Vigilante Cyclist. Is he the most hated man?

[RootsBooster]

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.

 

I go with the transport minister's advice and let my little lad ride his bike on the pavement.

[TimmyR]

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.

 

Well i don't agree. If the aim is to get more people cycling, which I think it should be, then they need to provide suitable infrastructure to enable all people to ride bikes. That isn't going to happen any time soon so a perfectly safe alternative would be to allow people to ride bikes on footpaths.

 

Another aim could be to reduce the number of road accidents. Can you find some statistics showing how many people are killed or injured by cyclists riding on footpaths? I can't but I'm guessing its a pretty low number. how many cyclists are killed or injured on the roads? 19,000 a year roughly, and so to get the overall number of road accidents reduced people cycling on the footpaths is not a bad thing.

 

Please could someone provide me with an argument for not allowing people to ride bikes on the footpath, other than gut reactions like

"its illegal" (that is being put into question)

"all cyclists are idiots" (cyclists are people, some idiots most not like any group)

"cycles are road vehicles" (why are they?)

"pedestrians need somewhere safe" (The pavement isn't that safe - there are thousands of people involved in accidents a year where a motorised vehicle mounts the pavement)

and so on.

 

Perhaps the law could be changed to somehow impose a speed limit to cycles on a footpath.

Edited February 27, 2015 by TimmyR

[truman]

Well i don't agree. If the aim is to get more people cycling, which I think it should be, then they need to provide suitable infrastructure to enable all people to ride bikes. That isn't going to happen any time soon so a perfectly safe alternative would be to allow people to ride bikes on footpaths.

 

Another aim could be to reduce the number of road accidents. Can you find some statistics showing how many people are killed or injured by cyclists riding on footpaths? I can't but I'm guessing its a pretty low number. how many cyclists are killed or injured on the roads? 19,000 a year roughly, and so to get the overall number of road accidents reduced people cycling on the footpaths is not a bad thing.

 

Please could someone provide me with an argument for not allowing people to ride bikes on the footpath, other than gut reactions like

"its illegal" (that is being put into question)

"all cyclists are idiots" (cyclists are people, some idiots most not like any group)

"cycles are road vehicles" (why are they?)

"pedestrians need somewhere safe" (The pavement isn't that safe - there are thousands of people involved in accidents a year where a motorised vehicle mounts the pavement)

and so on.

 

Highway code..

 

"64

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

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

 

I don't care either way.... can we all pick and choose which laws in there we can ignore.. ?

[TimmyR]

Highway code..

 

"64

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

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

 

I don't care either way.... can we all pick and choose which laws in there we can ignore.. ?

 

Thanks for making me aware of something I obviously already knew. The whole point of this sub thread is to discuss whether that law is valid.

[maasonor]

As a cyclist i feel the same frustration with some drivers, but i feel his aggressive attitude towards all motorists is counterproductive.

[monkey104]

Thanks for making me aware of something I obviously already knew. The whole point of this sub thread is to discuss whether that law is valid.

 

Bearing in mind that it a £50 fine I would say it is valid.

I would like to think that officers could discriminate between safe, sensible riders on a footpath and a rider being irresponsible.

[maasonor]

His attitude is born out of frustration with motorists, but as a cyclist feel his attitude could be counter productive. I recently was knocked off my bicycle on the way to work, the driver failed to stop and i struggled back home with a dislocated shoulder.

 

The police were less then helpful almost disinterested.

wish i had a camera on my helmet that day.

[JFKvsNixon]

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.

 

So in your world I'm not allowed to pop around Rother Valley a couple of times or go up and down the Trans Penine Trail?

[Eater Sundae]

Well i don't agree. If the aim is to get more people cycling, which I think it should be, then they need to provide suitable infrastructure to enable all people to ride bikes. That isn't going to happen any time soon so a perfectly safe alternative would be to allow people to ride bikes on footpaths.

 

Another aim could be to reduce the number of road accidents. Can you find some statistics showing how many people are killed or injured by cyclists riding on footpaths? I can't but I'm guessing its a pretty low number. how many cyclists are killed or injured on the roads? 19,000 a year roughly, and so to get the overall number of road accidents reduced people cycling on the footpaths is not a bad thing.

 

Please could someone provide me with an argument for not allowing people to ride bikes on the footpath, other than gut reactions like

"its illegal" (that is being put into question)

"all cyclists are idiots" (cyclists are people, some idiots most not like any group)

"cycles are road vehicles" (why are they?)

"pedestrians need somewhere safe" (The pavement isn't that safe - there are thousands of people involved in accidents a year where a motorised vehicle mounts the pavement)

and so on.

 

Perhaps the law could be changed to somehow impose a speed limit to cycles on a footpath.

 

I don't necessarily think that cyclists should be allowed on footpaths as of right, but I do think that many, many footpaths should be re-designated as dual use footpaths/cyclepaths. This should particularly apply in rural and semi-rural situations, where there aren't many pedestrians, but where differential speeds between cyclists and motorists tend to be high and therefore the risk of serious injury is at its highest.

 

However if when applying this the majority of paths become dual use, then there may be a case of making all footpaths like this, and only prohibit cyclists by exception.

 

Also in dual use situations the requirement should be for cyclists to give way to pedestrians under all circumstances, including having to get off and walk if necessary. Also, the busier the path (with pedestrians), then the less useful it would be for cyclists anyway.

 

OR

 

How about a blanket "On roads where the speed limit is greater than 30 mph, cyclists shall be allowed to ride on pavements, but must always give way to pedestrians." That would be an easy demarcation, and not require any additional signs, road markings etc, so the initial cost would be minimal. Edit: it would also tend to be those paths with less pedestrians.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Eater Sundae

[alchresearch]

As a leisure cyclist (mountain and road) I'd never go on the pavement, there are far too many obstructions, obstacles or other dangers - such as having to stop when crossing junctions.