Cyclists riding on pavements a danger to pedestrians
|
Why do some cyclists think that they are exempt from the rules of the highway code? Should they be treated differently because the bike doesn't have an engine? |
|
|
I am talking specifically about those cyclists that feel the need to ride on the pavement instead of the cycle paths and roads. Don't get me wrong, I can fully appreciate that the roads can be very dangerous and some car drivers can be extremely selfish when it comes to bikes, but that is no excuse for putting pedestrians in a dangerous situation. Riding without lights at night, side by side |
|
|
The rules of the highway code apply to "all road users" and are there for our safety as well as the safety of other road users. Cyclists are unique in that they are unlicensed and there is no legal requirement to have insurance, they therefore should be expected to behave in a responsible manner for this privilege. Riding on the pavements ,riding without lights at night and side by side in the road is not exactly what I would call responsible. These are the kind of actions that lead to accidents and possible injury to pedestrians and cyclists need to be made aware of the fact that they are sitting on a machine that can travel at speed and can cause harm. I'd say riding a bike on the pavement is totally irresponsible and shows how much the cyclist in question cares about the safety of others. No one wants to restrict the freedom of those who ride bikes, they are after all a great benefit to people and the environment. We do however want to see a more safety conscious attitude from cyclists and less accidents involving pedestrians. |
|
Comments from visitors
0
Click to rate 
Report
Teeny Bopper - 18-Jan-12 14:23
-1
Click to rate Report
It is British Waterways.
You could have found that yourself
-1
Click to rate Report
-2
Click to rate Report
Time out London - 18-Jan-12 11:34
-1
Click to rate Report
Teeney Bopper - 18-Jan-12 11:12
0
Click to rate Report
Fed up Pedestrian - 17-Jan-12 22:14
"Most of the provisions apply on all roads throughout Great Britain, although there are some exceptions. The definition of a road in England and Wales is ‘any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes’ (RTA 1988 sect 192(1)).
It is important to note that references to ‘road’ therefore generally include footpaths, bridleways and cycle tracks, and many roadways and driveways on private land (including many car parks). In most cases, the law will apply to them and there may be additional rules for particular paths or ways. Some serious driving offences, including drink-driving offences, also apply to all public places, for example public car parks."
I specifically asked about a towpath and they responded that it is the same as a footpath as that essentially is what it is. It is called a towpath because of it's physical location just as a bridle path is such named for obvious reasons.
This information is copied and pasted from direct.gov as they confirmed it was correct.
Time out london, I've no idea who the authority was that gave permission. If you search back far enough you'll find a post on here (not by me) that stated that. I was just referring back to an earlier comment. Probably best you ask that person.
+2
Click to rate Report
+1
Click to rate Report
Time out London - 17-Jan-12 14:11
0
Click to rate Report
-1
Click to rate Report
Teeny Bopper - 17-Jan-12 13:00
100% yes! no doubt about it. In law there are probably about three offences there.
+3
Click to rate Report
People often mistake a road as being a place for cars. That isn't actually true as you have to consider that there were roads before there were motor vehicles of any kind. I do have the definition in a law book at home. if I get time this evening I'll post the definition here.
in this instance however we are talking about a road that the cyclists were given permission to use by the loacal authority so it wouldn't matter anyway.
GOW....you said "It may well be an offence to leave an obstacle in the road (did I say it wasn't?) but if you drive or ride into it, because you weren't looking where you were going or assumed your way would be clear around a blind bend, it's still your own fault."
does that mean it is still a pedestrians fault if they go around a corner on a footpath and walk straight into a cycle? should they not be looking where they are walking etc? Personally no, I don't think it is as the cyclist shouldn't be there (neither should the deliberately placed obstacle) but let's not have different conditions for different people.
+3
Click to rate Report
+2
Click to rate Report
Teeny Bopper - 17-Jan-12 10:32
-4
Click to rate Report
grumpyoldwoman - 17-Jan-12 08:21
+1
Click to rate Report
Time Out London - 16-Jan-12 21:54
freddie The buqqer who keeps putting out them kones wont half cop it if hes caught.
+3
Click to rate Report
+1
Click to rate Report
Teeny Bopper - 16-Jan-12 21:21
+3
Click to rate Report
A concrete block dropped off a bridge is a missile.
Is that clear?"
Not at all, no! it is an offence to place any obstacle on any road or highway. A tow path is a road (check legal definition if you don't believe me). Whilst all users have a responsibility toward their own safety a foreign object placed there intentionally would constitute a criminal offence. Is that clear?
I don't know if you actually think it is okay to place things on any thoroughfare deliberately to harm others or not. I can only point out the obvious which is, it is a criminal offence to do anything deliberately intended to cause harm to another. I think you'll find that you could even be charged with section 1 of the assault act if the person died. To save you checking, that would be called murder. Placing something there to harm a cyclist is akin to putting something on a railway line to deliberately de-rail a train. Do you think you wouldn't get prosecuted for that? or is it that cyclists don't matter?
+4
Click to rate Report
Willing to learn.
Boblet.
-2
Click to rate Report
