Cycling on the pavement

[LadyDeliah]

Lol, sorry, couldn't resist.

By the way I think I'm young, but I'm old and I still cycle (another of your points addressed!).

[Voyageur]

Chick Pea Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Voyageur Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > 'I will also continue to break the law by

> cycling

> > on the pavement when I believe my life may be

> in

> > danger on roads that are designed without any

> > thought of cyclists safety.'

> >

> > Yup - and nobody is going to stop you eh? It's

> > akin to talking to a brick wall. My only hope

> is

> > that you get hit with enough on the spot fines

> to

> > deter you.

>

> Hi V - it is perfectly possible and safe to cycle

> on the pavements but only when the pavement is

> pedestrian free and wide. Also Lady D is female so

> as far as I'm concerned that means she is a better

> ie more concientous rider than the male - yeah I

> am biased but that's based on expereince.

>

> Talking about cycle lanes, I noticed a few months

> back whilst driving to Crystal Palace Park that

> Southwark have installed an innovative new cycle

> lane along Dulwich Wood Park. Basically the

> pavement was widened and the outside edge coloured

> green with a white line that demarks pedestrian

> and cycle usage - cyclists ride on green bit.

>

> It's not all black and white.

>

> Edited for third time to add: I am not advocating

> pavement cycling just accepting that it is not

> always dangerous!

You're never going to get just the 'considerate' cyclists on the pavements unfortunately - the aggressive w*nkers are the one that cause the problem.

[Zebedee Tring]

Lady D, this is the first time that I've been accused of making rediculous statemts. I can quite safely say that I go out of my way not to make rediculous statemts. Making rediculous statemts is something that I try to avoid. In fact it is part of my life's philosophy not to make rediculous statemts.

Or were you actually accusing me of making ridiculous statements? Perish the thought that I might not come up to your exacting debating standards which are very evident on this thread.

[alldownhillfromhere]

Hahahaha, slagging people's spelling and/or grammar off is the sign of one who knows they haven't got a leg to stand on!

[Zebedee Tring]

I tried to engage in serious debate with Lady D but all that I received from her were insults. Unfortunately I resorted to sarcasm rather than out and out rudeness in reply - on reflection I should have just ignored her.

[LadyDeliah]

Sorry if typing large amounts of text on my phone results in typos, ZT. What's your excuse for the lame analogy?

[LadyDeliah]

ZT, smart people can make stupid comments. Pointing out that a comment is rediculous, lame or stupid isn't insulting the person who made it. Even I, with my brain of Einstein, have made the occasional stupid comment which is usually subsequently pointed out by my kids.

Admit it was a crap analogy, swallow it and move on, is my sage advice.

[henryb]

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Changing the dominance of motorists in general,

> who are in turn dominated by the aggressive and

> dangerous motorist would not only benefit

> cyclists. It would have a beneficial effect in

> everyone else, as explained above quite a few

> times."

>

> I disagree.

>

> It wouldn't benefit those who have no choice but

> to use buses.

Incorrect. Buses are mostly held up by cars. More cyclists would mean less car congestion and bus journey would be quicker as a consequence. Also it would mean a less crowded public transport system as a whole.

> It wouldn't benefit existing motorists who would

> have to spend even more time trying to second

> guess whether erratic cyclists;

Again incorrect. They would also benefit from less congestion and journey times would decrease. Also there would be fewer cars on the road so it would be less likely there would be a collision with another car. Car-car collisions are considerably more dangerous and damaging for car drivers than cycle-car collisions. Cyclists as a group are the safest road users in terms of the risk they pose and at being at fault in collisions. This is unsurprising as they are more at risk of being injured themselves so will behave in a safer fashion.

> -were going to pull out suddenly without

> signalling,

>

> - were going to weave dangerously in and out of

> traffic,

>

> - were going to shoot up the inside of you as

> you're trying to turn left,

>

> - would come shooting across a junction through a

> red light,

>

> - will suddenly ride off of the pavement and on to

> the road in front of you,

>

> - will cross the road from pavement to pavement

> without looking if any cars are coming (this one

> is hilarious- not only are they riding on the

> pavement, they still manage to annoy motorists by

> crossing without looking),

>

> - are cycling at night with no lights wearing dark

> clothes.

>

Cyclists break the law a lot less than car drivers do. They are the safest group of road uses in term of the collisions they cause and the risk they pose to others. A cyclist is a lot less dangerous to pedestrian and cars drivers than another car driver is. Someone who is reckless on a bike will be more reckless and more dangerous in a car.

> It wouldn't benefit pedestrians who already have

> to dodge enough cyclists on the pavement or

> 'share' multi-use tracks where cyclist believe

> they are king and don't have to consider

> pedestrians, or dodge cyclists sppeeding through

> red-lights.

>

Pedestrians are more likely to be killed on pavement by a car than by a cyclist. More pedestrians are killed and serious injured by car drivers jumping red lights than by cyclists jumping red lights. A cyclist poses less risk to pedestrians? safety than a car driver does.

A car driver deciding to not drive and cycle instead means less population, less congestion, faster and safer journeys for everyone else.

>

> All of the above I see happen many times each

> week.

>

I see car drivers break the law many times every single day.

> This happens a lot already- an increase of

> cyclists, without extensive and serious education

> for cyclists is only going to increase this

> anti-social behaviour.

Cycling is not anti-social. Making an unnecessary car journeys in an over crowded, polluted city is anti-social. 85% of cyclists have passed the driving test - this more than non-cyclists.

[Chick Pea]

Can you please post the source of those statistics Henryb?

[LadyDeliah]

Most of those and mine have been posted on this(?) and other threads.

I agree we should all quote the authority for our posts (including the primarily anecdotally inclined anti-bike contingent) but it is a pain in the arse continually digging them out. I'm on my phone, so will perform a search later including links to the EDF posts where we've had to make all of these arguments many times before.

I'm attempting to enlighten, educate and change perceptions about something important to me, so, much as its a pain in the arse, I will get on it when I get a chance over the weekend. Unless of course any if the other bright sparks who are in this with me want up search their posts for evidence that they have also posted countless times before.

I really need a Dropbox document with all the links in one place.

[henryb]

Chick Pea Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Can you please post the source of those statistics

> Henryb?

I will - I don't have it all to hand but I will collect and post back. I don't have time right now. As Lady D says it mostly here already or go any cycling website.

Just for the record I don't condone reckless cycling wherever it it - some cyclists are dangerous there is no doubt. However cyclists are not a monstrous other group of people who have a death wish and hate everyone. They are pretty much an even cross section of society who have just decided to get to A to B in a healthier, cheaper, less polluting and mostly quicker way.

Whenever I see a cyclist acting like a d*ck I think to myself - it is better they are on a bike or in a car or HGV?

[Zebedee Tring]

Lady D, we will have to differ on what you regard as a "crap" analogy. Please respect my right to have a different opinion from you without throwing insults at me, however uncomfortable you may find this.

[LadyDeliah]

Uncomfortable? What makes you think I feel uncomfortable with anything that's been said?

[Chick Pea]

Thanks henryb.

Lady D - I really don't expect or think it necessary that links to are provided to validate comments but when statistics are used in discussions I do like to know the source.

[LadyDeliah]

I agree Chick Pea.

I was just being a smart arse and trying to get across the notion that it does get a bit tedious constantly having to respond to insccurate anti-cycling statements.

I do think, however, in general, the anti-cyclists are more often guilty of unsourced, purely anecdotal arguments which is frustrating if you set out your reasoned (i hope) arguments which are fully referenced.

[titch juicy]

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> titch juicy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > "Changing the dominance of motorists in

> general,

> > who are in turn dominated by the aggressive and

> > dangerous motorist would not only benefit

> > cyclists. It would have a beneficial effect in

> > everyone else, as explained above quite a few

> > times."

> >

> > I disagree.

> >

> > It wouldn't benefit those who have no choice

> but

> > to use buses.

>

> Incorrect. Buses are mostly held up by cars. More

> cyclists would mean less car congestion and bus

> journey would be quicker as a consequence. Also it

> would mean a less crowded public transport system

> as a whole.

Buses are not held up IN BUS LANES at the BUSIEST TIMES by cars, as CARS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN BUS LANES

>

> > It wouldn't benefit existing motorists who

> would

> > have to spend even more time trying to second

> > guess whether erratic cyclists;

>

> Again incorrect. They would also benefit from less

> congestion and journey times would decrease. Also

> there would be fewer cars on the road so it would

> be less likely there would be a collision with

> another car. Car-car collisions are considerably

> more dangerous and damaging for car drivers than

> cycle-car collisions. Cyclists as a group are the

> safest road users in terms of the risk they pose

> and at being at fault in collisions. This is

> unsurprising as they are more at risk of being

> injured themselves so will behave in a safer

> fashion.

At no point have i mentioned accidents, collisions, deaths. I'm talking about inconsiderate behaviour, irritating and making things more difficult for other road and pavement users. You can argue the point about accidents etc with conviction, but i don't see too many people arguing about accidents, injuries and death. Your statistics say nothing of incosiderate behaviour.

>

> > -were going to pull out suddenly without

> > signalling,

> >

> > - were going to weave dangerously in and out of

> > traffic,

> >

> > - were going to shoot up the inside of you as

> > you're trying to turn left,

> >

> > - would come shooting across a junction through

> a

> > red light,

> >

> > - will suddenly ride off of the pavement and on

> to

> > the road in front of you,

> >

> > - will cross the road from pavement to pavement

> > without looking if any cars are coming (this

> one

> > is hilarious- not only are they riding on the

> > pavement, they still manage to annoy motorists

> by

> > crossing without looking),

> >

> > - are cycling at night with no lights wearing

> dark

> > clothes.

> >

>

> Cyclists break the law a lot less than car drivers

> do.

When was the last time you saw a policeman pull up a cyclist for anything except for going through a red light? Just because police statistics show more motorists breaking the law, a cyclist is almost never pulled up for any myriad of (admittedly small) laws.

They are the safest group of road uses in term

> of the collisions they cause and the risk they

> pose to others. A cyclist is a lot less dangerous

> to pedestrian and cars drivers than another car

> driver is. Someone who is reckless on a bike will

> be more reckless and more dangerous in a car.

>

> > It wouldn't benefit pedestrians who already

> have

> > to dodge enough cyclists on the pavement or

> > 'share' multi-use tracks where cyclist believe

> > they are king and don't have to consider

> > pedestrians, or dodge cyclists sppeeding

> through

> > red-lights.

> >

>

> Pedestrians are more likely to be killed on

> pavement by a car than by a cyclist. More

> pedestrians are killed and serious injured by car

> drivers jumping red lights than by cyclists

> jumping red lights. A cyclist poses less risk to

> pedestrians? safety than a car driver does.

agsin, "killed", "injured" etc...not my argument

>

> A car driver deciding to not drive and cycle

> instead means less population, less congestion,

> faster and safer journeys for everyone else.

>

> >

> > All of the above I see happen many times each

> > week.

> >

>

> I see car drivers break the law many times every

> single day.

>

> > This happens a lot already- an increase of

> > cyclists, without extensive and serious

> education

> > for cyclists is only going to increase this

> > anti-social behaviour.

>

> Cycling is not anti-social. Making an unnecessary

> car journeys in an over crowded, polluted city is

> anti-social. 85% of cyclists have passed the

> driving test - this more than non-cyclists.

I'm all for people stopping unnecessary car journeys, but that's not the issue here. Some cyclists are anti-social, i didn't say CYCLING was anti-social.

Apologies for capitalising, but, you've twisted, exaggerated or stubbornly ignored nearly all my points from that long post to suit your argument.

The thread, points made and replies are all getting too confusing and muddled. I shall agree to disagree (until something says something i can't resist replying to) :-)

[Siduhe]

pablopuncheur Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This debate should really be about responsible and

> considerate road users versus inconsiderate and

> irresponsible road users. The mode of transport

> they choose is irrelevant. A bad driver has more

> in common with a bad cyclist than they do with a

> good driver.

>

> Some folks just seem to think that the world

> revolves around them and you should bloody well

> get out of the way whether they're a pedestrian,

> cyclist or motorist. Unfortunately these debates

> always end up into peds v cyclists v motorists and

> we just go round and round in circles.

This puts it very well IMO. Was inspired to post following meeting a cyclist on the pavement coming towards me - him turning off London Road onto Wood Vale. Where the cars park up it gets pretty narrow and was fully expecting him to bowl past or keep coming (which drives me nuts). But he didn't. He stopped, waited for us to go past, then did the same again to let someone else come through with a pram. No fuss, no stress. And because he was so obviously respectful, someone walking the same way as him stood aside and let him cycle through. If every cyclist/pedestrian interaction worked like this, there would be a lot less stressing on both sides I suspect.

[titch juicy]

Henryb- is your wish that more people get out of their cars and on to their bikes?

Because, I think at busy times, rush hour for example, most people are in their cars because they need to be, whereas everyone else is already on a bike or on public transport.

[jesska]

At the risk of catching boatloads of flak...can I just say that we lived in Tokyo and I've got the mama-chari bicycle to prove it, and the reason why so many cyclists and pedestrians can get along together on the pavements there is plain old consideration for others. No one speeds, pedestrians look out for bikes and give way, and everyone gets where they are going safely. I cycle on the pavements here when I feel it is too unsafe or, frankly, inconsiderate, to drive on the road. If the pavement is practically empty, why should I slow down traffic or worry about cars passing me within inches on a narrow road. I go slow, I give way and if there is ever a situation where the pavement is too busy or too narrow for me to fit, I get off and walk it. On my current bike I take up no more room than a mum pushing a pushchair.

I just think everyone - motorists, cyclists and pedestrians - should try to think of others a bit more instead of their perceived right to the road/pavement/etc.

[titch juicy]

jesska Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> At the risk of catching boatloads of flak...can I

> just say that we lived in Tokyo and I've got the

> mama-chari bicycle to prove it, and the reason why

> so many cyclists and pedestrians can get along

> together on the pavements there is plain old

> consideration for others. No one speeds,

> pedestrians look out for bikes and give way, and

> everyone gets where they are going safely. I cycle

> on the pavements here when I feel it is too unsafe

> or, frankly, inconsiderate, to drive on the road.

> If the pavement is practically empty, why should I

> slow down traffic or worry about cars passing me

> within inches on a narrow road. I go slow, I give

> way and if there is ever a situation where the

> pavement is too busy or too narrow for me to fit,

> I get off and walk it. On my current bike I take

> up no more room than a mum pushing a pushchair.

>

> I just think everyone - motorists, cyclists and

> pedestrians - should try to think of others a bit

> more instead of their perceived right to the

> road/pavement/etc.

great post :-)

[LadyDeliah]

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Henryb- is your wish that more people get out of

> their cars and on to their bikes?

>

> Because, I think at busy times, rush hour for

> example, most people are in their cars because

> they need to be, whereas everyone else is already

> on a bike or on public transport.

What constitutes 'need' rather than 'want'?

[mako]

good post jesska

[titch juicy]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> titch juicy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Henryb- is your wish that more people get out

> of

> > their cars and on to their bikes?

> >

> > Because, I think at busy times, rush hour for

> > example, most people are in their cars because

> > they need to be, whereas everyone else is

> already

> > on a bike or on public transport.

>

>

> What constitutes 'need' rather than 'want'?

I'm thinking mainly of commuters going into town- which although covers a good chunk of morning traffic, i appreciate it's not all traffic.

[LadyDeliah]

And commuters need to travel by car because....?

[Jeremy]

I take your point jesska, but as you say, people in Japan seem to behave in a considerate manner. If cycling on the pavement was legal here, people would bomb along with no consideration for others and there would be carnage!