ChatterBank2 mins ago
Cycling On The Pavement, What's Your Excuse?
One of my bug bears I suppose but I'm old school, trained to cycle on the road properly and obey road rules etc. Anyway the other day I was walking home and some numpty on a bike got right up behind and rang his bell. I did not move at all and after a bit more ringing I turned around and pointed out the road about 2 feet to his left and said "get on the road, why are you on the pavement?" - Here's the good bit, he said and I kid ye not, it was less dangerous to pedestrians if he cycles on the pavement that it is to cyclists to cycle on the road - I've only just stopped ranting! How has it got to the stage now where most cyclists think that cycling on the pavement is ok? Dropping the kerbs at the corners hasn't helped here either.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DangerUXD. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You would have to be a buffoon to be on your mobile whilst cycling , em.
http://
http://
I remember when my son was swimming competitively, we were in Chester for the Chester Open meet. We were walking along a pavement, when a lad on a bike came round the corner and crashed full on into my lad. Neither was seriously hurt, but my son had taken the full impact of the handlebars and his whole torso was SO badly bruised. He still swam his race and won the silver medal, but we often wonder if he hadn't been hurt........
it's a bloody stupid thing to do, as we have seen with Cameron, caught cycling over red lights. But that doesn't mean to say he is a buffoon, it means to say for that moment he made a very stupid mistake. let's hope that someone has put him wise to the dangers of doing this.
I have only seen the wretched cyclists on pavements and riding over red lights at speed. I am amazed they do it so often, but who is to tell them otherwise. Dangerous and foolish to do either, and Boris who is an advocate for cycling should indeed know better.
I have only seen the wretched cyclists on pavements and riding over red lights at speed. I am amazed they do it so often, but who is to tell them otherwise. Dangerous and foolish to do either, and Boris who is an advocate for cycling should indeed know better.
i have been witness to the following, a dad cycling along with four children on his cycle, one on the middle bar, one on the handlebars, and two ensconced precariously on the back, then there are the ones who have these so low down to the floor cycles, can't be seen by motorists or indeed many women who seem oblivious to traffic at the best of times. The ones who cycle beside the bus, lorry, then get stuck or struck by it whilst turning corners.
The list is endless, some car drivers may be potty, but we now have a free for all where cycling is concerned, I wouldn't cycle again, and certainly not here in the capital.
The list is endless, some car drivers may be potty, but we now have a free for all where cycling is concerned, I wouldn't cycle again, and certainly not here in the capital.
Maybe its where I live, (out in the sticks) the argument put forward by the cyclist holds no water at all. Perhaps in an urban setting this may be different, I have no idea.
Anyway, I do a fair bit of cycling and have never cycled on the pavement. The pavement is for pedestrians, the road is for cyclists.
Anyway, I do a fair bit of cycling and have never cycled on the pavement. The pavement is for pedestrians, the road is for cyclists.
I too am an old school cyclist and no shrinking violet on the bike, but I get riled at this inconsiderate use of pavements, and this has got nothing to do with the fact that our son (aged 6) got a broken leg when coming out of the garden gate on to the pavement and struck by a bike. If people think that the road is too dangerous for them cycling, any use of the pavement should be walking the bike. What chance do old or otherwise frail folk have? Heart attack from the bell, or broken hip if struck, which has a fair chance of being fatal for them? The assertion that it's less dangerous for pedestrians on the pavement than it is for cyclists on the road is sheer hypocrisy - I'm all right, Jack? When so much is being done to try to improve conditions for cyclists, and okay, a lot of it goes off at half cock, there is no good excuse for this dangerous lack of consideration. I fear that the rot set in 30 or 40 years ago when, with a lot less folk cycling than previously (in Britain), the culture for those who may well not have cycled in their youth were introducing their children to cycling deemed the roads too dangerous "Better stay on the pavement - it's safer".
If a cyclist is worried about being knocked down on the road then they simply ought not cycle. If is no excuse to blatantly and deliberately do what they know is wrong simply because they want to carry on doing something they are not prepared to take the risk for. What sort of excuse is that ? Were there more 'bobbies on the beat' a few warnings might help produce a more social responsible society.
The only accident I have had cycling was when a young boy ran straight in front of me, I was going very fast but managed to brake just before hitting him. I went arse over tit straight over the handle bars. I got up (gravel rashed to ****) to see the kids dads bearing down om me, I was forced into having a fighting with the moron who said I shouldn't have been going so fast.
We just can't win, can we?
We just can't win, can we?
It's the UK legislators and Transport "Experts" that have got it wrong - look at the Netherlands for examples of good practice:-
e.g.1 Mix cyclists & Pedestrians as the norm - result: fewer accidents.
e.g.2 Remove traffic lights at junctions - result: increased traffic flow and fewer accidents etc...... etc......
e.g.1 Mix cyclists & Pedestrians as the norm - result: fewer accidents.
e.g.2 Remove traffic lights at junctions - result: increased traffic flow and fewer accidents etc...... etc......
http://
The salient points:
On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. The then Home Office Minister Paul Boateng 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.”
Furthermore, bells not required by law:
At the point of sale (ie shops) bikes have to be fitted with bells but there is no legal requirement for them to be fitted to bicycles no longer on shop display. [NOTE: thanks to the Coalition Government's Red Tape Challenge this requirement will be history soon but, for now, is still in force).
The Highway Code does not stipulate that bells must be used. It states: "Be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example by ringing your bell."
Another 'audible warning device' is the human voice: a polite 'excuse me' can often come across as a lot less aggressive than the apparently insistent tinkling of a bell. However, 'angry of Tunbridge Wells' type letters to newspapers continue to insist that cyclists - from church-hopping old maids to downhill mountain-bikers - ought to use bells, despite the fact their use often scares the bejesus out of pedestrians.
The salient points:
On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. The then Home Office Minister Paul Boateng 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.”
Furthermore, bells not required by law:
At the point of sale (ie shops) bikes have to be fitted with bells but there is no legal requirement for them to be fitted to bicycles no longer on shop display. [NOTE: thanks to the Coalition Government's Red Tape Challenge this requirement will be history soon but, for now, is still in force).
The Highway Code does not stipulate that bells must be used. It states: "Be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example by ringing your bell."
Another 'audible warning device' is the human voice: a polite 'excuse me' can often come across as a lot less aggressive than the apparently insistent tinkling of a bell. However, 'angry of Tunbridge Wells' type letters to newspapers continue to insist that cyclists - from church-hopping old maids to downhill mountain-bikers - ought to use bells, despite the fact their use often scares the bejesus out of pedestrians.
Latest Posts
What Standard Of Football Does The...
Sport7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles31 mins ago
Crosswords43 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.