Cyclists on pavements

[origamiunicorn]

Ok, please tell me if I ABU.

What's your opinion on people cycling on pavements? I don't mean young children who are clearly learning or parents who are accompanying them but adults. Full blown, fully grown adults.

Where I live it seems common place and I don't get it. AIBU to say if you are an adult and aren't comfortable on the road you shouldn't be riding a bike. It always seems to be middle aged men too who whizz past, so not an adult learner or someone who is gaining confidence.

Just now I was walking home from work and I hear this bell ringing and as I turn around this man in his 40s? whizzes past me and shouts "out the way!" to which I throw my hands up in the air at him and tell him to get off the pavement and then as I walk past him further up the road at a crossing he says something, calls me the C word and rides off. I mean what?!

I actually feel a little shaken with the confrontation so AIBU in my reaction? I thought it was justified considering. I mean if you're going to ride on the pavement like a child at least give people a chance to get out the way and... should people even be on cycling on the pavement?!

Pedestrians: please stop using the cycle lane as a pavement extension, you need to look before stepping into the road

Obviously I judge you all as a class because some of you can't get this right

That's not a legal requirement it's a guideline

In England it isn't a legal requirement to have a bell

Other day I had a family group of four (two adults, two teens) cycling along the pavement two abreast come up behind me and my elderly mother. They were ringing their bells for us to get out of their way. My mum is hard of hearing and simply couldn't hear them. I turned to point to the road. They were foreign tourists on Boris bikes and they didn't understand at all that they should be on the road. At least they weren't hurtling by a breakneck speed.

It did annoy me. But that's all. The pavement was plenty wide enough for both of us.

Lots of pavements aren't. Or again, the pedestrian could be hearing impaired and not hear the cyclist behind, or visually impaired, or just turn a corner into a cyclist.

Even people wearing headphones should be able to walk in safety on the pavement, secure in the knowledge that there are no cars and bicycles coming up behind them - because the pavement is not for cars and bicycles.

Exactly. I have every right to listen to music as I walk around. I check when I cross the road but why should I expect to be run over on the pavement?

But you are not being run over on the pavement. Pedestrians are not being killed by cyclists - at least very very few.

So because cyclists are treated like shit by some drivers pedestrians should accept being treated like shit by pavement dwelling cyclists.

Got it.

"only a few" is just fine and dandy?

Reminds me a bit of when I was a child and the road outside my primary school didn't have any speed bumps or restrictions, there were a few near misses. I have a really strong memory of my mum speaking to the council (particularly bad Tory) and being told that until a child had a bad accident there they were not obliged to do anything about it.

Pedestrians see you the same way you see dangerous car drivers.

^ This

If someone is cycling like a cunt on the pavement, it is because they are a cunt on a bicycle.

So true, but it still needed to be said.

Pedestrians see you the same way you see dangerous car drivers

This isn't an us and them. I'm a cyclist, I'm a car driver, I'm a pedestrian. And I like to think I'm tolerant and considerate at all of those things. As I've mentioned up thread, our local cycle paths are normal pavements that are now designated shared pavements. They aren't separately marked so there can't be any anger about who is in who's zone. We're just all trusted to be considerate of each other, take responsibility for ourselves to be aware of what is going on around us and get to where we need to go. There really should be no reason why this doesn't work and is also an indication of why 'the law' is flexible for cyclists on normal pavements if they are riding considerately, from many councils' point of view. The need to reduce traffic and encourage people to be healthier is becoming more critical. It's all very well to say that you can walk but persuading people to give up their car for a 2+ mile commute and triple the time it takes for them to get to work is not likely to be overwhelmingly successful.

Of course individuals abuse the shared pavements where we live, but they are wankers full stop, be they cyclists that ride aggressively amongst people or dog owners that let their dogs crap all over the pavement without picking it up or just naughty kids who kick footballs along the road and into traffic.

People do need to get over the whole bell ringing irritation though. It's essential for letting people know you're there, I've tried saying excuse me but that generally doesn't cut through the sound of traffic. Go to Belgium, Holland, Germany - there are bike bells ringing all over the place. It's not aggressive. Over here, we associate it with people beeping their car horn at you, which, in the Highway Code, should only be used for letting people know you're there but is almost only ever used as a sign of aggression in this country.

And exactly why should pedestrians on a pavement have to be aware of cars

Because every so often, they need to cross a road.

And you need to be aware of cars on pavements because of (a) people coming in and out of drives and side roads and (b) all the idiots who think it's funny to park on a pavement and (c) more tragically, those who have heart attacks/strokes while driving and mount the pavement - it happens more often than you think.

Pedestrians should ALWAYS be aware of what's going on around them.

People do need to get over the whole bell ringing irritation though. It's essential for letting people know you're there

No it isn't. A cheery "hello" or "excuse me" does the job just fine and I do that when I am riding on a shared use path. There is nothing more irritating than an imperious bell and I find it massively aggressive in Germany, too. Car drivers don't drive along hooting their horns continuously so why do some (generally male) cyclists feel the need (especially in London where if you walk within 10 metres of a cycle oath they feel the need to "bell" you continuously).

On the shared path where I live they will not hear a cheery hello over the sound of the adjacent A road, not unless I am almost right behind them and in danger of startling them and appearing aggressive. A ring of my bell as I am approaching and a cheery thank you as I cycle past is perfectly reasonable.

The poster who mentioned the cheery hello was referring to a shared use pavement where bikes are allowed and cycling and walking are meant to co exist with tolerance and consideration for all users.

The "cheery hello" does not work when pedestrians are walking on the clearly marked cycle path I cycle on. Ringing a bell is hugely different to a car horn.

I agree OP that adults should never cycle on pavements. We have idiots cycling past our house on the pavement all the time.

When I cycle with 5yo DS I either cycle on the road or run along the pavement after him. It was quite funny the other day to see an adult stop and glare at him when they were cycling in opposite directions on the pavement.

If I'm walking along and I hear a bell I don't assume I'm in someone's way, I assume there's gonna be a cycle passing and I know not to turn suddenly

I don't use a bell personally, or call out anything at all, because I don't really ever get close enough to people to justify it. If I was in an area where everyone is moving at walking speed that's the speed i'd ride at

I don't understand why people get upright about cyclists ringing bells on shared spaces such as canal towpaths, they are just to let people know you are coming, exactly what they are intended for.

I don't understand why people get upright about cyclists ringing bells on shared spaces such as canal towpaths.

Mainly because some cyclists use them as a way to avoid cycling in a safe way. Canal towpaths are where I have had some of the worst encounters with cyclists. What am I supposed to do on a narrow section of towpath with a cyclist ringing a bell...I can't jump in the canal to get out of the way. Ringing a bell isn't an replacement for cycling safely, as others have said, maybe dismount if there are lots of pedestrians around rather than expect everyone to get out of your way. Also, as has been said again and again, bells are no use if the person you're approaching has a hearing impairment. Cyclists shouldn't expect that people will move for them.

YANBU AT All. I was hit by a cyclist on the pavement last week across the road from a cycle path. He did this intentionally because i was in his way. The next day I was too frightened to take the same route and had to get a lift. I walk everwhere and its not the first time I've had a run in with an idiot on a bike. They shouldn't be on the pavements otherwise whats the point of cycle paths.

By law cyclists are meant to ring the bell to warn of their presence

Which law is that please?