Why do grown men ride on the pavement?

googler

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

Could be safety. Around here you take your life in your hands cycling. Most of our cyclists use the pavements were possible.

Sounds like the pedestrians round your way are also taking their lives in their hands, with all the cyclists hogging the pavement.

Let's not forget, a pavement can also be called a sideWALK, or a FOOTpath, neither of which terms would seem to admit cyclists to their use.....

jblack_2

thelawnet wrote: »

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.

Erm, that would be a cycle track then? Totally different to a pavement.

thelawnet wrote: »

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.

Good for him. But what would stop someone else giving the bird and riding off. You'd have to find them to sue them, not easy if they take flight.

thelawnet wrote: »

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.

Bikes cause accidents by riding on pavements, if you want to ride a bike why not ride it in the right place?


BTW, If I come across as argumentative I don't mean to, I simply don't understand how anyone can justify cycling where they shouldn't.

Honeydog

I haven't really read anything which has convinced me that these chaps have a really good reason for riding on the pavement other than they are wimps.

Maybe they shouldn't ride a bike........ not tough enough?

googler

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?

Of course, because the Highway Code says that wheeled vehicles, including cycles, should be on the road, not the sidewalk/footpath....

thelawnet

jblack wrote: »

Erm, that would be a cycle track then? Totally different to a pavement.

No, I'm talking about pavements. They have a blue sign or a bit of a paint on them, but they are otherwise identical.

If you think that a bit of pavement transforms them into something totally different, well that's up to you.

Good for him. But what would stop someone else giving the bird and riding off. You'd have to find them to sue them, not easy if they take flight.

The people whose dog crippled my mother never even stopped.

I'm not really sure what the point is. Yes, it's possible for a bicycle to injure someone. However while I frequently worry about my safety and that of my children due to motor cars, I can't say I have ever felt at risk of death due to a bicycle. On the other hand every parent worries about their child running across the road and being hit by a motor vehicle.

Like I said, dogs, bicycles, there are many hazards in life.

Bikes cause accidents by riding on pavements, if you want to ride a bike why not ride it in the right place?

I thought I already answered this?

As others have pointed out, some people are just chavs on bikes, and don't care on the rules. Others ride for safety reasons or because of road design, or many other reasons.

BTW, If I come across as argumentative I don't mean to, I simply don't understand how anyone can justify cycling where they shouldn't.

I don't think people particularly feel the need to justify it. The car in front of me that went through the red light with a pedestrian waiting to cross on the weekend probably hasn't justified that decision to anyone either.

People break rules, what's your point?

Honeydog

Just to add another point then I'm off out with the dog.

The chaps on the pavement are not what I call 'real' cyclists. They have cheap Halfords type bikes and are probably cycling to work and back. Proper cyclists - the ones with decent road bikes and the right gear are always on the road.

The ones on the trails are probably just boorish oafs in the rest of their lives as well and not just when they are riding trails.

jblack_2

thelawnet wrote: »

No, I'm talking about pavements. They have a blue sign or a bit of a paint on them, but they are otherwise identical.

If you think that a bit of pavement transforms them into something totally different, well that's up to you.

That'll be cycle tracks according to the Highway Code?

62 Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you.
Law HA 1835 sect 72

Would it be ok for me to drive in the cycle lane of the road? It's only a bit of paint after all right?

Cknocker

Honeydog wrote: »

Just to add another point then I'm off out with the dog.

The chaps on the pavement are not what I call 'real' cyclists. They have cheap Halfords type bikes and are probably cycling to work and back. Proper cyclists - the ones with decent road bikes and the right gear are always on the road.

The ones on the trails are probably just boorish oafs in the rest of their lives as well and not just when they are riding trails.

Blimey whats this? Cyclist apartheid?

You can't be real cyclist unless you have an expensive road bike?

They ride trails because that is what they are there for! I have access to 60 miles of trails from my house - so yes I ride on them! Just so you know I always thank dog walkers as well - well not those that just let their dogs chase after you and attack your ankles!

I ride a bike for fitness, I prefer to keep my time on the road to a minimum, purely due to how dangerous riding on the road is now due to impatient drivers! So I stick to the trails,and the road when between them, however I do not ride on pavements other than those designated for bikes as well.

P.S. what sort of dog is it? I don't consider it a real dog unless its over 12" high, anything else is closer to a rat!

Norman_Castle

BTW, If I come across as argumentative I don't mean to, I simply don't understand how anyone can justify cycling where they shouldn't.

Cycling on the pavement is safe for all if done correctly. Wide enough pavement, not crowded, slow speed and with full regard for pedestrians.

Rotor

:beer:

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?

It shouldn't matter. Few roads are wide enough to SAFELY pass a single cyclist when a car is coming the other way.
If there's something coming the other way - don't overtake , if there isn't then you have the whole of the other side of the road.

It may cause a problem for those drivers 'hoping for the best' who then can't dart in and skim past the cyclist if another car appears , but they are dangerous and shouldn't be on the road.