Pavement cyclists

\(t'other\) Dave said:

Prove to 'em that it is more dangerous riding on the
pavement than riding on the road and beat the [censored] out of
'em with a baseball bat every time you encounter them ;-)

And who was it that said you can't win an argument with
statistics :-)

James

Howard wrote:

<A lot of stuff snipped>

Quoted message said:

Perhaps someone could also run course for arrogant
pedestrians

Guess that means me.

Quoted message said:

in courtesy and common sense when encountering cyclists
politely asking to pass on a ‘footpath'.

Every so often I see references on this group to cyclists
cycling "responsibly" on the pavement or footpath. Such
cyclists are generally held to be polite because they always
greet pedestrians with a cheerful "Ding! Excuse me please."
I've said it before and I will say it again, cycling on a
footpath, pavement or sidewalk along the side of a road
(unless it is designated as a cycle path) is illegal and
therefore cannot be done responsibly.

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, far to many ‘pedestrians' (often just car
drivers who have found somewhere to leave their car) take
the hostility they display towards cyclists when driving
onto shared use paths, bridleways and so on going out of
their way to be confrontational and obstructive. Still
that's the British for you...

I was born a pedestrian, I choose to be a cyclist and I use
a car as little as possible. I still find pavement cyclists
annoying. I cycle 110 miles every week throughout the year
and all of that is done on the road. I object strongly to
being herded into special lanes or paths because in my view
there is nothing wrong with cycling on the road as I learned
to do in my youth. (No cycle farcilities back then.)

There are two reasons why cycling on the pavement should be
discouraged;
1. If we can get all of these people onto the roads, perhaps
the increased numbers of cyclists would make motorists
take more notice of, and more care around, cyclists.
2. Increased numbers of on-road cyclists would go some way
towards showing other road users that we do not belong on
the pavement as many of them seem to think and the
traffic system planners might just start trying to
integrate cyclists into the road system rather than
trying to separate us off from the 'more important'
motorised traffic.

My greatest fear is that Martlew and his ilk will eventually
prevent cyclists from using the roads altogether. I do not
want to be forced into creaping along a shared use path at
h*lm*t friendly speeds in the wrong direction just because
an awful lot of t*ssp*ts can't be bothered to work out how
to use the roads properly in the first place.

Terry Duckmanton

Quoted message said:

Every so often I see references on this group to cyclists
cycling "responsibly" on the pavement or footpath. Such
cyclists are generally held to be polite because they
always greet pedestrians with a cheerful "Ding! Excuse me
please." I've said it before and I will say it again,
cycling on a footpath, pavement or sidewalk along the side
of a road (unless it is designated as a cycle path) is
illegal and therefore cannot be done responsibly.

Reading the letter from the home secretary, it seems that
the only reason it was made illegal was to prevent pavement
cyclists from causing a danger or nuisance. Quite why they
didn't legislate purely against these cyclists I'm not
quite sure.

IMO pavement cyclists should always give way to pedestrians.
Lets face it, if you're on the pavement its not because you
want to get there quickly! Cycling on the pavement *can* be
done in a perfectly responsible way, and the mere fact that
something is illegal does not prevent it from being
irresponsible. Cycling without a helmet, in a park and on a
tricycle. springs to mind here.[1]

[1] This is a ridiculous example, as only the most stupidly
idiotic of people would even consider outlawing it. Oh
poor dear Martlew.

James Annan said:

What is the best approach to try to reduce the number of
pedestrians killed by motor vehicles on the pavement (or
even off the pavement, they are just as dead)?

Get rid of the motor vehicles?
--
Chris Johns ([email hidden])

In news:IT2zc.443$Ee2.372@newsfe4-gui,
Terry D <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

I was born a pedestrian,

I didn't learn for a good year, myself.

Quoted message said:

cycling on a [pavement] is illegal and therefore cannot be
done responsibly.

Interestingly, I was driving along a national speed limit
dual carriageway today and I saw someone cycling along the
pavement running alongside it, which went on for a mile or
so without any breaks in it, and was clear of pedestrians at
the time he was using it, and was clearly a much safer place
for the cyclist. How was he not responsible?

Obviously, I agree in the vast majority of cases and I hate
being facilitised out of the running, and am making an
effort to make sure that my job involves stopping this
happening, but there are some cases where the footpath
hasn't been designated but would be good to change.

A

Martin Bulmer said:

In "]news:[email hidden], Andy Leighton
<[email hidden]> expounded sagaciously: What is the

Quoted message said:

best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?

Cobbles.

Doesn't work in any of the big Flemish races, does it?
Indeed, positive incentive to ride on the pavement...

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:36:49 +0100 someone who may be Terry D
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I've said it before and I will say it again, cycling on a
footpath, pavement or sidewalk along the side of a road
(unless it is designated as a cycle path) is illegal and
therefore cannot be done responsibly.

The one does not follow the other. Whether something is
illegal or not is entirely different to whether it is done
in a responsible manner. The converse is also true.

However, I agree with the general thrust of your
observations.

--
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.