Legality of Cycle paths in Parallel with foot paths

Pinky

Legality of Cycle paths in Parallel with foot paths

Postby Pinky » 6 Aug 2005, 6:37pm

I am growing increasingly anti "cycle path" in UK.
If I cycle on the road, out of town, I know exactly how to behave on the road . I am also very much aware on how the general run of motorists behave ( and also how the d*ck heads -- you can hear them coming -- behave).
So what is my legal position when I am cycling on a marked cycle path and I am involved in an incident caused by a pedestrian obstructing my progress despite audible and visible warning -- it usually involves verbal abuse as well!

The reason I am raising this question is that I am sure that many cyclists (just as I do) put up with many minor injuries and incidents without recourse to seeking recompense. It is clearly time that conditions will not improve for the cyclist unles we take positive active in near every case.
One can only fight the litigation of large organisations by similar litigation -- anfd it applies to uninsured pedstrians who are at fault too!
By the way I can find not a single reference to cycling on Newsgroups -- now that is also strange considering that abomidable service we get on here.

Apologies for typos and "errorrrrrrs" as always.
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire
England

handallyingharry

Re:Legality of Cycle paths in Parallel with foot paths

Postby handallyingharry » 7 Aug 2005, 9:52am

You're good at "Whatifs" Pinky.
If you are on a cycle path and a
pedestrian causes you an accident
then take more care not to let it
happen again.
It may be safer for them as well
even so.

Handall

handallyingharry

Re:Legality of Cycle paths in Parallel with foot paths

Postby handallyingharry » 7 Aug 2005, 5:56pm

The spliut paths of which there are a few in the Bournemouth area are a problem, and I can
only say that I treat them merely as cycling permissive paths for pedestrians.

On my hand cranked trike I have to do the same on pavements everywhere. If I bounced somebody on a pavement (which as perambulator I have an equal right to be on)
I would still be personally liable to any claim of
damage from another user of the path, which I would or would not have to contest.

Not many people know how to make legal claim in such instances so it would have to be fairly severe for action to be taken, and even then
if somebody were convicted in county court,
it can be almost impossible to demand payment.

Who wants to get involved in such things?
Just care for all road users.

Handallying

Jon

Re:Legality of Cycle paths in Parallel with foot paths

Postby Jon » 8 Aug 2005, 9:20am

Pinky,

You are under no compulsion to use the cycle paths. If you feel you would be better off cycling in the road then do so. You are legally allowed to.

B

Re:Legality of Cycle paths in Parallel with foot paths

Postby B » 8 Aug 2005, 4:42pm

When I was living in Nottingham (2000/2001) there was at least one major road where cycle lane had been created by simply painting a line on the road edge of the pavement. This is fair enough except that this was a tree-lined street and every 10m or so was a a large mature tree in the middle of the cycle lane and as usual with trees which have been tarmaced right up to the base of the trunk the pavement was poorly surfaced and cracking.

I can't imagine that a council would allow a road with trees slap bang in the middle of it and think it was a shoddy attempt by the council to tick a box proving they had so many percent of roads with cycle lanes. But this one was impossible to use!

handallyingharry

Re:Legality of Cycle paths in Parallel with foot paths

Postby handallyingharry » 8 Aug 2005, 5:18pm

I think I shall have to urge body armour for Jon like the Motorcyclists often wear these days, and to excellent effect. Not just helmets for cyclists but Korean body armour. Now there's a thought!

The box ticking is an interesting idea, Pinky. I wonder whether it can be put to a test in any County council area?! These seaside resorts down here Bournemouth to Sidmouth are interesting coz if they want kids they do everything they can not to provide for
wheelchairs; no ramps, no lowering of the pavement; no bobbles nothing! and of course since it is harder for the cyclists to get onto
the pavement along the wheelchair bobble routes it is much easier to provide local laws against wicked pavement cyclists!

It is all horses for courses, or prams for pavements; I guess Eastbourne loves wheel chairs and the disabled, and Swanage and Weymouth hates them! The holiday market for the two latter is 3-13 year olds, and sandcastles.

Handallying