Pavement Cycling? Time for some sort of idenification?

[Edwards]

FOOTpath FOOTway no mention of bikes.

Ridiculous argument. Lots of 'footways' get converted into shared paths. It's still the same path.

Footways and converted but the one is question was not converted.

Never mind Bye

[Heltor Chasca]

FOOTpath FOOTway no mention of bikes.

Ridiculous argument. Lots of 'footways' get converted into shared paths. It's still the same path.

Footways and converted but the one is question was not converted.

Never mind Bye

Wait...What?...Bye-ways?

I'm lost...And 2 beers and a glass of wine into the evening. Chink...Oh...that'll be klunk because my wine is in a metal mug. Don't ask why...b

[[XAP]Bob]

Highways engineers would put up a blue sign and declare it safe. That's the point, this piece of Tarmac isn't particularly different from many others on which people are encouraged to ride...

There was a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian with minor injuries to the pedestrian.

Fortunately that would never happen with any vehicle which displayed a registration number of some sort - maybe as a standardised font on a white/yellow plate to the front/rear.
No, particularly not if we required some level of user education, and maybe tested their understanding before letting them out with said vehicle.


This was a minor RTA, which was only reported because it's unusual. The time for registration is when these things *stop* getting reported because they are common.
There were 160 thousand such incidents caused by motor vehicles last year, excluding the 20 thousand which resulted in serious injury.
That is, on the same day that this happened there were probably about 500 similar injuries across the country, but where a motor vehicle was involved... So cycles are ~10 times safer for those around them than motor vehicles (Based on this modal share data)

[thelawnet]

It's perfectly valid to argue that breaking the law is inherently wrong

I can't agree with that all.

or that the incident wouldn't have happened had the cyclist obeyed the law.

That's another issue entirely.

[thelawnet]

There's nothing to excuse this lad riding on the pavement here

We don't know anything about him tbh. Only thing I found about him on Facebook was that he was called 'Andrew' and that his mum is 'an albino'. Question of why he was on the pavement in the first place is still worth asking.

and it's so rare on this road I think the parents wouldn't be expecting it!

The parents did nothing wrong, regardless of the road. Accidents similar to this happen, from time to time - parents can't really be in control of their children 100% of the time, and it's little more than random misfortune that some children will die after running out as this child did, but the vast majority of the time it was of no consequence.

The cyclist caused the accident, by cycling carelessly, but I am not sure that analogies with motorists are terribly useful because in general I reject the comparison - some motorists insist that a 10kg bicycle doing 10mph and a 2000kg car doing 100mph are cognate, but I don't think they are in the same category at all. E.g., I think cycling home from the pub, blind drink, while foolish, is more comparable to walking home drunk (which is extremely dangerous in fact - a large proportion of pedestrian fatalities are drunk - but seen as the responsible thing to do) than to driving a motorcar while drunk.

There really is no evidence that we need some of the things people are calling for in this thread - more responsibility or accountability for cyclists. I see the violent effects of motor vehicles every day - a destroyed piece of road furniture here, a memorial to a 17 year old boy run over while riding his bike there, a rotting bunch of flowers tied to a lamppost somewhere else. Collisions caused by cyclists are not remotely in the same category.

[thelawnet]

It looks like the Daily Mail realise there is plenty of mileage in this sort of thing, and he is in the paper again....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... three.html

Apparently he is 23, and left the scene when his father was driving by and picked him up.

He says he was on the pavement because the roads were busy with school traffic. A quick re-watch of the video shows about nine vehicles passing in the space of about 20 seconds.

[bovlomov]

It looks like the Daily Mail realise there is plenty of mileage in this sort of thing, and he is in the paper again....

You have to laugh! This second article begins

The cyclist branded callous for knocking down a toddler on a pavement has said his life has been ‘destroyed’ after the CCTV footage of the accident was released.

But branded callous by whom?

Oh yes. It's the Mail headline from last week.

The most callous cyclist in Britain

Ever decreasing circles of news, as the Mail eats its own tail.

[[XAP]Bob]

Next week, news of what our headlines will be the week after...

????? Cures cancer
Or maybe
????? causes cancer

We haven't decided yet.

[bovlomov]

Next week, news of what our headlines will be the week after...

????? Cures cancer
Or maybe
????? causes cancer

We haven't decided yet.

CALLOUS CYCLIST CAUSES CANCER!

[TonyR]

Next week, news of what our headlines will be the week after...

????? Cures cancer
Or maybe
????? causes cancer

We haven't decided yet.

Both of course! http://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com

[TonyR]

Highways engineers would put up a blue sign and declare it safe. That's the point, this piece of Tarmac isn't particularly different from many others on which people are encouraged to ride...

There was a collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian with minor injuries to the pedestrian.

Fortunately that would never happen with any vehicle which displayed a registration number of some sort - maybe as a standardised font on a white/yellow plate to the front/rear.
No, particularly not if we required some level of user education, and maybe tested their understanding before letting them out with said vehicle.


This was a minor RTA, which was only reported because it's unusual. The time for registration is when these things *stop* getting reported because they are common.
There were 160 thousand such incidents caused by motor vehicles last year, excluding the 20 thousand which resulted in serious injury.
That is, on the same day that this happened there were probably about 500 similar injuries across the country, but where a motor vehicle was involved... So cycles are ~10 times safer for those around them than motor vehicles (Based on this modal share data)

The figures as I remember them are about 40 pedestrians a year are killed on a footway or verge by motor vehicles and about one every four years by a cyclist

[Bicycler]

It's perfectly valid to argue that breaking the law is inherently wrong

I can't agree with that all.

or that the incident wouldn't have happened had the cyclist obeyed the law.

That's another issue entirely.

I'm not asking you to agree with the arguments, just accept their validity without deriding other people for holding those opinions. The argument that it is wrong to break the law is not controversial. The latter point follows on from the former. The argument is that if we make a conscious decision to do something we are forbidden from doing, we are responsible for the consequences of that action even if we neither intended nor foresaw those consequences. In English law the same principles are applied to constructive manslaughter. States which retain a felony murder rule apply a similar logic.

[ferdinand]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.983396,5.878115,3a,75y,278.42h,91.28t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sa40zNqevSi9N1AGt1F4RQQ!2e0?hl=en

Gives an example of a narrow pavement and adequate room for cycling, balancing the needs of users, not setting pedestrians ahead of cyclists, making the most use of available space to benefit both cyclists and pedestrians,
pedestrians have a cycle track between them and motor vehicles. Note that the cycle tracks are wider than the pavements.

That's not a narrow pavement. I make it about 2 to 2.5m.

And looks to be quite a good arrangement for all.

F

[TonyR]

That's not a narrow pavement. I make it about 2 to 2.5m.

And looks to be quite a good arrangement for all.

Compared to this UK example of a shared use narrow footpath that has about 40 driveways cutting across it and is busy route to the local school just a bit further along the road.

[Steady rider]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.98339 ... !2e0?hl=en
The pavement on the left is about 2+ meters, the one on the right probably goes down to about 1.3m in parts, I noticed it some 10 years ago when pedaling along.

From the video in Blackpool, the motor traffic does seem reasonably busy and the pavement is probably 2.5 to 3 m wide, the cyclist made the decision to use the pavement. He could not have foreseen that a 3 year old would come out unattended and without looking, a runner could have collided, a mobility users may hit the child, the cyclist may have fallen and died, the outcomes could have been worse. It was an unfortunate accident.