Can cyclists answer me why??

custardy

sacsquacco wrote: »

Out there in the real world Altorf, the general public have taken to riding on the pavements just as our Prime Minister promised he would allow. so far nothings been done to repeal a stupid minor law which was enacted when the penny farthing was about. In the days of monster 4 by 4 cars and traffic from hell, we are riding in the safety zone and sharing it with what few pedestrians are about. In any case with a minor collision with a pedestrian, who s going to come off worst? the cyclist going at 7 or 8 mph and higher up will be more likely to come a cropper and take a nasty fall, so its in his interests to take more care, ring the bell etc.
The only people I see who moan about cycling on pavements are ancient old O.A.Ps, all the younger people are not bothered in the slightest. what about the postman Altoft ? do you vent your anger upon him/her. I know the Police do an obligatory visit every couple of years to Royal Mail and warn them, no postman takes a blind bit of notice and neither do the Police if they see a postman riding on the pavement

Posties on bikes?
Be a very rare sight if any still exist

trollopscarletwoman

custardy wrote: »

Posties on bikes?
Be a very rare sight if any still exist

Not where I am.

Either bike or trolley type thing.

Sometimes both.

brat

esuhl wrote: »

If a pedestrian stepped into a road, right in front of a car, without looking, no one would blame the driver if they couldn't stop in time.

Of course that's not strictly true. The motorist has a "duty of care" to pedestrians, and if his speed was deemed to be inappropriate in the circumstances, even if less than the applicable speed limit, he may shoulder a proportion of the liability, certainly in the civil arena, possibly criminally too.

trollopscarletwoman

brat wrote: »

Of course that's not strictly true. The motorist has a "duty of care" to pedestrians, and if his speed was deemed to be inappropriate in the circumstances, even if less than the applicable speed limit, he may shoulder a proportion of the liability, certainly in the civil arena, possibly criminally too.

You're quite right.

Whether law or not you try to avoid people running into your car.

Its about awareness-bike or car.

Nobodies perfect though and in the odd very sad occasion it happens.

brat

Some cyclists are very courteous on the pavement and I wouldn't normally bother wasting police time with them. As we know, there are others who cycle inconsiderately through pedestrians, at the very least causing them surprise and some anguish.

These are two discrete groups. Unfortunately what we find is the cautious pavement cyclist will usually stop on request and take a ticket, while the inconsiderate "cyclist" will exit down an alleyway never to be seen again, offering the customary middle finger greeting as he goes.

I know this is an argument for registration to identify cyclists, but I don't want that.

The number of pedestrian injuries involving cyclists on pavements is so small as to be a non-stat so it's unlikely to be a major police concern unless raised locally as a public nuisance issue.

trollopscarletwoman

brat wrote: »

Some cyclists are very courteous on the pavement and I wouldn't normally bother wasting police time with them. As we know, there are others who cycle inconsiderately through pedestrians, at the very least causing them surprise and some anguish.

These are two discrete groups. Unfortunately what we find is the cautious pavement cyclist will usually stop on request and take a ticket, while the inconsiderate "cyclist" will exit down an alleyway never to be seen again, offering the customary middle finger greeting as he goes.

I know this is an argument for registration to identify cyclists, but I don't want that.

The number of pedestrian injuries involving cyclists on pavements is so small as to be a non-stat so it's unlikely to be a major police concern unless raised locally as a public nuisance issue.

Where I am, Porthcawl sea side town south wales, we haven't really got the city problem. Dangerous enough though.

Where I'm originally from, Newport, south wales, the thought of cycling around that place would terriify me.

custardy

trollopscarletwoman wrote: »

Not where I am.

Either bike or trolley type thing.

Sometimes both.

Not for long,trust me

esuhl

brat wrote: »

Of course that's not strictly true. The motorist has a "duty of care" to pedestrians, and if his speed was deemed to be inappropriate in the circumstances, even if less than the applicable speed limit, he may shoulder a proportion of the liability, certainly in the civil arena, possibly criminally too.

But what constitues "inappropriate speed"? A car being driven at 30mph could do a lot more harm than a bike travelling at 30mph.

Are the vast majority of car-drivers failing in their "duty of care" towards pedestrians? There is an A road near me with a 50mph speed-limit. When a driver sees a pedestrian walking on the pavement, what speed should they slow down to? 5mph? 10mph?

Have you ever seen a car doing that?! I can imagine the accidents that would occur if cars slowed from 50mph to 5mph every time they saw someone on foot! And roads with busy pavements should be re-signposted as 5mph or 10mph zones instead of having signs saying "50mph" when that encourages drivers to ignore their duty of care towards pedestrians that may step into their path without warning.

Unless cyclists can use the dedicated cycle lanes available to travel faster than a walking-pace, then they're completely useless and, worse still, take up space that could have been used to make the road wide enough for cyclists.

Why do pedestrians assume they have to look before stepping in front of a car, but not a bike?

Obviously it's a bit different on a shared footpath/cyclepath... But one would hope that pedestrians would be a bit more aware of the dangers of using personal stereos and running across shared paths without looking... Both pedestrians and cyclists should be aware that they may encounter each other and should have a duty of care to walk/ride safely.

[Deleted User]

trollopscarletwoman wrote: »

Not where I am.

Either bike or trolley type thing.

Sometimes both.

Ok, granted Royal Mail are now phasing out bikes . Theres still plenty using them now and they ve been in use for the last 50 years, all riding on the pavements. the only reason Royal Mail are getting rid of them is because they are now a mail order delivery service of bulky parcels and they re pushing around trollys

[Deleted User]

the reason why you will never see the Police faffing about ever taking to court anyone for either riding on the pavement or not displaying lights is that we are now a libertarian society . I work as a meter reader . I regularly find people bypassing electric and gas meters to the tune of over 5ks worth of energy, very dangerous. houses can set fire or blow up. There are never any prosecutions at all. Cannabis farms with less than fourteen plants , even though they bypass the electric meters to grow them, escape with only a police caution. So you can forget about the Police dragging anyone at all before the Magistrates for such a petty misdemeanour as riding on pavements or not displaying lights, the best you will ever get is a finger wagging. No one is out there stopping blatent use of mobiles whilst driving and as for the recent lane hogging law on mways which has been implemented, has anyone heard of any prosecutions.?