Cyclists riding on pavements

esuhl

nexus2011 wrote: »

I wish the police would enforce the £500 penalty charge.

Hypothetically speaking, if I cycled on the pavement and was issued with a £500 charge... Would that give me more of a "moral right" to continue riding on the pavement as I had paid for the privilege as Mr. Flashman suggests in the other cycling thread? :rotfl:

Azari

inca wrote: »

Veering from the side of the road into the middle of a lane and back again is not only highly annoying when you're driving behind and deciding when it is safe to pass but also so dangerous why would anyone want to ride right in the middle of a lane in rush hour??

Whilst it's obviously impossible to know what the motivation was in all circumstances, one possible answer is that there was something in their path that it would have been dangerous to ride over.

It's a problem for sensible cyclists who actually think what might be behind them when a large pothole suddenly becomes visible.

It's one reason why the current relevant government publication recommends riding 1 metre from the kerb.

Secondly, the cyclists that ride on the pavement full pelt then suddenly go straight onto the road without even looking as I'm about to pass is likely to cause an accident because either I won't have time to break if you do it right in front of me, or I won't be able to swerve round you if there's a car in the other lane going by me.

They are trying for their Darwin award.

Last rant, to those cyclists who preach about their right to be on the road and car owners should respect the laws/rights etc how about you remember the law of stopping at a red light on a pedestrian crossing? The times I've seen a pedestrian crossing at a green man nearly get taken out by a cyclist who decides to just carry on through beggars belief! Anyway, apologies to the many cyclists who ride safely and visibly, just needed to get that off my chest!

Yes, most reasonable people agree with that.

It's even more infuriating when you are cycling and stop at a light only to have some lycra lout go straight through it then overtake them only to have them do the same thing at the next light. And the next. And the next. But if you were to push them off their bike into the path of an approaching juggernaut it would be you that got into trouble!

roddydogs

Ever been near a Post Depot? they all come out on the pavements/wrong way with the post.........nothing ever gets done.

Suzanne_Louise

Quick question - are motorcycles allowed in cycle lanes on roads? There's often scooters etc in the ones I drive next to, and one nearly came a cropper with a vehicle the other week.............

Harry_Flashman

esuhl wrote: »

Hypothetically speaking, if I cycled on the pavement and was issued with a £500 charge... Would that give me more of a "moral right" to continue riding on the pavement as I had paid for the privilege as Mr. Flashman suggests in the other cycling thread? :rotfl:

Afraid not old chap - rather than paying to use the road, you'd have paid for being a numpty :rotfl:

Azari

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Afraid not old chap - rather than paying to use the road, you'd have paid for being a numpty :rotfl:

So what's your excuse for continuing to be a numpty?

esuhl

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Afraid not old chap - rather than paying to use the road, you'd have paid for being a numpty :rotfl:

I wouldn't be paying to use the road; I'd be paying to use the pavement. Therefore I'd have more of a moral right to use it than pedestrians who have paid nothing and are, perhaps you might say, "parasites"...?

Anyway, I thought it was clear that you're not paying to use the road either; you're paying a penalty charge for creating pollution.

davidlizard

For goodness sake. Have a look at your last council tax bill - look and see where the money goes. You will see approx 10% of it goes to the councils highways department for maintaining the roads to drive, cycle and wander over. Therefore anyone who pays council tax is therefore paying for the roads.

Sadly there are too many gormless people who think that the entire road network is funded solely by VED and fuel duty. Still, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

Storck

davidlizard wrote: »

For goodness sake. Have a look at your last council tax bill - look and see where the money goes. You will see approx 10% of it goes to the councils highways department for maintaining the roads to drive, cycle and wander over. Therefore anyone who pays council tax is therefore paying for the roads.

Sadly there are too many gormless people who think that the entire road network is funded solely by VED and fuel duty. Still, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

Think you will find the total VED and fuel duty collect is much more than is spent on new and maintenance of old roads.

Azari

Storck wrote: »

Think you will find the total VED and fuel duty collect is much more than is spent on new and maintenance of old roads.

Yes it also has to pay for many other things such as policing of the roads, treatment of road accident victims, etc.

And part of it can certainly be considered a levy for the pollution and general the general detrimental effect cars have on the 'quality of life' (for those not using them).

Personally, I'm quite happy to pay more than the headline road costs as I appreciate that every time I use a motor vehicle I am, to a certain extent, diminishing the quality of life of others.