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.

@mrpan

I agree, I'm just pointing out to the people who say things like "being an adult cyclist is illegal"

It's all illegal, just that some put their arbitrary line for acceptable in different places

I'll say again that if you can ride your bike suitably and with respect and responsibility to other users of the space then I don't see how people can logically have a problem with that

Collecting evidence of people riding through red lights, on pavements etc isn't really a priority compared with the mayhem caused by vehicles

I would have really liked to be able to have evidence of the guy who knocked over my DD into a road. A passerby managed to take an image as he rode off but nothing to identify him.

JH - yeahwhatevers

JH - anecdotes, as bad as they are (and obv yours is v bad) do not provide a basis for policy/resource changes.

It's at the discretion of a police officer

I'm not sure I approve of that. I think if an actual offence is committed, then it should be dealt with appropriately. If our Police are allowed discretion to ignore an offence (as opposed to general behaviour but not an actual offence), then get rid of it being an offence. It either IS or it ISN'T and should be dealt with appropriately across the board.

I could cycle in the same way in two counties, commit the same offence, but get done for it in one county and not in another. That's just silly.

Actually because of the way the law works it might not be an offense

The legislation was written in 1890s and referred to carriages

It's enacted/made a specific offense by by-law which by definition can vary from place to place (street to street within the same county even)

@JacquesHammer yes, I would object to licensing. I can't see how it can practically be made to work - car licensing works because you have a car, with a licence plate, which is large and clearly visible; and if that car is caught doing anything stupid, the person who owns it is legally obliged to say who was driving it at the time. Bicycles simply don't have that sort of space available. If you cover the rider rather than the bicycle, you have the same issue. I can't see how you can have a visible licence number on a person (as the comments have been generally about enforcing dangerous cycling in the cases of people who have pedalled off into the distance, so there's no stopping to produce a licence). Plus, the costs would put even more people off using cycling as a means of transport, which is exactly what we should be encouraging; both for their own health and for the rest of ours (who have deal with too many cars on the road and breathe in the fumes from them to boot).

Mr Wig - all rules and laws require interpreting fairly and with what passes as common sense. It's the same in all competitive games for example. It's why we have referees.

The alternative is to have inflexible over prescriptive laws which become farcical.

@KitchenFloor I sail a dinghy. I have to have a licence to sail it on a river. My boat doesn't have a licence plate.

@shatnerswig

How about a kayak?

Yep, they are supposed to have licences too and they ain't got plates. So I think that excuse really doesn't wash.

@ShatnersWig Who enforces your licence (or lack thereof?). And how would the authorities find you if you were sailing a dinghy and caused damage to someone/thing and fled? (Genuine q's by the way, I don't know anything about those things in your situation)

I live on a 20mph road. The overwhelming majority of drivers drive over 20mph. Having a licence doesn't suddenly make you law abiding.

Having a licence doesn't suddenly make you law abiding

But there’s more chance of redress if you don’t? If I get caught doing more than the speed limit I get points or a ban.

I genuinely don’t know the answer. As I said earlier in an ideal world we could all co-exist, but there’s enough of a problem locally with dangerous cyclists on pavements that measures have already been taken to reduce the possibility for cyclists to cause harm.

It's not an 'excuse', it's because licensing cycling would be completely disproportionate to the harm it causes and the only significant effect it would have is to stop people cycling. The law abiding ones that is - the ones who don't care about other people's safety would probably carry on. And what would those people who don't ride any more do? They'd probably just get in their car instead. Yeh, that would make it so much better for everyone. You wouldn't be able to charge enough to cover the administration and regulation of it all, or if you tried to you'd just get even more people not bothering to cycle. Well done, you've created a more polluted environment, with more unfit people. How much is that going to cost the NHS?

Running - should not is not law must not is law. The HC sets this out and it is not illegal to ride twos up or even 3 or 4 up as latex out in the Highway Code

I don't think I said it was law?

Where a HC rule is expressed in advisory terms, using words such as 'should / should not', or 'do / do not', the rule doesn't reflect any legal requirement. A failure to comply with such a rule can however be used as evidence in both criminal and civil proceedings. So it is advisable to comply with it.

there’s enough of a problem locally with dangerous cyclists on pavements that measures have already been taken to reduce the possibility for cyclists to cause harm

I find it really difficult to believe that more people have been injured by cyclists in your area than drivers of 4 wheel vehicles.

@Kitchen If you sail or canoe or kayak offshore (ie, sea), you don't need a licence. if you sail, canoe, kayak or canal boat on inland waterways (river, canal or lake), you need a licence from the Canal & Rivers Trust, British Waterways, Broads Agency, Environment Agency depending on where you are. It is obviously easier to monitor canal boats that moor up than it is a dinghy.

I'm not saying it's any easier than with a bike to establish someone's guilt if they caused damage due to lack of a plate, but it's a false argument to say "because you can't have plates on a bike you can't introduce licensing". You don't need insurance for a canoe or kayak; some river authorities do require a sailing dinghy to be insured.

You have to have a fishing licence to fish on rivers too, either from private landowner or the Environment Agency. And they send guys around to check them out.

But there’s more chance of redress if you don’t? If I get caught doing more than the speed limit I get points or a ban.

That's a big if. And it is the same with cyclists. If a cyclist gets caught riding on a pavement, going through a red light etc then the police can fine them. Just as they do for drivers. I see loads of cars going through red lights. I can guarantee you that the police are not interested, even when it is clearly caught on camera.

The highways agency have motorway test sites set up where they record people's speed. Over 40% of vehicles are found to drive over the speed limit in free flowing traffic conditions. On my cycle home the other day I counted 20 people on their phones whilst driving in about a mile stretch. It's clear that lots of people are taking a risk on the 'if'.

but there’s enough of a problem locally with dangerous cyclists on pavements that measures have already been taken to reduce the possibility for cyclists to cause harm.

Great. A problem has been identified and they're looking at a solution. But that solution is presumably at the local level, not a heavy handed "cyclists need licensing, insurance etc" solution that would penalise all cyclists for the actions of a few.

I find it really difficult to believe that more people have been injured by cyclists in your area than drivers of 4 wheel vehicles

It’s not an either/or. The Town Council have also spent a lot on traffic calming and safety measures which as a driver I wholeheartedly support.

The two major examples here, which have now been solved:-

Cyclists going too fast down a path that leads to the train station access. There’s now chicane style bollards meaning they have to dismount.

We live by a canal, there’s a particularly steep part which again was dangerous when cyclists go too fast. So again, gates been added top and bottom meaning cyclists have to dismount.

Both very small things but have made a massive difference.

My DD was hit a few years ago, when she was four, by a pavement cyclist. She was sent absolutely flying though fortunately was just scraped and bruised rather than anything more serious. The cyclist was horrified and he said he'd never go on the pavement again.

As a side note, I was quite impressed with the cyclist as he went flying over his handlebars but landed on his feet, with his coffee still in his hand!

I have complained to our local council due to the poor state our pavements are in - there are too many slabs with gaps that play havoc on a bike.

Ladyjane - thats because in the uk hating cyclists is a national pastime unlike the enlightened Japanese!

Shatnerwig- so how come thousands of motorists escape from hot and run incidents then?

Shatnerwig - if you read the legislation, it gives an example of the discretion and how it should be applied. What do you think is wrong with how it’s set out and the example?

@ivykaty44 Oh I appreciate you will have people who use stolen cars and if they flee and manage to get away it's very hard to get them. I don't think there should be discretion. Zero tolerance all the way, drivers, pedestrians, cyclists. Hell, let's have a jaywalking offence like in the US and issue on the spot fines if a PCSO spots someone crossing the road stupidly.