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??

witchy, this black and white approach doesn't wash. The law is black and white, risk is not. In many situations pedestrians and cyclists do share the same space. The risk is accepted there. I have no problem with describing the cyclist in the OP as a twat. As much as anything, it doesn't matter whether you are allowed on the path as not, if you're on a bike you should be courteous and careful around pedestrians.

But there are situations where I've seen cyclists on pavements where it does seem to be the best option all round, similar to what user has described above. I'm thinking particularly of quite a long hill near me which isn't near any houses. If a cyclist goes on the road they will be probably be going at less than 10mph for about a mile. There are very few pedestrians and the visibility is good and cyclists going up the path will be going slow so the risk is tiny. And certainly far less overall risk than the cyclist being on the road. I'm pretty sure if anyone was bothered enough they could petition the council to declare the path shared use, as that is what it effectively is in practice.

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

Yes. Cyclists doing stupid things are generally putting themselves in danger more than anyone else. Can the same be said of motorists?

Who said anything about motorists??

It has to be about cyclists v motorists.

Even when it's thread about a cyclist being a dick to a pedestrian........

It's just the MN law isn't it? Even threads about baby-led weaning, Rimmel versus Bobby Brown, who puts the bins out in your house......they ALL come back to people who ride bikes v people who drive cars.

It gives me the rage when people take up the pavement cycling. And I don't drive so I have no motorist based prejudices at all.

I live in London where cycling on the roads is very dangerous but it's still no excuse to cycle on the pavements where people are trying to walk.

If you say so.

I read this as "cystitis on pavements"

Just as irritating.

We do have to legislate for EVERYONE. So the law by it's very nature has to be black and white and has to be applied to everyone. I really don't understand why, if a section of road is or feels unsafe for you to cycle on (like the hill what'scoming) then why not get off your bike and walk with it for that short time.

Yes it is perfectly possible for cyclists and pedestrians to exist in the same space - but only when both pedestrians and cyclists are fully aware that it is a SHARED space and CHOOSE to be there with this knowledge in mind and have the capacity to alter their behaviour accordingly. I would not allow my six year old to amble along the local transpath alone because he would likely step in front of a speeding bike, but I would expect him to be able to walk along the pavement to his pals house three doors down.

'why not get off your bike and walk with it for that short time.'

Well quite, it's almost as if they have no regard for pedestrians.....

I compared them. Seems entirely appropriate when talking about risk on roads and pavements that it is taken in context with the biggest risk, i.e. the motor vehicle (and yes they do go on pavements too, and kill a number of people on pavements). Maybe I wouldn't need to keep pointing out the comparison if there wasn't such a weird obsession with cyclists.

yes, for all the harms done by other modes of transport and all the good that riding a bike does for everyone esp re commuting then there does seem to be an obsession that you really can't take seriously.

I can't believe that you think we MUST treat a 4 year old cycling along the pavement the same as an adult. Surely you are not advocating that if the police witness this then you would expect them to enforce the law and force the child onto the road.

We therefore cannot apply a black and white law to everyone regardless of common sense and have to draw a line somewhere. Obviously the difficulty is where do we draw the line?

There is not a weird obsession with cyclists. There quite rightly is a mild obsession with people who think that the law doesn't apply to them because they are somehow better, cleverer, smarter than others. Can't you see that even though YOU may be assessing risks appropriately, by normalising cycling on pavements and suggesting it be up to individual cyclists, you are opening the door for those who are less competent to do the same thing and to kill or maim. The penalty for dangerous cycling incurs only a fine - even if that means a child has been killed. If someone did the same thing in a car they would (quite rightly) be imprisoned!

Laws are rarely b & w - they need interpreting and applying fairly. Every judge, referee etc knows this. Otherwise they are tasks any old fool could do.

if stretches of road are safer for me to ride in the pavement than on the road as drivers cannot be trusted then that is what will happen.

So WheelofPan explain to me why you choose to cycle on the pavement rather than dismount and walk? You're pissed off at inconsiderate drivers but are happy to be an inconvenience to pedestrians?

Are you really suggesting that we allow adults to cycle on pavements because we don't want four year olds on bikes to be forced onto roads??? Firstly a four year old on a bike on a pavement should never really be that far away from a parent that they can't be grabbed, so generally four year olds on bikes are travelling slower and the size and weight of them and their bike is less likely to cause injury or death. If a four year old IS travelling at speed and in an uncontrolled fashion then I'm pretty sure the police wouldn't force them onto the road, but they might instead suggest the child comes off the bike and walks it home.

As I mentioned before - the benefits of cycling are not lost on me. My husband is a cyclist and I want him to be safe. I agree that roads are dangerous. But just because cycling is a healthy, environmentally sound and cheap mode of transport, it doe not mean that cyclists can claim every space as their own and discard the safety, and limit the options of those who walk ( which incidentally is also healthy, environmentally friendly and cheap).

Witch, you were the one to start with the arguing about risk. I am simply pointing put the difference between risk and the law. And yes there is an obsession with cyclists on here. It is odd and unfounded by the actual risks posed.

I come to this issue as a pedestrian who doesn't drive, lives in London, walks at least 10 miles a day, uses public transport when she has to. With the hundreds (thousands?) of miles I've walked throughout the city, I've seen it all. There are some terrible drivers out there, we all know that. But it's the bad (inconsiderable, law-breaking, rude and thoughtless and careless) cyclists that have a more direct impact on my life. For example, even bad drivers do tend to stop for red lights. At least half a dozen times a day, I see cyclists go straight through them. I have to look both ways very carefully and more than once before I cross the road at a green man. And yes, I seem to see increasing numbers of people cycling on the pavement. In the parks, they cycle right over the NO CYCLING signs and into the crowds of people walking! OysterBabe is right: the inconsiderate cyclists out there are very visible and unfortunately they give all cyclists a bad name.

Absolutely not witchy. Where did I say that? I have merely suggested that from a safety point of view we should apply common sense and be tolerant of young children cycling on the pavement. I have never suggested that the law against it should be changed.

Maybe I wouldn't need to keep pointing out the comparison if there wasn't such a weird obsession with cyclists.

No, you're bringing up motorists because it's easier to defend the poor ickle cyclists scared by the big bad cars than it is to defend the twats that cycle on paths.

Because they are knobs.

Why the hell are people trying to justify this by saying it's dangerous for cyclists on the roads?

If you don't want to cycle on the roads, find another mode of transport. It doesn't excuse cycling on the pavement.

The roads are dangerous so some us would rather make the pavements a bit more dangerous to balance things out.

We therefore cannot apply a black and white law to everyone regardless of common sense You said this Mumski.

I was just pointing out that we actually can and should...all laws are black and white and are applied to everyone, but the age of criminal responsibility ensures that children are not penalised for doing something that is beyond their understanding. Sorry if I misunderstood your post, but it seemed that you were suggesting that we don't apply the law.

Get you mobile phone out and film any cyclist on pavement or being abusive, then report to police. If it's a regular route it won't be hard to find and fine.