Angry « CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Questions/Support/Help

Angry

(21 posts)

Started 13 years ago by mgj
Latest reply from Roibeard
This topic is not resolved

No tags yet.

mgj
Member

Is it OK to be as angry about a pavement cyclist nearly running you down as a crap bit of driving that easier to see and avoid?

Students are back, so plenty of sit up and begs on the pavement this morning, but as I went to take the recycling out (in lycra, SPDs etc, god I'm a cliche), female student nearly crashed into me as I stepped on to the pavement; big swerve nearly into parked cars, no attempt to brake, no 'sorry', so she got a shout, similar to the Oi you'd give a car driver.

Question; is that about right? Last week it was as I was wheeling my bike out; pushing it through the gate slightly ahead of me and a bike swerved round it. Do I really have to look both ways before stepping onto the pavement?

</rant>

But it was a beautiful morning for cycling to work. Very tempted to extend my route.

Posted 13 years ago #
Smudge
Member

Perfectly ok, if she had to swerve like that to avoid you she was going too fast for the place she was riding. As an adult she shouldn't be riding on the pavement, if a youngster had been running out to go to school could she have avoided them? Last and not least she gives cyclists a bad name.
imho she got off lightly with an "OI"!

Posted 13 years ago #
wingpig
Member

I look both ways before emerging onto the pavement but if I saw someone over ten cycling towards me I'd continue out to deliberately impede them. If someone was going to fast to need to swerve I'd have shouted considerably more than "OI".

Posted 13 years ago #
crowriver
Member

It's pretty clear that people should not be cycling on pavements next to residential accommodation. It's dangerous and in most cases the roads have relatively low driving speeds (in town anyway) so are relatively safe if cycled with care.

Not as many students where I stay but we sometimes get 'blokes on bikes' (usually wearing baseball caps, tracksuits, trainers etc.) cruising on BMX/MTB-set-up-like-BMX along the very narrow pavement on Easter Road. They are very annoying because they often don't stop or try to weave around walkers, they just plough through! Get the occasional timid lady on a Pashley Princess lookalike on the wider pavements along London Road too. These latter are usually going very slowly so not really a problem.

It's a persistent issue which goes to show that there are people who are very uncomfortable with cycling on the roads (and who probably don't think of themselves as 'cyclists'). It also perhaps hints at the potential for cycling as a mode of transport if the roads felt safer...

Posted 13 years ago #
Dave
Member

We're all free to be angry about whatever we like :)

Of course, if you push your bike out in front of you without looking, all sorts of possible carnage might ensure - what if a toddler is in the way, or a runner, or a granny on one of those motorised wheelchairs*?

I'm a pretty poor runner, but I can do about 10mph, which is quicker than many (most?) pavement cyclists. It's bad enough watching out for people backing blindly out of their drives [in cars], never mind people sticking their bikes out of gates ;-)

Anyway, shouldn't the bike be carried over the pavement, strictly speaking?

* other forms of wheelchair and ages of occupant are available

Posted 13 years ago #
Dave
Member

"These latter are usually going very slowly so not really a problem."

Aren't they even more of a problem, because they apply a veneer of respectability / acceptability to riding on the pavement?

"It's OK if you do it slowly" is a thin-end-of-the-wedge sort of statement, just like "it's OK if the council have put up a blue sign every few miles". There's no wonder that people (who largely think of their bike as just a way of walking places a bit quicker) are happy to use whatever surface seems most suitable*.

We do cover this periodically on the forum, but I think that so long as shared-use "facilities" exist which are basically just "a council form-filler ticked a box for this stretch of pavement", people will make the small incremental leap of extending that ruling to whatever pavement they want to 'share'.

* A diverse range of opinions are available

Posted 13 years ago #
Smudge
Member

"Anyway, shouldn't the bike be carried over the pavement, strictly speaking?"

One for one of our resident legal eagles ;-) I seem to remember it being said that someone pushing a bike counted as a pedestrian though :-)

Posted 13 years ago #
ruggtomcat
Member

road surface is a lot to do with it too. The reason why on-road cycle lanes dont work is because roads suffer the wear associated with heavy vehicles, and will always be more potholed and dangerous than dedicated cycle lanes. How many times has the on-road cycle lane led you straight into a hole large enough to throw someone off? The only place I would be tempted to pavement cycle is Marchmont or Brighton place. I hate cobbles.

I think the pavements on Northfeild Broadway are ripe for shared use however.

Posted 13 years ago #
mgj
Member

"Anyway, shouldn't the bike be carried over the pavement, strictly speaking?"

I will when drivers carry their cars out of their driveways.

"Of course, if you push your bike out in front of you without looking, all sorts of possible carnage might ensure - what if a toddler is in the way, or a runner, or a granny on one of those motorised wheelchairs*?"

I think my viewing angle when looking straight ahead is wide enough for me to see walkers etc as I dont have a hedge; it's only those going faster that would mean I'd have to look both ways.

"The only place I would be tempted to pavement cycle is Marchmont or Brighton place. I hate cobbles."

My street has cobbles; that may be an issue that encourages folk to cycle on the pavement , although if they were going at a safe speed, they'd be better off walking. If their bike isnt up to cycling on cobbles, should it be on the road at all?

We've got a poorly observed 20 mph speed limit (at least partly becuase the signs are very badly placed, and because they have 'Safer Routes to School' on them - almost implying they dont apply all the time)

Posted 13 years ago #
crowriver
Member

The reason why on-road cycle lanes dont work is because roads suffer the wear associated with heavy vehicles, and will always be more potholed and dangerous than dedicated cycle lanes.

On road cycle lanes? You mean those bits of red tarmac that can't be used by cyclists because of all the cars parked in them?

Give me 'vehicular cycling' any day over that. A close second would be shared use paths, where these are not obstructed by road signs, lamp posts, bins, chicanes, etc. or composed of extremely poorly laid tarmac with ridged/bumpy/loose/flaking surfaces. Hmm. That's most of Edinburgh's paths out then, for all except leisure riding...

Posted 13 years ago #
MeepMeep
Member

It's interesting this topic came up this morning. As I was cycling into work I saw a guy cycling on the pavement along South Gyle Crescent. He was cycling at relatively the same speed as I was doing on the road so wholly inappropriate for his environment (ignoring the fact he shouldn't have been riding there in the first place).

I followed him into the grounds and he parked his bike up in the same racks at the same time I did and, though I didn't say anything at the time, I have been wondering what I should have said about his cycling on the pavement.

Surely a bit of "treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself" mentality usually gives you a good indication of right and wrong? I'd have been seething too, mgj.

Posted 13 years ago #
Morningsider
Member

Perfectly legal to push a bike along or across a footway or footpath. (Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, Section 129(5)(b)).

Dave - are you really arguing that anyone who chooses to use one of the very few sections of shared use "pavement" is then likely to consider it okay to cycle on any pavement? Seems pretty unlikely to me.

Posted 13 years ago #
chdot
Admin

Almost related...

Cyclists take part in Frome Cobble Wobble

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-15061031

Posted 13 years ago #
Dave
Member

"Dave - are you really arguing that anyone who chooses to use one of the very few sections of shared use "pavement" is then likely to consider it okay to cycle on any pavement?"

No, but I am arguing that so long as people who want to cycle along the pavement are encouraged to do so where politically expedient, they will find it very easy to justify continuing on the pavement when the paint (if there even is any) suggests they ought to be on the road.

Consider this core paths stuff. If it's fine to ride on a pavement on a core path, when you get to a rectangle and the core path goes on two sides, not the two sides you wish to travel on (but the pavements are identical), do you not think it's more likely that people will continue on the pavement regardless?

Imagine if there were "it's OK to use your mobile" sections of road for drivers*. Don't you think they might continue the call driving on the (otherwise identical) bit of road outside the zone?

* other comparisons of the dangers of pavement cycling are available

Posted 13 years ago #
crowriver
Member

Imagine if there were "it's OK to use your mobile" sections of road for drivers

We don't have to imagine it. Most of the UK roads network is a de facto "it's OK to use your mobile" zone, judging by the number of drivers who blithely carry on driving with handsets clamped to their ears.

Posted 13 years ago #
wingpig
Member

Some drivers, though they drive at ≤70mph on the motorway do not go at 70mph through town, only driving at ≤30mph as they're told they're no longer allowed to go above 30mph. Some would obey rules if told they could use phones only on specific stretches of road, some would not. Some people get off the pavement and return to the road once they stop seeing the shared-use signage along Seafield Road whereas some carry on on the pavement as far as Consitution Street.

Posted 13 years ago #
Dave
Member

"Some would obey rules if told they could use phones only on specific stretches of road, some would not."

And for the ones who wouldn't, do you think being widely able to use their phones legally on *some* roads would encourage them to use their phones on roads where it isn't legal, or discourage them from doing so?

Here's a concrete example - the pavement on the left of view is a shared use path (though it has no signs or paint) while the wider one on the right is not.

Is it reasonable to suppose that cyclists who get used to riding down this pavement, if faced with the need to go somewhere on the other side of the road, will just do so? I don't think it's that controversial, really (nor am I trying to argue against shared use paths - but it's a given as far as I can see that if you encourage people to ride on the pavement that they will do it more.)

Posted 13 years ago #
wingpig
Member

I can only say "some" so many times in the same post. I've still got ten minutes during which I could italicise, embolden or underline if it would help.

Presumably people who cycle on the pavement where allowed or use their phones on stretches of road where doing so is permitted would know that they're allowed to cycle on that bit of pavement or use their mobile on that bit of road due to noticing/heeding some sort of sign or instruction. Whilst some of the people who saw the "you may start this here" sign might not see the "now stop it again" sign, some would notice/heed the [/use of mobiles permitted] and cease doing so. Also, advice of permission to do something != encouragement to do something, particularly the "HMPH cyclists grudgingly allowed under sufferance, IF WE MUST" flavour of some shared-use paths. Even active encouragement to ride on some bits of the pavement is not encouragement to ride on all bits of the pavement, though some may indeed take it as such. Some people who currently cycle on bits of pavement on which cycling is not permitted may not have noticed signs in some places saying that they can cycle on specific bits of pavement; they may just be cycling on the pavement because they want to cycle on the pavement. As they already cycle on the pavement, knowing that there are specific bits of pavement on which cycling is permitted would not affect what they actually do, though may form the basis of their protestative bleatings if shouted at for being on a bit of pavement they're not allowed to cycle on. If there's nothing to indicate (either on signposts on it or on an internet or printed map) that a shared-use path was a shared-use path then those with a tendency to heed rules/laws/guidelines would probably not cycle on it whilst those who tend to ignore them or don't know or don't care that cycling on pavements is generally not permitted (exeptions notwithstanding) probably would.

Posted 13 years ago #
crowriver
Member

Here's a concrete example - the pavement on the left of view is a shared use path (though it has no signs or paint) while the wider one on the right is not.

Interesting example. I've used this section travelling from Rosyth station along to Charlestown and back. For a start, it's damn confusing as the signage is incomplete. Secondly the roundabout can be busy and potentially hazardous. due to a motorway-connected roundabout further north.

My solution was footpath until after roundabout (from station heading south), then onto road until A985. Getting back was more hairy as there's no easy way to cross to the station until the pelican crossing which is some way after the station (heading north). In the end I cycled on road, stopped to press the button then walked the bike across before cycling on the shared path the short distance to the station.

Posted 13 years ago #
Dave
Member

I wondered if anyone would be familiar with that section of Scotland (forum small-world-itis!)

In fact I made a video some years ago which features the alternative options, for my commute:

[+] Embed the video | Video Download Get the Video Player

Text-Link:

HTML-Link:

BB-Code:

Embed:

@wingpig - the thrust of your argument seems to be that some people don't ride on pavements, and some people would anyway. I can't disagree with that.

However I think that the widespread and growing existence of official cycling pavements has contributed to an increased tendency (and potentially a well justified one, except in the legal sense) to use non-cycling pavements by "some", (for a very large value of "some"). Is it a sole cause? Obviously not. But surely it's to be expected that encouraging cyclists onto more and more pavements will cause many cyclists to ride on many unshared pavements...

Posted 13 years ago #
Roibeard
Member

# warning #
Thread drift, but then, what did you expect here!

@Dave - I'm pretty convinced now that most cycle facilities are not for "vehicular cyclists", and in general I'm tolerant of that. If they encourage new cyclists, or help less confident cyclists complete their route, then great. If these new cyclists outgrow the infrastructure and move out on to the road as their skill and confidence grows, then equally great.

I do get grumpy if the facilities aren't safe, or if their use is mandated. I'd also like to see improvements in quality and possibly even cycle-only, but shared use isn't compatible with road speeds.

On a path, behave as a pedestrian; on a road, behave as a vehicle - as you demonstrated beautifully!

Robert

Posted 13 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

// CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

About This Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Questions/Support/Help

Angry

Reply

RSS Feeds

Links

Text-Link:
HTML-Link:
BB-Code:
Embed: