to tell (adult) cyclists to GET OFF THE PAVEMENT!

[CelticPromise]

On my run last night a man cycled up behind me and passed pretty close. I didn't hear him cos listening to music. I didn't plan to say anything but 'get off the pavement!' just came out of my mouth. He shouted back something about there being no space on the road.

He then waited outside (i presume) his house and asked if I had a problem, to which I said I did with adults cycling on the pavement. He seemed to think that he was perfectly justified in cycling on the pavement because 'there is no space'. This went into a minor slanging match and I just told him to grow up and ran off.

Now I am not proud of shouting and if I could do it over i'd apologise for that and quietly point out that what he was doing is illegal and dangerous. But AIBU to say something? Has is become acceptable to cycle on pavements? Am I in the wrong?

Thanks CremeEggThief - DS is fine and didn't even seem to realise what had nearly happened to him. I was shaking with anger and relief all the way home - I wish there was some way I could report tha cyclist!

repeated my message; sorry

YANBU at all

I was nearly run over this morning by a women riding her bike while her dog ran alongside (so taking up the whole pavement). She was coming downhill towards me at quite a high speed.

Had I not got out of the way there is no way she would have been able to
stop, nor did she show any signs of slowing down.

I recognise this is probably a convenient way for her to exercise her dog, but why can't she go to one of the many local parks for this? Why should I have to be on the alert for cyclists when I'm on a PAVEMENT?

I would like to stand in their way and refuse to move but I'm not brave enough, I don't want to get hurt (especially now I'm pregnant).

The UK has so few cycle paths and such inconsiderate drivers that it's easy to see why cyclists need to cycle on the path. A pedestrian / cyclist accident is much less dangerous than a cyclist / car accident, and it's important to encourage people to cycle more. I think the long term solution needs to be to reduce the number of cars on the road, so that cyclists are safe to cycle there. But in the mean time they should paint a line down the middle of pavements and make one side for pedestrians and the other for bikes. Cyclists are doing everyone a favour by reducing car emissions and making themselves healthier and therefore costing the NHS less, so I think it's fair to expect people to try to make it as easy and safe as possible for them.

Oh yeah so who give a fig about the pedestrians?

Wrong Teddybare, wrong.

And guess what? Walking is even greener than cycling!

Are you sure the pavement wasn't a shared-use route which allow cyclists?

Look for this sign

Squoosh, I'm not saying it's ok to intentionally ride into pedestrians, just that they do not have a monopoly on being safe.

rule 64
you MUST NOT cycle on the pavement.

buy him a copy for if you see him again.

They do have a monopoly of being safe on the footpath though. For me there's no grey area. If you're on the path get off your bike.

I am quite confident that the cyclist who nearly hit DS yesterday was not on a 'shared' pavement. There was absolutely no excuse for him not being on the road - it's not even a particularly busy road.

"A pedestrian / cyclist accident is much less dangerous than a cyclist / car accident"

Your argument suggests it's ok to take the risk that a cyclist hits a pedestrian, because the only alternative is for the cyclist to cycle on the road where they might get injured.

This is not true. The cyclist does not have to cycle. If the road is too dangerous then they can walk, use public transport, drive. The pedestrian has no choice.

YANBU.

and ivykaty - your argument is bollocks.

"it does depend what type of pavement path it is as to whether a law is being broken. The pavements needs to have a highway beside for it to be illegal to cycle along - but - you can cycle along a pavement if the road is busy and you would cause problems on the road and if you come to pedestrians then you must be careful."
you may not cycle on a pavement.

if the road is blocked and you must go on the pavement, then walk - dismount your bike and walk
ffs

YANBU. Particularly red-mist-inducing if they then ring/shout self-righteously to you as a pedestrian to get out of their way.

Can't wait for it to happen to me next so I can get into a right old fight. I am spoiling for one at the moment.

[Begbie]

nickel - not my argument though is it, or did you not read the link?

malinois - even if it were the case, the cyclist is obliged to take care around pedestrians.
and cycle paths on pavements are usually split from the walking part.

i did - but I was referring to your initial writing on it, which didn't quote your article.
(ie, you were claiming it as your own argument)

the article is delaying at best, spurious and dangerous at worst.

What I was trying to express in my first post is that the current situation isn't ok and that things need to change. Car drivers put cyclists in a lot of danger. As cycling is something we need to be encouraging, it needs to be safer. It's generally not possible to walk everywhere where you might drive, but most people could cycle instead of drive. Therefore it has a greater potential in terms of being environmentally friendly. Everyone benefits from that, so I think it's fair to expect everyone to help make it possible. So to make cycling safer and therefore encourage people to do it we need to change the rules. Having cyclists on the road without a cycle lane is unsafe, as is having them on the pavement without dividing the pavement.

Until something is done about making these separate areas, then cyclists need to be safe, which in some places means then need to be on the pavement. Cyclists also have a right to not be in danger. There is a net reduction in people being in danger when cyclists are on the pavement than on the road, due to less accidents because of reduced speeds compared to a car and it being easier to speak to people and less severe accidents when they do occur.

Rather than complaining about people who are making an effort to be healthy and good for the environment, when they try to do it safely, try writing to your MP to suggest that cycle lanes are painted onto pavements and then your problem is resolved without anyone being put in danger.

Cyclists are more than welcome on the footpath Teddybare as long as they dismount. It really is that easy.

I'll happily write to my MP about that, TeddyBare ? I agree more needs to be done to make life better and safer for cyclists ? but cyclists on the pavement is still illegal and there's still no good reason for a cyclist to career along the pavement yelling at pedestrians to get out of their way.

Those who behave that way don't do much for the overall image of cyclists, and as individuals they will continue to get shouted back at by the likes of me.

And what squoosh said.

Minipie, I think the problem is in the UK that people think driving is the default option. It doesn't need to be and it shouldn't be. No one should have to drive because cycling is too dangerous!

nickel - it is legislation, if you don't like then do somethng about it, contact your MP and local district council to let them know you don't like it and want it changed and how to go about doign soemthing about it.

if you didn't realise it was legislation about the difference between pavements etc then possibly you should have checked - I kindly put the link later in which it refers to the legislation, but there was nothing stopping you from researching to see if what I had written was correct or not.

And pedestrians shouldn't be scared to walk on the footpath because cyclists are too lazy to dismount when on the pavement.