This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Question about Escooters and cyclist
- Question about Escooters and Cyclist
- Will I get into trouble
- Why is insider trading illegal
- Shouldn't Euthanasia be made freely available to all sick old people now? because
- my 16 year old girlfriend wants me to go prom with her
- Being a solicitor and husband is incarcerated
- Why dont women do it??
- Recruitment agencies asking for copy of your passport
- Dog fear aggression.
- GCSE Physics Question Help
- Passion projects for law
- Overtaking a cyclist on zig zag lines by a crossing
- Forced marriage
- Watson Glaser test - comparing answers!
- BTEC Business Pearsons Unit 2 - Developing a Marketing Campaign
- Please guide me through my dilemma regarding university and courses
- A-levels
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- I'm new, one can make friends if desired
Should cyclist be legally allowed on pavements? (UK)
I'm 16 and I cycle around 3-4 miles to get to town and school. I don't consider myself as a 'full on cyclist' and I don't own a £2000 bike.I cycle fully for transport.
"You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129"
I think this law is not practical. In some parts of my journey, I ride on the road since there's not much traffic but as I get closer to town the traffic gets heavier so I ride on the pavements.
On the pavement I get people occasionally telling me, "You should be on the road", when there's clearly loads of cars going by and it's unsafe.
On the road there's also drivers who beep their horns at me even though they can overtake. Some go speeding past REALLY close even when I'm as close as I can get to the side of the road. Some don't even stop to let me through when they come out of a street.
There are no cycle paths where I live (in a lot of areas of the UK really). Somedays I just want to ride slow but I can't as I have to pedal my ass off so that the cars behind me won't run over me. This could be prevented by allowing people to cycle on the pavements.
During tight bends on narrow streets with terraced houses there's always cars parked out the houses making the roads even narrower. There are lots of places like this in the UK therefore making this law very frustrating.
I know this law isn't enforced that well anyway but I don't want to inconvenience pedestrians so I try to follow it when possible.
It's ridiculous how people state "If you can't deal with the road then you should stop cycling".
No.
Arguments opposing are welcome
"You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129"
I think this law is not practical. In some parts of my journey, I ride on the road since there's not much traffic but as I get closer to town the traffic gets heavier so I ride on the pavements.
On the pavement I get people occasionally telling me, "You should be on the road", when there's clearly loads of cars going by and it's unsafe.
On the road there's also drivers who beep their horns at me even though they can overtake. Some go speeding past REALLY close even when I'm as close as I can get to the side of the road. Some don't even stop to let me through when they come out of a street.
There are no cycle paths where I live (in a lot of areas of the UK really). Somedays I just want to ride slow but I can't as I have to pedal my ass off so that the cars behind me won't run over me. This could be prevented by allowing people to cycle on the pavements.
During tight bends on narrow streets with terraced houses there's always cars parked out the houses making the roads even narrower. There are lots of places like this in the UK therefore making this law very frustrating.
I know this law isn't enforced that well anyway but I don't want to inconvenience pedestrians so I try to follow it when possible.
It's ridiculous how people state "If you can't deal with the road then you should stop cycling".
No.
Arguments opposing are welcome
Scroll to see replies
Original post by stemmery
I would love to cycle but the fact you have to do it in the road puts me off so I don't. I think it's more safe for a pedestrian to move slightly out of the way or watch more closely for cyclists than it is for motorists.
Yeah I feel the same.
I think that as long as the cyclist is not speeding or recklessly riding on the pavements, then it should be fine.
Original post by stemmery
I would love to cycle but the fact you have to do it in the road puts me off so I don't. I think it's more safe for a pedestrian to move slightly out of the way or watch more closely for cyclists than it is for motorists.
I disagree, when I'm walking should I constantly have to look over my shoulder in case a cyclist comes along. A similar argument could be used to say that pedestrians should walk in the road, after all, all they have to do is move out of the way when a car comes. If somebody cannot cycle safely on a given road they shouldn't be cycling on that road, simple as, what constitutes safely will vary depending on the road but principle is the same.
Original post by Jammy Duel
I disagree, when I'm walking should I constantly have to look over my shoulder in case a cyclist comes along. A similar argument could be used to say that pedestrians should walk in the road, after all, all they have to do is move out of the way when a car comes. If somebody cannot cycle safely on a given road they shouldn't be cycling on that road, simple as, what constitutes safely will vary depending on the road but principle is the same.
Well most bikes have bells which people use to indicate that they are behind the pedestrian.
You can't compare bikes with cars. Bikes don't weigh or speed as much as cars, yes they do have a potential to kill or injure, as of everything, but the risk is greater with cars.
Cyclists come individually and are not as common as cars so surely it wouldn't be much hassle to move slightly to the side to let a bike through?.
On road of cars where there might be cars going by, both directions, every few seconds, you cant just "move out of the way when a car comes".
Original post by valbrechts
I think this law is not practical. In some parts of my journey, I ride on the road since there's not much traffic but as I get closer to town the traffic gets heavier so I ride on the pavements.
I think this law is not practical. In some parts of my journey, I ride on the road since there's not much traffic but as I get closer to town the traffic gets heavier so I ride on the pavements.
By not practical, you mean not practical for you. If you don't feel safe cycling the whole journey then walk your bike when the traffic starts getting heavier.
Original post by valbrechts
On the pavement I get people occasionally telling me, "You should be on the road", when there's clearly loads of cars going by and it's unsafe.
Original post by valbrechts
On the road there's also drivers who beep their horns at me even though they can overtake. Some go speeding past REALLY close even when I'm as close as I can get to the side of the road. Some don't even stop to let me through when they come out of a street.
You are an inconvenience to drivers, and often they cannot overtake because of cars going past in the other lane. And why should they stop to let you through? Are you royalty?
Original post by valbrechts
Somedays I just want to ride slow but I can't as I have to pedal my ass off so that the cars behind me won't run over me. This could be prevented by allowing people to cycle on the pavements.
So you want pedestrians to risk getting smacked by cyclists purely so you can have a leisurely stroll on your bike? Go to the park if you want that. People driving are in a hurry to get to work, and are in no mood to be stuck behind a dawdling cyclist.
Original post by valbrechts
I know this law isn't enforced that well anyway but I don't want to inconvenience pedestrians so I try to follow it when possible.
Good, it is indeed a massive inconvenience. Since you admit that, why would you want the law repealed?
Original post by valbrechts
It's ridiculous how people state "If you can't deal with the road then you should stop cycling".No.
Original post by Jammy Duel
I disagree, when I'm walking should I constantly have to look over my shoulder in case a cyclist comes along. A similar argument could be used to say that pedestrians should walk in the road, after all, all they have to do is move out of the way when a car comes. If somebody cannot cycle safely on a given road they shouldn't be cycling on that road, simple as, what constitutes safely will vary depending on the road but principle is the same.
Obviously not, the cyclists can see in front of them? They're not going to go right into the back of a pedestrian are they? Most of the time it's the motorists who can't see the cyclists, or don't look out for them that cause the accidents, it's not usually the cyclists' fault. If the cyclists were on the pavements, there would be less accidents. If a cyclist were coming towards you on a pavement, you'd make way for it, just as they would if they saw you walking in front of them, they'd go around you, not into you.
Original post by tengentoppa
By not practical, you mean not practical for you. If you don't feel safe cycling the whole journey then walk your bike when the traffic starts getting heavier.
They're doing you a favour. What you are doing is illegal, precisely because it is dangerous. Again, if you feel it's unsafe, walk your bike.
They're doing you a favour. What you are doing is illegal, precisely because it is dangerous. Again, if you feel it's unsafe, walk your bike.
I did forget to mention that I do walk my bike when there are people on the pavement but when there's not, I don't. No point arguing for that.
Original post by tengentoppa
"You are an inconvenience to drivers, and often they cannot overtake because of cars going past in the other lane. And why should they stop to let you through? Are you royalty?"
I think you misunderstood this whole thing. The point im saying is that when they CAN overtake but don't even when there's nothing going by the other lane.
For your second point, you've misunderstood again.
Some don't stop when they have to. As in for when they come out of a different street to turn, where there are double dotted lines.
Original post by tengentoppa
"So you want pedestrians to risk getting smacked by cyclists purely so you can have a leisurely stroll on your bike? Go to the park if you want that. People driving are in a hurry to get to work, and are in no mood to be stuck behind a dawdling cyclist."
I don't mean to ride slowly for leisure, I meant ride slowly to work/school. As mentioned in the first paragraph, "I cycle fully for transport". Use your common sense. You can't expect every cyclist to commute 5 days a week, for miles whilst pedalling at high speeds. It's manual work. Not everyone is at the same standards as athletes who train for Tour de France
Original post by tengentoppa
"Good, it is indeed a massive inconvenience. Since you admit that, why would you want the law repealed?"
To make it legal for cyclists to go on the pavement when possible (heavy traffic, narrow streets) without people telling us to get off.
Something like "Cyclist are allowed to cycle on pavements when needed but at a steady, slow pace"
Original post by tengentoppa
Well yes actually. If, as you've admitted, you can't cycle fast and you're not confident cycling on busy roads then you shouldn't. The road is not designed to cater to your specific needs. If I'm not a good enough driver then I won't be allowed on the road because I'm a hazard to myself and to others. The same should go for cyclists.
You didn't even read that properly. When did I admit I admit that I'm not confident on the road? I was just stating some scenarios which have happened and are quite dangerous.You might be a good driver but the scenarios I've just mentioned may not apply to you but there are a lot of dangerous drivers who don't think.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by valbrechts
I don't mean to ride slowly for leisure, I meant ride slowly to work/school. As mentioned in the first paragraph, "I cycle fully for transport". Use your common sense. You can't expect every cyclist to commute 5 days a week, for miles whilst pedalling at high speeds. It's manual work. Not everyone is at the same standards as athletes who train for Tour de France
Even those who would describe themselves as very unfit are still cycling at at least 10-15mph. Considering that the average adult walking pace is 4mph, that's a huge difference and a very unsafe one.
Cyclists shouldn't be allowed to ride their bikes on pavements. As far as i'm aware, bikes are considered vehicles. If you're caught by the police cycling whilst drunk or high you can be prosecuted and possibly lose your driving licence (if you have one). The road is where bikes belong.
Original post by valbrechts
Well most bikes have bells which people use to indicate that they are behind the pedestrian.
You can't compare bikes with cars. Bikes don't weigh or speed as much as cars, yes they do have a potential to kill or injure, as of everything, but the risk is greater with cars.
Cyclists come individually and are not as common as cars so surely it wouldn't be much hassle to move slightly to the side to let a bike through?.
On road of cars where there might be cars going by, both directions, every few seconds, you cant just "move out of the way when a car comes".
You can't compare bikes with cars. Bikes don't weigh or speed as much as cars, yes they do have a potential to kill or injure, as of everything, but the risk is greater with cars.
Cyclists come individually and are not as common as cars so surely it wouldn't be much hassle to move slightly to the side to let a bike through?.
On road of cars where there might be cars going by, both directions, every few seconds, you cant just "move out of the way when a car comes".
Can't say I see that many bikes with bells these days, will be walking pass 2 bike sheds on the way to the bar so I can have a quick look there later
On the basis that bikes are fine because they weigh less and travel slower (normally), does that mean mopeds and motorbikes should also be allowed? After all, some of them are pretty light and you can make them go slow?
To say that bikes are significantly less frequent than cars can be somewhat farcical, there are plenty of places where bikes are going to be as frequent, or at least frequent enough that they are still an issue
Original post by stemmery
Obviously not, the cyclists can see in front of them? They're not going to go right into the back of a pedestrian are they? Most of the time it's the motorists who can't see the cyclists, or don't look out for them that cause the accidents, it's not usually the cyclists' fault. If the cyclists were on the pavements, there would be less accidents. If a cyclist were coming towards you on a pavement, you'd make way for it, just as they would if they saw you walking in front of them, they'd go around you, not into you.
I guess you cycle a lot. Remind me, which of the two is licenced, bikes or cars? For which have most people been assessed on their ability to use? For which can your legal right to use the mode of transport be revoked if you are negligent/incompetent enough? If a cyclist makes themselves difficult to see who is ultimately to blame for an incident, the driver who saw them too late or the cyclist who made it so they wouldn't be seen until too late?
In the majority of cases the speed difference between a car and a bike and the bike and a pedestrian shouldn't be dissimilar, at a push the ratios will be similar with the key difference between the two being that a driver should be looking for details much further out than the cyclist. If I'm cycling I will likely only be looking a few hundred feet ahead of me, when driving at 60, where possible, probably at least a quarter of a mile probably getting on for half as a bare minimum, visibility allowing, I should be noticing a cyclist when they're still getting on for a minute away, I should at the very least be seeing them early enough to safely react.
You argue that cyclists should be on the path because x% of drivers aren't sensible, the exact same thing can be said about cyclists. Try walking or driving around somewhere like Cambridge, the cyclists are ****ing nuts some of the time. And I'm well aware of how bad both are being a cyclist during the warmer months having to put up with stupid drivers, a driver at times having to put up with stupid cyclists, and used to frequently be a pedestrian having to put up with stupid cyclists.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Can't say I see that many bikes with bells these days, will be walking pass 2 bike sheds on the way to the bar so I can have a quick look there later
In fairness, every bike sold has to, by law, come with a bell. That's been the law for a while.
Whether or not people keep them is something else.
Original post by Drewski
In fairness, every bike sold has to, by law, come with a bell. That's been the law for a while.
Whether or not people keep them is something else.
Whether or not people keep them is something else.
Well then, my bike was sold illegally
Posted from TSR Mobile
This is one of those things that depends on a specific situation. I wouldnt cycle on a pavement which passes right outside doors to houses and other buildings. On the other hand I will cycle on a footpath to avoid major roundabouts and junctions. When using a footpath, bloody pedestrians have priority as it would be impractical to keep looking over your shoulders every 6 seconds.
There are a few places where I will cycle on the pavement, but it is almost always where it is a cycle/pedestrian (with no markings separating the two), of which there are a couple near where I live along some not too nice roads that are almost exclusively used by cyclists. Also in a couple of places where the pavement is basically the only option, such as places cutting through from one street to another or where there is no road leading to the track (although I suppose there it's still strictly illegal since they tend to be footpaths rather than bridleways). Also with a few stretches near where I live where it would be safer to nip onto the pavement and slow down before turning down the track rather than staying on the road given its a 60 and I need to go fairly slow or swing right out for the turn.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by valbrechts
I'm 16 and I cycle around 3-4 miles to get to town and school. I don't consider myself as a 'full on cyclist' and I don't own a £2000 bike.I cycle fully for transport.
"You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129"
I think this law is not practical. In some parts of my journey, I ride on the road since there's not much traffic but as I get closer to town the traffic gets heavier so I ride on the pavements.
On the pavement I get people occasionally telling me, "You should be on the road", when there's clearly loads of cars going by and it's unsafe.
On the road there's also drivers who beep their horns at me even though they can overtake. Some go speeding past REALLY close even when I'm as close as I can get to the side of the road. Some don't even stop to let me through when they come out of a street.
There are no cycle paths where I live (in a lot of areas of the UK really). Somedays I just want to ride slow but I can't as I have to pedal my ass off so that the cars behind me won't run over me. This could be prevented by allowing people to cycle on the pavements.
During tight bends on narrow streets with terraced houses there's always cars parked out the houses making the roads even narrower. There are lots of places like this in the UK therefore making this law very frustrating.
I know this law isn't enforced that well anyway but I don't want to inconvenience pedestrians so I try to follow it when possible.
It's ridiculous how people state "If you can't deal with the road then you should stop cycling".
No.
Arguments opposing are welcome
"You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129"
I think this law is not practical. In some parts of my journey, I ride on the road since there's not much traffic but as I get closer to town the traffic gets heavier so I ride on the pavements.
On the pavement I get people occasionally telling me, "You should be on the road", when there's clearly loads of cars going by and it's unsafe.
On the road there's also drivers who beep their horns at me even though they can overtake. Some go speeding past REALLY close even when I'm as close as I can get to the side of the road. Some don't even stop to let me through when they come out of a street.
There are no cycle paths where I live (in a lot of areas of the UK really). Somedays I just want to ride slow but I can't as I have to pedal my ass off so that the cars behind me won't run over me. This could be prevented by allowing people to cycle on the pavements.
During tight bends on narrow streets with terraced houses there's always cars parked out the houses making the roads even narrower. There are lots of places like this in the UK therefore making this law very frustrating.
I know this law isn't enforced that well anyway but I don't want to inconvenience pedestrians so I try to follow it when possible.
It's ridiculous how people state "If you can't deal with the road then you should stop cycling".
No.
Arguments opposing are welcome
Of course not. I came round a corner to meet a nice cyclist on the pavement and nearly ran straight into me -.- this is why your not allowed on the pavement. Plus the fact your a road vehicle and you should be on the road to avoid causing serious harm to pedestrians.
Original post by stemmery
Obviously not, the cyclists can see in front of them? They're not going to go right into the back of a pedestrian are they? Most of the time it's the motorists who can't see the cyclists, or don't look out for them that cause the accidents, it's not usually the cyclists' fault. If the cyclists were on the pavements, there would be less accidents. If a cyclist were coming towards you on a pavement, you'd make way for it, just as they would if they saw you walking in front of them, they'd go around you, not into you.
It's very easy to hit a pedestrian. Pedestrians will not hear you coming on a bike if you are behind them and many people do not have bells on their bike or the pedestrian cannot hear them... so it's not uncommon for someone to move into your way at the last minute, that's excluding children and dogs who are 100% unpredictable and will see you coming and walk straight into your path
also I'm sure I've seen statistics showing cycle/car accidents are about 50/50 in terms of blame, it isn't always the motorists fault, many cyclists do dumb things like not indicating properly, jumping red lights, whizzing on and off the pavement as it suits etc and get hurt as a result
OP I think pretty much everyone should be cycling on the road, small children have some place on the pavement but they should not be going quicker than walking pace...
cyclists are dangerous to both pedestrians and themselves when they are on the pavement, they are fast and heavy and can easily injury a pedestrian, particularly a vulnerable one like a child or old person who will be less able to get out of the way and react quickly, cyclists are also in danger themselves from cars coming in and out of drives who don't expect something so fast moving to be there, plus from the various obstacles e.g. bins, trees, lamp posts etc in their way
there really aren't that many roads which are really genuinely unsafe to cycle if you're sensible about it, and if there is one then you can easily go around it or walk your bike down that section of your journey, you don't have the right to put others in danger just because you aren't confident on the road
now, I feel very strongly that roads are not designed for cyclists and we need better cycling infrastructure so cyclists are safer and therefore encouraged to be on the road where they should be but that absolutely does not mean that you go on the pavement instead, that just gives cyclists an even worse rep
What's really bugging me here, is you never know what's coming round the corner when you're on a pavement on a bike.
On more than one occasion I've collided with another bike, and also bumped into someone walking, just by cycling on the pavement, you may be looking and being careful, but you never know what is literally round the corner.
Ride on the road, yeah a lot of motorists don't like bicycles, but that's life and nothing can please everyone. The only exception to ride on a pavement is if there is cycle path, or to get round a parked car if there's traffic and you can CLEARLY SEE that the pavement is clear for the next few seconds.
On more than one occasion I've collided with another bike, and also bumped into someone walking, just by cycling on the pavement, you may be looking and being careful, but you never know what is literally round the corner.
Ride on the road, yeah a lot of motorists don't like bicycles, but that's life and nothing can please everyone. The only exception to ride on a pavement is if there is cycle path, or to get round a parked car if there's traffic and you can CLEARLY SEE that the pavement is clear for the next few seconds.
Cyclists really get on my nerves. They are always rude.
Related discussions
- Question about Escooters and cyclist
- Question about Escooters and Cyclist
- Will I get into trouble
- Why is insider trading illegal
- Shouldn't Euthanasia be made freely available to all sick old people now? because
- my 16 year old girlfriend wants me to go prom with her
- Being a solicitor and husband is incarcerated
- Why dont women do it??
- Recruitment agencies asking for copy of your passport
- Dog fear aggression.
- GCSE Physics Question Help
- Passion projects for law
- Overtaking a cyclist on zig zag lines by a crossing
- Forced marriage
- Watson Glaser test - comparing answers!
- BTEC Business Pearsons Unit 2 - Developing a Marketing Campaign
- Please guide me through my dilemma regarding university and courses
- A-levels
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- I'm new, one can make friends if desired
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 months ago
Where is my car parked during the day? Advice for first car insuranceLast reply 7 months ago
Will paying £1,900 a year for insurance as a new 21 year old driver be a lot?Trending
Last reply 5 months ago
Where is my car parked during the day? Advice for first car insuranceLast reply 7 months ago
Will paying £1,900 a year for insurance as a new 21 year old driver be a lot?
