Pavement perils

Pennywise

Strider590 wrote: »

To ride down that road, the cyclist would have to ride 1m from the parked cars in order to avoid the "door zone"

It's a shame he wasn't riding 1m away from the house drives/gates to avoid the blatantly obvious risk of smashing into someone perfectly legally, and highly likely, leaving their own property onto the pavement. If the pillock couldn't foresee and plan for the risk of someone walking from the drive into his path, I really can't imagine he was bright enough to think of the risk of a car door opening into his path on the roadway.

Marco_Panettone

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I do sympathise with cyclists who feel at risk of reckless cardrivers - but that is no excuse for trying to pass the risk of injury onto pedestrians using pedestrian-only pavements. I really do not want pedestrians to be forced into feeling we need to campaign to be safe on our own pavements - just because of campaigning cyclists apparently putting their safety ahead of ours.

I don't want people to feel like that either.

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

We don't choose to use pavements - we have to. There is no other way for pedestrians to get around and we are entitled to feel safe on them. Pavements were put there in the first place for us and not for cyclists. Please take up any safety issues you have with motorists (and not us). Motorists are the cause of your problems and not us and it is simply not fair to try and pass your problems onto our shoulders.

Again, I agree. People should not be put at risk because of other people's behaviour.

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Cyclists do choose to use bikes and do choose to use OUR pavements. Don't make this into a fight between us - we are likely to support your wish for safety IF you respect OUR need for safety in our OWN environment. It is short-sighted to put our backs up against you - because of seeing it as the only way to protect OUR environment.

I'm perfectly willing to support any cyclist campaign against reckless cardrivers. What I am NOT prepared to do is see people deciding unilaterally that their safety counts higher on the scale than our safety.

Stop using 'them and us' then. People who ride bikes are people who walk too. If you want to be able to do it in safety you need to help campaign for safer streets for PEOPLE, and help prioritise people above motor vehicles.


You also need to campaign against 'shared use' pavements - nobody wants these and they cause conflict, but councils are converting pedestrian space to cycle use too with a small sign. If there's a small sign then it's safe and legal (apparently), but without the sign it's the most dangerous thing people will ever encounter (apparently). Create the right environment and you change behaviour, both in the mode of transport chosen, how it's used and the type of people using it.

Nobody has condoned the incident, or behaving in a dangerous manner near more vulnerable road users. Oh, except for the police in the case of motoring offences...

Tobster86

Sensationalist, blown-out-of-proportion story.

Should have read "Inattentive chav on a BMX hits toddler, causing a graze".

Said chav will receive a token slap on the wrists from magistrates and probably won't do it again. The parents might pay more attention to what their toddler is doing next to the road.

Nothing is broken and nothing needs fixing, and no person or group who weren't directly involved in the events needs blaming!

Retrogamer

I wonder what's more dangerous for pedestrians

Me cycling down the pavement at walking speed and being able to stop on a dime

Or me running down the pavement quickly, whilst pushing my bicycle and taking at least a few feet to stop.

DKLS

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Cycling too fast and without care is the problem. Not simply pavement cycling. If the video cyclist had been cycling on the pavement but at a sensible speed and been aware of the risk he posed to pedestrians and prepared to react this wouldn't have happened.
.

This I encounter a number of cyclists on the wide pavements near where I live and they are zero trouble at all, but the ones I have seen seem to have the sense to use appropriate speed for the conditions.

Only time I have had a collision with a cyclist was in Camden and I ended up buying the poor guy a pint and help rescue his bike from the canal, NB I didn't shove him in due to pedestrian rage he deflected off me and into the canal.

Accidents happen and it wouldn't do any harm if all of us pavement and roads users had a little more consideration and space for other users.

Unfortunately the guy in the OP seems to be a bit inconsiderate and has been judged accordingly by the internets.

Johno100

Tobster86 wrote: »

Sensationalist, blown-out-of-proportion story.

Should have read "Inattentive chav on a BMX hits toddler, causing a graze".

Said chav will receive a token slap on the wrists from magistrates and probably won't do it again. The parents might pay more attention to what their toddler is doing next to the road.

Nothing is broken and nothing needs fixing, and no person or group who weren't directly involved in the events needs blaming!

That about sums it up, he's a POB not a cyclist, with a bit of victim blaming thrown in for good measure.

moneyistooshorttomention

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

If there's a small sign then it's safe and legal (apparently), but without the sign it's the most dangerous thing people will ever encounter (apparently).

There is a huge difference between pavements where a sign is up indicating the pavement is "shared use" and ones where there is no such sign (ie because they are pedestrian-only).

On "shared use" footpaths pedestrians are likely to be keeping an eye out for cyclists being on the pavement too. I know I keep an eye out myself on a shared use pavement.

On other footpaths (ie the vast vast majority of pavements then) we won't be keeping an eye out - because we don't need to. We know they are pedestrian only pavements and therefore we don't have to be wary of cyclists using them. We just don't do being wary on most pavements - because we know they are for us only. So on the standard pedestrian-only pavement we can walk along them using the pavement in exactly the same way as we have for donkeys years (ie not having to be "on alert").

I don't know whether younger people are "on alert" all the time walking along all pavements (and rather doubt it - due to often paying more attention to their phone). However, a huge proportion of us are old enough that we have spent many years walking along pavements without taking care, ie because we didn't have to - as cyclists didn't ride on pavements then. Therefore we will only be taking care when we are on a "shared use" pavement - to the extent necessary to allow for the fact that cyclists move for us (by law), rather than vice-versa. We don't "take care" on pavements that are ours only and the vast majority of us never will.

This is where that illicit cyclist causing the accident was acting a bit "dumb" - stating he didn't know that riding on that pavement was illegal. There was a rather big clue that it is - the fact that that "shared use" sign was missing. It seemed beyond him to deduce that - where there is no "shared use " sign that that means its the normal pedestrian only pavement and he shouldn't be cycling on it. Not hard to figure out is it?! Personally I wouldn't want to have a newspaper article about me - from which it would become clear that not only was I antisocial, but I was also too stupid to work that fact out.

modsandmockers

Pennywise wrote: »

It's a shame he wasn't riding 1m away from the house drives/gates to avoid the blatantly obvious risk of smashing into someone perfectly legally, and highly likely, leaving their own property onto the pavement. If the pillock couldn't foresee and plan for the risk of someone walking from the drive into his path, I really can't imagine he was bright enough to think of the risk of a car door opening into his path on the roadway.

It's bleeding obvious!

System

Cyclist has now been charged with Dangerous Cycling

esuhl

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

On "shared use" footpaths pedestrians are likely to be keeping an eye out for cyclists being on the pavement too. I know I keep an eye out myself on a shared use pavement.

You must be in the minority, then. I've lost count of the number of times a pedestrian (often a jogger with earphones in) has leapt out of a concealed entrance straight into traffic on the cycle path. Yet strangely, those people don't leap in front of motor traffic on the roads without looking.

That's just one reason that nearly all the "shared use" pavements round here are completely unsuitable for bikes, so cyclists tend to use the road despite the magic blue signs that have been installed.

Round here we also have some dedicated cycle paths running alongside the pavement. For some reason, around 90% of pedestrians walk on the cycle path and seem bewildered and confused when they meet a bike. So again, despite the road being narrowed to make room for a dedicated cycle path, cyclists are forced onto the road by inconsiderate pedestrians.