legalised cycling on pavements - cycle-to-work campaign

My uncle was done for this some years ago and I see that it is still enforced...

road.cc/.../98005-man-court-wanton-and-furious’-cycling-charge

My main bugbear concerns the reckless and antisocial cyclists who cycle on the pavement when there is clear signage prohibiting this. A considerate cyclist will slow down and give the pedestrian right of way, without expecting the pedestrian to reciprocate - after all, the pedestrian has right of way on most pavements. Antisocial cyclists, on the other hand, will swerve past you at top speed, often not even ringing the bell. I get very angry when this happens, and I have been known to shout after them, telling them that ''you are not supposed to cycle down here!''. However, they seldom listen, and the most they might say is ''I know''. They just don't care, but then if they did, they would not be so antisocial in the first place.

On the other hand, I understand how dangerous it can be for cyclists to travel on the road, and I support clearly defined cycle lanes.

I did have a bicycle for a short time as a teenager, but my coordination issues are such it was nigh impossible.

I agree that roads are dangerous and perfectly understand cyclists want to get off them. I mentioned previously the DfT guidelines LTN 1/12 which came out in 2012 replacing previous guidelines. They warn that badly designed cycle routes will aversely affect cycle to work, because cyclists will look for other routes, further conflicting with pedestrians.

If the guidelines were followed it would be practical to convert pavements, if the divide and signage was clear, and both pedestrians and cyclists got a two-metre space. The trouble is most local authorities have ignored the guidelines, and some cycle routes are frankly more dangerous than being on the road. One of the obvious problems is crossing a junction or entranceway across the pavement; the cyclists are placed too near the junction and don't get enough warning of vehicles emerging.

The other issue, which others have mentioned, is that if the routes are ineffective, cyclists may prefer to switch back and forth between the traffic lane and the cycle path. There was a scheme called "Cycle Demonstration Towns" underway, in its second phase, but the Coalition Government has scrapped the organisation guiding it - Cycling England, and taken away the infrastructure. So the process is not being policed (someway down the line we are going to discover just how many watchdogs and control factors the Coalition have scrapped, and the consequences, some more serious than you could imagine).

The problem with cycling is you've no identification, so it is easy to make a quick exit if you cause an accident because no-one can identify you. Secondly the field of view is limited, due to concentrating on keeping the bike even, and cyclists often just aren't aware of the mayhem they leave behind. You only have to ask motorists what they think of cyclists. Thirdly cyclists expect to travel at their best speed, to enjoy the advantage.  Pedestrians are doing two or three miles per hour; cyclists expect to do 8 to 10 miles per hour. The contrast between cars and cyclists was to cyclists' disadvantage, I don't see the differential as a fair risk to impose on pedestrians.

But the crux of my reason for raising this is the extent to which unsuitable pavements are given over to cycling. There are a lot of pavements as narrow as 1 or 1.5 metres now designated shared surfaces, despite the recommended minimum of 3 metres. A lot of councils are seeking easy solutions that disadvantage pedestrians including the elderly and the disabled.

Probably the same councils that have cut the travel allowances for disabled people including those on the spectrum. Some councils seem to take pride in callous behaviour.

I cycle every day but never on the pavement.

Cycle lanes are often not well thought out ( see http://weirdcyclelanes.co.uk/) and some cyclists use do stretches of pavement as a link between two safer sections of their route rather than use a busy road.

I'm not in favour of shared pavements and marked cycle and pedestrian lanes only work if there is little foot traffic. When walking people will meander, make sudden turns and stop to talk in groups. This means that cyclists are constantly taking evasive action to avoid pedestrians who stray into the cycle lane. Sharing space with pedestrians assumes that cycling is a slow, leisure-based activity. For lots of us its our daily commute and we want to get where we're going quickly and so travel at speeds that pedestrians find scary.

Cycling on the road is dangerous. An hour spent cycling on a road is 16 times more likely to get you killed than an hour driving in a car.

I cycled a lot when I was young but there was much less traffic on the  roads  then.  I bought a bike again when in my fifties but I never really felt safe except on back roads where there was little traffic.  I certainly wouldn't have the nerve to try it again now.  

Hi, I've been lurking for a few weeks as I'm undiagnosed and may not 'qualify' as sufficiently autistic!  This is something that drives me nuts though so I had to speak up. It was actually something I wanted to ask about when I felt 'qualified'. Hope people won't mind.

I'm in London, and have a job (for quite a few years now) that means I'm out walking on pavements for much of the day. In the last few years the number of people riding bikes on pavements has increased. I've been knocked several times (no injuries so far though). Almost daily I find myself dodging bikes, which is sometimes painful if my knees are bad that day. Sometimes I find myself jumping if I hear a bike behind now, then it turns out to be on the road. In theory I support cycling, but I'm getting to dread bikes.

I do point out to people it's illegal unless it's marked for bikes, but most people just say 'I know' or swear at me.  Hopefully I won't end up like Andrew Young (link with some upsetting content). Recently I told off a young lad for riding on the pavement. He did a little smile but didn't respond.  As he rode on past me I turned to look to see if he got off the pavement or not. As I did shouting broke out: him and a mate on foot had just mugged a woman!  I did give a description to the police (the station was about a 100 metres away!) but had to tell them I'm not good at faces.

Really though I don't blame the cyclists. Where there are lanes for cyclists they are often confusing. E.g. a lane will go along the road a bit, then up on a pavement, join a shared crossing (generally at a busy street where I really need to be thinking about avoiding cars as I cross, not bikes coming from behind/the side mounting the pavement!), then the lines are worn out so the bikes don't know where to go... I think in some cases people genuinely don't know that not all crossing are shared etc. Others probably think 'everyone does it'.

A lot of the cycle lanes are too narrow as well. Bikes need to ride well out from the curb: a lot of the lanes in London are so narrow they’d have to ride on the line to ride correctly. And that’s going to encourage drivers to feel entitled to crowd them.

If it was up to me I’d phase out onstreet parking, and use the space for cycle lanes. Somewhere like London most people really don’t need cars.

There is a campaign on this for blind people called Cycleyes. (I learnt about it from the woman in the video who I met on the bus!)

You might also like to look at this site which features really bad provision for cyclists (I love some of the ironic captions).

I (occasionally) cycle and live in an inner city urban enviroment and it seems to me to be common sense that the road is for vehicles and the pavement for pedestrians. Cycling on the road is not dangerous whereas you dont ride recklessly; cycling on pavements is inherantly dangerous.

recombinantsocks said:

In my experience it is not common to see an existing pavement converted to dual use. One thing that happens with anything like this is that pedestrians are often unaware of the dual use (no fault of their own, often the signage and differentiation is not obvious) and from the cyclists viewpoint it becomes a game of spot which pedestrian will step into your path.

There are attempts to do this properly and it seems there is, or was, a "cycle safety fund" that had cash to spend on proper conversions. There are some being implemented in Bristol at the moment and I am looking forward to having another bit of my route to work free of cars, buses.

I'm a pedestrian and car driver too so I see this from a lot of different angles and I sympathise with anyone who has had Longman's or Truecolors' experience of the inconsiderate faction.

Have either of you tried cycling?

I used to cycle many years ago. I didn't cycle on pavements, it just wasn't the done thing back then (1970s). I had a motorbike in the late 1970s and then a car. I've spent time in places where there are lot of cyclists and, yes, I've had problems with not knowing whether they are on my left or right behind me.

I do not want to demonise cyclists. I've seen bad cyclists but I've seen bad people amongst all road users. I'm all for the cyclists campaigning for dedicated cycle lanes. These are far better than cyclists being on the pavement and safer for them than being on the road.

One small gripe I have is that car drivers have to pass a test and get fines and penalty points for bad driving, whereas cyclists and pedestrians can be a complete menace and get off scot free.

In my experience it is not common to see an existing pavement converted to dual use. One thing that happens with anything like this is that pedestrians are often unaware of the dual use (no fault of their own, often the signage and differentiation is not obvious) and from the cyclists viewpoint it becomes a game of spot which pedestrian will step into your path.

There are attempts to do this properly and it seems there is, or was, a "cycle safety fund" that had cash to spend on proper conversions. There are some being implemented in Bristol at the moment and I am looking forward to having another bit of my route to work free of cars, buses. :-)

I'm a pedestrian and car driver too so I see this from a lot of different angles and I sympathise with anyone who has had Longman's or Truecolors' experience of the inconsiderate faction.

Have either of you tried cycling?

I consider all cyclists who use the pavement 'evil' cyclists.  I am deaf in one ear and while I can hear a bell I've no idea in which direction its coming from.  Also, I'm presently having to use a stick which tends to slow up my reactions and turning a corner to find a cyclist bearing down on me does nothing for my blood-pressure.

I've no experience of segregated pavements but to make them work both areas should surely be the width of a 'normal' pavement  and this would be difficult in most built up areas.

I cycle on pavements where it is allowed. It is still against the law to cycle on a non designated pavement and I follow this fairly meticulously. I haven't seen an example of a 1.5m shared path, that sounds bonkers to me. Can you post a picture somewhere?

I thought I was being balanced by talking about evil cyclists?

I'm not attacking cycling. I'm drawing attention to the increased "legal" presence of cyclists on pavements.

Do you cycle on pavements legally or otherwise. Are you arguing that your need to cycle allows you to cycle on pavements?

The problem I raised lies with the interpretation of segregated and unsegregated pavements. If the DfT Guidelines are followed, having a two metre wide lane for cyclists, and a two metre wide lane for cyclists could work. Not having shared walking and cycling on a pavement less than 3 metres wide might work.

But what is happening in many towns is that segregation is happening on pavements too narrow to segregate, and shared use it happening on pavements that are very narrow,

My concern was also that people on the spectrum might be adversely affected by this.

Notwithstanding that cycling might be beneficial to people on the spectrum, is it nevertheless a problem for people on the spectrum walking?

Ringing your bell when you are ten feet behind a pedestrian is fair enough. A lot of cyclists wait until they are practically touching the pedestrian before they ring.

If you don't believe me try this....get your spouse or a friend to ring the bell while you are standing right beside the front wheel. If it doesn't bother you maybe you don't have the sensory sensitivity problems of many people on the spectrum.

I knew posting this I risked getting "black and white thinking" like a total defence of cycling. I'm looking for reactions a little in between.

I'm a cyclist and I have Asperger's. There are two sides to this.

There are "evil" cyclists who ride dangerously fast and occasionally people are killed by cyclists. Cyclists are human, stupid, fallible etc and make mistakes. Pedestrians rights are protected too and generally, the law will side with the pedestrian.

A cyclist who rings his bell on approach is doing it for everyone's safety. Try and think, when you hear a cyclists bell, that this is actually a good cyclist rather than an evil cyclist. Bells are a legal requirement on all cycles and it is better to warn of our approach rather than have a pedestrian, unaware of our proximity, step into our path.

Cycling is good for you. It is good exercise and it also reduces traffic on the roads. Instead of sitting in a bus and fuming at the traffic you can cycle through a town in the fraction of the time it takes on the bus. I commute by bicycle it takes less than 15 minutes. On the rare occasion that I go on the bus it will take 45 minutes. I can't drive to work as there is no parking and it takes longer in any case.

Also, cycling is a good thing for ASD people because it is done in peace, on your own. You don't get abusive people talking to you all the way like sometimes happens on public transport, you have complete control over the whole process.