Pavement Cycling? Time for some sort of idenification?

[pwa]

Parents (and I am one) teach their children that the pavement is safe, and the road is not. People riding on the pavement are acting irresponsibly. If I want to use the pavement when I am out with a bike I get off and walk. I try to distance myself from pavement cyclists.

For anyone who is interested, Radio 4's "You and Yours" is inviting you to get in touch with them if you have ever felt threatened by cyclists.

[thelawnet]

Parents (and I am one) teach their children that the pavement is safe

Fundamentally that is not true, because of cars reversing out and so on.

The road might be safer in many areas (I live on a cul-de-sac), because of better visibility.

[TonyR]

Another oddity to explain with the story that he ran off. In all the Mail photos there is a silver car parked facing where the cyclist was coming from and in line with a distinctive gatepost. There is a tight cropped photo of the lad looking back at the camera.

But someone here has posted the uncropped photo of the lad who is stood by a blue car parked facing the other way by the same distinctive gatepost. So what has gone on here?

[karlt]

Parents (and I am one) teach their children that the pavement is safe

Fundamentally that is not true, because of cars reversing out and so on.

Which is why they shouldn't. Reverse in, drive forwards out. For some reason they don't seem to be teaching this any more.

[Bicycler]

Parents (and I am one) teach their children that the pavement is safe, and the road is not. People riding on the pavement are acting irresponsibly. If I want to use the pavement when I am out with a bike I get off and walk. I try to distance myself from pavement cyclists.

And 20+ years or so ago that's pretty much how we all understood it. Unfortunately (and I realise it does not apply directly to this case) councils are routinely placing white paint and blue signs upon pavements and encouraging cycling upon them. Obviously without further works these markings do not affect the safety or risk of cycling on those pavements. If it is safe this year with the markings it was equally safe last year without them. The case for condemning cycling on pavements as being inherently unsafe, irresponsible and anti-social has been substantially weakened.

[[XAP]Bob]

Parents (and I am one) teach their children that the pavement is safe

Fundamentally that is not true, because of cars reversing out and so on.

Which is why they shouldn't. Reverse in, drive forwards out. For some reason they don't seem to be teaching this any more.

I don't do this - because of the slope on our drive.

I used to, but now that the kids are climbing out of the car themselves I want the doors falling away from them, not closing on them...

[mjr]

Which is why they shouldn't. Reverse in, drive forwards out. For some reason they don't seem to be teaching this any more.

Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can.

Maybe that rule should be given legal force ahead of the h*lm*t one?

[beardy]

Unfortunately (and I realise it does not apply directly to this case) councils are routinely placing white paint and blue signs upon pavements and encouraging cycling upon them. Obviously without further works these markings do not affect the safety or risk of cycling on those pavements. If it is safe this year with the markings it was equally safe last year without them. The case for condemning cycling on pavements as being inherently unsafe, irresponsible and anti-social has been substantially weakened.

I am no student of the art of placing cycle paths on pavements but my assumption is that they would NOT convert a pavement into a cycle track in any case as potentially dangerous as this.
Most of the dual use that I can think of does not have any residential doors or gateways this close to them, they are normally kept well away from such conflict.

I can think of one example where it passes an opening in a fence and the white lines direct pedestrians to take the three foot near the fence and cyclists away from it at that point because of the opening.

[Vorpal]

Parents (and I am one) teach their children that the pavement is safe, and the road is not. People riding on the pavement are acting irresponsibly. If I want to use the pavement when I am out with a bike I get off and walk. I try to distance myself from pavement cyclists.

For anyone who is interested, Radio 4's "You and Yours" is inviting you to get in touch with them if you have ever felt threatened by cyclists.

I teach my children that the pavement is safer, not necessarily safe. And that they still need to look before they step out or change direction suddenly. That's not to say I blame the child or paernts in this circumstance. But I also don't necessarily believe the picture as painted by the media.

[merseymouth]

Hi There, Simple question - "When was the last time you ever saw or heard about a driver being prosecuted for reversing out onto a road with a speed limit of above 30 mph"?
It is illegal, as is reversing along a pavement to enable the driver to drive forward away from a property. I had one daft woman drive her Merc along the pavement, straight at me, to avoid having to go a longer way! (Dual carriageway 40 mph road with no central gaps). I was not cycling at the time, but using Shank's Pony.
I forced the Police to pay her a visit!
Sadly, most of my local force's budget is used to Police the late night drink fueled mayhem which all of our cities suffer from. TTFN MM

[blackbike]

This incident is not of any particular importance really.

Instances of carelessness and disregard for the safety of others take place all the time on our roads.

The reason why some newspapers have chosen to show the video and the photos of the scratches on the girl's face is because they were caused by a cyclist and these papers know that irrational anti-cyclist sentiment is common in this country, especially from a minority of demented and bitter drivers. It sells papers.

I can't remember any grisly newspaper pictures of someone recently injured by a careless, criminal car driver. As these injuries happen many times every day all over the country this is a bit odd. Newspapers should be full of them.

We do get them for victims of mugging or other assaults, but newspapers know full well that any pictures of dead, horribly injured and mutilated people hit by cars would not be popular at all with a nation of drivers.

[Tonyf33]

IMHO it is you that misses the bigger picture here,and such goons as the one in question should be made an example of,so others won't do the same.

I don't miss any bigger picture, I've not allayed any blame away from the cyclist aside from the fact the parents should have had better control of their toddler so close to a busy main road and a path that clearly leads directly onto (if not in itself) a shared use path.

In fact it doesn't, it's an in-road cycle lane, not a shared use path. The road itself (not the pavement!) is signed for cycling.

Okay, I got that bit wrong, BUT my point is valid, he was on the pavement for a reason, why is that exactly? THAT is the bigger issue here don't you think?

[mjr]

I am no student of the art of placing cycle paths on pavements but my assumption is that they would NOT convert a pavement into a cycle track in any case as potentially dangerous as this.Most of the dual use that I can think of does not have any residential doors or gateways this close to them, they are normally kept well away from such conflict.

Sadly, there are almost no norms about what crap councils can turn into cycle tracks. This is part of what makes campaigning for better space for cycling so difficult. Feel free to educate me about those norms if you know otherwise.

Right, a dual use track crossing residential gateways blind? There's a couple of nearer ones crossing driveways blind, but here's the first one crossing pedestrian gateways on my route to town (viewed from town because there was a lorry blocking shot the other way):

Street View of A10 Cycleway near Mill Lane West Winch

[gaz]

:lol: Sadly, there are almost no norms about what crap councils can turn into cycle tracks.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.37924 ... e0!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.41808 ... e0!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.44851 ... e0!6m1!1e1

Plenty more examples available .

[thelawnet]

Okay, I got that bit wrong, BUT my point is valid, he was on the pavement for a reason, why is that exactly? THAT is the bigger issue here don't you think?

Well it's a fair point I suppose. Perhaps he has read too many Daily Mail readers telling him that cyclists shouldn't be in the road, and he took it to heart.

There are a few cyclists who don't know how to cycle on the road.