what anth said :) basically - in one the cyclist is expected (or, should be). In the other, it's not. And shouldn't be there. And isn't allowed to be there.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
"Fears over pavement cyclists"
(36 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
OK, as a cyclist and a person with young children who lives in an area with some pavement cycling I'll bite; there is no excuse for pavement cycling (for the reasons discussed above), and the anti-social idiots who do it give the rest of us a mountain to overcome in terms of public perception that results in exactly the sort of council vote we've just seen. If you have ever had to pull your kid out of the way of a bike on the pavement (and I have in the last week on Marchmont Road had to do this - to be fair he did ring his bell before he plowed into the area we'd been standing seconds before), then you will be aware of the effect of it on you, even as a cyclist; its scary and the primal red mist descends pretty easily. If it has happened to the councillor, we need to respect that, not diminish it in any way, because its real. It can be turned to good use with the 'if the streets were safer, there would be less pavement cycling' argument, but dont tell her it wasnt scary. She hears pavement cycling and thats what she remembers.
OTOH, I use two main sections of shared use path on my commute and the big difference between them and the pavement is that they are wide and marked out for shared on split use (Marchmont Road to Argyle Place, and MMW respectively). They work and are convenient; most peoples memory of them is of a pleasant shared use. Neither is bounded by walls and parked cars, another important difference; on most pavements it can be difficult to get out of the way.
Posted 13 years ago # -
what anth said :) basically - in one the cyclist is expected (or, should be). In the other, it's not. And shouldn't be there. And isn't allowed to be there.
Yes, it is legally different. But you're not answering the question I asked ;-)
If the pavement is, in case of point, physically the same, and a pedestrian can join it without having to walk past a shared use sign (neither of these is remotely far fetched - I can think of an armload of examples), it really isn't possible to differentiate between the "good, holy, sacred" user of the shared path and the "evil, twisted, venomous" user of the pavement, except insofar as you can say that both parties *should* be in full possession of the facts!
There are sections near my old work, for instance, where the only indication of shared-path status is that the pedestrian crossings have bike lights too. There is nothing else - not wide enough for a pedestrian plus a cyclist comfortably, no signs, no painted markings. I'm not even sure if that is because they were never put in and it's not a cycle path, or because of decay.
Posted 13 years ago # -
My 7 and 8 year old know not to cycle on the pavement and they don't.
The bigger secondary age kids don't seem to have heard of that but then they also don't look at junctions or when riding off the pavement onto the road nor do they seem to be aware what side of the road we customarily use in the UK.
And, while obviously not mentioning the whole of the H word, the big boys use them, mine don't but I know who I'd pick as being safer.
The 8 yr old is starting to use the main/busier roads to get to and from school. Not on his own yet but then I have to be there to haul the other two in the trailer anyway.
Posted 13 years ago # -
@mgj
"If it has happened to the councillor, we need to respect that, not diminish it in any way, because its real."
I'm not sure anyone has done that, but rather suggesting that using it as an excuse not to go ahead with shared use paths in a completely different place is a little... Odd... Especially when the scheme being proposed includes the pavements being widened in order to accommodate all and (hopefully) mean that pedestrians and cyclists would not come into conflict.
In essence the councillor has argued that pavements should not be widened and made shared use because someone at the moment cycles dangerously on a pavement that is not widened and not shared use... Apples and pears.
Yes her incident was scary. Yes she has every right to hear 'pavement cycling' and think of that incident. No she shouldn't simply stop there but rather, as an elected representative with a responsibility to do so, she should seek to see why allowing cyclists to use widened and signed pavements is different from a cyclist illegally using a narrow pavement.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I am going to summarize my experiences in various European cycle systems in another post (and after I get back) but I would like to add here that in Germany they have a hodge podge of on-street and pavement marked cycle lanes where when the footway is wide enough they put a red marked lane for bikes and when its not this path descends to the road and is sometimes marked out and sometimes not. Sounds confusing and it is and the upshot seems to be a LOT of pavement riding, by everyone, all the time.
The on-road provision can be a little hairy at the best of times (trucks here are atrocious, A 20 tonne semi that would pass on the opposite side of the road from me out in the country seems to think it fine to shave by with centimeters to spare and cut me up in the city) and I see many people cycle slowly on the pavement illegaly rather than chance their arm in 3/4 lane traffic. The fine for riding on the pavement without endangering other users is only 5 euro!
Posted 13 years ago # -
Delay to Botanics scheme over - go-ahead given at September committee meeting!
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
