Pavement perils

modsandmockers

wealdroam wrote: »

As you have decided to not respond to the point I made in post #4, I will assume that you agree with my view.

Thank you for your understanding Modsandmockers.
Clearly you do realise where you went wrong.
Well done.

Did you mean this - "It is also wrong for motorists to run over people, so does that mean we can walk anywhere on the highway with gay abandon?" - the answer, obviously, is 'no'. Pavements are for pedestrians.

Mankysteve

modsandmockers wrote: »

Pavements are for pedestrians.

Unless it's shared pathway.
I won't get into the discusion about riding on pavements but if your going to it shouldn't be doing at that speed.

Johnmcl7

Legal or not I don't understand why anyone would want to ride on a pavement at that speed, although there are pavements cyclists are allowed to cycle on they're usually a lot wider without driveways. I get irritated by similar cyclist to that in the video here when walking that dog that seem to expect you to jump out of the way when they are powering along the pavement.

John

Strider590

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

Legal or not I don't understand why anyone would want to ride on a pavement at that speed, although there are pavements cyclists are allowed to cycle on they're usually a lot wider without driveways. I get irritated by similar cyclist to that in the video here when walking that dog that seem to expect you to jump out of the way when they are powering along the pavement.

John

If you look at the road behind, it has parked cars down both sides.
To ride down that road, the cyclist would have to ride 1m from the parked cars in order to avoid the "door zone", this would undoubtedly enrage drivers of a certain mentality.
So maybe the cyclist had a previous incident involving a driver and decided to stay off the road to avoid the hassle.

There's a lot the camera doesn't show.

modsandmockers

Strider590 wrote: »

If you look at the road behind, it has parked cars down both sides.
To ride down that road, the cyclist would have to ride 1m from the parked cars in order to avoid the "door zone", this would undoubtedly enrage drivers of a certain mentality.
So maybe the cyclist had a previous incident involving a driver and decided to stay off the road to avoid the hassle.

There's a lot the camera doesn't show.

There is no information at all on Brat's video about the number of cars which are parked on either or both sides of the road. The camera simply shows a single parked car and a cyclist riding on the pavement (probably because, as you suggest, it's less 'hassle' than riding on the road). The camera also shows the head injuries which the child sustained - why don't you ask the parents about whether it is reasonable for a cyclist to transfer the 'hassle' factor of road biking onto an innocent child who is simply attempting to walk across a theoretically cycle-free area.

Johnmcl7

Strider590 wrote: »

If you look at the road behind, it has parked cars down both sides.
To ride down that road, the cyclist would have to ride 1m from the parked cars in order to avoid the "door zone", this would undoubtedly enrage drivers of a certain mentality.
So maybe the cyclist had a previous incident involving a driver and decided to stay off the road to avoid the hassle.

There's a lot the camera doesn't show.

I frequently ride down roads like that without issue (and with a lot more parked cars) and the pavement is clearly considerably less suitable for riding on as the camera does show. If I have to go on a pavement of that type then I get off and walk the bike, there is no justification for the type of riding shown in the video.

John

SeduLOUs

I think the cyclist is absolutely to blame doing those sorts of speeds down a pavement, especially directly in front of gateways to houses.

On the other hand, the parents should learn a valuable lesson from it also - the child should not have been able to run out into the street the way they did.

OK, you wouldn't reasonable expect to be run over by a high speed cyclist, but there are other pavement risks including dog walkers, and child cyclists at lower speeds, or the child could have run into the road which still could have been a significant risk.

modsandmockers

SeduLOUs wrote: »

On the other hand, the parents should learn a valuable lesson from it also - the child should not have been able to run out into the street the way they did

The child didn't run out onto the street, and I seriously hope that the parents will go to considerable lengths to teach their child that the pavement is, almost without exception, a safe place to be. Above all, I hope that the child will grow up with a realisation that biking on the pavement is never a good idea.

pendragon_arther

I was almost run down by a cyclist riding on the pavement as I came out of my front gate. Had I caught the !!!!!!! I would have ensured that he looked awfully silly walking about with a bicycle sticking out of his rear port.

Retrogamer

modsandmockers wrote: »

Did you mean this - "It is also wrong for motorists to run over people, so does that mean we can walk anywhere on the highway with gay abandon?" - the answer, obviously, is 'no'. Pavements are for pedestrians.

Although cycling is illegal on pavements, i've read police officers guidance on dealing with it is to permit it if the cyclist is showing consideration (i.e giving right of way) to pedestrians and there is a risk to them on the road (busy, potentially dangerous layout etc)

Obviously the cyclist in the video wasn't doing this but as a general rule it can be fine in certain circumstances to ride on pavements.