I was interested to see this article in the Evening Standard last night:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... article.do
If you read towards the end, an 18yr old man was fined for cycling on the pavement in Sydenham "High Street" and colliding with a motorised wheelchair.
As I understand it, PSCOs have the powers to fine cyclists riding on the pavments and therefore this must be noted as a (small) success. I wonder, though if he hadn't collided with the wheelchair would he have been caught?!!!
Cycling on Pavements
Cyclists being prosecuted? It never seems to happen wherever I am. They break every law with impunity, and seem to view the publlic and police with contempt.
As for using the pavements because the roads are dangerous, can someone explain how the geezer who sails around locally with his hands ostentatiously stuck in his pocket is contributiong to SAFETY??
As for using the pavements because the roads are dangerous, can someone explain how the geezer who sails around locally with his hands ostentatiously stuck in his pocket is contributiong to SAFETY??
I'd maybe define it as a child under adult supervision could potentially ride on the pavement. Even that isn't ideal though - if the roads are that dangerous then should a child of any age be on a bike near them at all, including on the pavement? It's hazardous to the child and to pedestrians.Eagle wrote:About time cyclists were taken to task. OK up to say 7 should be OK on pavement but certainly not over 11.
Cyclists often harp on about safety being the reason they cycle on the pavement, jump lights, fail to stop at zebra crossings, etc but they are talking about their safety and ignore the safety of pedestrians. It seems odd that these same people are riding bikes without brakes, fixed gear I think it's called...about time they were prosecuted for breaking the law.
-
Greg Whitehead
- Posts: 474
- Joined: 11 Apr 2005 15:44
- Location: SE26 5RL
Another tough and contentious one this.
I can understand the difficulties faced by cyclists, I really can. Forced to ride in the gutter, huge double-deckers cutting you up, spray being forced up at you, the wind disturbance, the noise - effectively everyone seeming to be trying to kill you. No wonder some feel it safer to mount the pavement (I’m NOT saying I agree, I can just understand).
That written, the vast majority (and I mean the vast - not just cycle couriers) seem to think the rules of the road need not apply. Jumping red lights, ignoring pedestrian crossings, ignoring pedestrians crossing at the green man, using the pavement to circumvent roadworks, going the wrong way up 1way streets...they're all at it.
I once heard a radio 'phone in with a black cabdriver talking sense (I know!). He suggested all cyclists (in C.London) initially register their bike and wear a high visibility vest with a 'registration number' on. That way if they jump a light or the such, as with a car, there's an enforceable penalty. In short, they're either a vehicle on the road or they're not - they can't pick and choose when it suits them.
What I do is if they're on the pavement I stand in their way and tell them "that's the road, get on it" unless of course they're a) big b) pretty and c) young. How's that for selective!
I can understand the difficulties faced by cyclists, I really can. Forced to ride in the gutter, huge double-deckers cutting you up, spray being forced up at you, the wind disturbance, the noise - effectively everyone seeming to be trying to kill you. No wonder some feel it safer to mount the pavement (I’m NOT saying I agree, I can just understand).
That written, the vast majority (and I mean the vast - not just cycle couriers) seem to think the rules of the road need not apply. Jumping red lights, ignoring pedestrian crossings, ignoring pedestrians crossing at the green man, using the pavement to circumvent roadworks, going the wrong way up 1way streets...they're all at it.
I once heard a radio 'phone in with a black cabdriver talking sense (I know!). He suggested all cyclists (in C.London) initially register their bike and wear a high visibility vest with a 'registration number' on. That way if they jump a light or the such, as with a car, there's an enforceable penalty. In short, they're either a vehicle on the road or they're not - they can't pick and choose when it suits them.
What I do is if they're on the pavement I stand in their way and tell them "that's the road, get on it" unless of course they're a) big b) pretty and c) young. How's that for selective!
Last edited by Greg Whitehead on 17 Oct 2008 15:49, edited 1 time in total.
I must admit that I enjoy trying to block off cyclists that go through red lights when us pedestrians are crossing - Liverpool St is notorious for this and there is often slanging matches between street-crossers and the cyclists jumping the lights. I haven't collided with one yet, but I'm pretty sure the cyclist will be the worse off if it happens! 
-
danstevens
- Posts: 116
- Joined: 6 Oct 2004 09:46
- Location: Sydenham
i cycle to work every day to greenwich and for the most part abide by the rules of the road. However on occasion i have been know to jump the odd red light. I tend to do this to get in front of the traffic in good time otherwise you risk getting hit. Most of the accidents in london are between cyclists and heavy vehicles that come together at lighted junctions. Lorry’s turning left etc.
There just isn't adequate provision for cyclists in London. Seems to be a cultural thing. If you go into Europe you'll find many more cyclists living in harmony with motorised traffic and pedestrians. If anyone has been to Bruges or Amsterdam you can see my point.
I never cycle on the pavement as i know from walking around how annoying and dangerous this can be. What does annoy me are the dog walkers in Ladywell park. There is one small path shared by cyclists and pedestrians and about 300 square miles of parkland next to the path. For some reason the dog walkers choose to walk on the path every time with their dogs. If i were a dog i know where id rather be. I have a feeling they do it deliberately to annoy cyclists who don't have a choice where to cycle.
anyway. rant over.
There just isn't adequate provision for cyclists in London. Seems to be a cultural thing. If you go into Europe you'll find many more cyclists living in harmony with motorised traffic and pedestrians. If anyone has been to Bruges or Amsterdam you can see my point.
I never cycle on the pavement as i know from walking around how annoying and dangerous this can be. What does annoy me are the dog walkers in Ladywell park. There is one small path shared by cyclists and pedestrians and about 300 square miles of parkland next to the path. For some reason the dog walkers choose to walk on the path every time with their dogs. If i were a dog i know where id rather be. I have a feeling they do it deliberately to annoy cyclists who don't have a choice where to cycle.
anyway. rant over.
I feel your pain. I cycle to Canary Wharf every day and am jealous that you don't have to endure the foot tunnel. It's so annoying having to walk my bicycle through there (I'm one of the rare breed that actually obeys the "no cycling" rule in there - it's too tight to scoot through on one pedal) that in the evenings I prefer to come home via Tower Bridge, Camberwell, East Dulwich and Forest Hill. They should give us East Londoners a bridge over the river!
I am pretty sure the law about cycling on pavements (unless they are also designated cycle paths which they are in some places which can be confusing and is another issue!) is that under the age of 12 it is acceptable but afer that it isn't. Will check this out.
I was listening to BBC London the other day when this was one of the drivetime discussions and have heard it discussed a lot over the past few months. I can see the point of some suggestions being made to improve the safety of cyclists (eg. being able to turn left at red lights to avoid being cut up by turning cars having space at the front of the lights for cyclists). BUT it is so bloody irritating when cyclists disobey the rules that other road users are sticking to. I encounter numerous cyclists while driving to work.
I am always considerate of cyclists - when I overtake I leave plenty of space, if I need to overtake a cyclist but the gap would be tight but do- able I would rather wait than get too close to the cyclist etc. WHY CAN'T CYCLISTS BE CONSIDERATE OF OTHERS? I see pedestrians who can't cross because cyclists nearly knock them over as they step out, I see them jumping red lights ALL of the time and often causing cars to swerve. Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
That feels a bit better now!
Interesting link below. Seems that there is no legal age at which someone can ride on the pavement:
http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycli ... he_law.php
I was listening to BBC London the other day when this was one of the drivetime discussions and have heard it discussed a lot over the past few months. I can see the point of some suggestions being made to improve the safety of cyclists (eg. being able to turn left at red lights to avoid being cut up by turning cars having space at the front of the lights for cyclists). BUT it is so bloody irritating when cyclists disobey the rules that other road users are sticking to. I encounter numerous cyclists while driving to work.
I am always considerate of cyclists - when I overtake I leave plenty of space, if I need to overtake a cyclist but the gap would be tight but do- able I would rather wait than get too close to the cyclist etc. WHY CAN'T CYCLISTS BE CONSIDERATE OF OTHERS? I see pedestrians who can't cross because cyclists nearly knock them over as they step out, I see them jumping red lights ALL of the time and often causing cars to swerve. Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
That feels a bit better now!
Interesting link below. Seems that there is no legal age at which someone can ride on the pavement:
http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycli ... he_law.php
The Highways Act 1835sophie wrote:I am pretty sure the law about cycling on pavements (unless they are also designated cycle paths which they are in some places which can be confusing and is another issue!) is that under the age of 12 it is acceptable but afer that it isn't. Will check this out.
s.72:
If any person shall willfully ride upon any footpath of causeway by the side of any road, made or set apart for the use or accomodation of foot passengers.....shall be guilty of an offence
notes:
"Willfully" means 'Purposely'
A "footpath" is part of a highway if it is beside a road.
- This is a summary offence with the punishment at trial being no more than level 2 on the standard scale. Or, it will be a £30 fixed penalty notice.
No mention of ages there at all...but, of course, people under 10 years of age are not criminally responsible so they cannot be tried. Clearly, police &c. can use discretion and offer words of advice if needs be.
To address Biscuit's comment: I don't think there's been any anti-cyclist postings here as such - just a number of posters wishing cyclists would be considerate of others (pedestrians, motorists) in certain circumstances where the cyclist's actions could affect those of other road / highway / footpath users. I don't think this point of view is anti-cyclist - just a wish that everyone would think of others sometimes.
noone has said anything anti-cyclist. We have been saying that it people shouldn't break the law.biscuit wrote:I can't believe so many of you are so anti-cyclist!!
Cycling on pavements is against the law. Cycling through red lights is against the law. People that break the law are commiting offences.
What is the problem with that?
I ride a fixed gear/fixed wheel/fixie (whatever you want to call it) - it has no back brake, just a front brake. I don't need a back brake because there is no freewheel, so I can brake with my legs. It's perfectly safe - in fact safer than a freewheeling bicycle in winter, because I can feel how much traction the back wheel has through the pedals. It's also great fun not having to worry about which gear I should be in and it certainly keeps you fit riding up the hills of CP/Sydenham/FH on a 70" gear.Willy wrote:riding bikes without brakes, fixed gear I think it's called...about time they were prosecuted for breaking the law.
Anyway... my opinion is that bicycles belong on the road as vehicular traffic; I don't like cycle lanes because they're always narrow and strewn with debris. Their very presence leads many car drivers to believe that cyclists belong "in the gutter" (close to the kerb is actually not a very safe place to ride) - I've been told on numerous occasions to "get in the bike lane" by drivers when I'm clearly able to keep up with London traffic (and am usually faster). The traffic department's worst ever invention is the "shared use" pedestrian/cycle lane.
Bottom line is, most cyclists are happier mixing with cars than pedestrians; the ones you'll find riding along the pavements are usually idiots riding mountain bikes with saddles set about a foot off the ground. They're not "proper" cyclists and they make up a very small minority of two-wheelers, so please don't tar us all with the same brush.