Have you ever been fined or stopped for pavement cycling?

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Paul Boyd
> > Haven't you been reading the other thread further up? What you need is
> > training! Once you have some training, I think you are supposed to
> > bounce off bonnets or something. Or perhaps a cycling proficiency badge
> > gives you some superhuman powers that lesser trained mortals haven't got.
>
> You just don't get it, do you? Do you actually have any idea why people
> are trained in all sorts of things in life? It's so that they can do
> whatever it is they're being trained for safely. Why should cycling be
> any different?


Perhaps he is incapable of learning much; some people are.

(This attitude reminds me a little of when I was learning to drive;
before then, I used to think that this consisted pretty much of learning
the effects of the various controls, and using them to make the car go.
For what it's worth, I think cycling has taught me more about driving
well than almost anything else.)


A reference to "Cyclecraft" is due. Overdue. ;-)

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/


--
Mark, UK
"Yes, there's surface noise; but life has surface noise."

 

[squeaker]

On 5 Feb, 15:03, jen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 1:31 pm, bornfree <[email protected]> wrote:
> The worst bit was that my son
> (who was about 3yrs old then) was in his seat on the back - he was
> completely shocked that I'd been told off by a policeman. I think he
> thought I was going to be carted off to jail.
>
Remember my dad getting ticked off by a copper for cycling with me
sitting on the top tube ('crossie'?) with similar feelings :~

 

[The Luggage]

On 5 Feb, 21:37, Jim Harvest <[email protected]> wrote:
> x-no-archive:naked_draughtsman wrote:
> > Having said that, closing or restricting a road so that it causes a
> > ridiculous detour would definitely be a good reason to ask the council
> > to do something to improve the situation although I'm not personally a
> > fan of contraflow cycling due to the conflict it generates with those
> > who don't understand it.
>
> Its probable that contraflow cycling would result in too many accidents.
>   I would have thought that there would be no need for many one way
> systems if traffic flow was regulated effectively.

No, it probably wouldn't. There are plenty of contraflow cycle lanes,
and I know of no data to show they are any more dangerous than with-
flow lanes or just using the road. Except when a lorry parks in it to
deliver to a pub, despite there being aloading bay not very far away,
and a specific planning restriction banning the practice. Oops,
sorry, wrong group...

TL

 

[Adrian Boliston]

"Jim Harvest" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> x-no-archive:naked_draughtsman wrote:
>
>> Having said that, closing or restricting a road so that it causes a
>> ridiculous detour would definitely be a good reason to ask the council
>> to do something to improve the situation although I'm not personally a
>> fan of contraflow cycling due to the conflict it generates with those
>> who don't understand it.
>>
>>
>
> Its probable that contraflow cycling would result in too many accidents. I
> would have thought that there would be no need for many one way systems if
> traffic flow was regulated effectively.

There is a contra flow cycle lane near my home which could cut some time off
my commute, but it is usually full of broken glass so I'd be wary about
using it on a road bike.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Noel <[email protected]>:
>Totally agree. To get to the station I have to ride up a juggernaut-
>filled stretch of the A22 where the single lane slowly narrows about 100m
>out from a busy roundabout. I was approaching the roundabout one morning
>and a scary 18 wheeler monster squeezed past.

So, since you weren't riding in the gutter, you moved left into the space
you had left yourself for this kind of difficulty.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Olethros, February - a weekend.

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 04:40:39 -0800 (PST) someone who may be The
Luggage <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> Its probable that contraflow cycling would result in too many accidents.
>>   I would have thought that there would be no need for many one way
>> systems if traffic flow was regulated effectively.
>
>No, it probably wouldn't. There are plenty of contraflow cycle lanes,
>and I know of no data to show they are any more dangerous than with-
>flow lanes or just using the road.

IIRC the road research laboratory came to that conclusion some years
ago.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Steve C]

On 5 Feb, 13:31, bornfree <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was approached the other day by an community support officer after I
> had just gotten off my bike from cycling a short stretch on the
> pavement. She told me if she had caught me I would have been fined. I
> certainly will be more careful from now on.
>
> Do you have a story relating to cycling on the pavement, in
> particular, getting caught?

What's the opinion on cycling on footpaths which aren't used by
pedestrians? Where I live most pavements are deserted.

Steve C

 

[Clive George]

"Steve C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 5 Feb, 13:31, bornfree <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I was approached the other day by an community support officer after I
>> had just gotten off my bike from cycling a short stretch on the
>> pavement. She told me if she had caught me I would have been fined. I
>> certainly will be more careful from now on.
>>
>> Do you have a story relating to cycling on the pavement, in
>> particular, getting caught?
>
> What's the opinion on cycling on footpaths which aren't used by
> pedestrians? Where I live most pavements are deserted.

Various:

"No, it's the LAW and thou shalt be damned if thou transgresseth it" - see
JNugent, etc.

"Cycling on the footpath is intrinsically more dangerous because you've got
poor sight lines, poor surface, people don't expect to see you there" -
Cyclecraft, and applies to bike lanes too.

"I cycle on the footpath all the time because the cars are all scary" -
people who don't understand the above.

I'm with the second opinion, so will tend to avoid them. But I'm not going
to cry if somebody uses one without inconveniencing other people - eg Mr
Larrington's use of one to get the last few yards to his door.

cheers,
clive

 

[Noel]

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:27:09 +0000, David Damerell wrote:

> So, since you weren't riding in the gutter, you moved left into the
> space you had left yourself for this kind of difficulty.

Precisely - and that didn't leave much room whilst the remaining 90% of
the juggernaut rolled past and the road narrowed further....

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Noel <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:27:09 +0000, David Damerell wrote:
>
> > So, since you weren't riding in the gutter, you moved left into the
> > space you had left yourself for this kind of difficulty.
>
> Precisely - and that didn't leave much room whilst the remaining 90% of
> the juggernaut rolled past and the road narrowed further....

I've had similar situations happening to me while travelling in my car.
Should I drive on the pavement?

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[The Luggage]

On 6 Feb, 15:32, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 04:40:39 -0800 (PST) someone who may be The
> Luggage <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >> Its probable that contraflow cycling would result in too many accidents..
> >>   I would have thought that there would be no need for many one way
> >> systems if traffic flow was regulated effectively.
>
> >No, it probably wouldn't. There are plenty of contraflow cycle lanes,
> >and I know of no data to show they are any more dangerous than with-
> >flow lanes or just using the road.
>
> IIRC the road research laboratory came to that conclusion some years
> ago.

Which conclusion? That there is no data, or that they are no more
dangerous than other lanes / using the road?

TL

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 01:06:12 -0800 (PST) someone who may be The
Luggage <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> >No, it probably wouldn't. There are plenty of contraflow cycle lanes,
>> >and I know of no data to show they are any more dangerous than with-
>> >flow lanes or just using the road.
>>
>> IIRC the road research laboratory came to that conclusion some years
>> ago.
>
>Which conclusion? That there is no data, or that they are no more
>dangerous than other lanes / using the road?

The road research laboratory presumably collected data on the
subject and this showed that contraflow cycle lanes are not unduly
dangerous.

No doubt there would be some qualifications.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Noel <[email protected]>:
>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:27:09 +0000, David Damerell wrote:
>>So, since you weren't riding in the gutter, you moved left into the
>>space you had left yourself for this kind of difficulty.
>Precisely - and that didn't leave much room whilst the remaining 90% of
>the juggernaut rolled past and the road narrowed further....

Personally, I suspect you _were_ in the gutter, but why didn't you see
this one developing and change the relative speeds of you and the lorry?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is First Monday, February.

 

[Simon Brooke]

Steve C wrote:

> On 5 Feb, 13:31, bornfree <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I was approached the other day by an community support officer after I
>> had just gotten off my bike from cycling a short stretch on the
>> pavement. She told me if she had caught me I would have been fined. I
>> certainly will be more careful from now on.
>>
>> Do you have a story relating to cycling on the pavement, in
>> particular, getting caught?
>
> What's the opinion on cycling on footpaths which aren't used by
> pedestrians? Where I live most pavements are deserted.

It's dangerous and pointless. You're both safer and better off on the road.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

to err is human, to lisp divine
;; attributed to Kim Philby, oddly enough.

 

[Simon Brooke]

archierob wrote:

> Its cold, its dark, you are coming home from work on your bike and
> have to ride across a long 3 mile common that is flat land, it is a
> two lane highway that is used and abused by boy racers showing off and
> racing their cars who are a danger to themselves and others. Alongside
> the road is a pavement with high guttering that is your safest option
> of staying alive.
>
> Do you:
>
> (a) have total respect for the law and ride on the road?
>
> (b) think of your wife and family and ride on the pavement?
>
> I know what I would do.

False premise. The pavement is not safer. The boy racers are not going to
hit you unless they lose control, and if they lose control being on the
pavement won't save you.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

For office use only. Please do not write or type below this line.

 

[Noel]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:57:23 +0000, David Damerell wrote:

> Personally, I suspect you _were_ in the gutter, but why didn't you see
> this one developing and change the relative speeds of you and the lorry?

Well you are entitled to your suspicions (I have my own suspicions about
you... ) but since I was actually the person on the bike I can tell
you that I was not riding in the gutter.

To my mind the juggernaut, who was approaching from behind me in a stream
of traffic, should be the one to change his speed relative to me. He
should not have attempted to overtake so close to the junction either.

Let me explain further on the road narrowing. It is not an obvious
narrowing but a subtle one that is further compounded close to the
junction by traffic leaving the roundabout in the opposite direction.
This traffic swings round a small curve which almost takes them into the
path of the oncoming traffic. So as 'my' stream of traffic approach the
roundabout there might seem to be enough room for a juggernaut to
overtake a cyclist and perhaps move over the white lines even - but if a
vehicle comes off the roundabout this room suddenly evaporates. Combined
with the narrowing of the road this makes for a nasty situation for a
cyclist with a driver intent on overtaking.

Cheers

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <9886bf13-c6bf-430c-84af-
[email protected]>, Marz
[email protected] says...

> Yes, years ago, while working off a boat in Falmouth. Falmouth main
> street is one way, great for going to work, but a pain for heading
> home and so to avoid a 3 mile detour I'd ride the half mile or so up
> the street.

Eh? Just (hehe - that first bit is quite steep) go up Swanpool Street
and along Gyllyng Street, which runs parallel to the main street. If
you're going in the direction of Greenbank then you have to go up Quarry
Hill too, but that's the sort of thing that makes cycling in Cornwall so
much fun.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Noel <[email protected]>:
>On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:57:23 +0000, David Damerell wrote:
>>Personally, I suspect you _were_ in the gutter, but why didn't you see
>>this one developing and change the relative speeds of you and the lorry?
>To my mind the juggernaut, who was approaching from behind me in a stream
>of traffic, should be the one to change his speed relative to me. He
>should not have attempted to overtake so close to the junction either.

Certainly he _should_ not, no, but if you were cruising at a fair speed
and slapped on the anchors, you _would_ have extricated yourself quickly
and backwards, and that's better than messing around on the pavement every
day.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is First Tuesday, February.

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 7, 6:03 pm, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> Steve C wrote:
> > What's the opinion on cycling on footpaths which aren't used by
> > pedestrians? Where I live most pavements are deserted.
>
> It's dangerous and pointless. You're both safer and better off on the road..

That's not my experience. While I'm 99% a road cyclist and am happy
taking the lane through busy junctions etc., I think situations can
arise where it is _much_ safer to be on the pavement and it
inconveniences nobody.

One of my regularly commuting routes includes the following:

* A road at the bottom of a steep hill, 1:10 at a guess, 2 lanes up,
one lane down; 60 mph limit;

* 400 yards up the hill there is a short path on the right leading to
a bypassed stretch of A road;

* I tackle this by taking the RH lane from the roundabout for maybe
100 yards until I can get in to a proper right turn lane which gets me
200 yards up the hill; I then cycle on the pavement for about 200
yards until I can branch off to the bypassed section of a road.

Alternatives to cycling on the pavement:

* take the RH lane for 400 yards, then stop in the RH lane and wait
for a gap in the downhill traffic to do a right turn at a place where
the uphill cars don't expect anyone to turn right because it's not
possible for cars, and where they are accelerating hard to get past
lorries going up the hill before the road goes down to 1 lane in each
direction;

* take the LH lane all the way up the hill, then turn right (not a
problem - A road down to one lane with central reservation at this
point) on to a B road at the top which meets up with the old A road;
the B road is my ultimate route, and apart from being deserted, the
bypassed A road gets me there more quickly; I tried a variation on
using the LH lane once - lorries very close because they are desparate
not to loose speed on the steep hill, cars don't want to let them out
because they want to get past the lorries, very unpleasant; also, I've
already done 700' of ascent on an unclassified round before the
roundabout, so I'm not going to be fast for this last stretch;

* walk on the pavement - not really an option, the "pavement" is a
narrow strip of tarmac, wide enough for me or a bike, but not both
side by side; whichever is not on the pavement will either be in the
downhill lane (fast traffic constrained by double white line) or in
the nettles/brambles/rough grass;

* take a completely different route - they all have major issues apart
from extra miles; best one involves 5 miles on a busy rural A road
followed by 800' of ascent steepest 1:6 on a route used as a rat run
by traffic avoiding a possible queue at the roundabout on my normal
route; other routes involve single-track roads with poor sight lines
also used as rat runs.

I've _never_ met a pedestrian on this route, and if I did I would
happily wait at one of the wider points for them to come past
(sightlines are good, it would be easy to see one). Only likely
pedestrians are someone walking to civilazation from a broken-down
car, ramblers would use pleasanter routes away from the busy A road.

I'd like to be able to say I never use the pavement, but my choice
here seems to be the best for my safety and shows consideration for
all other road users.

Rob

>         to err is human, to lisp divine
>                                  ;; attributed to Kim Philby, oddly enough.

 

[Howard]

bornfree wrote:
> I was approached the other day by an community support officer after I
> had just gotten off my bike from cycling a short stretch on the
> pavement. She told me if she had caught me I would have been fined. I
> certainly will be more careful from now on.
>
Sound like she is the sort of CSO who enjoys abusing their powers. The
Home Office certainly didn't intend Fixed Penalty Notices for
'pavement cycling' to be used in such a way.

When FPN's were introduced Home Office Minister Paul Boeteng issued a
letter stating that:

'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. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement,
acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young
people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use
of police discretion is required.'

This guidance has been reiterated by John Crozier of the Home Office
who in a letter dated 23/02/04 (Ref T5080/4) with reference to the use
of FPN's by Community Support Officers's Stated:

'The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour
Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling
irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty
notice. I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate
cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at
responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement
out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road
users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty
needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it
cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16.'