View Full Version : If ped's are so afraid of 'pavemnet cyclists' why do they walk in cycle paths?
If ped's are so afraid of 'pavemnet cyclists' why do they walk in cycle paths?
We all see half-witted rants about 'pavement cyclists' often
claiming that this is 'dangerous'. However, why is it that
pedestrians fear of cyclists seems to evaoporate when they
want to use facilities supposedly set aside for cyclists?
How come almost half the users of The National 'Cycle'
Network are pedestrians? Why is it that pedestrians seem
incapable of walking on the correct side of a segregated
cycle/footpath? Why is it that most shared use paths are
full of dog walkers seemingly oblivious of cyclists actually
trying to get somewhere by using the path?
'Tis a rare old puzzle and no mistake.
P.s
My guess is that rants about 'pavement cyclists' are little
more then your average right wing authoritarian getting into
a tiss about seeing a 'low status outgroup' 'breaking the
rules', which, of course, in most societies is the
prerogative of the dominant social group. (Such as the users
of motor vehicles)...
Oh, and before some cyclephobe authoritarian comes back with
'why do cyclists use the roads if they are so afraid of
cars' the answer is because that is where they should ride
and they see no reason why they should stop cycling and
allow a supposedly public resource to be appropriated by
motor vehicle users!
"Howard" <findaddress@thebikezone.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8985d795.0406120225.3d207131@posting.google.com...
> P.s
>
> My guess is that rants about 'pavement cyclists' are
> little more then your average right wing authoritarian
> getting into a tiss about seeing a 'low status outgroup'
> 'breaking the rules', which, of course, in most societies
> is the prerogative of the dominant social group. (Such as
> the users of motor vehicles)...
"My" criticism of pavement cyclists in the local rag the
other day wasn't me - it was an impostor using my name!
--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net (http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/)
> My guess is that rants about 'pavement cyclists' are
> little more then your average right wing authoritarian
> getting into a tiss about seeing a 'low status outgroup'
> 'breaking the rules'
Or perhaps it's people like me (politically-conservative
enthusiastic cyclist!) who don't want to be run over by 14-year-
old yobs cycling on pavements?
Your prejudices are showing ;-)
On 12 Jun 2004 03:25:23 -0700, Howard <findaddress@thebikezone.org.uk> wrote:
> We all see half-witted rants about 'pavement cyclists'
Is this a flame against poor old me? Too bad I have a thick
skin and have been flamed by experts in the past. Most of my
points were restrained to your post in the other thread and
I won't repeat them here. But a quick recap - I have no
problems with cyclists on shared use paths, bridleways etc.
and either walk in the ped lane or give cyclists plenty of
room, often stepping to one side of the bridleway.
[snip]
> Oh, and before some cyclephobe authoritarian
Are they any on u.r.c?
--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com "The Lord is my
shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
"Andy Leighton" <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote in message
news:slrncclnr6.dfu.andyl@azaal.plus.com...
> On 12 Jun 2004 03:25:23 -0700, Howard
> <findaddress@thebikezone.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Oh, and before some cyclephobe authoritarian
>
> Are they any on u.r.c?
Relatively few cyclephobes, but a hell of a lot of
authoritarians to compensate!
--
"A kilt opens up new possibilities."
- Gary D. Schwartz in rec.backcountry
"Howard" <findaddress@thebikezone.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8985d795.0406120225.3d207131@posting.google.com...
>
<snip>
> Oh, and before some cyclephobe authoritarian comes back
> with 'why do cyclists use the roads if they are so afraid
> of cars' the answer is because that is where they should
> ride and they see no reason why they should stop cycling
> and allow a supposedly public resource to be appropriated
> by motor vehicle users!
Exactly the same could be said of pedestrians. Pedestrians
are permitted to use all cycleways, cycletracks, cyclepaths
bar none. Indeed, as many of these facilities were once
footpaths, to criticise people who wish to appropriate roads
for motor vehicles but then to support the appropriation of
footpaths (by means of a bit of white paint) for cyclists
seems somewhat hypocriticial
I would suggest if people didn't pigeon-hole themselves
into their favoured road-user group and then adopt an "us
and them" attitude, we (as a society) could work together
to resolve these things so everyone can get to where they
wish to go by the means they choose without being
unncessarily endangered or inconvenienced by others. Won't
happen while people are intent on pointing the finger at
everyone else mind.
> I would suggest if people didn't pigeon-hole themselves
> into their favoured road-user group and then adopt an "us
> and them" attitude, we (as a society) could work together
> to resolve these things so everyone can get to where they
> wish to go by the means they choose without being
> unncessarily endangered or inconvenienced by others. Won't
> happen while people are intent on pointing the finger at
> everyone else mind.
U.R.C post of the month in opinion!
On 12 Jun 2004 03:25:23 -0700, findaddress@thebikezone.org.uk (Howard)
wrote:
>We all see half-witted rants about 'pavement cyclists'
>often claiming that this is 'dangerous'.
We should make them wear h*lm*ts
And if that doesn't stop them, b*bsh*rts.
Howard posted:
> Oh, and before some cyclephobe authoritarian comes back
> with 'why do cyclists use the roads if they are so afraid
> of cars' the answer is because that is where they should
> ride and they see no reason why they should stop cycling
> and allow a supposedly public resource to be appropriated
> by motor vehicle users!
Which is a damn good argument, virtually identical in fact,
for pedestrians walking on footpaths thereby stopping
cyclists appropriating footpaths just 'cos they're daubed
with white lines .. ;)
I wonder what your point is ?
--
Paul ...
(8(|) ... Homer Rocks
Howard wrote:
> We all see half-witted rants about 'pavement cyclists'
> often claiming that this is 'dangerous'. However, why is
> it that pedestrians fear of cyclists seems to evaoporate
> when they want to use facilities supposedly set aside for
> cyclists?
Both are dangerous IMO. Roads are for bikes.
> I have no problems with cyclists on shared use paths,
> bridleways etc. and either walk in the ped lane or give
> cyclists plenty of room, often stepping to one side of the
> bridleway.
>
Ah, so you ARE upset predominantly by the fact that
'pavement cyclists' are seen to be 'breaking the rules', you
old authoritarian you!
That said I do agree that irresponsible pavement cycling
(the sort displayed by many youths on BMX bikes and so on)
is yet another sign of the breakdown in respect for the law
and other people that characterises British society. Still,
let's not forget it is the users of motor vehicles who set
the precedents here. As J.S. Dean wrote in 1947 in his book
'Murder most foul: a study of the road deaths problem;
'The trouble with the facts about the law-breaking of the
motorists and the motor interests is that there are too
many: it is difficult even to grasp them. In fact, the
position has long since passed far beyond the limits of
ordinary law-breaking and become an exhibition of national
degeneracy.'
I don't see some responsible adult, or child, riding, on the
pavement out of fear of car drivers is the same sort of
offence as genuinely inconsiderate pavement cycling at all.
You seem to be overly concerned by what sounded like a very
considerate 'pavement cyclist' which is rather irrational.
As has already been pointed out many other examples of
lawless behaviour, such as speeding are not only anti-
social, they are genuinely dangerous and much more worthy of
concern. Do you work yourself up into a state of righteous
indignation when you see someone doing 31 MPh in a 30 MPh
zone I wonder. Probably not, in fact I would bet you
frequently flout the speed limit yourself. Pot calling
kettle black and all that...
Even the Home Office takes a similar line on pavement
cycling and issued the following to police forces when it
introduced 'fixed penalty notices' for pavement cycling:
'The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at
responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the
pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration
to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police
officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge
that many cyclists, particularly children and young people,
are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use
of police discretion is required.'
Almost identical advice has been (or certainly should have
been) given to community wardens regarding the use of their
powers to curb anti-social behaviour. The following is from
I letter I received from John Crozier on this very topic.
'The Government have included provision in the Anti Social
Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to
stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order
to issue a fixed penalty notice. I should stress that the
issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The
new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who
sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of
the traffic, and who show consideration to other road
users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the
fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree
of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the
age of 16.
"Pete White" <petewhite04@NOSPAMukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40cafa16$0$13382$afc38c87@news.ukonline.co.uk...
>
> > I would suggest if people didn't pigeon-hole themselves
> > into their
favoured
> > road-user group and then adopt an "us and them"
> > attitude, we (as a
society)
> > could work together to resolve these things so everyone
> > can get to where they wish to go by the means they
> > choose without being unncessarily endangered or
> > inconvenienced by others. Won't happen while people are
intent
> > on pointing the finger at everyone else mind.
>
> U.R.C post of the month in opinion!
hear hear!!...good point well made....... ...and I suspect
the reason 'they' use 'em round 'ere is that they have not
been educated in their use.....as 'cyclists', we're aware
of them but as 'pedestrians' they are not...it's only at
the point that an indignant cyclists wants to make the
point that they (believe they) have 'R.O.W.' on that bit of
tarmac that it occurs to them something might be
different....of course they then suffer a certain amount of
indignation that some bloody bureaucrat has knicked a bit
of their pavement and given it to cyclists...who should be
on the bloody road anyway.....and it is so rare to see
'cyclists' out at all round 'ere that they get the shock of
their lives to boot ;-) Dave.
Scott Leckey wrote:
>> My guess is that rants about 'pavement cyclists' are
>> little more then your average right wing authoritarian
>> getting into a tiss about seeing a 'low status outgroup'
>> 'breaking the rules'
>
> Or perhaps it's people like me (politically-conservative
> enthusiastic cyclist!) who don't want to be run over by
> 14-year-old yobs cycling on pavements?
Howard's excellent original point was that if pedestrians
*really* were so worried about cylists then they wouldn't
ever walk in cycle lanes for fear of getting run over by
14-year-old yobs.
~PB
On 12 Jun 2004 08:33:42 -0700, Howard <findaddress@thebikezone.org.uk> wrote:
>> I have no problems with cyclists on shared use paths,
>> bridleways etc. and either walk in the ped lane or give
>> cyclists plenty of room, often stepping to one side of
>> the bridleway.
>>
>
> Ah, so you ARE upset predominantly by the fact that
> 'pavement cyclists' are seen to be 'breaking the rules',
> you old authoritarian you!
I am neither old nor authoritarian. I firmly believe that
most cyclists are better off using the road (or provided
cycle facilities) than the pavement. Choosing to hold my
line whilst walking is certainly justified. I had a perfect
right to walk along the pavement. The cyclist had no right
being there.
> That said I do agree that irresponsible pavement cycling
> (the sort displayed by many youths on BMX bikes and so on)
> is yet another sign of the breakdown in respect for the
> law and other people that characterises British society.
So I take it you don't ride a BMX then!
> Still, let's not forget it is the users of motor vehicles
> who set the precedents here.
Absolutely. I condemn motor vehicles who take the easy
option and break the rules just as I condemn cyclists who
also do so.
> are genuinely dangerous and much more worthy of concern.
> Do you work yourself up into a state of righteous
> indignation when you see someone doing 31 MPh in a 30 MPh
> zone I wonder. Probably not, in fact I would bet you
> frequently flout the speed limit yourself. Pot calling
> kettle black and all that...
As you would be aware if you had read my followup to your
post in the other thread I do not drive, have never driven
and thus never flouted the speed limit at all.
> Even the Home Office takes a similar line on pavement
> cycling and issued the following to police forces when it
> introduced 'fixed penalty notices' for pavement cycling:
That letter has already been posted and I disagree with it
completely. It is a complete nonsense as all it means is
that police forces will completely ignore pavement cyclists
of all types. It also legitimises the opinion that roads are
dangerous and people should be allowed (and in some cases
encouraged) to cycle on the pavements.
--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com "The Lord is my
shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
> Which is a damn good argument, virtually identical in
> fact, for pedestrians walking on footpaths thereby
> stopping cyclists appropriating footpaths just 'cos
> they're daubed with white lines .. ;)
This is the correct motorcycle.
> > Oh, and before some cyclephobe authoritarian comes back
> > with 'why do cyclists use the roads if they are so
> > afraid of cars' the answer is because that is where they
> > should ride and they see no reason why they should stop
> > cycling and allow a supposedly public resource to be
> > appropriated by motor vehicle users!
>
> Which is a damn good argument, virtually identical in
> fact, for pedestrians walking on footpaths thereby
> stopping cyclists appropriating footpaths just 'cos
> they're daubed with white lines .. ;)
>
> I wonder what your point is ?
For my main 'point' read the first paragraph of my post...
With regards the above, I was simply pointing out how
unreasonable the typical 'if you don't like it don't use the
roads' attitudes of many drivers are! I certainly don't
think that it would be in any way acceptable for cyclists to
appropriate footpaths from the pedestrian any more then I
think it is right that car drivers have appropriated the
public highway from cyclists and pedestrians (killing and
maiming thousands of them into the bargain).
For what it is worth I would argue that being the faster and
overtaking party the primary burden of responsibility for
ensuring the safety of pedestrians when using shared use
paths lies with the cyclist. However, I would also argue
that the same principal, if deemed to be 'right' when
applied to the interaction between pedestrians and cyclists
should be applied to the highways and the interaction
between cyclists and motor vehicles. (Being the faster and
overtaking party as well as, in this case, posing a much
greater risk to third parties then the user faces).
You suggest that pedestrians would be justified in
deliberately obstructing cyclists in order to prevent them
using a cycle path marked on the footway, or perhaps even
passing them on shared use paths, on the basis that this
would prevent these paths being appropriated by cyclists. Do
you think that cyclists should also attempt to reclaim the
highways from motor vehicle users by riding three abreast or
more in order to prevent car drivers from passing? I would
suggest that in both cases a little courtesy and common
sense is called for instead.
If the pedestrian is really concerned about reclaiming space
appropriated by others perhaps they should start walking
three abreast in the road. After all under the 1830 Highways
Act pedestrians still have priority on highways. Doubtless
you would support such direct action. Or would you feel that
in this case, as it would be motorists who would be
inconvenienced, the pedestrian, along with cyclists, should
simply 'get out of the way'...
Still all this is rather peripheral to my central point. If
pedestrians are so afraid of 'pavement cyclists' why DO they
walk in cycle paths?
Howard wrote:
> Even the Home Office takes a similar line on pavement
> cycling and issued the following to police forces when it
> introduced 'fixed penalty notices' for pavement cycling:
>
> 'The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at
> responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the
> pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration
> to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police
> officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge
> that many cyclists, particularly children and young
> people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and
> careful use of police discretion is required.'
>
> Almost identical advice has been (or certainly should have
> been) given to community wardens regarding the use of
> their powers to curb anti-social behaviour.
I have heard of these wardens attempting to fine a pavement
cyclist recently. Discretion is all very well, but the law
is against pavement cycling, not inconsiderate pavement
cycling. If officers choose to go for the softest targets,
there's little comeback.
Colin McKenzie
[Sorry if this doesn't thread properly - I corrected
the subject.]
--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that it
leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!
> >We all see half-witted rants about 'pavement cyclists'
> >often claiming that this is 'dangerous'.
>
> We should make them wear h*lm*ts
>
Well observed.
When car drivers kill and maim cyclists it is argued that
cyclists should wear polystyrene hats, however pointless
this might be. When a cyclist 'nearly' collides with a
pedestrian on a bridleway or similar, whoever is at fault
the reaction is to call for cyclists to be banned from using
the path, not to 'persuade' walkers to wear 'helmets'!
Howard posted:
>>> Oh, and before some cyclephobe authoritarian comes back
>>> with 'why do cyclists use the roads if they are so
>>> afraid of cars' the answer is because that is where they
>>> should ride and they see no reason why they should stop
>>> cycling and allow a supposedly public resource to be
>>> appropriated by motor vehicle users!
>>
>> Which is a damn good argument, virtually identical in
>> fact, for pedestrians walking on footpaths thereby
>> stopping cyclists appropriating footpaths just 'cos
>> they're daubed with white lines .. ;)
> You suggest that pedestrians would be justified in
> deliberately obstructing cyclists in order to prevent them
> using a cycle path
No I don't.
> marked on the footway, or perhaps even passing them on
> shared use paths, on the basis that this would prevent
> these paths being appropriated by cyclists.
I merely repeated your argument with relation to peds
and cyclists on paths, rather than cyclists and drivers
on roads ...
Pedestrians need paths, Motor vehicles need roads, Cycles
can use either, where appropriate, so it's probably
inevitable that some peds and some car drivers think
cyclists have too much of a good thing because they have
such a choice. Drivers and pedestrians don't have the
choice ...
--
Paul ...
(8(|) ... Homer Rocks
On 12 Jun 2004 08:33:42 -0700, findaddress@thebikezone.org.uk (Howard)
wrote in message <8985d795.0406120733.421b15e6@posting.google.com>:
>That said I do agree that irresponsible pavement cycling
>(the sort displayed by many youths on BMX bikes and so on)
>is yet another sign of the breakdown in respect for the law
>and other people that characterises British society.
My son aged ten has been told in no uncertain terms that he
is too big to ride on the pavement. I blame the parents.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
