Why do grown men ride on the pavement?

jblack_2

And people hurt when they're hit by a cyclist on the pavement. The simple fact of the matter is it is illegal to ride a bike on the pavement.

My other half was knocked off her motorbike just after Christmas. Simple case of a young driver not looking or indicating before pulling out. Luckily it was a low speed accident so not too bad. Should I suggest she rides on the pavement in future?

jblack_2

As an honest question to those who cycle, why do some insist on riding side-by-side when out together? Is it just so they can talk to each other?

thelawnet

jblack wrote: »

And people hurt when they're hit by a cyclist on the pavement. The simple fact of the matter is it is illegal to ride a bike on the pavement.

My other half was knocked off her motorbike just after Christmas. Simple case of a young driver not looking or indicating before pulling out. Luckily it was a low speed accident so not too bad. Should I suggest she rides on the pavement in future?

Motorbikes can out-accelerate and out-speed cars. The analogy is not really relevant.

thelawnet

jblack wrote: »

As an honest question to those who cycle, why do some insist on riding side-by-side when out together? Is it just so they can talk to each other?

Yes, I would imagine the same reason why my wife sits in the front seat of the car rather than the back.

jblack_2

thelawnet wrote: »

Motorbikes can out-accelerate and out-speed cars. The analogy is not really relevant.

And a cyclist can out-accelerate and out-speed pedestrians. What's your point?

If she no longer feels safe on the road (As a lot of cyclists claim.) why can't she ride on the pavement?

thelawnet wrote: »

Yes, I would imagine the same reason why my wife sits in the front seat of the car rather than the back.

Oh, I thought it was to infuriate drivers who are unable to overtake:D.

jblack_2

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has met a cyclist on the pavement and done the old 'I move left, they move left, I move right, they move right etc etc' thing.

The question is who has right of way? Surely it's the pedestrian? What happens if they collide causing injury to either of them? If a car hit me and broke my leg I'd be claiming off their insurance. If a bike hits me and breaks my leg what happens? A firm hand shake and an apology?

thelawnet

jblack wrote: »

And a cyclist can out-accelerate and out-speed pedestrians. What's your point?

If she no longer feels safe on the road why can't she ride on the pavement?

Because it's against the law and antisocial and regarded as such all over the world.

On the other hand cycling on the pavement is widely permitted in the UK and more generally and is not necessarily objectionable behaviour.

Oh, I thought it was to infuriate drivers who are unable to overtake:D.

Safe, competent drivers tend to recognise that road traffic and delays are caused by other cars, and that cyclists are the solution rather than the problem.

Only the terminally dim get infuriated by cyclists not adding to congestion.

thelawnet

jblack wrote: »

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has met a cyclist on the pavement and done the old 'I move left, they move left, I move right, they move right etc etc' thing.

The question is who has right of way? Surely it's the pedestrian?

That would depend, some pavements have marked pedestrian and cyclist side. IME pedestrians walk on either side with no regard to cyclists, so I would swerve around them, rather than assume that they have any sense.

What happens if they collide causing injury to either of them? If a car hit me and broke my leg I'd be claiming off their insurance. If a bike hits me and breaks my leg what happens? A firm hand shake and an apology?

That depends, someone I know damaged a taxi with his bicycle, and he paid the money for this to the taxi driver. Someone else might have refused, in which case you have the opportunity to sue them.

Ultimately there are many uninsured risks in life - my mother was crippled by a dog, and no compensation was forthcoming despite a great deal of pain and loss of mobility.

The annual cost of motor vehicle accidents is around £20 billion, and motor vehicle accidents one of the leading causes of premature death. For this reason motor vehicle insurance is mandatory.

I have yet to see any convincing arguments (as opposed to internet saddos saying 'bikes don't have insurance') that bicycles represent a similar threat.

jblack_2

thelawnet wrote: »

Because it's against the law and antisocial and regarded as such all over the world.

Much the same as cycling on the pavement then?

thelawnet wrote: »

On the other hand cycling on the pavement is widely permitted in the UK and more generally and is not necessarily objectionable behaviour.

Permitted? Tolerated maybe but I'd not consider it permitted.

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129

You only have to read this thread to see some do find it objectionable.

thelawnet

Again, cycling on the pavement is widely permitted both in the UK and in other countries, and is, as I said, not necessarily objectionable.

I can show you numerous pavements on Google Maps, clearly marked as cycling permitted. I can also show you other pavements where it is not, but I would challenge you to find me one where it is allowed to ride a motorbike.