Pavement cycling

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Thus spake Tim Hall <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ding! again. As part of someone's mono-buttocked (thank you Sheldon) idea of improving things,
some pavements (sidewalks) have been declared dual use by adding a blue sign showing a
peddestrian and a bike next to each other.

Sometimes they also use coloured tarmac for the cyclists. The colour fades in time and the
distinction is seldom observed by pedestrians, which tends to tempt cyclists onto the
'pedestrian' parts.

I don't think I've ever seen a ped observe the distinction between the cycling and pedestrian parts
of a dual-use pavement.
--
"We take these risks, not to escape from life, but to prevent life escaping from us." ***** replace
'spam' with 'ben' to reply *****

Ben said:

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Thus spake Tim Hall <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ding! again. As part of someone's mono-buttocked (thank you Sheldon) idea of improving things,
some pavements (sidewalks) have been declared dual use by adding a blue sign showing a
peddestrian and a bike next to each other.

Sometimes they also use coloured tarmac for the cyclists. The colour fades in time and the
distinction is seldom observed by pedestrians, which tends to tempt cyclists onto the
'pedestrian' parts.

I don't think I've ever seen a ped observe the distinction between the cycling and pedestrian parts
of a dual-use pavement.

They don't have to. Cyclists are forbidden from cycling on the pedestrian portion, pedestrians are
allowed on both sides. The fact that it may not be a smart idea to wander into the path of a
speeding bike isn't addressed.

Same as roads really.

Tim
--

fast and gripping, non pompous, glossy and credible.

On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 18:43:06 +0100 someone who may be Ben <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I don't think I've ever seen a ped observe the distinction between the cycling and pedestrian parts
of a dual-use pavement.

There is none. Pedestrians may use all of the pavement. Cyclists may only use that part of the
pavement marked as being for cyclists.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen said:

<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I don't think I've ever seen a ped observe the distinction between the cycling and pedestrian
parts of a dual-use pavement.

There is none.

There is a distinction; they are distinct. The law permits peds to walk on both halves, but prudence
might suggest that they shouldn't.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?

Riding on the pavement, whether legal or not, involves going up and down all those dips for
driveways, and crossing a road at every intersection, whereas riding on the road is smoother, and
confers the right of way at junctions with incoming side roads. If there have to be cycle lanes, let
them be on the road, unbroken white line so they are not used as parking bays, and incoming side
roads marked with stop lines to give priority to the cycle lane.

--

Martin Bulmer "Mixless Foot Persuasion"

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

Quoted message said:

Just wondering, seeing as so many pavements are now sprouting blue shared use signs, why do they
not just do away with the law against cycling on pavements period. I'm not a fan of pavement
cycling but it does seem

crazy

Quoted message said:

to spend all that money marking them all up as shared use while fining people for cycling on the
ones they haven't yet marked.

Tony

--
raven-family.comraven-family.comOpen ↗

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to
adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." George
Bernard Shaw

Ben of RandyGerbil said:

I don't think I've ever seen a ped observe the distinction between the cycling and pedestrian parts
of a dual-use pavement.

I met one this morning - but he was observing it by keeping to the cyclists side. On the A34 into
Manchester (major route in from the south), there is a useful(!) and safeish(!) bit of shared path
from where the last side road joins the dual carriageway, over a railway line and down to a
roundabout. At about 8.30 am today there were 3 cyclists and 1 pedestrian using the entire 400m
stretch. The ped was keeping religiously to the cycle part of the path. The two cyclists in front of
me went round him. I yelled excuse me, but he didn't budge. So I pulled alongside for a bit - it was
uphill so I could go at his pace. I asked why he chose to use the cyclists bit of the path, and he
claimed it was because the surface is better and that his toes get caught in the peds bit! Said in a
tone that indicated it was sheer bloody mindedness.

Now where do I get an AirZound to scare the hell out of this prat....

--
All politics are based on the indifference of the majority. - James Reston Steph Peters delete
invalid from [email hidden] Tatting, lace & stitching page
<sandbenders.demon.co.ukindex.htmOpen ↗

Steph Peters said:

Ben of RandyGerbil said:

I don't think I've ever seen a ped observe the distinction between the cycling and pedestrian
parts of a dual-use pavement.

I met one this morning - but he was observing it by keeping to the cyclists side. On the A34 into
Manchester (major route in from the south), there is a useful(!) and safeish(!) bit of shared path
from where the last side road joins the dual carriageway, over a railway line and down to a
roundabout. At about 8.30 am today there were 3 cyclists and 1 pedestrian using the entire 400m
stretch. The ped was keeping religiously to the cycle part of the path. The two cyclists in front
of me went round him. I yelled excuse me, but he didn't budge. So I pulled alongside for a bit -
it was uphill so I could go at his pace. I asked why he chose to use the cyclists bit of the path,
and he claimed it was because the surface is better and that his toes get caught in the peds bit!
Said in a tone that indicated it was sheer bloody mindedness.

Now where do I get an AirZound to scare the hell out of this prat....

Sounds similar to how some drivers treat cyclists for being on the road in front of them when there
is a perfectly good cycle path they could use.

Tony

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

Quoted message said:

Sounds similar to how some drivers treat cyclists for being on the

road in

Quoted message said:

front of them when there is a perfectly good cycle path they could

use.

In NY the law actually requires use of the cycle path where one is provided.

On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 23:23:30 +0100, Steph Peters scrawled: ) I met one this morning - but he was
observing it by keeping to the cyclists ) side.

Many of the ones put out by the idiots on Oxford's council swap sides very suddenly, near crossings
or bus stops. I've noticed it catch out cyclists too. Between that and the Science Buildings
Barriers I'm almost certain they're just taking the [censored] out of us.

I can't really blame pedestrians for walking anywhere on the pavement they want to. Apart from such
things as the Green Cross Code I, as a pedestrian, see no other desperately urgent reason other than
etiquette for routinely practicing highway nouse when I'm simply out for a stroll in town.

As I understand the problem, and have read the Highway Code from both sides, I try and keep on the
correct side of the white line, but it's only politeness and (for a pedestrian) rare understanding,
and should be considered an unlikely outcome by anyone approaching pedestrians on dual use paths.

J-P
--
The moon is weeping in a secret room! They tap at my window, with tiny pools!

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 23:23:30 +0100, Steph Peters scrawled: ) I met one this morning - but he was
observing it by keeping to the cyclists ) side.

Many of the ones put out by the idiots on Oxford's council swap sides very suddenly, near
crossings or bus stops. I've noticed it catch out cyclists too. Between that and the Science
Buildings Barriers I'm almost certain they're just taking the [censored] out of us.

Those barriers certainly are. Do cyclists still swing around them down the verge and back up the
other side? A definite example of a supposed safety feature making things more dangerous.

Colin

In message <[email hidden]>, Jeremy Parker <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

That of course is why Britain is a world leader in cycling. Cambridge has 27% of its trips by bike.
Compare that to Amsterdam, which has only 20%.

How can you compare cycle usage in Cambridge with that in Amsterdam and then generalise the result
to say that Britain is better than the Netherlands?
--
Michael MacClancy

Quoted message said:

Always thought it was nice to be able to cycle on both - which is why I do it here if I have to
because of danger, traffic, one-way streets, short cuts etc. Of course a dedicated network of
well maintained, clean and safe cycle paths would be best ...

Britain, of course, has towns with dedicated bike networks: Stevenage, Harlow, and Milton Keynes.
Since the bike paths were put down first, and then the houses built round them, the networks are
about as good as they can be, much better than any retrofitted into pre-existng towns. Stevenage,
thanks to the advocacy of its Chief engineer, Eric Claxton, used to be world famous, and in fact was
the inspiration of the bike networks that have sprung up in the Netherlands, Germany and the USA
since the oil shock of 1973.

Contrary to common belief, the Netherlands didn't start building bike paths inside towns until after
1973, and the Arab cutoff of their oil supply. The first Dutch experimental urban paths were built
in the Hague and in Tilburg in the late 1970s.

That of course is why Britain is a world leader in cycling. Cambridge has 27% of its trips by bike.
Compare that to Amsterdam, which has only 20%.

Jeremy Parker

Jeremy Parker said:

Quoted message said:

Britain, of course, has towns with dedicated bike networks: Stevenage, Harlow, and Milton Keynes.
Since the bike paths were put down first, and then the houses built round them, the networks are
about as good as they can be, much better than any retrofitted into pre-existng towns.

And even then the research shows the bike paths to be much more dangerous than riding on the roads
in those those towns.

Tony

--
raven-family.comraven-family.comOpen ↗

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to
adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George
Bernard Shaw

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Britain, of course, has towns with dedicated bike networks: Stevenage, Harlow, and Milton Keynes.
Since the bike paths were put down first, and then the houses built round them, the networks are
about as good as they can be,

Nice in theory. However, the systems in both Stevenage and Harlow (I don't know MK) have been
neglected and poorly maintained over the years and were in a very poor state. This could have
changed with the new brownie points available to local authorities for providing 'cycle farcilities'
but as recently as two years ago there were sections of the Stevenage system that looked very
unpleasant (I stayed on the road).

And -- as Tony Raven points out -- they may still be less safe than the roads. How is a bit of a
mystery but .... On the MK Re Routes I understand most injuries occurred where the Red Route and
roads intersect.

T

On Wed, 9 Apr 2003 09:25:52 +0100, Colin Blackburn scrawled: [Science buildings barriers] ) Those
barriers certainly are. Do cyclists still swing around them down ) the verge and back up the other
side? A definite example of a supposed ) safety feature making things more dangerous.

Oh, yes. A stunning example of no consultation with cyclists, even in the intended safety aspects of
the things. Any cyclist could've told them "if you really want these to work, and God knows why, but
if you do... then don't give cyclists a way of completely avoiding them that puts the cyclist in
greater danger."

J-P
--
You lock me in the cellar and feed me PINS! ... PINS!

Tony Raven' of said:

Quoted message said:

Now where do I get an AirZound to scare the hell out of this prat....

Sounds similar to how some drivers treat cyclists for being on the road in front of them when there
is a perfectly good cycle path they could use.

No it isn't. There is a wide path, divided between peds to cyclists in about a 2:1 ratio. As a
cyclist, I'm legally obliged to cycle on the cyclists bit. As the prat insists on hogging the
cyclists part so that I can't ride past him on it, my only legal choice is to stop, get off the
bike, wheel it along the peds part past him at a run, rejoin the cycle part and remount.

I'm not really going to get an AirZound, and I don't ride this path regularly so I'll probably never
see him again anyway.
--
Life is not so bad if you have plenty of luck, a good physique and not too much imagination. -
Christopher Isherwood Steph Peters delete invalid from [email hidden] Tatting,
lace & stitching page <sandbenders.demon.co.ukindex.htmOpen ↗

Steph Peters said:

Tony Raven' of said:

Quoted message said:

Now where do I get an AirZound to scare the hell out of this prat....

Sounds similar to how some drivers treat cyclists for being on the road in front of them when
there is a perfectly good cycle path they could use.

No it isn't. There is a wide path, divided between peds to cyclists in about a 2:1 ratio. As a
cyclist, I'm legally obliged to cycle on the cyclists bit. As the prat insists on hogging the
cyclists part so that I can't ride past him on it, my only legal choice is to stop, get off the
bike, wheel it along the peds part past him at a run, rejoin the cycle part and remount.

How so? Drivers can only drive on the road, cyclists on the road or cycle path - somewhat analogous
to your cyclist and pedestrian on the shared use pavement. So why shouldn't a driver get equally
annoyed and sound his horn when a "prat" decides to cycle on the road in front of them when he could
just as easily use the cycle path?

Tony

--
raven-family.comraven-family.comOpen ↗

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to
adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George
Bernard Shaw

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sounds similar to how some drivers treat cyclists for being on the road in front of them when
there is a perfectly good cycle path they could use.

No it isn't. There is a wide path, divided between peds to cyclists in about a 2:1 ratio. As a
cyclist, I'm legally obliged to cycle on the cyclists bit. As the prat insists on hogging the
cyclists part so that

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

can't ride past him on it, my only legal choice is to stop, get off the bike, wheel it along the
peds part past him at a run, rejoin the cycle part and remount.

How so? Drivers can only drive on the road, cyclists on the road or cycle path - somewhat
analogous to your cyclist and pedestrian on the shared use pavement. So why shouldn't a driver get
equally annoyed and sound his

horn

Quoted message said:

when a "prat" decides to cycle on the road in front of them when he could just as easily use the
cycle path?

Several reasons: the cycle path is more dangerous for cyclists (and pedestrians) than if the cyclist
stays on the road, and if a cyclists uses the more dangerous cycle paths, they have to give up
right-of-way at every junction. Since one of the reasons for riding a bike is that it is quicker
around town than walking, driving, bussing, cyclists don't see why they should relinquish
right-of-way for no good reason, when they have every legal and moral right to remain on the road.
If you drivers don't understand that, then perhaps it's time you checked the relevant Acts of
Parliament. If you still don't understand it, park the car for a week, and ride a bike, then you'll
understand the "prats" in cars who object to cyclists riding where they are perfectly entitled to
ride, on the road.

Cheers

Rich

Richard Burton said:

Several reasons: the cycle path is more dangerous for cyclists (and pedestrians) than if the
cyclist stays on the road, and if a cyclists uses the more dangerous cycle paths, they have to
give up right-of-way at every junction. Since one of the reasons for riding a bike is that it is
quicker around town than walking, driving, bussing, cyclists don't see why they should relinquish
right-of-way for no good reason, when they have every legal and moral right to remain on the road.
If you drivers don't understand that, then perhaps it's time you checked the relevant Acts of
Parliament. If you still don't understand it, park the car for a week, and ride a bike, then
you'll understand the "prats" in cars who object to cyclists riding where they are perfectly
entitled to ride, on the road.

I do ride a bike rather a lot and you have got the wrong end of the point. You have a perfect right
to cycle on the road even if there is a cycle path and the cycle path is no excuse for a motorist to
abuse you for getting in his way on the road. Likewise the pedestrian has a perfect right to walk on
the pavement and there is no excuse for you as a cyclist to abuse him because he gets in your way.

Tony

--
raven-family.comraven-family.comOpen ↗

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to
adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George
Bernard Shaw

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

Quoted message said:

Several reasons: the cycle path is more dangerous for cyclists (and pedestrians) than if the
cyclist stays on the road, and if a cyclists uses the more dangerous cycle paths, they have to
give up right-of-way at every junction. Since one of the reasons for riding a bike is that it is

quicker

Quoted message said:

around town than walking, driving, bussing, cyclists don't see why they should relinquish
right-of-way for no good reason, when they have every legal and moral right to remain on the road.
If you drivers don't understand that, then perhaps it's time you checked the relevant Acts of
Parliament. If you still don't understand it, park the car for a week,

and

Quoted message said:

ride a bike, then you'll understand the "prats" in cars who object to cyclists riding where they
are perfectly entitled to ride, on the road.

If the 'prat' seems calm I will point out I have the right to ride on the road and simply ask the
'prat' in the car how he would drive to London or Manchester. When he answers 'motorway' I ask him
why he thinks I should be restricted to the equivalent of B roads for my journey. Obviously you have
to assess the 'prat' carefully before entering such a dialogue!!

T