Pavement perils

boliston

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

It's been "converted into a media event" because there doesn't seem to be any other way to get the message over to cyclists "Keep off OUR pavements". Perhaps the police might take it more seriously now about kicking cyclists off our pavements on the one hand and maybe that derisory little fixed penalty they can levy (ie £50) will be raised to something more realistic (eg at least £1,000)..

Good idea!
Hopefully they will also have a higher fine for speeding instead of the derisory £60 - speeding and pavement cycling should both have a £1000 fine at least plus crushing of bike or car.

Johno100

!!!!!! wrote: »

Cyclist has now been charged with Dangerous Cycling

Maximum fine of £2,500 for that.

Wonder if his employers have been made aware of his alleged actions?

brat

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

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).

Yet there is a sign 100m further along on the pavement for cyclists which would only be read by cyclists who are already on the pavement. Not sufficient to show that shared usage is permitted, but defence for the cyclist is likely to take that into account in mitigation.

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.

Likewise, and the cyclist must share (in my view) the burden of that responsibility, as the person carrying the greater momentum.

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 non-pedestrian 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").

As a runner who runs on pavements at speeds up to 12 mph, I do look out for pedestrians coming out of gates. But I like them to look out for me too, and they should.

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.

I do think you need to take a bit more care of yourself. If you blindly step into the path of a jogger, it will hurt, and it may well be your fault.

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.

I had a look in that area on streetview, and found an equal number of cyclists and pedestrians on the footpath. It's illegal to cycle on the footpath, but it would be foolish not to recognise the fact that people do act illegally. If I thought I could move from lane two to lane three on the motorway at 70mph without checking my mirrors safe in the knowledge that no one could possibly overtake me because it's illegal to do more than 70, I would be the most culpable if a collision occurred. So it makes sense to do the checks.

brat

boliston wrote: »

Good idea!
Hopefully they will also have a higher fine for speeding instead of the derisory £60 - speeding and pavement cycling should both have a £1000 fine at least plus crushing of bike or car.

£60?

Minimum £100 for speeding these days, unless a speed awareness course is offered.

boliston

Johno100 wrote: »

Maximum fine of £2,500 for that.

Wonder if his employers have been made aware of his alleged actions?

What would it have to do with his employer?

armyknife

Originally Posted by Johno100
Maximum fine of £2,500 for that.

Wonder if his employers have been made aware of his alleged actions?

boliston wrote: »

What would it have to do with his employer?

I'm not in favour of these internet driven campaigns of retribution, which in America seem to be driven by a desire to see the perpetrator end up jobless, homeless and with such notoriety that there unemployable.

silverwhistle

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Stop using 'them and us' then.

This is the crux of the matter. There seems to be an awful lot of andropausal exaggeration in the language used when this subject comes up.

Your comment about shared paths is also a good one. Sometimes they work because people who use them are regulars and know the score: the one between my village and the nearest town is a good one as it avoids a short stretch of slightly windey lane with an ostensible 40mph limit. It rejoins the road when the houses (and 30mph) start again. On the other hand anyone who has shopped around IKEA in Southampton may well have observed two parallel marked paths - one for cyclists - but I've never seen pedestrians taking any care whatsoever in where they walk.

Also in my village the main road has a cycle path, and there are red markings as a reminder where residential side streets join it and a few of the other through routes. A useful reminder perhaps, but I've still seen the ambulance after some motorist pulled out in front of a cyclist.

I've seen far more examples of bad driving than cycling: in the last year alone I've nearly been hit twice by people fiddling with their mobiles. You don't want to know the unladylike language I used, but it was directed at the individuals concerned...

frisbeej

boliston wrote: »

What would it have to do with his employer?

He is now a celebrity, therefore as ordinary plebs we should fund his nefarious lifecycle (as his employers should clearly do their civic duty and fire him so he ends up on benefits).

Proc

Ah the age old cyclists vs pedestrians vs motorists debate. Why can't we just accept that you get nobs in all camps?

This guy was clearly a pillock, and has been dealt with by the police. The parents would do well to teach their kids to check before walking into other pathways, mainly so they don't trip up pedestrians.

How is this a story? Pedestrians are killed by motorists every single day - where are the threads about that?

brat

Proc wrote: »

Ah the age old cyclists vs pedestrians vs motorists debate. Why can't we just accept that you get nobs in all camps?

Unfortunately some believe that evidence that one cyclist is a pillock means that all cyclists are pillocks. .

Proc wrote: »

How is this a story? Pedestrians are killed by motorists every single day - where are the threads about that?

This is more unusual, it has a video and it's manna for the impoverished anti cyclist agenda pushers.