to think that adult cyclists who ride on pavements are selfish & irresponsible?

[Rafi]

I can understand it if there's a child on the back. But normally it seems to be some selfish idiot who thinks they can do what they want & never mind the pedestrians...

AIBU?

don't do it thumbwitch! It sounds dangerous!

Of course it's bloody dangerous Pan, that's why I was asking ! I would never do it.

I was following some cyclist today who had a weird circular lump in her cycle shorts (worked out it was a CD walkman) and as I drove past her I was tempted to stop her and give her a hint as to the screaming moronicity inadvisability of cycling on roads without being able to hear what is going on around her! Just wondered whether or not it was actually illegal as well...

well, there IS an offence, going back to looong ago about riding in a "furious and dangerous manner", so I am guessing that, evidentially, a court could convict on such stupid behaviour. It would also be aggrevated if she was listening to hip-hop stuff........

gasman - one person has been killed by a cyclist in the last 100 years, hardly high numbers, especially if you comapre to the numbers of cyclists killed by people driving cars.

It is illegal to push a pram on the pavement, but I have never heard of anyone being finded for breaking this law, it is law and yet it is broken by most of the people on this forum. A silly law but still.

Why can't pedesrtians cyclists and motorists all respect one another?

If I am on a cycle path and a pedestrain is walking along the path - I will tinkle the bell to warn them of my approch, acycle is silent and going past at even 10mph can be unevrving if you dodn't know the bike was going to pass. In the same way that this morning the artic that past me tooted to warn me of his approch on the road before he past. Some drivers are really considerate, some cyclists are really considerate. Most pedeestrains cannot for the life of them walk in a straight line but are very considerate.

nice post ivy!

To be fair, for a moment, I don't cycle every day. Sometimes I drive. And I am comforted by the patience and thoughtfulness of most vehicle drivers - they hang back, allow me to manoevre, even smile and make kindly gestures!

BUT, I am 6 foot, weigh about 14 stone, ride a hibrid bike that means I sit higher than most bikists, and wear a proper reflective yellow jacket, and yellow Giro helmet - and still on most journeys I get acknowledgements from drivers along the lines of "sorry didn't see you there mate" when I have had to take evasive actions to avoid a collisions. All of those kindnesses are sharply devalued when one idiot drives without due care and I end up lying on the tarmac, as has happened three times, fortunately without serious injury. No prosecution, no compensation, nothing apart from a sense of relief.

So posters who insist on bikists sticking to roads will be eternally disappointed.

Sorry, but your stats about one person in 100 years are wrong

and here

And though I can't find the link there was definitely a story a year or two ago about a child who died of brain injuries after a pavement cyclist knocked her over

To say, oh, but it's not many compared with those killed on the road is ludicrous. It's still deaths - two wrongs do not make a right.

(Lil, I thought you meant with your dcs on a bike seat behind you. I would make a slight exception for very young children learning to cycle but all children should do a cycling proficiency and be on the roads OR if the road is busy pushing their bikes on the pavement by nine.

take a look at para 11,12 and 13

Any death is sad, but it was the high numbers of people driving cars and killing pedestrians that was compared to pedestrians killed by cyclists. I was not in any way saying a pedesrian killed by a cyclist was less of a death in any way. I apologise if you read it that way, it wasn't how it was meant.

Bloss

FWIW - and I know it's a bit late, but I wasn't online this weekend - I apologise if you thought I was being personal. "I don't like you" means "I don't like the cyclists you claim to represent." It was not a personal attack, though I was - rightly as it turned out - worried it would be construed as such. I have no opinion on you as a person.

"a cyclist on the pavement who behaves properly" is a nonsense because if they were behaving properly they would not be on the pavement.

We have had a lot of self-serving nonsense on this thread about how the law here should not be taken seriously. When one raises this question, the retort so far has been, "what, do you never disobey the law then?" The excitement is palpable, as if this was a combination of Plato's finest, Kasparov's greatest game, and a "best of" Kavanagh QC.

For the record, yes, I do occasionally break the law. However, I try to avoid doing so; do not do so as policy; do not brag about doing so; and do not feel it is my "right" to do so.

Can I ask those of you who have followed the wearisome "the law is an ass" line of reasoning which other laws, conventions and regulations you regularly flout because they are not good enough for you? Do you proudly shoplift when you feel prices are unreasonably high? Do you wee in swimming pools because of the shocking state of the changing rooms and toilets? Do you feel justified in witholding tax and national insurance because you find the rates punitive? Do you speed in your car and brag about it because 30 is a stupidly low number?

Or would I be right in guessing that the exception to your otherwise ordinary, law- and rule-abiding lives is your cycling because somehow you become special when you're on a bike - and that, when you do break those other laws, you try to make sure it is an exception and try not to bang on about it because you surmise, rightly, that society would censure you otherwise?

much as the majority of people here are censuring cycling on pavements, in fact.

**On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. At the time Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:

"The introduction of the fixed penalty 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."

Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by 'Community Support Officers' and wardens.

"CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

It seems it is permisable to cycle on the pavement. Or am I reading it wrong?

You are reading it wrong.

It is worded in such a way to give the police and their sidekicks discretion in applying the penalty, in much the same way that they are allowed not to apply the "no alcohol areas" in town centres to students after exams because they are not the primary target - tramps are.

It does not make it permissible, it just gives the police the right to "turn a blind eye".

Note also that it singles out "children and young people" rather than adults and says "sometimes" ie not as a mateer of course.

ivy, you said in an earlier post:
"It is illegal to push a pram on the pavement, but I have never heard of anyone being finded for breaking this law, it is law and yet it is broken by most of the people on this forum. A silly law but still."

Really, I have never heard of that....

Personally, I don't have a problem with cyclists on pavements when they don't get in the way of pedestrians and I think far more (wide) pavements in this country should be co-designated cycle paths and pavements to keep cyclists off busy roads. Older people and those worried about being run over by bikes could use the pedestrian-only pavement on the other side of the road. We could learn a lot from the Netherlands.

I think where cycle paths exist it should be a legal requirement to use them. I live in Hampshire and know of two roads where cyclists use the road, despite the cycle paths being at least two miles long and spearated by a grass verge from the road. One road is a dual carriageway, the other is a single carriageway but with a 60mph limit - why on earth won't cyclists use them - they are so much safer for them (and for the cars, who suddenly have to slam their brakes on when they come round the corner and discover a cyclist).

So where there are pedestrians I agree with the OP, cyclists belong on the roads but where there are none, I can't see the issue - it's much safer.

I don't like being told to get out of the way with bells, it sounds very imperious (happens in London on certain roads where there are no cars and cyclists think they have priority - no actually, the roads are for pedestrians AND cyclists).

sorry MIFLAW - you are reading it wrong. Try reading the first two lines of the quote and you'll catch up.

I do take great exception to your odious posts. No, I don't decide freely which laws to hold to and which to break. I make rational decisions about the best interests and the greater good. No doubt your petty little jobsworth mentality doesn't allow you to do this, but don't please castigate all others who don't think like you.

time for me to pop off this thread.

Yes to the pram on the pavement, I have an incline it was considered as a vehicle long agao and therefore banned from the pavement.

Hellywobs, the thing about putting cyclists on cycle paths - you have to know that the cycle path is actually there - I know it may seem strange, but as a cyclist you dont always know where the cycle paths actually are! Some councils, including my own put in lots of time , money and trouble making lovely cycle paths and then forget all about signage to let anyone know that it is there. In the last two weeks I have stumbled across two by accident.

Also secondly as a cyclist you are advised not to cycle on a cycle path if you are travelling at over 20 mph - now I can easily range between 15 - 25mph.

MIFLAW - reading the first paragraph it is stating:

new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so

So the primary target is people who ride on pavements and are agressive with the bikes and speed etc. Just as the students are not the target of the police but the tramps are. Is this not common sense, rather than eugine and his clip board for H&S

Bring back respectful driving and cycling and a good job lot of common sense.

"It seems it is permisable to cycle on the pavement. Or am I reading it wrong?"

"It is worded in such a way to give the police and their sidekicks discretion in applying the penalty, in much the same way that they are allowed not to apply the "no alcohol areas" in town centres to students after exams because they are not the primary target - tramps are."

You are reading it wrong.

It gives us the room to use common sense - so when I see an eight year old wobbling along on the pavement on their own I can have a word about cycling slowly and getting off if there are a lot of people on the footway.

However, anyone who is not a small child can cycle on the road like they're supposed to.

As police and their sidekicks - wtf?!

Discretion Miflaw is a very dangerous thing and should no be taken lightly. If I see a street drinker with booze in a no alcohol zone, they lose the booze. If I see a student, they also lose the booze. If I see a solicitor and his lovely wife having a half bottle of chardonnay from M&S on say, the cathedral green, they also lose the booze. It would be discrimination based on income and class to do otherwise. Child safety is one thing, hypocrisy is something else.

Thumbwitch - I don't think it is, but it is bloody stupid!

Sometimes cyclists don't use cyclepaths because they are badly designed ie. every time there is an incoming road to the left the cyclepath stops and you have to negotiate 'crossing' it whereas the main road has Right of Way.

Sometimes cyclepaths don't feel like very safe places - a lot round here are disused railway and segregated from the road. The cyclepaths are populated durign the day by teenage boys avoiding school, and random people with large dogs. They make me very uneasy as you are isolated from assistance. I would NEVER go there at night so can't tell you hangs about!

Lastly cyclepaths can be poorly maintained (broken glass) or actively sabotaged (tacks on the track). Both make it hazardous.

Pan - yes riding the road in anger... I've done it many a time! (on horse, not bicycle)

gasman I can see why not all cycle paths are user friendly - myself I never use the marked off bit at the side of the road. It's always too pitted by drain covers and things.

I will not cycle on the footway though - it would be way too hypocritical. I cycle about a third into the road so when overtaken by nutters I have room to swerve in. Or they're not nutters and they have to overtake me as they would a car and go into the other lane. I'm still alive and cycle as a hobby and at work - so it must be effective!

thanks tattifer - interesting to know that.
But as you say, bloody stupid - so if you saw someone doing it, would you stop them and impress upon them the rank stupidity unwisdom of their actions?

Tattifer

I think you are attacking the wrong person.

I am not a hypocrite and commend you for confiscating drink from whomever it may be in a non-drinking area. As I no longer drink alcohol, it is not an issue that affects me anyway.

I also fully support the power to stop any cyclist from cycling on the pavement.

What I meant to get across - and clearly I have worded it badly - is that it is a good think that you are not obliged to do so - so that, in the case of a child cycling in such an area, the law wisely gives you discretion not to punish them if that seems most appropriate.

Pan - I read the whole quote, thanks, not just the first two lines.

The first two lines are comment and interpretation and are thus not to be taken in the same light as the bits I mentioned which are verbatim quotes from the people who actually have power in this matter.

Thank you so much for your wise and rational decisions about the greater good. however, if it's all the same to you, I'll leave that to democratically elected representatives rather than you. Old-fashioned of me, I know, but there you go.

You seem very attached to the word "jobsworth". Which "job" do you think I am sticking to? Or is it daring to have a different opinion to you about people on cyclists who cannot cycle where they are supposed to that marks me out as such?

Do keep on "making rational decisions about the best interests and the greater good" as you peddle pompously along dedicated footpaths, no doubt waving graciously to the pedestrians like some Judge Dredd or latter-day saint. Just remember that 9 out of 10 of them think you're a prick.

Thumbwitch - yes if didn't mean I had to run after them!

Miflaw - no worries

Locally we have been encouraged to issue fixed penalty notices to cyclists who are cycling on the footway. The discretion that I exercise is that I won't unless they're bloody rude. They are however told politely but firmly that they are committing an offence and will get off the back and walk or cycle on the road. I would never tell anyone that their only choice is to cycle on the road (in case they have an accident) they are always given the choice of walking!

Not at all, cyclists should stick to the road and wear all the appropriate equipment.