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??

[witchywoohoo]

Of course I do. My notion of risk is based on my real life experiences. And those experiences have led me to believe that anyone over the age of 5 who cycles on pavements is a danger to pedestrians, in particular my toddler who was very nearly battered by a cyclist with a trailer on the pavement on Wednesday. To assume that you are the only person on the roads/pavements who can assess risk is very arrogant.

[witchywoohoo]

I'm not anti-cycling, and the "give and take" that I would like to see involves creating infra-structure and educational opportunities etc that allow all road users to co-exist safely. Not for any of them to spill onto pavements.

[HunterHearstHelmsley]

I have to ask - if you're behind a pedestrian (on a pavement, shared route, whatever) and ring your bell, do you expect them to move? Surely the onus would be on you to move around them?

[Mumski45]

If I ring my bell whilst behind a pedestrian on a shared use path then it is usually just to let them know that I am there and that I will be coming past soon. In most cases the path is wide enough to do that without anyone being inconvenienced and in that case I would not expect anyone to move.

However there are other scenarios such as:

• a dog may be off the lead and it gives the owner time to get the dog under control
  
• there may be a group of people taking up the whole path and yes I would expect them to move in order to let me past once they become aware of me
  
  and in both of the above I would off course thank them for doing so.
  
  I would not be behind a pedestrian on a pavement which is not a shared use path, I would be on the road expecting cars to move around me.

[newmumwithquestions]

Some cycle paths route you onto pavements for a while. It's no excuse for knocking anyone over but I've found some pedestrians deliberately block your way when there is no need for it.
I've been shouted at for cycling on such a pavement - I was cycling very slowly with a baby on the back. To be fair I don't think it's clear to pedestrians that these sections of pavement are also cycle paths.

[EleanorRigby123]

This is why cyclists sometimes cycle on the pavement.

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

The woman you describe should have been more accommodating. So should you.

As we learned in kindergarden " Co-operation makes it happen"

[Unicornsarelovely]

Nice snark Francis. Well done you.

[WheelofPan]

Gold medal for obtuse unhelpfulness.

[newmumwithquestions]

Pavements are for pedestrians
Not if they are shared use pathways!
Look for the blue signs.

[Mumski45]

Francis - of course you are technically correct, pavements are for pedestrians. Many drivers would also insist that roads are for cars and cyclists shouldn't be on them.

So in the absence of good quality well designed and maintained cycle lanes (which are rare) where do you suggest cyclists go if they are too nervous or inexperienced to use the roads.

EleanorRigby was merely pointing out WHY many people choose to cycle on the pavement not that it was lawful to do so. For many people the fact that accidents happen on roads is exactly why they cycle on the pavement.

There will always be exceptions, but in general an accident between a pedestrian and a cyclist on a pavement is less common and less serious than an accident between an inexperienced cyclist and a vehicle on the road.

Why can we not be tolerant of those who choose to cycle safely and considerately on the pavement. Whilst it is illegal in general it is tolerated even by the police.

[witchywoohoo]

No. You won't find anything there that advocates cycling on the pavement.

My MIL has been involved in a few car accidents that weren't her fault. She now is a very nervous driver and perceives roads to be dangerous. If the pavement is clear of pedestrians (assessing risk) should she just bump up on there to get to the Shops? ?

The notion that cycling on pavements should be left to the discretion of the risk-savvy cyclist is preposterous. It assumes that all cyclists are equal in their attention to detail, proficiency, manners, and control. This is clearly not the case.

[ShotsFired]

How about - and this is a crazy way-out there idea - we educate people to share the limited space we have better.

So the unaware car/bus/van etc drivers learn to understand why bikes are doing what they do and have some respect for the life-changing damage their multi-ton box can do in an instant.

And non-driving and/or non-cycling pedestrians understand that some paths are shared spaces and don't let their dog or toddler go wandering all over them; and that ringing a bike bell is not an act of war.

And - yes - that stupid group of wanky cyclists to understand that they pose a risk to the even more vulnerable road user as well and bloody well stop their antics too.

And for EVERYONE to remember that we all just want to get home alive at the end of the day.

[whatsthecomingoverthehill]

The notion that law and risk are perfectly aligned is preposterous.

[user1474548809]

I have to ask - if you're behind a pedestrian (on a pavement, shared route, whatever) and ring your bell, do you expect them to move? Surely the onus would be on you to move around them?

If I'm on a shared path, people should generally be sticking to the left side (you can spot good/seasoned cyclists if they're following that rule on my shop commute). I do. I always ring my bell (softly, just once) so they know I'm there behind them, and about to overtake (on the right, like you would in a car).

So my bell is used as a "please be aware, I'm behind you", only in very few cases does it mean "please move". It only really means that when people are blocking my path and there's no way through.

This is what I meant earlier when i asked people to check the pavements they were referring to - national cycle routes DO get routed onto shared use pavements, and the signs/awareness of it aren't great in many cases. look for the tiny blue signs (the ones with bikes and arrows, plus some circular signs showing a person walking and a bike next to them).

I would normally move around a person, and not expect them to move.

Unless they are blocking the shared use path, in which case, i'd expect them to move yes - it's a shared use path, and we can both use it together

This general rule seems to be "the" way that thigns/people work on the shared use roads/pavements i use, so hope that clarifies re: the bell use.

Unfortunately, the cycling route which are segregated/dedicated lanes are pretty rubbish around here, almost non-existant or have so many repairs that they're a death-trap waiting to throw you off your bike, so i tend to use the shared pathways most if i have any choice about alternative routes.
i find that cycling infrastructure locally isn't terribly well considered during road closures etc either - it's almost like they forget cyclists exist! There's one bit near me locally where pedestrians have a barricaded bit to walk around a set of traffic works, cars do too.. and then what they've done for cyclists is force us into a bit of the pedestrian bit with signs telling us to use it.. like it was an afterthought.

So we're not supposed to use the bit where cars go on the road, but we're meant to just mesh with pedestrians, and bump up kerbs several times in order to get where we're going...

It's a mess.

[user1474548809]

FrancisCrawford the hill i referred to earlier actually has a police station on it, and not once have i been pulled over or stopped for cycling on the short stretch of pavement i described on page 5 of the topic thread here... because there's a difference between it being legal vs. what's safe. it's a messy state of affairs all around (i should be safe legally riding on on that stretch of road, but it's not, therefore it should be changed - but since we all know that's not going to happen, i guess that's why the police never stop anyone on that bit of pavement even when they see it with their own eyes!).

[Mumski45]

Francis - so other than encouraging people to be considerate and courteous by being so ourselves how do you suggest we cater for pedestrians, cyclists and road users.

The solution in some places (where space allows) has been to allocate paths as shared use and these generally work well.

No one is suggesting that pedestrians should not use the paths and we accept other risks in many areas of our lives without even thinking about it.

[squoosh]

'The woman you describe should have been more accommodating. So should you.'

Rubbish. The OP was right to act as she did.

[witchywoohoo]

No. Educating pedestrians to share their space with cyclists is not the answer. As I mentioned before pedestrians are often very young children, and elderly people, and people with additional support needs who for those very reasons are not able to drive or cycle. Should they not use pavements to make life easier for those who are more capable.

I'm sorry but this "the law doesn't apply to me because I'm intelligent and know what I'm doing" is exactly the kind of attitude that gets people's backs up when it comes to cyclists. It is outrageous to suggest that your safety is more important than anyone else's.

The facts and figures shown above also clearly state that one of the main causes of accidents involving cyclists is when they are bumping back onto the road FROM THE PAVEMENT.

If a less confident adult wishes to cycle there are many many cycle paths and quieter roads where they can learn without putting others at risk.

[WheelofPan]

"The facts and figures shown above also clearly state that one of the main causes of accidents involving cyclists is when they are bumping back onto the road FROM THE PAVEMENT. " Hmmmm didn't see that special section. Will have another look.

[Waltermittythesequel]

Not long ago a cyclist came up behind my dc and I while we were walking on the footpath.

He rang his bell for us to get out of his way, I didn't and I explained to my dc that he shouldn't be on the path. There were plenty of cyclists on the road, assuming he was just in a hurry.

He rang the bell again. I ignored him. He tried to swerve around us and went straight into a bin. Gobshite.

So, sometimes karma is wonderful and tbe dick head cyclists get their just desserts.

[WheelofPan]

Yes it's there! Moving from the pavement to the road. So a very clear indication of the dangers of roads and it's far best to stay on the pavement.....

[squoosh]

So a very clear indication of the dangers of roads and it's far best to stay on the pavement.....

..............