To cycle ON the pavement?

[Hum2]

Haven't ridden in years and just getting back on it. Do not trust some of the cars on the road to overtake me with enough space. I'm still wobbly on it.

AIBU to ride on the pavement? Even when there is a cycle lane on the road (which was a locked at two points today by parked cars!).

I also use the 'green man' to cross the roads rather than moving to the road and crossing like a vehicle.

Yes empress exactly!

I think they should slow to a walking pace as they approach and pass pedestrians, give way to pedestrians and give them as much space as possible when passing.

My child was riding at a very brisk walking pace on a balance bike when he was still two, so I don't think it is reasonable to ride at an average walking pace on an empty pavement. Running speed is fine I think.

Yes @Empress, exactly.

Can we at lest agree that if people have to ride on the pavement, they should go at average walking pace, stay well clear of pedestrians & not expect people to get out of their way?

No. Because they do not, ever, have to cycle on the pavement. If they can't cycle on the road they should get off the bike and push it on the pavement.

Cyclists tend to be too lazy to get off and push though. That's why they are cycling instead of walking anyway (bar the 10+ mile commuters who would be on the road anyway)

That includes the ones who cheerfully run red lights while pedestrians are crossing. They're either too thick to understand or too rude to care & I have a fair idea which.

A former colleague of mine got knocked flying on a crossing by a cyclist who jumped a red light. She's a former colleague because she suffered life-changing injuries and had to give up work. She's had to sell her house and move into a flat and is now on a small pension + PIP.

It's made me utterly paranoid about cyclists, and I've had 2 scarey encounters. I live in a historic town with narrow streets and very narrow pavements, and lots of cyclists use the pavements because of the narrow streets.

The first was when I rounded a bend in the street to find a cyclist, who'd taken to the pavement to avoid waiting at the traffic lights, hurtling towards me. He had to practically stand the bike on its nose to stop before he hit me.

The second time, a cyclist was coming downhill behind me and shouted at me to move. As I turned round, my shoulder bag slipped of my shoulder and swung out, and he was so close that his handlebar caught in the strap. For a moment I thought I was being robbed, and yanked my bag back towards me. The bike came with it and he nearly fell into the road. Which made me a stupid cunt, apparently.

These two incidents are a big part of the reason why I now drive into town, rather than enjoy the 1.5 mile walk. There's no practical way to avoid that stretch of the High Street.

I wouldn't mind considerate cyclists using the pavement, but because cyclists are not easily identifiable, they're not accountable, either. When they have to have licences, wear a clearly legible, identifying registration number and carry 3rd party insurance, then it will be possible to weed out the dangerous, stupid and anti-social cyclists, and leave the safe, considerate ones to enjoy the privilege.

"No. Because they do not, ever, have to cycle on the pavement. If they can't cycle on the road they should get off the bike and push it on the pavement."

If the pavement is clear, and it's safer for the cyclist to be on the pavement, why shouldn't they use it with due care?

...which is what the home office say, by the way.

These anecdotal stories of bad cyclists, which lets face it, most of us have, does not really take away from the fact that any injury and death to pedestrians is far likely to come from motor vehicles. Deciding to drive rather than walk because you had a couple of bad experiences with rude aggressive cyclists is a bit like me saying I'm never going to Newcastle again cos I got mugged there once.

If it's so dangerous for people to cycle on pavements, why are lots of them designated as shared use?

The answer is that it depends on the circumstances. A narrow pavement with blind bends etc wouldn't be very good, but if visibility is good and cyclists take care and are respectful to others then I don't see the issue. (And it goes with the police guidance about when to charge people).

Stargiz yeah cos anyone traveling using there own power instead of fossil fuel is really lazy

This thread has prompted me to enquire about Bikeability Level 3 training for my child. He is safer on the pavement, and less of a risk to pedestrians than cars are to him, as he has been riding on pavements since he was two and knows to always slow down and give way. Some people on this thread have suggested that they might assault a cyclist riding on the pavement though .

As I understand things from some on this thread, apparently because some people drive dangerously and illegally around cyclists, it’s fine for some cyclists to inflict the same upon pedestrians.

As a disabled and mobility imapired person, a cyclist on th pavement is dangerous for me. Apparently I should be at risk because some road users drive like dangerous wankers towards cyclists. I know some people will say “oh I didn’t say that” but you did, by giving cyclists cart Blanche to cycle on pavements.

any injury and death to pedestrians is far likely to come from motor vehicles

That doesn’t make it OK to cycle on a pavement. It’s irrelevant.

Some people on this thread have suggested that they might assault a cyclist riding on the pavement though.

If someone realises a bike is coming up very fast next to them - and it can be a very sudden realisation, given how quiet most bikes are - and reflexively throws out an arm to protect themselves, which may or may not be holding something, is that assault? Or an instinctive reaction to a perceived threat?

If somebody's going slowly & staying well away from pedestrians then that won't be an issue.

As is always the case on MN, the MN cyclist will never ever admit that they are in the wrong. They can do whatever they like. It’s pointless trying to tell them otherwise.

Good to see the same old people popping up on a thread about cycling.

empress that would be a stupid thing to do as you'd probably end up as injured as the person on the bike.

I really can't see how throwing an arm out to protect yourself makes any sort of sense. Instinct is to "shrink" or move away from danger. Would you throw an arm out if you heard a car speeding up behind you?

I'll take it that as op is cycling on the pavement I'm collectively wrong as I'm a cyclist....soupdragon you wouldn't be making sweeping statement there would you?

No SoupDragon. Mostly we're fed up of being painted as worse than anyone else on the roads. There are idiot cyclists just as there are idiots drivers and pedestrians.

@soupdragon it's the clumping of everyone who ever gets onto a bike into a homogeneous group of people who all do nasty things, and are seemingly all held responsible for eachother's misdemeanours, that really really grates. No one on here has suggested that the actions of the people who were cycling inconsiderately were in any way whatsoever justified.

Mostly we're fed up of being painted as worse than anyone else on the roads

I have no problem with you being on the roads. The idiot cyclists I’ve seen on there are few and far between.

I do have problem with cyclists using pavements that are not a shared facility.

If the pavement is clear, and it's safer for the cyclist to be on the pavement, why shouldn't they use it with due care?

...which is what the home office say, by the way.

I agree. This is what the Home Office had to say about it when the fixed penalty was introduced.

"I have stressed that this issue is about inconsiderate cycling. The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so."

www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/migrated/blog/990709_pboetengmp_ben_bradshaw_fpns_and_cyclists_0.pdf