Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

custardy

Tilt wrote: »

I was almost knocked over by a speeding cyclist recently while walking through a busy pedestrian area in Great Yarmouth. There were "cycling prohibited" signs present.

Whats your point?
I just provided a link that demonstrates its not always the case the signs are the final word in legality.
I got hit by a taxi,there were no signs saying not to hit me. so no problem?
Once more back to the title.
Don't post too quickly though,John may struggle to thank each post.

custardy

Tilt wrote: »

Seems that there were a lot of cars, taxis and buses driving along pavements in London between 1997 and 2007 then! :think:

Well its TFLs figures after a (repeated!) FOI request.

Tilt

custardy wrote: »

Whats your point?
I just provided a link that demonstrates its not always the case the signs are the final word in legality.
I got hit by a taxi,there were no signs saying not to hit me. so no problem?
Once more back to the title.
Don't post too quickly though,John may struggle to thank each post.

If I could of caught him, I would of been his biggest threat.

custardy

Tilt wrote: »

If I could of caught him, I would of been his biggest threat.

So once more is your point is that what? pavement cycling is the biggest threat to cyclists?
even though the TFL stats show yet again, motorised vehicles are the biggest threat to those not in them. whether on the road or not

Tilt

custardy wrote: »

So once more is your point is that what? pavement cycling is the biggest threat to cyclists?
even though the TFL stats show yet again, motorised vehicles are the biggest threat to those not in them. whether on the road or not

Not the biggest threat, no. But certainly a threat to pedestrians and a threat of prosecution of cyclists.

In my opinion if there are no signs saying cycling IS permitted on a pavement or footway, then it SHOULD be illegal. Signage would indicate to pedestrians that there is the possibility of the presence of cyclists.

esuhl

I live near a large town which has a National Cycle Route going through the middle of it. This includes a "pedestrianised" area with enough trees, street furniture (and often market stalls) that the only way through requires you to cycle a metre away from shop entrances, whilst trying to dodge people running in and out of shops.

The route also takes you through a series of toucan crossings over a dual carriageway (and junction). Unfortunately, the traffic islands have railings that require you to cycle in a zig-zag on a path a metre wide, along with all the pedestrians from a busy shopping and commercial (offices, etc.) district.

The idea that any of this route is suitable for cyclists, especially when it's mostly unsigned (and the signs are not noticeable to pedestrians) is crazy. The idea that it should be proudly lauded as a National Cycle Route is insane and only encourages people to think that the route is safe to cycle on.

Tilt wrote: »

In my opinion if there are no signs saying cycling IS permitted on a pavement or footway, then it SHOULD be illegal. Signage would indicate to pedestrians that there is the possibility of the presence of cyclists.

Generally, I think that's true. Although there is a toucan crossing near me on a busy dual carriageway... but no cycle path (even a shared one) for miles around. Work that one out! It's a 4 metre cycle path that goes nowhere! :rotfl:

A National Cycle Path should be the cyclists' equivalent of a motorway. You should be able to travel safely on it at cruising speed for relatively long distances. The only way I can see that being possible is if the cycle path in busy pedestrian areas is segregated from pedestrians with a kerb, and the path clearly marked to indicate its purpose. There is plenty of room for that in this particular case.

Even when driving around town, cars don't expect pedestrians to jump out in front of them without any warning, but that's exactly what happens to cyclists. The infrastructure is completely screwed.

custardy

Tilt wrote: »

Not the biggest threat, no. But certainly a threat to pedestrians and a threat of prosecution of cyclists.

In my opinion if there are no signs saying cycling IS permitted on a pavement or footway, then it SHOULD be illegal. Signage would indicate to pedestrians that there is the possibility of the presence of cyclists.

Well thats opinion,not law
AS I have just demonstrated. Even signs saying cycling isnt allowed,isnt a final word in legality.
I suggest you go start a thread on the motoring board if you want to discuss the biggest threat to pedestrians

esuhl

custardy wrote: »

Well thats opinion,not law
AS I have just demonstrated. Even signs saying cycling isnt allowed,isnt a final word in legality.

That link shows that the police have been asked to use discretion when applying the law; not that the law doesn't exist.

Generally, it's illegal to cycle on footpaths (unless they are also shared-use cycle-ways). A sign saying "no cycling" would mean that cycling was illegal, wouldn't it?

The article below says that, "Cycling on the pavement is an offence under Section 72 of the Highways Act", and also, "Boston Police are to crack down on cyclists ignoring 'no cycling' signs". The police can't crack down on something that isn't illegal.

http://www.boston.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=5582

Oh -- and I just found this page too. Under the section "footways", it says that, "The pavement alongside a road is known as the footway. It is illegal to ride a bike on the footway. The responsibility of enforcing this law sits with the Police, who can issue spot fines."

http://www.enfield.gov.uk/info/1000000398/cycle_routes/2251/is_this_path_for_cyclists

Okay -- I also found this page that suggests that there are a lot of places not using the official "no cycling" sign. Presumably, if they are not on pavements alongside a road, then they would be considered unenforcable...?

http://www.cyclestreets.net/galleries/101/

custardy

esuhl wrote: »

That link shows that the police have been asked to use discretion when applying the law; not that the law doesn't exist.

Generally, it's illegal to cycle on footpaths (unless they are also shared-use cycle-ways). A sign saying "no cycling" would mean that cycling was illegal, wouldn't it?

The article below says that, "Cycling on the pavement is an offence under Section 72 of the Highways Act", and also, "Boston Police are to crack down on cyclists ignoring 'no cycling' signs". The police can't crack down on something that isn't illegal.

http://www.boston.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=5582

Oh -- and I just found this page too. Under the section "footways", it says that, "The pavement alongside a road is known as the footway. It is illegal to ride a bike on the footway. The responsibility of enforcing this law sits with the Police, who can issue spot fines."

http://www.enfield.gov.uk/info/1000000398/cycle_routes/2251/is_this_path_for_cyclists

Okay -- I also found this page that suggests that there are a lot of places not using the official "no cycling" sign. Presumably, if they are not on pavements alongside a road, then they would be considered unenforcable...?

http://www.cyclestreets.net/galleries/101/

No it mentions areas which permit cycling but display no cycling signs

The City of Edinburgh Council has investigated these issues in relation to cases such as Portobello Promenade and Jawbone Walk on the Meadows, which arose following adoption of the core paths plan. It was subsequently reported to the Edinburgh Access Forum

2 core paths which displayed no cycling signs,yet cycling was allowed

opinions4u

Biggest threat to cyclists I've seen recently is probably me.

I've been noticing them far too late on unlit country lanes after dark.

It would help if they had lights.