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?

It seems easy enough.

If the pavement is a designated cyclepath, an adult can cycle on it without being a tosser, and can ring their bell to warn others (on bikes or on foot) that they are coming up behind them.

If the pavement is not a designated cyclepath, people cycling on it should not be there, and should get off and cycle on the road. That includes children. If they can't cycle on the road safely, they shouldn't muck around on the pavement getting in the way of pedestrians.

Children need to be taught how to cycle on a road safely just as they need to be taught how to cross a road safely.

People should not cycle in pairs so they take up too much of the road, even when that is my husband thinking he is being Oh So Sweet and Considerate by cycling next to his little wife. I could murder him when he does
this.

Italian exchange students should not cycle the wrong way down the street because they've forgotten we drive on the left in the UK.

Bike thieves should not steal people's bikes.

Have we finished the argument now?

Thank you.

gasman well leaving the buggy out of sight round a corner on a downhill slope isn't really the flat easy visibility cycle lane I had in my mind so I can see your point about it being dangerous

YABU. They probably just want to live.

It depends how they cycle - if slowly, and with a bell, then it is OK. Divebombing little old ladies and toddlers, isnt.

I challenge anyone who disagrees with this view to cycle across Slough Trading estate, particularly down the long straight narrow roads, in the 30mph zone, where the cars do about 45 mph, some 3 feet from the cyclist's right elbow.
Guarantee you will be cacking yourself and using the (empty) pavement. Cyclists have died on those roads.

In the absence of a cycle lane, I cycle on pavements. Roads are too dangerous.

I do give pedestrians priority.

If the OP finds this outrageous and selfish, then I suggest she writes to her council asking for more cycle lanes.

And not park in cycle lanes. And recognise cyclists' hand signals, for example when pulling out to go round a parked car. The majority of car drivers, just keep driving in a straight line.

miflaw - How the hell do you expect cars to hear a bike bell? They'll have their windows shut, probably music on and there's too much traffic noise. The bike bell is for whoever it is needed for at the time.

And please don't talk about wanting to drive your car on the pavement because of the the scary buses and lorries If you get intimidated by them just imagine that you are balancing on a little metal frame on wheels and huge vehicles are passing you at speed inches away from your wheel, and then tell me that cyclist haven't got any more reason to be scared than cars!

The law is an ass. If it insists on saying that pavements are only ever for cyclists under all circumstances, when there are insufficient cycle paths, but also fails to protect cyclists from the casual daily arrogance and aggression of drivers, and their carelessness (such as opening the door of a parked car while I bike is coming past).

I personally would like to see cars banned from certain roads in town at certain times of the day (or permanently even), so that bikes can cycle safely without bothering pedestrians. Less noise, less pollution, less traffic danger and it would have the added advantage of making people find their cars increasingly too inconvenient to bother with. The car is going to have to become a luxury again.

I speak as a driver (as little as possible), a pedestrain as often as I can, a runner who gets much more grief from cars than cyclists, and a mother and wife of cyclists who do use the roads btw and risk their f*ing necks every day. And when they have been hurt or killed in a road accident I guess I can then feel smug about them not putting pedestrians to any inconvenience .

The law needs changing.

i can't believe the number of cyclists that freely admit to riding on the pavement because their too scared to go on the road.

i don't blame you for being scared - i'd never cycle on the london streets but, equally, I would never get on a bike either and assume it's my right to go on the pavement.

As i said before: too scared to go on the road? Don't have a bike. Pavements are for paedestrians

So if they don't cycle, they have to use a car (don't you think we have enough of those?) or public transport. Public transport may be fine in London, but try getting anywhere on a bus or a train in my part of the world and you'd never get anywhere! They are appalling and IME that is true of many parts of the UK.

Bikes are a great, cheap, healthy way to get around.

Hopefully no one would bother denying that! But there is a working medium to be reached between how to cycle safely on the road and how to cycle safely and with consideration on footways.

On shared cycle/footways there are those cycles who go as fast as they wish without giving consideration to the pedestrians (and that includes taking into consideration the fact that some walkers are a bit daft...) If you were in a car you'd have to adjust your spped accordingly or get done for reckless drive/ driving without due care etc etc. Some cyclists think that it's different on a bicycle.

I cycle home on a route that at weekends becomes full of kids on trikes and dogs on extendable leads and so on. I'd be a raving lunatic if I didn't adjust my speed and behaviour accordingly. I'd have an unhealthy amount of gravel rash as well I suspect!

here here mollyroger!

nighbynight, you mean they give an entire three feet of leeway??????? most cars will give me about a foot, unless i am on a very very residential road, and then it is usually coz they have a great big L on the roof of the car

i think people who think it is unreasonable for cyclists to cycle on pavements, should try going on a rollercoaster, without any safety straps on. might give them an idea of what its like.

i will , usually, cycle on the pavement. its safer for all concerned. cycle bells are uselss, as most people dont know what the hell they are. its simpler to say excuse me, just as you would whilst walking.

captain peacock, exactly! its an upsettig experience isnt it. which is why you should be more empathetic, and not force cyclists to be in this postion from cars. and with a car, it isnt just an upsetting experience, its a possibly fatal experience.

Some of you seem to be dismissing bikes as a bona fida form of transport and treating it like some unreasonable leisure activity. Some of us live in towns with appalling public transport. Some of us cannot afford cars.
Some towns do not have cycle paths provided. My town has three that I am aware of. Which has been priovided as lip sevice. They start in the middle of a busy road and peter out in the iddle. They take you no where.
Bikes are a great, cheap, healthy way to get around.

stitchtime on the basis that two wrongs don't make a right. You are breaking the law cycling on the footway - no matter how carefully. Yes there should be more attention paid to designing safer cycleroutes (be that safe from pedestrians or cars) but, if I saw you cycling on the footway I would stop you and depending on your reaction to that you would be given words of advice or a ticket.

Three cheers for your post mollyroger

tattifer, i appreciate that it is illegal to ride on the pavement. but, neither will i risk my life andlimbs on a busy, dangerous road, whatever the reasons. yes, the law has to be changed. and yes, i will listen politely to words of advice, but, if its not safe enough toride on the road, i wont be.

The Cyclists

Mollyroger- I agree. There should be far more cycle lanes, I wince when I see children on busy main roads behind their parents.
But bikes are dangerous on pavements, you can't get away from that; it's not fair that there aren't enough provisions for cyclists, but it isn't ok to go on pavements.
More campaigning for cycle lanes is the answer.

But Stitch, supposing you knocked someone down on a pavement?

I think that Cycling in Britain is no fun, due to lack of cycle paths...because, I rather not be run over by iressponsible car drivers....
tbh, I avoid cycling, because it feels unsafe....now in Germany it is brill Because there are so many cycle paths and tbh, car cdrivers are more aware of Cyclist, so, if you have to cylce on the road, you are still safe....

northern, the liklihood of that happening, is the same as someone knocking a pedestrian on the road, with their car. ie, cycling has to be done carefully, its a mode of transport, on a vehicle. accidents will happen, but as long as we are careful, they can be minimised.
or are you suggesting we ban cars and roads because accidents might happen there?

its about minimising risks imo.

"Minimising risks" - where there's no cycle lane, I would get off and wheel my bike.

I don't think you can say that the likelihood of knocking someone over is small-

you may ride extremely slowly/carefully, but oothers may not.
I wouldn't like my toddler to round a bend into a bike on a pavement. Or my granny.

There should be more cycle lanes, but while there aren't, t doesn't make it ok to flout a law there for a reason.

lol at Highlander
"In the absence of a cycle lane, I cycle on pavements. Roads are too dangerous.

I do give pedestrians priority."

lol...northern...than it would be pointless to cycle anywhere in britain, you might aswell just walk, lol

stitchtime You're right, roads can be dangerous. I'd love to cycle kids to school but haven't figured out how to do it safely without them going on the footway. So I don't

We sometimes walk - but it takes an hour.

You'd have to walk too if I saw you cycling on the footway