Cycling on Pavements

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just come across news of this leaflet from Cambridge City Council which is

the

Quoted message said:

first time I've seen something as good on the subject

camcycle.org.ukarticle14.htmlOpen ↗

Tony

Reading Cycle Campaign has produced a similar article for their newsletter

www.readingcyclecampaign.org.uk - newsletter can be downloaded as PDF file from there

Alex

Mr R@t -ratsnest23-zulu alpha said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message -"]news:[email hidden]-
berlin.de...

Quoted message said:

Just come across news of this leaflet from Cambridge City Council which is

the

Quoted message said:

first time I've seen something as good on the subject

camcycle.org.ukarticle14.htmlOpen ↗

It occurs to me that with fewer pedestrians on pathways which run alongside major roads (they're all
in cars these days) it makes a lot of sense to designate them for dual use. I've seen this in the
Windsor area and it seems to work very well.

Of course it's commonplace in northern European countries, none more so than northern Germany where
cyclists and pedestrians even share town centre pavements - but this is more to do with keeping
cyclists from obstructing motorists than any real consideration for the welfare of cyclists. Whilst
this arrangement is ok for local cycling it becomes a pain in the [censored] (literally) when cycling long
distances as many pedestrian pathways are not nearly as comfortable as a nice bit of tarmac.

Rik

The bumpiness can be bad but the main thing that puts me off shared-use paths is dog-walkers. If I had my way I would change the law so that all dogs would have to be kept on short, rigid leads, muzzled and wearing nappies in public places at all times. I say this mainly as a cyclist but as a pedestrian too.

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

Quoted message said:

Mr R@t -ratsnest23-zulu alpha said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message -"]news:[email hidden]-
berlin.de...

Quoted message said:

Just come across news of this leaflet from Cambridge City Council which

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

first time I've seen something as good on the subject

camcycle.org.ukarticle14.htmlOpen ↗

It occurs to me that with fewer pedestrians on pathways which run alongside major roads (they're
all in cars these days) it makes a lot of sense to designate them for dual use.

Perfect sense. Apart from the minor point that it is much less safe than riding on the roads.

Quoted message said:

I've seen this in the Windsor area and it seems to work very well.

Of course it's commonplace in northern European countries, none more so than northern Germany
where cyclists and pedestrians even share town centre pavements - but this is more to do with
keeping cyclists from obstructing motorists than any real consideration for the welfare of
cyclists.

Indeed - and worse, they were compulsory.

This is starting to change as they have realised how dangerous the things are and are starting to
permit cyclists to ride on the road in the interests of improving road safety.

Peter Owens said:

Quoted message said:

It occurs to me that with fewer pedestrians on pathways which run alongside major roads (they're
all in cars these days) it makes a lot of sense to designate them for dual use.

Perfect sense. Apart from the minor point that it is much less safe than riding on the roads.

In what way is riding on a mostly deserted pathway less safe than riding on a major road with
articulated lorries and drivers who 'didn't see you mate' bearing down on you?

Rik

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 22:35:02 +0000 (UTC), Rik
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

In what way is riding on a mostly deserted pathway less safe than riding on a major road with
articulated lorries and drivers who 'didn't see you mate' bearing down on you?

In what way is riding on a pathway crammed with pedestrians safer than riding on a quiet road with
only the occasional cyclist?

On average, most pavements have people on and most roads have cars.

On average, cycling on shared-use paths is less safe than road cycling. Also slower. And less
convenient. And causes conflict with the people for whoom the facility was originaly designated, the
pedestrians.

Funny how often road safety is thought to be best served by removing those who use the road by right
and allowing those who use it only under licence to carry on causing danger unimpeded.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

you know? said:

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 22:35:02 +0000 (UTC), Rik <[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

In what way is riding on a mostly deserted pathway less safe than riding on a major road with
articulated lorries and drivers who 'didn't see you mate' bearing down on you?

In what way is riding on a pathway crammed with pedestrians safer than riding on a quiet road with
only the occasional cyclist?

Read again the question I asked which referred to major roads as did my original post.

Quoted message said:

On average, most pavements have people on and most roads have cars.

I would agree that most roads have cars but I do not agree that pavements which run alongside major
roads (which is what we're talking about) ever have more than the occasional pedestrian.

Quoted message said:

On average, cycling on shared-use paths is less safe than road cycling.

On what evidence?

Quoted message said:

Also slower. And less convenient

Ah - that's really the problem you have with it.

Quoted message said:

And causes conflict with the people for whoom the facility was originaly designated, the
pedestrians.

I disagree with you on this. Why should there be conflict between two sets of legal users unless you
mean you'd be screaming at pedestrians to get out of your way?

Quoted message said:

Funny how often road safety is thought to be best served by removing those who use the road by
right and allowing those who use it only under licence to carry on causing danger unimpeded.

If you go back to my original post I said "It occurs to me that with fewer pedestrians on pathways
which run alongside major roads (they're all in cars these days) it makes a lot of sense to
designate them for dual use. I've seen this in the Windsor area and it seems to work very well." It
doesn't say that I want to remove your right to carry on cycling on major roads with a ten ton lorry
up your [censored] - you're welcome to continue.

Rik

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 00:21:55 +0000 (UTC), Rik
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On average, cycling on shared-use paths is less safe than road cycling.

Quoted message said:

On what evidence?

See lesberries.co.uklesberries.co.ukOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also slower. And less convenient

Ah - that's really the problem you have with it.

Up to a point. Would a driver consider it acceptable to be rerouted via a narrow road with
overhanging foliage to scratch their precious penis extnesion and a maximum safe speed of 20mph, in
order to keep the roads free for cyclists?

I've ridden along dual carriageways. As long as people behave sensibly it's not a problem. The
shared use paths alongside have been littered with glass and debris, ill-kept and potholed. In
short, unsuitable for riding my bike. Which is a fast, low recumbent.

Fundamentally, I have a right to use the road. The equitable response to that right being eroded by
careless drivers is not to give in and leave me with a substandard facility where I have to take
special measures at every junction.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And causes conflict with the people for whoom the facility was originaly designated, the
pedestrians.

Quoted message said:

I disagree with you on this. Why should there be conflict between two sets of legal users unless
you mean you'd be screaming at pedestrians to get out of your way?

Have you ever looked at the turning circle of a pedestrian? Or a turd-dispenser, which so many of
them have attached to them with tripwires?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Funny how often road safety is thought to be best served by removing those who use the road by
right and allowing those who use it only under licence to carry on causing danger unimpeded.

If you go back to my original post I said "It occurs to me that with fewer pedestrians on pathways
which run alongside major roads (they're all in cars these days) it makes a lot of sense to
designate them for dual use. I've seen this in the Windsor area and it seems to work very well." It
doesn't say that I want to remove your right to carry on cycling on major roads with a ten ton
lorry up your [censored] - you're welcome to continue.

I would rather cycle with a truck behind me than a car, to be honest. The drivers are better trained
and far more aware of the lethal potential of their vehicles.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Owens said:

Quoted message said:

It occurs to me that with fewer pedestrians on pathways which run alongside major roads
(they're all in cars these days) it makes a lot of sense to designate them for dual use.

Perfect sense. Apart from the minor point that it is much less safe than riding on the roads.

In what way is riding on a mostly deserted pathway less safe than riding on a major road with
articulated lorries and drivers who 'didn't see you mate' bearing down on you?

You seem to think that dangers come from behind. This is quite normal and of course useful
evolutionary baggage. However, less useful for cyclists. On the whole, car drivers do see cyclists
in plenty of time when arriving from behind. ie its less dangerous than it feels.

The same is not true at junctions, and is even less true should the cyclist be appearing from a
junction. Perhaps if you bear this in mind and are 100x more careful at junctions than your
subconscious tells you to be, then deserted pavements going through rural areas (*) might be safer.

(*) All bets off when there are driveways.

Following on from Rik's message. . .

Quoted message said:

In what way is riding on a mostly deserted pathway less safe than riding on a major road with
articulated lorries and drivers who 'didn't see you mate' bearing down on you?

Lots. Mostly due to the large number of junctions with private drives, door opening, poor surface,
street furniture, sharp bends, low headroom and vegetation.

Also at 20mph on a road you're less likely to be assaulted by louts hanging about looking
for mischief.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the deckchair business folded
[email hidden]

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Owens said:

Quoted message said:

It occurs to me that with fewer pedestrians on pathways which run alongside major roads
(they're all in cars these days) it makes a lot of sense to designate them for dual use.

Perfect sense. Apart from the minor point that it is much less safe than riding on the roads.

In what way is riding on a mostly deserted pathway less safe than riding on a major road with
articulated lorries and drivers who 'didn't see you mate' bearing down on you?

only if the road is deserted too. All evidence from all around the world, shows that shared use
paths are more dangerous, for both pedestrians and cyclists than if cyclists ride on the road. And
of course, the more cyclists there are on the road, the safer the cyclists are, so by diverting them
onto less safe shared-use paths, you are reducing the safety of all cyclists.

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 22:35:02 +0000 (UTC), Rik
<[email hidden]> wrote:

🙂On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:41:19 -0000, "Peter Owens" )<[email hidden]> wrote: )
🙂>> It occurs to me that with fewer pedestrians on pathways which run )>> alongside major roads
🙁they're all in cars these days) it makes a lot )>> of sense to designate them for dual use. )>
🙂>Perfect sense. Apart from the minor point that it is much )>less safe than riding on the roads. )
🙂In what way is riding on a mostly deserted pathway less safe than )riding on a major road with
:articulated lorries and drivers who )'didn't see you mate' bearing down on you?

Because there isn't the "pavement width" between you and the * which just appears from round a
corner, out of a gate or whereever.
--
Comm again, Mike.