RLJing and pavement cycling « CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

RLJing and pavement cycling

(85 posts)

Started 12 years ago by chdot
Latest reply from Tom

No tags yet.

12 3 Next »

chdot
Admin

Red Light Jumping - common in London, less so in Edinburgh (yet?) has been mentioned/discussed here before.

Usually with either 'I never do' or 'well it depends'.

The reason for being mentioned is that 'it's what people complain about' and 'it's what all cyclists get blamed for'.

This is followed by 'why should we feel responsible for the actions of other cyclists'.

The other thing 'all' cyclists do (according to ENews commentators - and others) is ride on pavements.

'Our' reaction tends to be 'bad' and 'well it shows that some people think that the roads are too dangerous'.

This morning Dave posted -

"
Personally I think the only answer is to increase cycle participation until people look at pavement cycling or red light jumping by cyclists in the same way as they look at it by drivers - something they'd prefer not to happen, but something they probably do themselves, and so moan about when it gets enforced :P

There is no way to stop people doing it and it's worse than useless to accept the blame for random strangers' actions on behalf of yourself and other random strangers, as cyclists are so wont to do.
"

anth responded -

"
You might be onto something there Dave. Time I've spent in France and Italy, where cycling is more prevalent, but in some cases only just, you'd see people on the pavement a lot - probably more than here. And there never seemed to be any aggro.

"

In addition recombodna asked -

"

Anyone seen this?

http://www.bicyclelaw.com/news/n.cfm/paris-green-lights-trial-to-allow-red-light-jumping-cyclists

"

There's another thread running (partly) about cyclist and pedestrians on off-road paths.

SO two (largely) separate issues -

1) what annoys motorists - RLJing and cycling on pavements

2) Inappropriate interaction with people on foot (not always cyclists fault).

Riding/driving through red lights is illegal.

Riding on pavements (but not shared use paths - even some where the council hasn't removed the "No Cycling" markings) is illegal.

(Some) motorists seem to think that 'they' have to obey all the laws, but cyclists get away with things. They don't feel law-abidingly smug, just steamily angry.

Pedestrians (perhaps) just feel persecuted by fast cars, poor/no crossings, inconsiderate cyclists (legal or otherwise).

The current wave of cycle campaigning progress (inc. Pedal On Parliament) is a good thing but 'we' should make sure that pedestrians benefit too.

So 'we' shouldn't really approve of people cycling on pavements around pedestrians (it will be some time before general 'shared use' of pavements is 'acceptable' in UK).

Also RLJing through pedestrian phases should be frowned on. If people are in enough of a hurry, pushing is (probably) legal and less intimidating (will still annoy some drivers).

So, perhaps, we are at a (potential) turning point, complicated/enhanced by the imminent L&B Police road safety campaign set to start with 'how to use ASL boxes (for drivers and cyclists) probably combined with RLJ enforcement.

Posted 12 years ago #
cb
Member

If the success of cycling in London is anything to go by then I think we can expect to see more RLJing in Edinburgh as cycling becomes more popular.

Not sure if in London the act of RLJing has bred more RLJing.

I was surprised to read in the latest 'A to B' that the editor, David Henshaw, admitted to now going through red lights to turn left most of the time. And I don't think he was referring to London.

Posted 12 years ago #
crowriver
Member

This thread seems pertinent to the discussion here:

http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5685

Especially the report on drivers' perceptions of cyclists that Instography linked to.

Posted 12 years ago #
custard
Member

David Henshaw, admitted to now going through red lights to turn left most of the time. And I don't think he was referring to London.

well theres an argument for making it legal for all road users.
in Germany you can(or at least could when I lived there)
turn right(their equvelent of our left) on red by treating it as a give way.

Posted 12 years ago #
Darkerside
Member

L&BP campaign you say...?

I'm not quite sure what the question is, so my own position is: I don't RLJ unless no other road users can see me and I'm in danger of missing a train (this mainly covers the 6am commute in on lights that are heavily biased against my route), and I don't pavement cycle. I'll also only use ASLs if I'm at the front of the queue, as getting there on the 'bent tends to result in an awkward moment where I'm invisible under the side windows of a car.

It also seems that if I'm waiting at a red cyclists are less likely to undertake and RLJ as opposed to if they're in front and there's no bike waiting. So potentially there would be an above-linear rate of return somewhere in there.

As a final thought, at most traffic lights I'll be moving off at around the same speed as traffic* so can occupy the lane as normal. If I was travelling slower, I'd feel more vulnerable and the tempatation to skip ahead of waiting traffic would be higher.

*towing the trailer doesn't really count, as although I tend to be dog slow I'm also a big lump and therefore in the middle of the lane by default!

Posted 12 years ago #
mgj
Member

@CHDOT
So 'we' shouldn't really approve of people cycling on pavements around pedestrians (it will be some time before general 'shared use' of pavements is 'acceptable' in UK).

I dont understand this at all. Why would anyone want to ride on the pavement? The goal surely should be to make the road safe for cycling, not to give up and make the pavements more dangerous for pedestrians. The minute a campaign starts for cyclists to use the pavement, I'm out.

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"I dont understand this at all. Why would anyone want to ride on the pavement?"

Well -

Some people do - for whatever reasons.

Some people think it should be legal.

Obviously I think that roads should be safe enough for 'everyone' to be comfortable using them.

I think more should be done for 'pedestrians' (inc. cyclists who have locked their bikes somewhere!)

Shared use pavements are controversial enough. 'Open access' would not be progress.

Posted 12 years ago #
AKen
Member

There's pavements and then there's other pavements. I would never cycle on pavements in town as it's not good for pedestrians, too slow and too inconvenient to make up for dubious 'safety' benefits. However, there's plenty of places where there's a long stretch of almost entirely pedestrian-free pavement next to busy roads on which traffic is going much faster than a bike. I'd use these without hesitation - assuming the surface is good enough, I don't lose priority every 10m and I won't have to run into danger when I have to re-join traffic. It might be illegal but I don't think it's wrong (and many motorists who would normally rant about pavement cycling will suddenly reverse their opinion if by doing so I'm not holding them up for 2 nano-seconds.)

Posted 12 years ago #
Roibeard
Member

I'll stay off the pavements, unless they are shared use and indicated as such in some way.

When I'm with the kids that "some way" on a Saturday afternoon includes National Route 75 signposted through St Andrews Square, presumably on the pavement, as there's no where else to cycle at the moment and no diversion signs...

Robert

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"It might be illegal but I don't think it's wrong"

I think that's what's called pragmatic...

"presumably on the pavement, as there's no where else to cycle at the moment and no diversion signs"

I'm quite sure that's illegal, but it would make a great court case.

Though of course the police wouldn't charge you (unless you ran someone down). If a particular officer wanted to make an example out of 'you' I suspect that the Crown Office wouldn't proceed. (I'm not a lawyer...)

Posted 12 years ago #
Dave
Member

I guess the reason pavement cycling comes around so often is that there are countries where this is the approach, and they're apparently much more successful than we are? It would also be very cheap for the government to let people ride on the pavement and do nothing about the roads at all... </cynic>

Posted 12 years ago #
Roibeard
Member

@chdot - family in court for cycling on national cycle route...

I confess I don't fancy the Leith Walk roundabout with the kids - tried it once with one, and it was a bit hairy, and even my "cavalier" approach to my children's safety drew the line at attempting it with two or three.

Anyone with a 5 year old, or potentially grumpy pre-teen would understand not attempting to climb the Mound!

I'll take the plausible deniability route here, until the NCN signs are removed, and particularly since the Sustans online map lists this section as traffic free! (Or off road, or something similar, as it's just gone down when I wanted to ensure precision!)

Robert

Posted 12 years ago #
wee folding bike
Member

I got off and walked past a red light this morning.

It has a badly aimed sensor so if there is no motor vehicle behind me it never turns green. The main road had gone though two green cycles (it turns red to allow a right turn filter into the road I was waiting in) so I got off and walked end the corner. I don't ride though it. I don't think N Lanarkshire council will see this as a high priority.

Posted 12 years ago #
mgj
Member

Going over 20mph in the new zone; driver response "It might be illegal but I don't think it's wrong"

Two students on roadies that forced my family off the pavement last night in Thirlestane Rd "It might be illegal but I don't think it's wrong"

Anyone see a connection here?

Posted 12 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

Aye, I'm with you mgj - we wouldn't let a driver get away with deciding that they can quantify the safety of breaking the law.

Posted 12 years ago #
mgj
Member

I guess I feel its beyond that, that we should be campaigning against those that seek to serve their own in group by making it worse or less safe for others, whether they are drivers against 20 or 70 speed limits or other types of Mr Toad. It reminds me of the Blackadder sketch where Edmund kicks the dog, which bites the cat, which chases the mouse, that bites Baldrick.

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

This is going slightly sideways.

There's 'the law'.

There have been at various times things like 'zero tolerance' - notable in New York - where 'small things' like graffiti and litter were cracked down on.

Same has happened in Edinburgh with dog mess - education and enforcement - ie notices going up and fines for offenders.

It's about to happen with ASL boxes.

The 'roadies in Thirlestane' example shows that the issue is not (just) about legality. That shouldn't have happened even it was legal.

I say "sideways" because while there are issues about obeying laws - and laws being enforced (inc. L&B indicating that they are unwilling to enforce 20mph on roads they consider to be 'main', so that CEC excludes them from the South Central zone) - there are suggestions that the law should be changed or even ignored.

I'm all for zero tolerance on riding on pavements with pedestrians and I'd like to see some more pavements - eg by busy out of town roads designated as dual use.

I know there are places where the police would effectively turn a blind eye to illegal cycling because 'it's safer than the road'.

I am aware that some police officers have been reluctant to enforce ASL box infringements by drivers because it's a 3 points offence and (apparently) some think this is disproportionate.

SO

Zero tolerance

Pragmatic personal choice and selective policing

Review of existing legislation and penalties

I think 'blanket cycling on all pavements' is undesirable and unlikely in the UK. But plenty of people have always considered it to be 'reasonable' to cycle on Porty Prom, and (almost accidentally) the law has changed to make it legal - though the No Cycling signs are still there!!

Posted 12 years ago #
Instography
Member

I'll have this sort of image in my head when people moan about cyclists on the pavement.

Posted 12 years ago #
Dave
Member

A couple of points -

I guess people draw a distinction between what laws they break /somehow/. For instance, how many people have committed an offence by ripping a CD they bought into iTunes? More than committed murder because they couldn't be bothered to queue at the bank machine, right?

So, I guess there is a lot of mileage for arguing about pavement cycling if so inclined. (Especially now it's so common for otherwise identical pavements to be official cycle paths, without necessarily having signage, and the ones which aren't being the NATION'S TOP CRIME!)

Personally, though, I think the question is not really over whether pavement cycling is right or wrong but whether it is worse than the things which are ignored in favour of it (especially by my fellow cyclists).

Copying a CD is illegal, and I guess as it's illegal I have to say that I'd be willing to campaign against people who buy CDs and rip them, shouting at them in the street etc. but I only have a certain amount of energy!

I'd also be annoyed if someone cycling on the pavement tried to push me out of the way, but I wouldn't want to divert resources from other things to try and deal with it (especially as I believe, like ripping CDs, that it can't be dealt with).

I guess this is entirely subjective - other rankings of offences are available!

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

Laws, education and enforcement -

"

Transport Scotland (@transcotland)

3/15/12 11:24 AM

£50 fine for #messymotorists if caught. Litter can harm wildlife and cause hazards for drivers, take it home to recycle instead.

"

Posted 12 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

"For instance, how many people have committed an offence by ripping a CD they bought into iTunes? Copying a CD is illegal, and I guess as it's illegal I have to say that I'd be willing to campaign against people who buy CDs and rip them, shouting at them in the street etc. but I only have a certain amount of energy!"

It's legal for personal use (e.g. for putting it onto your MP3 player of choice). Illegal to sell copies.

Sorry to be pedantic... ;)

Posted 12 years ago #
AKen
Member

Going over 20mph in the new zone; driver response "It might be illegal but I don't think it's wrong"

Two students on roadies that forced my family off the pavement last night in Thirlestane Rd "It might be illegal but I don't think it's wrong"

Anyone see a connection here?

Well, the second situation is both illegal and wrong. As for the first one, it's illegal but, for all practical purposes with all other things being equal, going at 21 mph illegaly isn't much different from going at 20 mph legally. Such is the nature of things when you define a limit. I probably wouldn't care (or notice) if the driver was travelling at 21 mph unless they carved me up whilst bellowing into their phone or something.

Posted 12 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

"I probably wouldn't care (or notice) if the driver was travelling at 21 mph unless they carved me up whilst bellowing into their phone or something"

What if they were on their phone but didn't carve you up? :P

Posted 12 years ago #
wingpig
Member

Apples and things which are not apples, which are also not fruits, not grown on a tree and probably not even edible. You can't download a footway and the methods of cycling on a footway have not changed beyond all recognition in the past fifteen years.

There is a difference between considering a rule unenforcable or a particular law inappropriate for a particular situation in which it applies and actually going ahead and breaking the rule or the law. It is possible to demonstrate the unenforcability or inappropriateness without actually transgressing.

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"
It's legal for personal use (e.g. for putting it onto your MP3 player of choice).

"

I thought the was/assumed to be the case, but turned out to be not the case/grey area(?)

"

Sorry to be pedantic... ;)

"

Really?

Posted 12 years ago #
cb
Member

"
£50 fine for #messymotorists if caught. Litter can harm wildlife and cause hazards for drivers, take it home to recycle instead.
"

Maybe that explains the matrix* signs on the bypass this morning:
"CLEARING LITTER PUTS ROADWORKERS LIVES AT RISK"

*Actually they are 'Variable Message Signs'. Did you know you see what they're set to, online?

Posted 12 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

"I thought the was/assumed to be the case, but turned out to be not the case/grey area(?)"

The Digital Economy Act 2010 was supposed to clarify (specifying that copying for 'business use' was illegal) but that section may not have come into force through subsidiary legislation yet...

As for pedantry, the smiley should have given it away!

Posted 12 years ago #
Uberuce
Member

@wingpig; there's a junction on my commute where the entry to the cyclepath is just over the stop line, and when I'm diligently waiting at it for reds, I always think it's utterly stupid that I do. If I skipped, I'd be off the road and not give my fellow left-turning road user the headache of making sure he or she didn't squish me.

I think I should get a sign made so I can hold it aloft there to save frustration: I WOULD BE DOING YOU A FAVOUR IF I JUMPED THIS, WOULDN'T I?

Posted 12 years ago #
wingpig
Member

@Uberuce Leamington Walk from Bruntsfield Place, NEPN from West Granton Access (south end), the Innocent from Duddingston Road West, technically MMW or the NMW spur from Melville Drive and so on all share this sort of feature. I'm never in such a rush that I don't just wait. Large road users need all the practise they can get in dealing with the presence of squishables.

Posted 12 years ago #
Dave
Member

"It's legal for personal use (e.g. for putting it onto your MP3 player of choice). Illegal to sell copies.

Sorry to be pedantic... ;)"

But surely nobody could justify lawbreaking on the grounds that the same activity has become / will become legal in certain circumstances, right?

That would be like somebody who rides on miles of dual-use pavement every day saying that it was OK to ride on physically identical single-use pavement, because there's no physical difference and the council will probably get around to changing the status in the future anyway ;-)

Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 3 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

// CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

About This Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

RLJing and pavement cycling

Reply »

RSS Feeds

Links