Cyclists on pavement

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

Quoted message said:

Euan said:

Riding home from work down Blackburn Road, Mulgrave, Victoria (specific
enough?) and passed no less than 6 cyclists, all on the bloody pavement!

What is this aversion to using this road?
--
Baffled
Euan

It may not be an aversion to using that particular road - maybe the
cyclists are lacking the confidence to use any road? I don't think
people get a bike and with it come the skills and confidence to head
out and ride safely. That takes time. Yes, footpaths are not safe,
but I'm glad I didn't have to teach my kids to ride on roads first up
:-)

I suspect most of us learnt cycling skills on footpaths, bike tracks
and quiet roads (after getting our balance in a nice soft park first!),
adapting to a mix of these as skills and confidence grew. I don't think
people are safer on footpaths, but if they're not confident on the
roads I don't think they're safe there either... It takes some skills
and confidence to claim lanes, etc. Maybe the footpath huggers will
one day being wondering what they were ever worried about :-)

just some thoughts...
ali

I certainly used footpaths quite extensively when I started cycling again. I
also had a saddle that was too low, lacked lights and commuted on 2¼" knobby
tyres. It was never at any point a clever or correct thing to do, but I
learned eventually. (in no small part thanks to the good denizens of a.b.)
Ignorance that is amenable to reason and amendment is ok. Willful, stubborn
ignorance that includes a refusal to admit that a mistake might have been
made is not.

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

Quoted message said:

On 2005-06-16, David Trudgett (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Gah! I hate stupid people 🙁

I'm told that half of us are of below average intelligence.

Not quite. Don't make me get all statistical on yo' ass!

--
TimC
Television: A medium. So called because it is neither rare nor well done.
--Ernie Kovacs

Half of us are below median intelligence? I don't know, I'm just making this
up...I'm a humanities student.

Tamyka Bell said:

Hook turns are legal for cyclists everywhere, aren't they?
They are in Qld.

Yes, we have the option, under the uniform Australian road
rules, Part 4, Division 3, rule 35:

"The rider of a bicycle turning right at an intersection without
a hook turn only sign, or a no hook turn by bicycles sign, may
turn right at the intersection by making a right turn under
Division 2 or a hook turn under this rule."

John

Resound said:

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

Quoted message said:

On 2005-06-16, David Trudgett (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

I'm told that half of us are of below average intelligence.

Not quite. Don't make me get all statistical on yo' ass!

Half of us are below median intelligence? I don't know, I'm just making this
up...I'm a humanities student.

Somebody give Resound a cookie ...

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@ to usenet".

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

Quoted message said:

Plodder said:

No figures to back it up (pure hand-waving here!) but I think it's a
fair
guess that most people who ride bikes would rather ride on a "safe"
footpath
than on the road with fast traffic and loons behind the wheel. It might
just
be a perception, but that's what drives their actions.

Frank

Where is this illusive 'safe' footpath of which you speak? Most
footpaths I know are highly risky places, with a blind intersection
(aka 'driveway'😉 every 10 metres and a bewildering mix of variously
aware pedestrians.

Like a few other people here I'll nip onto a footpath for a few metres
here or there where it helps me get across a road or similar, but I
wouldn't go near them any other time - Pure illusion of safety.

Eddiec

--
eddiec

I know that and you know that ( I mix road and footpath riding depending on
conditions). I'm concerned here about the other end of the cycling
spectrum - people who just plod along and don't want to tackle with
motorised traffic. For example, there's an old bloke who rides a tricycle
(one of those horrible Gomier things, but he's happy). He's well into his
80s, and sticks to the footpaths. Technically that's illegal (he's older
than 12), but there's no way I'd expect him to put up with the loons on the
road in this current culture. He rides so slowly that he has plenty of time
to stop if a car backs out and he's in no hurry so he stops at all the
intersections.

It seems that one thing we share with car drivers is the desire to get there
quickly, for whatever reason (competitiveness, minimum time spent commuting
or it's bloody cold! Whatever) and resent as much as car drivers delays to
our journey. Maybe the 'slow life' movement has somehting - take the rush
out and we'd all be happier. A bike ride is a good way of accepting a bit of
slow time.

I'd like to see things like having the council identify and eliminate blind
spots on driveways. Forcing home owners to trim bushes would help so that
the footpath is clearly visible from the driver's seat before the car
protrudes onto the path. I'd also like to see more bike ed (mentioned by a
previous poster) and bikes treated less like toys. One way to do that would
be for schools to treat bikes as proper vehicles and erect bike sheds
instead of leaving bikes out in the rain - show respect to the bikes and
maybe the kids will too growing up with that respect instead of considering
them as toys.

Once that respect is in place (backed up by laws as mentioned by others)
there would be less reason to ride on the paths, but, even if you did, it
wold be safe. Slow riders on the paths if they want, fast riders on the
roads. Utopia?

Frank

Tamyka Bell said:

Common sense is certainly still more common than common courtesy.

Common sense is defined as experience you've had so long you think you were
born with it.

Theo

Resound said:

I certainly used footpaths quite extensively when I started cycling again.. I
also had a saddle that was too low, lacked lights and commuted on 2¼" knobby
tyres. It was never at any point a clever or correct thing to do, but I
learned eventually. (in no small part thanks to the good denizens of a.b.)
Ignorance that is amenable to reason and amendment is ok. Willful, stubborn
ignorance that includes a refusal to admit that a mistake might have been
made is not.

"Willful, stubborn ignorance that includes a refusal to admit that a
mistake might have been made" is a pain in the [censored] in anybody :-)

But, you learnt, I learnt, others here I am sure have learnt... and who
knows, maybe those very same cyclists currently hugging footpaths will
learn too? I hope, and expect, they will - both for their own safety
and for all the flow-on effects their relinquishing the paths would
have for many others.

ali

Plodder wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

spectrum - people who just plod along and don't want to tackle with
motorised traffic. For example, there's an old bloke who rides a tricycle
(one of those horrible Gomier things, but he's happy). He's well into his
80s, and sticks to the footpaths. Technically that's illegal (he's older
than 12), but there's no way I'd expect him to put up with the loons on the
road in this current culture. He rides so slowly that he has plenty of time
to stop if a car backs out and he's in no hurry so he stops at all the
intersections.

<snip>

Yesterday I saw an old guy (late 60's, although with the fit ones, it's
hard to tell, he could've been well into his 70's) as I rode into uni,
hooning along on his deadly treddly. Said g'day, he gave me a big grin.
I saw him on the way home, lit up like a Xmas tree, chugging up one of
the nasty hills. I was very impressed - he's tough, and he's happy. Go
old dude, you're still young!

Tam

PS Absent Husband... did you see him? Or were you too focussed? :P

Theo Bekkers said:

Tamyka Bell said:

Common sense is certainly still more common than common courtesy.

Common sense is defined as experience you've had so long you think you were
born with it.

Theo

E.g. harrassment by weird internet people? Oh...

My dictionary doesn't define it like that, rather as "practical good
sense"

Tam

Tamyka Bell said:

Yesterday I saw an old guy (late 60's, although with the fit ones,
it's hard to tell, he could've been well into his 70's)

You think people in their sixties are old? Well, I suppose I thought that 40
years ago too.

Theo :-)

Tamyka Bell said:

My dictionary doesn't define it like that, rather as "practical good
sense"

You think people are born with that, or that they aquire it with experience?
Not all people have your, or my, experience and therefore do not have the
same 'sense'.

Theo

Theo Bekkers said:

Tamyka Bell said:

Yesterday I saw an old guy (late 60's, although with the fit ones,
it's hard to tell, he could've been well into his 70's)

You think people in their sixties are old? Well, I suppose I thought that 40
years ago too.

Theo :-)

Yeah, I'd say late 60's is old, it's almost 70's, the life expectancy in
Australia isn't really as high as it could be... hehehe "you're only as
young as the woman/man you're feeling" right? 40 years ago I wasn't
born. 20 years ago I thought 10 year olds were grown-ups.

Tam

Theo Bekkers said:

Tamyka Bell said:

My dictionary doesn't define it like that, rather as "practical good
sense"

You think people are born with that, or that they aquire it with experience?
Not all people have your, or my, experience and therefore do not have the
same 'sense'.

Theo

And in a lot of cases, survival of the fittest soon takes care of them.

Tam

Tamyka Bell said:

Yeah, I'd say late 60's is old, it's almost 70's, the life expectancy
in Australia isn't really as high as it could be

Phew, I'm only in my early 60's so I'm OK. My dad is 91, I suppose you think
he's old? But then, you haven't met him. He's currently busily restoring a
1925 Model T Ford.

Theo

Tamyka Bell said:

Theo Bekkers wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You think people are born with that, or that they aquire it with
experience? Not all people have your, or my, experience and
therefore do not have the same 'sense'.

Quoted message said:

And in a lot of cases, survival of the fittest soon takes care of
them.

As we can see in this thread, some people's experience is that the footpath
is saver to ride on, to others this does not make sense. Neither is
necessarily wrong.

Theo

Theo Bekkers said:

Tamyka Bell said:

Yeah, I'd say late 60's is old, it's almost 70's, the life expectancy
in Australia isn't really as high as it could be

Phew, I'm only in my early 60's so I'm OK. My dad is 91, I suppose you think
he's old? But then, you haven't met him. He's currently busily restoring a
1925 Model T Ford.

Theo

Hehe you're a spring chicken, dude!

I think it's a family trend... my Oma's mother is about 100 years old,
up to her 5th husband or something (I dunno what she does to them but
they just keep rolling up to her doorstep...) she's been a smoker all
her life but is still active, running a farm; my Oma passed away last
year, aged 80, a few years after white-water rafting and travelling all
over Aus and NZ... My mum is still active, though I'd like her to be
moreso. Whereas my Dad is a lazyarse. Hopefully I've got more Mum-genes.

I met a 55 year old the other week who looked about 40. I think the
secret is living a happy life. I guess it's not really a secret.

Tam

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "Plodder" == Plodder <CORNED BEEF@NOSPAM> writes:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>> "Book" == Book <[email hidden]> writes:

Book> Perhaps the states could follow the example of the ACT. It's
Book> legal to ride on the footpath- except within 10m of any shop.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is this fetish that some cyclists have with riding on the
pavement? Dunno about the rest of you but I'm normally pushing
30km/h plus on the road, can't do that on a pavement without
serious risk to peds. What's the point?

Stop being scaredy cats and get out on the road where you belong.
-- Cheers Euan

Plodder> What about people who don't want to push 30km/h? The casual
Plodder> cyclist going to get the shopping, the Huffy rider out for
Plodder> a bit of fresh air and exercise, etc. I'd say most cyclists
Plodder> are not in the 30km/h class, don't care for the go-fast,
Plodder> good-for-the-environment, cycling-is-good, competitive
Plodder> spirit. Most don't give a toss about how fast they're going
Plodder> and are not out to break any records for getting the milk.

That doesn't change anything.

A ``plodder'' is likely doing 20 km/h on the flat (like you, no figures
to back it up). The speed differential between a car wanting to do
60km/h and a cyclist doing 20km/h and that of a care wanting to do
60km/h and a cyclist doing 30km/h is barely discernible to a motorist.
To him you are a hazard that must be navigated.

If you think that my doing 30km/h instead of 20km/h makes an iota of
difference to a motorist then I'd suggest you're deluded. At either
speed I'm significantly slower than them (in free flowing traffic hah
hah :-) )

One thing's certain. If you stay on the foot path you will never
realise the full potential of being a cyclist and you will continue to
be a law breaker. That may be OK with you and that's your choice

It isn't for me.
--
Cheers
Euan

Theo Bekkers said:

As we can see in this thread, some people's experience is that the
footpath is saver to ride on, to others this does not make sense. Neither
is necessarily wrong.

And sadly, most footpath riders have not had the experience of riding on the
road, while occupying their lane to control the behaviour of passing
motorists. This happened to me one day in early 1980, with big trucks oin
the Princes Hwy, and it was a formative lesson in cycling safety. Try it
some day soon.

Cheers
Peter

David Trudgett said:

fred_kneeman said:

My 5 cents:
* Some roads are scarey for both cyclist and motorists.
* laws should say "A person of any age is may ride a bicycle along a
footpath (as defined in section * of the * Act) as long as they ride
in a reasonably safe manner".

That would be a very good law, except that none of us need the law to
confer upon us common sense.

David

The common law legal systems of, in short, former British colonies
(which means jurisdictions as diverse as the USA, Sri Lanka, Malaysia,
Wales, Ghana, Pitcairn Island, Bermuda... and us) is based on the idea
of the reasonable conclusions of ordinary people using common sense.
It's also guised as "trial by jury", or Rumpole of the Baily's "golden
thread"

How whack is that? Yeah, I agree with you.

Nevertheless, <heavy, heavy, and self-mocking irony> hey Dave T., why
don't you go back to Russia, you commie crackpot? </heavy, heavy irony>

Anyway: the "reasonable" thing is not much chop, but no-ones' going to
vote for anything better.

Ooo-Roo
[censored]
fred 'commie crackpot" N

fred_kneeman said:

David Trudgett said:

fred_kneeman said:

My 5 cents: * Some roads are scarey for both cyclist and motorists.
* laws should say "A person of any age is may ride a bicycle along
a footpath (as defined in section * of the * Act) as long as they
ride in a reasonably safe manner".

That would be a very good law, except that none of us need the law
to confer upon us common sense. David

The common law legal systems of, in short, former British colonies
(which means jurisdictions as diverse as the USA, Sri Lanka,
Malaysia, Wales, Ghana, Pitcairn Island, Bermuda... and us) is based
on the idea of the reasonable conclusions of ordinary people using
common sense. It's also guised as "trial by jury", or Rumpole of the
Baily's "golden thread"

How whack is that? Yeah, I agree with you.

Pretty whacky.

Quoted message said:

Nevertheless, <heavy, heavy, and self-mocking irony> hey Dave T.,
why don't you go back to Russia, you commie crackpot? </heavy, heavy
irony>

Not that I care for labels, but I'm actually a Christian anarchist
pacifist crackpot. Get your crackpots right! ;-) And not that there's
anything wrong with communism per se, eh? The only thing is that,
like Christianity, it hasn't been tried and found wanting, it has been
found difficult and left untried. (Yeah, I stole that great line. If I
ever have an original thought, it will surely die of loneliness.)

Actually, I think libertarian (anarchist) communism is a pretty good
idea, but as the name implies, it's only a good idea within the
environment of freedom from coercion; i.e., it's only a good idea if
others think it's a good idea, and the people who don't think it's a
good idea leave the people who do think it's a good idea alone. I hope
that's clear. ;-)

Authoritarian communism on the other hand is, of course, nothing but
slavery under another name. I think they tried that and found it
wanting.

Quoted message said:

Anyway: the "reasonable" thing is not much chop, but no-ones' going
to vote for anything better.

Don't get me started on the giant pacifier they call "voting".

Quoted message said:

Ooo-Roo [censored] fred 'commie crackpot" N

Nice to meet you, Fred, you commie, you. :-)

David

--

David Trudgett http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

Many young soldiers enter military service having bought the whole
story about the US military as some liberatory force, and the
discovery of its true nature creates a traumatic sense of dislocation
and betrayal.

-- Stan Goff, retired from U.S. special forces.