AIBU re cyclist on pavement/cyclist going wrong way down one-way lane?

[blueberryporridge]

Just wondering, genuinely, if IWBU (I know I was a bit assertive) and also WWYD next?

Background (sorry, a bit lengthy): we live on a short stretch of narrow lane off a busy main road. The lane is one-way due to its width, and the direction of the one-way is because drivers coming off the main road are faced with a blind corner so, if anyone is on the road coming in the wrong direction, a car turning into the lane would be at great risk of colliding with him/her. Despite this, cyclists regularly cycle at speed the wrong way up the lane to join the main road. I always slow right down when turning into the lane in the car as I know there is a good chance there will be a cyclist (or a few of them) coming up the wrong way. There is a narrow pavement on one side of the lane (which is on our house's side of the lane and passes in front of our driveway).

Anyway, today, driving home at teatime rush, I was just about to turn into our driveway when I saw a cyclist heading up the lane in the wrong direction and just coming up to our drive. I normally stop to let any pedestrians past before I turn into our drive, but I must admit I was slightly fed-up by yet another cyclist heading in the wrong direction, and turned the car into the driveway making him stop. I also (and wouldn't normally do this but was feeling a bit exasperated after a hard week at work) rolled down my window and said "it's one-way". I noticed in passing at that point that the cyclist was actually on the pavement rather than on the road itself.

Cyclist proceeded to continue up the lane against the one-way flow, then turned round to come back and shout at me that he had been cycling on the pavement, not the road, and therefore it didn't matter what direction he had been heading in. I said that I felt it was inconsiderate and potentially dangerous to be cycling on the pavement, thinking of small DC or elderly mother possibly stepping out of our driveway unable to see cyclist about to whizz past our gate, and being knocked over. (Due to neighbour's mature trees, shrubs etc, visibility when coming out of our driveway (in the car or on foot) is not great.)

I also said that he shouldn't be cycling up the lane in the wrong direction due to the danger of the junction, and that approaching it on the narrow pavement wasn't any safer for him and made it more hazardous for pedestrians coming round the corner on the pavement.

He then told me that I didn't know anything about cycling. I explained that I do cycle quite a bit (well, I used to in my younger days) at which point he looked me up and down and said "I doubt it". (Obviously doesn't think I'd look good in black lycra, which is, unfortunately, correct....) He then went on to say that there was absolutely nothing in the Highway Code to say that cyclists couldn't cycle on pavements, and that he would be continuing to do this when he cycles home up our lane (in the wrong direction) every evening.

Well, I've checked up my Highway Code since and see, as I thought, that it states quite categorically that cyclists must not cycle on pavements. (It also contravenes a certain paragraph of the Road Traffic Act whose reference details I can't remember just now.)

So (1) WasIBU to tell him he shouldn't be cycling the wrong way up a narrow one-way lane with a blind junction and (2) that he shouldn't be cycling on the pavement?

And (3) Would IBU to print out a copy of the relevant Highway Code and legal paragraphs and hand them to him the next time he whizzes along the pavement in front of our house?

Or is it none of my business (unless, of course, I end up knocking the down or being knocked down by him as I come out my gate on foot one evening?

I think if there's no cycle path, leave your bike at home.

Same way I don't drive my car on the beach, down railway lines or in my back garden.

You are not obliged to cycle you know. Walk, train, tube or walk.

I regularly shout at people who cycle on the footpath (rural footpath with NO CYCLING signs at either end. Including a) a local councillor from a party that should know better and b) the marshalls for a local school's sponsored cycle event. OK, I didn't shout at the marshalls as they were school children but told them why I was going to ring and leave a message on the school answerphone, and did so.

The school hasn't done that even there, again.

(I am a regular cyclist by the way and I will, hypocritically, cycle on the 10 feet of another path that say No Cycling, unless there is anyone around, man, woman, dog, child, baby in buggy or enormous agile jogger.)

Toffee - a lot of villages don't have a train station, tubes aren't common outside very large cities and journeys which take 30 minutes by bike take 1.5 hours to walk.

I'd prefer to cycle (on the roads as no cycle paths round here) and on the bus lanes of cycle paths when I actually get into the city. Seems a better option than adding to the particulates in the air while I sit in my arse in the car...

I don't think you are being unreasonable at all OP. The cyclist had to stop as it was your drive and you were obviously turning. If he hadn't seen you signalling or making that turn he shouldn't have been on the road or pavement! I must admit I am sick to death of adults taking to the pavement on a bike just because they can't cope with traffic. If you are on a bike you dismount on the pavement.

We have a small public footpath near us that people use to go to school. It is so narrow that you have to step into the hedge a little or turn slightly sideways to get by if someone is walking towards you. It is a no cycle path for obvious reasons but there is a mother with two older junior age children who insist on riding down it. The week before the holiday us other mums had had enough of being ding dinged to step aside so she and her kids could glide past on their bikes even though she has been asked more than once to get off the bikes! So we made a pact and each of us refused to get out of the way until they dismounted and WALKED! By the time she got to the end of the lane she must have got off (then back on which I found totally odd) at least three times. Hopefully she will be a bit more courteous when the new term starts or she will get the same treatment again. If it a pavement or a no cycling zone don't cycle and ring your bell to tell me to get out of the way because it is not going to happen.

Two wrongs pan do not make a right.

Just...what???

Note how law-breaking cyclists use drivers' bad behaviour to justify their own.

Has there been a drop in I.Q. round here since I've been away?

This two-wrongs/justifying actions is bollocks at best. For me at least I was highlighting the utterly hypocritical attitude of many drivers in criticising riders whilst merrily breaking the law every day themselves.

Road use is not a level playing field, so I and many other riders will be mindful of where the most dangerous bits of road are and make plans accordingly.

OF course, IF you can't drive your car with consideration for others you should leave it at home. You don't have to drive. Walk, use public transport.

Or ride.

"The cyclist had to stop as it was your drive and you were obviously turning."

Actually, cars are supposed to give way to people on the pavement. Not sure if that applies to people using it illegally though!

Can't say I'm a fan of the rise in pavement cyclists. Ironically, having more cyclists on the road is likely to increase safety so everyone else loses out. Especially irritating are those clearly competent ones twitting along at 15-20mph.

Must confess on a few occasions to using a pavement on a 1 way street. Cut out about a mile from the route. Only ever did it at walking pace or pushing though.

Highway Code:

64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129

There are plenty of pavements round this area where it is advertised that you can cycle on the pavement...so are you saying that the council are wrong and it is illegal to cycle on the pavement even if it states you can?

I just find it interesting that when I drive my car I am just me, in a car, and nothing to do with all the drunk drivers, speeders, boy racers.... but when I ride my bike I somehow become responsible for all the crimes of every other person on a bike ever, and in fact I also deserve to have my life endangered in return for crimes of other cyclists, people I have never met..

Purple - there are numerous caveats to that 64 rule. As we should expect, laws need sensible applications. Adults racing along a pavement with people and houses on it is totally different to other circumstance. Fortunately, police apply reasonableness and common sense in interpreting this law, much in the same way as we can hope they do in other areas. The constant "It's illegal!" cry is pitiful.

interesting point there museumum. A complete inconsistency I hadn't though of in the way you describe it. Thanks.

Buts its not always illegal to cycle on the pavement, plenty of pavements, footpaths, walkways you can cycle along...others you can't due to bye laws etc

Oooh, I love this thread ... because in the last few months I have been walking along a narrow pavement and cyclists have come bombing along it and: screamed 'get out of the way, you stupid old [c]word ...'(by a middle aged 'lady' cyclist). More recently, guy hurtled towards me (on pavement) and I suggested as he approached he could maybe cycle on the road and he shouted that I was a silly old bitch.

Next time (last week) I was prepared and as cyclist approached on pavement I thought I'd get my insult in FIRST for a change and shouted something on the lines of 'get in the road, cyclist.' Only the final word wasn't 'cyclist'.

My cycle commute involves cycling right round a bridge that operates in a one way system - or cycling on the pavement over a short bridge which cut outs a huge circular route that is heavily congested in traffic. I used to take the longer route but found if I tried to pass stationary cars, they all pushed up as close to the one in front as possible to not let me in, and it was really stressful and took forever. I am a very careful cyclist and don't pass cars unless they really aren't getting anywhere, so they don't have to then overtake me after - but in this route it is necessary but dangerous thanks to the drivers' rudeness. So I have taken to using the footpath and crossing the bridge against the one way flow - saves me a good 10 minutes and is safer. I used to walk the bike, but have yet to meet a pedestrian so now cycle on it. I would jump off if I met a pedestrian. I did run this by a relative who is a police officer, and they were adamant that they wouldn't ever pull a cyclist up for it in those circumstances, and this police officer has handed out penalty notices to cyclists in the past for various offences.

Very long winded way of saying that I understand why people break the rules sometimes but in the situation you describe, yanbu!

On a similar theme, there are 3 red lights I ride through on the way to work. I do this as I know round each corner the road narrows and fuckwit drivers will try to squeeze me off the road and queue up nose to tail to stop riders getting between them and losing them, oh 10 secs on their way to work. Drivers who don't ride a bike simply fail to imagine what it's like to ride, esp in heavy traffic. And fail to grasp that we would take up another car space, and parking space IF we drove. (the majority of adult bike commuters are also car drivers.)

For what it's worth op I think you were BU. He waited. He could've been a twatty cyclist and carried on peddling but he didn't, he waited. Instead you made him wait so you could berate him. No wonder he was annoyed at you.

OK, he saw my car and stopped. But the thing is, by cycling along that pavement, he could easily have mown down one of the small children or elderly people who live on the lane and whom, if they had stepped out onto the pavement from their paths/driveways, he very possibly wouldn't have seen in good time due to trees/shrubbery etc. There's a reason why cycling on pavements is illegal - it's because it's potentially dangerous. By choosing to cycle on the pavement instead of taking the equally illegal option of cycling the wrong way up the lane, he was making an illicit short cut safer for himself but making things more dangerous for other people.

And I didn't berate him. I just pointed out that it was a one-way lane. He was the one who came back and berated me, actually, which is what led to our conversation about one-way lanes and pavements.

Its not always illegal to ride a bike on the pavement, many pavements you can cycle on - there is not a one rule for all pavements.

Its not always illegal to ride a bike on the pavement, many pavements you can cycle on - there is not a one rule for all pavements.

Zzzzzzzzz, pan and ivy.

We know it's safe sometimes. But it used to be the case that kids grew up, took proficiency tests and went onto the road. Now that cycling is seemingly compulsory, there's a larger number of people bombing down pavements right into pensioners, toddlers, blind people and me; many but not all of whom are also aggressive and entitled.

You know when it's inappropriate, it's when pedestrians are inconvenienced or made fearful by you. So stop trying to parse Rule 64 and just use commonsense and a little consideration, it isn't difficult.

Um...I'd wish cycling was compulsory, though that comment of yours is one heavily tinged with bitterness.
64 rule has been heavily qualified, IF you read this stuff at all Flip - doing so isn't difficult usually.

Don't be literal, I'm just bored with the argument. My comment was mildly sarcastic, not heavily tinged with bitterness (if we are being picky).

If you're a considerate cyclist, great.

..but if you take the HC literally (Rule 64) then there would also be no small children unaccompanied on the pavements to be ridden into - they would be in buggies or having their hands firmly held: (Rule 4).

Life is about a bit of common sense. A cyclist on an empty pavement where there is no other provision for him on his way to work, cycling slowly enough to stop and wait for a car turning into a drive seems not to present enough danger to justify the OP turning traffic cop and enforcer all in one go.

Aside: why do drivers want to enforce the HC for cyclists and not pedestrians? I bet the OP doesn't wind down her window to tell off night time pedestrians (the old ladies and small children on her street) to put on their reflective jackets (Rule 3 of the Highway Code).

Flipflop you keep quote rule 64 but the fact is there are plenty of pavements that are designated for cyclists to cyclevon and many do so without bothering any other pavement users. In the ops cade she made sure that the cyclist had to stop, most cyclists will not pick a fight with a motorist as they know that they are likely to come of worse and I don't think you will ever find a motorist being injured due to crashing solely with a pushbike

Well, try to improve your attitude, Flip, and your knowledge of how the HC is applied, and we'll all be happier!