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?

fwiw I did report someone last month for texting whilst driving - they were so intent on doing that in slow moving traffic, they were slowly wandering into my path as I rode. Took reg plate and phoned police when I got home. I didn't want them prosecuted, just have a uniformed bobby knocking on their door. Which happened, they fully admitted it but the bobby explained that I didn't wish a prosecution, which they (police) were okay about. Just a bit of a scare/warning.

onedog - texting means you have no idea what's going on around you - eg a bike siddles up and you remain blissfully unaware of it. Stupid.

What h&s hyperbole?

Using a phone while driving is illegal. Cycling on a pavement is illegal. Doing 40 in a 30 is illegal. Etc. etc. etc. There are good reasons for these laws, but even if you don't believe/can't understand why they exist you should know that you can get prosecuted if you don't follow them, otherwise you are a doughnut (or possibly a squashed doughnut).

I think with the phone thing you also aren't looking and planning ahead. Lights change, car beeps behind you, oops, sorry into gear, move forward, bit flustered, didn't notice those school children arseing around on the pavement, they are wrapped up in some joke "laters!", "byee!" Crash...

Hmm,,despite lots and lots of caveats and exceptions being provided for you mm you still labour under the illusion that cycling on a pavement is illegal, and would always lead to a prosecution. Have you actually passed your driving test?

Have you read the Highway Code?

"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’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence."

You might also find this useful.

www.ridingabike.co.uk/html/cycling_myths_busted.html#CP

Of course it won't always lead to a prosecution. I have said before that it is sometimes the sensible thing to do. How ever I would be interested to know where this idea comes from that it is illegal.

Oops, sorry, legal.

Is the confusion between footpaths and doorways maybe?

Oops, auto correct - footpaths and footways.

Experience of riding just now - 14 miles from Central Manchester, home to Derbyshire.

Cars have; gone through red lights: overtook me dangerously, one I could feel the draft as he went by: stopped in the bike box: failed to see me as he turned left across my path: speeding X numerous: parking illegally on pavements causing an obstruction: blocked my path on the inside in slow-moving traffic (often happens): sounded horn for some reason - a horn scares the beejesus out of riders: driving v close to my back wheel.

All of these are acutely dangerous. And..tomorrow morning we will do it all over again.

So I manage to put whinging car drivers experiences into a context. Road use isn't a level playing field.

And I'm still curious about how all of these kamikaze pavement riders aren't a national scandal IF MN reports are to be believed. Makes you think possibly they aren't all.....accurate.

Just glanced at that link - it's wildly inaccurate. Riding on pavements is open to discretion of police - where it's reasonable and where it isn't.
Laws are there to provide a basis of an appropriate prosection - many circs (like mine riding up a lorry-filled road on the pavement beside it) wouldn't lead to a prosection.

IT would help to get out of the train track thinking on this.

No, it is illegal.

HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129.

It is up to police to decide whether to prosecute.

They will not prosecute somebody cycling safely on the pavement away from other pedestrians or giving way to others and getting off to walk where appropriate.

That is not the same as cycling on the pavement being legal.

Cyclists riding around on pavements claiming that either the Highway Code is voluntary or that it doesn't mention cycling on the pavement is not helpful. I cycle. I cycle with my children. I did a 14 mile round commute to work in central London for 5 years.

I cycled and cycle on the pavement where I think it is appropriate and get off and walk when I think it isn't.

Being an arse doesn't help anyone.

Yeah, okay. I think I'm trying to mine a very shallow seam here!

Thanks for the extract, merrymouse. Seems there is a reporting line straight to the police. Unfortunately I have never seen a police officer near an incident and whenever I've shouted at an offending cyclist he/she has never hung around long enough for a report to be submitted. It is good to know that this guidance exists, nevertheless.

Wow, I know people jump to assumptions but nowhere in my post did I say I text while driving. In fact nowhere did I say I drive. I do, but not while texting .

Nor do I hate cyclists. Tbh, I respect them more than drivers, they use their own power to travel and pollute the world a lot less. The majority obey the laws of the road, wisely, given how vulnerable they are. Yes I look in all 3 mirrors before moving my car.

As I said in my second post my phone is on silent and in a bag in the footwell, so no I won't be in big trouble because it is not possible for me to be caught using the thing. Was just surprised that it is considered so dangerous when stopped at lights (with handbrake on, out of gear) yet a sat nav stuck to the middle/side of the windscreen or worse half way down the console near the stereo is considered fine and not a distraction . Genuinely interested to know what the rational is with that

Yes, sat navs are a curse. (but so is any texting activity whilst you are responsible for a vehicle). Sat navs are an invitation to 1. stop thinking and 2. stop looking.

It would be gud if the changes around police looking at phone use at accidents could be widened to see who had a sat nav operating at the time. Not knowing where you are going is a major factor in all RTAs.

and thanks for the recognition of what riding a bike actually means in commuter world onedog. We cause less cost to everyone, many times over.

*rationale

Pan I have several mad keen cyclists for mates (road riding) and I am very aware of how vulnerable they are. Makes me cross when I see other cyclists riding across with no due care as it tars all others with the same brush. I believe that it also encourages animosity between cyclists and car drivers, which is a pity (and dangerous).

Someone I know actually has personal liability insurance for themselves as a cyclist on the road in case of involvement in an accident. But as for making cyclists pay road tax, on what emissions grounds

Chelsy - What on earth is wrong with comparing provision with other countries? How do you think planners should learn? Comparison is an invaluable tool.

Because - as I explained - they are not making a reasonable comparison. They say X country has 20 mph roads that all have a bike lane at the edge of the road; completely omitting the vital fact that these are residential roads. The residents only have a very short drive and they are on a motorway. Whereas we have only silly little narrow roads and the nearest motorway can be 10 or so miles away.

I wish the planners would learn from other countries and set up a better system of local roads, and highways on which you can get somewhere. But they won't, because it costs money, and our politicians are obsessed with stopping people from getting around.

We tend to fart a lot.

VelvetEmbers Because - as I explained - they are not making a reasonable comparison. They say X country has 20 mph roads that all have a bike lane at the edge of the road; completely omitting the vital fact that these are residential roads. The residents only have a very short drive and they are on a motorway. Whereas we have only silly little narrow roads and the nearest motorway can be 10 or so miles away.

I wish the planners would learn from other countries and set up a better system of local roads, and highways on which you can get somewhere. But they won't, because it costs money, and our politicians are obsessed with stopping people from getting around

That's exactly why we should be making comparisons, and keep making comparisons. It clearly is possible to do it better, and it is possible in many cases to either rebuild roads to modern standards (I know in the UK they are barely resurfaced any more) or reroute. Yes, you have a problem in certain towns and cities which are too narrow to put in separate cycle lanes, in which case the answer may be to close them to traffic entirely.

I agree that successive governments seem to have an aim at times of encouraging people to roam no further than 50 miles from their place of birth. The planning system in this country is awful, but that's not reason not to point it out.

In fact, one local authority spends a lot of money sending its staff on trips abroad to study their other management systems. Unfortunately they sent them to provincial Trondheim in Norway, and came back with the idea of road charging and closing the city to traffic. And if you've ever been to Trondheim, you'll know its no place to copy. Another local authority I lived in created a cycle path which took cyclists a winding route of 3 miles to cover half a mile (it was the same LA which allowed new housing estates to be built without linking them to the rest of the town by pavement though).

What the OP describes is clearly a need for off-road cycle provision, and people acting as they do out of desperation (a) not to be killed and (b) still go at a reasonable enough speed to make getting to work or their destination possible without leaving at 4am or similar.

Sorry, onedog, I am so glad you don't text even at lights. I agree about satnavs although they are, I suppose, hands free (the tapping away stuff should be done before you start driving and should be illegal later in the journey).

We need to all lobby for proper provision for all road users (including pedestrians), for sensible laws, and then for strict enforcement of those laws for all road users.

Littlemiss

I agree, our road system in towns and cities are mostly unsuited to the types and volumes of traffic using it, they are woefully maintained, massive potholes - bone shaking and potentially damaging to cars and their passengers, potentially lethal to cyclists & motorbikes.

Most of the cycle paths round my way are ridiculous, they don't continue for any real distance and have been created by 'stealing' from existing pavements without really providing enough room for either pedestrian or cyclist

I mean, I'm not saying that riders are necessarily 'better' than car commuters, I mean it's a balance isn't it?
That riders cause much less traffic congestion to begin with, and cause no damage to road surfaces that cost £Ms to repair, no, not that we are 'better' for that.
Nor that riders are fitter and cost so much less to medical services and the NHS, and arrive at work in a more engaged state than drivers, nor that adult riding commuters supplement drivers' costs at all, no.
Nor that riding one experiences the natural elements in a way drivers cannot, no that isn't the point either.
Nor that riding means you don't damage the environment at all, rather than driving and pumping out damaging emissions, no.
Nor that riding increases your awareness and skills when you do drive a car, no, that isn't a winning argument at all.
Nor that riding as a commuter means you take up one parking space less. Nor never park your bike which means other people are obstructed.

So no I'm not saying necessarily its better to bike when you can. And learn essential negotiating skills when you are the more vulnerable party.

No, we aren't absolutely the 'better' commuter, but possibly on evidence so far, that driving may should be evolved out of consideration. Maybe, for everyone's sake.
So perhaps, maybe, riders are 'better' than drivers, it;s not clear is it?

So yes riders of bikes ARE 'better' than drivers, on every level and so should be accorded that respect to reflect that fact.

Agreed pan. But if I walk to work, or run, I achieve much the same as a cyclist but don't create any risk to pedestrians. So perhaps pedestrians are best of all ? Those who walk are at the bottom of the food chain and why should we excuse cyclists their bad behaviour any more than car drivers?