Pavement cycling

In article <[email hidden]>

Paul Boyd said:

I've just found this article:

http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/download/22-pb009-pavement-cycling.pdf

Mentioned nowhere is the fact that many councils are actively
encouraging cyclists to use pavements, so I've pointed this out to them.

They don't seem to understand the difference between pavements and
footpaths.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:05:58 +0100, Paul Boyd <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I've just found this article:

http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/download/22-pb009-pavement-cycling.pdf

Mentioned nowhere is the fact that many councils are actively
encouraging cyclists to use pavements, so I've pointed this out to them.
If anyone else would like to do the same, that can only help. There
is a link on their homepage at http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/

If you have no interest in this thread, then just hit "k" to kill it, or
the equivalent in your reader, rather than complain.

Their pic of a "pavement cyclist breaking the law!" is a bit cack!

Anyhow I use roads 98% of the time - certain roads near me are like
dual carriageways with almost no people walking near them - especially
near the FAST FAST roundabouts, it's simply safer for everyone all
round if I use the wide sparse footpaths there so as not to you know,
get killed.

In article <[email hidden]>
BB <[email hidden]> wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Anyhow I use roads 98% of the time - certain roads near me are like
dual carriageways with almost no people walking near them - especially
near the FAST FAST roundabouts, it's simply safer for everyone all
round if I use the wide sparse footpaths there so as not to you know,
get killed.

Are you one of those soft southerners? I've been killed loads of times
and it's never done me any harm. :-)

Don't be too harsh on livingstreets; their objectives are basically
sound. They can also be a staunch ally when it comes to preventing LAs
from introducing shared/unsegregated routes and other horrors.

On 26/07/2006 20:37, Not Responding said,

Quoted message said:

Don't be too harsh on livingstreets; their objectives are basically
sound. They can also be a staunch ally when it comes to preventing LAs
from introducing shared/unsegregated routes and other horrors.

I wasn't being harsh - in fact the email I sent to them was along the
lines of "if you want to get cyclists of the pavements, then talk to the
local councils to stop forcing cyclists onto them.", and I used an
example of a ridiculous segregated route near me as to why they should
get councils to stop doing these things. This helps both parties.

They have a common aim - they want cyclists off the pavements, and
cyclists generally don't want to be pushed onto the pavements. (unless
it is to avoid a stoopid farcility as mentioned in my post of about 5
minutes ago!!!!)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:34:21 +0100, Rob Morley <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Are you one of those soft southerners? I've been killed loads of times
and it's never done me any harm. :-)

I'm soft and squishy, yes. 🙂

BB said:

Anyhow I use roads 98% of the time - certain roads near me are like
dual carriageways with almost no people walking near them - especially
near the FAST FAST roundabouts, it's simply safer for everyone all
round if I use the wide sparse footpaths there so as not to you know,
get killed.

This sounds very similar to some of the regular routes I take. It's
basically a question of either take terrible risks and annoy car drivers;
walk for five minutes on the path or simply technically break the law in a
way that doesn't harm anyone.

--
***My real address is m/ike at u/nmusic d/ot co dot u/k (removing /s)
http://www.unmusic.co.uk - about me, music, geek sitcom etc.
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/amhs/ - alt.music.home-studio

BB said:

Their pic of a "pavement cyclist breaking the law!" is a bit cack!

Not even clear that that is a pavement cyclist. Looks to me like that
person is either pushing their bike or getting onto it or off it.
Certainly their left foot is flat on the ground.

Looks like there is a motorbike parked on the pavement as well -
presumably if it's legal to have motorbikes there it's also legal to
have bicycles there.

Tim.

killermike said:

BB said:

Anyhow I use roads 98% of the time - certain roads near me are like
dual carriageways with almost no people walking near them - especially
near the FAST FAST roundabouts, it's simply safer for everyone all
round if I use the wide sparse footpaths there so as not to you know,
get killed.

This sounds very similar to some of the regular routes I take. It's
basically a question of either take terrible risks and annoy car drivers;
walk for five minutes on the path or simply technically break the law in a
way that doesn't harm anyone.

--
***My real address is m/ike at u/nmusic d/ot co dot u/k (removing /s)
http://www.unmusic.co.uk - about me, music, geek sitcom etc.
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/amhs/ - alt.music.home-studio

Hi Mike,

no offence meant, and I do sympathise with you, particularly in respect
of fast roundabouts and taking risks, but...

I'd avoid the defence that you're only "technically break(ing) the law
in a way that doesn't harm anyone."
This is also put forward as a justification by:
- speeding motorists
- red light jumpers
- motorists driving or parking in bus/cycle lanes
- those comitting white collar crime such as insider trading, insurance
fraud and theft from large corportations/the state :-)

Cyclists are particularly vulnerable to others who pick and choose
which laws/rules to obey and when, so I think we need to be careful of
doing that ourselves.

regards,

bookieb

bookieb said the following on 27/07/2006 10:38:

Quoted message said:

I'd avoid the defence that you're only "technically break(ing) the law
in a way that doesn't harm anyone."

There is actually a Home Office guideline that suggests that pavement
cyclists should not be fined or prosecuted providing that they are
behaving reponsibly. There is no such guideline (AFAIK) for speeding
motorists or red light jumpers (2 or 4 wheeled).

The relevant bit is: "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."

It doesn't "allow" cyclists to use the pavement as a matter of course,
but provided you are within the guidelines, there's your defence. You
just say you had a fear of traffic!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd said:

bookieb said the following on 27/07/2006 10:38:

Quoted message said:

I'd avoid the defence that you're only "technically break(ing) the law
in a way that doesn't harm anyone."

There is actually a Home Office guideline that suggests that pavement
cyclists should not be fined or prosecuted providing that they are
behaving reponsibly. There is no such guideline (AFAIK) for speeding
motorists or red light jumpers (2 or 4 wheeled).

The relevant bit is: "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."

It doesn't "allow" cyclists to use the pavement as a matter of course,
but provided you are within the guidelines, there's your defence. You
just say you had a fear of traffic!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Fairy nuff. As long as you're not bombing it, swerving around and
between pedestrians etc., you may or may not be stopped, but in any
case will not be posecuted or fined.
This seems fair and reasonable to me, and to codify pretty much what a
sensible officer of the law would tend to do anyway - "Bikes are for
the road, stay off the pavement, now on your way.." etc.

I know "lots" of cyclists cycle where they shouldn't.
I know many of them are there as a result of a real or perceived fear
of cycling on the road, and I'm understand the reasoning of those who
do so.
I know only very small numbers of people are injured as a result.
I know local authorities are seemingly doing their best to screw up the
nice clear division their used to be between traffic and pedestrians
through the use of shared usage surface, MUPs etc.

I know you're making a slightly different point Paul (re likelhood of
prosecution/fine, rather than the rights./wrongs of pavement cycling),
but I still don't think we should rely on a defence based on:
"I'm only technically breaking the law, it doesn't hurt anyone, and
anyway, even if I am stopped, I probably won't be fined or prosecuted".

We are unhappy when others use any these arguments (e.g. Safespeed), so
I don't think that "we" should use them either.

regards,

bookieb

"Paul Boyd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

bookieb said the following on 27/07/2006 10:38:

Quoted message said:

I'd avoid the defence that you're only "technically break(ing) the law
in a way that doesn't harm anyone."

There is actually a Home Office guideline that suggests that pavement
cyclists should not be fined or prosecuted providing that they are
behaving reponsibly. There is no such guideline (AFAIK) for speeding
motorists or red light jumpers (2 or 4 wheeled).

The relevant bit is: "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."

It doesn't "allow" cyclists to use the pavement as a matter of course, but
provided you are within the guidelines, there's your defence. You just
say you had a fear of traffic!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Really? Excellent bit of Home Office pencil pushing there. I'm impressed at
the common sense.

I only generally ride off-road (as in forests and hills) especially now I
can ride all the way to a forest with only about half a mile of road riding,
but after more than a few hairy experiences, I flat out refuse to go on any
road that I can't approach the speed limit of (40mph+) and given that most
roundabouts and junctions are bad enough when driving. I have always, when
on a pavement, ridden in what I think is a safe, responsible manner,
dismounting if approaching the elderly or parents with kiddies and I have
only had one sarcastic comment from a woman letting her dog lay a mine on
the pavement approaching an entrance to the Sustrans. Conversely, I have had
a lot of positive comments from young - "Cool bike mate." and elderly -
"Nice to see someone cycling to work.", "bikes have changed since I was a
kid.", etc, including a bloke in his 80's that had go on my Cindercone! 😄

As a motorist myself, I see both good and bad cyclists on the road and of
course, observe good and bad behaviour on the part of other motorised road
users. I once almost killed a cyclist that took it upon himself to undertake
me as I was slowing to turn left into my street. He gave me some [censored] about
being a ****head motorist. Nevermind the fact that I've been cycling as long
as I can remember and never pulled a stupid trick like that. But most car
users do seem to freeze up when they see a cyclist and can't decide how to
deal with them or they drive like lunatics, misjudging just how fast a
cyclist can go on a full bowl of shreddies and cutting the cyclist up.

Before I get called a petrolhead... 1) I fill up at the black pump, not
green! and 2) I usually work from home and only drive when necessary (3000
miles in a year!).
--
Jim

Following on from bookieb's message. . .

Quoted message said:

Fairy nuff. As long as you're not bombing it, swerving around and
between pedestrians etc., you may or may not be stopped, but in any
case will not be posecuted or fined.

Umm...that's the /theory/. Of course you *will be* if nabbed by a
quota-driven dough-brain-in-a-uniform or community thingy. "Lets have
more of that on-the-spot stuff to stop terrorists". You might be able
to get out of it *eventually* but that won't stop them trying it on
again.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the adhesive company came unstuck
[email hidden]
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk>

Killermike wrote (context restored):

Quoted message said:

It's basically a question of either take terrible risks and annoy

car >drivers; walk for five minutes on the path or simply technically

Quoted message said:

break the law in a way that doesn't harm anyone.

The risks are not terrible, as long as
- there is room to be overtaken safely
or
- speed differential is below about 30mph

The experience of annoying car drivers can be frightening in the
second case, but as long as your positioning is OK (far enough out)
near misses are rare.

This morning I rode, uphill, on a 4-lane single carriageway with a 40
limit, far enough out to make drivers change lane to pass.

At the same time, another cyclist, with a hemlet and all the gear,
rode up on the pavement, crossing the 3 side roads without always
looking behind. I know who was safer - me.

Paul Boyd said:

bookieb said the following on 27/07/2006 10:38:

Quoted message said:

I'd avoid the defence that you're only "technically break(ing) the law
in a way that doesn't harm anyone."

There is actually a Home Office guideline that suggests that pavement
cyclists should not be fined or prosecuted providing that they are
behaving reponsibly. There is no such guideline (AFAIK) for speeding
motorists or red light jumpers (2 or 4 wheeled).

How about 10% plus 2mph, which is the amount by which you can break a
speed limit without punishment?

I want speed limits enforced to the limit of the measuring apparatus.
When this happens, I will not object to a crackdown on pavement cycling.

Colin McKenzie

--
On average in Britain, you're more likely to get a head injury walking
a mile than cycling it.
So why aren't we all exhorted to wear walking helmets?

Colin McKenzie said:

Killermike wrote (context restored):

Quoted message said:

It's basically a question of either take terrible risks and annoy

car >drivers; walk for five minutes on the path or simply technically

Quoted message said:

break the law in a way that doesn't harm anyone.

The risks are not terrible, as long as
- there is room to be overtaken safely
or
- speed differential is below about 30mph

The route I was thinking of is a long stretch of dual carriage way leads
to a shopping estate on the outside of the town. For one reason or
another this means that the paths are nearly always deserted. I do the
first mile or so on the dual carriage way (no reason not to).

However, to get into the shopping estate, one has to take a right turn on
the very busy circle and I have never dared attempt this. Needless to say,
the traffic at that point includes delivery trucks headed for the estate.
At the very least, attempting the circle would involve inconveniencing
other road users. Crossing the road at this point would be very difficult
too, due to the volume of traffic. The method that I have settled on is to
get off about 500 meters before the turn off point, cross at a point at
which the traffic is less dense. I then take the path that runs the rest
of journey.

I might add, I felt a bit self-consious the first couple of times I did
it. I'm the sort of person who is usually very law abiding due to fact
that I am terrified of getting into trouble ;-) On the one hand, I see a
lot of pavement cyclists around, often in full view of the police; on the
other hand, I have hair down to my waist and I'm sure that a policeman
would love to make an example of me!

Quoted message said:

At the same time, another cyclist, with a hemlet and all the gear,
rode up on the pavement, crossing the 3 side roads without always
looking behind. I know who was safer - me.

Yup, I see this too. I wish I could tell those people that riding on the
road is usually faster, safer and a lot less work.

--
***My real address is m/ike at u/nmusic d/ot co dot u/k (removing /s)
http://www.unmusic.co.uk - about me, music, geek sitcom etc.
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/amhs/ - alt.music.home-studio

Colin McKenzie said the following on 27/07/2006 21:01:

Quoted message said:

How about 10% plus 2mph, which is the amount by which you can break a
speed limit without punishment?

I'm not sure if that's an "official" guideline or just a rule of thumb
often quoted. It shouldn't be applied in a 30 limit for instance,
because that would be an excessive speed tolerance.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:01:38 +0100,

Colin McKenzie said:

Killermike wrote (context restored):

Quoted message said:

It's basically a question of either take terrible risks and annoy

car >drivers; walk for five minutes on the path or simply technically

Quoted message said:

break the law in a way that doesn't harm anyone.

The risks are not terrible, as long as
- there is room to be overtaken safely
or
- speed differential is below about 30mph

The experience of annoying car drivers can be frightening in the
second case, but as long as your positioning is OK (far enough out)
near misses are rare.

Except when the driver deliberately passes close often sounding their
horn which happened to me at seven in the evening yesterday. It was
on dual carriageway and noone was in the other lane so there was
absolutely no need to pass that close anyway. Fortunately I ride far
enough out that when idiots like that come along I can always move to
my left temporarily if they get too close.

Whereas going home at 11pm I found all road users to be far more considerate.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Paul Boyd said:

Colin McKenzie said the following on 27/07/2006 21:01:

Quoted message said:

How about 10% plus 2mph, which is the amount by which you can break a
speed limit without punishment?

I'm not sure if that's an "official" guideline or just a rule of thumb
often quoted.

It's the Association of Chief Police Officers' guideline. So while it
is only a guideline, it is fairly official.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_030771-03.hcsp
"The level of speeds at which speed limits are enforced in England and Wales
is an operational matter, at individual police forces' discretion. But the
Association of Chief Police Officers Speed Enforcement Guidelines suggests
the following minimum speeds at which enforcement action is taken, and at
which cases should be referred for court action. But the ACPO Guidelines
note emphasises that policy is for individual police forces' discretion,
and that exceptional circumstances may apply to individual cases:"
(Follow the link for the table. Cut and paste produces a mess, and I can't
be bothered to reformat it all.)
"In Scotland, the level of speeds at which speed limits are enforced is ai
matter for the Lord Advocate ..."

Quoted message said:

It shouldn't be applied in a 30 limit for instance,
because that would be an excessive speed tolerance.

The 30mph limit line gives 35 for "suggested minimum speed for enforcement
action" and 50 for "suggested minimum speed for court proceedings". The only
"enforcement action" speed in the table that doesn't fit 10%+2 is that a 20mph
limit has a suggested 25mph enforcement speed, not 24mph.

http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/faq.html#ACPO has the same table and links to
http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/speed_enforcement_guidelines_web_v7_foi.doc
for full details, but I don't have a Word reader on the desktop computer
I'm using while the other one has a corrupt disk replaced.

Alan Braggins said the following on 28/07/2006 11:41:

Quoted message said:

It's the Association of Chief Police Officers' guideline. So while it
is only a guideline, it is fairly official.

That's good enough for me then. (Which doesn't mean I'll drive past a
copper at exactly 10%+2!!!)

Quoted message said:

The 30mph limit line gives 35 for "suggested minimum speed for enforcement
action" and 50 for "suggested minimum speed for court proceedings". The only
"enforcement action" speed in the table that doesn't fit 10%+2 is that a 20mph
limit has a suggested 25mph enforcement speed, not 24mph.

I'm surprised at that level of tolerance at the lower speeds, but there
it is!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/