pavements, multi use or single use

On Jan 26, 8:01*am, Doug wrote:
On 25 Jan, 13:33, "mileburner" wrote:

"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.

Yes and cars should be banned from pavements and street-garaging too.
Maybe cyclists should travel in groups on roads, like Critical Mass,
for safety, by waiting until a critical number has amassed. This would
be especially practical in the rush-hour. Also, if cyclists are in
groups of two or more they can witness when deliberate ramming by
drivers takes place.

--
UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

You really should take your medication.


WSR

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:48:21 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

Peter Grange wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Peter Grange wrote:

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.

That's a bit like a car-driver (or even a lorry-driver) complaining about
being "forced" to drive along the footway because there are pedestrians on
the carriageway.
There's no "force" involved. Breaking the law in either way is a choice.

FFS, i was just demonstrating to webreader that the problems with
shared cycle paths are not just with cyclists.

*If* it was purely theoretical and not an admission of actual breaches of the
law, you chose an odd way to word it: "I for one have been *forced* [my
emphasis] into the pedestrian zone on several occasions...".

Nice theoretical world you live in. Do you ever venture outside at
all?
It's sensible then that if a ped is in the cycle part of the shared
path and there is no-one in the ped part a cyclist should stop and
point out the eror of his/her ways.

Meanwhile in the real world, of which you seem to have little
experience, the cyclist will use the ped part of the path so both can
continue on their way.


And as for dog walkers with telescopic leads...

Wht's the matter with those?

Like most things, nothing if used sensibly.

There's only one way to use them. Their purpose is to allow the dog some
freedom of movement whilst not requiring the human companion to wander
wherever the dog decides to go, whilst still allowing the alker some ultimate
control over the animal.

The walker being on one
side, the dog on the other, the lead across the whole path, and the
walker being completely oblivious to the fact that he/she is
abstructing the path happens too often, in my experience.

It can happen. But it's just one of those things we all have to tolerate.

I sometimes take my neighbour's dog for a walk of a mile or two on one. If
they cause difficulties to cyclists, that's just more evidence which backs up
your basic premise.

Quite.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:47:57 +0000 someone who may be Jolly Polly
wrote this:-

Much I dislike the idea of cyclists on our pavements, some do cycle on
pavements,

The "let's get these dammed cyclists off the roads" movement is not
one created by cyclists. Rather it was created by (some) motorists,
including most road "safety" officials.

Cyclists do find themselves persecuted in various ways for "not
using the facilities provided for them". Take a look at some of the
postings here and in uk.tosspot. In Telford a cyclist was even
convicted of this "crime", though eventually the legal system
accepted it had got it wrong.

Having said that, I am not that popular here for saying that I have
no objection to pavement cycling, provided it is done properly.
Doing it properly may well mean a short distance (for example to get
from the road to the shops), will always mean at low speed and may
mean cycling at the speed of pedestrians if necessary.

A law to make cyclists provide an audible warning when encountering
pedestrians on pavements would, if enforced, soon make many
pedestrians angry (just as some are when cyclists do the same on
cycle paths). If there is a pedestrian about then the cyclist should
not be relying on an audible "get out of my way" warning, but
travelling slowly enough to avoid the pedestrian if necessary. A
gentle "excuse me" may be appropriate at times, but nothing else.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:47:57 -0000, Jolly Polly wrote:

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

I think you should xpost this to uk.rec.walking, as we need a new take on
flame wars; it's usually just the transport (read car drivers) and
uk.legal (why?) that get the fun.
--
Nuns! Reverse!

Esra Sdrawkcab wrote:

I think you should xpost this to uk.rec.walking, as we need a new take
on flame wars; it's usually just the transport (read car drivers) and
uk.legal (why?) that get the fun.
--Nuns! Reverse!
Maybe not
It was a serious thought, as there clearly IS a problem in this area
with little or no enforcement of the current laws, by anybody. Police,
CPS, Traffic Wardens, Parents, Councils, Government, Public (almost
everybody else)
Yes a few folk actually care, but the majority don't give a cats whisker
- not until it's too late. If they won't enforce the existing laws why
would they enforce any new laws.
I wonder what Joanna Lumley's doing at the moment...

Peter Grange wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Peter Grange wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Peter Grange wrote:

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.

That's a bit like a car-driver (or even a lorry-driver) complaining about
being "forced" to drive along the footway because there are pedestrians on
the carriageway.
There's no "force" involved. Breaking the law in either way is a choice.

FFS, i was just demonstrating to webreader that the problems with
shared cycle paths are not just with cyclists.

*If* it was purely theoretical and not an admission of actual breaches of the
law, you chose an odd way to word it: "I for one have been *forced* [my
emphasis] into the pedestrian zone on several occasions...".

Nice theoretical world you live in. Do you ever venture outside at
all?

Now don't start that. It was you who cocked up.

It's sensible then that if a ped is in the cycle part of the shared
path and there is no-one in the ped part a cyclist should stop and
point out the eror of his/her ways.

It might be. It would be equally sensible for the cyclist to just stop until
the conflict has been resolved. After all, the pedestrian has a right to walk
on all of the path. The cyclist does NOT have the right to cycle on the bit
of the footway (Ye Gods!) which is reserved for pedestrians.

There is absolutely no question of "force". The cyclist is not "forced" to
cycle where he is not allowed to. He chooses to do so (if that is what he
does). The very mention of the notion of "force" suggests a mindset where the
cyclist's personal whims and fancies are elevated to the status of a binding
moral code for which everyone else must make way. And I'm fairly sure it
wasn't what you meant to suggest.

Meanwhile in the real world, of which you seem to have little
experience, the cyclist will use the ped part of the path so both can
continue on their way.

It's an offence.

Don't forget that.

And please drop the high moral tone - the pedestrian is one hundred percent
*entitled* to walk on any part of the footway, irrespective of markings. The
markings are for the cyclist's information, not that of the pedestrian.

If lawful sharing of the path with pedestrians is tireseome, there's a simple
and lawful alternative - use the carriageway.

On 27 Jan, 00:43, JNugent wrote:
Peter Grange wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Peter Grange wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Peter Grange wrote:
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.
That's a bit like a car-driver (or even a lorry-driver) complaining about
being "forced" to drive along the footway because there are pedestrians on
the carriageway.
There's no "force" involved. Breaking the law in either way is a choice.
FFS, i was just demonstrating to webreader that the problems with
shared cycle paths are not just with cyclists.
*If* it was purely theoretical and not an admission of actual breaches of the
law, you chose an odd way to word it: "I for one have been *forced* [my
emphasis] into the pedestrian zone on several occasions...".
Nice theoretical world you live in. Do you ever venture outside at
all?

Now don't start that. It was you who cocked up.

It's sensible then that if a ped is in the cycle part of the shared
path and there is no-one in the ped part a cyclist should stop and
point out the eror of his/her ways.

It might be. It would be equally sensible for the cyclist to just stop until
the conflict has been resolved. After all, the pedestrian has a right to walk
on all of the path. The cyclist does NOT have the right to cycle on the bit
of the footway (Ye Gods!) which is reserved for pedestrians.

There is absolutely no question of "force". The cyclist is not "forced" to
cycle where he is not allowed to. He chooses to do so (if that is what he
does). The very mention of the notion of "force" suggests a mindset where the
cyclist's personal whims and fancies are elevated to the status of a binding
moral code for which everyone else must make way. And I'm fairly sure it
wasn't what you meant to suggest.

Meanwhile in the real world, of which you seem to have little
experience, *the cyclist will use the ped part of the path so both can
continue on their way.

It's an offence.

Don't forget that.

And please drop the high moral tone - the pedestrian is one hundred percent
*entitled* to walk on any part of the footway, irrespective of markings. The
markings are for the cyclist's information, not that of the pedestrian.

If lawful sharing of the path with pedestrians is tireseome, there's a simple
and lawful alternative - use the carriageway.

How about sharing with cars parked on pavements, particularly those
that block pavements or block dropped kerbs, presumably they should
share the carriageway instead? Wait though! This often happens where
there are either red or yellow lines or the road is too narrow to
allow street parking and where the motorist has no alternative except
to go elsewhere and park but is too lazy to do so. Where to put/keep
your car is an incessant problem isn't it. I don't know how motorists
put up with it.

--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.

Doug wrote:
On 27 Jan, 00:43, JNugent wrote:
Peter Grange wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Peter Grange wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Peter Grange wrote:
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.
That's a bit like a car-driver (or even a lorry-driver) complaining about
being "forced" to drive along the footway because there are pedestrians on
the carriageway.
There's no "force" involved. Breaking the law in either way is a choice.
FFS, i was just demonstrating to webreader that the problems with
shared cycle paths are not just with cyclists.
*If* it was purely theoretical and not an admission of actual breaches of the
law, you chose an odd way to word it: "I for one have been *forced* [my
emphasis] into the pedestrian zone on several occasions...".
Nice theoretical world you live in. Do you ever venture outside at
all?
Now don't start that. It was you who cocked up.

It's sensible then that if a ped is in the cycle part of the shared
path and there is no-one in the ped part a cyclist should stop and
point out the eror of his/her ways.
It might be. It would be equally sensible for the cyclist to just stop until
the conflict has been resolved. After all, the pedestrian has a right to walk
on all of the path. The cyclist does NOT have the right to cycle on the bit
of the footway (Ye Gods!) which is reserved for pedestrians.

There is absolutely no question of "force". The cyclist is not "forced" to
cycle where he is not allowed to. He chooses to do so (if that is what he
does). The very mention of the notion of "force" suggests a mindset where the
cyclist's personal whims and fancies are elevated to the status of a binding
moral code for which everyone else must make way. And I'm fairly sure it
wasn't what you meant to suggest.

Meanwhile in the real world, of which you seem to have little
experience, the cyclist will use the ped part of the path so both can
continue on their way.
It's an offence.

Don't forget that.

And please drop the high moral tone - the pedestrian is one hundred percent
*entitled* to walk on any part of the footway, irrespective of markings. The
markings are for the cyclist's information, not that of the pedestrian.

If lawful sharing of the path with pedestrians is tireseome, there's a simple
and lawful alternative - use the carriageway.

How about sharing with cars parked on pavements,

If the car legally should not be there, then it should be removed.

particularly those
that block pavements or block dropped kerbs,

How do you block a dropped kerb?

presumably they should
share the carriageway instead?

Indeed.

Wait though! This often happens where
there are either red or yellow lines or the road is too narrow to
allow street parking and where the motorist has no alternative except
to go elsewhere and park but is too lazy to do so. Where to put/keep
your car is an incessant problem isn't it.

Not for me.

I don't know how motorists
put up with it.

--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.



--
Tony Dragon

On Wed, 27 Jan Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:

particularly those
that block pavements or block dropped kerbs,

How do you block a dropped kerb?

Is that a serious question?

You park directly above it, so the entire dropped portion of kerb is
beneath the vehicle. It's even more difficult to wheel a push-chair
(wheel chair / shopping trolley / mobility scooter) over a car than it
is over a full-height kerb.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

In article ,
says...

"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.

Of course not. When you're a URC car-hater everything's in black and
white. All restrictions on cyclists: bad. All restrictions on
motorists: good. That's how to "encourage cycling" you see: by abusing
measures which are supposed to be about safety, and to hell with the
adverse consequences.

It really is that simple in the "minds" of mileburner and co. End of
discussion as far as they're concerned. It's no good trying to reason
with them.