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?

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

Yes, you never get people saying things like "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."

because cyclists never lump drivers together at all.

Yeah, my "attitude" is a real bone-breaker, isn't it - so scary.

Ivy, I assume you haven't read my post, indeed any of them?

Goodnight all.

BBJ - there's a complete disconnect between those two notions (mine and museumum's) but sleep demands come first. night.

To the pp who said that just as many drivers run red lights and break the law as cyclists, presumably as a way of justifying arsehole behaviour, erm...no, actually, I disagree.

I drive safely and legally because I'm not a twat. Every sodding day I overtake bikes (safely and legally), only for them to undertake me to jump red traffic lights, endangering pedestrians crossing the road and creating an unnecessary hazard for vehicles and cyclists turning, legally, onto the main road.

Once through the lights, the overtaking begins again, delaying everyone, and then we all get undertaken again at the next lights.

I don't appreciate all drivers being lumped together, just as I wouldn't lump all cyclists together. My god though, there are some arrogant people on bikes. I see at least 10 cyclists jumping red lights every day, whereas I can't remember the last time I saw a car doing that.

YANBU OP - I'd hand him the highlighted section of highway code, and take his picture.

There is one rule for all pavements. In the same way there is one speed limit for all types of road (e.g 30 where there is street lighting). This may be specifically overridden by local legislation but this will always be sign posted.

Merrymouse, Why would you always need sign posts for a second rule?

?
So people are aware that it exists?

"I am querying my speed ticket because although generally roads where there is street lighting have a speed limit of 30 and there is no sign to suggest otherwise, I thought it might be one where the limit was actually 40"

"Officer, I know you have asked me to get off my bike, but some pavements are shared by pedestrians and cyclists - I haven't seen a little blue sign yet, but I just assumed I would see one eventually".

The general rule in the uk is you can't cycle on pavements - exceptions are sign posted.

Having said that, I don't see any problem with people cycling on pavements if they have good visibility, the pavement isn't busy and they stop in good time and allow pedestrians to pass. There is a road near me where drivers seem to assume that it is one of those 30s that is actually a 50. I am less tolerant of cyclists who assume they have right of way on a pedestrian pavement.

My god though, there are some arrogant people on bikes. I see at least 10 cyclists jumping red lights every day, whereas I can't remember the last time I saw a car doing that.

You need to ride a bike more then. As a rider you see much much more traffic than as a driver. (drivers in debates often forget this). At least once per commuter trip, cars try to slide through on red, and worst of all, are prepared to risk the well-being of riders like myself by trying to 'sneak' a right hand turn across my path as I set off straight on. Now that is arrogant, dangerous and illegal behaviour, which other drivers would appear to deny happens.

Ok, so most people on mumsnet hate cyclists, see them as deviants unless they are going very slowly, preferably pushing their bikes and would rather they didn't exist. Threads like this are an excuse for abusing one sector of society.

From reading the OP, its typical of the lack of infrastructure and poor planning in the UK. Virtually every other Northern European country is investing in cycling. Where I live, I am surrounded by new build estates on tge edge of villages for which no pavements, never mind cycle paths, were built. The planning system in the UK is awful, and the solution is to be more aware of that, rather than mindlessly trying to wipe out one category of traveller. OP describes using her car to block a more vulnerable road user. Yes she was going into her driveway but get words explain her intentions quite clearly.

I suspect the cyclist was interested in getting somewhere, and unlikely to be ambling about with the intent of annoying the OP by holding her up for seconds.

The Highway Code is of advisory guidance only, not law, and the OP isn't entitled to enforce the law - does she also go around blocking and attacking car users who break the law?

On this thread, I have read the word perambulation (for walking), read how the OP is going to force cyclists to listen to her sermons on the Highway Code, how pedestrians intend to block pavements like cattle and riding a bike described as driving. Do these posters seriously think they sound clever talking like this? ie to the rest of the world who do something slightly more active with their lives than sitting gossiping on the internet? I wasn't even there, obviously, but I have a presumption in favour of the person that actually gets off their backside, in the awful conditions that tge UK provides in return for our not insubstantial taxes (just why do other countries find it perfectly possible to pay for it?)

Pan - you lost me at the point where you said you regularly ride through three red lights on your usual journey. Just because you believe the behaviour of drivers at those junctions justifies it. There are regularly places where, as a driver, I am stopped at red lights where IMO it is perfectly safe for me to proceed and not wait. However I would be breaking the law if I did.

I do not see how you can complain about the behaviour of drivers (lumping us all together - thanks for that) and think that justifies your own appalling disregard for the rules of the road.

"appalling disregard for rules of the road" - ha,ha...you're kidding.

This is where drivers on these threads just don't get the 'not a level playing field/we are far more likely to die or get seriously injured/we are not cars' situation. I ride through those lights as a direct consequence of my health and safety consideration as car drivers will indeed attempt to bundle me off the road otherwise. As a driver, (see the difference?) I wouldn't go through those lights as I simply don't have the same reason to. Drivers really should get out on bikes more. It would be a real education.

No I'm not kidding Pan. I cycle myself although not a work commute. I am a considerate road user and I don't do the things you have complained about drivers doing when I am behind the wheel. On my commute I encounter many cyclists and give them space, check my mirrors, don't drive too close, etc.

If we all picked and chose which rules to obey to suit ourselves it would be a free for all.

Perhaps you need to take a look at how you cycle and whether you create some unsafe situations yourself.

Why are you commuting to work by car on a route there are so many cyclists on anyway wowfudge? Cant you get there in a better way? Honestly, Id be embarrassed to admit I drove past people cycling.

Good to know you consider yourself a safe driver.

And thanks for the advice. btw do you think I do 'create some unsafe situations'? Or is it at all possible I judge circumstances as best as possible, and act with safety upper most, to avoid very unsafe circumstances just round the corner?

Chelsy - really. I don't have to justify driving to work to you. You'd be embarrassed. Good for you.

He shouldn't have been on thr pavement or the road going the wrong way.

dickheads justifying his bad behaviour on the basis that other people are twats (thr minority of both groups of motorists and cyclists) are probably part of the group f twats.

I guarantee that if I stood at a busy junction and monitored the biggest violators of the highway code then cyclists would outdo motorists by about 10 to 1.

Yes there are crap, selfish, dangerous drivers but the number of crap, selfish dangerous cyclists is off the scale.

As you say though Pan - they are the ones who end up dead.

Not sureif this has been said already as haven't been able to read the entire thread yet but earlier this year there was apparently guidance issued in London stating that cyclists could cycle on the pavement when necessary (I.e. If safe to do so, if the road was particularly dangerous). This was in relation to London after the spate of cyclists being knocked off their bikes, so not sure if it was nationwide guidance, but the police were told to act with discretion if they see a cyclist on the pavement and don't necessarily fine.

I'm not saying that this necessarily applies in these circumstances but thought it was worth mentioning for interest.

Pan, FFS, you ride through red lights? They are to protect pedestrians too. Wtf do cyclists have against pedestrians?

Nancy, ITA.

I honestly wonder why some posters haven't joined tge police, since they claim to be so interested in enforcing the law. Except that then they wouldn't be allowed to persecute a certain sector of society. Even if it takes the form of Victorian ladies with smelling salts!

Most cyclist have probably based their actions on a well thought out judgement on how best to survive and secondly, on how to get to work reasonably quickly. Since there isn't a fair playing field in terms of cycling infrastructure, it doesn't make sense to listen to cycle haters on an internet forum, who do not have both aims in mind while writing. Its part of the car centric culture we have create and what would be useful would be attacking the lack of infrastructure, rather than the users.

one solution would be to close the OP's lane to traffic and make it a cycleway, if there are so many cyclists who use it. The junction referred to also sounds like it needs rebuilt. There is so much that modern road planners can do with even quite old junctions, much of it demonstrated in provincial Belgian villages, but very rarely n UK towns and cities.

Dragon, wouldn't surprise me. How bloody stupid. Again, no regard for the poor pedestrian. We won't be able to walk anywhere freely soon.

If another cyclist parries an argument with a moan about DRIVERS I will actually scream. Luckily I need to go out.

Lordy, we have some major H&S divas on here!

When asked why people don't ride more on roads (despite the many advantages of doing so), the overwhelming reply is always "I think it's too dangerous." Now, from who do we think those dangers come from? Peds, riders, or...drivers?

Have some road racing from Glasgow Commonwealth Games to see - riding round Glasgow centre, the number of red lights they are riding through is 'appalling'!

www.gov.uk/highway-code/introduction

"Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’."

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

In all honesty I don't think most pedestrians mind a cyclist slowly and carefully cycling along a pavement, getting off/stopping to pass or when passed by a pedestrian - It's no more inconvenient than sharing the road with a pram. Above a certain volume of people this isn't practical and the cyclist should get off and walk. Many cyclists don't give way to other pavement users, and (as evidenced on this thread) aren't aware of the law. Many children don't have the cycle skills to control their speed and stop when near pedestrians. This is when problems happen.

Cycling the wrong way on a one way street round a blind corner is just suicidal.