Loading
 

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

Cyclists should obey the highway code

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.

Share on Google Plus

Comments from visitors

Post a comment

Enter your comments in the space below.

Name or nickname


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 55
Sort:

OK Freddie I was being a bit silly but you must admit your posts where also getting a bit surreal with their ref to road traffic acts. Drink driving offences etc. punting on the Isis is punting on the Isis.

0

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

Teeny Bopper - 18-Jan-12 14:23 

Teeny Bopper, stop being silly. It doesn't become you.

-1

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

Freddie - 18-Jan-12 12:45 

ToL.. It is three pages back and was posted by Noblet!
It is British Waterways.
You could have found that yourself

-1

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

Freddie - 18-Jan-12 12:41 

Freddie we deal with British Waterways, How far back do you think I need to search to find the person. Can you give me an idea as to when the comment was made? Do you think it might be just another empty claim made to substantiate a losing argument?

-2

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

Time out London - 18-Jan-12 11:34 

I still cannot quite see what you are getting at freddie. Are you saying that the Road Traffic acts apply to the parking of shopping trolleys? because the tow path is a road. in that case could a traffic warden put a parking ticket on a shopping trolly that is parked in the middle of the canal or must it be on the towpath?

-1

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

Teeney Bopper - 18-Jan-12 11:12 

British Waterways decided in 2007 to allow cycling without a permit on its towpaths in London, mostly because so many cyclists were already doing it and they don't have the resources to enforce permit only cycling.

0

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

Fed up Pedestrian - 17-Jan-12 22:14 

Teeny Bopper, I asked our lawyer this afternoon and they gave me this:-
"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

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

Freddie - 17-Jan-12 20:41 

freddei You mention the Local Authority giving permission to cyclists to ride on the towpath. I thought that was in British Waterways remit, them being the owners who we deal with.

+1

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

Time out London - 17-Jan-12 14:11 

What would those three ofences be, freddie if it is not to much trouble. had to say that message wasnt long enough.

0

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

A,N,Other - 17-Jan-12 13:40 

Freddie that is not what you said. You said a towpath was a road, I asked where you had got the leagal definition of a towpath.

-1

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

Teeny Bopper - 17-Jan-12 13:00 

A.N.Other asked "A. N. Other. tosses a shopping trolly, Computer moniter or television off a canal bridge onto a barge, an angler, or walker below. Has an offence been committed?"

100% yes! no doubt about it. In law there are probably about three offences there.

+3

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

Freddie - 17-Jan-12 12:42 

anywhere, just look up the legal definition of a road. It will tell you something to the effect that it is any place where the public have right of access etc. etc.
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

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

Freddie - 17-Jan-12 12:40 

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). Freddie were can I check your source? with ref to your assertion that a towpath is a road, thank you.

+2

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

Teeny Bopper - 17-Jan-12 10:32 

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.

-4

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

grumpyoldwoman - 17-Jan-12 08:21 

Around Little Venice and Paddington (1), the Grand Union is a bit of a disaster for bikes: boat-owners, justifiably annoyed with cyclists whizzing past only inches from their homes, have erected knobbly barriers to prevent you riding on the towpath.

+1

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

Time Out London - 16-Jan-12 21:54 

it is an offence to place any obstacle on any road or highway


freddie The buqqer who keeps putting out them kones wont half cop it if hes caught.

+3

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

Anonomous - 16-Jan-12 21:32 

Where can I check your source? with ref to your assertion that a towpath is a road.

+1

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

Teeny Bopper - 16-Jan-12 21:21 

A. N. Other. tosses a shopping trolly, Computer moniter or television off a canal bridge onto a barge, an angler, or walker below. Has an offence been committed?

+3

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

A,N,Other - 16-Jan-12 21:15 

GOW wrote "Any item which is on a towpath or a road, whether left there deliberately or having arrived there by accident, is a passive obstacle and it is up to the path or road user to avoid it. When approaching a blind bend they must be aware that there might be something around it which they cannot see.

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

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

Freddie - 16-Jan-12 20:35 

There you go again Fred E with your snide remarks. You insist you have a different style, however when G.O.W made a perfectly polite observation, you threw red herrings at it. If you object to be compared with fff & his style why do you do this?
Willing to learn.
Boblet.

-2

 Vote for this commentVote against this commentClick to rate  Report This Report

Boblet - 16-Jan-12 18:40 

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 55
Sort:

Close

Enter email to receive updates:RSS Feed

Twitter