To be scared of cycling on the road in this day and age?

[poshsinglemum]

I'd love to take up cycling but I would just be terrified of taking a bike out on the roads as they are so busy nowadays. I always think that parents with their kids on the seat on the back of the bike are really cool but I'm too chicken to do it myself.
I know there are cycle paths. No doubt if dd takes up cycling I won't sleep at night.

I always cycle on the path. I have lost count of the number of near-misses I have had when a car has mis-judged how close they are to me. I sometimes get comments from pedestrians even though I slow to the point of almost stopping when I pass them but I just ignore them. I'm not risking my life on the road when the path is empty 99% of the time.

Oh the road tax thing drives me nuts, Riven! It's calculated on the vehicle's C02 emissions, so a bicycle pays the same amount as a Toyota Prius! Can't hear anyone complaining that the Prius pays no "road tax".

Ooo! hadn't thought of that! :)

thanks, mablemurple.

cycling on the path isn't simply agianst the law.

if the road is a very busy road and the pavement would be far safer to ride along - then you wouldn't be breaking the law to cycle along the path/pavement

Legislation was set out about cyclign and pavements and common sense is mentioned in using the pavements if a road is too busy to cycle along or the person is under 16 years of age then they are allowed to cycle on any pavements with care.

TBH I think it is sensible to use a path for possibly a short section of a ride or commute if the road is busy with rushhour traffice - and that is what the legislation is menaing - common sense.

But and there is a but - cyclists need to be on most roads as the more bikes that are riden ont he roads the safer cyclist will be.

here is the section frm that legislation**

On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. At the time Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:

"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."

Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by 'Community Support Officers' and wardens.

"CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

As for cyclist running red lights - they are far more likely to be killed or hit by a car running a red light

In the county of leicestershire 9600 motorists ran red lights last year -thats just one county.

go and stand by a traffic controled cross roads on a major road through a town for 5 mnutes and compare the amount of motorists running a red light to the amount of pedestrians and cyclists crossing or running a red light and you will find it si the car that does this more - unfortuantley a car will kill though

2225 cyclists where issued with fFPN in london - probably for running red lights - but traffic cameras in London are catching almost 10,000 drivers every month jumping red lights. So that is 120.000 motorists runng red lights - rather more, but you don't seem to here about the suited and booted boys runing red lights - just the lycra louts

Quite agree posh. It would make our lives so much easier if I could cycle to work, and running is screwing up my back atm in a way that cycling wouldn't, but I am just too scared.

There have been several fatal crashes around here involving motorcyclists in the past week alone.

And last week a beautiful 5-year-old little boy was killed outside Edinburgh after he sadly wheeled into the road and was struck by a lorry.

YANBU.

It's not really a feasible option round here as there are no cycle paths (a lot of the area has no pavement, either) and it's a bendy A road with national speed limits in effect, full of lorries.

Lots of rubbish on this thread, people whining about dangerous cyclists.

Bicycles are not dangerous. More people are killed falling off ladders in one year than by bicycles in a decade. Bicycles do not travel through residential areas at 60mph as cars do, and they don't weigh three tonnes like those ridiculous Range Rovers (etc.) that some people think are appropriate vehicles for taking children to school

The police in London are arresting fewer drivers (proven to kill in their thousands every year) and more cyclists (who cause zero to two deaths each year) as a result of nonsensical claims that bicycles are dangerous.

That's interesting, ivykaty44. I was really encouraged by that legislation you posted.

Then I showed it to DH (an avid cyclist, and German). He snorted (sorry!... in a nice way??....). Only because, as he says, that still doesn't make it legal.

(ie he's snorting because he doesn't think it goes far enough!)

Apparently in Germany, it's the law that children under 12 SHOULD cycle on the pavement.
And that makes sense to me.
Why have the wishy-washy "use common sense and we won't prosecute but we also won't condone it approach"?
We surely should be encouraging children to cycle more, but shouldn't be pushing them onto the roads at such a young age?

Cycling on pavements is against the law so please don't follow this advice.

Our council does bikeability courses (the old cycling proficiency) and this programme is carried out in year five at my daughter's school every summer.

I cycle locally because I live in a rural area and we have access to the Trans Pennine Trail. I also use the roads and would like to think that I am a safe and considerate cyclist.

I used to cycle to work in Central London every day and found it to be not too bad, mainly because if you're a pretty fast cyclist you are basically going at traffic speed. The first time I cycled around parliament Square I nearly peed myself with fear but then it was fine once I realised "the technique" (i.e. the second the other phase of the lights goes to red, go, so you get a few seconds on the cars behind you- obviously dont do this if it's a pedestrian crossing!)

I think those cycle boxes at the front of junctions have helped a lot as it gives you a few seconds to get off in front of the cars so they can see you and reduces the risk that you get hit by someone turning left across you.

I only had one near miss in a year (not my fault) and it was such great exercise.

People should use some thought about where to cycle, but on the pavement there is a risk from cars backing out of driveways that should be considered.

Hammy02 - Don't cycle then. The pavement is for pedestrians. Shit or get of the pot.

And the road is for 38-tonne cyclist-slaughtering lorries.

And the pavement is also for cars, cars are allowed to use the pavement, putting pedestrians, especially small children, at risk, for access to property. And for parking: crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/2010/01/photo-that-sums-up-londons-transport.html

While cars have roads dedicated to them, and pavements whenev needed, there is typically nowhere for cyclists. If there is, it's almost inevitably a half-arsed, dangerous afterthought. Nobody builds a road to nowhere, but it's ok to do that with cyclists' facilities. Off-road cycle tracks are rarely maintained or kept free of nettles and other growth, while thousands of on-road facilities are death traps, such as this one: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/nov/05/readers-worst-cycle-lanes#/?picture=355282332&index=1

I'm not stopping cycling just because of some daft and questionable law. If the pavement is busy, of course I will go on the road but if the pavement is fairly clear, I will continue to cycle on the pavement. I have a feeling that police have slightly more pressing matters to be dealing with.

JoanneOfArk - yes. That is still no excuse for cycling on the pavement.

Roads aren't dedicated for cars. They are for cars, buses, motorbikes, bicycles, lorrys and whatever else.

I don't see any pavement parking as it goes - this is probably as it's all residents parking or meters around here.

Well yes it is an excuse. And it (the very real fear of death or injury) is a lot better than the excuses drivers give for routinely speeding.

And in practice, roads are designed for the use and convenience of motor vehicles, often to the effective exclusion of cyclists. The A30 is basically the only road out of Cornwall, and it's incredibly dangerous for bicycles, because it's a 70mph dual carriageway.

You can walk in the road too, it doesn't make it safe or advisable.

I was using the rhetorical sense of not an ACCEPTABLE excuse.

If you want to cycle, you either learn to do it safely on the road or you don't do it. I'm not going to quibble about using the pavement for short stretches etc. but they should be short enough that you can get off and push.

This doesn't mean that cycle provision is adequate.

This is the reality of on-road cycling: crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/2008/05/indiana-jones-and-cycle-lane-of-doom.html

The pavement is considerably wider, and looks a much more sensible bet to me (it's perfectly legal to go running on the pavement, which could be at speeds of 10mph, and cycling at a moderate pace is objectively probably safer than this).

Sadly of course it is not possible to learn 'safe' on-road cycling, because even the most experienced cyclists can be wiped out by dangerous drivers or speeding police cars. Cyclists' lives are not in their own hands, they are at the mercy of drivers who might say 'bastard cyclist in my way, I'll use my car as a weapon and attack him'.

You can take steps to make cycling on-road less dangerous, but you cannot make it 'safe' to cycle on certain roads, because those roads are simply dangerous, and a substantial proportion of drivers have contempt for cyclists (see www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7646957/Driver-killed-cyclist-in-revenge-attack.html [[http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/crime/s/1313926_van_driver_mowed_down_cyclist_in_road_rage_attack] etc.)

Sorry:roadrageattack

On-road cycle lanes in urban areas (where pavement cycling is most likely to conflict with pedestrians) are the most dangerous, because they are invariably after-thoughts, and you often will get no warning when they end, and because they are nearly always narrower than the 2m recommendations, cars pass closer than they would if there was no cycle line, as if a bit of paint provides magic prevention for cyclists from passing vehicles.