adw95 Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 (edited) I didn't claim you were wrong so you didn't need to include the bold part. My point is it is a ridiculous law. It's a very sensible and perfectly reasonable law. Bicycles are fast moving vehicles, on the pavement they become a danger to pedestrians. On the road it is the cyclist taking the risk through their own free will, why should I as a pedestrian have that danger forced upon me? Cyclist on the pavement, ridiculous idea and impossible in a built up city such as London (which is what we were talking about no, 5 deaths in 9 days?). One can only guess you've never been to London. Cyclists having to have licenses and number plates to ride on certain built up areas such as Zone 1, now THERE is an idea. I have and I'm aware it's a busy place. I wouldn't feel safe cycling on the roads in London so I still think it's a ridiculous law. There should be accepted practice for cyclists on the pavements whereby they stick to (just for conjecture) the side of the pavement closer to the road, whether they use sign posts or floor markings it would help keep cyclists, pedestrians and even motorists safe. Alternatively they should reduce the price of public transport and now motoring expenses so I wouldn't have had to use a cycle for the last 4+ years. Edit: Sorry, must remember to edit quotes. Edited November 14, 2013 by adw95 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 I'm of the belief that city centres (hard to judge the limits, I realise) should all be pedestrian zones. Just not possible in London and as a tradesman I shudder at the thought. Though there is talk of pedestrianising large parts of Oxford Street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 Hmm. This is no law I was aware of until now and it's ridiculous. In my local area the paths are being widened (I have assumed for cyclists) but there are no markings or indications that they are for cyclists, so it is illegal to use these paths yes? Ridiculous. Cycling on the footway (pavement) is an offence under Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 as amended by Section 85 (1) of the Local Government Act 1888. Those pavements with designated cycle lanes are a different matter (they tend to be two tone black and red) - but for your bog standard pavement yes.... its illegal to cycle on them. I didn't claim you were wrong so you didn't need to include the bold part. My point is it is a ridiculous law. It's a very sensible and perfectly reasonable law. Bicycles are fast moving vehicles, on the pavement they become a danger to pedestrians. On the road it is the cyclist taking the risk through their own free will, why should I as a pedestrian have that danger forced upon me? Cyclist on the pavement, ridiculous idea and impossible in a built up city such as London (which is what we were talking about no, 5 deaths in 9 days?). One can only guess you've never been to London. Cyclists having to have licenses and number plates to ride on certain built up areas such as Zone 1, now THERE is an idea. I have and I'm aware it's a busy place. I wouldn't feel safe cycling on the roads in London so I still think it's a ridiculous law. There should be accepted practice for cyclists on the pavements whereby they stick to (just for conjecture) the side of the pavement closer to the road, whether they use sign posts or floor markings it would help keep cyclists, pedestrians and even motorists safe. Alternatively they should reduce the price of public transport and now motoring expenses so I wouldn't have had to use a cycle for the last 4+ years. The answer for you then is to not cycle around London, if you don't feel safe. That's your choice (and a good one IMO). What does that have to do with the law surrounding cyclist and the pavement? It is already accepted practice to stick close to the side of the road, even in that there London. But bear in mind that's where the busses live. Cyclists die, but it's their choice to take that risk. I'd feel for the driver in such circumstances, but as long as they themselves obeyed the laws of the road then any guilt they felt would not be justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 I'm not at all familiar with how the London cycle scene works, but surely it should not be possible for a bus to collide with a cyclist in a cycle lane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 I'm not at all familiar with how the London cycle scene works, but surely it should not be possible for a bus to collide with a cyclist in a cycle lane? Its all too easy, especially if the bus is turning left and hasn't seen the cyclist on the inside of them. Same applies to HGVs. The width of roads has an impact as well..... its really easy to get sucked towards HGVs and buses as they go past you if there isn't a lot of room. I would call myself and experienced cyclist and very sensible on the road.....but there is simply no way I'd cycle in Central London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adw95 Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 I have and I'm aware it's a busy place. I wouldn't feel safe cycling on the roads in London so I still think it's a ridiculous law. There should be accepted practice for cyclists on the pavements whereby they stick to (just for conjecture) the side of the pavement closer to the road, whether they use sign posts or floor markings it would help keep cyclists, pedestrians and even motorists safe. Alternatively they should reduce the price of public transport and now motoring expenses so I wouldn't have had to use a cycle for the last 4+ years. The answer for you then is to not cycle around London, if you don't feel safe. That's your choice (and a good one IMO). What does that have to do with the law surrounding cyclist and the pavement? It is already accepted practice to stick close to the side of the road, even in that there London. But bear in mind that's where the busses live. Cyclists die, but it's their choice to take that risk. I'd feel for the driver in such circumstances, but as long as they themselves obeyed the laws of the road then any guilt they felt would not be justified. I merely expressed an opinion linked to something mentioned, I assumed this was a general debate rather than one confined to London. The relevance to the law on pavements is that I would spend 80% of the time on pavements because that seems the safest option. I believe it should be what all cyclists do because the roads (and other road users) are dangerous for cyclists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 I was following the complicated plot quite well until the main character suddenly turns into Saddam Hussein in the fifth window. Is this one of those artsy headfuck stories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 I'm not at all familiar with how the London cycle scene works, but surely it should not be possible for a bus to collide with a cyclist in a cycle lane? Its all too easy, especially if the bus is turning left and hasn't seen the cyclist on the inside of them. Same applies to HGVs. The width of roads has an impact as well..... its really easy to get sucked towards HGVs and buses as they go past you if there isn't a lot of room. I would call myself and experienced cyclist and very sensible on the road.....but there is simply no way I'd cycle in Central London. Fair enough, so it's not actually a case of cyclists having to share space with buses etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 I was following the complicated plot quite well until the main character suddenly turns into Saddam Hussein in the fifth window. Is this one of those artsy headfuck stories? Maybe it could pass as 'modern art'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 I have and I'm aware it's a busy place. I wouldn't feel safe cycling on the roads in London so I still think it's a ridiculous law. There should be accepted practice for cyclists on the pavements whereby they stick to (just for conjecture) the side of the pavement closer to the road, whether they use sign posts or floor markings it would help keep cyclists, pedestrians and even motorists safe. Alternatively they should reduce the price of public transport and now motoring expenses so I wouldn't have had to use a cycle for the last 4+ years. The answer for you then is to not cycle around London, if you don't feel safe. That's your choice (and a good one IMO). What does that have to do with the law surrounding cyclist and the pavement? It is already accepted practice to stick close to the side of the road, even in that there London. But bear in mind that's where the busses live. Cyclists die, but it's their choice to take that risk. I'd feel for the driver in such circumstances, but as long as they themselves obeyed the laws of the road then any guilt they felt would not be justified. I merely expressed an opinion linked to something mentioned, I assumed this was a general debate rather than one confined to London. The relevance to the law on pavements is that I would spend 80% of the time on pavements because that seems the safest option. I believe it should be what all cyclists do because the roads (and other road users) are dangerous for cyclists. Oh dear. a. You're breaking the law b. Feck the pedestrians, yes? small children, the elderly, the disabled should all jump out of the way as you zoom past? There's a law against it for a reason, squire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 I'm not at all familiar with how the London cycle scene works, but surely it should not be possible for a bus to collide with a cyclist in a cycle lane? Its all too easy, especially if the bus is turning left and hasn't seen the cyclist on the inside of them. Same applies to HGVs. The width of roads has an impact as well..... its really easy to get sucked towards HGVs and buses as they go past you if there isn't a lot of room. I would call myself and experienced cyclist and very sensible on the road.....but there is simply no way I'd cycle in Central London. Fair enough, so it's not actually a case of cyclists having to share space with buses etc? Some and some. The BBC did an really good documentary called "the war on the road" a year or so ago. Noone came out of it very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 I'm not at all familiar with how the London cycle scene works, but surely it should not be possible for a bus to collide with a cyclist in a cycle lane? Its all too easy, especially if the bus is turning left and hasn't seen the cyclist on the inside of them. Same applies to HGVs. The width of roads has an impact as well..... its really easy to get sucked towards HGVs and buses as they go past you if there isn't a lot of room. I would call myself and experienced cyclist and very sensible on the road.....but there is simply no way I'd cycle in Central London. Fair enough, so it's not actually a case of cyclists having to share space with buses etc? Some and some. The BBC did an really good documentary called "the war on the road" a year or so ago. Noone came out of it very well. I did see it, make me thankfull for the fact that I live no where near London, or any other inner city area for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adw95 Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 I merely expressed an opinion linked to something mentioned, I assumed this was a general debate rather than one confined to London. The relevance to the law on pavements is that I would spend 80% of the time on pavements because that seems the safest option. I believe it should be what all cyclists do because the roads (and other road users) are dangerous for cyclists. Oh dear. a. You're breaking the law b. Feck the pedestrians, yes? small children, the elderly, the disabled should all jump out of the way as you zoom past? There's a law against it for a reason, squire. So because I stated that I use the pathways I now expect everyone else to get out of my way? I didn't realise I made that statement so could you tell me where you got that from? I was always careful, I stayed out of peoples ways (stopping to allow people to go past in the opposite direction if needs be) and tried to avoid any issues in general. Bit of an over the top thing for you to say really, wasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 The discussion around cyclists gets emotive too quickly and tends to become a flame war about the bad ones. It's hard to have a constructive discussion about them without someone making a less than helpful remark and the whole thing descending into chaos. aaand BOF, like a VT Nostradamus is proved right. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meath_Villan Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 I merely expressed an opinion linked to something mentioned, I assumed this was a general debate rather than one confined to London. The relevance to the law on pavements is that I would spend 80% of the time on pavements because that seems the safest option. I believe it should be what all cyclists do because the roads (and other road users) are dangerous for cyclists. Oh dear. a. You're breaking the law b. Feck the pedestrians, yes? small children, the elderly, the disabled should all jump out of the way as you zoom past? There's a law against it for a reason, squire. So because I stated that I use the pathways I now expect everyone else to get out of my way? I didn't realise I made that statement so could you tell me where you got that from? I was always careful, I stayed out of peoples ways (stopping to allow people to go past in the opposite direction if needs be) and tried to avoid any issues in general. Bit of an over the top thing for you to say really, wasn't it? Still breaking the law dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 Let he who is without sin cast the first scone. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adw95 Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 So because I stated that I use the pathways I now expect everyone else to get out of my way? I didn't realise I made that statement so could you tell me where you got that from? I was always careful, I stayed out of peoples ways (stopping to allow people to go past in the opposite direction if needs be) and tried to avoid any issues in general. Bit of an over the top thing for you to say really, wasn't it? Still breaking the law dude I didn't disagree with that part (I also didn't know this at the time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meath_Villan Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 Let he who is without sin cast the first scone. ohh how are you pronouncing that scone 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingram85 Posted November 14, 2013 Share Posted November 14, 2013 I cycle on pavements when they are empty then switch to the road when people are there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted November 14, 2013 Moderator Share Posted November 14, 2013 Scone != scon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts