Cycling on the pavement

On Aug 29, 12:30*pm, "greyprimer" wrote:
Why do cyclists insist on riding on the pavements, it has become a fashion
thing I think, nobody bothers if they nearly get knocked over by cyclists,
it makes my blood boil, where are the police, or CSOs who apparently have
the power to fine culprits I have even seen CSOs riding down the full length
of a road on the pavement with people moving to let them pass, I can
remember when police fined you for no lights. These idiots on BMXs are the
worst culprits, confiscate their bikes and crush them , some are not fit to
ride anyway, no breaks etc

They are cyclists, the rules don't count.

PeterG

"PeterG" wrote in message
...
On Aug 29, 12:30 pm, "greyprimer" wrote:
Why do cyclists insist on riding on the pavements, it has become a fashion
thing I think, nobody bothers if they nearly get knocked over by cyclists,
it makes my blood boil, where are the police, or CSOs who apparently have
the power to fine culprits I have even seen CSOs riding down the full
length
of a road on the pavement with people moving to let them pass, I can
remember when police fined you for no lights. These idiots on BMXs are the
worst culprits, confiscate their bikes and crush them , some are not fit
to
ride anyway, no breaks etc

Life has become harder because in places like Berkshire the policy is to
share some pavements between pedestrians and cyclists.

The signage is not good, so the default is that cyclists can use the
pavements.

This is a 'cop out' by the planners because instead of making roads adequate
for cyclists and motorists to share safely, they offload the cyclists onto
the pavement.

You cannot cycle at a reasonable pace on the pavement and you have all sorts
of 'right of way' issues with junctions and driveways so any competent
cyclist should cycle on the road.

Marking pavement as shared use only confuses things and makes motorists
think that cyclists should be on the pavement not on the road.

When I was a lad, up to the age of 11 you cycled on the pavement and after
that you cycled on the road.
This seems a reasonable approach - although these days children of school
age could well use the pavements on the way to school because this is a
special commute and children should be encouraged to make their own way to
school instead of travelling in 'Chelsea tractors'.

Enforcement is almost impossible without a very clear lead from the local
authorities which currently seems lacking.

In summary: get adult cyclists off the pavements and make sure that it is
safe for them to cycle on the roads - along with motorists and horse riders
they are legitimate road users.

Cheers

Dave R

"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...

"PeterG" wrote in message
...
On Aug 29, 12:30 pm, "greyprimer" wrote:
Why do cyclists insist on riding on the pavements, it has become a
fashion
thing I think, nobody bothers if they nearly get knocked over by
cyclists,
it makes my blood boil, where are the police, or CSOs who apparently have
the power to fine culprits I have even seen CSOs riding down the full
length
of a road on the pavement with people moving to let them pass, I can
remember when police fined you for no lights. These idiots on BMXs are
the
worst culprits, confiscate their bikes and crush them , some are not fit
to
ride anyway, no breaks etc

Life has become harder because in places like Berkshire the policy is to
share some pavements between pedestrians and cyclists.

The signage is not good, so the default is that cyclists can use the
pavements.

This is a 'cop out' by the planners because instead of making roads
adequate for cyclists and motorists to share safely, they offload the
cyclists onto the pavement.

You cannot cycle at a reasonable pace on the pavement and you have all
sorts of 'right of way' issues with junctions and driveways so any
competent cyclist should cycle on the road.

Marking pavement as shared use only confuses things and makes motorists
think that cyclists should be on the pavement not on the road.

When I was a lad, up to the age of 11 you cycled on the pavement and after
that you cycled on the road.
This seems a reasonable approach - although these days children of school
age could well use the pavements on the way to school because this is a
special commute and children should be encouraged to make their own way to
school instead of travelling in 'Chelsea tractors'.

Enforcement is almost impossible without a very clear lead from the local
authorities which currently seems lacking.

In summary: get adult cyclists off the pavements and make sure that it is
safe for them to cycle on the roads - along with motorists and horse
riders they are legitimate road users.

You have put that the wrong way round, you should have said, make sure the
roads are safe for cyclists, then get them off the pavement!

The roads in my part of Berkshire are very dangerous, with potholes and
sunken drains, so when I cycle I always go on the pavement, it's far safer.

Alan

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 04:50:52

uk.rec.cycling PeterG

On Aug 29, 12:30*pm, "greyprimer" wrote:
Why do cyclists insist on riding on the pavements, it has become a fashion
thing I think, nobody bothers if they nearly get knocked over by cyclists,
it makes my blood boil, where are the police, or CSOs who apparently have
the power to fine culprits I have even seen CSOs riding down the full length
of a road on the pavement with people moving to let them pass, I can
remember when police fined you for no lights. These idiots on BMXs are the
worst culprits, confiscate their bikes and crush them , some are not fit to
ride anyway, no breaks etc

They are cyclists, the rules don't count.

a family (parent plus two children) pass by my front door on a daily
basis, it is almost like a mother duck with ducklings except the
children are in front. the children ring their bells if there is
someone ahead of them and stop if necessary.

are they riding on the pavement? yes. do I think they should be forced
onto the road? no. Theoretically the mother should not be riding her
bike on the sidewalk. I'm not going to complain as I know she and her
children are behaving well.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:48:36
uk.rec.cycling alan.holmes

You have put that the wrong way round, you should have said, make sure the
roads are safe for cyclists, then get them off the pavement!

The roads in my part of Berkshire are very dangerous, with potholes and
sunken drains, so when I cycle I always go on the pavement, it's far safer.

It is also against the law. Maybe the roads in your area are
sufficiently bad that you could argue in a court that you *had* to ride
on the pavement. Personally I wouldn't bet on a jury supporting you
once all the arguments were presented.

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

alan.holmes wrote:

"David WE Roberts" wrote:

In summary: get adult cyclists off the pavements and make sure that it is
safe for them to cycle on the roads - along with motorists and horse
riders they are legitimate road users.

You have put that the wrong way round, you should have said, make sure the
roads are safe for cyclists, then get them off the pavement!
The roads in my part of Berkshire are very dangerous, with potholes and
sunken drains, so when I cycle I always go on the pavement, it's far safer.

Frankly, of what relevance is that?

Clue the answer is: "None at all".

The footways are there to give *pedestrians* a safe route, not cyclists. If
the big bad road is "dangerous", that's your problem (as a cyclist), not mine
(as a pedestrian). Sort your own problems out - don't expect others to take
the risks you should be taking.

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:53:14 +0100, "Wm..."
wrote:

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 04:50:52

uk.rec.cycling PeterG

On Aug 29, 12:30*pm, "greyprimer" wrote:
Why do cyclists insist on riding on the pavements, it has become a fashion
thing I think, nobody bothers if they nearly get knocked over by cyclists,
it makes my blood boil, where are the police, or CSOs who apparently have
the power to fine culprits I have even seen CSOs riding down the full length
of a road on the pavement with people moving to let them pass, I can
remember when police fined you for no lights. These idiots on BMXs are the
worst culprits, confiscate their bikes and crush them , some are not fit to
ride anyway, no breaks etc

They are cyclists, the rules don't count.

a family (parent plus two children) pass by my front door on a daily
basis, it is almost like a mother duck with ducklings except the
children are in front. the children ring their bells if there is
someone ahead of them and stop if necessary.

are they riding on the pavement? yes. do I think they should be forced
onto the road? no. Theoretically the mother should not be riding her
bike on the sidewalk. I'm not going to complain as I know she and her
children are behaving well.

Section 72 of the 1835 highways act (penalty on persons committing
nuisances by riding on footpaths, &c.) is about the only bit of that
act not repealed.

I think that it is highly unlikely that at the time a mother cycling
her two children to school was considered. Indeed, it is unlikely
that cycling was considered at all, "ride" almost certainly refers to
horse riding. The act also prohibits the pushing of supermarket
trolleys along the footway, or other such contraptions.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...tDocId=1032567

"Wm..." wrote in message
]...
Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:48:36
uk.rec.cycling alan.holmes

You have put that the wrong way round, you should have said, make sure the
roads are safe for cyclists, then get them off the pavement!

The roads in my part of Berkshire are very dangerous, with potholes and
sunken drains, so when I cycle I always go on the pavement, it's far
safer.

It is also against the law. Maybe the roads in your area are sufficiently
bad that you could argue in a court that you *had* to ride on the
pavement. Personally I wouldn't bet on a jury supporting you once all the
arguments were presented.

If they were stupid enough to find me guilty I would not pay a fine, they
would have to send me to prison, and I am serious.

Alan

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
alan.holmes wrote:

"David WE Roberts" wrote:

In summary: get adult cyclists off the pavements and make sure that it
is safe for them to cycle on the roads - along with motorists and horse
riders they are legitimate road users.

You have put that the wrong way round, you should have said, make sure
the roads are safe for cyclists, then get them off the pavement!
The roads in my part of Berkshire are very dangerous, with potholes and
sunken drains, so when I cycle I always go on the pavement, it's far
safer.

Frankly, of what relevance is that?

Clue the answer is: "None at all".

The footways are there to give *pedestrians* a safe route, not cyclists.
If the big bad road is "dangerous", that's your problem (as a cyclist),
not mine (as a pedestrian). Sort your own problems out - don't expect
others to take the risks you should be taking.

It is quite obvious you have never ever ridden a bicycle!

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:48:36 +0100
"alan.holmes" wrote:

You have put that the wrong way round, you should have said, make
sure the roads are safe for cyclists, then get them off the pavement!

The roads in my part of Berkshire are very dangerous, with potholes
and sunken drains, so when I cycle I always go on the pavement, it's
far safer.

Most of us manage to avoid potholes and drains, just as we avoid
pedestrians, parked cars, kerbs ... I think it's less about safe roads
and more about safe cyclists - it sounds to me that you are neither
safe nor legal.