pavements, multi use or single use

Just been reading about a death in Florida of a cyclist (bicyclist),
sad, posted by Doug.
I then went on to read a little of their laws. And I quote
“A person propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk, or across a
roadway upon and along a crosswalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any
pedestrian and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and
passing such pedestrian”
Much I dislike the idea of cyclists on our pavements, some do cycle on
pavements, I am a strong believer in the concept that the pavement is
the sole preserve of the pedestrian. But I do sometimes wonder given
that the law does nothing to discourage pavement riding in reality, so
wouldn’t a law like this be a sensible move here? (with the enforcement
of it of course) or perhaps the battle for the pavements is not yet
lost, cars park on them, police cars park on them, my local council
vehicles sometimes park on them, electric scooters whiz up and down them...
We are all pedestrians from time to time, keeping/making the pavements a
safe place would be good for everyone I think – what do you think?
Sorry about waffling along a little

Polly

"Jolly Polly" wrote in message
...

Much I dislike the idea of cyclists on our pavements, some do cycle on
pavements, I am a strong believer in the concept that the pavement is
the sole preserve of the pedestrian. But I do sometimes wonder given
that the law does nothing to discourage pavement riding in reality, so
wouldn’t a law like this be a sensible move here?

No.

Cyclists should not ride on the pavement (or even shared pedestrian/cycle
paths IMO). Taking cyclists off the pavement makes the pavements safer for
pedestrians and keeps cyclists safer by being on the roads which are less
hazardous than pavements. Putting more cyclists on the road makes the roads
safer for cyclists (and pedestrians) as it has the effect of calming the
traffic.

Many areas are clamping down on pavement cyclists (which I believe is a good
thing). The more done in that respect the better.

mileburner wrote on Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:33:00 +0000:

Cyclists should not ride on the pavement (or even shared
pedestrian/cycle paths IMO).

I too believe that bikes belong on the road. I can understand why some
people might think that shared-use pavements are a Good Thing, but I
think that the "safety in numbers" argument has merit.

--
Regards
Alex

In article ,
Alex Potter wrote:

mileburner wrote on Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:33:00 +0000:

Cyclists should not ride on the pavement (or even shared
pedestrian/cycle paths IMO).

I too believe that bikes belong on the road. I can understand why some
people might think that shared-use pavements are a Good Thing, but I
think that the "safety in numbers" argument has merit.

Shared use pavements are horrendous unless you cycle at walking speed,
in which case you might as well walk. They put pedestrians and cyclists
at danger, also cars reverse out of driveways into cyclists, and such
pavements minoritise cyclists as road users which leads to a few
motorists using their vehicles to intimidate and drive you off the road
should you dare to cycle along the road rather than along the shared-use
pavement alongside.

"suer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Alex Potter wrote:

mileburner wrote on Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:33:00 +0000:

Cyclists should not ride on the pavement (or even shared
pedestrian/cycle paths IMO).

I too believe that bikes belong on the road. I can understand why some
people might think that shared-use pavements are a Good Thing, but I
think that the "safety in numbers" argument has merit.

Shared use pavements are horrendous unless you cycle at walking speed,
in which case you might as well walk. They put pedestrians and cyclists
at danger, also cars reverse out of driveways into cyclists, and such
pavements minoritise cyclists as road users which leads to a few
motorists using their vehicles to intimidate and drive you off the road
should you dare to cycle along the road rather than along the shared-use
pavement alongside.

The other thing with shared use pathways is that they encourage pavement
cycling. If the council, the law and society overall expect cyclists to use
shared use footpaths when they are designated as such, they cannot really
complain when cyclists use other footpaths which have not been designated.

It truly is ridiculous to have a law which prohibits pavement cycling, but
have shared use pavement-cum-cyclepaths as it makes a mockery out of the law
where the pavement has not been designated.

Consequently pavement cycling is more popular than ever.

mileburner wrote on Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:58:53 +0000:

The other thing with shared use pathways is that they encourage pavement
cycling. If the council, the law and society overall expect cyclists to
use shared use footpaths when they are designated as such, they cannot
really complain when cyclists use other footpaths which have not been
designated.

And that's the nub of the problem. We've been sending out the wrong
messages with the magic white paint, so although a fair proportion of the
general public disapproves of pavement cyclists, a perception has arisen
that pavement cycling is somehow safer, and "anyway, there's more traffic
and it's extremely dangerous to ride the roads nowadays" is used as a
justification.

I'd suggest that proper training for cyclists leading to a real
appreciation of the risks, and not magic paint, would be the best use of
resources to improve the safety of cyclists on the road, as part of the
traffic, where they belong.

--
Regards
Alex

suer wrote on Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:27:15 +0000:

Shared use pavements are horrendous unless you cycle at walking speed,
in which case you might as well walk. They put pedestrians and cyclists
at danger, also cars reverse out of driveways into cyclists, and such
pavements minoritise cyclists as road users which leads to a few
motorists using their vehicles to intimidate and drive you off the road
should you dare to cycle along the road rather than along the shared-use
pavement alongside.

I agree with you regarding pavements.

There may be a few drivers such as you describe, but I've never met one,
and I'm sure someone could come up with some accident statistics to show
just how rare such occurrences are. Dozy, distracted or unobservant
drivers, yes, but never just evil.

Does that happen to you often?

--
Regards
Alex

On Jan 25, 4:22*pm, Alex Potter wrote:
suer wrote on Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:27:15 +0000:

Shared use pavements are horrendous unless you cycle at walking speed,
in which case you might as well walk. *They put pedestrians and cyclists
at danger, *also cars reverse out of driveways into cyclists, and such
pavements minoritise cyclists as road users which leads to a few
motorists using their vehicles to intimidate and drive you off the road
should you dare to cycle along the road rather than along the shared-use
pavement alongside.

I agree with you regarding pavements.

There may be a few drivers such as you describe, but I've never met one,
and I'm sure someone could come up with some accident statistics to show
just how rare such occurrences are. Dozy, distracted or unobservant
drivers, yes, but never just evil.

Does that happen to you often?

--
Regards
Alex

Apparently there are hundreds of such drivers near Catford as Doug
encounters them all the time.

WSR

On Jan 25, 3:58*pm, "mileburner" wrote:
"suer" wrote in message

...



In article ,
Alex Potter wrote:

mileburner wrote on Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:33:00 +0000:

Cyclists should not ride on the pavement (or even shared
pedestrian/cycle paths IMO).

I too believe that bikes belong on the road. I can understand why some
people might think that shared-use pavements are a Good Thing, but I
think that the "safety in numbers" argument has merit.

Shared use pavements are horrendous unless you cycle at walking speed,
in which case you might as well walk. *They put pedestrians and cyclists
at danger, *also cars reverse out of driveways into cyclists, and such
pavements minoritise cyclists as road users which leads to a few
motorists using their vehicles to intimidate and drive you off the road
should you dare to cycle along the road rather than along the shared-use
pavement alongside.

The other thing with shared use pathways is that they encourage pavement
cycling. If the council, the law and society overall expect cyclists to use
shared use footpaths when they are designated as such, they cannot really
complain when cyclists use other footpaths which have not been designated..

Why not, if such shared use pavements (which I generally don't like)
are marked correctly, cyclists should be able to see & understand that
pavement (or shared use) cycling is only permited where such signs
exist.


It truly is ridiculous to have a law which prohibits pavement cycling, but
have shared use pavement-cum-cyclepaths as it makes a mockery out of the law
where the pavement has not been designated.

Consequently pavement cycling is more popular than ever.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:09:29 -0800 (PST), webreader
wrote:

On Jan 25, 3:58*pm, "mileburner" wrote:
"suer" wrote in message

...



In article ,
Alex Potter wrote:

mileburner wrote on Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:33:00 +0000:

Cyclists should not ride on the pavement (or even shared
pedestrian/cycle paths IMO).

I too believe that bikes belong on the road. I can understand why some
people might think that shared-use pavements are a Good Thing, but I
think that the "safety in numbers" argument has merit.

Shared use pavements are horrendous unless you cycle at walking speed,
in which case you might as well walk. *They put pedestrians and cyclists
at danger, *also cars reverse out of driveways into cyclists, and such
pavements minoritise cyclists as road users which leads to a few
motorists using their vehicles to intimidate and drive you off the road
should you dare to cycle along the road rather than along the shared-use
pavement alongside.

The other thing with shared use pathways is that they encourage pavement
cycling. If the council, the law and society overall expect cyclists to use
shared use footpaths when they are designated as such, they cannot really
complain when cyclists use other footpaths which have not been designated.

Why not, if such shared use pavements (which I generally don't like)
are marked correctly, cyclists should be able to see & understand that
pavement (or shared use) cycling is only permited where such signs
exist.
I hate shared-use paths too, both from a pedestrian and cyclist POV.
The potential speed difference is too great, unless cyclists slow down
to pedestrian speed, which negates the whole point of taking the bike
in the first place. Your point about cyclists sticking to the areas
marked out for them is a fair one, but I for one have been forced into
the pedestrian zone on several occasions just because of peds in the
cycle zone. And as for dog walkers with telescopic leads...