Can cyclists answer me why??

brat

sacsquacco wrote: »

...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.

Let's not say "forget about" because it does happen. Probably in a similar ratio to motorists being punished for their offending.

No one is out there stopping blatent use of mobiles whilst driving

Road Traffic policing has largely given way to Roads policing which has a much greater emphasis on denying criminals the use of the road. That said, I don't know any of my colleagues who would turn a blind eye to anyone using a h/h mobile while driving, unless they were engaged on another duty.

as for the recent lane hogging law on mways which has been implemented, has anyone heard of any prosecutions.?

Yes, a few, dealt with under the fixed penalty system.

brat

esuhl wrote: »

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

An appropriate speed is a speed from which you can react appropriately to things you can see, things you can't yet see and things you might reasonably expect to happen.
If you drive past a school exit at 3.20pm and there are lots of kids milling around, it may be completely inappropriate to drive past at the applicable speed limit. Similarly a busy town centre, or the street drunken revellers have to cross to get from the night club to the taxi rank.
Vulnerable road users make mistakes. Many make those mistakes through lack of experience or training. Some are just stupid. But almost all of their actions have a degree of predictability or advanced warning. You simply cannot abrogate your responsibility to them by arguing that you were not exceeding the limit. Your responsibility as the holder of a driving licence goes beyond that.

esuhl

brat wrote: »

An appropriate speed is a speed from which you can react appropriately to things you can see, things you can't yet see and things you might reasonably expect to happen.
If you drive past a school exit at 3.20pm and there are lots of kids milling around, it may be completely inappropriate to drive past at the applicable speed limit. Similarly a busy town centre, or the street drunken revellers have to cross to get from the night club to the taxi rank.
Vulnerable road users make mistakes. Many make those mistakes through lack of experience or training. Some are just stupid. But almost all of their actions have a degree of predictability or advanced warning. You simply cannot abrogate your responsibility to them by arguing that you were not exceeding the limit. Your responsibility as the holder of a driving licence goes beyond that.

Fine, but on a 50mph A road bypass with a pavement, how fast would it generally be appropriate to pass a lone pedestrian? How fast would be okay to pass the pedestrian if you were riding on a dedicated cycle track?

If the car driver has to be able to react to the pedestrian running into the road without warning, then he/she should probably slow down to about 10mph. But I've never seen anything like that happen in my life!

Are we to assume that all car drivers are inherently reckless? Or that telling cyclists to watch out for pedestrians when using dedicated paths is hypocritical? Why would pedestrians step into the path of oncoming traffic without looking?!

I sometimes wonder if drivers/pedestrians will start a campaign to ensure that cyclists are required to travel behind a man walking along, waving a red flag to announce their presence! :rotfl:

brat

esuhl wrote: »

Fine, but on a 50mph A road bypass with a pavement, how fast would it generally be appropriate to pass a lone pedestrian? How fast would be okay to pass the pedestrian if you were riding on a dedicated cycle track?

It depends on the pedestrian and the road. If it's a wide single carriageway with a wide pavement and the pedestrian is walking sensibly, then I'd be doing normal speed,perhaps edging slightly closer to the centre line. If the pedestrian is staggering, or otherwise unpredictable, I'd be giving myself some avoidance time and distance, not necessarily bringing my speed down too much, but making sure I could avoid a sudden stagger or fall into the road.

If the car driver has to be able to react to the pedestrian running into the road without warning, then he/she should probably slow down to about 10mph. But I've never seen anything like that happen in my life!

You mean the suicide pedestrian?
That just doesn't happen, unless they intend suicide, or it's a ped priority zone.
But if you're doing 50 on a 50mph by-pass, one metre or less from a pavement where there are pedestrians behaving unpredictably, then questions will be asked about your level of care towards them if they fell into the road in front of you, and you couldn't avoid them.

Are we to assume that all car drivers are inherently reckless? Or that telling cyclists to watch out for pedestrians when using dedicated paths is hypocritical? Why would pedestrians step into the path of oncoming traffic without looking?!

Pedestrians step into my path all the time in the pedestrian zone I cycle through, why? Because they don't expect me (legally) travelling against the normal traffic flow. In those circumstances I have to predict their movement. Almost none of them move without warning, so they're easy to avoid if my speed is appropriate.

[Deleted User]

esuhl wrote: »

Fine, but on a 50mph A road bypass with a pavement, how fast would it generally be appropriate to pass a lone pedestrian? How fast would be okay to pass the pedestrian if you were riding on a dedicated cycle track?

If the car driver has to be able to react to the pedestrian running into the road without warning, then he/she should probably slow down to about 10mph. But I've never seen anything like that happen in my life!

Are we to assume that all car drivers are inherently reckless? Or that telling cyclists to watch out for pedestrians when using dedicated paths is hypocritical? Why would pedestrians step into the path of oncoming traffic without looking?!

I sometimes wonder if drivers/pedestrians will start a campaign to ensure that cyclists are required to travel behind a man walking along, waving a red flag to announce their presence! :rotfl:

I ve been riding on pavements and pedestian precincts for years and never had the slightest problem, I dont want one because its me who comes off worse if my handlebars are clipped by a walker and I m breaking my collarbone/skull taking a tumble from a higher and faster speed than any walker. Its easy to pass pedestrians giving them a good 3 foot wide berth, so unless they suddenly leap sideways everything is ok. Becoming yet another cycling statistic death on the road is more important to me. Come on Cameron, do what you said you would do in your pre election manifesto and pack in the out of date "law " of pavement cycling , if only to shut up all the dynasaurs

Altarf

esuhl wrote: »

Out of interest, what is the "duty of care" that a cyclist has when using a dedicated cycle lane and a pedestrian steps into it without looking? I've nearly hit several people doing this (whilst still cycling at a low speed, wary that they may do so).

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. We don't ask drivers to slow down to 5mph or less when they see pedestrians walking along the footpath next to the road...

What you utterly and completely fail to understand is that a "dedicated cycle lane" marked out on a pavement, is just part of the pavement the whole of which the pedestrian is perfectly entitled to use.

Therefore your analogy comparing a pedestrian stepping into the road is completely false, all the pedestrian is doing is stepping from one part of the pavement to another part of the pavement.

Hence it is the cyclist who needs to take care, anticipate the pedestrian, and modify their behaviour accordingly.

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

What you utterly and completely fail to understand is that a "dedicated cycle lane" marked out on a pavement, is just part of the pavement the whole of which the pedestrian is perfectly entitled to use.

Therefore your analogy comparing a pedestrian stepping into the road is completely false, all the pedestrian is doing is stepping from one part of the pavement to another part of the pavement.

Hence it is the cyclist who needs to take care, anticipate the pedestrian, and modify their behaviour accordingly.

Interesting
you seem to put the cyclist at a greater level of responsibility on a shared use path

esuhl

Altarf wrote: »

What you utterly and completely fail to understand is that a "dedicated cycle lane" marked out on a pavement, is just part of the pavement the whole of which the pedestrian is perfectly entitled to use.

Therefore your analogy comparing a pedestrian stepping into the road is completely false, all the pedestrian is doing is stepping from one part of the pavement to another part of the pavement.

Hence it is the cyclist who needs to take care, anticipate the pedestrian, and modify their behaviour accordingly.

What if the cyclist can't anticipate the pedestrian? A road near me has a kerb with a footpath next to it (as usual!), then another (smaller) kerb, a cycle path, then a dense hedge.

There's a hidden gap in the hedge where a footpath joins the cycle-path at right angles. Cyclists can only see the path about a metre or two in advance. There are no signs or markings on either the cycle-path or the footpath.

To me, that seems like an accident waiting to happen, and is one of many reasons that I tend to use the road instead of even the safest-looking cycle path, unless I'm particularly familiar with it.

If a cyclist were to hit someone at the junction I mentioned, who would be at fault? Would both the injured cyclist and pedestrian be able to sue the council for being the primary contributory cause of the accident?

brat

Such responsibilities are not so well defined as those on the road, but I'd suggest that the person bringing the greater speed differential into a situation shoulders the greater responsibility. Whether the faster person and slower person are approaching each other or one is approaching the other from behind will make a difference to the proportions of responsibility too.

So if I'm cycling at 20mph on a shared cyclepath and I overtake a cyclist at 10mph, a jogger at 6mph or a pedestrian at three mph, it's my reponsibility to make that manoeuvre as safe as I can. That would normally mean that I should make the slower person aware of my approach.

If I'm out for a run at 9mph and I pass a cyclist doing 7 mph or a jogger at 6mph, again the major responsibility for safety is mine.

But, as esuhl says, such encounters mean that the only way a road cyclist can safely and responsibly negotiate such busy paths is slowly, so it's often safer and more convenient to use the road.

esuhl wrote: »

What if the cyclist can't anticipate the pedestrian? A road near me has a kerb with a footpath next to it (as usual!), then another (smaller) kerb, a cycle path, then a dense hedge.

There's a hidden gap in the hedge where a footpath joins the cycle-path at right angles. Cyclists can only see the path about a metre or two in advance. There are no signs or markings on either the cycle-path or the footpath.

To me, that seems like an accident waiting to happen, and is one of many reasons that I tend to use the road instead of even the safest-looking cycle path, unless I'm particularly familiar with it.

If a cyclist were to hit someone at the junction I mentioned, who would be at fault? Would both the injured cyclist and pedestrian be able to sue the council for being the primary contributory cause of the accident?

Perhaps we could see that on streetview?

Enterprise_1701C

I was on a divided (only by white lines) cycle path/footpath. There was a prat who wanted to show off to his girlfriend. He decided to step out in front of me and confront me, telling me I should not be riding on the footpath. I pointed out that he was in fact standing on the cycle path. I then moved off as quickly as I could. It was only a little later that I realised that I had only managed to stop because I had been watching him mess about and generally try to show off at every opportunity. If I had not been watching him I would not have been able to stop because he stepped right in front of me. I realise this would have been classed as my fault, but it would really have been his fault because he was being an idiot. There is CCTV covering that stretch so I may well have been able to argue my point.

Unfortunately it is generally the cyclist that bears the brunt of responsibility even when there is a real idiot around.