Do cyclists have a date with death?

[Dewotter]

I cycle to and from work everyday in a 3 mile round trip which covers the usual town roads and a dual carriage way. Each time I cycle on the pavement as I simply do not feel safe on the road. I speed up as anyone would when on the dual carriage way route as much as I like, and slow down accordingly (with suitable gear change) for when I'm on the more pedestrian used areas. Not had any bother once doing this.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

Cycling on the pavement just gives cyclists a bad name; it's against the law and should be discouraged.

 

[EvilDreams]

Well at least i come across as having been educated at all then, unlike you.

Really? Someone with even a primary school education would know the difference between "you're" and "your", which you don't.

Here are your points and here are the answers to them

snip

You - You should ride on the pavement (your opinion)
Answer - Regardless of how may people you see already riding on pavements it is in fact illegal and cyclists should use the road or any other designated cycleways (fact)

This is what it really comes down to. In my city there are an increasing number of cycle lanes drawn on the pavement.

If cycling on the pavement is such a heinous crime then how did these lanes get there? Obviously the council here has realised that it's safer and more efficient for everyone for the cyclists to get on the pavement. Clearly if cycle lanes occur on pavements then cycling on the pavement is not the same as shooting a man in the face with a gun as you people seem to want to make out.

Take your normal cycle route and try it on the pavement instead:

1) The police will not even care.
2) You will not be holding anyone up because you are the fastest moving object on said pavement.
3) If you have eyes, the slightest bit of courtesy and any kind of muscular coordination NO ONE WILL BE KILLED.

 

[EvilDreams]

I cycle to and from work everyday in a 3 mile round trip which covers the usual town roads and a dual carriage way. Each time I cycle on the pavement as I simply do not feel safe on the road. I speed up as anyone would when on the dual carriage way route as much as I like, and slow down accordingly (with suitable gear change) for when I'm on the more pedestrian used areas. Not had any bother once doing this.

Thank you.

 

[EvilDreams]

Again, just because you weren't stopped by the police that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but that's probably because you were a child riding slowly. A grown man (man and bike weighing around 95kg) doing 35mph is a completely different story.

I was 22/23 when I last rode my bike regularly (on the pavement, or on the road if empty). I did not hold one motorist up.

I would like to see you do 35mph on the pavement.

 

[EvilDreams]

It's the law. The idea of a grown man cycling on the footpath for any distance is ludicrous.

Why? Would you feel emasculated?

The reason you don't hear many examples is because it's illegal and most people realize it's dangerous not to mention ridiculous. So many obstructions on the pavement you'd make no progress. Stopping at every crossing. Completely pointless unless your a child.

You have to stop at red lights too....or do you?

People drive beside far heavier trucks buses and 4x4s all day long and seat belt won't stop one of those ploughing through your flimsy tin box. Do they drive on the footpath then?

A flimsy tin box is substantially more protection than a stupid hat.

You're not forced to do anything. That's a dangerous attitude To have on the road. It's an bad excuse for poor driving. Is dangerous your middle name or something?

If I happily sat behind mr. or mrs. cyclist at 10mph, do you think the traffic following me would happily sit behind me doing 10mph too?

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

1) The police will not even care.
2) You will not be holding anyone up because you are the fastest moving object on said pavement.
3) If you have eyes, the slightest bit of courtesy and any kind of muscular coordination NO ONE WILL BE KILLED.

1) Not true. As I mentioned I see cyclists stopped for this on a regular basis. You've chosen to ignore this again.

2) I will be held up on the pavement by pedestrians, just as I am when I'm running, or even walking quickly.

3) If I were to cycle at 15-20mph then there is a good chance that someone could certainly be hurt. The bit about slightest bit of courtesy meaning no-one will be killed or injured goes for driving as well.

I would like to see you do 35mph on the pavement.

If I couldn't then it's obviously not a suitable place to cycle.

You have to stop at red lights too....or do you?


If I happily sat behind mr. or mrs. cyclist at 10mph, do you think the traffic following me would happily sit behind me doing 10mph too?

I stop at red lights.

I would happily follow a car at 10 mph if there was a suitable reason and if it wasn't for too long. I very much doubt that you get help up for cyclists for more than 15 seconds at a time (this is an approximation plucked from thin air, but it's based on my experiance) and so they are only making an appreciable difference to your day because you want them to.

It's not like there are miles of tailbacks around the UK caused by cyclists; you drive along, see a cyclist, slow down and overtake at a suitable time shortly after. Occasionally you will come across inconsiderate cyclists, but only as frequently as you come across people who pull out of junctions at stupid times or don't indicate on roundabouts.

 

[EvilDreams]

1) Not true. As I mentioned I see cyclists stopped for this on a regular basis. You've chosen to ignore this again.

No I haven't. Here, where I live, I have never been stopped for cycling on the pavement and I have never even heard of someone being stopped for cycling on the pavement. The police evidently have better things to do and have probably seen a good few flattened cyclists and bikers in their time to know just how vulnerable you are on the road.

2) I will be held up on the pavement by pedestrians, just as I am when I'm running, or even walking quickly.

You can't stand the idea of being held up, yet you expect that car drivers should be happy with the idea of being constantly held up by cyclists?

3) If I were to cycle at 15-20mph then there is a good chance that someone could certainly be hurt.

Only if you cycle into them. Try not cycling into them, that will significantly reduce any danger.

If I couldn't then it's obviously not a suitable place to cycle.

Just like being stuck behind mrs. wobblebottom on her old cast iron bike at 10mph is not a suitable place to drive. Once again you can't stand the idea of being held up on the pavement and yet you expect me, in my car, to love the idea of being held up behind you on your bike.

 

[Daegan]

1) The police will not even care.

http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/BeatDetails.aspx?BeatID=23

Inconsiderate cycling, including cycling on pavements is one of their public priorities where I live, enforceable with £30 fines and 'anti-social behaviour forms'.

 

[EvilDreams]

http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/BeatDetails.aspx?BeatID=23

Inconsiderate cycling, including cycling on pavements is one of their public priorities where I live, enforceable with £30 fines and 'anti-social behaviour forms'.

That article mentions such enforcement on one road.

 

[Jonny ///M]

It's hard not to cycle into pedestrians......they here you coming and try to help you by moving into you path or they randomly, and totally not their fault, change direction. I can believe [DOD]Asprilla could do 35mph on the pavement on his bike. My bike gearing tops out at 27mph effectively. Cycling on the pavement is just daft with how much time it adds to your journey. I do ride on the pavement though,on a hill for a few hundred yards. The road is very congested, the hill is quite steep and the pavement is actually so empty it's unreal. If I left earlier for work and the road were quiet I'd ride on the road.

 

[[DOD]Asprilla]

No I haven't. Here, where I live, I have never been stopped for cycling on the pavement and I have never even heard of someone being stopped for cycling on the pavement. The police have better things to do and have probably seen a good few flattened cyclists and bikers in their time to know just how vulnerable you are on the road.

Statistically, it's actually very safe.

You can't stand the idea of being held up, yet you expect that car drivers should be happy with the idea of being constantly held up by cyclists?

You get the irony, but still failed to see that I was pointing out your selfishness in wanting to ban cyclists from the road.

Only if you cycle into them. Try not cycling into them, that will significantly reduce any danger.

Quick, someone tell RoSPA they are defunct.

Just like being stuck behind mrs. wobblebottom on her old cast iron bike at 10mph is not a suitable place to drive. Once again you can't stand the idea of being held up on the pavement and yet you expect me, in my car, to love the idea of being held up behind you on your bike.

I simply dont believe that you actually get help up that often by cyclists. I'm sure you believe you do though.

 

[Sp00n]

Most annoying thing for me is cyclists which ignore traffic lights, infact one of them went through quite a major junction without a care in the world and consequently nearly got run over by 3 cars, she carried on with her head held low.

Now I appreciate that your average pelican crossing isn't really worth stopping for (unless people are actually walking) and I am willing to accept that even though the law says otherwise, but to ignore the traffic lights on a major junction is just stupid and reckless.

 

[Daegan]

That article mentions such enforcement on one road.

Yes, because it's the main road and the one they've chosen to target. That doesn't mean it's acceptable to cycle on the pavement elsewhere.

 

[snail1]

Just like being stuck behind mrs. wobblebottom on her old cast iron bike at 10mph is not a suitable place to drive. Once again you can't stand the idea of being held up on the pavement and yet you expect me, in my car, to love the idea of being held up behind you on your bike.

Car drivers are what slow me down on my morning commute both when I am driving and cycling. Maybe we should ban everyone on the roads so you may drive uninhibited?

 

[EvilDreams]

Car drivers are what slow me down on my morning commute both when I am driving and cycling. Maybe we should ban everyone on the roads so you may drive uninhibited?

Me driving to work at 4am: 6-8 minutes.

Me driving to work at 8:00am: 20-40 minutes.

What I can accept is rush hour traffic. What I can't accept is rush hour traffic, where every car on the road has to wait in turn to overtake a cyclist on a narrow single carriage road, with a completely empty pavement.

Then at the next red light the cyclist happily coasts past all the stopped cars to the front of the queue, and all the cars have to wait in turn to overtake the same cyclist again.

 

[snail1]

Me driving to work at 4am: 6-8 minutes.

Me driving to work at 8:00am: 20-40 minutes.

What I can accept is rush hour traffic. What I can't accept is rush hour traffic, where every car on the road has to wait in turn to overtake a cyclist on a narrow single carriage road, with a completely empty pavement.

What I cannot accepts is loads of cars who slow me down on my bike. IN the rush i hour my cycle takes twice as long! They should be banned !

Seriously, you should have more respect for all road users.

Then at the next red light the cyclist happily coasts past all the stopped cars to the front of the queue, and all the cars have to wait in turn to overtake the same cyclist again.

That is called karma (or car-ma ho ho)

 

[rsatd]

ED, why don't you get the counsil to make a cyclist lane then? If it is THAT much used, surely it makes sense to put a separate lane up.

 

[leaskovski]

Thats filtering for you

 

[Schizo]

i have a cycle path all the way to work (4.5 miles)

but i ride on the road.

im not stopping at every road (cycle path) to wait for traffic.

i keep up a average 20-25mph on the road and suit's me fine.