Why do grown men ride on the pavement?

mr_fishbulb

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Dogs are not pedestrians.:)

I think they're quadrupedestrians

Gizmo-macca

Occasional use makes sense in the interests of safety.

When I do mount the pavement, I'd never ride into the path of or near pedestrians, I'd get off and walk if they were on the path (unles they were COMPLETELY out of my way, in which case, I would still slow down to a crawl so as not to alarm them, and I'd always give them right of way on the pavement).

That seems like logical common sense laced in good manners to me.

Marco_Panettone

patman99 wrote: »

Honestly though, the best place to cycle is 3 feet out from the kerb. Vehicles cannot skim past you as they actively have to overtake you. It is also what they teach you as part of cycling proficiency.

Johno100 wrote: »

You better tell us what flowers you want at your funeral _pale_

Johno, where would you suggest the safest position to ride is, and what do you base this on? You should probably have a read of this: http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/commuting/article/trav20111121-Effective-Traffic-Riding-pt-1-0

Johno100

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Johno, where would you suggest the safest position to ride is, and what do you base this on? You should probably have a read of this: http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/commuting/article/trav20111121-Effective-Traffic-Riding-pt-1-0

Safest position? Probably on the pavement or a separate designated cycle way.

What do I base it on? Large rapidly moving metal object vs soft squashy slow moving object, if they make contact then there is only likely to be one outcome.

Johno100

BTW Had a look at your link, but I can't see any reference to the laws of physics having changed.

Dave_C_2

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Johno, where would you suggest the safest position to ride is, and what do you base this on? You should probably have a read of this: http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/commuting/article/trav20111121-Effective-Traffic-Riding-pt-1-0

Johno100 wrote: »

Safest position? Probably on the pavement or a separate designated cycle way.

What do I base it on? Large rapidly moving metal object vs soft squashy slow moving object, if they make contact then there is only likely to be one outcome.

This is one of my bugbears with cycle safety

Marco is quite right that the Government approved and sponsored bikeabilty training courses all tell us to ride in the primary/secondary position. So all us cyclists are doing the right thing.

Johno is also correct in driving to the Government approved and sponsored Highway code, which does NOT mention anywhere about cyclists riding in the primary or secondary position.

Both parties are quite right but unless the driver is also a cyclist who has been on the Bikeability course the driver's attitude is always going to be "what's that idiot cyclist doing, committing suicide"

Unless we go the Dutch method of sustainable safety, then Government sponsored driver education is required. The current not-joined-up-at-all system is broken and not fit for purpose.

Dave

Marco_Panettone

Johno100 wrote: »

Safest position? Probably on the pavement or a separate designated cycle way.

What do I base it on? Large rapidly moving metal object vs soft squashy slow moving object, if they make contact then there is only likely to be one outcome.

So you're from the 'get out of my way or else' camp? How about training drivers to use their "large, rapidly-moving metal object" responsibly, so they don't kill other people?

stclair

Sorry im guilty of this im to scared to ride on the road :eek:

duchy

If I decided the roads were too scary to drive my car on .....should I a Give up driving or b Drive on the pavement ?

I can't see why it should be any different for cyclists. The law says you should be on the road not the pavement-if you can't handle it then walk.

As for not causing harm -I did know an elderly woman who was knocked over by a cyclist -she broke her hip and although she recovered she wasn't able to walk any distance anymore so became housebound-just because some arrogent twit decided they were above the law.

Oh and why do cyclist on the *road* think red traffic lights don't apply to them ?

Sorry but I find most cyclists to be very selfish and not very bright.

thelawnet

How many cyclists do you know?

I cycled about 6 miles today, not far, but I encountered at least two idiot motorists.

The first one I was cycling down a hill doing about 30mph (30mph speed limit), I could tell he was trying to overtake me, but he didn't because of oncoming cars, parked car on our side of the road, etc., got to the give-way at the bottom, I was turning right, so positioned myself on the right side of the road, he decided to position himself on my left, and also turn right. What an idiot.

Next one I was cycling home at 10pm from the supermarket, nice quiet road, cycling along minding my own business, I'm cycling on the left of my side of the road, turning left into a side road, as I do so a van pulls up sharply to my right, attempted left hook on his part. Got to the red light to merge into the main road, he pulls up on my right, light is red, but light ahead is green, I look right to see if any traffic coming, nope, there was none, I'm not hanging around with this idiot van driver, so I go through the red light and then make it through the next one before it changes. That was my choice frankly, just as it's your choice in your car to break the speed limit, fail to indicate, cut people up, and numerous other motoring transgressions.

Motorists who get all pious about cyclists are ridiculous. Which causes tens of thousands of deaths and serious injuries each year? Cars or bicycles? So you know an old lady who got knocked over by a cyclist? Very sad, but how many people are knocked over by cars in comparison? Far, far more. Why do we not get people whingeing constantly on the motoring forum about drivers speeding, killing people, and so on.