Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Another thing is, cyclist do not think rules apply to them. They should stop at the lights, not continue to whiz past! If you want to ride a bike, you must take on the responsibility. Just like cars are meant for the road & not the pavement.

trinity :

Deaths caused by cyclists hitting pedestrians are very rare. Cylist hitting pedestrians and doing the whole range of just frightening them, grazing them and all the way up to broken bones and rather more frequent. Every annual survey shows that one of the highest concerns raised by pedestrians is cyclists. More cycle lanes, less road and pavement even, has to be the way. One of the most common compliants I have heard over my six years has been about cyclists - usually from the elderly folk who tell me how often they have been knocked over by cyclists. Er.. my better half don't qualify as elderly and she is constantly bending my ear about it.

taper : re CAN CHILDERN CYCLE ON PAVEMNENTS. As we have been taught at Hendon, technically, no - it is an offence. But as 10 is the legal age of responsibiltiy no one really bothers about kids under 10. It is still an offence mind you - just not enforcable. If they persist in being a problem, we (TPCSO)are not suposed to ignore it. They can be detained, the police can be called and they can be taken home and "words" had with their parents.

I can issue an FPN(N)508 "Cycling on the footway" to anybody aged 18 or above. 10 - 18 can still be issued in presence of a parent. So... it could be case of then being in the company of their parent, or if you are really keen, taking them home and doing it there. Name checks etc would be done on them and they can be detained while all that goes on. The "attitude" check plays a large role in that. I have seen too many accidents involving cyclists v buses and HGV's that unless they are really being a problem, riding through people etc, stopping them for a simple word of advice has usually sufficed for me.

I do the school run on the pavement with my 5 year old daughter on a tag along (like a tandem) behind me. I am always really considerate and if space is tight I get off and push. It's a 2 and a half mile journey each way and no bus route- surely better for the community to cycle than drive?? If we had decent cycle routes of course I would use them be we don't. Isn't this basic common sense stuff? Stats on people hit by bikes / cars anyone?

PS Thoughtness, dopey and annoying teenage boys cycling on pavements is a right of passage, it's hardly mugging old ladies.

Lots of good points made on here - not all cyclists who use pavements are dangerous (most of them are just trying to avoid being run over) and not all cyclists are responsible road/pavement users. This weekend, one cyclist pulled out of a side road at speed and without looking, right in front of my car, then swerved across the front of me without indicating to turn right at the next junction, before coming up behind me at the next junction (where we were both turning left) and as I pulled away, taking the corner without braking by cutting across the pavement (there was a high fence so he could have had no idea if there were any pedestrians coming round the corner) and jumping off the kerb right in front of me again. Without wearing a helmet. Three times in the space of about two minutes that he could easily have been knocked off.
  • 2 weeks later...

Came across some fascinating UK facts.


40 pedestrians are killed every year WHILE ON PAVEMENTS by motor vehicles.


Over the last 10 years 3 pedestrians have been killed by cyclists. 400 to 3.


Whether a reckless motor vehicle driver or reckless cyclist the full force of the law must be excercised.


Wierdly people only seem angry with cyclists on pavements even when they are not being reckless.

Hi Loz,

Transport stats show 92% of journeys made by road transport in billions kms - 6% bus, 84% motor vehicles, 1% motorbikes and 1% cycles.


So motor vehicles on distance travelled clearly much more dangerous for pedestrians.

If you allowed for time travelling then even more stunningly safer.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I am delighted to hear the development was approved.  In my opinion, the UK is building far too little housing. And unless we build on green belts, the only solution is to increase the density of our cities, which is exactly what this scheme achieves.  Where I'm from (France), planning is generally looser and in my home city it's common to see single dwellings being razed to make way for a 5-6 story block of flats, even in city centres. Does it change the character of the local area? For sure! But I don't see another way to provide the supply to meet demand and provide ample supply of housing for a growing population. My personal experience is that in the UK, there is a lot more time spent on consultations, on achieving a perfect outcome for everyone. This results in generally better and more harmonious building than in France, but it makes things slower and more costly, with the need to coordinate many consultants.  It's interesting to compare France and the UK as they have similar populations and population growth, with an economy centred on a huge capital city. When you look at the number of houses/flats built in France and the UK over the past 10 years, the result is pretty striking. # France UK Difference 2023 298,100 150,370 -147,730 2022 392,100 182,070 -210,030 2021 410,000 177,160 -232,840 2020 368,800 129,440 -239,360 2019 387,700 153,000 -234,700 2018 401,200 168,610 -232,590 2017 434,700 164,110 -270,590 2016 370,000 155,150 -214,850 2015 341,000 148,150 -192,850 2014 336,900 140,760 -196,140 2013 357,900 124,790 -233,110 2012 382,300 101,020 -281,280 Total 4,480,700 1,794,630 -2,686,070 Average 373,392 149,553 -223,839 When HS1 was built, the French engineers (it was built with the French high-speed signalling) were surprised at how Brits wanted to "gold-plate" everything. The UK arguably has the best, most effective, more reliable, more well-equipped high-speed line in the world, but we've only got 68 miles of it and it cost 2.5 times what it cost the French to build a line extension at the same time.  In my view, there's no magic wand: just deciding who will be the losers. In France, people in established neighbourhoods my lose out as they see them change dramatically, while the new entrants benefit from a much higher supply of housing (and thus cheaper housing). In the UK, we give greater priority to preserving the lifestyle and amenity of the established dwellers over the new entrants who lose out as the supply is choked and prices are higher. A final point of comparison would be the price per square foot of property in Greater Paris is £467 while in Greater London it's £667 - 30% cheaper!
    • This web page lists some companies that recycle CDs https://www.reducereuserecycle.co.uk/where_can_I_recycle/cds_and_dvds.php  
    • I heard it as well, woke me up, very strange.  I don't care for myself but I do worry for people with children and animals, it is a nuisance and happens more and more nowadays.
    • Has that ever actually happened? The bags are quite bright, and don't blend in with the pavement, so are quite noticeable. But surely there can't be many  cases where someone has bothered to put the s**t in a bag,  but then just leaves the bag on the pavement?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...