Bicycles on pavements - why are they not being ridden on a road?

[FinallyMovingHouse]

I've only moved to near the centre of a town in the last 6 months and hence hadn't really noticed this where I used to live, which was more rural.

Can someone tell me why it seems now to be acceptable for people; all ages from schoolkids to 60 odd, to ride their bikes on the pavements and never seem to go on a road? I was trying to explain to my youngest DD (20) how my DH and I would have been shouted at by police and pedestrians if we'd tried that 30 years ago and definitely when we were teenagers (we're mid 50s).

Many have been very polite, waiting for me to notice them and then saying thank you when I've moved for them, but I've also had bells rung at me endlessly from a distance away until right behind me or the handlebars tapped to move me out of the way on a narrow pavement. So far I've stopped myself from retaliating but I do feel an overwhelming urge to shout "get off the effing pavement" more and more.

I do appreciate that yes, the roads are dangerous etc, etc but they're making the pavements dangerous, especially when you can't see them or they're going too fast. It's also illegal.

AIBU or am I just getting old and crabby?!

Because roads are dangerous. I have never cycled on the road.

However I always stick to wide footpaths, pretty much grind to a halt on blind corners and cycle slow at the best of times, take the longer route through an empty estate or park and always use my bell (and get off if it seems they haven't heard me, whether that's due to being hearing impaired or listening to music). Cyclists who insist on going through town centres or use skinny paths and cycle too fast are annoying.

Even if it is a shared path, don't pedestrians have right of way?

AI (which I realise is often inaccurate) suggests the following hierarchy:

Pedestrian Priority: Pedestrians have the right of way at junctions and crossings, regardless of whether they are crossing or waiting to cross.

Cyclist Priority: Cyclists also have priority at junctions and when turning or changing lanes, with vehicles required to give way.

Zebra Crossings: Vehicles must give way to pedestrians on zebra crossings.

Shared Use Cycle Tracks: Cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared-use cycle tracks.

Pavement Use: Pavements are primarily for pedestrian use, and cyclists are generally prohibited from cycling on them.

Visibility: Cyclists are required to have their lights and reflectors on at night for visibility.

Overtaking: When overtaking cyclists, vehicles should leave a minimum distance of 1.5 meters at speeds under 30 mph and 2 meters at speeds over 30 mph.

cyclist here! I’ve had two really bad cycle accidents. One caused by a potholed and terribly maintained road, and another by a driver. Occasionally I’ll go on the pavement but I’ll always either hop off the bike and push or go at snails pace: and only if there are no pedestrians around.

I mean, surely it's common sense why some cyclists aren't keen to share roads teeming with fast, heavy bits of machinery? It might be an excuse, but a perfectly reasonable one, I'd have thought. In the UK, cyclists, on average, kill less than one pedestrian per year. Motor vehicles kill several hundred.

As a cyclist I think only young children should be on pavements. I do challenge others who are there for no obvious reason. The only time I have ridden on a footpath recently was alongside a dual carriage way. The cars were going at 60mph and I was more 10mph. Path wasn’t great and I saw no one on it. Had I seen a person I would have stopped and i
or got out of their way.

More education and enforcement is needed. And (round me in London) Lime bikes and delivery cyclists are the worst offenders.

I don't agree with cycling on pavements, and it's actually much harder to do as a cyclist (it would mean stopping and starting a lot, eg due to obstacles, having to cross side roads etc)

However the Mumsnet rhetoric is that anyone cycling on the road is inherently selfish - if it's a small road then it's too narrow, if it's a wide road it is too fast so they shouldn't be there. Maybe the ones on the pavement are Mumsnet fans?

The same cyclists that behave poorly on the road tend to be the same cyclists that behave poorly on the pavement (where they are supposed to concede preference to the pedestrian). These cyclists are the ones that give all cyclists the bad name and seem to believe that they take precedence everywhere.

Roundhouse way there are some barriers to prevent them whizzing round a corner onto a footpath used by groups of children getting to school and nursery and they are campaigning to have the safety barrier removed for their convenience alone.

What does right of way mean when using a shared path to you.
There is absolutely no legal definition and everyone and their dog has a different expectation.

”years ago” there’s was less traffic. Roads are busier. People ride on the pavement as they feel safer. Parents tell their kids to ride on the pavement due to the above but also because they are increasingly over protective, which exacerbates the problem. Finally there are no more “local Bobbies” to tell any one off. Police resource cuts mean they only focus on significant crimes now.

Regardless, unless it's a shared path, cyclists should not ride on pavements. If they feel it's too dangerous, they can walk, get in the car or take public transport.

And in answer to the OP's orginal question, I suspect it is because noone gets ticked off for it anymore, so people see more people do it and deem it acceptable behaviour.

Always encouraged my pre-teens to cycle on the road until one of them was nearly killed by a pedestrian in a rush to get out of a supermarket car park. We were highly visible and were on a cycle path with right if way. DC was only seconds from going over the bonnet and was only saved by her pulling hard in her brakes. It was terrifying.

Until I see less of that kind of behaviour from drivers I'm happy for my children to cycle on the pavement. They cycle slowly and always stop/slow when passing pedestrians.

I do sympathise with the dangers faced by cyclists on the road, but that doesn't make it ok to endanger pedestrians

As a cyclist myself I agree completely, @Pootles34
Yes some roads can be dangerous, but the short term answer to that isn't to pass the danger onto someone else ... it's not to cycle on them

So the answer is to endanger the most vulnerable people, ie pedestrians?? Clearly not. If a cyclist doesn’t feel safe on the road, the solution is to campaign for safer roads and/or stop cycling on dangerous roads.

It means cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared-use cycle tracks.

Cycle lanes in this country are terrible and just a token gesture. In Holland they have it right; road, large grass verge, cycle path. Not narrow strip on existing busy road.

How much inconvenience is involved in having to occasionally stand aside for a moment while a cyclist passes?

All things considered, I would not and do not have a problem with cyclists using the pavement if it means that a mother is not going to have to open the door to a policeman telling her that her child has been knocked over by a car on the useless cycle lane on the local main road.

Ultimately, the arrangement is dangerous and new thinking from local authorities and governments is needed to keep cyclists safe in our town centres but while that happens, just stand aside and allow them to pass.

Indeed. Equally, everyone should cease this 'cyclists are a nuisance who must be eradicated' rhetoric, which has likely contributed to the increase in cycling on the pavement.

Interestingly Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 states it is only a crime for a cyclist to ride on the public footpath adjacent to a road. So if it's not adjacent to a road, perfectly legal.

Give way. As in get off their bike and walk behind them? Stop and wait for them to pass, even if they're going in the same direction? Slow down and pass at walking speed?

I got shouted at as a teenager for riding on the pavement, about 20 years ago, so if it's no longer happening then it must be a recent change.

The reason I rode on the pavement was I wasn't confident riding on the road. I was going very slowly and no danger to anyone. However I do appreciate now that even though I felt I wasn't a hazard, the rules are there for a reason.

I have recently started riding on very quiet roads around my local area to build up some confidence but I live abroad in a country where cycling is very common. I am not sure I would do it in the UK.

Unless it’s a designated shared path its illegal to ride on the pavement

I understand the safety aspect but then they need to dismount when there are pedestrians or go in the road

they should not be making you get out of their way and being annoyed you are there

I understand why cyclists do it but it is annoying when they come up behind you ringing their bell when they shouldn't be there in the first place or when you are walking two abreast and move to single file to allow then to pass and they don't even thank you.

I have been known to shake my stick at them and say "on the road, young man, on the road!" in stentorian tones. Some of them have the decency to look sheepish, others tell me to eff off.

I’m well and truly in the reclaim the pavement for the pedestrian.

I see the political decision to move cyclists onto pavements as a convenience ill thought through in an era of mechanised cycles and scooters which can exceed 20 mph. In my area 20mph is signposted as the maximum speed limit but mechanised cycles and scooters, and racers regularly overtake the cars whilst on the footpath or on the pavement.

I feel very unsafe on pavements and furious that this space has been requisitioned as parking space also, often forcing pedestrians onto the road to navigate round them.

The pavement and footpaths was a space for young child to play safely as they walk with their adult carer. This has been lost in favour of speed.

I now have to apply ‘look, signal, manoeuvre’ before deviating off my course to prevent risk of a collision with a cyclist or scooter rider. At least if I was in a collision with a vehicle there would be expectation of proven competence to handle a vehicle on the public highway, and potential for a financial claim in the event the injury occurred impacts on the injured party financially. This safeguard is absent in relation to cyclists and scooters riders.

So furious I am pursuing this with my local councillor.