Scofflaw bicycling: Illegal but rational

[Wanlock Dod]

... someone cycling on a pavement with pedestrians on it can be a hazard, especially to the elderly...

I think that this is exactly the point that the original article was trying to make. Cyclists tend to use pavements because they perceive the roads to be too dangerous. Whilst there is a risk to other pavement users the overall risk is almost certainly lower because the cyclist has a lot less potential energy than a car, and will still probably come off worst in many crashes with pedestrians because they have more speed. It certainly seems to be normal for the reasons why people cycle on pavements to be ignored in complaining about them.

[Mick F]

My rationalisation is as follows:

You come across a street that is one way. It is very steep (we're talking SW England) and the one way is uphill. So it can lawfully only be cycled uphill. There are many streets like this in SW England! You know that this could not have been intentional so you make the best of it and cycle down it (with care) the "wrong way".

Truro.
The road comes down from the station, then the junction before the Wig and Pen pub there's a No Entry and traffic is sent up the hill.
I got there on the bike some time back, rather tired, and was saddened by yet another hill .............. and one forced on me. Granted, it's not steep, but I wanted to carry on downhill to Lemon Quay.
The sign says Busses Only without any info on cycling.
Like the man I am, I turned left.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.26365 ... 312!8i6656

[Wanlock Dod]

... On the other hand I saw a bloke cycling at about 15mph this morning, on a pavement and with no more than a couple of feet between his bars and the garden entrances he was passing. With the shrubs in the gardens and the gate pillars he could not see that an elderly person or a child was not about to step out into his path. He could have cycled safely there, with a bit more care, but plainly it hadn't occurred to him what might go wrong.

Surely in this instance what might go wrong is that the end of the cyclists handlebars catches somebody emerging and the result is most likely worst for the cyclist, especially if they are doing 15 mph. There a lots of complaints about dangerous pavement cycling, but not so many serious incidents caused. Keeping the focus on dangerous cyclists helps us to conveniently avoid the fact that most of society believes that it is far too dangerous to cycle on the road.

[pwa]

... On the other hand I saw a bloke cycling at about 15mph this morning, on a pavement and with no more than a couple of feet between his bars and the garden entrances he was passing. With the shrubs in the gardens and the gate pillars he could not see that an elderly person or a child was not about to step out into his path. He could have cycled safely there, with a bit more care, but plainly it hadn't occurred to him what might go wrong.

Surely in this instance what might go wrong is that the end of the cyclists handlebars catches somebody emerging and the result is most likely worst for the cyclist, especially if they are doing 15 mph. There a lots of complaints about dangerous pavement cycling, but not so many serious incidents caused. Keeping the focus on dangerous cyclists helps us to conveniently avoid the fact that most of society believes that it is far too dangerous to cycle on the road.

I had an elderly relative who died from complications following a broken femur sustained by falling at home, onto a carpeted floor. I have heard of other elderly people dying after a fall, and they fall easily. A not particularly vigorous nudge from handlebars would do it. That is why I say the elderly are particularly at risk, and my mother (84) feels very nervous if a bike comes close. She suffers psychological harm even without being hit.

[mjr]

I had an elderly relative who died from complications following a broken femur sustained by falling at home, onto a carpeted floor. I have heard of other elderly people dying after a fall, and they fall easily. A not particularly vigorous nudge from handlebars would do it. That is why I say the elderly are particularly at risk, and my mother (84) feels very nervous if a bike comes close. She suffers psychological harm even without being hit.

And like Wanlock Dod points out, the above message is full of criticism of cyclists using pavements illegally but completely devoid of any criticism of the anti-social motorists who have dominated the adjacent roads and created that phenomenon, or the substandard highways engineers who have enabled them, as usual.

[pwa]

I had an elderly relative who died from complications following a broken femur sustained by falling at home, onto a carpeted floor. I have heard of other elderly people dying after a fall, and they fall easily. A not particularly vigorous nudge from handlebars would do it. That is why I say the elderly are particularly at risk, and my mother (84) feels very nervous if a bike comes close. She suffers psychological harm even without being hit.

And like Wanlock Dod points out, the above message is full of criticism of cyclists using pavements illegally but completely devoid of any criticism of the anti-social motorists who have dominated the adjacent roads and created that phenomenon, or the substandard highways engineers who have enabled them, as usual.

To get my full view of the matter you have to also read my earlier posts on this thread, where I agreed with R2 that there is no problem with cycling on a pedestrian-free pavement beside a dual carriageway. I offered my example (witnessed this morning) of poor pavement cycling to illustrate that there is a range, from the understandable / acceptable to the irresponsible / antisocial. It was only my example of the latter that drew comment so that is what I end up talking about. And I did say that the irresponsible cyclist could have ridden on the same pavement safely but didn't. A bit further out from the garden gates, a bit slower ....

[mjr]

To get my full view of the matter you have to also read my earlier posts on this thread, where I agreed with R2 that there is no problem with cycling on a pedestrian-free pavement beside a dual carriageway. [...]

Your earlier posts also seem completely devoid of any criticism of the anti-social motorists who have dominated the adjacent roads and created that phenomenon, or the substandard highways engineers who have enabled them.

[thirdcrank]

... Surely in this instance what might go wrong is that the end of the cyclists handlebars catches somebody emerging and the result is most likely worst for the cyclist, especially if they are doing 15 mph. There a lots of complaints about dangerous pavement cycling, but not so many serious incidents caused. Keeping the focus on dangerous cyclists helps us to conveniently avoid the fact that most of society believes that it is far too dangerous to cycle on the road.

Here's a recent thread where the pedestrian was quite badly hurt.

viewtopic.php?p=1218470#p1218470

I'd agree that that a lot of pavement cycling is caused by fear of danger on the road. A difficult choice for the individual but from a wider campaigning perspective, appearing to condone it has been a big mistake. It's too easily portrayed as humbug and by blurring the lines, does nothing to improve conditions for cyclists anywhere. When Blunkett brought things to something of a head by extending the fixed penalty system to this offence and empowering his very own PCSO's to do the enforcing, organisations like the CTC should have been ferocious in their demands that conditions for cycling should be improved. Putting this in its historical context, this was during the era of both the Notional Cycling Strategy and Blair promising (aspiring? ) to be "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime." Would it have made an difference? I don't know. I do believe that distorting Paul Boateng's weazel words has done cyclists no favours at all.

[pwa]

To get my full view of the matter you have to also read my earlier posts on this thread, where I agreed with R2 that there is no problem with cycling on a pedestrian-free pavement beside a dual carriageway. [...]

Your earlier posts also seem completely devoid of any criticism of the anti-social motorists who have dominated the adjacent roads and created that phenomenon, or the substandard highways engineers who have enabled them.

I am happy to oblige and say some bits of road are hostile to cyclists and that does create a push towards the pavement. Are you ready to acknowledge that some pavement cycling is done in a substandard way?

[Wanlock Dod]

Are you ready to acknowledge that some pavement cycling is done in a substandard way?

I would certainly agree that some cycling is done in a substandard way, and that may be especially so when it comes to pavements. However, if we really want to tackle pavement cycling then we will need to address its causes, and focusing on cyclist danger is quiet the opposite of that. I'm sure you'll find plenty of cries about the need to restrain dangerous cyclists but there is rarely a call to restrain the current weapon of choice of terrorists.

[Audax67]

... someone cycling on a pavement with pedestrians on it can be a hazard, especially to the elderly...

I'm "elderly"* and I'd be the one on the bike. But I am of course courteous and considerate as befits my august years. Cultured, too: I only shout "Oi!" in Classical Greek.

Funny thing is that around here most urban cycling paths are on the pavement, with all the ills that that implies. Cycling lanes on the road are levelled with road-rolling engines, those on pavements are levelled by a council chimp with a coal shovel and a hangover. The latter are usually compulsory otherwise nobody would use them, and we usually defy the law by staying on the road.

* if fact, according to that well-known tabloid the Old Testament, I should be dead.

[pwa]

Are you ready to acknowledge that some pavement cycling is done in a substandard way?

I would certainly agree that some cycling is done in a substandard way, and that may be especially so when it comes to pavements. However, if we really want to tackle pavement cycling then we will need to address its causes, and focusing on cyclist danger is quiet the opposite of that. I'm sure you'll find plenty of cries about the need to restrain dangerous cyclists but there is rarely a call to restrain the current weapon of choice of terrorists.

I'd like to do both. I can understand some cyclists in some circumstances resorting to pavements, but I want them to be careful when they do. Some are. Some aren't.

[reohn2]

I know situations like that and, yes, no problem. On the other hand I saw a bloke cycling at about 15mph this morning, on a pavement and with no more than a couple of feet between his bars and the garden entrances he was passing. With the shrubs in the gardens and the gate pillars he could not see that an elderly person or a child was not about to step out into his path. He could have cycled safely there, with a bit more care, but plainly it hadn't occurred to him what might go wrong.

Agreed there are some idiots at large amongst us,the term 'the brains of a goldfish', I find myself uttering at times

[millimole]

The latter are usually compulsory otherwise nobody would use them, and we usually defy the law by staying on the road.

I'm not sure where in the UK I'd find a cycle path that it is compulsory for cyclists to use (Humber & Severn Bridges ?)

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly using hovercraft full of eels.

[Ben@Forest]

I'd like to do both. I can understand some cyclists in some circumstances resorting to pavements, but I want them to be careful when they do. Some are. Some aren't.

A good few years ago I was walking down Ashby-de-la-Zouch High St (well away from my normal manor) on the pavement. A bloke on some breed of mountain bike was powering up it and was skittling pedestrians like ninepins, they were jumping out of the way. He had the face of a lout and an expression which said something I wouldn't be allowed to repeat here. His bike, dress, actions and demeanour said to me 'bloke on a bike' rather than 'cyclist' - a chestnut which has often been discussed here. But he wouldn't have been thinking about discussing cycling manners on a forum like this.