Riding bikes on pavements

I nearly got hit by a bike careering round a blind corner on the pavement this morning. Is anyone really p****d off with this latest trend? Or is it just the latest trend in a line of annoying behaviour to get the attention they crave? It used to be walking through train carriages, leaving the doors open, or playing music through a tinny mobile phone speaker. None of which are illegal (apart from the riding on pavements) but slightly annoying.
Anyway. Spleen vented. Thanks for listening. It’s a beautiful morning. Have a good day all.

I’ve noticed another annoying trend : people saying 5 year olds should not be riding on the pavement.

There’s a correlation between the behaviour you speak of and the decline in the wearing of headwear.
This sort of roguery just didn’t happen when gentleman wore and date I say ladies wore nice, sensible headpieces…FACT.

Maybe it is just me.

@Fish If anything many of those locally who used to ride bikes on pavements without any regard for pedestrians unfortunately seem to have swapped their bikes for e-scooters! This is even worse due to the speed they go at and the fact that they’re so quiet!

On the bright side, you’ll be able to pick up a cheap scooter when the weather turns rubbish

Nah, they p***s me off too. Not the families with wee kiddies on their bikes, they seem to have the situation under control. It’s the solo adults riding on the paths when the roads are either quiet or wide enough to cater for them and cars, or there is a dedicated bike lane right there with no bikes.

Then there are the ones that ‘ding ding’ at you thinking they’re doing you a favour by warning you that they’re coming, when it’s obvious the only place for you, the pedestrian, to go is the road. A few minutes on the road isn’t going to harm them or their bike. If the path is wide enough for the both of us, then thanks for the warning.

I had a near miss with a cyclist last week, same situation they came speeding around a blind corner. Woman with the latest cycling gear and expensive bike. No apology, just sped off leaving me visibly shaken by whole experience.

I used to be a keen cyclist until I got knocked off my bike by a hit and run driver. I’m definitely not innocent when it comes to riding on the path. I rode on the path when I tried to get my confidence back, so in a way I do empathise with cyclists that are on the paths but please give the pedestrians the right of way.

Yeah. It was the adults/teenagers I meant. I cycle too and I’ve riden on the pavement occasionally but it’s the attitude of the ‘youths’ that winds me up. Looking for a reaction. It’s antisocial and that’s why they do it.
Then there’s the Lycra adults. No idea why they do it.

You are right Fish. They choose to ride on the pavement simply because they can. They seek to get up the noses of respectable working stiffs/taxpayers because they want to make some kind of a point, in my view. I can’t remember ever seeing any of the lycra brigade on the pavement, however.

I’ve seen Lycra brigade on the pavement probably as much as the teenagers. In fact the only time I’ve actually nearly been mown down it was a Lycra brigade member not a teenager! I’m not saying I’ve never cycled on the pavement myself occasionally but I always dismount for pedestrians. I am afraid that when there’s no clear traffic/one way related reason (reason, though not an excuse) why people are on the pavement I always want to laugh and ask them if they’re too scared to go on the road. Obviously I’m too chicken to say it to them!

Tbh I haven’t always found families with young children on the pavement that considerate. But in my day children under 11 weren’t supposed to be on the road (and you had to pass a cycling proficiency test!) so I’d never expect the children themselves to be on the road and I can see that one adult probably does need to be with them because it would be quite hard to cycle in the road alongside the children on the pavement. But I do think the accompanying adults need to show consideration for pedestrians and also teach the children to do so. Then we can all co-exist on the pavements safely.

We must both cycle in very different parts of the world, then.

I recall regularly riding to primary school a couple of miles along a main road aged 10. There was nothing to say children were not permitted to ride on roads. We cycled everywhere.
Far fewer cars about in those days of course.

And schools encouraged primary children to do cycling proficiency training and test but nobody had to.

I put forward my own experience. Perhaps we didn’t grow up in the same area.

Since I have no idea where you live I can’t comment on that. I only commented on my own experience.

I am posting on a local forum. I live here.

Same here. But I wasn’t the person suggesting we live in different parts of the world.

Maybe I live on the other side of the world too because I’ve seen many of the Lycra brigade on the footpaths of Forest Hill, Outer Mongolia.

You will find the Lycra brigade on the footpath in areas where they want to skip the traffic lights or other stop signs. They’re the biggest problem at the Cranston/Woolstone intersection. If they’re turning right from Cranston Road they cut through the traffic to make that turn on the path rather than wait their turn on the street. They don’t slow down to give way to any pedestrians that may be heading towards Cranston Road along Woolstone Road. That corner is so blind no-one can see what’s round it.

Also encountered them on the path as you head up Catford Hill toward the River Pool Linear Park. It’s easier for them to turn into the Park from the path… and also up by the Sainsbury’s when you exit the Park and they want to head right. And so on and so on.

Well, you seem to have seen a lot of it and you give specific examples, so fair enough. I accept what you say.

For me there, in terms of bikes on pavements, a few different issues.

One is where cyclists cycle quickly on narrow pavements, where young children (and or the elderly / hose with mobility problems) can come out of their houses / front gardens unseen - there have been some horrendous collisions and this is the worst and most dangerous form for me. Speed, and weight of bike / person added to no warning for either party makes this really bad. I’d be happy for severe punishments for people who do this.

You then have cyclists cycling quickly on other types of pavements where visibility is better. This can still be dangerous, again for the same groups.

And then you people cycling more slowly which is less dangerous.

All the above are wrong, but to different degrees.

You read or hear quite often that some people will not cycle on the road as they are scared to do so, don’t feel comfortable. Finding a solution to that would stop some people - safer and more cycling lanes and maybe more (or better advertised) cycling on the road type lessons (I think Lewisham and others used to run some?).

You’ll always have some people who just don’t care - they will be the same on a bike, scooter, car etc but if they can become a real minority will be easier to target, and of course the less of them the less potential for accidents.

Finally adults with youg children - I’ve no issue with this myself as long as they are cycling reasonably slowly. Where possible though the adult should be on the road or walking, though it’s not always possible.

I don’t find there is one particular group that is worst than others, it’s pretty mixed but some ‘groups’ always get highlighted.

I lived and cycled on Cranston Road for 20 years and never once saw anyone do that.
I saw plenty of cars riding over the pavement up and down the road and on the corner of Woolstone and saw several crashes on that corner so I wouldn’t say cyclists are the biggest problem there.

I’m not making this up. That’s my nightly running and walking route, there is not a week that goes by when I don’t have a near miss with a cyclist speeding around that corner, on the path. I’ve lived in the area for nearly 15 years. Unless you or I stalk that corner 24/7 neither of us are going to have an expert knowledge of what goes on. Plus I never said cyclists were the biggest problem, I said there was a problem (one problem) with some cyclists mounting the path to turn right.

Why has this thread turned into ‘well if I didn’t see it, it never happened’ or ‘I’m a cyclist and I don’t do therefore neither do others’? Not just this thread, I’ve noticed it on others too. People being disrespectful of others opinions and experiences.

Also the ‘I’ve lived here longer than you so I know better’ has to stop. We each have our own experiences living in the area, none of which are more important or more real than the other.

You literally said that…

There is no disrespect here. You are allowed to give your opinion and I am allowed to give mine, just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I am being disrespectful.
Also it is a bit disingenuous to say

in the same post as…

So I did say they were the biggest problem. I didn’t articulate myself very well. What I actually meant is the Lycra brigade were the biggest problem out of the cyclists who mount the path at that intersection, not out of all the traffic.

You are being disrespectful. You are saying that my experience is invalid because you have never seen it happened yourself. And I only mentioned the 15 years to give to validate my experience because I felt that with you stating that your had lived in the area 20 years made your opinion or experiences more valid than mine therefore I had to play the game to make my voice heard.

This is my last post on this thread. I get it, not all cyclists ride on the path therefore it’s not a problem.

I’ve been startled by cyclists and e-scooters on the pavement on both the Cranston to Woolstone right turn and the Houston to Woolstone right turn. Both have hedges / fences which hinder visibility.

And it’s a dangerous junction, so I don’t really blame some for trying to avoid it - the whole thing needs sorting out.

If cyclists are too afraid to ride on the road, they would probably be nervous, wobbly riders and less able to control their bikes. But if they then ride on the pavement because they see it as a safe alternative for them, where does that leave pedestrians? We have nowhere else to go!

Can I just add that we have motorbikes riding on the pavement almost constantly at the fire-gate on Honor Oak Park - Grierson road.
It’s an unusual setup where the pavement is actually part of the cycle route. So motorbikes feel they have a right to it too (even though there’s a clear sign in both directions to say that they don’t).

I’ve seen a few near misses there, definitely feels like it needs to be thought out again, as it’s a busy part of the high street.

Has the free adult cycle instruction started back up again? That helped me enormously to become more confident on my bike and using busy roads.

In my experience, it’s the inexperienced who tend to prefer the pavements because of bad experiences on the road - often caused by positioning. It’s easy to feel that tucking yourself out of the way towards the kerb is safer where in actual fact it’s not.

I know that it’s small comfort (I’m a pedestrian when I’m not a cyclist and tut at poor behaviour) but cyclists really don’t want to hit anything either. Falling off hurts. But just as a faster car feels close to a cyclist, a cyclist feels close to a pedestrian. The loss of control of the situation exacerbates the feeling.

I have often nearly been hit by cyclists on the pavement along London road.

I remonstrated with one older man when I had to move in to the road to avoid him. Got a mouthful of abuse for my trouble.

I sometimes take to the pavements, although very slowly and I’d never expect pedestrians to jump out of the way for me.
The reason is that the lack of cycle lanes, the hills, and the fact that speeding is normal in Lewisham means it’s not always safe for cyclists to be on the road.
Dartmouth road for example, vehicles always speeding, including buses, and there’s a bend in the road hindering visibility.

Cyclists have a right to safe travel, just as much as pedestrians and car drivers. It’s just a lot more difficult in Lewisham than places like Wandsworth where provisions for cyclists are one or two decades ahead of what we have in Lewisham, which is pretty much nothing.

Cyclists are surely less of a risk to pedestrians, than cars are to cyclists or pedestrians.

Pedestrians have been killed by cylists. Cycling on the pavement is illegal and dangerous. Why should pedestrians always have to shove up and make way, we need and deserve our own safe area.

That said as a cyclist myself I sympathise on the issue of busy and dangerous roads. We do need better cycle lanes round here.

It’s possible for cyclists to use the pavement in a way that’s respectful to pedestrians. I’ve also experienced cyclists going too fast along pavements and don’t think it’s ok.

But equally, why do pedestrians have a right to safety when cyclists seemingly don’t. If speed limits are not enforced, and basic provisions like cycle lanes not put in place even along the most dangerous stretches of road, why should cyclists risk their safety by cycling along the road, when there is a pavement and that’ll be much safer.

SE23 is a very dangerous place for cyclists. Hills, tight blind corners, nothing done about about speeding, no cycle lanes. Today I watched two blinged up cars have some sort race along Dartmouth Road at maybe 60/70mph.

I have to say I have slightly the same feelings about tone. Which is interesting given that I’ve been surprised in the past by comments that this forum can feel unfriendly.

At least you were told your views were acceptable because you ‘gave examples’. Presumably my general observation that I’d seen something, without providing ‘proof, isn’t enough .

But only where it’s designated to do so i.e. on roads or cycle ways. Cyclists don’t have a right to travel on pavements at all. It is both advised against in the highway code, and illegal and punishable by fine - according to the 1835 Highways Act, it is an offence to wilfully ride on a footpath by the side of the road. (source)

Personally I don’t mind cyclists (or e-scooters) on pavements if they are going carefully, pass at reasonable speed and are prepared to stop or make way. I’m not sure however what percentage of cyclists on the pavement this represents, but I’m certain people tend to remember the worst behaviours the most.

It’s the law everywhere except for the junction at Honor oak park / Grierson road. Where cyclists are supposed to ride on the pavement.

It is against the law, it is also unpleasant for pedestrians to share space with faster wheeled vehicles. Pedestrians come in all shapes and sizes, some will be disabled or elderly and cannot get out of the way. I know of very few cyclists, myself included, who wouldn’t be happy to cycle at the rate of the slowest pedestrian - which is what you should do if you insist on cycling on the pavement.

Campaign for safer cycling spaces, don’t take the limited safe space away from pedestrians.

Shared pedestrian/cyclist spaces are a different matter and have big place in our infrastructure. They are also better as pedestrians know to expect cyclists in the same space and can be aware.

I’m glad this topic has brought us all together in such a peaceful non-argumentative way. Just don’t get me started on the senior citizens racing around pavements in the area on their “souped-up” mobility scooters, think we can all join together (again…) in agreement that they’re a menace and danger to unsuspecting pedestrians.

Ha! I can’t remember the last time I saw mobility scooter in London. Now a trip down to Bognor Regis last year was a different matter - loads of them!

Wnen I commuted to Stratford there was a guy who used the Jubilee Line who had a customised electric mobility scooter - it was sort of a wheelchair/trike hybrid all dressed up like a big Hells Angels style hog. It was very cool.

I agree that electric mobility scooters should have speed limiters … even though they go nowhere near as fast as e-scooters and bicycles. The problem with mobility scooters is their weight and some people’s inability to control them. One ploughed into my mum in Waitrose before careering on to also knock down a display unit.

Mobility scooters are also the only way some disabled eople of all ages can get out and about. But bikes and e-scooters are entirely optional in this area, where we have public transport, and they can do a great deal of harm just by passing too close and too fast to a person with poor balance.

Just to put the conversation into perspective.
Research by the University of Westminister’s Active Travel Project found that between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. That is, about 40 people a year. And of that 548, just 6 were killed by cyclists.

Now of course that is 6 too many and I in no way support riding bikes on the pavement. I have ridden maybe 200,000 miles in London and maybe done about 1 mile on a pavement and that was years ago…
I just wonder why there is so much concentration on the dangers of cyclists on pavements while many many more pedestrians are killed by cars on pavements - for every single cycling death there are 90 car related ones. I guess it is because most people drive??

It would be interesting to know how many of those are caused by cars actually choosing to drive on the pavement, rather than on the road. In other words: subtracting deaths caused by cars entering or leaving premises or in car parks, cars careering out of control, cars being deliberately used as a weapon.

By the way, you mention 90 x more deaths caused by cars than cyclists. But isn’t that ALL vehicles other than cyclists? Or have I misunderstood and tge report states they are all cars? And how are those figures calculated? An older person who loses their balance and falls as a result of the shock at a cycle passing too close and too fast can be seriously injured both physically and emotionally. That can stop someone from going out. They lose independence and confidence. Their mobility and health suffer. Very often a fall, though not immediately fatal, can be the beginning of the end. Those incidents - like my mum being hit by the mobility scooter - usually go unreported.

Those are interesting stats Nick. From my own perspective I ride a pedal cycle and a motorcycle as well as drive a car. At the risk of expanding the topic too far - when I am on the road on two wheels in this part of the world, I usually feel at far greater risk of being flattened than when being on two wheels than in other parts of London. Some of the behaviour of local motorists is almost off the scale in terms of reckless disregard for the safety of others. My eldest daughter who now lives in Wandsworth and who cycles over to Lewisham regularly agrees with me on this. I can’t provide evidence or stats, it’s more a case of how it feels. Does any one else have a view on this ?

I think I am too long in the tooth and completely inured to the dangers of riding in London to give an opinion and of course I am an ex Londoner now. I have helped others to get used to riding a bike around Lewisham. Two of them gave up, one did one ride of three miles and swore never to ride again and another lasted 3 weeks.
Here riding is an absolute joy. Did 80k yesterday and hardly put my feet down. No traffic lights and no pavements.

Sounds lovely Nick. 80K you say - you must be sore !

Have you grown plenty of good veg this summer ?

And no one to tug on your cape. At that speed no one messes around with Nick.

I’ve been doing a lot of riding so don’t feel too sore. I might post about the veg etc on another topic so as not to derail this one further…

@marymck more info here on the stats
https://www.projectpedestrian.com/data

yes, please do.

99% of the miles I have ever done on a bike will have been on the road, but there are stretches of road where due to various factors (poor control or speeding, poor visibility etc) it is necessary for safety reasons to move to the pavement.
Most stretches of pavement are not so full of pedestrians that you need to cycle at 3mph, 5mph would be fine, because you can slow down and stop in sufficient time to pass pedestrians.

Cycling along the pavement in busy areas such as Oxford Street is never going to be ok, and never going to be safe for either party. This is not the case for empty stretches of pavement on Dartmouth Road or the South Circ at 10pm at night, for example.

I don’t really understand all the toing and froing on this topic. It is illegal to ride a bicycle on a pavement: end of. If it is ever necessary to take to the pavement for safety or any other reason then you must dismount and push your bicycle.

It is also illegal for cars to speed, but that does not stop cars speeding.

But I can’t recall anyone on here justifying cars speeding. But some have given excuses for cycling on pavements. Both are just plain wrong.

I agree but it’s just that cars speeding directly impacts the safety of cyclists. That’s one of the reasons you end up on the pavement, because being hit at 20mph is a lot different to being hit at 50mph. I don’t think cyclists go onto the pavement by choice, it’s because of safety fears. Again, 99% of the time I’d stick to the road. But have you seen the speeding along Dartmouth as one example, along that narrow stretch with a bend. That’s the type of place cyclists will end up on the pavement for 20 metres or so, not on all pavements, everywhere.

Unfortunately things being illegal isn’t the end of anything. People still do it, just as they break loads of other laws and it is better to have a discussion about why people do it than to try to ignore it or to brush concerns aside from either point of view. When the 20 mph limit came in for Lewisham there were plenty of people giving excuses for why people might drive over the limit and I can understand that although it is clearly against the law. There was spirited debate which is the way things should be. Same here, debate and discussion is good if it helps us to understand each other’s point of view - I can understand why people, children especially, would ride on pavements. I can even understand why adults do it but I still get annoyed by those that do. One of the reasons I get irritated by it is that people tend to group cyclists together and a lot of the time all cyclists tend to get tarred by the same brush in a way that drivers do not. You only have to look up thread here for posts referring to brigades and membership of said brigades as if we all meet up and plan the next phase of our attack on pedestrians. It’s fine, perfectly normal for minority activities. I accept this as part of life which is one reason I really try hard to be a considerate road user, I don’t want my actions to reflect on other cyclists esp those who have recently joined our illustrious club. I have even been know to call out other cyclists on occasion although I am not sure it has done much good - hence I ride by example or try to.
Anyway I am off to the South Central Portugal Lycra Brigades monthly meetup as we have to plan how many to ride abreast on the Santerem - Cartaxo road next Monday…

Actually, cyclists do meet up regularly. The last Friday of every month critical mass cyclists assemble near Waterloo Bridge and cycle over it together. Traffic jams occur.

Drivers also meet up regularly. I think they call it a traffic jam

It was a cyclist that first used the term “Lycra Brigade”, what followed were comments on that particular reply.

No-one is implying that all cyclists are out to get pedestrians. No-one is implying that you ride on the path. This thread was simply discussing the few that do ride on the paths without consideration to others that share the footpath, namely pedestrians. The OP was upset after a near miss with a rogue cyclist and others shared their experiences, including those cyclists who have also had near misses while walking. Suddenly it’s everyone is picking on cyclists, which we’re not. If you don’t ride on the path or skip red lights, then that’s fabulous. Just be mindful of those cyclists who aren’t as considerate as you.

I wasn’t supposed to be commenting further on this but i’m concerned that you are seeing this as a personal attack.

I also want to add that I went out for a 7km walk tonight around Forest Hill. Not one cyclist on the footpath, apart from one chap who was wheeling his bike along. It was bliss, perhaps the local cyclists been reading this thread

As a driver I get more annoyed at cyclists riding on the road in clusters instead of being inline than I do on the pavement; but when it comes to the pavement it hacks me off even more when kids leave their bikes strewn all over the place in front of shops. Blatant provocation.

Not at all - I have been riding for 50 years and it is all water off a Gore-tex legging to me now! I have broken ribs, smashed my collar bone, lost my front teeth, been punched, been driven at, been spat on, been chased by cars and by drivers and lost an acre of skin. Those things I took personally, this is just a pleasant discussion!

Of course riding two abreast is perfectly legal in most situations and actually considered safer to overtake (sorter distance) but I get it is annoying if you can’t drive at your accustomed speed. Most of my experience in London was of course the other way round with cars getting in my way and slowing me down…

Absolutely agree but unfortunately it will never stop for two reasons.
People are selfish and do not care.
No one enforces the law.

And then people like Jeremy Vine actually encourage this anti-social behaviour:

It’s almost as if the “everyone should cycle everywhere” brigade are just trolling the rest of us.

Surely not…

How is this anti-social? Because you have to drive slower?

Anti social in the same vein as learners, tractors and people who like to drive less than the limit.

A group of cyclists can be treated like a car or a tractor so you can plan your overtake and you’ll be on the wrong side of the road for less time. Motorists also give more space to a group.

A row of cyclists takes longer to overtake - lorry length rather than car so you’re on the wrong side for longer - and many drivers misjudge and pass too close.

And just as it’s nicer to chat to your passenger if their next to you rather than the back seat, if you are out for a leisurely ride, the same applies.

I’ll try to provide an analogy for the benefit of those who’ve never been in a car stuck behind cyclists riding 4 abreast:

Imagine you’re walking along the pavement at a pace of 3-4 mph (average walking speed), and group of people ahead of you are barely moving at 0.5 mph, four abreast, holding hands, taking up the entire pavement and preventing you from passing.

I hope you didn’t have anywhere important to go. To continue your journey at reasonable pace, you’ll need to step out into the busy road and walk around them, with all the danger that entails. And every other pedestrian travelling at a reasonable pace will have to do likewise.

I wonder how that group of cyclists would react to an equally widely spread out group of pedestrians? If walking towards them then the cyclists would obviously have to dismount and wait for them to pass. But if walking in the same direction?

Or a group of cows or ponies sauntering along in the same direction? Are they happy to fall in behind them for miles? Not from what I’ve seen.

Unfair analogy because forcing pedestrians into the road is not a fair comparison to forcing cars to overtake in the opposite lane.

Phil,

You have mistakenly taken a picture of four cyclists riding in pairs to suggest they are riding four abreast. Blow the picture up, check the wheel positions and you will see the telescopic view is misleading. You are, perhaps, the unwilling victim of the anti-cycling brigade that threaten us on a daily basis by promoting this myth.

I know that road very well (near Sheffield Park) and they are riding as recommended both for the safety of the cyclists and motorists leaving more than sufficient room to overtake and minimising the length of overtake.

If you rode more you would know this. It frightens me that you don’t and may develop completely unnecessary road rage which is a danger to all of us.

Peace.

I was referring to pedestrians walking in the road when there’s no footpath and to livestock and to horse riders in the road. It’s not an unfair analogy at all. Many cyclists don’t know how to handle those situations. I’ve been in an oncoming (slow moving car) when cyclists have spooked ponies into oncoming traffic, rather than exercising patience.

As it happens, I’m in the New Forest today, where tractors usually pull into laybys or gate entrances when available if a long line of traffic has built up behind them. I have never once seen a group of tourists on bicycles do that, although many local lone cyclists would. It’s just about seeing the other road user’s point of view. No one’s always a cyclist, always a pedestrian or always a motorist. That’s the advantage we humans have over livestock! They just panic!

But I was replying to @philsharpe.

I’m so sorry @Beige. My apologies.

Replying to nobody in particular, I’m going to remain optimistic that it’s possible for all users to share the limited space we’ve got. It’ll mean that we have to move away from the traditional thought that roads are solely for cars (vehicles) and pavements are solely for pedestrians. The current system was presumably put in place when only pedestrians and cars needed catering to, but that’s no longer the case. Cars have had it their way for a very long time and times have now changed.
Most people will be respectful to other users, and like you get some car drivers who think it’s ok to drive at 50mph along Dartmouth Road, you’ll unfortunately get some inconsiderate cyclists and scooter drivers. They’re not the majority though.

It’d help a lot if 20mph was widespread, and actually enforced. Cyclists don’t actually like cycling along the pavements, they do so out safety concerns. Roads have much flatter surfaces and are void of obstacles like uneven pavements slabs, bins, lampposts. I’d assume cyclists would prefer to be on the road and don’t come onto the pavement out of preference.

Stuart, watch the video (it’s a video, not a picture), and you’ll see the cyclists are in a formation at least four abreast during most of the time. Which is why Vine describes them as “2, 3 and 4 abreast like this” The fact that they’re veering in and out of formation makes the situation even more unpredictable and dangerous for other road users. Unfortunately this is common behaviour from cyclists in my experience.

As a cyclist myself, I’m careful to cycle in a predictable and considerate fashion, and if I’m holding up traffic on the road (roads, which are built primarily for vehicles), then I will often stop and get out the way to let cars pass. Generally I’m out on my bike for fun, whereas most motorists have places to get to, passengers/cargo to carry, and things to do.

But anyway, let’s not get sidelined from the actual topic in hand. And please avoid making provocative arguments about any other commenter being susceptible to “road rage” or being a “danger to us all”. That sort of jibe doesn’t add anything to the conversation at all.

Just as an aside - there seems to be little or no issue here in Portugal with riders taking up their share
of the road. Everyone seems happy and chilled enough to slow down for a few mins until it is safe to overtake. Most drivers give heaps of room when overtaking and there seems to be little heat, at least in my experience so far. I’ve done about 4500km and had one very slightly aggressive driver who overtook a lorry and veered into my lane - that’s it! Maybe it is because people are used to overtaking here (it’s a national sport) or it is just a more chilled place in general but I would get more hassle on one Sunday ride in the UK than I have all year here.

How so? She described a different situation to you.

sorry, got my wires crossed there

A post was split to a new topic: Post moved from riding bikes on pavements

Can’t win can you - cycle on the pavement: bad! Cycle on the road: bad!

Here are 2 handy educational comments from Road police on the issue.

E8S7-PDWQAAEVgg599×932 105 KB

That is very interesting Clausy. Although logical and correct advice as far as the WM Police is concerned, I wonder how many of us would feel safe following the advice to remain in the centre of the road as a single cyclist. It all rather depends on whether the driver behind the cyclist is aware of this doctrine. I doubt I would last very long doing following that advice as I cycle round this part of the world; or anywhere else for that matter apart from in Portugal perhaps.

Indeed, @Thewrongtrousers. Actually. it turns out the (unverified) WM Police “Traffic Investigations Unit” Twitter account were in error with their advice about “riding two or even three abreast”:

From the Highway Code

image846×309 19.7 KB

It’s there in black and white, alongside the clear rule that cyclists shouldn’t ride on pavements.

What’s more, the “two abreast” provision probably only exists to allow one cyclist to overtake another where necessary.

Yes, I agree, that’s what sadly puts a lot of people off cycling. I think it’s why you’ll find that it’s not a ‘war on cars’ it’s simply a desire to get from A to B safely. If you’re interested in how it feels to be aggressively passed by a ‘professional driver’ then feel free to watch the black cab in the second part of this short video where a taxi driver gets behind me, beeps at me and then forces himself past. He’s getting reported to the police. Lots of cyclists have cameras now in ‘self defence’. https://twitter.com/clausym/status/1434536843870146573

Yes, I have noticed a lot of cyclists and motorcyclists with little cameras stuck on their hats. And, don’t worry, I have been dangerously passed by any number of drivers and know just how it feels.

I have been told in the past, though not by the police, that a driver’s brain will sort of mirror the space between you and the kerb as they overtake and pass you by the same amount, so if you cycle slightly further out from the kerb most cars will give you a wider berth.

To be honest I didn’t believe it until I tried it. On a lot of occasions the cars did actually give me more room. But I’m not actually cycling in the middle of the road just slightly further from the kerb. Although I do cycle in the middle if I’m coming up to a traffic island and I can sense the car behind is likely to try to squeeze past me in a dangerous way. In situations like that I do take up as much space as possible just to prevent being hit or forced off the road.

I’ve had people yell at me for cycling in the middle of the road. They look really confused when I point out that I’m actually in the middle of the lane and not the middle of the road, which is actually the white line. They need to get more annoyed about the oncoming traffic which prevents them overtaking, not the cyclist in from of them who is reducing overall traffic. The really ironic thing is I was doing at least 20mph in a 20 mph limit zone and they’re still overtaking and then yelling at me whilst stopped at the next red light.

Also remember a speeding car will do a lot more damage than a bicycle on a pavement - you only have to search the forum for the word ‘crash’:

Car flipped over on Forest Hill Road
Big crash outside Syd station - Part of Sydenham road closed
Crash on Woolstone Road
Another Cranston / Woolstone Crash
Car crash by Sainsbury’s
Garthorne Road car incident
…and I can’t even find the one where they destroyed the FHSoc planters in front of the old Barclays.

In terms of cycling in the road, it is important to not cycle near the curb, which is dangerous for you the cyclist in many ways and gives you no space to react. I also found it was where most potholes were, and you need to be able to move for obstacles.

In terms of cycling, always assume people (be they pedestrians, cyclists, cars, bus drivers, lorries etc) will do something stupid, as invariably they do, and if you expect this to happen, or allow space to react to this, you will be much safer. I’ve been cycling in London since my teens, and only come off my bike twice, once completely my fault in a park taking a corner too quickly (broke my elbow, not recommended) and once when someone decided to open a taxi door right in front of me without looking (and to be clear the taxi was not parked).

Always make sure you wear a helmet, and if oyu are not confident on the road try some group sessions or see if people are happy to cycle with you for a bit and / or choose quieter cycle routes.

The highway code makes a distinction between the ‘shoulds’ and the ‘must’. No riding two abreast is one of those ‘shoulds’. Compare it to rule 97 for drivers: “Before setting off you should ensure that switch off your mobile phone”.
I wonder how many of us actually switch off our phones before starting a drive in a car? I’ll be the first to admit that this is not part of my driving routine and nobody would ever be arrested for non-compliance with this ‘should’.

The rule about not cycling on the pavement is a ‘must’. But it is confusing because of the number of places where there are shared areas for cyclists and pedestrians that pedestrians sometimes mistake for pavements, and there are pavements that cyclists sometimes mistake for shared space. I have also encountered adult cyclists who were sure that it was legal for them to cycle on any pavement.

Are we missing a broader point here?

E-scooters are legally limited on public roads. Why? Because when people choose to use them, those people are choosing an unsafe method of transport for the public highway, which makes them especially vulnerable.

Arguably it would be safer if e-scooters rode in packs, ten abreast in the middle of the road, “reducing overall traffic” (to borrow a notion from clausy).

But’s that’s not what lawmakers chose to recommend regarding e-scooters. Instead, they encouraged people to choose safer, more appropriate methods of transport for busy roads.

I don’t think cyclists should be banned from the road. But I do think cyclists should take responsibility for their choice of transportation mechanism, and if they feel unsafe, they should definitely consider safer forms of transport, rather than getting upset about the situation, digging their heels in and behaving in reactionary fashion against motorists.

They should also have the right to criticise dangerous driving. Most importantly they should feel as safe as is possible when sharing the roads with tonnes or metal that have the potential to hit them at any point if operated badly by fellow road users.
I admire the bravery of every cyclist in London and as a driver I try to do the best I can to keep them safe, even on the rare occasions when they are doing something really stupid.

This will never happen, but I would love for every car driver to have to also do a motorbike test as part of the driving license, as nothing teaches you awareness on the road for you and others as riding a motorbike.

// this isn’t a serious suggestion

In a similar vein, if all cyclists were drivers and all drivers were cyclists, I think things would be generally better and certainly I feel a better cyclist and driver for that.

This is classic victim blaming. Next you’ll be telling me I shouldn’t be cycling in heels or that I should dress a bit less seductively when I go out.

You think so? Going back to my example, are e-scooter riders being “victim blamed”? Or are we simply trying to keep people safe?

Phil, unless things have changed recently, I don’t think E scooters are yet legal on the road or anywhere else unless they are hired. I think you point probably remains a valid one, though.

yes, that’s my point, thank you. After a few accidents on the road, e-scooters were seen as unsafe, and they were banned (with the caveat you mentioned). The police are now quite heavy handed with anyone that buys an e-scooter and takes it on the road.

Some might argue the lawmakers/police are “victim blaming” e-scooter riders.

Others will see this as a pragmatic approach to road safety that recognises the road is designed for large, heavy, fast-moving vehicles.

As such, roads are naturally an unsafe place for people to ride on lightweight devices that lack seatbelts, mirrors, airbags, side-impact bars, crumple zones etc

You’re thinking of motorways. Roads are designed to be shared with motorcycles, bicycles, horses etc. That’s exactly the point of this thread. Make roads safe for cyclists so they don’t have to cycle on pavements. The horses and bicycles have been around longer than cars.

Actually, I wasn’t thinking of motorways, but no worries.

No one “has to cycle on pavements” any more than cars have to park on pavements. If there’s no parking for your car, don’t buy a car.

I would say that the point about e-scooters is pure whataboutery.

Let’s just focus on push bikes, and the fact that they are considered “unsafe” forms of transport. That’s something some of us want to change, and others don’t. It’s as simple as that.

e-scooters are brand new, the role they play in transport, and the laws around this, are still being worked out. Bringing them into this conversation is disingenuous.

Welcome to the forum, Phil. I am not sure what you mean by the above - e-scooters have not been banned as such - they were never permitted. The law and enforcement was clear from the early days of the Segway. If anything, it’s been relaxed in recent years despite widely publicised fatalities such as the one at Battersea Bridge - the DoT has clarified the circumstances in which they will be permitted.

If I am mistaken, happy to stand corrected if you have some sources. As for police reactions to e-scooter riding, I’d be interested to learn more about what you mean. Enforcement doesn’t seem to be taking place in and around SE23 in my experience.

I’ve not seen many scooters being ridden around SE23, though I must say I did see some policemen issuing a ticket to an e-scooter user on Waterloo Bridge when I cycled past a couple of days ago. My understanding is that the penalty for someone with a driving licence can be severe, including penalty points etc.

I think this is an important point in two ways.

1. Are they considered unsafe by some but are actually safe OR
2. They are considered safe by some but are actually unsafe OR
3. A bit of both.

The first point is about people feeling confident to ride on the road - so feeling safe.
The second point is how we can make the roads actually safer for cyclists, which will also aid point 1.

Difficult to define what “safe” is. It’s more of a feeling isn’t it? So inexperienced cyclists are more likely to feel unsafe, and experienced cyclists consider it safe.

For me personally, I feel like it’s pretty safe to cycle around London, but was a bit nervous when I started out.
I do often get into occasional arguments with drivers, there’s a lot of road entitlement and generally bad attitudes. I’ve had a few hairy moments caused by aggressive drivers. Luckily these types of people are becoming more and more of a minority.

I definitely think that being a cyclist has made me a better driver. And bring a driver has made me a better cyclist!

This! Fix the problem of cars on the road (too many, too fast, too aggressive, too big) and all the other issues fall away.

It was too dangerous to ride bikes on pavements today as there were cars driving on them.

Screenshot 2021-09-25 at 16.58.501920×1033 114 KB

Here’s another one scattering pedestrians.

Screenshot 2021-09-25 at 17.01.041128×748 50.6 KB

We nearly got knocked over there earlier this afternoon. The situation is really dangerous.