for telling a young girl off for cycling on the pavement??

[lottiejenkins]

I went shopping in our local market town this morning with my ds Wilf (profoundly deaf). We stopped at the florists where my cousin works and as we were leaving Wilf went out of the front door ahead of me. He then suddenly stepped back and i saw that girl (aged about ten) had nearly knocked him over as she cycled past on the pavement!! I called after her and said that Wilf was deaf and that is one of the many reasons why she shouldnt be cycling on the pavement. I didnt see any parent with her. Surely if shes that nervous of traffic she shouldnt be out on her own???

should add the Special PC was CYCLING on the pavement.

Have just trawled through this post..... I suppose the long and short of it is that I personally wouldn;t expect a 10 year old to cycle on our roads (esp. as they are today), but as already said, you should teach your children when it's appropriate to get off and push etc. If my son (when he was a toddler) was cycling along, I used to get him to stop until the person(s) had walked by. Perhaps the girl was a little taken aback about being picked up on it and that's why she didn't stop etc. - also, in fairness to OP, it is a lot easier to react to a person walking by when you come out of the shop than it is to dodge a bike! I would rather see children on the pavement (not in busy streets, obviously!) than on busy roads - the fact is that our roads today, in places, are far too dangerous - more cycle lanes, please!

The idea that pedestrians should have to look both ways before they step out onto a pavement is breath taking. Cycles should not be there. Pedestrians should not have to look.

Of course pedestrians should look, regardless of whether cyclists may be there - there may be someone running, or a mobility scooter, which all too often have poor brakes and not always great drivers.

If you don't look, you may indeed find your breath taken away!

Saski, many UK towns and cities are Victorian in design, layout and plan.

And many modern city planners are the ones promoting cycle lanes and shared cycle-pedestrian wider pavements. (The scum.)

Are you trapped in the 1970s? I recommend 'Dancing in the City' by Marshall Hain to groove to.

According to the Department for Transport (DfT), the maximum fine for ?cycling on the pavement? (ie footways) from the courts is £500. However it is more usually enforced by way of the Fixed Penalty Notice procedure (FPN) which carries a £30 fine if pleading guilty. However, there is a view that the FPN can only be issued to those over 16.

?The DfT view, from discussions with Home Office, is that the law applies to all but the police can show discretion to younger children cycling on the pavement for whom cycling on the road would not be a safe option"

The age of criminal responsibility is 10 so, technically, only children below this age can cycle on footways without fear of redress.

While adults are not allowed to cycle on ?footways? children up to the age of 16 cannot be prosecuted for doing so.

From 'bike-hub'.

YANBU. If your market town is anything like the market towns I know, with a 18th/19th century town centre, the pavements in the high street/shopping area are much too narrow for anyone to be cycling along them. There's just about room for the pedestrians. On the other hand, the back streets are pretty quiet and seem safe enough for children to cycle in. And they all have a couple of parks where children can cycle.

erm... my 9 year old ds has aspergers and dyspraxia so really poor balance, he has had his (2 wheel) bike for 3 years and actually grasped riding it 2 weeks ago so he still rides on the pavement atm, he would probably look 10/11 if you didnt know him.

LongWayRound This was one of the narrow streets. If we walk up the road side by side and someone is coming the other way one or other has to step off the pavement!

Curryspice, to be fair-
in your first line you say:
It is illegal to cycle on the pavement. Full stop.
that's not even to mention selfish, dangerous.....Cycles should not be there'
If a child isn't capable / old enough to cycle on the road they should either stay at home, walk, or walk the bike through the busy areas'

You then changed this in your second post to:
1. Don't go out at all
2. walk to where they want to go instead of cycling
3. Cycle the quiet bits and walk their bike through the busy bits

So, cyclists can ride on the pavement then after all- as long as it's quiet? IYO?
I'm with Christina- your first post was not clear.

"The idea that pedestrians should have to look both ways before they step out onto a pavement is breath taking. Cycles should not be there. "

Well many pedestrians feel like this about roads too - they step out in front of my bike without looking, and are highly indignant when I cannot stop in time and nearly run them over. Should I not cycle on the road either then?

Joric, I am sory, I didn't make myself crystal clear

I did not change anything in my opinion.

what I meant was if a child isn't old enough / capable of cycling on busy roads (which I can undertand - the traffic is terrifying!) then they have 3 options

1. Don't go out at all
2. walk to where they want to go instead of cycling
3. Cycle on the road on the quiet roads like side streets and those with cycle lanes and walk their bike along the pavement where the road is too busy for them to cope with riding on it

Clearer?

Quite obviously I wouldn't say it's illegal to ride on the pavements full stop and I dislike it, then say it's OK in some places. Unless you are purposely misconstruing me

Curryspice,

I get the impression that you are regarding cycling as 'recreational' and therefore 'optional'. I am sure that I am not alone in wanting my children to be able to use their bicycles as a main mode of transport - far better than me taking them by car on shorter journeys.

The majority of their journeys (Cubs / Scouts / ballet / football / cricket / school / into and back from the centre of town) are between 0.5 and 4 miles - the shorter ones are conveniently walkable but the longer ones are not within the time constraints available.

There are no cycle paths.

The 'quiet side streets' are in fact by far the most dangerous on their routes - they are lined on both sides by parked cars, and moving cars dodge their way down at 30 miles an hour leaving no space for a cyclist between the moving and stationary vehicles. At least the main roads, even where the traffic is faster, have space for a car to pull out round a cyclist.

Since my kids learned to ride bikes confidently (between 4 and 5.5 years old) we have been 'training' them. Initially, they cycled in parks etc - and learned there that they had to stop for pedestrians coming the other way, and walk round a pedestrian if going the same way. Then, they cycled with me on the pavement (yes, you read that right - I cycled on the pavement with my children. Went into the police station to find out whether that was acceptable, and was told that as I was accompanying very young children on roads where I could not cycle on the road as I would be separated from the children by a row of parked cars, that was not only acceptable but also something they would recommend). Same rules as before for pedestrians.

Then me on road, them on pavement. Same rules for pedestrians.

Then all of us on the road as long as an adult accompanies them.

DS (10) will do his cycling proficiency in school next year and I will then allow him to cycle independently on the roads BECAUSE I HAVE SPENT 7 YEARS TRAING HIM TO DO SO SAFELY. Part of that training has had to be with him on the pavement. A child cannot go straight from 'learning to ride' to 'riding on the road' in most towns and cities, and therefore the carefully-monitored, pedestrian-friendly, use of the pavement during the training period is essential during the training period. Pedestrain awareness and courtesy during the training period is in fact good training for all kinds of road courtesy later on.

Gosh how utterly responsible and marvellous you are teacher

I suspect, if you had had your leg broken while walking along a pavement by a young boy cycling on the pavement (as happened to an elderly friend of mine a few years back) you might have a different opinion about what is essential and what is not

I suspect you might have a different opinion too, if your child caused a similar accident

Curry, thanks for elaborating... I now understand as I am not a mind reader.

1st post
It is illegal to cycle on the pavement. Full stop.
that's not even to mention selfish, dangerous.....Cycles should not be there'
If a child isn't capable / old enough to cycle on the road they should either stay at home, walk, or walk the bike through the busy areas'

second post
1. Don't go out at all
2. walk to where they want to go instead of cycling
3. Cycle the quiet bits and walk their bike through the busy bits

Third post
don't go out at all
2. walk to where they want to go instead of cycling
3. Cycle on the road on the quiet roads like side streets and those with cycle lanes and walk their bike along the pavement where the road is too busy for them to cope with riding on it

Much clearer thank you

Sounds good to me teacher.

They all said the same thing - just with more words each time

I fail to understand why you would have read even the first one as the opposite of what I meant, given the context of my preceding sentence. But there you go.

(Is that how you spell preceding?)

Curry - I think you're being clear and perfectly reasonable.

Curry- It is illegal to cycle on the pavement. Full stop .that's not even to mention selfish, dangerous.....Cycles should not be there

Strong words. Ok, you contradicted yourself in the next sentence.
I disagree with the first.

...and let's agree to disagree:)

Joric, Christonabike. I didn't contradict myself. You misunderstood what I said. Really, why are you so hung up about it? All the C-ing and P-ing.

I trust I have now made myself clear to your complete satisfaction?

Yes?

Then give it a rest why dontcha?

I trust I have now made myself clear to your complete satisfaction?
Yes thank you!

I am hoping that you C&Ped that ironically.

Difficuly to tell though since you have not made yourself very clear 3)

:o !!