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?!

It doesn’t excuse anything. I was simply addressing your claim that rule-breaking cyclists and motorists are equally dangerous. That is patently ridiculous.

New road layouts, roundabouts, road markings, new surfaces, cycle paths. Your first point is irrelevant to my post

But the thread is about cyclist breaching the Highway Code.

Cyclists were provided with little or none of that for decades. Why begrudge them it now?

No, it’s about OP asking why many cyclists use pavements instead of roads.

Which is a breach of the Highway Code

OK then, entitled cyclists, in general.

No one disputes that.

I don’t have any problems with people cycling on pavements and would encourage non-lycra cyclists, for example children on their way to school or office workers cycling at slow speed to use pavements for safety.

My five second inconvenience as a pedestrian is less important to me than cyclists not getting injured or killed.

Having said that I come from a country where cyclists and pedestrians happily coexist on shared pavements and I’m used to it and find it natural to move out of the way for a cyclist. They do not annoy me at all. My British husband however found it terrifying when he first visited my home country and kept causing traffic and chaos on the pavement by trying to dodge the cyclists and stopping in the wrong places to let them pass. It took him a few days to relax into it and just walk confidently and let the cyclists pass without stopping or jumping the wrong way.
So I do appreciate it is not comfortable for everyone.

I rarely cycle functionally because it's not worthwhile for transport within my neighbourhood and there are no safe, efficient routes out of it to justify cycling as a form of transport, so I tend to end up driving over a tonne of metal around instead because it's a considerably safer way to get around on hilly 40mph/ NSL roads.
I do a bit of casual cycling off-road and either use a few quiet roads to access one route (doesn't go direct to useful places and you have to not mind mud splattered up your back) or drive the bike to a safe access point. If the people who want cycling to be formalised and pay tax ever get their own way, I'd send my bike to scrap metal. I'm not paying additional costs on top of those I face as a driver.

As someone who runs/ walks a lot, I overlook careful, gentle cyclists using wide paths alongside dangerous roads.

The idiots who are a menace on two wheels and bludgeon their way along any route they feel like at random are a bloody nuisence on the paths and the roads. Drug dealers and delivery services are the worst offenders. I doubt many of them ever deigned to read the highway code.

There are too many impatient, aggressive idiots and more of them are in motor vehicles. I've just got in and there were a pair of cyclists on the road on the last stretch of the journey. I was careful about observing them on the roundabout, safely passing wide, then there was some traffic calming. I then ended up with a van tailgating so indicated clearly before braking gently and turning off the main road, but frankly if he was any closer, I may as well have set the boot seats set up for him to sit in. What are the odds that he did a close pass on the bikes? 🤔
Yesterday there was much horn blasting from the impatient arsehole slingshotting 450⁰ around a roundabout to jump the queue to turn left and was incensed at the vehicle in front that had the audacity to turn right at a sensible pace appropriate to heavy traffic. 🙄

If more vehicle drivers were patient, observant and calm, more cyclists would have the confidence to use main roads.
Coherent, well maintained cycle networks would be a nice bonus.

W.h.a.t.a.b.o.u.t.e.r.y

Can you imagine a mini driving up the M6 on the hard shoulder. Copper to driver: do you know why I've pulled you over? Yes officer but I'm scared of the big lorries hurting me. That's about the crux of the defenders' argument that you can drive a tractor through.

I was going to bow out of this thread, but your comment about drug dealers struck a chord.

Round here, you have to watch out for electric bicycles and (somewhat ridiculously) electric scooters - I mean scooters that look like they're made for kiddies but with some kind of electrical motor - being used by adults who seem to be somewhat challenged on the dental front. (No teeth, natural or otherwise.)

It's not a particularly bad area in terms of populace (though there is that one house), but it's being used as a thoroughfare to other areas.

At the moment, the police are concentrating on those mini off-road motorbikes: teenagers are coming in from other areas and riding on the pavements and paths up to the football park and woodland park behind our estate. (It's worse than usual because senior pupils are on study leave.)

Whataboutery.

National standards for cycle routes were set out by the government in Local Transport Note 1/20. If a council hasn’t provided a safe network of routes to LTN 1/20 standards, then some people will inevitably ride on the pavement because they are frightened. Unfortunately, if you cycle on the roads, scary moments happen far too frequently - I was cycling earlier on a decent cycle route (no conflict with pedestrians or cars even though the street was busy), then the route ended so I had to ride on the road & within a few minutes had an impatient driver overtaking uncomfortably close.

This conflict happens much less in the Netherlands as they design streets so vehicles, bikes & pedestrians are separated from each other - it’s much easier & safer to cycle there but it’s also much better for driving. Ultimately, it’s a political choice - the Netherlands chose to design streets safe for cycling (in some places due to political leadership (like Groningen) and in others due to road safety activists such as Stop de Kindermoord) whereas the UK has generally chosen to prioritise motor traffic.

A campaign that started after someone's child died. Uk culture is topsy turvy.

Utter rubbish.

You're saying it's not an offence to drive on the hard shoulder, if you're not an emergency vehicle? When did minis gain that status?

Not sure how you get that a poster is stating it’s legal to drive down the hard shoulder, or a mini is an emergency vehicle - from two words written “utter rubbish” , that an extreme stretch by any margin

it must probably means the poster thought that your post was utter rubbish, could be it was your analogy they thought was utter rubbish

No, I'm saying your point is utter rubbish. Obviously.

Or, to put it another way, complete shite.

I note you didn't respond the last time I proved you completely wrong, so meh.

Whenever somebody responds with a phrase such as utter rubbish, I'm happy to presume there is no point in engaging further. Hence, why I stood by my analogy, illustration or whatever 'rubbish' you want to call it.

I dont drive and am usually walking to town/home most days. If I see a cyclist on the pavement I usually deliberately pretend I havent seen them, walk in the middle of the pavement etc. I usually tell them "Its illegal to cycle on the pavement" - they (usually the males) argue with me about how Im wrong. They love pointing out how dangerous the roads are for them without any apparent irony about how dangerous the pavements are for pedestrians with them cycling on them.

Get on the road and ride your bike. Or walk with it. Pavements are not for cyclists. Unless they have been re-designated as cycle paths in which case all good.

Disclaimer - I don't live in the UK so possibly different situation.

I bike to work and to take my kids to school. Whenever possible I go on the bike lanes. But in order to go to my kids' schools taking the road would involve crossing a busy avenue and making a big detour. Also I'm just not risking it when my kids are on the bike. I don't care what the law says, their safety comes first. I appreciate however the inconvenience to pedestrians and I'm very careful to go slowly when on the pavement and give them right of way.

Once I've dropped them off I then usually go on the road because then there's no need to cross since I'm going in the "right" direction, and I can accept risks to myself that I wouldn't accept for my kids.

The rest of the time I only go on the pavement when it's objectively dangerous - people here are not careful drivers. Thankfully this is rarely an issue as almost all of the way to work is a cycle path.

And to the "you're endangering pedestrians" brigade - it's less dangerous for a pedestrian to be hit by a bike, than for a bike to be hit by a car.

I asked the cyclist on the pavement behind me to use the road, which he did. In a way I dont blame them, the roads are terrifying but i thought pavements were for pedestrians.