visibility to be able to see if there was anyone on the crossing and smashed into a blind man's guide dog, ripping the dog's poor body open and leaving it to die in slow agony, while the cyclist raced off) and how terrifying it is not being able to leave your own home for fear of being smashed into, and cyclists saying they don't give a fuck about the law, they don't give a fuck about injuring people, fractured hips are no big deal since nothing less than death apparently "counts" (always lots of "well actually statistics show that very few people are killed by bikes" - so according to you nothing less than death matters, does it?), lots of "cars are worse" (yeah and being shot is worse than being stabbed, does that make being stabbed okay??), lots of extremely ableist comments implying that blind, disabled and elderly people should be prisoner in their own homes and not be allowed outside, because God forbid for one second that cyclists not be able to do exactly what they want when they want.

It's insane how cyclists feel the need to defend illegal cyclists. This would never happen with anything else. If someone was riding a horse in a way that ignored the law and was very dangerous, they'd suffer condemnation and exclusion from the rest of the horse riding community. Only cyclists seem to think that they must defend anyone who rides a bike, no matter how badly they're behaving.

Do you not realise that if you want to give cyclists a good name, all you have to do is state that you disagree with illegal cycling?

A future entitled MAMIL in the making.

You should be thrown in prison.

Get him to cycle slower then.

Do you have children? 😁

He doesn’t sound mature enough to be cycling in public spaces if you can’t control him.

I don't drive, and never have. But yeah, the audacity of those pedestrians expecting to walk safely down a pavement or shared path without having to get out of the way of someone who can't be expected to walk for a few minutes

How does walking the bike help? That ensures that there is even less space fpr all involved.

I do not advocate cycling on pavements. But I can understand it on some dangerous stretches of road and unless you are a cyclist you probably cannot understand the risks. If the cyclist is only going marginally above walking pace and has a genuine reason due to the road conditions then I do not see the issue.

Yes get angry and shout at cyclists speeding along the pavement I agree that is really bad. But if a cyclist is slowly using a pavement whilst being safe around pedestrians then get a bloody life and let them be.

Honestly @DatumTarum you really aren’t coming across well.

I do disagree with illegal cycling.

It's just that the subtleties of the law are lost on some people.

If I cycle alone, I'm on the road. I don't want to cycle on the pavement.

If I'm with a small child he (and therefore I as his carer) go on the pavement if there is no safe cycle lane for him.