There has been a concerted effort by West Berks Council in line with the message handed down from Central government to get us on our bikes and over the past ten years, this has meant an increase in cycle riding by 22%.

There is a down side to this however which is that cycle related accidents resulting in reporetd injuries has shown a 34% increase over the same period.

The question that springs to mind is that if the accident rate is increasing, is this a safe mode of transport for us in West Berks. Cars and HGV's pack the roads around the area which invariably are not wide enough to accomodate the additional cycles safely despite the green lanes and crazy roundabout markings that seem to offer safety. In a few instances these markings actually increase the risk, especially when cyclists automatically assume that if they are on a green lane they have right of way.

I'm not sure what the answer is but when planning applications require one cycle store position for every bedroom and offer vouchers towards cycle purchase, the statistics can only get worse .

yet we still get a rabid screeches for cyclists to get off the empty pavements and ride on the roads.............

It would be more helpful to understand what type of cycling injuries occur. I suspect many don't involve other road users.

There's not enough detail in the OP say whether there is an underlying increase in the cycle accident rate, or whether there is just a systematic error in the measurement of the rate due to the accuracy with which cycling incidence is measured (it might be measured by journey and people are cycling further, or they might have counted the number of bikes passing a given point which has seen a disproportionately large increase is cycling), or a change in the way cycle accidents are reported, or simply the natural variation in the statistics of small numbers. A change in the underlying accident rate is possible if less experienced riders are taking to the roads, or if disproportionately more journeys are being made on more dangerous roads, or if roads have become more dangerous for cyclists, but the headline figure alone doesn't support the conclusion or the suggestion that the accident rate will continue to increase. Is there more analysis somewhere?

This thread will only go well......

No, the point is that the LAW states that cycling on the pavement is illegal.
Either change the law or enforce it- one of the two.
(By the way, the pavements I see cyclists riding on at an alarmingly fast rate are NOT empty of pedestrians.)

I prefer policing by discretion in this case. Riding on the pavement, like speeding on a motorway, doesn't always carry the same danger level.


It is rare that I see a cyclist on a pavement behaving in a way that I think is reckless.

I ride on the pavement if rising on the road is unsafe and there in no cycle path. I have never once been stopped.

How do you decide when riding in the proper place would be unsafe? If you feel unsafe, then perhaps it's time to put the bike away.

You should try riding along hambridge land in the rush hour or between burger king and sainsburys, much easier to go on the pavement. Never caused any issues or had any complaints.

It is a fact the roads are not safe. All things being equal, a cyclist will come to less harm riding on a path. Saying that, I try to stay on the road as much as possible, but there are times when a path seems the best option for everyone. Hambridge Road for instance, or the Burger King Roundabout. When I cycle on the path, I always show consideration for other path users.

Finally the voice of reason!!!
Plus cyclists on Hambridge road almost inevitably cause HUGE tailbacks and there are hardly any foot pedestrians. The path and grassy area is wide enough to accommodate for both.

I like that phrase policing by discretion, but one over zealous copper could upset the balance. I would have to agree that cycles and cars don't mix and as pointed out, Hambridge Road is a good example. My preference as a motorist is that the cycles should always be on the path and that they should only be punished if they ride recklessly. I'm afraid though that I can't define 'riding recklessly'.

My Preference is that roads are wide enough for a cars and cyclists.

What twaddle! It's the drivers of motor vehicles that cause tailbacks: they take up all the space. One more cyclist equals one less motor vehicle. Therefore every time you see a cyclist be thankful. If it weren't for them, you'd be even further back in the queue.

On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. The then Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:

“The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”

Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by ‘Community Support Officers’ and wardens.

“CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

On the Hambridge Road, there is often a tailback because the average cyclist can't reach the 30 mph speed limit and cars can't safely overtake.

Cars need drivers. it's the driver who makes the decision to overtake or not.
Drivers cannot safely overtake because motor vehicles are coming the other way.
The speed limit is not a target.
If you're in a motor vehicle and you're caught in a tailback which you allege is cause by a cyclist, blame yourself. You're taking up more space than the cyclist. No-one is forcing you to drive. Don't you see this?

Lol talk about tyranical!
You are wrong on so many levels. The amount of times I've been stuck behind a bicyclist on Hambridge Road, I've lost track of! And no it's not the fault of the car, it's the fault of the bicycle. There's no "alleging" in it - it's merely a fact.

Space taken up is not proportionate to the speed travelled, otherwise it would take a lot longer than 7 hours to fly to New York.

But you continue to cause a pool of salty liquid in your underpants, and arrive at work sweaty and smelling of B.O. I'll arrive with a bit of Bill Withers on the radio, in an air conditioned 18 degrees, smelling of eu de toilette.
I do not have an issue with bicylists on the road. My issue is when those bicyclists will not use an empty pavement when they are causing a tailback.

A bicycle is about 2 foot wide with ride on it. An average car 6 ft wide. Hambridge road is, I would estimate, 14-16ft wide, if that. It's enough of a squeeze when a lorry is coming down the road! In rush hour a single cylist causing traffic to tail back at 10-15mph is selfish. Don't you see this?

No, but to drive slower will be less fuel efficient and will increase travelling time by up to 50% or more.


No-one is forcing you to cycle.

Try chilling out, there is no need to go as fast as possible for every driving minute.

BTW, if you get to work smelling of BO, then you didn't shower yesterday. BO is caused by stale sweat, not fresh.

Good comment. Every day I see people so impatient for the sake of a few seconds gained, only for poor driving to then take that gain away. We do not have the road environment that makes the attempt to rush worthwhile....

You want to save money on fuel: don't drive.
Don't want to be held up: travel at a less busy time, so that there won't be so much traffic that you can't overtake a cyclist safely.
Don't want to be late - get up earlier.

I know. I do it because I love it.

Back to my point.
If cycling on the pavement is acceptable (as most would appear to think here) then why not make it legal?
By the way Andy C I see far too many inconsiderate cyclists on pavements (as well as breaking other road laws) so I am afraid I disagree with you.
Maybe we walk on different pavements?

If you read what Betty Swollox posted it states that discression is to be advised. IE if the traffic is unsafe as it is on the Hambridge Road then footpaths may be used.

There is no reason why people cannot cycle on either the road or the pavement on Hambridge Road, I choose the path if I need to go that way as you just get in everybody's way on the road and the path is far easier. I would thnk the chance of a police car going past in the last 8 years of me cycling that route are quite high, howver common sense prevails and it seems it is not an issue for them.

I think it's Ok to use the pavement as long as it's safe to do so and so long as you give priority to pedestriens, anything to make it safer for everyone.

No there's not but 15mph is half the limit and therefore possibly dangerous and selfish, one bicycle holding up 50 or 60 cars at half their speed...
Now if a car was to block a bicycle lane the whole world would come to an end, but it's OK for bicycles to do basically the same???

It's not illegal, but it's certainly not considerate to block Hambridge Lane at rush hour.

Roads are for bicycles and cyclists too: they have as much right to use roads, as you do in your motor vehicle.

Oh do they now? Are we talking about what is said by Government or what "really" happens. Pedestrians have right of way in the road but you wouldn't walk out infront of a lorry would you... Because you as bicyclists are legally allowed to ride on the road does not mean you should use that as an excuse to create tailbacks and be a SELFISH [censored]

Because like I said if a car blocked an area used by cyclists you'd probably the first to have a good old moan about it
ps a chilled post.

I use roads to cycle on. It's my right. Unlike yours when you're in a motor vehicle: you use roads by licence.
Blame all the other cars taking up the space, not the cyclist.
Queues on Hambridge Road today today. And not a cyclist in sight, except me.
I scooted through and was away.

It's my right to drive. I am required to meet a minimum standard to be on the roads. I must pay for road tax, I must also carry insurance incase I am injured or be involved in an accident. I must be free from debilitating illness and must be clear minded and sober to drive.

Where as any old fart can ride a bicycle regardless of their mental state, do not carry insurance or even any identification for if involved in an accident.
What irritates me the most about you is the fact that you do not admit that there are situations where bicycles refusing to ride on the pavement can cause issues.

That does appear to be the law though

I do not give a hoot what irritates you.
I will continue to ride on the roads responsibly and obeying the laws, as is my right.
There will always be someone in your way in this crowded island of ours, whether it be in the shops, banks, post offices, or the roads. Don't expect them to get out of the way for you.
Get used to it.

And by the way: you don't pay "Road Tax': no-one does. It's called 'Vehicle Excise Duty' and no-one compels you to pay it. You do so out of choice. You can avoid paying it by using a vehicle which is VED zero-rated. One example of such a vehicle is a bicycle, but there are plenty of others.

I call riding on the pavement out the way of the rush hour traffic :

a) Considerate
Safe

Cycling is safe anyway.
Rush hour traffic is often at a standstill. A cycle will often be the fastest moving vehicle in these circumstances.
Rush hour also means that the pavement will be busier with pedestrians going home.
In such circumstances, cycling on a pavement would be highly inconsiderate.

Well blocking the road is not responsible! It's also my right to ram you.



Quite true, although you can mitigate your effect on everyone else by MOVING. Like when someone stops right in the middle of the entrace to some shops to check their phone, that's a completely avoidable delay by MOVING. Again the same as when someone is in the supermarket and leaves their trolley halfway across the isle infront of the milk. Selfish and thoughtless.



By the way, do not lecture me on the technical names of the tax. You, I, and my mate Bob all know it is Road Tax. Can I have some Coke? You don't assume the powdered substance, do you................... And as someone who does upwards of 30,000 miles a year, 20,000 of them business related, I would not be able to ride everywhere or drive in a stupid electric car as I would not get any business done.

All I am saying is that you can ride on the pavement at no negative affect towards you or anyone else, and at the same time helping to ease the flow of traffic on narrow roads during peak periods.

what pedestrians, never any when I cycle down the path. Your not the guy on the racer I see each day with the silly helmet ?

I am more than capable of taking what's "coming to me". What are you, part of the familes? Is big Tony going to come and kill my family.
The question is are you capable?

Again many say it's OK and safe to ride on the pavement so again I ask - why is it not made legal then?
No-one has answered the question yet.
Again, just to make it clear, I am not arguing whether it is safe or acceptable or not, just why is it not legal??????
If it is safe and acceptable then why not make it legal????
I am sure most, if not all, who support pavement cycling on here do it responsibly but, as I have said before, many do not and I think this may be one of the reasons why.

I'm not saying it is always safe, I am saying that sometimes it is not dangerous to pedestrians to ride on the pavement.

Agreed, so why is it not legal?

Because they sometimes collide with pedestrians. Isn't that dangerous?

At last, we're getting there!

What about when a car collides with a pedestrian?
Should we ban driving?

I guess it's all about the "common link" in accidents. The common link is always the pedestrian, so let's ban walking. See, problem solved.

A car is on the road legally.
A pedestrian is on the pavement legally.
A pedestrian can cross the road safely, legally.
Either cycling on the pavement is safe - then make it legal, or it is not - then keep it illegal and do something about it.
It would seem that many think it is safe, and many think it isn't.
Solution??
(Timbo, sensible arguments only please. )

Driving a motorised vehicle on public roads is a priviledge, not a right, hence a licence.
If I'm held up by a cyclist, I wait.
I get held up mostly by other car drivers who have no idea of the speed limit. How many idiots tootal along Hambridge road at 28mph in a 40 limit? or, on the A4 to Readiing, they cause a great deal of frustration.

Like I said, chill out

x2lls, I am chilled. The only thing that's making me unchilled is you telling me to chill.



Sensible is dull.
But it's a valid point. Things happen from time to time, accidents and what not. If that makes sense. Although it's technically illegal to ride on a pavement, as has been shown already it is enforced with discression and not really something you'd be fined for donig especially during rush hour!