Vigilante Cyclist. Is he the most hated man?

[RootsBooster]

Awwww. Is nasty man int tinternet making you want to cwy?

 

Hmmm, baiting written in a child-like way, that's always a sign of someone superior

 

---------- Post added 26-02-2015 at 19:28 ----------

 

By having the nerve to use the same road as a chip laden cyclist. Thats all us motorists have to do to be in the wrong in some peoples eyes. Usually cyclists eyes. When these same clowns (like the one making the vids) ride the way they do and then complain about everyone else well it just makes them look like clowns.The more clowns come along and praise him for his rabble rousing and agro causing. One day he will be road kill and it will be his own doing.

 

could you point out a part of the video where he rides in a way that you think is wrong?

[TimmyR]

Awwww. Is nasty man int tinternet making you want to cwy?

 

yes this is very clever, well done. I think you ran out of anything to say a couple of pages back.

Edited February 26, 2015 by TimmyR

[david12656]

You're probably right. I just make things up as I go along.

 

just like 99% of the post on the forum

[Guest sibon]

I don't consider cycling on pavements is any risk to pedestrians

 

Your opinion is irrelevant. Riding on most pavements in the UK is illegal and shouldn't be done by any responsible cyclist.

 

The council (or someone) has deemed that shared cycle/footways are safe why not just make all pavements shared use?.

 

Because most pavements are for pedestrians. Roads are for vehicles. Cycles are vehicles.

 

Does it make sense yet?

 

I can't imagine that many pedestrians want their one safe area invaded by vehicles.

[TimmyR]

Your opinion is irrelevant. Riding on most pavements in the UK is illegal and shouldn't be done by any responsible cyclist.

 

 

 

Because most pavements are for pedestrians. Roads are for vehicles. Cycles are vehicles.

 

Does it make sense yet?

 

I can't imagine that many pedestrians want their one safe area invaded by vehicles.

 

But what about shared use footpath/cycle ways? These exist all over the place and are often no wider than a normal footpath. The law is surely there to ensure safety so why has it been deemed safe to ride on one footpath and not another?

 

And what about the original post stating that the transport minister has suggested the police don't pay too much attention to the breaking of this law? That is giving a clear message that the "crime" of cycling on the pavement is a very minor one.

 

There really is very little risk to pedestrians from cyclists on footpaths. There is much greater risk of a pedestrian being hit or killed by a car when walking on a footpath - as happened just up the road from my house not so long ago.

Edited February 27, 2015 by TimmyR

[hyper]

There really is very little risk to pedestrians from cyclists on footpaths. There is much greater risk of a pedestrian being hit or killed by a car when walking on a footpath - as happened just up the road from my house not so long ago.

sorry, cannot agree. At the end of the day, its just wrong ... unlawful. If you mean shared paths, then if a cyclist is riding at just above walking pace, then you may be correct. If an experienced cyclist is doing 15mph plus, maybe even 25-30, then you are wrong. What you have to remember is walkers on pavements are not aware of traffic on 'their patch', nor should they be and may stray from walking a straight line. Unless of course you want to restrict cycle speed on shared paths.

[TimmyR]

sorry, cannot agree. At the end of the day, its just wrong ... unlawful. If you mean shared paths, then if a cyclist is riding at just above walking pace, then you may be correct. If an experienced cyclist is doing 15mph plus, maybe even 25-30, then you are wrong. What you have to remember is walkers on pavements are not aware of traffic on 'their patch', nor should they be and may stray from walking a straight line. Unless of course you want to restrict cycle speed on shared paths.

 

But the implication from the transport minister is that unlawfulness is to be ignored which is the easy way of saying its not really illegal or at least the police will be turning a blind eye unless there really is a danger posed by the behaviour of the cyclist. I doubt anyone would ride at 25-30 on a footpath, you have to slow down too frequently. if I'm going that fast it would only ever be on a road - you can sit behind a lorry and get the aerodynamic advantage.

 

I mean shared footpath/cycleways. Have you seen then blue signs? With a pedestrian at the top and a bike at the bottom. There's one on penistone road past hillsborough. Its very narrow in parts. So if that is deemed safe why aren't all footpaths deemed safe?

 

Shared cycleway/footpath signs

Edited February 27, 2015 by TimmyR

[Cyclone]

Your opinion is irrelevant. Riding on most pavements in the UK is illegal and shouldn't be done by any responsible cyclist.

 

 

 

Because most pavements are for pedestrians. Roads are for vehicles. Cycles are vehicles.

 

Does it make sense yet?

 

I can't imagine that many pedestrians want their one safe area invaded by vehicles.

 

The minister for transport disagrees, as per the link already posted earlier.

What's annoying is that he's told cyclists to use the pavement, but not changed the law to make it clear that it's okay.

 

---------- Post added 27-02-2015 at 09:17 ----------

 

sorry, cannot agree. At the end of the day, its just wrong ... unlawful. If you mean shared paths, then if a cyclist is riding at just above walking pace, then you may be correct. If an experienced cyclist is doing 15mph plus, maybe even 25-30, then you are wrong. What you have to remember is walkers on pavements are not aware of traffic on 'their patch', nor should they be and may stray from walking a straight line. Unless of course you want to restrict cycle speed on shared paths.

 

Pedestrians routinely wander all over cycle paths and the shared portions designated for cycles. It's extremely dangerous to travel at any speed to both cyclist and pedestrian because pedestrians who don't cycle seem to be oblivious and/or idiotic.

 

---------- Post added 27-02-2015 at 09:19 ----------

 

Here for example, where the cycle path and foot path are entirely separate.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.391333,-1.483496,3a,75y,228.21h,87.13t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1snqhNGw4bb7xblQiter0drA!2e0

It's common to come around this corner and find someone walking on the cycle path.

[Squiggs]

He should be . but i very much doubt it .

 

Why do you doubt it?

 

Look up "silly cyclist" on youtube, you'll find plenty of cyclists recording silly and/or dangerous cyclists

[spilldig]

But what about shared use footpath/cycle ways? These exist all over the place and are often no wider than a normal footpath. The law is surely there to ensure safety so why has it been deemed safe to ride on one footpath and not another?

 

And what about the original post stating that the transport minister has suggested the police don't pay too much attention to the breaking of this law? That is giving a clear message that the "crime" of cycling on the pavement is a very minor one.

 

There really is very little risk to pedestrians from cyclists on footpaths. There is much greater risk of a pedestrian being hit or killed by a car when walking on a footpath - as happened just up the road from my house not so long ago.

Cycles are road vehicles and should only ever be on the roads. They should never have been allowed on pavements or footpaths. Just because a transport minister says it's alright doesn't mean it's alright, it means the transport minister got it wrong.