To let DC cycle in a ‘no cycling’ park?

[RaisinFlapjack]

Our school run (of 1 mile) takes us through a park which has a no cycling policy. Until recently DC have scooted, but eldest (6) has recently started to prefer cycling.

Lots of small children ride trikes etc through the park and it’s not at all uncommon to see older children on bikes too.

So..do I let DC cycle through the park in contravention of the ‘no cycling’ policy, tell them they have to scoot or take the long way round on the road, avoiding the park, so they can cycle?

Your DC has a choice: scooter or getting off bike to walk through park.

Why do the rights/needs of pedestrians not count?

In my view they can co-exist, and my kids were told in no uncertain terms to stop for pedestrians to pass, but they would have been next to me at walking pace anyway.

I think we didn't bother anyone, although I can't think of a no cycling park near us. I wouldn't have taken their bike into an RHS or something like that.

The rule is no cycling, not ‘no cycling over age 10’ or whatever

Entitled parents who think the rules can’t possibly apply to their little darlings raise bratty obnoxious kids who grow into entitled obnoxious adults.

Teach your child that they can’t ignore the rules (which are in place for everyone’s safety) just because they would prefer to break them

I have zero problem with kids riding bikes on pavements or kids cycling through a non cycling park. There's room for us all and cycling in general is to be encouraged in this day and age. I'd ignore the signs

YABU it clearly says no cycling, so don't your kid shouldn't cycle. Go the long way round or get off and walk.

If you look up can children cycle on payment the Police say it’s OK up to age as no criminal responsibility. The same must apply to a park.

Age 10 that should be.

It’s also common sense which some people are lacking.

Yabu

I was questioning myself here but if all the people saying ‘no’ equally object to toddlers on trikes in parks, or young kids cycling on pavements then that’s just ridiculous.

You should take your grievance up with the council then.

@RaisinFlapjack How do you know that the rule isn’t in place because the park contains protected wildlife or areas of scientific interest? That’s one reason why posters might distinguish between parks and pavements, in terms of cycling.

I’m not crazy about anyone using the pavement to cycle (for the exact same reason that cyclists don’t want to use the road - bikes are to pedestrians what cars are the cyclists) but I wouldn’t interfere with someone doing it. People cycling in a no-cycle park meant for pedestrians, I might well.

I don’t know why you posted as you clearly aren’t questioning yourself.

@RaisinFlapjack unless the walkway CLEARLY states an age limit then NO, there are no exceptions. I live in a rural area and there's a walkway nearby that states no bikes or scooters AT ALL. And another that states no bikes or scooters for anyone age 12 up! Just adhere to the rules

@RaisinFlapjack

Does everyone who says a blanket ‘no’ think that young children shouldn’t cycle on pavements full stop?

If the pavement is in a busy area with lots of pedestrians then no, they shouldn't be riding their bikes on the pavements.

There are miles of cycle paths near where I live yet I still regularly have to jump out of the way of small children wobbling along on pavements because they don't have enough control to either stay to one side or stop until pedestrians have passed.

I've also had them ride straight into my dog despite him being held on a short lead at my side..... not sure where it is their parents expect me and the dog to go to make room for their toddler.

Take them to a park or a bloody cycle path FGS.

If a place says 'no cycling' why would you? Even for a small child. It's usually children on bikes that cause more problems than adults on bikes.

Well...just had a hunt online to see if there were any indications that our local council might change their policy, and there is are response from them to lobbying to remove the no cycling policy that says they “exercise discretion in enforcing the policy” and “don’t intend it to apply to young children”. So there you go, sounds sensible.

They can walk their bike through the park.

If people aren’t expecting cyclists to ride up behind/next to them, doesn’t matter how old (or young) the cyclist is. Some youngsters are very fast and alarming to other path users.

@RaisinFlapjack well then do what you want! What was the bloody point of asking the if YABU If you are going to argue that you aren't ffs...

Actually, the fast and convenient Pete t young cyclists aren’t that much of an issue: wobbly ones who are at risk of running into pedestrians really are.

Convenient Pete???

competent 🙄

@RaisinFlapjack

i object to toddlers/kids on trikes/scooters/bikes on pavements because of parents who expect other kids to simply move out of the way for them....or jump out of the way if they ring their bell

what they cannot tell from behind is that my child is deaf/blind and so cannot see or hear the toddlers on trikes behind and jump out of the way......riding into another kids legs is just not ok.

parents saying oh you should have moved is also not ok - no we were there first and cannot see or hear you - pavements are for people first and foremost.

(if you are patient and stay back i don't really mind )

@RaisinFlapjack

Well...just had a hunt online to see if there were any indications that our local council might change their policy, and there is are response from them to lobbying to remove the no cycling policy that says they “exercise discretion in enforcing the policy” and “don’t intend it to apply to young children”. So there you go, sounds sensible.

Yup, to anyone with half a brain a 6 year old peddling alongside a parent in a park is totally fine.

@RaisinFlapjack

I was questioning myself here but if all the people saying ‘no’ equally object to toddlers on trikes in parks, or young kids cycling on pavements then that’s just ridiculous.

So why did you ask?

a park which has a no cycling policy.

Why should yours break that rule?