Pavement cyclists

[Andy Leighton]

I was walking to the train station at 0730 this morning (to go and
see the cricket) and was passing over town bridge in Peterborough.
As I got half way across I noticed a couple of women walking to my
left and a cycle coming up from behind. So I matched pace with the
other walkers and we walked three abreast.

"Excuse me" an indignant middle-aged female voice comes from behind me.

"If you were on the road like you are supposed to be then you wouldn't
have a problem" I replied. My fellow walkers also grumbled their agreement
but let the woman through.

"It is too dangerous" she said as she pushed through.

"Well why ride on the pavement then?"

"Because there isn't a cycle-path" as she surges forward.

"Well get off and push" I shout at her back as she gets out of conversation
distance.


This is no isolated case and in this case she was going at six or seven
mph. Some people whizz across at about 12 mph on the pavement.

There is a police station more or less at one end of the bridge (on
Bridge Street would you believe) but no visible policing of pavement
cycling (that I have seen).

There have been letters to the local paper but I doubt that most of
the offenders read it and the rest ignore the letters. What is the
best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?

--
Andy Leighton =>
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[Andy Hewitt]

Andy Leighton > wrote:

<Snipped Text>
> There have been letters to the local paper but I doubt that most of
> the offenders read it and the rest ignore the letters. What is the
> best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?

Slotted manhole covers?

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online

[Martin Bulmer]

In ,
Andy Leighton > expounded sagaciously:
What is the
> best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?

Cobbles.
--


Martin Bulmer

Pie Conservation Threat

[Steve Watkin]

Walk in the road?


"Andy Leighton" > wrote in message
...
> I was walking to the train station at 0730 this morning (to go and
> see the cricket) and was passing over town bridge in Peterborough.
> As I got half way across I noticed a couple of women walking to my
> left and a cycle coming up from behind. So I matched pace with the
> other walkers and we walked three abreast.
>
> "Excuse me" an indignant middle-aged female voice comes from behind me.
>
> "If you were on the road like you are supposed to be then you wouldn't
> have a problem" I replied. My fellow walkers also grumbled their
agreement
> but let the woman through.
>
> "It is too dangerous" she said as she pushed through.
>
> "Well why ride on the pavement then?"
>
> "Because there isn't a cycle-path" as she surges forward.
>
> "Well get off and push" I shout at her back as she gets out of
conversation
> distance.
>
>
> This is no isolated case and in this case she was going at six or seven
> mph. Some people whizz across at about 12 mph on the pavement.
>
> There is a police station more or less at one end of the bridge (on
> Bridge Street would you believe) but no visible policing of pavement
> cycling (that I have seen).
>
> There have been letters to the local paper but I doubt that most of
> the offenders read it and the rest ignore the letters. What is the
> best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?
>
> --
> Andy Leighton =>
> "The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
> - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[Gary]

Andy Leighton wrote:

> There have been letters to the local paper but I doubt that most of
> the offenders read it and the rest ignore the letters. What is the
> best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?
>


Get the council to paint a little picture of a cycle, and a little
picture of people walking on the pavement surface complete with nice
signs and advertising campaign.

[anonymous coward]

> There have been letters to the local paper but I doubt that most of
> the offenders read it and the rest ignore the letters. What is the
> best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?

Pavement-cyclist-cameras, with mugshots of the worst offenders in the
newspaper each week.

These will work by looking for the distinctive radar signature of
moving bicycle wheels.

Offenders will switch to spokeless racing wheels to avoid detection, at
which point they will discover they can't kerb hop any more anyway, and
they will be forced to ride on the roads.

AC

[Vincent Wilcox]

Martin Bulmer wrote:
> In ,
> Andy Leighton > expounded sagaciously:
> What is the
>
>>best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?
>
>
> Cobbles.

******** to you too.

[Pete whelan]

Andy Leighton wrote:
> I was walking to the train station at 0730 this morning (to go and
> see the cricket) and was passing over town bridge in Peterborough.
> As I got half way across I noticed a couple of women walking to my
> left and a cycle coming up from behind. So I matched pace with the
> other walkers and we walked three abreast.
>
> "Excuse me" an indignant middle-aged female voice comes from behind me.
>
> "If you were on the road like you are supposed to be then you wouldn't
> have a problem" I replied. My fellow walkers also grumbled their agreement
> but let the woman through.

I normally say something along the lines of "don't your parents let you
ride on the road yet", especially if they look well over 20

>
> "It is too dangerous" she said as she pushed through.
>
> "Well why ride on the pavement then?"
>
> "Because there isn't a cycle-path" as she surges forward.
>
> "Well get off and push" I shout at her back as she gets out of conversation
> distance.
>
>
> This is no isolated case and in this case she was going at six or seven
> mph. Some people whizz across at about 12 mph on the pavement.
>
> There is a police station more or less at one end of the bridge (on
> Bridge Street would you believe) but no visible policing of pavement
> cycling (that I have seen).
>
> There have been letters to the local paper but I doubt that most of
> the offenders read it and the rest ignore the letters. What is the
> best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?
>

[\(t'other\) Dave]

"Andy Leighton" > wrote in message
...
> I was walking to the train station at 0730 this morning (to go and
> see the cricket) and was passing over town bridge in Peterborough.

<snip>

> There have been letters to the local paper but I doubt that most of
> the offenders read it and the rest ignore the letters. What is the
> best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?
>
> --
> Andy Leighton =>
> "The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
> - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Prove to 'em that it is more dangerous riding on the pavement than riding on
the road and beat the crap out of 'em with a baseball bat every time you
encounter them ;-)

Dave.

-alternately throw a newspaper boy/girl in their path when they're not
looking (see my previous post)

[jamie g]

Andy Leighton wrote:
> I was walking to the train station at 0730 this morning (to go and
> see the cricket) and was passing over town bridge in Peterborough.
> As I got half way across I noticed a couple of women walking to my
> left and a cycle coming up from behind. So I matched pace with the
> other walkers and we walked three abreast.
>
> "Excuse me" an indignant middle-aged female voice comes from behind me.
>
> "If you were on the road like you are supposed to be then you wouldn't
> have a problem" I replied. My fellow walkers also grumbled their agreement
> but let the woman through.
>
> "It is too dangerous" she said as she pushed through.
>
> "Well why ride on the pavement then?"
>
> "Because there isn't a cycle-path" as she surges forward.
>
> "Well get off and push" I shout at her back as she gets out of conversation
> distance.
>
>
> This is no isolated case and in this case she was going at six or seven
> mph. Some people whizz across at about 12 mph on the pavement.
>
> There is a police station more or less at one end of the bridge (on
> Bridge Street would you believe) but no visible policing of pavement
> cycling (that I have seen).
>
> There have been letters to the local paper but I doubt that most of
> the offenders read it and the rest ignore the letters. What is the
> best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?
>
Make the roads less dangerous?

[Mark McN]

Reply to Pete whelan
> I normally say something along the lines of "don't your parents let you
> ride on the road yet", especially if they look well over 20
>

Ha! [promptly steals for own use...]

--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

[Simonb]

Andy Leighton wrote:

> What is the best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?

More humiliation of pavement cyclists. Mine is "Push it!", but it's a bit
crap and I might start using Pete Whelan's (see above).

[Peter B]

"jamie g" > wrote in message
...
> Andy Leighton wrote:
>> > There have been letters to the local paper but I doubt that most of
> > the offenders read it and the rest ignore the letters. What is the
> > best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?
> >
> Make the roads less dangerous?

Less dangerous than what?
A car may hit you whilst you cycle on the road, it may also mount the
pavement and hit you whilst you cycle on it,
this isn't a throwaway remark, I regularly read of peds hit by cars mounting
the pavement.
You will still have to negotiate the same junctions whether cycling on the
road or pavement. Should negotiating a roundabout or making a right turn
seem daunting then get off and cross as you would if a ped.

When you approach a junction as a cyclist on the road priorities, in the
main, are clear to you and other road users. If you approach the same
junction as a pavement cyclist the situation is more ambiguous and this may
make other road users show extra caution toward you or OTOH they may not
expect a bicycle to drop off the kerb in front of them if sight lines are
more restricted for the pavement than road, this isn't so much of a problem
for peds with their lower speeds.

If you are going to cycle slowly on the pavement what's the point?
--
Regards,
Pete

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:53:10 +0000 (UTC), "Peter B"
> wrote in message
>:

>A car may hit you whilst you cycle on the road, it may also mount the
>pavement and hit you whilst you cycle on it,
>this isn't a throwaway remark, I regularly read of peds hit by cars mounting
>the pavement.

ISTR about 60-70 people killed per year by motor vehicles on the
footway, same again on ped crossings.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[[Not Responding]]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 10:27:47 +0100, "Simonb"
> wrote:

>Andy Leighton wrote:
>
>> What is the best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?
>
>More humiliation of pavement cyclists. Mine is "Push it!", but it's a bit
>crap and I might start using Pete Whelan's (see above).
>

I usually stand in the way; making them join the road of cycle v.
slowly. Head down looking at phone usually avoids confrontation but
I'm happy to enter debate on use of pavements if required.

[Howard]

> What is the
> best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?

Easy,

You have to be tough on the causes of pavement cycling, not just
address the 'problem' of pavement cycling itself.

Run a national awareness campaign highlighting that cycles are
vehicles and have at least as much right to use the roads as car
drivers: quite possibly more seeing that the use of the public road
for cycling (and walking) is a legal right, not a privilege controlled
through licence.

Start banning driviers who fail to acknowledge the rights of cyclists
to use the public road and drive without due consideration, even when
injury or death does not result.

Follow this up with a 'zero tolerance' campaign for those drivers who
intimidate cyclists off the roads by speeding, overtaking too closely,
overtaking cyclists then turning left across their paths, failing to
give way at junctions and roundabouts, etc., etc. Apart from making
cyclists much more confident to use the roads this will also help to
undermine the general lack of respect for the law that is so evident
in this country, an attitude so evident in the behaviour of motor
vehicle users.

Next, reduce urban speed limits to a level where all those 'errors'
made by drivers will not lead to death and injury. You seem to think
12 MPH is recklessly fast for a cyclist, so shall we say lets
introduce a universal urban limit of 10 MPH and 20 MPH on rural lanes?

We should also get rid of all those stupid 'cycle paths' along side
roads as these give the message that the cyclist can only be 'safe' if
they ride on the pavement, albeit a pavement with a sign up calling
it a 'cycle path.'

Then again we could just accept that 'pavement cycling' is not much of
a 'problem' in any case. Each year under 60 people are injured by
'pavement cyclists' and genuinely serious injuries and deaths almost
unknown. In comparison around 40 people a year are killed and another
3500 injured by car drivers whilst they walk on a footway and another
80 killed and 4300 injured by car drivers whilst they use a pedestrian
crossing. (Highway Code advice 'always slow down and be prepared to
stop).

We might also like to address the problem of pedestrians who step into
the highway without looking and collide with cyclists. This causes 3
times more injures then does 'pavement cycling' and accounts for most
cycle/pedestrian collision deaths, usually running at 2-3 pedestrians
and another 2-3 cyclists per year.

Perhaps someone could also run course for arrogant pedestrians in
courtesy and common sense when encountering cyclists politely asking
to pass on a ‘footpath'. Unfortunately, far to many ‘pedestrians'
(often just car drivers who have found somewhere to leave their car)
take the hostility they display towards cyclists when driving onto
shared use paths, bridleways and so on going out of their way to be
confrontational and obstructive. Still that's the British for you...

[Andy Leighton]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 10:00:35 +0100, jamie g > wrote:
> Andy Leighton wrote:
>> I was walking to the train station at 0730 this morning (to go and
>> see the cricket) and was passing over town bridge in Peterborough.
>> As I got half way across I noticed a couple of women walking to my
>> left and a cycle coming up from behind. So I matched pace with the
>> other walkers and we walked three abreast.
>>
>> "Excuse me" an indignant middle-aged female voice comes from behind me.
>>
>> "If you were on the road like you are supposed to be then you wouldn't
>> have a problem" I replied. My fellow walkers also grumbled their agreement
>> but let the woman through.
>>
>> "It is too dangerous" she said as she pushed through.
>>
> Make the roads less dangerous?

Firstly many people will tell you that it is generally less dangerous
on the road than the pavement. Also I think it is well accepted that
it is much less dangerous than it is perceived.

In point of fact this particular road is quite safe during the day
(at night you do get some mad speeders). At 0730 there was very
low traffic density - no more than about five vehicles on the
road over the bridge.

With bike-week almost upon us, I feel it is important to stress
to returning and new riders how to ride their bikes properly, and
to show the road isn't as dangerous as they think. Basically get
them off the pavements and onto the roads.

Personally I would think that it would be a good thing for local
councils to fund adult (and child) bike education - which as well
as helping with petty law-breaking such as this might also give more
people the confidence to get out on their bike.

--
Andy Leighton =>
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[James Annan]

Andy Leighton wrote:

> What is the
> best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?

Why does it matter? Of all the problems to get worked up about, pavement
cyclists should rank very low on the list.

What is the best approach to try to reduce the number of pedestrians
killed by motor vehicles on the pavement (or even off the pavement, they
are just as dead)?

James

[Andy Leighton]

On 12 Jun 2004 03:05:54 -0700, Howard > wrote:
>> What is the
>> best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?
>
> Easy,

[snip]

> Next, reduce urban speed limits to a level where all those 'errors'
> made by drivers will not lead to death and injury. You seem to think
> 12 MPH is recklessly fast for a cyclist,

On a pavement, yes - especially a pavement where there are children and
babies in buggies etc. On the road 12 mph is not recklessly fast, even
I averaged at least that when I used to commute to work (I now work at
home and cycle commuting the 5 yards from my bedroom to my office is
impractical).

> Then again we could just accept that 'pavement cycling' is not much of
> a 'problem' in any case. Each year under 60 people are injured by
> 'pavement cyclists' and genuinely serious injuries and deaths almost
> unknown.

Depends by what you mean a 'problem'. Obviously it isn't that serious
when you look at injury figures - and that was not the basis on which
I am against it. Pavement cycling is just another example of anti-
social behaviour. Same as graffiti, ****ing in the street, and public
drunkeness.

> Perhaps someone could also run course for arrogant pedestrians in
> courtesy and common sense when encountering cyclists politely asking
> to pass on a 'footpath'.

If people showed common sense, courtesy and respect for the law by
riding their bike in the road or pushing the bike along the footway
then I am more than willing to show some courtesy back.

> Unfortunately, far to many 'pedestrians' (often just car drivers who
> have found somewhere to leave their car) take the hostility they
> display towards cyclists when driving onto shared use paths, bridleways
> and so on going out of their way to be confrontational and obstructive.

I have no problems with people on bikes on shared use paths, bridleways
etc. Even those shared use paths which are very poorly designed - where
I have to step out into the bike bit from time to time due to street
furniture (or where the bikes have to go in the pedestrian bit for the
same reason). I think I have previously posted that I do not drive,
do not have a license, and I have never driven. I use feet, bike, bus
and train to get about.

--
Andy Leighton =>
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[Andy Leighton]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:15:46 +0900,
James Annan > wrote:
> Andy Leighton wrote:
>
>> What is the
>> best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?
>
> Why does it matter? Of all the problems to get worked up about, pavement
> cyclists should rank very low on the list.

Because it is anti-social and is symptomatic of the same mindset that
condones speeding, red-light jumping, fly-tipping and a lot of other
yobbish "I'm alright Jack" behaviour.

Also with bike week upon us - I feel that cycling should be promoted
properly to new and returning cyclists. Maybe you don't care but that
doesn't mean other people shouldn't.

Also caring about this issue doesn't mean I can't care about other issues
too.

--
Andy Leighton =>
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[Peter B]

"Andy Leighton" > wrote in message
...
> With bike-week almost upon us, I feel it is important to stress
> to returning and new riders how to ride their bikes properly, and
> to show the road isn't as dangerous as they think. Basically get
> them off the pavements and onto the roads.

And hopefully the more bikes on the road the more motorists will come to
expect them.

I can undersatnd peoples lack of confidence though. SWMBO used to cycle a
bit but for various reasons let it lapse, she now says that it would make
more sense to cycle to her part-time job rather than drive but feels the
route is not very safe. I ride that route quite often and don't agree but
once the perception sets in it becomes a barrier.
--
Regards,
Pete

[Mark Thompson]

>> Why does it matter? Of all the problems to get worked up about,
>> pavement cyclists should rank very low on the list.
>
> Because it is anti-social and is symptomatic of the same mindset that
> condones speeding, red-light jumping, fly-tipping and a lot of other
> yobbish "I'm alright Jack" behaviour.

"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."

It's perfectly ok to cycle on the pavement as long as great care is taken
to show consideration to other pavement users. Unfortunately the pricks
that voted the legislation through as usual couldn't be arsed with doing
a decent job, so they just did their usual tactic of banning everything,
then letting everyone else mystically discover the true purpose of the
law.

[The quote above was nicked from a previous urc post[1] which was itself
nicked from a letter by the Home Office Minister of the time to the Chief
Constables.]

[1]
From: Howard
Subject: Latest piece of anti-cyclist legislation
Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling
Date: 2003-11-22 04:03:49 PST

[James Annan]

Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:15:46 +0900,
> James Annan > wrote:
>
>>Andy Leighton wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What is the
>>>best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?
>>
>>Why does it matter? Of all the problems to get worked up about, pavement
>>cyclists should rank very low on the list.
>
>
> Because it is anti-social and is symptomatic of the same mindset that
> condones speeding, red-light jumping, fly-tipping and a lot of other
> yobbish "I'm alright Jack" behaviour.

Really?

I submit that it is neither anti-social nor symptomatic of any
particularly yobbish mindset. The many pavement cyclists that I see
every day in Japan seem invariably polite and sensible. They make a
choice that is (IMO) somewhat irrational, but no more so than lots of
other small irrationalities that I see every day.

Of course, there are more antisocial yobs in the UK than in Japan. I
happen to think that pavement cycling is one of the more innocuous
manifestations of their rebellion against society. The real problems
start when they get their driving licences, but I'm sure we all knew
that already.

James

[Andy Leighton]

On 12 Jun 2004 12:12:27 GMT,
Mark Thompson > wrote:
>>> Why does it matter? Of all the problems to get worked up about,
>>> pavement cyclists should rank very low on the list.
>>
>> Because it is anti-social and is symptomatic of the same mindset that
>> condones speeding, red-light jumping, fly-tipping and a lot of other
>> yobbish "I'm alright Jack" behaviour.
>
> "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."

I have no problem with young children using the pavement but I feel
that the attitude displayed by the letter quoted above is rather
regrettable. The police have discretion anyway and it was always
unlikely that primary school aged children were ever going to be fined.

--
Andy Leighton =>
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[Mark Thompson]

>> "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."
>
> I have no problem with young children using the pavement but I feel
> that the attitude displayed by the letter quoted above is rather
> regrettable. The police have discretion anyway and it was always
> unlikely that primary school aged children were ever going to be fined.

The letter also applies to adults too. IMHO it makes it pretty clear that
the law was aimed at those cycling irresponsibly or without consideration
for other pavement users. Actually, on a second reading, it's the *fines*
that were aimed at them.

[Wild Wind]

"Howard" > wrote in message
m...
> > What is the
> > best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?
>
> Easy,
>

<anti motorist and pedestrian rant snipped>

And not a single word of blame against whiter than white
pavement cyclist. How nice.

[Dave Kahn]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 10:07:21 +0100, Mark McN
> wrote:

>Ha! [promptly steals for own use...]

Me too!

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

[Dave Kahn]

On 12 Jun 2004 10:40:21 GMT, Andy Leighton >
wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:15:46 +0900,
> James Annan > wrote:

>> Why does it matter? Of all the problems to get worked up about, pavement
>> cyclists should rank very low on the list.
>
>Because it is anti-social and is symptomatic of the same mindset that
>condones speeding, red-light jumping, fly-tipping and a lot of other
>yobbish "I'm alright Jack" behaviour.

I think that many pavement cyclists now think it is the correct, safe
and responsible way to ride. They're encouraged in this view by all
these horrific shared use paths.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

[Simonb]

James Annan wrote:

> Why does it matter? Of all the problems to get worked up about,
> pavement cyclists should rank very low on the list.

To my mind, the real danger is that, if enough people do it, it will become
the norm, and if it becomes the norm, legislation will be introduced to
allow pavement cycling and disallow road cycling as a 'road safety' measure
which will further undermine the usefulness of cycling as a means of
transport. We all know how inefficient pavement cycling is (especially in
its polite, and conscientious form) when compared to using the roads.

[Colin McKenzie]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> ISTR about 60-70 people killed per year by motor vehicles on the
> footway, same again on ped crossings.

This sounds low to me. There've been two in Ealing in the last 6
months. But anecdotes do not statistics make.

Colin McKenzie


--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

[Colin McKenzie]

Andy Leighton wrote:

> Personally I would think that it would be a good thing for local
> councils to fund adult (and child) bike education - which as well
> as helping with petty law-breaking such as this might also give more
> people the confidence to get out on their bike.

Some do, though not all training offered stresses the right points.
But the budget is usually strictly limited, so children are
prioritised. And few adult males are willing to admit they need cycle
training.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

[burt]

"Andy Leighton" > wrote in message
...
> I was walking to the train station at 0730 this morning (to go and
> see the cricket) and was passing over town bridge in Peterborough.
> As I got half way across I noticed a couple of women walking to my
> left and a cycle coming up from behind. So I matched pace with the
.. What is the
> best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?

Another good way is to ask if they have the £20 fine handy.
>
> --
> Andy Leighton =>
> "The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
> - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[Howard]

> The police have discretion anyway and it was always
> unlikely that primary school aged children were ever going to be fined.

VERY unlikely, even the fixed penalty notices cannot be given to under
16 years olds... The advice was intended to direct police forces on
how they should deal with those who were subject to the fixed penalty
notices. I.e. adults...

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 12 Jun 2004 10:07:04 GMT, Andy Leighton >
wrote in message >:

>In point of fact this particular road is quite safe during the day
>(at night you do get some mad speeders).

How can you possibly say that? Everybody knows that urban speed
limits are only appropriate during the day, and after dark it is
Perfectly Safe to drive as fast as you like...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:43:25 GMT, Dave Kahn >
wrote in message >:

>I think that many pavement cyclists now think it is the correct, safe
>and responsible way to ride. They're encouraged in this view by all
>these horrific shared use paths.

And by those who rely on building the perception of cycling as
dangerous to justify their insistence on everybody wearing special
protective equipment.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[JohnB]

Colin McKenzie wrote:
>
> Andy Leighton wrote:
>
> > Personally I would think that it would be a good thing for local
> > councils to fund adult (and child) bike education - which as well
> > as helping with petty law-breaking such as this might also give more
> > people the confidence to get out on their bike.
>
> Some do, though not all training offered stresses the right points.
> But the budget is usually strictly limited, so children are
> prioritised. And few adult males are willing to admit they need cycle
> training.

I've just spent the day running a cycle training stand at the Winchester
Bike Fair and was thoroughly encouraged by the number of adults who were
asking about training, both for themselves and for children. Training
for families also seems to be much sought after.
Several adult males were interested, but they were always as part of a
family group or couple.

Also, on a related point, (asks forgiveness if it annoys anyone) but in
the five hours I was there and from the several hundred people spoken
to, the word h*lm*t was not uttered once.
It makes me wonder whether it really is such a Big Thing amongst the
general public as many like to make out.

John

[Mike Sales]

"Simonb" wrote > James Annan wrote:
>
> > Why does it matter? Of all the problems to get worked up about,
> > pavement cyclists should rank very low on the list.
>
> To my mind, the real danger is that, if enough people do it, it will
become
> the norm, and if it becomes the norm, legislation will be introduced to
> allow pavement cycling and disallow road cycling as a 'road safety'
measure
> which will further undermine the usefulness of cycling as a means of
> transport. We all know how inefficient pavement cycling is (especially in
> its polite, and conscientious form) when compared to using the roads.

And as more and more ride on the pavement it will become more difficult and
less safe for those who obey the law (as it stands now). Motorists will have
less regard for the safety of those of us who insist on riding properly.
They will feel justified in endangering us since we show disregard for our
own safety by riding on the road. When we are not expected to use our rights
of way on the road we are more likely to be hit by drivers who are expecting
us to get out of the way.
Mike Sales

[Andy Leighton]

On 12 Jun 2004 13:20:40 -0700, Howard > wrote:
>> The police have discretion anyway and it was always
>> unlikely that primary school aged children were ever going to be fined.
>
> VERY unlikely, even the fixed penalty notices cannot be given to under
> 16 years olds... The advice was intended to direct police forces on
> how they should deal with those who were subject to the fixed penalty
> notices. I.e. adults...

But the quoted letter specifically mentioned children and young people.

--
Andy Leighton =>
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[James Hodson]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 06:39:50 +0000 (UTC), Pete whelan
> wrote:

>I normally say something along the lines of "don't your parents let you
>ride on the road yet", especially if they look well over 20

I'll almost certainly remember to say that five minutes too late!

James

[James Hodson]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 07:47:46 +0100, "\(t'other\) Dave"
> wrote:

>Prove to 'em that it is more dangerous riding on the pavement than riding on
>the road and beat the crap out of 'em with a baseball bat every time you
>encounter them ;-)

And who was it that said you can't win an argument with statistics :-)

James

[Terry D]

Howard wrote:


<A lot of stuff snipped>

>
> Perhaps someone could also run course for arrogant pedestrians

Guess that means me.

> in
> courtesy and common sense when encountering cyclists politely asking
> to pass on a ‘footpath'.

Every so often I see references on this group to cyclists cycling
"responsibly" on the pavement or footpath. Such cyclists are generally
held to be polite because they always greet pedestrians with a cheerful
"Ding! Excuse me please." I've said it before and I will say it again,
cycling on a footpath, pavement or sidewalk along the side of a road
(unless it is designated as a cycle path) is illegal and therefore
cannot be done responsibly.

> Unfortunately, far to many ‘pedestrians'
> (often just car drivers who have found somewhere to leave their car)
> take the hostility they display towards cyclists when driving onto
> shared use paths, bridleways and so on going out of their way to be
> confrontational and obstructive. Still that's the British for you...

I was born a pedestrian, I choose to be a cyclist and I use a car as
little as possible. I still find pavement cyclists annoying. I cycle 110
miles every week throughout the year and all of that is done on the
road. I object strongly to being herded into special lanes or paths
because in my view there is nothing wrong with cycling on the road as I
learned to do in my youth. (No cycle farcilities back then.)

There are two reasons why cycling on the pavement should be discouraged;
1. If we can get all of these people onto the roads, perhaps the
increased numbers of cyclists would make motorists take more notice of,
and more care around, cyclists.
2. Increased numbers of on-road cyclists would go some way towards
showing other road users that we do not belong on the pavement as many
of them seem to think and the traffic system planners might just start
trying to integrate cyclists into the road system rather than trying to
separate us off from the 'more important' motorised traffic.

My greatest fear is that Martlew and his ilk will eventually prevent
cyclists from using the roads altogether. I do not want to be forced
into creaping along a shared use path at h*lm*t friendly speeds in the
wrong direction just because an awful lot of t*ssp*ts can't be bothered
to work out how to use the roads properly in the first place.

Terry Duckmanton

[Mark Thompson]

> Every so often I see references on this group to cyclists cycling
> "responsibly" on the pavement or footpath. Such cyclists are generally
> held to be polite because they always greet pedestrians with a cheerful
> "Ding! Excuse me please." I've said it before and I will say it again,
> cycling on a footpath, pavement or sidewalk along the side of a road
> (unless it is designated as a cycle path) is illegal and therefore
> cannot be done responsibly.

Reading the letter from the home secretary, it seems that the only reason
it was made illegal was to prevent pavement cyclists from causing a danger
or nuisance. Quite why they didn't legislate purely against these cyclists
I'm not quite sure.

IMO pavement cyclists should always give way to pedestrians. Lets face it,
if you're on the pavement its not because you want to get there quickly!
Cycling on the pavement *can* be done in a perfectly responsible way, and
the mere fact that something is illegal does not prevent it from being
irresponsible. Cycling without a helmet, in a park and on a tricycle.
springs to mind here.[1]

[1] This is a ridiculous example, as only the most stupidly idiotic of
people would even consider outlawing it. Oh poor dear Martlew.

[Chris Johns]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, James Annan wrote:

> What is the best approach to try to reduce the number of pedestrians
> killed by motor vehicles on the pavement (or even off the pavement, they
> are just as dead)?

Get rid of the motor vehicles?
--
Chris Johns )

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In news:IT2zc.443$Ee2.372@newsfe4-gui,
Terry D > typed:
> I was born a pedestrian,

I didn't learn for a good year, myself.

> cycling on a [pavement] is illegal and
> therefore cannot be done responsibly.

Interestingly, I was driving along a national speed limit dual carriageway
today and I saw someone cycling along the pavement running alongside it,
which went on for a mile or so without any breaks in it, and was clear of
pedestrians at the time he was using it, and was clearly a much safer place
for the cyclist. How was he not responsible?

Obviously, I agree in the vast majority of cases and I hate being
facilitised out of the running, and am making an effort to make sure that my
job involves stopping this happening, but there are some cases where the
footpath hasn't been designated but would be good to change.

A

[Roger Hughes]

Martin Bulmer wrote:

> In ,
> Andy Leighton > expounded sagaciously:
> What is the
>
>>best approach to try and reduce pavement cycling?
>
>
> Cobbles.

Doesn't work in any of the big Flemish races, does it? Indeed, positive
incentive to ride on the pavement...

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:36:49 +0100 someone who may be Terry D
> wrote this:-

>I've said it before and I will say it again,
>cycling on a footpath, pavement or sidewalk along the side of a road
>(unless it is designated as a cycle path) is illegal and therefore
>cannot be done responsibly.

The one does not follow the other. Whether something is illegal or
not is entirely different to whether it is done in a responsible
manner. The converse is also true.

However, I agree with the general thrust of your observations.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.