Pavement cyclists

\(t'other\) Dave said:

Prove to 'em that it is more dangerous riding on the pavement than riding on
the road and beat the [censored] out of 'em with a baseball bat every time you
encounter them ;-)

And who was it that said you can't win an argument with statistics :-)

James

Howard wrote:

<A lot of stuff snipped>

Quoted message said:

Perhaps someone could also run course for arrogant pedestrians

Guess that means me.

Quoted message said:

in
courtesy and common sense when encountering cyclists politely asking
to pass on a ‘footpath'.

Every so often I see references on this group to cyclists cycling
"responsibly" on the pavement or footpath. Such cyclists are generally
held to be polite because they always greet pedestrians with a cheerful
"Ding! Excuse me please." I've said it before and I will say it again,
cycling on a footpath, pavement or sidewalk along the side of a road
(unless it is designated as a cycle path) is illegal and therefore
cannot be done responsibly.

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, far to many ‘pedestrians'
(often just car drivers who have found somewhere to leave their car)
take the hostility they display towards cyclists when driving onto
shared use paths, bridleways and so on going out of their way to be
confrontational and obstructive. Still that's the British for you...

I was born a pedestrian, I choose to be a cyclist and I use a car as
little as possible. I still find pavement cyclists annoying. I cycle 110
miles every week throughout the year and all of that is done on the
road. I object strongly to being herded into special lanes or paths
because in my view there is nothing wrong with cycling on the road as I
learned to do in my youth. (No cycle farcilities back then.)

There are two reasons why cycling on the pavement should be discouraged;
1. If we can get all of these people onto the roads, perhaps the
increased numbers of cyclists would make motorists take more notice of,
and more care around, cyclists.
2. Increased numbers of on-road cyclists would go some way towards
showing other road users that we do not belong on the pavement as many
of them seem to think and the traffic system planners might just start
trying to integrate cyclists into the road system rather than trying to
separate us off from the 'more important' motorised traffic.

My greatest fear is that Martlew and his ilk will eventually prevent
cyclists from using the roads altogether. I do not want to be forced
into creaping along a shared use path at h*lm*t friendly speeds in the
wrong direction just because an awful lot of t*ssp*ts can't be bothered
to work out how to use the roads properly in the first place.

Terry Duckmanton

Quoted message said:

Every so often I see references on this group to cyclists cycling
"responsibly" on the pavement or footpath. Such cyclists are generally
held to be polite because they always greet pedestrians with a cheerful
"Ding! Excuse me please." I've said it before and I will say it again,
cycling on a footpath, pavement or sidewalk along the side of a road
(unless it is designated as a cycle path) is illegal and therefore
cannot be done responsibly.

Reading the letter from the home secretary, it seems that the only reason
it was made illegal was to prevent pavement cyclists from causing a danger
or nuisance. Quite why they didn't legislate purely against these cyclists
I'm not quite sure.

IMO pavement cyclists should always give way to pedestrians. Lets face it,
if you're on the pavement its not because you want to get there quickly!
Cycling on the pavement *can* be done in a perfectly responsible way, and
the mere fact that something is illegal does not prevent it from being
irresponsible. Cycling without a helmet, in a park and on a tricycle.
springs to mind here.[1]

[1] This is a ridiculous example, as only the most stupidly idiotic of
people would even consider outlawing it. Oh poor dear Martlew.

James Annan said:

What is the best approach to try to reduce the number of pedestrians
killed by motor vehicles on the pavement (or even off the pavement, they
are just as dead)?

Get rid of the motor vehicles?
--
Chris Johns ([email hidden])

In news:IT2zc.443$Ee2.372@newsfe4-gui,
Terry D <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

I was born a pedestrian,

I didn't learn for a good year, myself.

Quoted message said:

cycling on a [pavement] is illegal and
therefore cannot be done responsibly.

Interestingly, I was driving along a national speed limit dual carriageway
today and I saw someone cycling along the pavement running alongside it,
which went on for a mile or so without any breaks in it, and was clear of
pedestrians at the time he was using it, and was clearly a much safer place
for the cyclist. How was he not responsible?

Obviously, I agree in the vast majority of cases and I hate being
facilitised out of the running, and am making an effort to make sure that my
job involves stopping this happening, but there are some cases where the
footpath hasn't been designated but would be good to change.

A

Martin Bulmer said:

In news:[email hidden],
Andy Leighton <[email hidden]> expounded sagaciously:
What is the

Quoted message said:

best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?

Cobbles.

Doesn't work in any of the big Flemish races, does it? Indeed, positive
incentive to ride on the pavement...

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:36:49 +0100 someone who may be Terry D
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I've said it before and I will say it again,
cycling on a footpath, pavement or sidewalk along the side of a road
(unless it is designated as a cycle path) is illegal and therefore
cannot be done responsibly.

The one does not follow the other. Whether something is illegal or
not is entirely different to whether it is done in a responsible
manner. The converse is also true.

However, I agree with the general thrust of your observations.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.