To try to cycle inoffensively?

[Confrontayshunme]

My DD started a new school about 1.5 miles from our house. We don't own a car, and my husband and I cycle everywhere. I am a VERY law abiding cyclist and super conscientious not to make drivers or pedestrians angry. To this end, I never zoom around cars at intersections and endeavour to actually just get out of the way at all times. I frequently stop and just get off the road to keep from annoying drivers. Please don't just start with the cyclist bashing, as I am really desperately trying to do the right thing and not annoy people.

The problem is that the shared pedestrian/cycle path between our home and school is closed for about a year for building works. There is a partial cycle lane for a bit of our journey, but car parking on both sides makes it too narrow for cars to go around if DD and I both go on the road, but I can't be near her on pavement due to said cars parking and it being a very narrow pavement.

DD is 7 and very confident riding and stopping and listening to me, but I am struggling not to get shouted at by motorists. I am definitely NOT doing anything illegal, but I just think busy people near a school and industrial estate in a 20mph zone = a lot of verbal criticism and stress for all.

I have done all of the following and been shouted at by drivers for every option.

AIBU to ask which of these is the LEAST anger-inducing for drivers (particularly industrial vans, since we are by an estate)?

1. Child on pavement in neon jerkin and me on bike going a slowish 8mph (but cars can go around at 20 if no cars on opposite lane).
2. Child in front of me on road (not visible to drivers so I can see why they yelled at me for being slow). This feels the safest to me, fyi.
3. Child in neon jerkin to the left of me, visible to drivers but only small cars able to go around due to both of us being on narrow road.

OR (haven't done this)

1. Both of us on pavement (though technically against code for me to be there and there are pedestrians).

I really do welcome any advice as I can't seem to get it right. Recently, on a marked bike lane near us, a car screeched its brakes like it was going to hit my DD then laughed out the window and shouted "f---ing cyclists" so I am desperate to get it right so my DD is safe.

A friend said to just go on the pavement as long as the shared path is closed, but that feels like breaking the code and I really don't want to.

I never use off road cycle paths, always the road. As is my right. Also these paths tend to suddenly stop and it is hard to rejoin the road.

The law, such as it is, makes no distinction between adults and children. Bicycles are by a 19th century court ruling "carriages" which are not allowed on footpaths. Any bicycle, any size, any rider.

Not actually true.

"Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill has reiterated that the official line from the Department for Transport (DfT) is that cyclists may ride on the footway – more commonly referred to as pavements – provided they do so considerately, and that police officers need to exercise discretion. "

road.cc/content/news/108119-transport-minister-responsible-cyclists-can-ride-pavement

The law is clear on this.

Is there legislation for pavement cycling? The simple answer to this is yes. Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835 prohibits ‘wilfully riding’ on footpaths, which refers to the path at the side of a carriageway. The original law from 1835 doesn’t refer to bicycles or cyclists (as bicycles weren’t in such common use in England as they are today) and it doesn’t mention pavements - as this is a modern word. However, the interpretation is clear - it’s not legal for a cyclist to ride their bike on the pavement. The Highway Code also states: “You must not cycle on a pavement.”

The offence of riding a bike on the pavement is punishable by an on-the-spot fine, a fixed penalty notice of £30. This is charged under Schedule 3 and Section 51 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

Even the pro-cyclist website Cycling UK admits that it is against the Highway Code, although they do their best to argue that the Highway Code is 'only advisory' (great! thanks so much for that) and they want police to ignore the law:

To summarise, cycling on the pavement is still an offence, but there is clear guidance that the police are supposed to exercise discretion.

And drivers, I'm sorry to say, are worse.

Around 50 pedestrians per year are killed on the pavement. By cars.

Let's all guess at the equivalent figure for cyclists vs pedestrians.

Nobody is advocating that cyclists barrel along pavements at 20mph with nay a car given, but equally sometimes is safer for everyone to use the pavement, and nobody yet has come up with a reason why they shouldn't.

My link was from a law firm that specialises in this sort of case, by the way, not what a 'Minister for Cycling' (!) reckons is probably true.

www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2018/03/is-it-illegal-to-ride-your-bicycle-on-the-pavement/

@KidLorneRoll And drivers, I'm sorry to say, are worse. Around 50 pedestrians per year are killed on the pavement. By cars.

Er sorry, are you expecting people to be surprised that fewer people are KILLED by bikes than by cars? I mean, it's quite difficult to kill someone with a bike.

That doesn't mean that it is safe or right for cyclists to be on the pavement. Even the data provided by Office for National Statistics exclude serious injuries, it's fatalities only.

The number of pedestrians killed AND injured by cyclists is rapidly increasing. It's actually doubled in the past 11 years.

The reality is that people get angry and frustrated with cyclists because we all very frequently encounter this utterly self-centred, self-important, selfish attitude among cyclists, and we all see them endanger others regularly.

Forgot to include the link: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/07/number-pedestrians-fatally-seriously-injured-cyclists-has-doubled/

That's a very disingenuous use of "we all" Rubicon.

Yes, but have they accounted for meowing and her posse of kamizake pedestrians, Rubicon?

The Law is clear.

All children of any age must ride their bicycles and tricycles in the road.

Kamikaze pedestrians.

OP, what I did was to have the young child on the pavement, and myself on the road, and I taught them to stop/dismount to give pedestrians priority, but my area is obviously less dickish than yours.

P.S. I can't believe you're being told to walk 1.5 miles rather than cycle in a country where motorists park in dangerous places to avoid walking 5 extra metres to doorways.

It's amazing how cyclists and pedestrians are always the ones expected to go out of their way to be safe, although our mode of transportation takes actual effort. Meanwhile, car drivers speed through residential areas, endangering other people, for the sake of saving 30 seconds...

The Law is clear.
All children of any age must ride their bicycles and tricycles in the road.

mockers

Strong drink is a mocker, you know...

@Rubicon80 speak for yourself not others? On this thread we've heard from a pedestrian that hurls herself in front of cyclists like she's a fucking suffragette so it's not all cyclists! Good and bad drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.... imagine that!

@JamieVardysHavingAParty P.S. I can't believe you're being told to walk 1.5 miles rather than cycle in a country where motorists park in dangerous places to avoid walking 5 extra metres to doorways.

It's amazing how cyclists and pedestrians are always the ones expected to go out of their way to be safe, although our mode of transportation takes actual effort. Meanwhile, car drivers speed through residential areas, endangering other people, for the sake of saving 30 seconds...

It was me that suggested she walk to school. I hope you're not suggesting that there is something hypocritical about this?

I've never learned to drive (from choice), and I asked my husband not to replace his car when his old one broke down, because I don't like having a car in the family - because of the expense, the environmental reasons, and the lack of exercise.

I walk my kids to school and back every day. It's 1.8 miles each way. So each day, the kids do 3.6 miles, and I do 7.2. That's just on the school run. My kids have done this walk daily since starting Reception. My youngest is still only 5.

I also walk to the gym/shops and back, so usually clock up about 25k steps (not counting any moving around inside the house/gym).

I don't know why you find it so incredible and hard to believe that someone who chooses to walk significantly further than this, with more, and younger, children, would suggest that the OP does the same?

@Rubicon80 do you work?

I don't know why you find it so incredible and hard to believe that someone who chooses to walk significantly further than this, with more, and younger, children, would suggest that the OP does the same?

I can't believe I'm reading this.

Oh. Do you, really. How fascinatingly curious your post is. Funny thing. I genuinely walk all over the place, including 45 minutes walks (each! flipping! way!) on the school run with reception aged children. There were a bunch of other women who did it, and you know the thing we all had in common?

We all thought it was shite. We all did our best to get our kids on bikes, or into lift-shares or we put ourselves on the waiting list to move schools, because we hated spending well over an hour a day walking back and forth from school with five-year-olds. And then, at the end of it, you had to fit in reading and spellings and dinner, and there was zero time to fit in going to Brownies! I nearly threw a party when mine were competent to ride bikes all the way to school without falling off!

So, yes, I find it completely unbelievable that anyone who actually walks everywhere would tell a mother to stop cycling to school with her daughter.

@spanglydangly @Rubicon80 do you work?

Yes, I do. Mostly from home, which is why I'm still up and working on a report and a survey at 10.43pm. Any reason you ask?

@JamieVardysHavingAParty Oh. Do you, really. How fascinatingly curious your post is. Funny thing. I genuinely walk all over the place, including 45 minutes walks (each! flipping! way!) on the school run with reception aged children. There were a bunch of other women who did it, and you know the thing we all had in common?

Wow. So you are actually calling me a liar for telling the truth about what I do, day in and day out.

I've never felt the need to say this before online, but I really, really wish I could meet you in real life so that you could see the truth and would have to eat your words.

I'm sorry that you found it so impossibly difficult to walk to school and back with your children and then - oh no! god forbid! - still have to make dinner. The horror!

Just because that was beyond your capacity doesn't mean that it's OK for you to tell other people, who don't hate it and find it a positive part of their life, that they are lying, just because it doesn't fit into your narrow view of the world.

I like walking to school and back with my kids. I like that it gives them half an hour to talk to me, to stretch their legs, and to have a snack while we walk home, so that when we do get back, they're happy to go off and play for a bit while I do some work.

Sorry, again, that this sort of basic time and child management was too difficult for you.

So, yes, I find it completely unbelievable that anyone who actually walks everywhere would tell a mother to stop cycling to school with her daughter.

I don't mind being called all sorts of things, most of it is water off a duck's back, but I really fucking mind being called a liar for sharing the reality of my life.

Calling people liars because you find walking a mile and a half so incredibly difficult that you can't cope with it - does it make you feel better about yourself? Because it doesn't work as an argument. Of course I could be lying - I could be a 500-pound housebound amputee - but really, what would be the fucking point in lying about it, when no one has any idea who or what I am in real life?

I'm censoring the rest of my post so that i don't get banned, because you're not worth it. But your post is not only totally cuntish, but also totally wrong.

@JamieVardysHavingAParty

How fascinatingly curious your post is.

Do you have any idea at all how much of a wanker you sound?

@Rubicon80 lucky you have such massively flexible hours, others don't so don't judge them for not walking?

If only everyone was lucky enough to be able to complete work at this late hour, having walked the children to and from school.

I don't suppose paramedics, nurses, carers etc have the luxury you Have?

@Rubicon80

Yes, the law is clear. But - and I'm sure you know this but are choosing to omit it, as you have clearly done your research - how that law is policed and enforced, as for all other laws, is decided by the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs' Council.

So when Robert Goodwill made the statement quoted above, he was referring to official guidance from the Home Office from when fixed penalties for cycling offences were introduced. Paul Boateng, Home Office Minister at the time, categorically said the fixed penalty system:

"… is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged
to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show
consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief
police officers, who are responsible for enforcement,
acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young
people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use
of police discretion is required."

And can you please point out where Cycling UK have said the Highway Code is "only advisory" (your quotation marks, my bold)? I've searched extensively and the closest I can find is on www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike where they say:

"Many people misunderstand the Highway Code, which is not of itself a statement of the law, but a combination of both advice and mandatory rules..."

This, of course, is true, as is made clear in the introduction to the Highway Code itself:

"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."

@spanglydangly Rubicon80 lucky you have such massively flexible hours, others don't so don't judge them for not walking?

I don't judge anyone (other than those like @JamieVardysHavingAParty who call me a liar for sharing the reality of my life) but I also don't believe that for a 1.5 mile journey, either driving or cycling is going to save much time, realistically, for most people.

If only everyone was lucky enough to be able to complete work at this late hour, having walked the children to and from school.

Indeed. I mean I spent eight years at university and then twelve years of work to get the qualifications and experience that I needed so that in the long term I'd be able to work the hours that I wanted to.

There are pros and cons to having to work all hours. But being able to walk my kids to and from school, and not having to commute or work to a fixed schedule, is definitely a pro.

I don't suppose paramedics, nurses, carers etc have the luxury you Have?

No, I'm sure they don't, and I'm very grateful for the work they do. I didn't realise the OP was a paramedic or nurse? She doesn't mention it, does she? As it's her that I suggested should walk instead of cycle.

Cycle behind your DD but slightly further out to the right. Motorists can then see there’s a child and you’re also protecting her.

The motorists saying you’re being unfair and holding them up are talking rubbish