Why are mtb riders such wimps??

[Anthony]

The UK Highway Code states:
Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
- It even uses the shouty block caps
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_069837

Read the thread. The Home Office guidance to Chief Constables supercedes this.

In case some haven't seen the other key aspects of the law on this, the law against cycling on pavements applies only to pavements that adjoin a highway, which means that:

1. in open spaces like shopping precincts, the Brighton seafront etc, that law doesn't apply - so if you see 'no cycling' signs there, it means that the local Council has passed a by-law prohibiting cycling there. As far as I am aware, the Home Office guidance doesn't apply to cycling where there is a local by-law, so the police could book you, even for cycling safely and considerately.

2. If there isn't a no cycling sign on a path that doesn't adjoin a highway, then cycling is legal on that path. [Although unsafe cycling is still illegal of course, but it's a different law that you're breaking.]

3. Cycling on a country path isn't breaking the law - but it is trespass, and the landowner could in theory sue you for trespass and claim recompense for any damage caused by your trespass. It isn't a police issue though (unless you cycle dangerously, see above).

 

[petitpal]

When I used to ride to work I'd pretty much always stay on the road. And stop at red lights. If you're on the road you're traffic so behave like it, has always been my view.

However, at times where it was obviously more dangerous to other road users for me to be on the road, there was one very steep hill on the way home, for example, where I'd always use the pavement (one of those country ones that no-one really walks on) - because in my view it was more dangerous for me to be spinning away and weaving around trying to get up the hill while cars shoot past at 80mph attempting to dodge. Simlarly, there was the odd subway I'd ride through on big islands, only on busy traffic days, purely because it was more dangerous to get involved with it.

In general though, bikes are traffic so behave like it: stay on the road, stay alert and watch the f out - they're all out to get you.

 

[MikeD]

CLUB cyclists (around here especially) deserve to get flattened by a passing truck

Don't be silly. :roll:

 

[tintin40]

A general rant, and probably less about retrobikers than other mtb'ers, but why can't cyclists man up and ride on the roads and not the pavements.
As far as I'm concerned once you're past the age of 10/12 then stick to the roads. If you haven't got the confidence to ride on roads then stick to walking and push your bikes to wherever you're going to ride them.

This moan was brought on by my wife nearly being run over on the pavement today by two 30+ year olds wearing body armour :roll: :roll: :roll: and riding full sussers. Presumably they'd been riding the downhill trails a mile from our house, but were scared to ride in the traffic :evil: :evil:

Rant over - I feel better for that

P.S. I exclude road bikers from this, they know how to ride in traffic.

Well said,

2nd that 100%

 

[poweredbypies]

off subject slightly but what always makes me laugh is when its winter (its coming) we get loads of pedestrians walking on the road cos the paths are to dangerous?!?!?! So its safer to walk on the icy slippy road with the cars driving along rather than the slippy path's??? I failed my cycling profficancy as a kid apparently wheelies and endo's didnt show proper cycle handling :twisted: :twisted:

 

[Drencrom]

off subject slightly but what always makes me laugh is when its winter (its coming) we get loads of pedestrians walking on the road cos the paths are to dangerous?!?!?! So its safer to walk on the icy slippy road with the cars driving along rather than the slippy path's???

Roads get gritted. Very few pavements in the UK are gritted by their respective councils due to budgetary constraints. Therefore it's a safer surface in icy conditions. I'm all for making pedestrians a priority in icy conditions - it can result in less mototrists on the roads driving out of their comfort/skill zone.

 

[poweredbypies]

off subject slightly but what always makes me laugh is when its winter (its coming) we get loads of pedestrians walking on the road cos the paths are to dangerous?!?!?! So its safer to walk on the icy slippy road with the cars driving along rather than the slippy path's???

Roads get gritted. Very few pavements in the UK are gritted by their respective councils due to budgetary constraints. Therefore it's a safer surface in icy conditions. I'm all for making pedestrians a priority in icy conditions - it can result in less mototrists on the roads driving out of their comfort/skill zone.

The side street rarely get gritted and its here where it mostly happens. I moved from a village in lincolnshire where peeps looked after each other a bit more. My mate in a wheelchair lived over the road from me down a little street in a complex of granny flats a few peeps myself included used to clean all the paths down so he an the oldies could get out and about a bit easier. I doubt that happens in town's and citys.

 

[hydorah]

The UK Highway Code states:
Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
- It even uses the shouty block caps
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_069837

Read the thread. The Home Office guidance to Chief Constables supercedes this.

In case some haven't seen the other key aspects of the law on this, the law against cycling on pavements applies only to pavements that adjoin a highway, which means that:

1. in open spaces like shopping precincts, the Brighton seafront etc, that law doesn't apply - so if you see 'no cycling' signs there, it means that the local Council has passed a by-law prohibiting cycling there. As far as I am aware, the Home Office guidance doesn't apply to cycling where there is a local by-law, so the police could book you, even for cycling safely and considerately.

2. If there isn't a no cycling sign on a path that doesn't adjoin a highway, then cycling is legal on that path. [Although unsafe cycling is still illegal of course, but it's a different law that you're breaking.]

3. Cycling on a country path isn't breaking the law - but it is trespass, and the landowner could in theory sue you for trespass and claim recompense for any damage caused by your trespass. It isn't a police issue though (unless you cycle dangerously, see above).

I think you are changing the subject slightly

- I did read the thread and I am talking about pavements alongside roads, using these as an alternative to using those roads, not paths or tracks

- If we were talking about tracks and paths, why would drivers be an issue?

 

[hamster]

To get through your cycling 'career' without death or serious injury is nothing other than complete luck.

That's nonsense. The British Medical Association stated that on balance cycling was better for your life expectancy, and the risks from road accidents were far outweighed by the health benefits.

The chance of death is one per 20 million miles ridden.

Deaths per km travelled are higher for walking than cycling.

2010 data for the UK (source DfT)
111 Cyclists killed
410 Pedestrians
Total 1850 killed on UK roads (remainder car/HGV occupants or motorcyclists.

Cycling in Britain is safer than driving in France or Belgium!
http://cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdf

 

[We_are_Stevo]

The stat's certainly indicate that road deaths are still falling; 2009 DoT fig's:-

"This article reviews the main trends in the number of reported road accident casualties in Great Britain in 2009 compared with recent years. In 2009:

There were a total of 222,146 reported casualties of all severities, 4 per cent lower than in 2008. 2,222 people were killed, 12 per cent lower than in 2008, 24,690 were seriously injured (down 5 per cent) and 195,234 were slightly injured (down 4 per cent).
The number of fatalities fell for almost all types of road user, with a fall of 16 per cent for car occupants, 13 per cent for pedestrians, 10 per cent for pedal cyclists and 4 per cent for motorcyclists."

...but look at the number of reported casualties above and imagine them all in one place at the same time!

Those numbers just would not be accepted in any other context...