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?

"if people struggle to understand why people ride on the pavement, they can borrow my bike for a week or two and find out what it is like to try to weave amongst the traffic, and have your little peice of daylight slowly extinguished by a v. large lorry."

Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread, but I've missed the bit where you explain why cycling is anything other than a choice for you. If it scares you, stop doing it.

Incidentally, I am thinking of starting to drive my car on the pavement to avoid those big frightening buses and lorries. I know I shouldn't, but what the hell? I plan not to go too fast or to toot my horn at the elderly. Who's with me?

Before anyone says anything, btw, I exempt lone cyclists of primary school age from my argument. They shouldn't be on the pavement either, but their safety comes first and they don't always have the choice of using the bus or private transport alone, unlike adult cyclists.

Quite Miflaw

"Seriously, though, no-one is saying a word in defence of mad cyclists. Just as no-one is saying a word in defence of mad drivers. But I find it hard to get enthusiastic about a legalistic 'it's against the law' approach when, if done respectfully, it is a perfectly reasonable and safe compromise between the needs of various users."

Hear hear (again).

I've noticed ont his thread that there have been two directly contradictory complaints:

1: cyclists are quiet, you can't hear them coming

2: they ding their bells and it is rude

Do you ever consider that the bell is not to say 'get out of my way' but 'I am coming past so please don't suddenly swerve without looking behind you'? I find it annoying enough when people do that when I am walking, just weave from the lefthand side of the pavement to the right without looking and without actually going anywhere different. And when I'm walking the worst thing that's going to happen is my body bumping into them at about 3 miles an hour.

That's right, Trillian - the bell is for signalling, 'I am coming past so please don't suddenly swerve without looking behind you'. To CARS.

I shouldn't have to worry about a cyclist coming up behind me - especially when pushing a pram - because they shouldn't be on the bloody pavement!

Incidentally, as well as driving my car on the pavement, I fancy doing the same with my horse at the weekend. Again, we won't go quick and it's just so scary being on the tarmac with a horse. No objections, I'm sure?

I'm with Riven and others - I always cycle in the road, in busy London, even with my 13mo baby on the back. I just stick myself way out from the kerb so that cars can't whizz past me without noticing me. If I get completely in their way, they slow down and work out a safe way to get past me. It's well known that a car will give you the same wide berth as you give the kerb - it's a psychological thing - so the further you cycle out from the kerb, the safer you actually are. Don't give car drivers the chance to ignore you.

If you choose to cycle (it is a choice!), learn to cycle safely and sensibly in the road so you minimise the risks and then cycle on the roads which is where you bloody well should be! It costs £5 to do cycle training near me so there's no excuse not to learn. If you don't want to cycle in the roads then you can bloody well walk like pedestrians choose to do.

FWIW, I live and cycle, with a baby, in London so I don't actually have huge sympathy with people who say they cycle on the pavements because they live in a busy city.

The only time it is okay to share a pavement (and many pedestrians are not aware of this) is where there are shared use paths. We have two types of shared use paths around me - one where the cycle path is green and separate to the pedestrian bit, and one where you just share the same pavement. I will always give right of way and slow down for pedestrians on the latter, but it pisses me off no end when pedestrians insist on walking in the cycle lane on a separated path - to me that is the same as walking in the road and then cyclists are well within their rights to shout at the pedestrians.

YANBU. I lost count of times when pavement cyclists shouted at me to get out of the way when I walked to work. Idiots, some of them.

I don't think having a trailer on the back is any excuse, either.

I didn't say I do cycle on the pavement, just that it's a bit stupid to complain about not hearing cycles AND to complain about them using their bells.

I don't think pedestrians should have to get out of the way of cyclists - my 8 year old DD is learning to ride on the road but when she's on the pavement, she knows that pedestrians have the right of way & if they're near her she either slows right down & waits or gets off & walks her bike round / past them.

At the moment I think irresponsible cyclists can just cause chaos & vanish - maybe bikes should be more accountable, like cars. What if all bikes had to have registration numbers?

I'm with Pan and the opther cyclists.
I live in a town with heavily congested roads, NO cycle paths except for 2 token ones, and crap public transport. I do not drive. DS rides to school and I ride my bike to work - to 3 different destinations, twice a week.

On some of the roads I have to use, I am forced to ride on the yllow lines, where the potholes are so severe round the drains that it is impossible to negociate. Everyone drives - so the pavements are bloody empty!
We ride on pavements BUT we dismount if there are pedestrians.
Some of you need to get out of your cars and of your high horses and see what it is like for those of us who have no option but to ride a bike.

DIsclaimer: As in every section of society some cyclists are also arseholes. They are not arseholes just because they are on a bicycle.

Some cyclists are arseholes. Some drivers are arseholes. So are some pedestrians. And some people riding horses.

..adult cyclists ho ride on the pavement are selfish and irresponsible...

Not necessarily. Some selfish and irresponsible people cycle on the pavement. Some don't. Some people who are not selfish and irresponsible cycle on the pavement. Some don't. Would you like me to draw you a Venn diagram?

round our way a lot of the pavements now double as cyclepaths, so in that respect YABU. But when they don't, and the cyclist rides full tilt at you and expects you to jump out of the way, then no, YANBU at all.

However, in general the roads are so dangerous now that unless the cyclist is a proper racing cyclist (who have NO business on pavements) I don't generally object - I'd rather they were more courteous than they are though, they are after all interloping on a pedestrian walkway. TBH, I find the ~10yr old children more of a PITA than the adults, as they have zero concept of anyone else's rights to use the path - most of the adult users round here are not too bad.

I prefer to cycle on the road most of the time as it saves having to negotiate kerbs and you don't have to stop to cross sideroads; but if the road is very fast or very narrow I will go on the pavement for safety.

I'm quite incredulous at adult cyclists being unable to cope with cycling on the road.

I'm sure the local primary schools might have some spare spots on their cycling proficiency courses - or perhaps you could just grow a spine?

Get off the pavements and stop bloody whining.

I can see this mutating from a sensible people v idiots thread into a drivers v cyclists thread.

So I want to state here and now that I don't actually have a car. Or a horse. But I AM tired of cyclists taking up my space and then bleating that they have on choice. You do have a choice - get on the road or get off the bike. Or just deal with your choice's consequences and shut up.

A couple of months ago a bike - on a pavement, not a shared path or cycle path - overtook me and, in doing so, nearly went into my baby daughter's pushchair. Not that that's the reason behind my rant - I think cyclistsa on pavements are pricks, always have. But incidents like that do mean it's more than just a principled rant. These people are dangerous as well as selfish. Their bleating about the big bad drivers tends to gloss over this inconvenient truth.

Agree with MIFLAW: cyclists have a choice. If you want to be on the pavement (except where it is shared use, where you are within your rights to cycle) then be a pedestrian. Otherwise learn to cycle competently on the roads or else drive or get the bus.

I speak as a car driver, cyclist and pedestrian so a foot in all camps!

MFLAW wrote 'Before anyone says anything, btw, I exempt lone cyclists of primary school age from my argument. They shouldn't be on the pavement either, but their safety comes first and they don't always have the choice of using the bus or private transport alone, unlike adult cyclists'

A primary school child on a bike can still do as much damage to a pedestrian.If they are not safe riding a bike unaccompanied on the road- then they shouldn't be riding a bike unaccompanied !

I get your point Trillian re the bells and not hearing them coming, but I still think it's rude if it's a non-sharing pavement and implies that the cyclist doesn't think they should have to reduce speed or stop to get past pedestrians (or that's my experience of it).

Cyclists must hate pedestrians with iPods - I bet a lot of them are too loud to even hear bells let alone a polite 'excuse me'!

Katiestar

I completely agree.

But, whereas an adult has the alternative of walking 3 miles in an hour, or learning to drive and buying a car, or using the bus or train on his or her own, these options are not often open to the under-11s. Plus, right or wrong, a lot of them are still learning how to cycle and so it would be unnecessarily dangerous to them and others for them to be on the roads.

So I personally am prepared to grant them a bit of leeway on this one, even though I know that as a principle it doesn't stand up at all.

just realised i may have implied in my previous post that i have three feet