Cyclists on pavements, do police really care?

[toon_mad]

If there's one thing I hate is cyclists on main roads when theres a big enough path to use.

Driving 5mph up a hill waiting for it to be clear because a cyclist is in front just to overtake is annoying. I know it can't be avoided on country roads etc but driving at a snails pace in peak times because a biker thinks its awesome to ride his bicycle on the road instead of the path just annoys me, more so when it's some fatty who clearly does not have the ability to get up moderate hills in a reasonable time > use the path and take as long as you need!

 

[grudas]

If there's one thing I hate is cyclists on main roads when theres a big enough path to use.

Driving 5mph up a hill waiting for it to be clear because a cyclist is in front just to overtake is annoying. I know it can't be avoided on country roads etc but driving at a snails pace in peak times because a biker thinks its awesome to ride his bicycle on the road instead of the path just annoys me, more so when it's some fatty who clearly does not have the ability to get up moderate hills in a reasonable time > use the path and take as long as you need!

 

[Brenn47]

LOL .... it's a no win situation for cyclists in this thread. Not wanted on the roads or paths!

I'm a cyclist, I hate cycling on the roads in the rush 2 hours, fatty in his company car wanting to get home for his chips will do the daftest things to squeeze past, I've also heard screeching tires only to see a bonnet under my right handle bar because some idiot thought her could overtake with a car coming the other way on a narrow road.

Basically we'll NEVER be technically allowed on pavements unless it's also a cycle lane, but we'll ALWAYS be allowed on the road. BUT, you'll never get a road cyclist in his lycra to use a paths cycle lane.

Oh and it's not just paths, it's country lanes, byways, anywhere the public can walk, they HATE being startled be a cyclist and sometimes get angry.

I drive a car and motor bike ... my personal annoyance are horses on main roads .. now those REALLY slow you down clip-clopping along at 3mph even on the flat! A lady used to ride hers on the main road through Barnett at 8am, when she did the whole would be 90 minutes late!

 

[neil_g]

Were all entitled to our opinions pal.

Okay then, how exactly is cycling on a pavement going to help when not wearing a helmet as you seem to be suggesting?

 

[Burnsy2023]

Were all entitled to our opinions pal.

Harlan Ellison — 'You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.'

 

[SexyGreyFox]

If there's one thing I hate is cyclists on main roads when theres a big enough path to use.

Here is a classic case of cycle paths I would love to use, one either side that go on for 1.5 miles - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.0...t-FuyuUnMH5QIkfQJW1Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
There are two problems though:
1) Pedestrians using it when they have all that pavement
2) Those are old pictures so imagine by every tree the roots have come up taking the path with it. You basically need a full suspension MTB to ride on it, my two main bikes would be rattled apart.

On another 1.5 mile of my route are other paths that take me around the Britannia Stadium however I'm dodging broken glass all the time.
See that path that says Blurton Pathway? - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.9848547,-2.1719434,358m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
I counted 35 broken bottles on that the other week

 

[Sin_Chase]

Deal with it by shouting at them when appropriate. Otherwise better things to do.

Or would you prefer every single petty offence is dealt with robustly? Including the obscure offences you probably commit on a regular basis but do not even realise are offences?

 

[uvarvu]

This is pretty bad.

A teenager stepped onto the road to avoid a cyclist on the pavement but was hit by a bus for his efforts. The cyclist clearly shouldn't have been there in the first place. The manager of the bus company thinks no-one is to blame but I say BS!

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Teenag...stepped-road/story-26877093-detail/story.html

 

[Spacedeck]

On Wednesday I was belled by someone on a bike riding up behind us. :/ feels like people are just impatient to actually wait that little bit longer before passing.

I do think if a path isn't wide enough and you can clearly see pedestrians walking along, you should temporarily move onto the road to pass before moving back onto the path.

Last weekend when me and my girlfriend was walking back to mine, some kids was riding towards us on the pavement. Being nice and all as I always am, I had us move over to let them pass. In the end we didn't need to because they just moved out into the road to pass us. Also this was a main road and a very busy road, so it was nice to see.

 

[neil_g]

whats wrong with using a bell? its only a polite warning that a cyclists is there, not a "OMGZ GET OUT THE FLIPPIN WAY".

 

[Spacedeck]

whats wrong with using a bell? its only a polite warning that a cyclists is there, not a "OMGZ GET OUT THE FLIPPIN WAY".

Nothing, but cyclists are usually going at double the speed we are walking if not faster. If we didn't move out of the way, they will keep ringing the bell constantly and become frustrated. Most are nice / polite enough to actually say thank you which is nice but I still think that depending on the size of the path and the people walking (not talking about people just taking up room here), the road should be a temp solution until they are around the people at least.

 

[mid_gen]

Perfectly normal to ride on on pavements here...once you get used to it, works fine. I usually stay on roads/cycle paths until it's a junction in which case I'll usually nip onto the pavement and use the pedestrian crossings.

 

[McGray]

I only use the pavement to go around red lights.

 

[Amp34]

Here is a classic case of cycle paths I would love to use, one either side that go on for 1.5 miles - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.0...t-FuyuUnMH5QIkfQJW1Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
There are two problems though:
1) Pedestrians using it when they have all that pavement
2) Those are old pictures so imagine by every tree the roots have come up taking the path with it. You basically need a full suspension MTB to ride on it, my two main bikes would be rattled apart.

On another 1.5 mile of my route are other paths that take me around the Britannia Stadium however I'm dodging broken glass all the time.
See that path that says Blurton Pathway? - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.9848547,-2.1719434,358m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
I counted 35 broken bottles on that the other week

There is a completely separate cycle system in my home town, including signposts, white lines separating two lanes and junctions, as well as a footpath made of paviers (cycle road made of Tarmac). It's very good and runs beneath and next to major roads throughout the town. It's what you get when you build a new town with cycling forethought. Unfortunately it can also be a massive pain as you have to weave around the crowds of pedestrians and pushchairs that insist on walking down the middle of it...

 

[McBain]

If there's one thing I hate is cyclists on main roads when theres a big enough path to use.

Driving 5mph up a hill waiting for it to be clear because a cyclist is in front just to overtake is annoying. I know it can't be avoided on country roads etc but driving at a snails pace in peak times because a biker thinks its awesome to ride his bicycle on the road instead of the path just annoys me, more so when it's some fatty who clearly does not have the ability to get up moderate hills in a reasonable time > use the path and take as long as you need!

Erm, wtf?

 

[MacRS4]

Do cyclists not need insurance? If they are using the same roads as other vehicles, then why not? Doesn't it just mean that, even if a cyclist did cause any damage to another road user, they wouldn't be brought up on it?

People often confuse insurance with liability. Whether somebody is insured or not has zero affect on whether they're liable for damages or not. If a cyclist causes damage through their negligence and fault you're perfectly able to pursue damages against them.

 

[McGray]

Home insurance often will cover your liability for cycling accidents under the PL cover.

 

[MacRS4]

Yeah, I'd imagine so. It's only 30 quid a year anyway via the British Cycling people, useful to have. Although the cost tells the story of how often it's claimed against!

 

[Andrew_McP]

As a born-again cyclist I'm far from confident on our lousy local pot-holed roads or the pavements.

I do use the pavements, but only where there are no people, and only at a safe speed not much faster than I walk. Ok, I walk rather fast, but I do try to see the world as a pedestrian... which is quite easy as walking was my only form of transport for 25 years. So I have no patience with cyclists who treat pedestrians as obstacle courses to be negotiated as fast as possible.

It may not be right, but I work on the principle that manners matter most whatever you're doing, however you're doing it. And as long as you're considerate, nobody -- including the Police unless they're very bored -- will be upset, no matter what the letter of the law might say.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

The only issue I can see with having no insurance is it must be easy to get away with? A car causing damage, even they if they speed away. You can identify them by the licence plate. A bike doesn't have anything to identify them in the case that someone doesn't stop after causing damage.

The amount of damage a cyclist can do to a car is insignificant when compared to the damage a car can do. That's why there is no compulsory insurance for cyclists as the cost/benefit ratio doesn't make it viable. It's the same reason why horses and pedestrians don't need compulsory insurance to use the roads (and it can be argued that a horse can do more damage than a cyclist).

However, cyclists are free to arrange thier own insurance if they want to.