Advice to parents

Tom Crispin <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I am currently drafting letters to parents whose children will be
receiving cycle training over the next academic year.

Bikeability training is delivered at three levels:

Level 1 Basic control skills taught in an off-road environment usually
a school playground

Level 2 On-road training in real traffic conditions usually on
residential roads

Level 3 On-road training and route planning including busy roads and
complex road junctions

Level 1 is for children aged 6 and the advice I plan to give is this:
"Pupils who have successfully completed Level 1 Bikeability will have
the skills necessary to make an accompanied journey to school using
cycle paths and pavements. Please note that while cycling on the
footway is an offence under section 72 of the Highways Act 1835,
police and Home Office guidance states that the law should not be
applied to "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". Children who cycle on the pavement
must be taught that pedestrians have absolute priority and that they
must give way or stop for all pavement users."

Level 2 is for children aged 8 and the advice I plan to give is this:
"Pupils who have successfully completed Level 2 Bikeability will have
the skills necessary to make the journey to school using cycle paths
and quieter residential roads. They would still be expected to push
across busier roads or use footways responsibly in line with official
guidance. Please note that while cycling on the footway is an offence
under section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, police and Home Office
guidance states that the law should not be applied to "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". Children who cycle on the pavement must be taught that
pedestrians have absolute priority and that they must give way or stop
for all pavement users."

Level 3 is for children aged 10 and the advice I plan to give is this:
"Pupils who have successfully completed Level 3 Bikeability will have
the skills necessary to make an unaccompanied journey to school using
cycle routes and roads in a variety of traffic conditions. They will
also be able to make judgements about when it may be safer to get off
and push across a junction or along the pavement. Please note that
cycling on the footway is an offence under section 72 of the Highways
Act 1835, and while this law is highly unlikely to be applied to
children showing consideration to other pavement users, they should be
discouraged from cycling on the pavement."

In true urc style, this will probably result in a flamefest - but what
do people think of the above advice? Is it reasonable advice to
encourage parents to allow their children to cycle to school.

The words that stick out in my mind from reading that and which I am sure
will stick in the minds of uninformed parents are "fear of traffic". I
really don't think you want ot be sending the message that roads are to
be feared to parents who are probably already that way inclined.

I would also be wary of being seen to suggest pavement cycling - even
with the caveats which create problem 1. The subject is an emotive one
(as evidenced by newspaper letter columns)and I am sure you will get a
tirade and complaints from some of the parents.

If it were me I would leave that whole section out and concentrate
instead on positive cycling messages in the introduction such as how many
pupils have been through the course, how many now cycle to school and
some of the other positives you have achieved.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Tom Crispin said:

I am currently drafting letters to parents whose children will be
receiving cycle training over the next academic year.

Bikeability training is delivered at three levels:

Level 1 Basic control skills taught in an off-road environment usually
a school playground

Level 2 On-road training in real traffic conditions usually on
residential roads

Level 3 On-road training and route planning including busy roads and
complex road junctions

Level 1 is for children aged 6 and the advice I plan to give is this:
"Pupils who have successfully completed Level 1 Bikeability will have
the skills necessary to make an accompanied journey to school using
cycle paths and pavements. Please note that while cycling on the
footway is an offence under section 72 of the Highways Act 1835,
police and Home Office guidance states that the law should not be
applied to "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". Children who cycle on the pavement
must be taught that pedestrians have absolute priority and that they
must give way or stop for all pavement users."

Level 2 is for children aged 8 and the advice I plan to give is this:
"Pupils who have successfully completed Level 2 Bikeability will have
the skills necessary to make the journey to school using cycle paths
and quieter residential roads. They would still be expected to push
across busier roads or use footways responsibly in line with official
guidance. Please note that while cycling on the footway is an offence
under section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, police and Home Office
guidance states that the law should not be applied to "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". Children who cycle on the pavement must be taught that
pedestrians have absolute priority and that they must give way or stop
for all pavement users."

Level 3 is for children aged 10 and the advice I plan to give is this:
"Pupils who have successfully completed Level 3 Bikeability will have
the skills necessary to make an unaccompanied journey to school using
cycle routes and roads in a variety of traffic conditions. They will
also be able to make judgements about when it may be safer to get off
and push across a junction or along the pavement. Please note that
cycling on the footway is an offence under section 72 of the Highways
Act 1835, and while this law is highly unlikely to be applied to
children showing consideration to other pavement users, they should be
discouraged from cycling on the pavement."

In true urc style, this will probably result in a flamefest - but what
do people think of the above advice? Is it reasonable advice to
encourage parents to allow their children to cycle to school.

In principle I would have nothing to do with any advice which
countenanced pavement cycling. However I live and cycle in Perth and
Perthshire where I guess the volume of traffic is considerably less than
in many/most parts of England. You will know better than me whether
your roads are really so dangerous that children need to start their
cycling on pavements.

What I might suggest, however, is that you add a line to the effect that
the training will also equip them for cycling other than to and from
school (assuming this doesn't somehow conflict with your remit) and that
in such circumstances there will be a presumption against pavement
cycling.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 13:05:16 +0100, Brian G <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In principle I would have nothing to do with any advice which
countenanced pavement cycling. However I live and cycle in Perth and
Perthshire where I guess the volume of traffic is considerably less than
in many/most parts of England. You will know better than me whether
your roads are really so dangerous that children need to start their
cycling on pavements.

To give you a little background, the schools I work at are in Lewisham
in South East London. Blackheath is well served by cycle paths, which
many years ago used to be roads, but after two waves of road closures,
the first in the early 70s and second in the late 90s, are now shared
use paths and no-through roads. However, the area is also bounded by
four major arterial roads feeding into central London. These roads
are the A2 - Shooters Hill Road, the A20 - Eltham Road and Lee High
Street, the A21 - Lewisham High Road and the A205 - the South Circular
road. Part of the A2 is a motorway class road with plenty of safe
crossing points and is of no concern.

The whole area is bisected by a railway line with limited crossing
points, and those corssing points are mostly busy roads.

Quoted message said:

What I might suggest, however, is that you add a line to the effect that
the training will also equip them for cycling other than to and from
school (assuming this doesn't somehow conflict with your remit) and that
in such circumstances there will be a presumption against pavement
cycling.

I will certainly add that.

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

Please note that while cycling on the
footway is an offence under section 72 of the Highways Act 1835,
police and Home Office guidance states that the law should not be
applied to "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". Children who cycle on the pavement
must be taught that pedestrians have absolute priority and that they
must give way or stop for all pavement users."
...
In true urc style, this will probably result in a flamefest - but what
do people think of the above advice? Is it reasonable advice to
encourage parents to allow their children to cycle to school.

The words that stick out in my mind from reading that and which I am sure
will stick in the minds of uninformed parents are "fear of traffic". I
really don't think you want ot be sending the message that roads are to
be feared to parents who are probably already that way inclined.

I would also be wary of being seen to suggest pavement cycling - even
with the caveats which create problem 1. The subject is an emotive one
(as evidenced by newspaper letter columns)and I am sure you will get a
tirade and complaints from some of the parents.

If it were me I would leave that whole section out and concentrate
instead on positive cycling messages in the introduction such as how many
pupils have been through the course, how many now cycle to school and
some of the other positives you have achieved.

I think the advice on pavement cycling is spot-on. Fear of traffic is
very real -- even my NZ-based dad who still, at 86, racks up thousands
of km per year felt it necessary to cycle on pavements here in the quiet
suburbs of W London (and won the argument with the local constabulary!).
Children, indeed anyone, who gives absolute priority to pedestrians
should be welcome on pavements, IMHO.

The pavement advice does seem to dominate the paragraphs, however, and
more positive material to offset this might be desirable, effectively
diminishing the pavement stuff to a footnote.

Tom Crispin said:

I am currently drafting letters to parents whose children will be
receiving cycle training over the next academic year.

Hmmm... I didn't like that much. I can see you're trying to explain what you'll be doing
but at the very least I'd dress up the results as /achievements/, /benefits/ and /leading
straight on to.../

I don't think cycling on the pavement is a good thing. What would you say to a parent who
points out that pavement cycling is less safe than road cycling? Bad habits, a bad
example and an excuse for parents to sanction "safer pavement cycling" are bad, bad, bad.

I'd also try to write it more from a parental point of view.

What follows is a draft:
Dear parent,

The school is keen to encourage healthy, safe and fun cycling. One of the ways we do this
is by teaching from year 6 the New National Standards - a more realistic version of the
old Cycling proficiency. Our fully qualified instructors teach bike handling skills in
the playground and then, when they're in full control of their machine, we go out onto
real streets. Obviously we use the quieter roads and simpler junctions for most of our
training.

In the National Standards basic control is known as level 1, dealing with normal roads is
level 2 and hairy junctions and roundabouts is level 3. At the school our objective is to
get all children to level 2. Age, strength and equipment may affect a child's ability to
deal with the more difficult situations posed in level 3 training and every child is
assessed individually to make sure they are ready to go to the next challenge. Note that
Level 1 doesn't cover any of the essentials of safe on-road cycling. We find children
soon become very enthusiastic about cycling which is great... ...but there's a tricky
stage when they can ride and manoeuvre but haven't yet got safe on-road skills. In this
context please be aware that the pavement is just as dangerous as the road - and illegal.
Encourage them by telling them the sooner they're out of the playground and onto the
roads the sooner they can roam about and cycle to school.

[something about decent attitude, attendance, equipment and clothing]

Finally, if you have a cycle yourself, please go out with your child together and see how
they're doing. /They may teach you a thing or two/ about how the roads are safe if you
know what you're doing. Some things, particularly road positioning may seem wrong to you
- but do ask your child - we teach them to think for themselves so they're able to handle
anything. If you have any questions at any stage about training, equipment, a particular
road or junction near you or anything else then please ring xxxxx and I'll be happy to do
my best to help.

T.C. Chief Instructor

--
Peter Fox
Beer, dancing, cycling and lots more at www.eminent.demon.co.uk

Marc Brett <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

[...]

I think the advice on pavement cycling is spot-on. Fear of traffic is
very real -- even my NZ-based dad who still, at 86, racks up thousands
of km per year felt it necessary to cycle on pavements here in the
quiet suburbs of W London (and won the argument with the local
constabulary!). Children, indeed anyone, who gives absolute priority
to pedestrians should be welcome on pavements, IMHO.

But that's not what the law said and you only need to look at some of the
threads here and el swear to see what ire pavement cycling attracts. Do
you really want to get the positive cycling message lost in that battle
with the locals. I know what the local rag in Cambridge would make of
that if it was local - and cycling is popular in Cambridge.

The other side is people do have an irrational fear of cycling in traffic
but that does not mean you need to reinforce it.

Quoted message said:

The pavement advice does seem to dominate the paragraphs, however, and
more positive material to offset this might be desirable, effectively
diminishing the pavement stuff to a footnote.

If its going to be there at least it stops it being repeated three times.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven said:

The words that stick out in my mind from reading that and which I am sure
will stick in the minds of uninformed parents are "fear of traffic". I
really don't think you want ot be sending the message that roads are to
be feared to parents who are probably already that way inclined.

Perceived danger and real danger are very different things, however,
you may recall that some time ago I was knocked off my bike almost
outside the school's gates by a twerp in a white van doing an
unexpected and dangerous manoeuvre and who failed to look.

Quoted message said:

I would also be wary of being seen to suggest pavement cycling - even
with the caveats which create problem 1. The subject is an emotive one
(as evidenced by newspaper letter columns)and I am sure you will get a
tirade and complaints from some of the parents.

I can't forsee a single parent being concerned in the slightest bit by
a six or eight year old child cycling on the pavement is a responsible
manner. Even the Daily Wail wouldn't bat an eyelid. If you listen to
the complaints of pavement cycling, they are not about responsible
use, they are about idiots who scoot up onto the pavement to pass
traffic jams to shave a few seconds of their journey, or who hurtle
the wrong way up one-way streets, using the pavement for their
shortcut.

The sort of six year old I have in mind lives within a mile of the
school. The mother follows the child to school on foot, while the
child cycles along the pavement waiting at each road junction for his
mum, and they cross together.

The sort of eight year old I have in mind lives within 2 miles of the
school and has a busy comercial road to follow and cross, such as the
A20. The child cycles to school with a friend. They use residential
roads until they come to the main road. They then have to follow the
road for 100m to a pelican crossing. After crossing the road they
have a further 150m before turning off into another residential road.

I cannot think of many eight year olds who would have the discipline
to walk their bike for 250m on the pavement alongside a busy road,
with bendy busses and channel tunnel lorries fuming their way to
central London among rush hour traffic and school run mums.

The main school where I work is less than 1/2 mile from both the A2
and A20. Between them, these two roads take the vast bulk of traffic
from the M2 and M20 which is headed into central London. The A2 is
less of a concern as it's easy to cross at toucan crossings and until
it reaches Blackheath is a sunken motorway class road with plenty of
crossing points, but the A20 is a beast of a road for young cyclists.

Quoted message said:

If it were me I would leave that whole section out and concentrate
instead on positive cycling messages in the introduction such as how many
pupils have been through the course, how many now cycle to school and
some of the other positives you have achieved.

I've PDF'd and put a Word version of the letter at:
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/files/letter

Peter Fox said:

Tom Crispin said:

I am currently drafting letters to parents whose children will be
receiving cycle training over the next academic year.

Hmmm... I didn't like that much. I can see you're trying to explain what you'll be doing
but at the very least I'd dress up the results as /achievements/, /benefits/ and /leading
straight on to.../

I don't think cycling on the pavement is a good thing. What would you say to a parent who
points out that pavement cycling is less safe than road cycling? Bad habits, a bad
example and an excuse for parents to sanction "safer pavement cycling" are bad, bad, bad.

I'd also try to write it more from a parental point of view.

What follows is a draft:
Dear parent,

The school is keen to encourage healthy, safe and fun cycling. One of the ways we do this
is by teaching from year 6 the New National Standards - a more realistic version of the
old Cycling proficiency. Our fully qualified instructors teach bike handling skills in
the playground and then, when they're in full control of their machine, we go out onto
real streets. Obviously we use the quieter roads and simpler junctions for most of our
training.

In the National Standards basic control is known as level 1, dealing with normal roads is
level 2 and hairy junctions and roundabouts is level 3. At the school our objective is to
get all children to level 2. Age, strength and equipment may affect a child's ability to
deal with the more difficult situations posed in level 3 training and every child is
assessed individually to make sure they are ready to go to the next challenge. Note that
Level 1 doesn't cover any of the essentials of safe on-road cycling. We find children
soon become very enthusiastic about cycling which is great... ...but there's a tricky
stage when they can ride and manoeuvre but haven't yet got safe on-road skills. In this
context please be aware that the pavement is just as dangerous as the road - and illegal.
Encourage them by telling them the sooner they're out of the playground and onto the
roads the sooner they can roam about and cycle to school.

[something about decent attitude, attendance, equipment and clothing]

Finally, if you have a cycle yourself, please go out with your child together and see how
they're doing. /They may teach you a thing or two/ about how the roads are safe if you
know what you're doing. Some things, particularly road positioning may seem wrong to you
- but do ask your child - we teach them to think for themselves so they're able to handle
anything. If you have any questions at any stage about training, equipment, a particular
road or junction near you or anything else then please ring xxxxx and I'll be happy to do
my best to help.

T.C. Chief Instructor

The letter will be accompanied by a copy of "Cycling and Your Child" -
A Fact Sheet for Parents.
www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/cyclingchild.htm

Tony Raven said:

If its going to be there at least it stops it being repeated three times.

Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well.

The letter to Year 2 parents will contain the Bikeability Level 1
advice, the letter to Year 4 parents has slightly different advice for
Bikeability Level 2 and the letter to Year 6 parents Bikeability Level
3 advice.

I.e. there are three different letters, not the same thing said three
times in one letter.

The full Year 2 letter can be seen here:
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/files/letter/y2.pdf

I can't really be bothered with PDFing the other letters as they say
much the same thing.

Tom Crispin <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Perceived danger and real danger are very different things, however,
you may recall that some time ago I was knocked off my bike almost
outside the school's gates by a twerp in a white van doing an
unexpected and dangerous manoeuvre and who failed to look.

Still no need to reinforce largely irrational perceptions of danger.
What were you saying about the number of child cyclists killed in London
in the past two years?

Quoted message said:

I can't forsee a single parent being concerned in the slightest bit by
a six or eight year old child cycling on the pavement is a responsible
manner. Even the Daily Wail wouldn't bat an eyelid. If you listen to
the complaints of pavement cycling, they are not about responsible
use, they are about idiots who scoot up onto the pavement to pass
traffic jams to shave a few seconds of their journey, or who hurtle
the wrong way up one-way streets, using the pavement for their
shortcut.

"School for lycra louts". A local school is training its pupils to
become a future generation of lycra louts by encouraging them to cycle on
the pavement.....drift off to wibble about somebody's Aunt Maude who
never left her home again after an encounter with a pavement cyclist.
cont p93

Quoted message said:

The sort of six year old I have in mind lives within a mile of the
school. The mother follows the child to school on foot, while the
child cycles along the pavement waiting at each road junction for his
mum, and they cross together.

Fine, leave it as a present for the parents to decide without advice on
acceptable law breaking.

Quoted message said:

I cannot think of many eight year olds who would have the discipline
to walk their bike for 250m on the pavement alongside a busy road,
with bendy busses and channel tunnel lorries fuming their way to
central London among rush hour traffic and school run mums.

Again, leave it up to them.

In the end though its your letter. Let us know how it turns out.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven said:

Tom Crispin <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Perceived danger and real danger are very different things, however,
you may recall that some time ago I was knocked off my bike almost
outside the school's gates by a twerp in a white van doing an
unexpected and dangerous manoeuvre and who failed to look.

Still no need to reinforce largely irrational perceptions of danger.
What were you saying about the number of child cyclists killed in London
in the past two years?

Nil. And I'd like it to stay that way for a great many years to come.

To think that a child who has received cycle control skills training,
i.e. Bikeability Level 1, is ready to cycle on all roads in a variety
of traffic conditions is simply absurd, and to suggest that they
should never cycle on the pavement will send their parents scurrying
for their cars.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can't forsee a single parent being concerned in the slightest bit by
a six or eight year old child cycling on the pavement is a responsible
manner. Even the Daily Wail wouldn't bat an eyelid. If you listen to
the complaints of pavement cycling, they are not about responsible
use, they are about idiots who scoot up onto the pavement to pass
traffic jams to shave a few seconds of their journey, or who hurtle
the wrong way up one-way streets, using the pavement for their
shortcut.

"School for lycra louts". A local school is training its pupils to
become a future generation of lycra louts by encouraging them to cycle on
the pavement.....drift off to wibble about somebody's Aunt Maude who
never left her home again after an encounter with a pavement cyclist.
cont p93

"School of danger". A local school is encouraging children as young
as six to cycle among busses and juggernauts on some of London's most
dangerous roads...drift off to drivel about how cyclists are in
constant danger of impotence and wearing a helmet reduces little toe
injury by 85%. Cont. p93.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The sort of six year old I have in mind lives within a mile of the
school. The mother follows the child to school on foot, while the
child cycles along the pavement waiting at each road junction for his
mum, and they cross together.

Fine, leave it as a present for the parents to decide without advice on
acceptable law breaking.

With the official guidance given, I doubt it is law breaking. What
would the man on the Clapham omnibus have to say? Would the High
Court uphold a conviction against a parent for allowing their child to
cycle on the footway?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I cannot think of many eight year olds who would have the discipline
to walk their bike for 250m on the pavement alongside a busy road,
with bendy busses and channel tunnel lorries fuming their way to
central London among rush hour traffic and school run mums.

Again, leave it up to them.

In the end though its your letter. Let us know how it turns out.

If the wording or advice is wrong I'll change it, but you have not
convinced me yet. I will re-draft the first sentence to make it wider
than just the journey to school

Pupils who have successfully completed Level 1 Bikeability will have
the skills necessary to make a journey by bicycle in a traffic free
environment, such as an accompanied journey to school using cycle
paths and pavements or to a local park. Please note that while
cycling on the footway is an offence under section 72 of the Highways
Act 1835, police and Home Office guidance states that the law should
not be applied to "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". Children who cycle on the
pavement must be taught that pedestrians have absolute priority and
that they must give way or stop for all pavement users.

Tom Crispin said:

If the wording or advice is wrong I'll change it, but you have not
convinced me yet. I will re-draft the first sentence to make it wider
than just the journey to school

Pupils who have successfully completed Level 1 Bikeability will have
the skills necessary to make a journey by bicycle in a traffic free
environment, such as an accompanied journey to school using cycle
paths and pavements or to a local park. Please note that while
cycling on the footway is an offence under section 72 of the Highways
Act 1835, police and Home Office guidance states that the law should
not be applied to "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". Children who cycle on the
pavement must be taught that pedestrians have absolute priority and
that they must give way or stop for all pavement users.

I still feel this doesn't make it clear that pavement cycling is an
exceptional concession only for those young children who can't yet gain
the skills necessary for safe road cycling and that the aim of the
training scheme is to get them off the pavements and into their rightful
place in the traffic stream as soon as practicable.

"Traffic free environment" reads to me like "monster-free zone" or
whatever and re-inforces the shudder factor in relation to road cycling.
Again I accept that street cycling in London must seem from some
perspectives to be deeply scary, but embracing the pavement as a get-out
option is sending the wrong message. Admittedly the Home Office
guidance is itself deeply unhelpful, but that doesn't mean that people
with a brain need to follow it.

Read your final sentence in isolation and ask yourself what relation
that activity bears to cycling. To me it suggests little more than
pushing a bike while keeping out of everybody's way.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

On 2 Sep, 15:26, Tom Crispin <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I can't forsee a single parent being concerned in the slightest bit by
a six or eight year old child cycling on the pavement is a responsible
manner.

True. But he does have to mention it or he could be held up for
teaching illegal activities without letting the parents know.

Quoted message said:

Even the Daily Wail wouldn't bat an eyelid. If you listen to
the complaints of pavement cycling, they are not about responsible
use, they are about idiots who scoot up onto the pavement to pass
traffic jams to shave a few seconds of their journey, or who hurtle
the wrong way up one-way streets, using the pavement for their
shortcut.

Whats the difference? Generally a more mature cyclist has the ability
to stop better than the majority of kids. I know when i was 10 I could
hit some pretty high speeds (for pedestrians) and yet was quite poor
at stopping (hence finding myself wrapped round railings and through a
fence once) but now i could hit higher speeds and stop safer. Also, i
occasionally use the pavement on the commute, though I shouldnt,
because it saves me sitting for (literally) 10 minutes to cover a 100m
stretch of road, with a 15ft wide pavement and only 1 or 2 peds - I
always come to a stop, hop up the pavement and proceed with caution,
giving peds the ROW at all times. The thing is you cant really do both
- you cant claim "kids can use pavements but adults cant" - theres
just no sensible reasoning for it - the reason for people not riding
on the pavement is to stop injury to peds, and the risk of that is
higher with kids due to their inherent poor control.

I dont mind people using pavements, even as a driver I dont mind
people doing it, but only if they are careful, give way to both peds
and others when rejoining the road.

CoyoteBoy wrote:
The thing is you cant really do both

Quoted message said:

- you cant claim "kids can use pavements but adults cant" - theres
just no sensible reasoning for it - the reason for people not riding
on the pavement is to stop injury to peds, and the risk of that is
higher with kids due to their inherent poor control.

I dont mind people using pavements, even as a driver I dont mind
people doing it, but only if they are careful, give way to both peds
and others when rejoining the road.

The reason for not riding on the pavement - apart from the small matter
of illegality - is because doing so reinforces the view, held by so many
motorists, that the road is no place for cyclists and they should be on
the pavements or cycle paths.

Tom Crispin and his like are doing an invaluable and admirable job in
training a future generation of cyclists. However it's vital that in
doing so they get across the correct messages, otherwise they risk
educating a generation of people to the view that pavement cycling is
fine and that cycling on these desperately "dangerous" roads is to be
avoided. That's not the thin end of the wedge - it's well up towards
the thick and irreversible end.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

CoyoteBoy said:

fence once) but now i could hit higher speeds and stop safer. Also, i
occasionally use the pavement on the commute, though I shouldnt,
because it saves me sitting for (literally) 10 minutes to cover a 100m
stretch of road, with a 15ft wide pavement and only 1 or 2 peds - I
always come to a stop, hop up the pavement and proceed with caution,
giving peds the ROW at all times.

Surely for 100m you can just walk your bike along the pavement. It
should still save you a lot of time over sitting and waiting on the
road. It would also be legal and would set a good example.

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

CoyoteBoy said:

Whats the difference? Generally a more mature cyclist has the ability
to stop better than the majority of kids. I know when i was 10 I could
hit some pretty high speeds (for pedestrians) and yet was quite poor
at stopping (hence finding myself wrapped round railings and through a
fence once) but now i could hit higher speeds and stop safer.

Two points:

1) This was your experience aged ten, when Tom's advice says ("while
this law is highly unlikely to be applied to children showing
consideration to other pavement users, they should be
discouraged from cycling on the pavement."😉. Four years between 6 and
ten is very nearly half a lifetime. Children are quite used to being
allowed to do different things at different ages.

2) Perhaps if you'd had some good cycle training aged ten you'd have had
better cycle control skills ;-) There's no intrinsic reason that a
child cyclist should be unable to stop adequately at any age after
they've developed the necessary hand strength, provided their bike has
working brakes (and for preference, isn't some kind of megaton
steel-rimmed behemoth). If you'd said "less predictable" or "more
easily distracted" that might be more relevant - and that's why they're
getting training - but basic motor skills are basic motor skills, and
they're probably being asked to do more complicated things than that in
school PE lessons.

Quoted message said:

- you cant claim "kids can use pavements but adults cant" - theres
just no sensible reasoning for it - the reason for people not riding
on the pavement is to stop injury to peds, and the risk of that is

Injury to _and intimidation of_, and as a pedestrian I for one am less
worried about the prospect of being hit by a six year old on a pink bike
than a teenager on a bmx.

-dan

Quoted message said:

1) This was your experience aged ten, when Tom's advice says ("while
this law is highly unlikely to be applied to children showing
consideration to other pavement users, they should be
discouraged from cycling on the pavement."😉. Four years between 6 and
ten is very nearly half a lifetime. Children are quite used to being
allowed to do different things at different ages.

But the adults, not the kids, will want to ride on the pavement
claiming if kids can they should be able to as well, and really they
have a point.

Quoted message said:

2) Perhaps if you'd had some good cycle training aged ten you'd have had
better cycle control skills ;-)

No, im afraid at that age your speed and distance judgement abilities
are still questionable, not a skill as such - its a physical
phenomenon much akin to the effect when adults drink alcohol. Its
fairly well documented online and in journals. Their hazard perception
is also poor but with good tutoring it obviously improves, though I
dont know any kid that would maintain that active hazard perception
longer than the time they had their certificate in their hand! Lack of
speed perception also influences distance/gap judgement, part of the
reason young kids often bounce off things on bikes and try to fit
through gaps they cannot.

Quoted message said:

There's no intrinsic reason that a
child cyclist should be unable to stop adequately at any age after
they've developed the necessary hand strength, provided their bike has
working brakes (and for preference, isn't some kind of megaton
steel-rimmed behemoth).

See above.

Quoted message said:

Injury to _and intimidation of_, and as a pedestrian I for one am less
worried about the prospect of being hit by a six year old on a pink bike
than a teenager on a bmx.

Sure, the heavier person would make more of a mess, but they are also
more capable of controlling the vehicle, hence I'd be less worried and
intimidated by the hoody 🙂 But then I struggle to be intimidated by
people on bikes in the first place!

Andy Leighton said:

CoyoteBoy said:

fence once) but now i could hit higher speeds and stop safer. Also, i
occasionally use the pavement on the commute, though I shouldnt,
because it saves me sitting for (literally) 10 minutes to cover a 100m
stretch of road, with a 15ft wide pavement and only 1 or 2 peds - I
always come to a stop, hop up the pavement and proceed with caution,
giving peds the ROW at all times.

Surely for 100m you can just walk your bike along the pavement. It
should still save you a lot of time over sitting and waiting on the
road. It would also be legal and would set a good example.

That would mean dismounting two cyclists, in a lane of traffic, with
heavy rucksacks and SPDs, not an easy task. Since I've been abused
numerous times for getting off, walking to the next clear section and
getting back on, I dont see the difference - the cars see you as queue
hopping anyway.

Brian G said:

Tom Crispin and his like are doing an invaluable and admirable job in
training a future generation of cyclists. However it's vital that in
doing so they get across the correct messages, otherwise they risk
educating a generation of people to the view that pavement cycling is
fine and that cycling on these desperately "dangerous" roads is to be
avoided. That's not the thin end of the wedge - it's well up towards
the thick and irreversible end.

I agree, and it aggrieves me to think that I am portraying a bad image
for cyclists, but car drivers do not care if your pushing your bike or
riding it on the pavement- if you are on the pavement to get round the
traffic you are queue hopping to them (and I have had this argument
with them a few times) and if you ride on the pavement carefully they
think you are queue hopping. Peds dont care either way, apart from the
fact that you are more in the way walking a bike and taking up 2 ped
spaces instead of one. AFAIK legally we could push through the traffic
lanes along the white line to get to the front and its ASL, but car
drivers REALLY hate that. Incidentally we have been asked why we
*werent* doing that by a police van at another location.