Pavement cycling

I've just found this article:

http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/down...nt-cycling.pdf

Mentioned nowhere is the fact that many councils are actively
encouraging cyclists to use pavements, so I've pointed this out to them.
If anyone else would like to do the same, that can only help. There
is a link on their homepage at http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/

If you have no interest in this thread, then just hit "k" to kill it, or
the equivalent in your reader, rather than complain.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

In article
Paul Boyd wrote:
I've just found this article:

http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/down...nt-cycling.pdf

Mentioned nowhere is the fact that many councils are actively
encouraging cyclists to use pavements, so I've pointed this out to them.

They don't seem to understand the difference between pavements and
footpaths.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:05:58 +0100, Paul Boyd
wrote:

I've just found this article:

http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/down...nt-cycling.pdf

Mentioned nowhere is the fact that many councils are actively
encouraging cyclists to use pavements, so I've pointed this out to them.
If anyone else would like to do the same, that can only help. There
is a link on their homepage at http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/

If you have no interest in this thread, then just hit "k" to kill it, or
the equivalent in your reader, rather than complain.



Their pic of a "pavement cyclist breaking the law!" is a bit cack!


Anyhow I use roads 98% of the time - certain roads near me are like
dual carriageways with almost no people walking near them - especially
near the FAST FAST roundabouts, it's simply safer for everyone all
round if I use the wide sparse footpaths there so as not to you know,
get killed.

In article
BB wrote:
snip
Anyhow I use roads 98% of the time - certain roads near me are like
dual carriageways with almost no people walking near them - especially
near the FAST FAST roundabouts, it's simply safer for everyone all
round if I use the wide sparse footpaths there so as not to you know,
get killed.


Are you one of those soft southerners? I've been killed loads of times
and it's never done me any harm. :-)

Don't be too harsh on livingstreets; their objectives are basically
sound. They can also be a staunch ally when it comes to preventing LAs
from introducing shared/unsegregated routes and other horrors.

On 26/07/2006 20:37, Not Responding said,
Don't be too harsh on livingstreets; their objectives are basically
sound. They can also be a staunch ally when it comes to preventing LAs
from introducing shared/unsegregated routes and other horrors.

I wasn't being harsh - in fact the email I sent to them was along the
lines of "if you want to get cyclists of the pavements, then talk to the
local councils to stop forcing cyclists onto them.", and I used an
example of a ridiculous segregated route near me as to why they should
get councils to stop doing these things. This helps both parties.

They have a common aim - they want cyclists off the pavements, and
cyclists generally don't want to be pushed onto the pavements. (unless
it is to avoid a stoopid farcility as mentioned in my post of about 5
minutes ago!!!!)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:34:21 +0100, Rob Morley
wrote:


Are you one of those soft southerners? I've been killed loads of times
and it's never done me any harm. :-)


I'm soft and squishy, yes.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:18:30 +0000, BB wrote:




Anyhow I use roads 98% of the time - certain roads near me are like
dual carriageways with almost no people walking near them - especially
near the FAST FAST roundabouts, it's simply safer for everyone all
round if I use the wide sparse footpaths there so as not to you know,
get killed.

This sounds very similar to some of the regular routes I take. It's
basically a question of either take terrible risks and annoy car drivers;
walk for five minutes on the path or simply technically break the law in a
way that doesn't harm anyone.

--
***My real address is m/ike at u/nmusic d/ot co dot u/k (removing /s)
http://www.unmusic.co.uk - about me, music, geek sitcom etc.
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/amhs/ - alt.music.home-studio

BB wrote:


Their pic of a "pavement cyclist breaking the law!" is a bit cack!


Not even clear that that is a pavement cyclist. Looks to me like that
person is either pushing their bike or getting onto it or off it.
Certainly their left foot is flat on the ground.

Looks like there is a motorbike parked on the pavement as well -
presumably if it's legal to have motorbikes there it's also legal to
have bicycles there.

Tim.

killermike wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:18:30 +0000, BB wrote:




Anyhow I use roads 98% of the time - certain roads near me are like
dual carriageways with almost no people walking near them - especially
near the FAST FAST roundabouts, it's simply safer for everyone all
round if I use the wide sparse footpaths there so as not to you know,
get killed.

This sounds very similar to some of the regular routes I take. It's
basically a question of either take terrible risks and annoy car drivers;
walk for five minutes on the path or simply technically break the law in a
way that doesn't harm anyone.

--
***My real address is m/ike at u/nmusic d/ot co dot u/k (removing /s)
http://www.unmusic.co.uk - about me, music, geek sitcom etc.
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/amhs/ - alt.music.home-studio

Hi Mike,

no offence meant, and I do sympathise with you, particularly in respect
of fast roundabouts and taking risks, but...

I'd avoid the defence that you're only "technically break(ing) the law
in a way that doesn't harm anyone."
This is also put forward as a justification by:
- speeding motorists
- red light jumpers
- motorists driving or parking in bus/cycle lanes
- those comitting white collar crime such as insider trading, insurance
fraud and theft from large corportations/the state :-)

Cyclists are particularly vulnerable to others who pick and choose
which laws/rules to obey and when, so I think we need to be careful of
doing that ourselves.

regards,

bookieb