Cyclists on pavements Options

[Chesapeake]

Soooo.... If only segregated paths are marked, how does the cyclist know which are joint use unsegregated and which are footpaths for pedestrians only?

And, perhaps more importantly, how does the pedestrian know?

Ok, not sure what the issue is here but I thought it was being made very clear what the situation is with cycle paths/pedestrian only paths/dual use paths! The clever council people have made it very simple for cyclists by putting signs up (or do they need to make it even simpler)! I am not a cyclist and I am not even a pedestrian very often but.....

1) Paths at the side of roads should be considered pedestrian only paths if there is no signage to say otherwise

2) Paths at the side of roads should be considered dual use (bicycles and pedestrians) if there are yellow lines painted down the middle of them and there are signs saying bicycles AND pedestrians.

3) If you are a pedestrian and you get hit by a cyclist on a pavement and there is no signage or yellow lines to say dual use and the cyclist is over 14yrs of age then call the Police because a crime has been committed!

4) If you are a pedestrian and you get hit by a cyclist on a pavement but you had noticed whilst walking that there was a yellow line down the middle of the pavement and you kept stepping on a yellow line picture of a bicycle then you have been walking in the wrong lane of a dual use pavement and the accident is possibly your fault as you were on the wrong side of the pavement

Does it really need to be much clearer than that or have we all lost our marbles?

[Chesapeake]

Ok, not sure what the issue is here but I thought it was being made very clear what the situation is with cycle paths/pedestrian only paths/dual use paths! The clever council people have made it very simple for cyclists by putting signs up (or do they need to make it even simpler)! I am not a cyclist and I am not even a pedestrian very often but.....

1) Paths at the side of roads should be considered pedestrian only paths if there is no signage to say otherwise

2) Paths at the side of roads should be considered dual use (bicycles and pedestrians) if there are yellow lines painted down the middle of them and there are signs saying bicycles AND pedestrians.

3) If you are a pedestrian and you get hit by a cyclist on a pavement and there is no signage or yellow lines to say dual use and the cyclist is over 14yrs of age then call the Police because a crime has been committed!

4) If you are a pedestrian and you get hit by a cyclist on a pavement but you had noticed whilst walking that there was a yellow line down the middle of the pavement and you kept stepping on a yellow line picture of a bicycle then you have been walking in the wrong lane of a dual use pavement and the accident is possibly your fault as you were on the wrong side of the pavement

Does it really need to be much clearer than that or have we all lost our marbles?

Are you people car drivers? If you are then you might also be the drivers who keep missing the signs at the side of the road warning you about BOLLARDS ahead!!!

[JeffG]

Firstly, you could have edited your first post instead of double-posting.

Secondly, you couldn't have read my post, which was about how to tell the difference between unmarked unsegregated shared paths and pedestrian-only paths.

[Chesapeake]

Firstly, you could have edited your first post instead of double-posting.

Secondly, you couldn't have read my post, which was about how to tell the difference between unmarked unsegregated shared paths and pedestrian-only paths.

Firstly, I decided that I would not just edit my post but add another post regarding the BOLLARDS comment to add strength to the comment rather than it being swallowed up by my original long post. Also, it is my right to do it that way as this is a free country and I have committed no crime by doing so. Are you feeling a little bit tetchy about the bollards comment? Have you got a little bittle confession JeffG? Are you one of the guilty ones who had a liddle biddle bump into a bollard?

Secondly, paths and pavements have signs at the beginnning of them if they are anything other than pedestrian only. So, if it is an unmarked, unsegregated shared path there WILL be signage of some kind at the beginning of the path. I am assuming that you are talking about paths other than tarmacadamed pavements that we see at the side of roads.

Thirdly, the line down the middle of the pavement and the bicycle line drawing on the pavement are in white, not yellow as I originally said (should I have just edited it JeffG?

[GMR]

Ok, not sure what the issue is here but I thought it was being made very clear what the situation is with cycle paths/pedestrian only paths/dual use paths! The clever council people have made it very simple for cyclists by putting signs up (or do they need to make it even simpler)! I am not a cyclist and I am not even a pedestrian very often but.....

1) Paths at the side of roads should be considered pedestrian only paths if there is no signage to say otherwise

2) Paths at the side of roads should be considered dual use (bicycles and pedestrians) if there are yellow lines painted down the middle of them and there are signs saying bicycles AND pedestrians.

3) If you are a pedestrian and you get hit by a cyclist on a pavement and there is no signage or yellow lines to say dual use and the cyclist is over 14yrs of age then call the Police because a crime has been committed!

4) If you are a pedestrian and you get hit by a cyclist on a pavement but you had noticed whilst walking that there was a yellow line down the middle of the pavement and you kept stepping on a yellow line picture of a bicycle then you have been walking in the wrong lane of a dual use pavement and the accident is possibly your fault as you were on the wrong side of the pavement

Does it really need to be much clearer than that or have we all lost our marbles?

Morning,

As you said; you are not a cyclist. In theory it is easy, but you need to educate the public - who regard the footpaths (even cyclist designated ones) as their own - and some cyclists need to be educated as well. As I have said many times before, because people are not adhering to the rules or using common sense then I won’t use them. Not only that, and as I have pointed out (also), that my son was riding down the cycle path (on the correct side) and a car was half parked across a cycle path and as he was going by she opened the door and he was seriously injured. So not only pedestrians need to understand your ‘simple’ explanation but also car drivers. Can you see that happening any time soon?

[GMR]

Secondly, paths and pavements have signs at the beginnning of them if they are anything other than pedestrian only. So, if it is an unmarked, unsegregated shared path there WILL be signage of some kind at the beginning of the path. I am assuming that you are talking about paths other than tarmacadamed pavements that we see at the side of roads.

Hi Chesapeake,

'Tarmacadam pavements are actually cycle lanes (if that is what you are talking about?).

You say that 'there WILL be signet of some kind'; actually that is not true. Some cycle paths have no signet at all of any kind.

[JeffG]

Are you feeling a little bit tetchy about the bollards comment? Have you got a little bittle confession JeffG? Are you one of the guilty ones who had a liddle biddle bump into a bollard?

Huh? Actually, no to each of the three questions.

And I made my comment because your reply was about divided paths with lines painted on them versus pedestrian-only paths, and no mention of unsegregated paths, which was what my question was about. So, yes, "it does really need to be much clearer than that".

[Chesapeake]

Ok JeffG I seriously don't think that you're awake yet. Did you have a late night last night? If you could go and get yourself a nice strong cup of coffee drink it then read the rest of this post. Please?

Firstly, I decided that I would not just edit my post but add another post regarding the BOLLARDS comment to add strength to the comment rather than it being swallowed up by my original long post. Also, it is my right to do it that way as this is a free country and I have committed no crime by doing so. Are you feeling a little bit tetchy about the bollards comment? Have you got a little bittle confession JeffG? Are you one of the guilty ones who had a liddle biddle bump into a bollard?

Secondly, paths and pavements have signs at the beginnning of them if they are anything other than pedestrian only. So, if it is an unmarked, unsegregated shared path there WILL be signage of some kind at the beginning of the path. I am assuming that you are talking about paths other than tarmacadamed pavements that we see at the side of roads.

Thirdly, the line down the middle of the pavement and the bicycle line drawing on the pavement are in white, not yellow as I originally said (should I have just edited it JeffG?

Huh? Actually, no to each of the three questions.

And I made my comment because your reply was about divided paths with lines painted on them versus pedestrian-only paths, and no mention of unsegregated paths, which was what my question was about. So, yes, "it does really need to be much clearer than that".

Maybe you need glasses because as you can see I clearly mention the unsegregated paths.

[Chesapeake]

Morning,

As you said; you are not a cyclist. In theory it is easy, but you need to educate the public - who regard the footpaths (even cyclist designated ones) as their own - and some cyclists need to be educated also. As I have said many times before because people are not adhering to the rules or common sense I won’t use them. Not only that, and as I have pointed out (also), that my son was riding down the cycle path (on the correct side) and a car was half parked across a cycle path and as he was going by she opened the door and he was seriously injured. So not only pedestrians need to understand your ‘simple’ explanation but also car drivers. Can you see that happening any time soon?

It seems that we are in agreement then? And no, I cannot see it happening soon.

[GMR]

It seems that we are in agreement then? And no, I cannot see it happening soon.

It is always nice to be in agreement, but, sadly, it kills off the debate. However, we might get some kind soul who is willing to put a spanner in the works.

[Chesapeake]

Hi Chesapeake,

'Tarmacadam pavements are actually cycle lanes (if that is what you are talking about?).

You say that 'there WILL be signet of some kind'; actually that is not true. Some cycle paths have no signet at all of any kind.

My dearest GMR you don't seem to be on the ball today either. I did not make any mention of signet at all. Are you talking about baby swans or may be the below definition :-

NounSingular
signet
Plural
signets


signet (plural signets)

an object (especially a ring) formerly used to impress a picture into the sealing wax of a document as a proof of its origin
c.1600: William Shakespeare, Hamlet - I had my father's signet in my purse, / Which was the model of that Danish seal;

I don't understand what baby swans or seals have to do with it. Have I missed something? Do you know something i do not? Please advise?

I also don't understand what you mean by this comment.....'Tarmacadam pavements are actually cycle lanes (if that is what you are talking about?). What do you mean tarmacadam pavements are actually cycle lanes? When was that made law? Or are you being ironic? Or do I need to go aaway and make myself a very strong cup of coffee and start again?

[JeffG]

Oh dear! Yes I am fully awake thanks, since your first mention of unsegregated paths was made in a post (#44) after my comment (#43) about your first post (#41). (If you don't believe me, go and read #41 again.)

So why quote a post back at me, that you hadn't posted yet? My crystal ball is in for repair at the moment.

[Chesapeake]

Oh dear! Yes I am fully awake thanks, since your first mention of unsegregated paths was made in a post (#44) after my comment (#43) about your first post (#41). (If you don't believe me, go and read #41 again.)

So why quote a post back at me, that you hadn't posted yet? My crystal ball is in for repair at the moment.

Yep. Guilty as charged. I am th one in need of the strong cup of coffee. Sorry JeffG. I am the liddle biddle person who got it wrong. Will try harder next time!

God I can be SO stupid sometimes! Grrrrr

[JeffG]

Glad that's all sorted then!

[GMR]

Yep. Guilty as charged. I am th one in need of the strong cup of coffee. Sorry JeffG. I am the liddle biddle person who got it wrong. Will try harder next time!

God I can be SO stupid sometimes! Grrrrr

It is a pity that it wasn't me that was having a go at you; if it had been you'd have had Sarah and Iommi charging in to defend your honour.... but as it wasn't, then no such luck.

Maybe I can have a go at you on another post for the white knights to come charging in

[Sarah]

It is a pity that it wasn't me that was having a go at you; if it had been you'd have had Sarah and Iommi charging in to defend your honour.... but as it wasn't, then no such luck.

Maybe I can have a go at you on another post for the white knights to come charging in

Cast your mind back GMR to when I first joined. I made the foolish mistake of thinking two members were trying to wind you up and said so. I'm a little older and wiser these days, and when I post it's either my opinion on the thread, or because I feel a post is unfair.

[GMR]

Cast your mind back GMR to when I first joined. I made the foolish mistake of thinking two members were trying to wind you up and said so. I'm a little older and wiser these days, and when I post it's either my opinion on the thread, or because I feel a post is unfair.

I can cast my mind back a lot further than that, but glad you are going to right wrongs on here.

[Sarah]

I can cast my mind back a lot further than that, but glad you are going to right wrongs on here.

My favourite bit of Dad's Army was Mainwaring saying to Pike 'You stupid boy'

[GMR]

My favourite bit of Dad's Army was Mainwaring saying to Pike 'You stupid boy'

Yes... I enjoyed that as well. They don't make them like that anymore

[Biker1]

There are a lot of laws that haven’t been repealed just quietly buried. Did you know that it was illegal to eat mince pies at Christmas (a law passed by Cromwell) or that the English flag can’t be flown outside you house; all those laws are still in existence. We just ignore them.

Are you saying that just because we don't agree with a law we just ignore it?