To shout at these cyclists on the pavement?!!

[LeftMyRidingCropInTheMortuary]

I travel between 2 different places for work so AIBU about either...?

City A: very busy tourist destination in UK. Cyclists riding on pavement amongst crowds of tourists (many look foreign themselves if this is relevant? Diff rules?). One nearly hit me. I yelled at her, she apologised. OK. Made me a bit wary though.

Town B: Quiet, long, straight, wide pavements. Teenagers on BMXs, they pass a wee bit close for comfort. One gave me lip when I asked her to move onto the road saying "it's legal for BMXs to ride on the pavement".

FYI: none of them have been wearing helmets either?!

Thoughts please.
Thanks in advance.

Now starting a thread about car drivers....I'm grumpy today!!!

Nobody should be speeding on pavements, it's stupid and selfish. But car drivers endanger vulnerable road users far more regularly. If I started to list all the times I've seen vulnerable road users endangered by drivers, it would vastly outnumber the times I've seen cyclists endanger pedestrians.
Perhaps if people stopped driving like dangerous knobs, cyclists wouldn't use pavements sensibly or otherwise.

hedgehog - that makes you pretty scummy, with v poor self-control.

Stoney - I very CLEARLY said the foreign bit was a reference to whether there are different rules for the road/cycling in other countries!!!!!!

Gosh, some people are determined to be offended, eh?!

I forgot to say I also HATE when cyclists go through red lights esp at pedestrian crossings - I see this ALL the time.

That was a really nasty thing to do, hedgehog. And rather disturbing that you are proud of yourself for it.

Like I said, Lotta, I cycle very slowly and am very careful around people. I wouldn't cycle in a busy area downtown. I also don't live in the UK, so no idea if it is legal here or not.

Coolwheelpans, they came very close to causing me potentially serious injury through being utterly stupid. Why not? Maybe they'll think again before doing it.

I'm with you, hedgehog! :-)

Why not? Are you five years old? Idiot.

Hedgehog, why not? Mmm, maybe because it's assault? Maybe because you could have ended up with a criminal record? Maybe because while you're so worried (rightly) that the cyclist could have injured a pedestrian you then purposefully do something which is even more likely to injure someone.

Lurkedforever1 please don't try and blame car drivers for cyclists' bad behaviour. Two wrongs don't make a right and it's a silly argument. If you don't feel safe on the roads that doesn't give you an excuse to make pedestrians feel unsafe on the pavement.

Well, while the police were pressing charges against me, they could have been pressing charges against the cyclist on the pavement. Except, funnily enough, they weren't there. I should add that I'm a cyclist myself and see no need to ever ride on pavements or endanger other people's safety.

You can't boast of violence to others on MN, and ask 'why not'?

YANBU but I think we do need much better cycling provision than we have at present.

On the school run it is really unusual to see a secondary age pupil riding on the road and obviously this is because they or their parents think it is too dangerous (they have a point).

But it means we have lots of cyclists growing up who just won't have the experience of riding on the roads and the confidence it would bring them.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for cycle proficiency type activities to extend beyond primary?

Soooo as there were no police you thought you'd carry out a violent act, which the police wouldn't do - and that's fine is it? Your reasoning really is that of a 5 year old I'm afraid.

Well I can actually. If I hadn't been very, very quick on my feet, I would have been hurt. A child or elderly person would have been very seriously hurt. And yes, I was very cross. As many people would be in that situation. Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread!

"You see no need To endanger other people's safety"

Do you not find that statement rather ironic Hedgehog?

It had nothing to do with the police being there or not, it happened within about 2 seconds and was an instinctive reaction in that situation.

As I said, I don't want to derail the thread. I was very frightened - and cross - in that situation.

It is illegal to cycle on pavements, so therefore cyclist shouldn't be on there full stop. If your "not confident" riding your bike on the road then maybe cycling isn't for you?

I'm really sick of it. I run and the ammount of times I've sensed someone right up behind me and then a cyclist shoots past is far too many to mention. I have my head phones in and listen to music whilst running, so nine times out of ten I don't realise that someone is there until they are right upon me.

You have v poor self-control then - you are presenting as a violent small child with adult capabilities - and poor judgement in coming onto MN to boast about it.

The home office guidance remains that the fixed penalty notice the police can issue for cycling on the footway is only intended for "inconsiderate cycling" and shouldn't be used for "cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so."

But you weren't hurt. And your response was to try to hurt another person deliberately by pushing them off their bike. They could have been seriously hurt because of you. They made an unwise judgement to cycle past you, you weren't hurt and your response was to try deliberately to hurt them.

Being cross really doesn't excuse your behaviour. Nor does the cyclist cycling close to you.

And we must agree to disagree.

Nonsense, Emerald. Following your reasoning no-one should ever try out a new activity ever unless they are totally confident with it from the start.

Yes the law on bikes on pavements isn't fixed like lots of poster imagine. Police show commonsense and choice re pavement riding. Laws (all laws) require interpretation, so that's what happens. Perhaps this will end the 'it's illegal!' stuff. Probs not as people may not want to actually read and comprehend it.