Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

What does 1835 have to do with anything? Riding bicycles on the
pavement is dangerous, so it's not allowed.

The point being made is when the law came into effect, there was no motor
traffic to avoid. We have developed a situation where we have dramatically
changed the traffic on the roads but have not taught drivers how to behave
near cyclists.

The situation has not changed at all, the risk to pedestrians from
cyclists remains the same as it was in 1835.

The risk to cyclists on the roads may have changed, but that does not
give cyclists the right to endanger pedestrians in order to mitigate
that risk.

Jeff

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"mileburner" gurgled happily, sounding much

While that may be the case in theory, experience tells me that there are
a lot of drivers on the roads who find it difficult and distressing to
drive near cyclists and would prefer to have them separated onto
footpaths or into special lanes.

Whether through arrogance or incompetence, it doesn't make _them_ right.

Absolutely not, but the root cause of the perceived need for cycle
facilities comes from drivers and in particular careless, inconsiderate and
incompetent drivers. If we did not have these careles, inconsiderate and
incompetent drivers there would be no perceived need for separate cycle
facilities and drivers themselves would not be demanding that we had them.

While I do not think that adult cyclists riding at speeds above walking
pace should be on the pavements and footpaths, there is a case for
allowing (younger) children who have yet to be trained and tested for
riding on the roads to be allowed to use footpaths, or if the distance
travelled is short, for access, or from one shop to another for
example.

What would your reaction be if a similar exemption was suggested for
those who have not yet passed their car driving test?

The exemption for pre-test learner drivers is that they may drive on the
roads *if* they display an L plate *and* are under supervision. Children of
any age *may* ride on the road anyway. I do not however think it is sensible
to allow an untrained child on the public highway and especially so if they
are not under direct supervision.

Some footpaths are designated "shared use" which means it is legal for
all cyclists to use them.

And many cyclists loath and refuse to use them. For - usually - perfectly
sensible reasons. Including the undeniable fact that they encourage the
inconsistency of...

In fact, where there are shared use paths some drivers seem to think
that cyclists *should* use them.

Worse still pedestrians sometimes become angered with cyclists using
shared use paths because they do not realise it is a shared use path or
they are not aware of the legal status.

Nobody ever said ignorance was exclusive to any particular group of road
users.

The whole situation is a mish-mash of exemptions and blind-eye, with
many drivers thinking that cyclists should be on the paths and
pedestrians thinking that cyclists should be on the roads.

...and many cyclists not actually giving a flying toss about anybody else.

Attitudes are not exclusive to any particular group of road user...

"mileburner" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

While that may be the case in theory, experience tells me that there
are a lot of drivers on the roads who find it difficult and
distressing to drive near cyclists and would prefer to have them
separated onto footpaths or into special lanes.

Whether through arrogance or incompetence, it doesn't make _them_
right.

Absolutely not, but the root cause of the perceived need for cycle
facilities comes from drivers and in particular careless, inconsiderate
and incompetent drivers. If we did not have these careles, inconsiderate
and incompetent drivers there would be no perceived need for separate
cycle facilities and drivers themselves would not be demanding that we
had them.

You appear to be suggesting that we should accept arrogance and
incompetence, and to base our road rules on the inevitability of it -
rather than assuming a base level of competence and penalising
infractions of it?

While I do not think that adult cyclists riding at speeds above
walking pace should be on the pavements and footpaths, there is a case
for allowing (younger) children who have yet to be trained and tested
for riding on the roads to be allowed to use footpaths, or if the
distance travelled is short, for access, or from one shop to another
for example.

What would your reaction be if a similar exemption was suggested for
those who have not yet passed their car driving test?

The exemption for pre-test learner drivers is that they may drive on the
roads *if* they display an L plate *and* are under supervision. Children
of any age *may* ride on the road anyway.

Motorcyclists.

I do not however think it is sensible to allow an untrained child on
the public highway and especially so if they are not under direct
supervision.

Fine. So let's go with the motorcycling situation, and require an off-the-
road CBT (I've probably still got my Cycling Proficiency certificate
somewhere. Riding round and round the primary school playground) before
cyclists can legally take to the road.

Is that what you were suggesting we should introduce?

The whole situation is a mish-mash of exemptions and blind-eye, with
many drivers thinking that cyclists should be on the paths and
pedestrians thinking that cyclists should be on the roads.

...and many cyclists not actually giving a flying toss about anybody
else.

Attitudes are not exclusive to any particular group of road user...

Very true. So why use them to inform transport planning decisions?

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"mileburner" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

While that may be the case in theory, experience tells me that there
are a lot of drivers on the roads who find it difficult and
distressing to drive near cyclists and would prefer to have them
separated onto footpaths or into special lanes.

Whether through arrogance or incompetence, it doesn't make _them_
right.

Absolutely not, but the root cause of the perceived need for cycle
facilities comes from drivers and in particular careless, inconsiderate
and incompetent drivers. If we did not have these careles, inconsiderate
and incompetent drivers there would be no perceived need for separate
cycle facilities and drivers themselves would not be demanding that we
had them.

You appear to be suggesting that we should accept arrogance and
incompetence, and to base our road rules on the inevitability of it -
rather than assuming a base level of competence and penalising
infractions of it?

I am not suggesting it, but pointing out that this is the status quo. There
seems to me to be strong suggestions fram various quarters that to alleviate
the problem we allow more pavement cycling and mark out cycle lanes where
that is not possible.

While I do not think that adult cyclists riding at speeds above
walking pace should be on the pavements and footpaths, there is a case
for allowing (younger) children who have yet to be trained and tested
for riding on the roads to be allowed to use footpaths, or if the
distance travelled is short, for access, or from one shop to another
for example.

What would your reaction be if a similar exemption was suggested for
those who have not yet passed their car driving test?

The exemption for pre-test learner drivers is that they may drive on the
roads *if* they display an L plate *and* are under supervision. Children
of any age *may* ride on the road anyway.

Motorcyclists.

Are resticted by the power of the vehicle and as I understand it, now must
pass some kind of off-road testing before being allowed on the road. We are
however talking about *young* children who slowly ride small light bikes
whose parents often demand that they ride on the pavement anyway. And
perhaps adults moving at slow speed, over short distences where the
inconvenience to anyone else ought to be nil.

I do not however think it is sensible to allow an untrained child on
the public highway and especially so if they are not under direct
supervision.

Fine. So let's go with the motorcycling situation, and require an off-the-
road CBT (I've probably still got my Cycling Proficiency certificate
somewhere. Riding round and round the primary school playground) before
cyclists can legally take to the road.

Sounds fine to me! I never allowed my kids to ride on the road unless under
direct supervision and control. Any parent who allows an untrained
unsupervised child on the road is being rather careless in their
responsibilities. As I have already stated, many parents demand that their
children ride on the pavement and therefore demand that their children break
the law.

Is that what you were suggesting we should introduce?

It would not be a bad thing but I do not think it is going to happen so we
can all dream on...

The whole situation is a mish-mash of exemptions and blind-eye, with
many drivers thinking that cyclists should be on the paths and
pedestrians thinking that cyclists should be on the roads.

...and many cyclists not actually giving a flying toss about anybody
else.

Attitudes are not exclusive to any particular group of road user...

Very true. So why use them to inform transport planning decisions?

That's just the way it is - it seems.

On 27/10/2010 12:41, Phil W Lee wrote:
"Steve considered Tue, 26 Oct 2010
20:08:40 +0100 the perfect time to write:

I personally don't think it's realistic for busy, modern traffic to work
around anachronisms like horse-drawn vehicles& bicycles, velocipedes,
rickshaws& steam traction engines etc. However that doesn't justify
those vehicles moving onto the pavements, where they will in turn intimidate
and frighten pedestrians.

The obvious alternative is to restrict the motor vehicles so that they
can only use those roads where they do not present a threat to
existing traffic. We do have such roads, although the motorway
network would probably need extending in some areas to bring it within
reasonable (ie non-motorised or public transport) reach of all
destinations. Then you just have a park& ride at all the motorway
junctions, where people can transfer to public or non-motorised
transport.

That's either:

(a) a stupid joke, or

(b) a sign of your very odd antagonistic attitude to your fellow citizens.

But are you noted for your sense of humour?

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 04:03:08 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:20:45 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 25/10/2010 23:11, JMS wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:32:05 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

snip


No doubt you can "understand" cyclists breaking other laws as well.

Yes - and I have posted details of such circumstances before. Even
official guidance allows for cyclists to use the footway under certain
circumstances:


Rubbish - there is no such "official guidance" for cyclists to use
footways unless there are clear signs that that is the case.



"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."
Former Home Office Minister Paul Boateng

That was *never* ever official guidance.
Quite.

And "former" says all you need to know.

It was in a letter to another MP - who chose to publish it.

And in any case, what possible "consideration" is being shown to footway (not
"pavement") users exiting their homes directly onto the footway by cyclists
speeding past?

Are we talking about the same house?

This one certainly does not have an exit directly onto any part of a
footway that a cyclist is likely to be using:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bridgem...7622780824857/



Unless of course they stepped on to the footpath by leaving the exit
of their property to the RHS of the house which has the dropped curb.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:05:36 +0100, "Steve Walker"
wrote:

JMS wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:32:05 +0100, Tom Crispin
"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."
Former Home Office Minister Paul Boateng

That was *never* ever official guidance.
It was in a letter to another MP - who chose to publish it.

This approach has been thoroughly tested, and rejected, in many other
situations (recently in respect of carrying knives, for example).
Statements made by politicians, whether to constituents, the press or even
directly to parliament, cannot dilute or contradict the meaning of a law.




Excellent - I quite agree.

This example (above) is rolled out every couple of months by cyclists
who take it as some authority that it is OK to ride on a pavement.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:12:25 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

snip


Does that imply that a nervous cyclist on the footway alongside the A2
through Deptford would be treated in exactly the same way as a highly
skilled and confident cyclist using the same stretch of footway?

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?layer=...33.35,,2,14.71



Any cyclist on a pavement is breaking the law (unless signed
otherwise).

If a cyclist is so "nervous" that they have to ride on the pavement -
then they should not be cycling on the public highway - full stop


I can assure you that many pedestrians are very "nervous" about the
number of cyclists using pavements in an illegal and dangerous
fashion.

It is not something you - or anyone else - should encourage.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:16:21 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

On 26/10/2010 22:02, Steve Walker wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 26/10/2010 20:08, Steve Walker wrote:

I personally don't think it's realistic for busy, modern
traffic to work around anachronisms like horse-drawn
vehicles& bicycles, velocipedes, rickshaws& steam traction
engines etc.

There there.

I wasn't asking to be comforted, or patronised. This is meant to be a
discussion about traffic safety, if you want a snide name-calling exercise
then please start a new thread.

If you don't want to get called names, don't write mindless tripe like
you did above. If you want others to behave like grown-ups, maybe you
ought to start yourself?



This is totally OT - but you - Clive George - were the first to
respond to me when I first posted in URC - in an identical fashion as
to how you responded to SW above.

Your words to me (from memory) we

"Oh dear - I feel that you are badly informed"

The rest is history.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:00:36 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:

snip



Worse still pedestrians sometimes become angered with cyclists using shared
use paths because they do not realise it is a shared use path or they are
not aware of the legal status. The whole situation is a mish-mash of
exemptions and blind-eye, with many drivers thinking that cyclists should be
on the paths and pedestrians thinking that cyclists should be on the roads.




The answer of course is to get cyclists off the footpaths - and to
prohibit cycling on the roadway when there are cycle paths provided.

"Mandatory" cycle lanes need to be precisely that.