Cyclists on pavements Options

[JeffG]

I couldn't find a relevant topic to post this rant in, so here goes. Although I expect this has been touched upon in one of our many ramblings around a completely different topic

Today I was driving north on the ring road towards the King's Road roundabout, when I noticed an adult couple on bikes cycling south along the pavement on the left hand side. They rounded the corner into Cheap Street, crossed the road towards the station access road, then carried on, on the pavement down to the station.

Now that access road is hardly nose to tail with fast moving traffic, so what on earth were they thinking of?

I'd be interested to hear our friendly Police Ossifer's opinion and what she might have done if she'd been standing on the other side of the station approach...

I can just about accept small children on the pavement for safety reasons (though they should be trained to ride safely on the road by their parents), but I would like to see the Police throw the book at teenagers and adults doing the same.

[Sarah]

What's an Ossifer when it's at home?

[JeffG]

What's an Ossifer when it's at home?

Sarah, it's a J O K E. ossie - officer - get it?

[GMR]

This is a bugbear of mine; cycle paths. To be honest the whole things is a ball of confusion. At one time it was against the law for cyclists to be on pavements. Now – in some cases – we (as in cyclists) share the paths with pedestrians’, which is an accident waiting to happen. They are too lazy to put in proper cycle lanes and prefer just to paint a line down the middle of a path and say, ‘here you are, your cycle path.’ It is wrong. Not all cycle paths have lines though so people are confused which paths they can use. Personally I won’t use them because I think they are dangerous.

[Sarah]

Sarah, it's a J O K E. ossie - officer - get it?

Oh right, not one I've heard before.

[Strafin]

I'm happy for cyclists to be on pavements, especially quieter ones where there aren't too many pedestrians. I am probably in a minority, but I think they get in the way of cars when on the road but (so long as they are sensible), are not a problem on the pavement.

[ossy1]

I know that part of the footpath north is cycle route/shared path which I use myself. However i'm not sure about the bit I think your refering to. I usually come under the police station roundabout then cycle through to cheap street and join the cycle path at the entrance to the train station.

I'm sure if I said i'd give someone a ticket for cycling on the pavement someone would tell me that I should spend my time catching proper criminals etc etc.
I couldnt say what I'd do until I saw it happening then I would deal with it when present to take into account all facts. But then I have been subject to abuse whilst cycling on a cycle path!!!

[Sarah]

I'm happy for cyclists to be on pavements, especially quieter ones where there aren't too many pedestrians. I am probably in a minority, but I think they get in the way of cars when on the road but (so long as they are sensible), are not a problem on the pavement.

I'm inclinded to agree with you, I get quite anxious passing them on the road as they seem so vulnerable, especially when they weave about.

[Hugh Saskin]

When I was a child growing up, far far away, there was a classic late 1930s 'arterial road' some miles away which in the 1950s still encorporated cycle paths. Come the early 1960s the householders who fronted those paths had become affluent enough to afford cars - say an old Ford Pop or Truimph 8. Guess where they parked them? Parking restrictions were not enforced and, as a result, the paths became useless and were removed. I don't believe in them now, unless we are talking about the likes of Milton Keynes, but do believe in cyclists being able to use footpaths, subject to their excercsing due diligence. Otherwise, they must use the public highway with all the attendant risks that poses in busy areas.

[GMR]

I couldnt say what I'd do until I saw it happening then I would deal with it when present to take into account all facts. But then I have been subject to abuse whilst cycling on a cycle path!!!

You and me both; pedestrians don't like cyclists on the footpaths - even thought it is a shared one - and you get a lot of abuse. That is why I don't use them.

[GMR]

When I was a child growing up, far far away, there was a classic late 1930s 'arterial road' some miles away which in the 1950s still encorporated cycle paths. Come the early 1960s the householders who fronted those paths had become affluent enough to afford cars - say an old Ford Pop or Truimph 8. Guess where they parked them? Parking restrictions were not enforced and, as a result, the paths became useless and were removed. I don't believe in them now, unless we are talking about the likes of Milton Keynes, but do believe in cyclists being able to use footpaths, subject to their excercising due diligence. Otherwise, they must use the public highway with all the attendant risks that poses in busy areas.

I bet when you were growing up people couldn't afford cars so it was either horse and cart or cycle. And I doubt in those days Newbury had even seen a car. In fact I would image that Newbury was so far from civilisation that they probably were still sharing this town with Neanderthals.... and by the looks of it some are still here

[Hugh Saskin]

I bet when you were growing up people couldn't afford cars so it was either horse and cart or cycle. And I doubt in those days Newbury had even seen a car. In fact I would image that Newbury was so far from civilisation that they probably were still sharing this town with Neanderthals.... and by the looks of it some are still here

Only our coal was delivered by horse and cart, as it happens. But I do remember as a child being a frequent guest at the USAF HQ in Ruislip - they even had chicken in the basket there - how's that for sophistication?, cheap booze (although my dad would have been more able to comment on that), candy and, of course, motor cars - loads of them. A 1950s heaven - only the Brits cycled in those parts

[GMR]

Only our coal was delivered by horse and cart, as it happens. But I do remember as a child being a frequent guest at the USAF HQ in Ruislip - they even had chicken in the basket there - how's that for sophistication?, cheap booze (although my dad would have been more able to comment on that), candy and, of course, motor cars - loads of them. A 1950s heaven - only the Brits cycled in those parts

On a serious note and pertaining to your post; I used to live in Northwood hills and worked in South Ruislip (and South Harrow... erm, and Northwood)... off Victory Road. Are you from around that area? My first motorbike was purchased in Harrow on the Hill.

[JeffG]

I know that part of the footpath north is cycle route/shared path which I use myself.

Interesting - I'd never have known that. I'd have expected to see a dividing line, though may have missed it driving past.

GMR - you said it used to be against the law to cycle on pavements. I thought it still was. Though I guess you were referring to those with shared access.

[spartacus]

Now – in some cases – we (as in cyclists) share the paths with pedestrians’, which is an accident waiting to happen.

People who speed in their cars, who undertake on the motorway, who overtake on blind bends, who drive with their minds in neutral while chattering away on the mobile... THEY are SERIOUS 'accidents waiting to happen'. And thankfully they are in a relative minority of road users.

Cyclists who ride on the pavement in such a manner that they are 'an accident waiting to happen' are in a tiny minority. The majority of responsible cyclists decide to use the pavement only where they feel that they are competing too closely with truckers and cars and feel that using the pavement is a safer bet. The majority wouldn't dream of speeding past pedestrians and wouldn't consider going much quicker than snail's pace if the footway was busy.

I know I've seen a couple of cyclists using the A34 over the last few months (which they're entitled to do) and thought "THAT is an accident waiting to happen... they should get off the road and start using the pavement before a passing truck turns them to mince..."

I've attended a few lorry versus cyclist fatal RTAs over the years... believe me it's not a pretty sight. If a cyclist was to argue that they felt safer on the pavement provided they cycled responsibly who am I to force them into the road?

[GMR]

Interesting - I'd never have known that. I'd have expected to see a dividing line, though may have missed it driving past.

GMR - you said it used to be against the law to cycle on pavements. I thought it still was. Though I guess you were referring to those with shared access.

Yes, it used to be... but I don't think any more or that the police are not that bothered. Now that the majority of paths are shared with cyclists people are not sure anymore and just use all the paths as cycle & pedestrian paths. I don't think any cyclists should be on the pedestrian paths. They are an accident waiting to happen. In fact somebody was killed by a cyclist because he hit a pedestrian.

[GMR]

People who speed in their cars, who undertake on the motorway, who overtake on blind bends, who drive with their minds in neutral while chattering away on the mobile... THEY are SERIOUS 'accidents waiting to happen'. And thankfully they are in a relative minority of road users.

Cyclists who ride on the pavement in such a manner that they are 'an accident waiting to happen' are in a tiny minority. The majority of responsible cyclists decide to use the pavement only where they feel that they are competing too closely with truckers and cars and feel that using the pavement is a safer bet. The majority wouldn't dream of speeding past pedestrians and wouldn't consider going much quicker than snail's pace if the footway was busy.

I know I've seen a couple of cyclists using the A34 over the last few months (which they're entitled to do) and thought "THAT is an accident waiting to happen... they should get off the road and start using the pavement before a passing truck turns them to mince..."

I've attended a few lorry versus cyclist fatal RTAs over the years... believe me it's not a pretty sight. If a cyclist was to argue that they felt safer on the pavement provided they cycled responsibly who am I to force them into the road?

I hear what you are saying but I just don't agree on them. My son who used to cycles on the footpath was cycling down Kiln Road hill when a motorist – who was half-parked on the footpath/ cycle path opened her door just as he was going by and went straight into the door; he was seriously injured. He now walks to work or goes by bus... he lives in Thatcham. When I've cycled on footpaths in the past I've had a lot of abuse from pedestrians. Personally I prefer to take my chances on the road.

[JeffG]

Just for clarification:

Highway Code section 62:

Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you.

[Law HA 1835 sect 72]

Highway Code section 64:

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

[Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129]

The 'unsegregated' bit is news to me. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

[Anon2]

Yes, it used to be... but I don't think any more or that the police are not that bothered. Now that the majority of paths are shared with cyclists people are not sure anymore and just use all the paths as cycle & pedestrian paths. I don't think any cyclists should be on the pedestrian paths. They are an accident waiting to happen. In fact somebody was killed by a cyclist because he hit a pedestrian.

This is still an offence of 'Wanton and furious cycling' under the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 and prosecutions under this Act have been carried out recently, so the Police and Courts are bothered.

As a Keen cyclist both for leisure and the commute to work I find it almost impossible not to cycle on a footpath of some kind, if only we could have the Dutch system of cycleways!!! And with regard to the dual use paths these are frequently ignored regarding which side to walk on by pedestrians forcing cyclists to use the incorrect side, frustrating for all concerned.

[GMR]

This is still an offence of 'Wanton and furious cycling' under the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 and prosecutions under this Act have been carried out recently, so the Police and Courts are bothered.

As a Keen cyclist both for leisure and the commute to work I find it almost impossible not to cycle on a footpath of some kind, if only we could have the Dutch system of cycleways!!! And with regard to the dual use paths these are frequently ignored regarding which side to walk on by pedestrians forcing cyclists to use the incorrect side, frustrating for all concerned.

Which is the correct side on cycle & footpaths? Even I don't know that. People cycle and walk all over the place.

I agree on the dutch system or more cycle lanes.

I've never heard of anybody being prosecuted.