If ped's are so afraid of 'pavemnet cyclists' why do they walk in cycle paths?

[Howard]

We all see half-witted rants about 'pavement cyclists' often claiming
that this is 'dangerous'. However, why is it that pedestrians fear of
cyclists seems to evaoporate when they want to use facilities
supposedly set aside for cyclists? How come almost half the users of
The National 'Cycle' Network are pedestrians? Why is it that
pedestrians seem incapable of walking on the correct side of a
segregated cycle/footpath? Why is it that most shared use paths are
full of dog walkers seemingly oblivious of cyclists actually trying to
get somewhere by using the path?

'Tis a rare old puzzle and no mistake.

P.s

My guess is that rants about 'pavement cyclists' are little more then
your average right wing authoritarian getting into a tiss about seeing
a 'low status outgroup' 'breaking the rules', which, of course, in
most societies is the prerogative of the dominant social group. (Such
as the users of motor vehicles)...


Oh, and before some cyclephobe authoritarian comes back with 'why do
cyclists use the roads if they are so afraid of cars' the answer is
because that is where they should ride and they see no reason why they
should stop cycling and allow a supposedly public resource to be
appropriated by motor vehicle users!

[Simon Mason]

"Howard" > wrote in message
om...

> P.s
>
> My guess is that rants about 'pavement cyclists' are little more then
> your average right wing authoritarian getting into a tiss about seeing
> a 'low status outgroup' 'breaking the rules', which, of course, in
> most societies is the prerogative of the dominant social group. (Such
> as the users of motor vehicles)...

"My" criticism of pavement cyclists in the local rag the other day wasn't
me - it was an impostor using my name!

--
Simon Mason
Anlaby
East Yorkshire.
53°44'N 0°26'W
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

[Scott Leckey]

> My guess is that rants about 'pavement cyclists' are little more then
> your average right wing authoritarian getting into a tiss about seeing
> a 'low status outgroup' 'breaking the rules'

Or perhaps it's people like me (politically-conservative enthusiastic
cyclist!) who don't want to be run over by 14-year-old yobs cycling on
pavements?

Your prejudices are showing ;-)

[Andy Leighton]

On 12 Jun 2004 03:25:23 -0700, Howard > wrote:
> We all see half-witted rants about 'pavement cyclists'

Is this a flame against poor old me? Too bad I have a thick skin and have
been flamed by experts in the past. Most of my points were restrained to
your post in the other thread and I won't repeat them here. But a quick
recap - I have no problems with cyclists on shared use paths, bridleways
etc. and either walk in the ped lane or give cyclists plenty of room,
often stepping to one side of the bridleway.

[snip]

> Oh, and before some cyclephobe authoritarian

Are they any on u.r.c?

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

[Mark South]

"Andy Leighton" > wrote in message
...
> On 12 Jun 2004 03:25:23 -0700, Howard > wrote:
>
> > Oh, and before some cyclephobe authoritarian
>
> Are they any on u.r.c?

Relatively few cyclephobes, but a hell of a lot of authoritarians to compensate!
--
"A kilt opens up new possibilities."
- Gary D. Schwartz in rec.backcountry

[Nathaniel Porter]

"Howard" > wrote in message
om...
>

<snip>

> Oh, and before some cyclephobe authoritarian comes back with 'why do
> cyclists use the roads if they are so afraid of cars' the answer is
> because that is where they should ride and they see no reason why they
> should stop cycling and allow a supposedly public resource to be
> appropriated by motor vehicle users!

Exactly the same could be said of pedestrians. Pedestrians are permitted to
use all cycleways, cycletracks, cyclepaths bar none. Indeed, as many of
these facilities were once footpaths, to criticise people who wish to
appropriate roads for motor vehicles but then to support the appropriation
of footpaths (by means of a bit of white paint) for cyclists seems somewhat
hypocriticial

I would suggest if people didn't pigeon-hole themselves into their favoured
road-user group and then adopt an "us and them" attitude, we (as a society)
could work together to resolve these things so everyone can get to where
they wish to go by the means they choose without being unncessarily
endangered or inconvenienced by others. Won't happen while people are intent
on pointing the finger at everyone else mind.

[Pete White]

> I would suggest if people didn't pigeon-hole themselves into their favoured
> road-user group and then adopt an "us and them" attitude, we (as a society)
> could work together to resolve these things so everyone can get to where
> they wish to go by the means they choose without being unncessarily
> endangered or inconvenienced by others. Won't happen while people are intent
> on pointing the finger at everyone else mind.

U.R.C post of the month in opinion!

[Andy Dingley]

On 12 Jun 2004 03:25:23 -0700, (Howard)
wrote:

>We all see half-witted rants about 'pavement cyclists' often claiming
>that this is 'dangerous'.

We should make them wear h*lm*ts

And if that doesn't stop them, b*bsh*rts.

[Paul - xxx]

Howard posted:

> Oh, and before some cyclephobe authoritarian comes back with 'why do
> cyclists use the roads if they are so afraid of cars' the answer is
> because that is where they should ride and they see no reason why they
> should stop cycling and allow a supposedly public resource to be
> appropriated by motor vehicle users!

Which is a damn good argument, virtually identical in fact, for pedestrians
walking on footpaths thereby stopping cyclists appropriating footpaths just
'cos they're daubed with white lines .. ;)

I wonder what your point is ?

--
Paul ...

(8(|) ... Homer Rocks

[Zog The Undeniable]

Howard wrote:
> We all see half-witted rants about 'pavement cyclists' often claiming
> that this is 'dangerous'. However, why is it that pedestrians fear of
> cyclists seems to evaoporate when they want to use facilities
> supposedly set aside for cyclists?

Both are dangerous IMO. Roads are for bikes.

[Howard]

> I have no problems with cyclists on shared use paths, bridleways
> etc. and either walk in the ped lane or give cyclists plenty of room,
> often stepping to one side of the bridleway.
>

Ah, so you ARE upset predominantly by the fact that 'pavement
cyclists' are seen to be 'breaking the rules', you old authoritarian
you!

That said I do agree that irresponsible pavement cycling (the sort
displayed by many youths on BMX bikes and so on) is yet another sign
of the breakdown in respect for the law and other people that
characterises British society. Still, let's not forget it is the users
of motor vehicles who set the precedents here. As J.S. Dean wrote in
1947 in his book 'Murder most foul: a study of the road deaths
problem;

'The trouble with the facts about the law-breaking of the motorists
and the motor interests is that there are too many: it is difficult
even to grasp them. In fact, the position has long since passed far
beyond the limits of ordinary law-breaking and become an exhibition of
national degeneracy.'

I don't see some responsible adult, or child, riding, on the pavement
out of fear of car drivers is the same sort of offence as genuinely
inconsiderate pavement cycling at all. You seem to be overly concerned
by what sounded like a very considerate 'pavement cyclist' which is
rather irrational. As has already been pointed out many other examples
of lawless behaviour, such as speeding are not only anti-social, they
are genuinely dangerous and much more worthy of concern. Do you work
yourself up into a state of righteous indignation when you see someone
doing 31 MPh in a 30 MPh zone I wonder. Probably not, in fact I would
bet you frequently flout the speed limit yourself. Pot calling kettle
black and all that...

Even the Home Office takes a similar line on pavement cycling and
issued the following to police forces when it introduced 'fixed
penalty notices' for pavement cycling:

'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 been (or certainly should have been) given
to community wardens regarding the use of their powers to curb
anti-social behaviour. The following is from I letter I received from
John Crozier on this very topic.

'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.

[\(t'other\) Dave]

"Pete White" > wrote in message
...
>
> > I would suggest if people didn't pigeon-hole themselves into their
favoured
> > road-user group and then adopt an "us and them" attitude, we (as a
society)
> > could work together to resolve these things so everyone can get to where
> > they wish to go by the means they choose without being unncessarily
> > endangered or inconvenienced by others. Won't happen while people are
intent
> > on pointing the finger at everyone else mind.
>
> U.R.C post of the month in opinion!

hear hear!!...good point well made.......
....and I suspect the reason 'they' use 'em round 'ere is that they have not
been educated in their use.....as 'cyclists', we're aware of them but as
'pedestrians' they are not...it's only at the point that an indignant
cyclists wants to make the point that they (believe they) have 'R.O.W.' on
that bit of tarmac that it occurs to them something might be different....of
course they then suffer a certain amount of indignation that some bloody
bureaucrat has knicked a bit of their pavement and given it to
cyclists...who should be on the bloody road anyway.....and it is so rare to
see 'cyclists' out at all round 'ere that they get the shock of their lives
to boot ;-)
Dave.

[Andy Leighton]

On 12 Jun 2004 08:33:42 -0700, Howard > wrote:
>> I have no problems with cyclists on shared use paths, bridleways
>> etc. and either walk in the ped lane or give cyclists plenty of room,
>> often stepping to one side of the bridleway.
>>
>
> Ah, so you ARE upset predominantly by the fact that 'pavement
> cyclists' are seen to be 'breaking the rules', you old authoritarian
> you!

I am neither old nor authoritarian. I firmly believe that most cyclists
are better off using the road (or provided cycle facilities) than the
pavement. Choosing to hold my line whilst walking is certainly justified.
I had a perfect right to walk along the pavement. The cyclist had no
right being there.

> That said I do agree that irresponsible pavement cycling (the sort
> displayed by many youths on BMX bikes and so on) is yet another sign
> of the breakdown in respect for the law and other people that
> characterises British society.

So I take it you don't ride a BMX then!

> Still, let's not forget it is the users
> of motor vehicles who set the precedents here.

Absolutely. I condemn motor vehicles who take the easy option and
break the rules just as I condemn cyclists who also do so.

> are genuinely dangerous and much more worthy of concern. Do you work
> yourself up into a state of righteous indignation when you see someone
> doing 31 MPh in a 30 MPh zone I wonder. Probably not, in fact I would
> bet you frequently flout the speed limit yourself. Pot calling kettle
> black and all that...

As you would be aware if you had read my followup to your post in the
other thread I do not drive, have never driven and thus never flouted
the speed limit at all.

> Even the Home Office takes a similar line on pavement cycling and
> issued the following to police forces when it introduced 'fixed
> penalty notices' for pavement cycling:

That letter has already been posted and I disagree with it completely.
It is a complete nonsense as all it means is that police forces will
completely ignore pavement cyclists of all types. It also legitimises
the opinion that roads are dangerous and people should be allowed
(and in some cases encouraged) to cycle on the pavements.

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

[Pete Biggs]

Scott Leckey wrote:
>> My guess is that rants about 'pavement cyclists' are little more then
>> your average right wing authoritarian getting into a tiss about
>> seeing a 'low status outgroup' 'breaking the rules'
>
> Or perhaps it's people like me (politically-conservative enthusiastic
> cyclist!) who don't want to be run over by 14-year-old yobs cycling on
> pavements?

Howard's excellent original point was that if pedestrians *really* were so
worried about cylists then they wouldn't ever walk in cycle lanes for fear
of getting run over by 14-year-old yobs.

~PB

[Simonb]

Paul - xxx wrote:

> Which is a damn good argument, virtually identical in fact, for
> pedestrians walking on footpaths thereby stopping cyclists
> appropriating footpaths just 'cos they're daubed with white lines ..
> ;)

This is the correct motorcycle.

[Howard]

> > Oh, and before some cyclephobe authoritarian comes back with 'why do
> > cyclists use the roads if they are so afraid of cars' the answer is
> > because that is where they should ride and they see no reason why they
> > should stop cycling and allow a supposedly public resource to be
> > appropriated by motor vehicle users!
>
> Which is a damn good argument, virtually identical in fact, for pedestrians
> walking on footpaths thereby stopping cyclists appropriating footpaths just
> 'cos they're daubed with white lines .. ;)
>
> I wonder what your point is ?

For my main 'point' read the first paragraph of my post...

With regards the above, I was simply pointing out how unreasonable the
typical 'if you don't like it don't use the roads' attitudes of many
drivers are! I certainly don't think that it would be in any way
acceptable for cyclists to appropriate footpaths from the pedestrian
any more then I think it is right that car drivers have appropriated
the public highway from cyclists and pedestrians (killing and maiming
thousands of them into the bargain).

For what it is worth I would argue that being the faster and
overtaking party the primary burden of responsibility for ensuring the
safety of pedestrians when using shared use paths lies with the
cyclist. However, I would also argue that the same principal, if
deemed to be 'right' when applied to the interaction between
pedestrians and cyclists should be applied to the highways and the
interaction between cyclists and motor vehicles. (Being the faster and
overtaking party as well as, in this case, posing a much greater risk
to third parties then the user faces).

You suggest that pedestrians would be justified in deliberately
obstructing cyclists in order to prevent them using a cycle path
marked on the footway, or perhaps even passing them on shared use
paths, on the basis that this would prevent these paths being
appropriated by cyclists. Do you think that cyclists should also
attempt to reclaim the highways from motor vehicle users by riding
three abreast or more in order to prevent car drivers from passing? I
would suggest that in both cases a little courtesy and common sense is
called for instead.

If the pedestrian is really concerned about reclaiming space
appropriated by others perhaps they should start walking three abreast
in the road. After all under the 1830 Highways Act pedestrians still
have priority on highways. Doubtless you would support such direct
action. Or would you feel that in this case, as it would be motorists
who would be inconvenienced, the pedestrian, along with cyclists,
should simply 'get out of the way'...

Still all this is rather peripheral to my central point. If
pedestrians are so afraid of 'pavement cyclists' why DO they walk in
cycle paths?

[Colin McKenzie]

Howard wrote:

> Even the Home Office takes a similar line on pavement cycling and
> issued the following to police forces when it introduced 'fixed
> penalty notices' for pavement cycling:
>
> '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 been (or certainly should have been) given
> to community wardens regarding the use of their powers to curb
> anti-social behaviour.

I have heard of these wardens attempting to fine a pavement cyclist
recently. Discretion is all very well, but the law is against pavement
cycling, not inconsiderate pavement cycling. If officers choose to go
for the softest targets, there's little comeback.

Colin McKenzie

[Sorry if this doesn't thread properly - I corrected the subject.]
--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

[Howard]

>
> >We all see half-witted rants about 'pavement cyclists' often claiming
> >that this is 'dangerous'.
>
> We should make them wear h*lm*ts
>

Well observed.

When car drivers kill and maim cyclists it is argued that cyclists
should wear polystyrene hats, however pointless this might be. When a
cyclist 'nearly' collides with a pedestrian on a bridleway or similar,
whoever is at fault the reaction is to call for cyclists to be banned
from using the path, not to 'persuade' walkers to wear 'helmets'!

[Paul - xxx]

Howard posted:
>>> Oh, and before some cyclephobe authoritarian comes back with 'why do
>>> cyclists use the roads if they are so afraid of cars' the answer is
>>> because that is where they should ride and they see no reason why they
>>> should stop cycling and allow a supposedly public resource to be
>>> appropriated by motor vehicle users!
>>
>> Which is a damn good argument, virtually identical in fact, for
>> pedestrians walking on footpaths thereby stopping cyclists appropriating
>> footpaths just 'cos they're daubed with white lines .. ;)

> You suggest that pedestrians would be justified in deliberately
> obstructing cyclists in order to prevent them using a cycle path

No I don't.

> marked on the footway, or perhaps even passing them on shared use
> paths, on the basis that this would prevent these paths being
> appropriated by cyclists.

I merely repeated your argument with relation to peds and cyclists on paths,
rather than cyclists and drivers on roads ...

Pedestrians need paths, Motor vehicles need roads, Cycles can use either,
where appropriate, so it's probably inevitable that some peds and some car
drivers think cyclists have too much of a good thing because they have such
a choice. Drivers and pedestrians don't have the choice ...

--
Paul ...

(8(|) ... Homer Rocks

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 12 Jun 2004 08:33:42 -0700, (Howard)
wrote in message >:

>That said I do agree that irresponsible pavement cycling (the sort
>displayed by many youths on BMX bikes and so on) is yet another sign
>of the breakdown in respect for the law and other people that
>characterises British society.

My son aged ten has been told in no uncertain terms that he is too big
to ride on the pavement. I blame the parents.

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

[Howard]

As this thread seems to be going a little off target. Might I suggest
two possible explanations for this phenomena.


1) Pedestrians actually KNOW that cyclists pose minimal danger to them
and that most cyclists will go out of their way to avoid colliding
with a pedestrian. Hence claims that pavement cycling is wrong are
more to do with feeling annoyed, disliking seeing some 'breaking the
rules', deep seated prejudices against cyclists as members of a low
status social out-group and so on rather then any genuine concerns
about safety. There is plenty of research suggesting this: For
example, http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_504728.hcsp

'Main Conclusions

* Observation revealed no real factors to justify excluding cyclists
from pedestrianised areas, suggesting that cycling could be more
widely permitted without detriment to pedestrians;

Findings

Pedestrians change their behaviour in the presence of motor vehicles,
but not in response to cyclists.

Cyclists respond to pedestrian density, modifying their speed,
dismounting and taking other avoiding action where necessary.

Accidents between pedestrians and cyclists were very rarely generated
in pedestrianised areas (only one pedestrian/cyclist accident in 15
site years) in the sites studied.'

The first finding is interesting. Consider how pedestrians part like
the Red Sea before Moses when a motor vehicle drives through a
pedestrianised area, even one doing so illegally! It also suggest to
me another explanation. Perhaps pedestrians perceive motor vehicle
users to be of a high status and so feel compelled to 'keep out of the
way'. Drivers also feel themselves to be of a higher status and expect
others to 'get out of the way'.

However, many pedestrians (who are also quite possibly drivers) feel
that cyclists have a lower status then themselves and so are loath to
give way to them. Issues of safety and so on are secondary. What
really counts is the perceived social pecking order!

Similarly, motorists often accuse cyclists as being 'arrogant'. Now as
this means having a sense of self worth not supported by reality, and
the fact that many drivers feel cyclists are almost non-human (look at
all the dehumanising and deindividuating terms used to describe
cyclists such as 'lycra lout', two wheeled terrorist', lycra nazi' and
so on), it follows that any cyclist who displays a sense of self worth
or who claims equality will be definition be seen as being 'arrogant!

[Tony Raven]

Howard wrote:
>
> 'Main Conclusions
>
> * Observation revealed no real factors to justify excluding cyclists
> from pedestrianised areas, suggesting that cycling could be more
> widely permitted without detriment to pedestrians;
> <snip>
>
> Cyclists respond to pedestrian density, modifying their speed,
> dismounting and taking other avoiding action where necessary.
>

My objection as a pedestrian whether in pedestrianised areas, on the pavement
is based on the following factors:

- if there are no cyclists I can relax and when the children were younger,
give them a bit of freedom rather than have them walk next to me in case they
darted in front of a cyclist or were hit by one

- my experience of cyclists cycling in pedestrian areas is that many do not
moderate their speed to take account of conditions. It may just be because
its Cambridge with students late for lectures, but quite a few go through the
pedestrianised area in the centre at quite high speeds (leading to my having
to keep an eye out all the time especially if I have a child or two with me

- while cyclists have every right to use a shared used path its a pity that
using it as a pedestrian it is now much rarer that I can walk side by side
with someone and talk without one of us encroaching on the cycle section.

For these reasons and others when cycling I do so on the road, not the
pavement or pedestrianised area.

Tony

[Howard]

P.s. With regards my 'status' hypothesis. It would be interesting to
know how those who feel justified in obstructing or otherwise
challenging 'pavement cyclists' respond to other examples of rule
breaking or anti-social behaviour they see. I would suggest that if
they don't mind passing comment to cyclists, but don't usually
challenge litter droppers, those who smoke in no smoking areas,
drivers they see parking inconsiderately etc. etc. then this adds
weight to my hypothesis. I wonder how many pedestrians deliberately
obstruct the passage of other pedestrians who, for example, use the
wrong side of a walkway in a railway station or similar...

If only cyclists are habitually challenged then this suggests that it
is OK to challenge a cyclist because they are considered to be of a
low status and 'deserving' of criticism, and perhaps even because it
is perceived that being of a low status they will meekly accept such
admonishment from one of their 'betters' whereas someone of equal
status might not be expected to respond so passively. Similarly, I
would suggest that law breaking drivers are rarely challenged by
pedestrians because they are seen as being of a higher status and in
turn drivers would respond badly to being challenged by some they see
of being of a lower status.

I certainly have seen plenty of indignant reports from drivers who
say that cyclists they challenged for some petty infraction became
abusive or ignored them. I wonder how those drivers would respond if a
cyclist were to challenge them in a similar manner. In my experience
most drivers certainly don't take such criticism well themselves!...

[Colin McKenzie]

Howard wrote:

> You suggest that pedestrians would be justified in deliberately
> obstructing cyclists in order to prevent them using a cycle path
> marked on the footway, or perhaps even passing them on shared use
> paths, on the basis that this would prevent these paths being
> appropriated by cyclists. Do you think that cyclists should also
> attempt to reclaim the highways from motor vehicle users by riding
> three abreast or more in order to prevent car drivers from passing?

Plenty of places I can think of where this is the best policy - but it
is only necessary to ride one abreast (correctly positioned) to
prevent dangerous overtaking.

In the same way, I think peds should walk down the middle of a shared
path under 1.6m or so wide to make cyclists think before passing them.

Colin McKenzie


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

[Doki]

Howard wrote:
> We all see half-witted rants about 'pavement cyclists' often claiming
> that this is 'dangerous'. However, why is it that pedestrians fear of
> cyclists seems to evaoporate when they want to use facilities
> supposedly set aside for cyclists? How come almost half the users of
> The National 'Cycle' Network are pedestrians? Why is it that
> pedestrians seem incapable of walking on the correct side of a
> segregated cycle/footpath? Why is it that most shared use paths are
> full of dog walkers seemingly oblivious of cyclists actually trying to
> get somewhere by using the path?

Perhaps the people who walk on cycle paths are different people to the ones
who complain about pavement cycling? Not a great leap of logic...

[Howard]

P.s. With regards my 'status' hypothesis. It would be interesting to
know how those who feel justified in obstructing or otherwise
challenging 'pavement cyclists' respond to other examples of rule
breaking or anti-social behaviour they see. I would suggest that if
they don't mind passing comment to cyclists, but don't usually
challenge litter droppers, those who smoke in no smoking areas,
drivers they see parking inconsiderately etc. etc. then this adds
weight to my hypothesis. I wonder how many pedestrians deliberately
obstruct the passage of other pedestrians who, for example, use the
wrong side of a walkway in a railway station or similar...

If only cyclists are habitually challenged then this suggests that it
is OK to challenge a cyclist because they are considered to be of a
low status and 'deserving' of criticism, and perhaps even because it
is perceived that being of a low status they will meekly accept such
admonishment from one of their 'betters' whereas someone of equal
status might not be expected to respond so passively. Similarly, I
would suggest that law breaking drivers are rarely challenged by
pedestrians because they are seen as being of a higher status and in
turn drivers would respond badly to being challenged by some they see
of being of a lower status.

I certainly have seen plenty of indignant reports from drivers who
say that cyclists they challenged for some petty infraction became
abusive or ignored them. I wonder how those drivers would respond if a
cyclist were to challenge them in a similar manner. In my experience
most drivers certainly don't take criticism well themselves!...

[Howard]

>
> My objection as a pedestrian whether in pedestrianised areas, on the pavement
> is based on the following factors...

> Tony



I see where you are coming from here. Thing is it seems to me that the
attitudes some cyclists might express towards pedestrians (i.e that
they should 'get out of the way') stem directly from the attitudes
cyclists themselves experience from drivers. (And often those
expecting cyclists to 'get out of the way' when they are driving are
often the same people who become indignant if they feel a cyclist is
expecting them to give way when they are out walking!).

Your points about not been able to relax when sharing space with
cyclists and the difficulty encountered if one wishes to walk two
abreast are well made. However, this is also exactly the same
situation that now exists on the roads. It is now almost impossible to
ride on the road and feel relaxed. Also in my experience many drivers
have now become totally intolerant of meeting groups of cyclists and
feel they have suffered a great injustice if they even have to slow
down before passing. Some just drive straight at you expecting you to
'get out of the way' or be thrown over the front of their car.

It seems impossible to address the problems of 'pavement cycling', be
this cyclists and pedestrians being forced to share paths, or cyclists
choosing to ride on footpaths, without addressing the real cause of
all this: the appropriation of the public road by the users of motor
vehicles and the discourtesy shown by many drivers towards cyclists.

As you suggest it must be made possible for cyclists to feel safe and
relaxed when using the road and to be able to ride in a group free of
intimidation. Perhaps the only way to achieve this, given the seeming
impossibilities of changing driver attitudes and behaviour, is to deny
drivers access to a large part of the road network. Given the number
of people they kill and maim, and the fact that using the public road
is supposedly a privilege controlled through licence, not a right, I
would have thought that by now drivers would have lost all moral claim
to be allowed to use the public road. Address this root problem and
the much more minor 'problem' of 'pavement cyclists' would disappear.

[Andy Leighton]

On 12 Jun 2004 23:43:25 -0700, Howard > wrote:
> P.s. With regards my 'status' hypothesis. It would be interesting to
> know how those who feel justified in obstructing or otherwise
> challenging 'pavement cyclists' respond to other examples of rule
> breaking or anti-social behaviour they see.

I challenge when it is likely not to lead to an assault on me.
I have certainly challenged litter droppers and smokers in no-smoking
areas in the past.

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

[Howard]

>Doki
>
> Perhaps the people who walk on cycle paths are different people to the ones
> who complain about pavement cycling? Not a great leap of logic...



So what we are saying is the sort of people who wander down the
'cycle' part of segregated cycle/footpaths, whilst lacking a little
commonsense and courtesy, at least have a sense of perspective and
might even be the sort of people who speak out about REAL problems,
such as the carnage on our roads, or the number of pedestrians killed
and maimed by car drivers on pedestrian crossings.

On the other hand most of those who troll on cycling threads about
issues such as 'pavement cyclists' are an unrepresentative minority of
cyclephobe authoritarians/ hierarchists (or least individuals who sit
somewhere on the right) who are upset by seeing members of a low
status out-group 'breaking the rules' and who can be quitened by
simply erecting signs calling a footpath a cycle path?

Makes sense!

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 00:06:39 +0100, "Doki" >
wrote in message >:

>Perhaps the people who walk on cycle paths are different people to the ones
>who complain about pavement cycling? Not a great leap of logic...

In much the same way as those who complain that cycling is dangerous
and helmets must be worn, are rarely cyclists themselves? Seems
plausible.

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

[James Annan]

Tony Raven wrote:


> - while cyclists have every right to use a shared used path its a pity that
> using it as a pedestrian it is now much rarer that I can walk side by side
> with someone and talk without one of us encroaching on the cycle section.

The obvious solution to this bit is to not paint the line. Of course if
is it busy you cannot expect to walk abreast in any case, but when
quiet, there seems no harm in it - either from the cyclist or pedestrian
POV. The DOT does seem to adhere firmly to the view that pedestrians and
cyclists can generally mix without problems.

James

[Doki]

Howard wrote:
>> Doki
>>
>> Perhaps the people who walk on cycle paths are different people to
>> the ones who complain about pavement cycling? Not a great leap of
>> logic...
>
>
>
> So what we are saying is the sort of people who wander down the
> 'cycle' part of segregated cycle/footpaths, whilst lacking a little
> commonsense and courtesy, at least have a sense of perspective and
> might even be the sort of people who speak out about REAL problems,
> such as the carnage on our roads, or the number of pedestrians killed
> and maimed by car drivers on pedestrian crossings.
>
> On the other hand most of those who troll on cycling threads about
> issues such as 'pavement cyclists' are an unrepresentative minority of
> cyclephobe authoritarians/ hierarchists (or least individuals who sit
> somewhere on the right) who are upset by seeing members of a low
> status out-group 'breaking the rules' and who can be quitened by
> simply erecting signs calling a footpath a cycle path?
>
> Makes sense!

No, that's not what I said. I think poeple wandering down cycle paths are
idiots, and think the same of people who ride down the pavement. People who
walk in cycle paths may or may not give a toss about road casualties (which
are pretty low here compared to the rest of the world, despite the govt's
best efforts). People who moan about people cycling on the pavement might
just be people who don't want to dodge people on bikes, and realise that
it's safer to ride on the road. I'd no more cycle on the pavement than drive
my car on it.

[Doki]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 00:06:39 +0100, "Doki" >
> wrote in message >:
>
>> Perhaps the people who walk on cycle paths are different people to
>> the ones who complain about pavement cycling? Not a great leap of
>> logic...
>
> In much the same way as those who complain that cycling is dangerous
> and helmets must be worn, are rarely cyclists themselves? Seems
> plausible.

It's not difficult for a few people to make an unrepresentative amount of
noise IMO. Think how many people actually give a toss either way on helmet
compulsion as a %age of the population, but BHIT / Martlew set about a
private members bill anyway. Then think about how many people would say they
wanted out of the EU if you asked them, but bugger all's been said about
that because the media generally dismisses it as a xenophobic idea and
anyone who makes vague noises about it in Parliament is made to look a
nutter in the papers.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:01:26 +0100, "Doki" >
wrote in message >:

>Then think about how many people would say they
>wanted out of the EU if you asked them

IMO that, too, is a small and vocal minority.

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

[Tony Raven]

Howard wrote:
>
> As you suggest it must be made possible for cyclists to feel safe and
> relaxed when using the road and to be able to ride in a group free of
> intimidation.

I feel safe and relaxed cycling on the road. I'm no more at risk than when
walking. The problem is that people are led to believe its dangerous needing
special protective ghettos to cycle in and special protective gear to wear.
No wonder they think they ought to be scared.

Tony

[Howard]

>Doki

>People who
> walk in cycle paths may or may not give a toss about road casualties (which
> are pretty low here compared to the rest of the world, despite the govt's
> best efforts).

In fact the UK casualty rate for serious injuries is very average when
compared to other European countries. The UK death and serious injury
rates for vulnerable road users, such as children and cyclists, are
just about the worst in Europe. Death rates far car occupants are
below the European average but then again we have some of the best
post crash emergency services in the world. The BMC has estimated that
as much as one third the reduction in road deaths in recent years has
been due to improvements in post crash care. Also in countries such as
France many crashes are single vehicle ones related to excessive
speed, with such excessive speed being encouraged by the very many
'quiet' rural roads in France. Just look at comparable areas in the UK
such as Lincolnshire and parts of Scotland. Their death rates are up
to ten time the UK average.

It is also very important to note that it cannot be claimed that our
roads are 'safe' purely on the basis of casualty figures. The biggest
reason the casualty figures (rather then rates based on exposure) for
groups like cyclists are lower in the UK then many European countries
is that our roads are actually so dangerous, very few cyclists dare
use them!

I know what you mean about the feebleness with which the 'Government'
addresses road safety issues, what with it giving drivers licence to
speed anywhere there isn't a bright yellow box by the side of the
road, refusing to introduce lower 'European' drink drive limits and
refusing to give the police powers to do random tests on drivers for
drink and drugs etc.

To take France again there the Government has taken real action to
reduce levels of speeding and drink driving, using covert cameras,
banning the use of radar detectors, random tests for drink-driving and
so on. The result? In the last set of year on year figures road
killings in France have fallen from over 7300 to 5400. This shows what
can be achieved when the Government isn't running scared of the motor
lobby as the UK 'Government' is...