Saw a cyclist on the pavement today...

[CarcerDun]

...being reprimanded by a policeman. Most probably because its illegal.

AIBU to have smiled at the policeman as he walked past me afterwards?

Just because some motorists drive badly despite having past their test and some motorists are uninsured, it really doesn't follow that all cyclists should be exempt from this. It's not about restrictions, it's about the responsibilities that all road users have.

I am a new driver and when I was learning, there were many cyclists on the road. There is a huge difference between a competent cyclists, who is aware, alert and follows the rules of the road, so I have a reasonable idea of what their behaviour is likely (obviously only likely) to be in a given situation and one who shows no awareness of other traffic and is cycling in an unpredictable and random manner. Surely it is in everyone's interests to maximise the former and minimise the latter?

YABU! firstly because this doesn’t fit in the AIBU forum - clearly you are aiming to stir up the users of MN.

Additionally your smugness completely defeats the issue you clearly are on your high horse on!

Have you ever attempted to ride on the roads of the UK? A brief trip will illustrate that while the enacted law makes sense in a theoretical sense to protect pedestrians, However, there is no legislating for bad drivers and inconsiderate people. Cycling on the roads of the UK is dodgy and is not for the faint of heart, i imagine that if those cyclists were to jump into their cars at once, the volume of traffic would increase and journey delays would result.
Then you get posts (probably do tbh) that it is unreasonable that there is so many single occupant drivers on the road making your school run worse - though frankly if you live within 1.5miles you should be walking!

I've been hit by a cyclist who mounted the pavement to cut around some stationary buses. He assumed they were stopped in heavy traffic. Actually it was heavy traffic and a bus stop. I still have a scar on my leg six years later and wasted the rest of my day having neck and knee X-rays. It's lucky I was a healthy, non-pregnant adult at the time.

I don't blame all cyclists though. It's dangerous, particularly in central London where I was knocked down.

While cycling at the edge of a road I've had pedestrians step out practically under my wheel because they are overtaking other pedestrians. Easy mistake to make, they had their backs to me and a bike can't be heard. If i'd hit them they'd probably be on line somewhere complaining about bloody cyclists. There are idiots in every area, on bikes, in cars, pushing buggies. It's up to the rest of us to behave as well as we can!

Doobigetta It's really quite breathtakingly arrogant and selfish to continue to insist on your right to break the law when you've been presented witb several examples of exactly why that law exists.

Its a basic human behaviour to disrespect norms (laws) when obeying them involves risk to life. That's the problem - not very specific examples, but the basic infrastructure in this country being so poor.

Its actually indicative of a wider problem - roads are in poor condition and road planning antiquated to what other countries are doing. It probably suits government very much to have bands of "cyclist haters" and blamers, because it doesn't involve thinking very much.

But theres a trend towards being healthier and discouraging travel by bike rather than by car, and I find suggestions that cyclists be licensed, heavily regulated, etc totally unrealistic.

Has anyone ever gone to other countries e.g. The Netherlands, Germany or Belgium, and seen what they do with road design there? Even for car drivers, junctions are so much safer because of road "furniture" designed to make things like going onto the wrong lane when turning at junctions almost impossible.

Our roads are antiquated in comparison and so is some of the thinking on this thread. You can tell that some of the posters have been so discouraged from taking exercise or travelling by bike that its a totally alien concept to them to do something so healthy and environmentally friendly, so instead they whip themselves up into a frenzy against it.

The suggestion up thread that cyclists should give up cycling and walk long distances to work instead is so impractical, it makes me wonder whether the author has actually had a full time paying job. How long does she think it would take to walk 8 miles there and back each day?

I appreciate that sometimes cyclists feel they have to nip in the pavement to avoid danger, but why can't you get off your bike whilst on the pavement then re-mount when you feel it safe to do so? Is there any good reason why not?

I work in Cardiff and cyclists on the pavement are a pain in the arse. Narrow pavements and mostly fast cycling is not a good combination. I have been glanced by cyclists several times as I will not move out of their way (I'm used to standing my ground against half a tonne of horse, so a bike doesn't intimidate me ) and was hit hard in the arm once. The cyclist has never stopped.

I can't believe cyclists are suggesting a 3/4 year old on a bike on the pavement is a greater hazard than an adult on a bike on the pavement - ludicrous statement! My youngest is 3 and amongst her peers not one of them is riding a bike without stabilisers but the fundamental differentiating factor is that they haven't reached the legal age of responsibility!

Why is requiring cyclists to have insurance, demonstrate familiarity with the highway code and meet a certain standard to proficiency unrealistic?

It is not impractical to walk 8-10 miles in total, a day and have a full time job. When I commuted to London I would walk from my home to the local station, in London I would walk 2 miles to my place of work, I chose not to take the tube because I couldn't afford the more expensive season ticket. My job involved lots of walking around Westminster to different offices, so I easily walked 8 miles a day in total. Using a bicycle illegally would not be a choice I would even consider!

TheChandler, as a pedestrian that walks pretty much everywhere in my city as do a lot of people I know I don't want the inconvenience of a cyclist on the pavement and having to anticipate which side of the pavement they are going to swerve to avoid you. It has nothing to do with being anti-healthy, anti-exercise, I live in one of the 'healthiest cities' in the UK awarded that title because 'walking' is the norm! Sorry that doesn't fit with your lazy stereotyping!

To the cyclists here: what are your views on my earlier post stating that there should be a test (theory and practical) and cyclists should have minimum 3rd party insurance?

Extremely good idea - in fact essential IMO, but I'd add some kind of visible registration (maybe on the back of a high viz jacket?) so that dangerous cyclists can be identified in the same way that drivers are

As I've said, I completely get the risks for cyclists on some roads - but it's simply not the answer to use the pavement instead. As a PP mentioned, if a particular bit of road is considered too dangerous, why not push the bike while on the pavement?

Thought of another that is doubtless 'unrealistic' and 'restrictive': cyclists should be obliged to ensure that their bicycles are road-worthy - brakes, lights, steering, etc. Just like the drivers of other vehicles are.

I cycle on the paths when the road is too dangerous.
I am considerate of other pedestrians and will not go on the path in the town etc.

Maybe posters are confusing different areas on here, I don't know (i am cycling in mostly rural places with very few pedestrians, not busy towns/cities) but I will always apply my common sense as to road vs pavement.

My being alive is much more important to me than people tutting at me for using a pavement I'm afraid.

Better cycle networks are absolutely needed in this country - I love going out for a bike ride on the weekend (not a racing bike, not all togged up in 'cycling gear', just out on a normal bike enjoying the fresh air and getting some exercise).

cyclists should be obliged to ensure that their bicycles are roadworthy - brakes, lights, steering etc

Yes I agree with that - And mine is. I also wear a high vis jacket and wear a helmet.

My being alive is more important to me than people tutting at me for using a pavement I'm afraid

Exacts!!

I refuse to risk my life because a few folk don't want me to cycle on pavements. You haters should give cycling a try, it's a real eye opener.

And I have never once rang my bell at a pedestrian for them to move as I would not like it done to me. I would rightfully expect a barrage of abuse because it's bloody rude. The only time I've ever used it was when a blind man was about to step out into the road in front of me.

The only time I've ever used it was when a blind man was about to step out into the road in front of me

FFs that sounds like HE was at fault! As a pedestrian he has an absolute right to be on the pavement - cyclists do not, and if you had hit him it would be ENTIRELY YOUR FAULT

Yes cyclists are in danger on the roads - but that does not give cyclists the right to endanger pedestrians by cycling on the pavement. Or by whizzing through red lights at pedestian crossings (I've had several near misses - cyclists approaching hidden by buses)

Hardly a 'cyclist hater', my DH sometimes cycles to work but he 'never' cycles on the pavement as it is for pedestrians!!!!

If you read my post again properly, bmw6 you'll see he was about to step onto the road in front of me. I sounded my bell to alert him that I was approaching.

I'm not a cyclist, but I wholeheartedly believe there has to be more investment into the infrastructure for cyclists. There needs to be more done to improve safety for cyclists, and hopefully encourage more people to use bikes rather than the car.

Not all cyclists are bad, just as not all car drivers are dangerous. Yes, it can be frustrating having to go slow behind a cyclist/horse/tractor/whatever but it will hold you up way less than if you lose your patience and try a dangerous maneuvre that causes an accident.

Although it's illegal, I have no problem with cyclists going on the pavement but only if they give way to pedestrians. If I am walking on the pavement I don't expect to have to jump out of their way. They should dismount and walk round me. But you always get one idiot - or in one case a mum and her child who thought because her son was only 4 I should jump out of the way - no, they both should have dismounted and walked around me.

And I agree that it is really annoying to crawl behind a cyclist on a road when there's an empty pavement next to them. But cyclists are entitled to be on the road so you have to put up with it, however silly it is. But if it is a good quality cycle path it just should not happen. I really don't understand why cyclists prefer to take their chance with fast-moving metal boxes rather than go on a decent cycle path (I'm not talking about the silly ones on the road that are really narrow and last about 10m).

It's really quite breathtakingly arrogant and selfish to continue to insist on your right to break the law when you've been presented witb several examples of exactly why that law exists. But of course, you're different from those other law-breaking cyclists, aren't you? Until you hit someone, and hurt them, and then you aren't different at all and no-one is surprised except apparently you

I have not hit anyone-I have not hurt anyone and am not going to! I only do it if there is no one on the pavement. I am going slow enough to stop should anyone dart in my path. I have only been presented with examples of why I shouldn't cycle on pavements with pedestrians.
I am far more likely to hit someone and hurt them when behind the wheel of my car-I still get in my car and drive!
I shall continue to cycle on pavements-when they are empty. Nothing on here has convinced me otherwise.
I do my cycling along the canal towpath. That is allowed and is part of a cycle way! I meet far more pedestrians along there and pedestrians and cyclists manage perfectly well even when the pedestrians have their back to the cyclists.
Perhaps someone could explain the logic to me of keeping my bike off the empty pavement, where I don't see a single pedestrian, and then getting on it for the towpath way which is full of pedestrians-bearing in mind that the towpath is for walkers and pedestrians on the same part of the path and signs actually have pictures of bikes because it is a cycleway!! Logic anyone?

Pretty petty expecting a 4 year old to dismount from his Thomas Bike! Do you have children? Children under 10 are a totally different category - any reasonable person would think that!

Goldenbear how many people do you think live within two miles of their work? Naturally, since that is quite rare, I assumed you meant you thought that people should walk 8 miles to their work, which incidentally is how far it is to mine.

Now, disregarding the fact I have to sometimes carry quite a load of papers and computer with me, never mind the change of shoes and possibly clothing I'd need, walking 8 miles to work one way would take me approx. 1 and a half hours. Then 1 and half hours back again. 3 hours per day. Now if there was a proper cycle path, segregated from the road, I could cycle, and that would take me approx. 35 minutes (I have done it, but it was terrifying due to the traffic).

As it is, I drive. I'd far rather cycle. I don't want to walk. I don't enjoy long distance urban walking, and I don't consider it strenuous enough to amount to exercise.

cardamom Thought of another that is doubtless 'unrealistic' and 'restrictive': cyclists should be obliged to ensure that their bicycles are road-worthy - brakes, lights, steering, etc. Just like the drivers of other vehicles are.

On that thinking, you might as well license, compulsory insure and inspect pedestrians as well. After all, they move faster than standing speed and in the history of mankind, there have been various incidents of them injuring people.

Make them wear helmets while you're at impractical and useless suggestions aimed at preventing people from moving about, going to work and enjoying themselves, and staying at home getting fat and developing lifestyle diseases.

What's really concerning is the number of cyclists I've seen recently who are dressed in black with poor/ no lights. And the number of near misses they've had.