Cyclists on pavement

[Rentergob89]

So this week a lady has been riding her bike on the pavement whilst children and their parents are attempting to walk in the opposite direction. She does not stop for anyone and yesterday had knocked a small child over grumbled something and carried on riding her bike on the pavement. Today I could see her coming towards me so I stopped where I was and refused to move for her. She stopped and said I was an inconvenience and I should move my fat a### out the way. I replied " you should not be riding your bike on the pavement you should be in the road" she then rode off swearing and shoving her two fingers up at me. Charming!! Two other mothers witnessed this and said thank you to me for saying something another however said I was in the wrong for not moving out of the way for her.
The pavement gets really busy after school as its the only way children and parents can walk to either their cars or the bus stop. All I am concerned about is the safety of the children but she seems to only care about herself. Was I in the wrong??

Whereas I'll continue to tell the cyclists whizzing along on the pavements in the West End of Glasgow to get on to the road.

It's an example of a real situation squoosh, in which pedestrians frequently disregard the rules.

I can think of plenty of situations in which cars are dangerous.

I'm saying that the roads are badly set up for cyclists and we should all be tolerant of each other for the most party. Where someone actually does something dangerous (and I don't think cycling slowly on an empty pavement counts) that should be challenged. But otherwise let's spare the vitriol.

Squoosh - it sounds like you have a problem in your local area. I'm sympathetic to that. Please do shout if you have dangerous cyclists near you!

Well if only all cyclists on pavements did cycle slowly. But as we all know, they don't. Hence my use of the word 'whizzing'.

From my house I have to join the main road by a lane, the pavement stops but as we are the only vehicles using the lane we have to exit very carefully as we are not expected by those using the pavements do visibility isn't great. We go slow (creep) enough to spot runners, kids on bikes and scooters etc but a few times Lycra clad cyclist have whizzed by and given us a massive scare.

I have been considering mentioning it to the police but over the summer guess who have been regularly cycling past our house on the pavement - yep the police!!

Ha - I cycle very slowly on the pavement and that is almost entirely in shared areas with pedestrians. Most cyclists near me are pretty thoughtful too (a few idiots, but no more than drivers - probably fewer). I don't live in Glasgow though.

Lucked
I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you saying that the visibility as you turn out of a side road is poor? If so I'm not sure what the cyclists are doing that is wrong? Surely cars go past faster than the cyclists. How is this a police issue?

Also what is so wrong with wearing Lycra that you see the need to point it out?

The thread has moved on since I last looked last night but

I don't think Ailicece meant all roads, just the ones where separate provision is made for cyclists, presumably because the road is unsafe or unsuitable.

Thank you choir that's exactly what I meant (and I thought it was quite clear as I repeatedly referred to narrow roads with a separate cycle lane on the pavement, which is clearly there for a reason).

Gets my gall that some cyclists decide to ignore the official cycle lane on the pavement, presumably because pedestrians don't respect it and so they have to stop/start or cycle slowly at times - only to then cause an obstruction on a narrow road, meaning that a queue of drivers behind them have to stop/start or drive at near walking speed, when a separate cycling lane has been designated.

Of course when there isn't a specific cycle lane designated cyclists belong on the road and should always be treated with the greatest of respect.

The use of cycle lanes on shared use paths or anywhere for that matter is not compulsory. Many cyclists will not use them and for good reason. A non cyclist may not realise that many are badly designed, built and maintained and can in fact be more dangerous than the road.

By definition a cyclist avoiding the cycle lane in order to go at a faster pace will not be holding the traffic to walking pace.

Ailicece - Two examples I encounter every day

1. Cycle lane on the opposite side of the road that you can't get into safely
2. Cycle area shared with wide pavement - visibly marked but just after busy junction on a very busy road (pavement only for cyclists here so you have to take road) and there is a really high kerb (when becomes shared space) and no ramp to get onto it. Cars hoot when you cycle on the road but to get onto the pavement/cycle lane you would have to stop on a narrow busy road (holding up cars behind who are already often tailgating in a dangerous way), pick up your bike and re-start. First place to get onto it is at the ramp at the first pedestrian crossing/traffic lights. Cars are really aggressive, overtaking where too narrow here, as they feel that the cyclist should not be on the road. Nasty.

Sorry (pavement only for pedestrians here so you have to take the road).

I find "very politely" and "law-breaker" to be oxymoron.

"My point was about the lack of punishments that are given to dangerous cyclists and the very lenient nature of them - not about the number of incidents."

It does seem odd when people aren't jailed when they kill someone.

And cyclists are never sent to jail on the occasions they do kill.

The law is lenient for traffic offences in general. And yes, that case you found is notorious for the cyclist completely getting away with it (funny how that one is widely known compared to the much larger number of motorists who have got away with killing pedestrians and cyclists).

Numbers do matter. You are talking about 1 or 2 pedestrians getting killed per year in accidents involving cyclists, compared to the 400 odd killed by cars. But by all means, keep going on about the menace of cyclists, focus your attention where it really matters.

It really fucks me off the way some people are on their high horse on this thread. I cycle and I drive so I see both sides but I cannot believe people have the nerve to think it's as simple as "don't bike if you don't feel safe". Sod off! Some people can't afford a car and have a 5mile cycle to work in areas with little public transport.

So the answer is to cycle on the pavement?

YOU sod off, you selfish twat.

My attention is on both. Or is that too difficult for your completely blinkered and self-absorbed wee brain to understand whatscoming. I just happen to believe that making cyclists safer should not involve making pedestrians less so.

And i suggest you take a good long look at those facts and figures posted above because it clearly shows that where yes motor traffic is a menace to cyclists, arrogant cyclists who don't follow the rules are also the cause of many accidents and deaths. And let's face it.... you are full of it!

From mumsnet it seems that people are far more interested when cyclists do things wrong despite them having a tiny impact on overall risk. If you really had any concept of risk you'd be putting 400 times the effort and attention into trying to stop motorists killing pedestrians. So no it's not too difficult for my 'wee brain' (thanks for the insult btw) that people can be concerned about both, but I don't see any evidence that they are. And 'many' deaths caused by cyclists? You have a funny concept of many.

I have no idea if they still provide cycling proficiency tests. When I was in year six we were only allowed to do them if we were definitely going to cycle to secondary school; I said I wasn't sure, and that wasn't good enough apparently Then my brother did do it when his turn came but the instructor was a bit of an arse and my brother didn't complete the course IIRC. I rarely cycle anyway, mainly at places like Center Parcs or on a Boris Bike, and when I've been on a Boris Bike I'm usually with someone else and I just follow them.
I remember cycling to a swimming lesson once as a child (definitely younger than 12) and being shouted at by a pedestrian.

Another poster advocating violence against people on bikes then.

It's like advocating throwing a brick in someone's windscreen if they are driving in a manner you don't like.

Cyclists on pavements may be irritating, but that is NO reason to cause them harm. Fuck off, user.

I have reported this.

Cyclists on the pavement are very dangerous! If my cane accentually becomes tangled up in their spokes its not my fault - they shouldn't be on the pavement.

User
Adult cyclists should not be on the pavement - agreed and yes accidents happen 'accidentally' but that is not what you suggested.

You suggested deliberating causing someone harm and then expressed delight at the suffering of another human being.

I would hope that if you 'accidentally' caused sufficient harm to a child cycling past you on a pavement that they needed medical treatment you would have the decency to show some remorse.

This kind of attitude is abhorrent in any situation not just towards cyclists.

*What'scoming"

Let's have a look at how cyclists have "a tiny impact on overall risk" shall we.

The ROSPA infor sheet posted above that was supposed to convince us all that cyclists should be allowed on pavements states that:

Of the 21,287 overall casualties involving cyclists:

16 % involved no motor vehicles and were caused by the cyclist losing control of their bike.

20 % of serious collisions occurred when cyclists entered the road from the pavement, including crossing at pedestrian crossings.

Of those where motor vehicles were involved, the key factor was "not looking properly" Motorists were responsible for 53% of these incidents, cyclists were responsible for 47% of these incidents.

It is clear that there are poor drivers who are responsible for causing devastation. But completely denying that some cyclists pose a risk to themselves, to pedestrians and to other road users given these statistics does nothing to help solve the problem of cyclist deaths. In order to fix something we need a clear understanding of the cause - by denying cyclist behaviour as a contributory factor you are perpetuating the problem.

Stop burying your head in the sand.

www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/