My pavement doubts

My pavement doubts

My pavement doubts

First published in Letters by

I’D LIKE to bring to readers’ attention an announcement from the Minister for Cycling, Robert Goodwill, who has written to all police forces reminding them that cycling on pavements is not an automatic offence. This follows lobbying by Stop Killing Cyclists, which was formed after six cyclists were killed in London at the end of 2013.

This is a challenge to me as I fundamentally disapprove of cycling on pavements. However, if roads are too dangerous, I can understand why some cyclists choose to use pavements.

I foresee issues with judging whether a pavement cyclist is ‘inconsiderate’ or not. I have on several occasions nearly been knocked over by cyclists bombing along the pavement outside my house, not thinking someone might step out of their driveway. I have in the past yelled at cyclists on pavements, and even stopped my bike to tell them off. I’ll have to stop doing that now.

I’d welcome clarification from the local police about what they think of this guidance, and how they plan to police inconsiderate cyclists.

The bigger picture, of course, is how do we make our roads safer for cyclists? If roads were safe, pavement riding wouldn’t need to happen.

John Cossham, Hull Road, York.

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:40am Tue 21 Jan 14

sheps lad says...

Floodgates are now open!
Floodgates are now open! sheps lad
  • Score: 10

11:35am Tue 21 Jan 14

Firedrake says...

I was taught at primary school (c1963) that it was lawful to cycle on the pavement if the diameter of ones wheels fell short of a certain measurement (I forget what) or, if the bike concerned was what we used to call a "fairy cycle" with stabilizers. These regulations were, of course, based on the assumption that the cyclists concerned were small children learning to ride.

I have no idea whether the wheel-dimension rule is still valid, but, if it is, it has clearly been rendered void by the current fashion for very small bikes amongst very large teenagers!

That said, the stabilizers on a fairy cycle sometimes had a not-dissimilar effect to that of the scythe blades on Boudicca's chariot!
I was taught at primary school (c1963) that it was lawful to cycle on the pavement if the diameter of ones wheels fell short of a certain measurement (I forget what) or, if the bike concerned was what we used to call a "fairy cycle" with stabilizers. These regulations were, of course, based on the assumption that the cyclists concerned were small children learning to ride. I have no idea whether the wheel-dimension rule is still valid, but, if it is, it has clearly been rendered void by the current fashion for very small bikes amongst very large teenagers! That said, the stabilizers on a fairy cycle sometimes had a not-dissimilar effect to that of the scythe blades on Boudicca's chariot! Firedrake
  • Score: 14

12:18pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

I suppose taken to the extreme, if the pavements fill with cyclists to the point where they become dangerous then I will have to start walking in the road?
I suppose taken to the extreme, if the pavements fill with cyclists to the point where they become dangerous then I will have to start walking in the road? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 22

1:22pm Tue 21 Jan 14

George Appleby says...

Many motorists are now just not capable of accepting the common safety rules of the road in their frantic need to get in front, in restricted areas too they are totally ignored.
Many motorists are now just not capable of accepting the common safety rules of the road in their frantic need to get in front, in restricted areas too they are totally ignored. George Appleby
  • Score: 10

2:20pm Tue 21 Jan 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Of course, some footpaths have been divided to include cycle tracks on them.
But John's bigger picture wants to see roads safer for cyclists. Well, given the high number of cyclists I see after dark with no lights showing, these cyclists appear to have no regard for safety. Falling off one's cycle while naked, especially while moving can also increase the risk of injury to cyclists.
Of course, some footpaths have been divided to include cycle tracks on them. But John's bigger picture wants to see roads safer for cyclists. Well, given the high number of cyclists I see after dark with no lights showing, these cyclists appear to have no regard for safety. Falling off one's cycle while naked, especially while moving can also increase the risk of injury to cyclists. ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 6

2:24pm Tue 21 Jan 14

queenselphie says...

As a pedestrian (and ocassional cyclist) I always thought cycling on the pavement was against the law. I often suffer near misses from cyclists speeding along the pavement and also running red lights at pedestrian crossings. I understand that the road can be very dangerous for cyclists, but why should that mean pedestrians are in danger instead?
As a pedestrian (and ocassional cyclist) I always thought cycling on the pavement was against the law. I often suffer near misses from cyclists speeding along the pavement and also running red lights at pedestrian crossings. I understand that the road can be very dangerous for cyclists, but why should that mean pedestrians are in danger instead? queenselphie
  • Score: 16

3:17pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

The law summarised http://cyclinginfo.c
o.uk/blog/433/cyclin
g/cycling-on-pavemen
ts/
Specifically from the Highway Code
64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
The law summarised http://cyclinginfo.c o.uk/blog/433/cyclin g/cycling-on-pavemen ts/ Specifically from the Highway Code 64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 Pinza-C55
  • Score: 15

3:25pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Sillybillies says...

Highway code -
64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
Want it any clearer? The Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill is wrong. If he wants it to be decriminalised he should put if before parliament to consider that the law be changed.
Highway code - [quote]64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 [quote] Want it any clearer? The Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill is wrong. If he wants it to be decriminalised he should put if before parliament to consider that the law be changed. Sillybillies
  • Score: 12

6:41pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Lyslander says...

Sillybillies wrote:
Highway code -
64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
Want it any clearer? The Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill is wrong. If he wants it to be decriminalised he should put if before parliament to consider that the law be changed.and also from the HC ,

You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34

Yet we have already effectively decriminalised driving up onto the pavement to park (apart from London).
[quote][p][bold]Sillybillies[/bold] wrote: Highway code - [quote]64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 [quote] Want it any clearer? The Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill is wrong. If he wants it to be decriminalised he should put if before parliament to consider that the law be changed.[/p][/quote]and also from the HC , You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34 Yet we have already effectively decriminalised driving up onto the pavement to park (apart from London). Lyslander
  • Score: 2

6:59pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Grey Lady says...

Some roads are dangerous for cyclists, especially where there are traffic calming measures and you have to ride into the middle of the carriage way to pass it, or to pass parked cars. There have been many occasions when I have nearly been knocked off my bike by vehicles (buses and lorries are the worst) and in daylight too.
Cyclists are forced into the side of the road by other road users, where the edge of the road surface is often potholed or there are drains, this makes for an unpleasant ride.
Sharing the footpath between cyclists and pedestrians might seem like a reasonable solution, however, I don't see it as the answer when pedestrians are at the risk of injury by being hit by a bike.
There need to be dedicated cycle lanes , not just the advisory ones where traffic can park in them or drive in them, this of course would be difficult on existing roads, but where new ones are being constructed they could be made wide enough to accommodate everybody.
Some roads are dangerous for cyclists, especially where there are traffic calming measures and you have to ride into the middle of the carriage way to pass it, or to pass parked cars. There have been many occasions when I have nearly been knocked off my bike by vehicles (buses and lorries are the worst) and in daylight too. Cyclists are forced into the side of the road by other road users, where the edge of the road surface is often potholed or there are drains, this makes for an unpleasant ride. Sharing the footpath between cyclists and pedestrians might seem like a reasonable solution, however, I don't see it as the answer when pedestrians are at the risk of injury by being hit by a bike. There need to be dedicated cycle lanes , not just the advisory ones where traffic can park in them or drive in them, this of course would be difficult on existing roads, but where new ones are being constructed they could be made wide enough to accommodate everybody. Grey Lady
  • Score: 7

7:03pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Lyslander wrote:
Sillybillies wrote:
Highway code -
64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
Want it any clearer? The Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill is wrong. If he wants it to be decriminalised he should put if before parliament to consider that the law be changed.and also from the HC ,

You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34

Yet we have already effectively decriminalised driving up onto the pavement to park (apart from London).Its sadly predictable that, in a case like this, whichever side feels under attack will try to divert attention from the issue by saying "what about X breaking the law?". You would have to ask why the council are so zealous about enforcing the Lendal Bridge rules where after all motorists are merely driving on the road, yet someone somewhere in the police seems to have decided that the spot fine for cycling on the pavement will not be enforced?
[quote][p][bold]Lyslander[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sillybillies[/bold] wrote: Highway code - [quote]64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 [quote] Want it any clearer? The Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill is wrong. If he wants it to be decriminalised he should put if before parliament to consider that the law be changed.[/p][/quote]and also from the HC , You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34 Yet we have already effectively decriminalised driving up onto the pavement to park (apart from London).[/p][/quote]Its sadly predictable that, in a case like this, whichever side feels under attack will try to divert attention from the issue by saying "what about X breaking the law?". You would have to ask why the council are so zealous about enforcing the Lendal Bridge rules where after all motorists are merely driving on the road, yet someone somewhere in the police seems to have decided that the spot fine for cycling on the pavement will not be enforced? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 4

7:40pm Tue 21 Jan 14

spiritofyork says...

its illegal to be on the pavement and should be punished by a fine/community service and its too dangerous for you on the roads and you take up road space. are you getting the message yet?????????????????


ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. COME ON NYP!!!!!!
its illegal to be on the pavement and should be punished by a fine/community service and its too dangerous for you on the roads and you take up road space. are you getting the message yet????????????????? ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. COME ON NYP!!!!!! spiritofyork
  • Score: -5

12:53am Wed 22 Jan 14

John Cossham says...

I look forward to a reply from the Police, as there *seems* to be conflicting advice and law. I do not know the answer. I'm a very keen cyclist and I really dislike it when I see adults cycling on pavements. I'm a strong supporter of roads being safe enough to ride bikes on. THIS is my campaign, nothing more, nothing less.
I look forward to a reply from the Police, as there *seems* to be conflicting advice and law. I do not know the answer. I'm a very keen cyclist and I really dislike it when I see adults cycling on pavements. I'm a strong supporter of roads being safe enough to ride bikes on. THIS is my campaign, nothing more, nothing less. John Cossham
  • Score: 12

1:46am Wed 22 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

George Appleby wrote:
Many motorists are now just not capable of accepting the common safety rules of the road in their frantic need to get in front, in restricted areas too they are totally ignored.
Exactly, and this in effect forces the less experienced cyclists onto pavements. It's not right, but tackling the source of the problem would reduce if not eliminate the outcome. Fining pavement cyclists is only a weak sticking plaster on a bleeding arm that was cut by a circular saw - changing policies to make people drive with more consideration is akin to putting a big guard over the aforementioned circular saw, to keep the metaphor going....

But trying to get people to be considerate to cyclists in York is a monumental task.
[quote][p][bold]George Appleby[/bold] wrote: Many motorists are now just not capable of accepting the common safety rules of the road in their frantic need to get in front, in restricted areas too they are totally ignored.[/p][/quote]Exactly, and this in effect forces the less experienced cyclists onto pavements. It's not right, but tackling the source of the problem would reduce if not eliminate the outcome. Fining pavement cyclists is only a weak sticking plaster on a bleeding arm that was cut by a circular saw - changing policies to make people drive with more consideration is akin to putting a big guard over the aforementioned circular saw, to keep the metaphor going.... But trying to get people to be considerate to cyclists in York is a monumental task. Magicman!
  • Score: 1

2:41am Wed 22 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

Grey Lady wrote:
Some roads are dangerous for cyclists, especially where there are traffic calming measures and you have to ride into the middle of the carriage way to pass it, or to pass parked cars. There have been many occasions when I have nearly been knocked off my bike by vehicles (buses and lorries are the worst) and in daylight too.
Cyclists are forced into the side of the road by other road users, where the edge of the road surface is often potholed or there are drains, this makes for an unpleasant ride.
Sharing the footpath between cyclists and pedestrians might seem like a reasonable solution, however, I don't see it as the answer when pedestrians are at the risk of injury by being hit by a bike.
There need to be dedicated cycle lanes , not just the advisory ones where traffic can park in them or drive in them, this of course would be difficult on existing roads, but where new ones are being constructed they could be made wide enough to accommodate everybody.
Take a look at this example, one of my favourite examples of good cycling provision: http://goo.gl/maps/B
OH4N (or a bit further up: http://goo.gl/maps/8
k811 ) - the cycle lane is technically on the road, but is physically seperated from passing vehicles and so prevents vehicles from passing a bike when there's not enough room (in addition to being physically seperate from the pavement by means of a height difference and a kerb); and at the crossroads further up, the cycle lane diverges and cyclists wanting to turn right at the crossroads get their own traffic light.... the closest example we have to this in York is along Water End, whereby cyclists wanting to go from Landing Lane area into the Leeman Road area get a seperate traffic light (but it goes green at the same time as the right turn light for motor vehicles going into the same road) - but the other end of the Water End cycle route was ruined and so any good efforts made on the rest of it have been invalidated as a result. In addition, the Manchester example also has two options at the next junction where there is a lane for left-turning traffic - bikes can then carry on at road level whereby they are only seperated from road traffic by a solid white line BUT on the flipside the on-road cycle lane retains priority over left-turning vehicles, or the less-experienced cyclists can follow a 2nd cycle lane which goes onto a shared pavement up to the traffic lights which provide a toucan crossing function so bicycles can cross with pedestrians on their own signal.

On road in York where it is believed that traffic calming measures are required, those could still be done in the above example, but the buildouts/chicanes/w
hatever would not then lead car drivers into racing cyclists and forcing them out of their way. Obviously the Manchester example is a dual carriageway, but this could still be done on roads in York where there is a wide grassed/cobbled verge... including but not limited to: Fulford Road, Hull Road, Melrosegate, Crichton Avenue, Bur Dyke Avenue, Shipton Road, Water End, Bootham, Boroughbridge Road, Beckfield Lane, Cornlands Road, Askham Lane... etc... the road carriageway width not being affected as the cycle lane would be taken out from space occupied by any current on-road cycle lanes plus 60cm-100cm from the verge - and if it was done properly there would be bollards along the physical segregation so cars physically cannot park on the cycle lane (which is a recurring problem on Crichton Avenue).

Let's compare that fine Manchester example, that bastion of cycling provision, against what York seems to think passes off as cycling provision:
http://goo.gl/maps/K
nNuG
The road has wide verges and so the capacity for expansion to accommodate good cycle lanes. But instead it was decided to just paint white lines on what little bit of roadspace they could shoehorn a cycle lane into - even the bicycle symbol painted onto the road cannot fit into the cycle lane! There is barely 10cm gap between drain covers and the edge of the cycle lane, and because a marked cycle lane denotes segregation it has been proven by research and experiments that vehicle drivers will drive much close to a cyclist on this road than if the cycle lane was not there - the result being that a cyclist cannot ride at the edge of the cycle lane to avoid the drain covers as a passing vehicle will sideswipe them - and some drains are sunken which has resulted in the road surface fracturing and tearing across the full width of the cycle lane which then creates unavoidable potholes. Whilst on a dual suspension mountain bike, my tyres and suspension can absorb most of these bumps, a road bike with skinny tyres does not have such a capability. An almost identical example of cycle lane provision can be found on Huntington Road in the Byland Avenue area.

Here's what Crichton Avenue looks like most of the time: http://goo.gl/maps/F
HQHJ - a significant amount of money was spent widening the road and providing decent width cycle lanes. However those who live in the area now selfishly see it as a glorified parking space. If the Manchester example had been applied here (a little more of the verge on the left would have been required for the space to provide the raised segregation) then vehicles physically would not be able to block the cycle lane in this manner - or at least not without rupturing their fuel tank. There will be some people who look at that and say "yes but the cyclist can just go around the parked car" - but what happens if there is a car coming up from behind the cyclist? 8 out of 10 times, the driver will force their way through in front of the cyclist which either forces the cyclist to brake sharply (which could result in going over the handlebars and suffering injury), or swerving onto the pavement.

Here's another York example of a poorly thought out provision: http://goo.gl/maps/J
G3Yo - in this example, the cycle lane originally was completely seperate from the road, the road going over the cycle route by means of a bridge. The rebuilding of the road meant a new junction was required, BUT the unhindered cycle lane was lost. Technically speaking, the cycle lane should be clearly marked across the road mouth and have priority - there is even a speed table in place and so the cycle priority would conform to amended DfT laws about road markings, yet instead cycles have to wait for cars to come from a BLIND BEND before proceeding. All it takes is for a vehicle to be going round that corner a little too fast and there will be a cyclist fatality. And there's no cycle lane on the road or any drop-off kerbs nearby so that a cylist (if they so chose) could go onto the road whilst passing the minor road entrance. A bit further up we have a pedestrian and cycle exit from Morrisons, and yet no dropped kerb. But the most poorly thought out part of this scheme is a bit further up: http://goo.gl/maps/8
eeOQ - there has been no space allocated for cyclists using the road, cyclists being directed onto the pavement instead. On the road, this junction is crossed in one movement; but using the pavement cycle lane as directed takes three moves (1. going onto the pavement lane, 2. crossing to the centre island, 3. crossing from centre island to other cycle lane) in addition to the fact the centre island is so narrow a cyclist cannot pass a pedestrian on it safely.

I could reel off several more examples of poorly thought out 'cycle provision', but the simple fact is this: York has a very small number (2 maybe 3) decent cycle lanes, zero examples of 'good' cycle lanes, and countless bad and even dangerous cycle lanes (with new ones being added all the time, such as Stirling road at Clifton Moor). If I didn't know any better, I'd be inclined to say that City of York Council just paints on cycle lanes in a bizarre and completely random fashion, without any matter of consultation with proper engineers or safety experts, just in order to bleat out "cycling city york" at the government, along with a thrusting hand asking for more money.....
[quote][p][bold]Grey Lady[/bold] wrote: Some roads are dangerous for cyclists, especially where there are traffic calming measures and you have to ride into the middle of the carriage way to pass it, or to pass parked cars. There have been many occasions when I have nearly been knocked off my bike by vehicles (buses and lorries are the worst) and in daylight too. Cyclists are forced into the side of the road by other road users, where the edge of the road surface is often potholed or there are drains, this makes for an unpleasant ride. Sharing the footpath between cyclists and pedestrians might seem like a reasonable solution, however, I don't see it as the answer when pedestrians are at the risk of injury by being hit by a bike. There need to be dedicated cycle lanes , not just the advisory ones where traffic can park in them or drive in them, this of course would be difficult on existing roads, but where new ones are being constructed they could be made wide enough to accommodate everybody.[/p][/quote]Take a look at this example, one of my favourite examples of good cycling provision: http://goo.gl/maps/B OH4N (or a bit further up: http://goo.gl/maps/8 k811 ) - the cycle lane is technically on the road, but is physically seperated from passing vehicles and so prevents vehicles from passing a bike when there's not enough room (in addition to being physically seperate from the pavement by means of a height difference and a kerb); and at the crossroads further up, the cycle lane diverges and cyclists wanting to turn right at the crossroads get their own traffic light.... the closest example we have to this in York is along Water End, whereby cyclists wanting to go from Landing Lane area into the Leeman Road area get a seperate traffic light (but it goes green at the same time as the right turn light for motor vehicles going into the same road) - but the other end of the Water End cycle route was ruined and so any good efforts made on the rest of it have been invalidated as a result. In addition, the Manchester example also has two options at the next junction where there is a lane for left-turning traffic - bikes can then carry on at road level whereby they are only seperated from road traffic by a solid white line BUT on the flipside the on-road cycle lane retains priority over left-turning vehicles, or the less-experienced cyclists can follow a 2nd cycle lane which goes onto a shared pavement up to the traffic lights which provide a toucan crossing function so bicycles can cross with pedestrians on their own signal. On road in York where it is believed that traffic calming measures are required, those could still be done in the above example, but the buildouts/chicanes/w hatever would not then lead car drivers into racing cyclists and forcing them out of their way. Obviously the Manchester example is a dual carriageway, but this could still be done on roads in York where there is a wide grassed/cobbled verge... including but not limited to: Fulford Road, Hull Road, Melrosegate, Crichton Avenue, Bur Dyke Avenue, Shipton Road, Water End, Bootham, Boroughbridge Road, Beckfield Lane, Cornlands Road, Askham Lane... etc... the road carriageway width not being affected as the cycle lane would be taken out from space occupied by any current on-road cycle lanes plus 60cm-100cm from the verge - and if it was done properly there would be bollards along the physical segregation so cars physically cannot park on the cycle lane (which is a recurring problem on Crichton Avenue). Let's compare that fine Manchester example, that bastion of cycling provision, against what York seems to think passes off as cycling provision: http://goo.gl/maps/K nNuG The road has wide verges and so the capacity for expansion to accommodate good cycle lanes. But instead it was decided to just paint white lines on what little bit of roadspace they could shoehorn a cycle lane into - even the bicycle symbol painted onto the road cannot fit into the cycle lane! There is barely 10cm gap between drain covers and the edge of the cycle lane, and because a marked cycle lane denotes segregation it has been proven by research and experiments that vehicle drivers will drive much close to a cyclist on this road than if the cycle lane was not there - the result being that a cyclist cannot ride at the edge of the cycle lane to avoid the drain covers as a passing vehicle will sideswipe them - and some drains are sunken which has resulted in the road surface fracturing and tearing across the full width of the cycle lane which then creates unavoidable potholes. Whilst on a dual suspension mountain bike, my tyres and suspension can absorb most of these bumps, a road bike with skinny tyres does not have such a capability. An almost identical example of cycle lane provision can be found on Huntington Road in the Byland Avenue area. Here's what Crichton Avenue looks like most of the time: http://goo.gl/maps/F HQHJ - a significant amount of money was spent widening the road and providing decent width cycle lanes. However those who live in the area now selfishly see it as a glorified parking space. If the Manchester example had been applied here (a little more of the verge on the left would have been required for the space to provide the raised segregation) then vehicles physically would not be able to block the cycle lane in this manner - or at least not without rupturing their fuel tank. There will be some people who look at that and say "yes but the cyclist can just go around the parked car" - but what happens if there is a car coming up from behind the cyclist? 8 out of 10 times, the driver will force their way through in front of the cyclist which either forces the cyclist to brake sharply (which could result in going over the handlebars and suffering injury), or swerving onto the pavement. Here's another York example of a poorly thought out provision: http://goo.gl/maps/J G3Yo - in this example, the cycle lane originally was completely seperate from the road, the road going over the cycle route by means of a bridge. The rebuilding of the road meant a new junction was required, BUT the unhindered cycle lane was lost. Technically speaking, the cycle lane should be clearly marked across the road mouth and have priority - there is even a speed table in place and so the cycle priority would conform to amended DfT laws about road markings, yet instead cycles have to wait for cars to come from a BLIND BEND before proceeding. All it takes is for a vehicle to be going round that corner a little too fast and there will be a cyclist fatality. And there's no cycle lane on the road or any drop-off kerbs nearby so that a cylist (if they so chose) could go onto the road whilst passing the minor road entrance. A bit further up we have a pedestrian and cycle exit from Morrisons, and yet no dropped kerb. But the most poorly thought out part of this scheme is a bit further up: http://goo.gl/maps/8 eeOQ - there has been no space allocated for cyclists using the road, cyclists being directed onto the pavement instead. On the road, this junction is crossed in one movement; but using the pavement cycle lane as directed takes three moves (1. going onto the pavement lane, 2. crossing to the centre island, 3. crossing from centre island to other cycle lane) in addition to the fact the centre island is so narrow a cyclist cannot pass a pedestrian on it safely. I could reel off several more examples of poorly thought out 'cycle provision', but the simple fact is this: York has a very small number (2 maybe 3) decent cycle lanes, zero examples of 'good' cycle lanes, and countless bad and even dangerous cycle lanes (with new ones being added all the time, such as Stirling road at Clifton Moor). If I didn't know any better, I'd be inclined to say that City of York Council just paints on cycle lanes in a bizarre and completely random fashion, without any matter of consultation with proper engineers or safety experts, just in order to bleat out "cycling city york" at the government, along with a thrusting hand asking for more money..... Magicman!
  • Score: 3

2:46am Wed 22 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
Lyslander wrote:
Sillybillies wrote:
Highway code -
64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
Want it any clearer? The Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill is wrong. If he wants it to be decriminalised he should put if before parliament to consider that the law be changed.and also from the HC ,

You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34

Yet we have already effectively decriminalised driving up onto the pavement to park (apart from London).Its sadly predictable that, in a case like this, whichever side feels under attack will try to divert attention from the issue by saying "what about X breaking the law?". You would have to ask why the council are so zealous about enforcing the Lendal Bridge rules where after all motorists are merely driving on the road, yet someone somewhere in the police seems to have decided that the spot fine for cycling on the pavement will not be enforced?EH?!
After a comment made about paople parking illegally on the pavement, this is what you said: "Its sadly predictable that, in a case like this, whichever side feels under attack will try to divert attention from the issue by saying "what about X breaking the law?""
... followed by, to the effect of "why do the council fine people for driving over a bridge and not fine pavement cyclists"

... so you are doing EXACTLY what you are accusing others of! If you had only made the first statement then your comment would have had merit; but by adding the Lendal Bridge comment in comparison to pavement cyclists, you then invalidated your post and showed yourself up as a hyprocrite.
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lyslander[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sillybillies[/bold] wrote: Highway code - [quote]64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 [quote] Want it any clearer? The Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill is wrong. If he wants it to be decriminalised he should put if before parliament to consider that the law be changed.[/p][/quote]and also from the HC , You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34 Yet we have already effectively decriminalised driving up onto the pavement to park (apart from London).[/p][/quote]Its sadly predictable that, in a case like this, whichever side feels under attack will try to divert attention from the issue by saying "what about X breaking the law?". You would have to ask why the council are so zealous about enforcing the Lendal Bridge rules where after all motorists are merely driving on the road, yet someone somewhere in the police seems to have decided that the spot fine for cycling on the pavement will not be enforced?[/p][/quote]EH?! After a comment made about paople parking illegally on the pavement, this is what you said: "Its sadly predictable that, in a case like this, whichever side feels under attack will try to divert attention from the issue by saying "what about X breaking the law?"" ... followed by, to the effect of "why do the council fine people for driving over a bridge and not fine pavement cyclists" ... so you are doing EXACTLY what you are accusing others of! If you had only made the first statement then your comment would have had merit; but by adding the Lendal Bridge comment in comparison to pavement cyclists, you then invalidated your post and showed yourself up as a hyprocrite. Magicman!
  • Score: -1

2:53am Wed 22 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

John Cossham wrote:
I look forward to a reply from the Police, as there *seems* to be conflicting advice and law. I do not know the answer. I'm a very keen cyclist and I really dislike it when I see adults cycling on pavements. I'm a strong supporter of roads being safe enough to ride bikes on. THIS is my campaign, nothing more, nothing less.
Indeed. In an ideal world, everybody would be able to cycle on the roads in safety... yet we have people like certain posters on here that pop up everytime to have an anti-cycling rant (Sillybillies, Pinza-C55, spiritofyork.... etc) who most likely drive on the roads with zero respect for cyclists and so make it dangerous to cycle on the road.

Here's an example of bad driving: at Walmgate Bar junction I was watching as a female cyclist waited until the green light on Foss Islands Road. She was heading into Cemetary Road for Fulford, and so was in the left hand lane. When the lights went green, she set off and cycled across the junction... however a the driver of the flatbed ford transit behind her obviously didn't like being held up for 3 seconds, held his hand on the horn and blasted at her from behind, followed by putting his head out the window and swearing at her. Unfortunately we cannot build cameras to fine drivers for driving in such a dangerous and arrogant manner, but action needs to be taken to "educate" such drivers to show respect for law-abiding cyclists using the road, of which they are entitled to use... and until such actions are taken then York cannot be called a "cycling city", and people will still cycle on the pavements.
[quote][p][bold]John Cossham[/bold] wrote: I look forward to a reply from the Police, as there *seems* to be conflicting advice and law. I do not know the answer. I'm a very keen cyclist and I really dislike it when I see adults cycling on pavements. I'm a strong supporter of roads being safe enough to ride bikes on. THIS is my campaign, nothing more, nothing less.[/p][/quote]Indeed. In an ideal world, everybody would be able to cycle on the roads in safety... yet we have people like certain posters on here that pop up everytime to have an anti-cycling rant (Sillybillies, Pinza-C55, spiritofyork.... etc) who most likely drive on the roads with zero respect for cyclists and so make it dangerous to cycle on the road. Here's an example of bad driving: at Walmgate Bar junction I was watching as a female cyclist waited until the green light on Foss Islands Road. She was heading into Cemetary Road for Fulford, and so was in the left hand lane. When the lights went green, she set off and cycled across the junction... however a the driver of the flatbed ford transit behind her obviously didn't like being held up for 3 seconds, held his hand on the horn and blasted at her from behind, followed by putting his head out the window and swearing at her. Unfortunately we cannot build cameras to fine drivers for driving in such a dangerous and arrogant manner, but action needs to be taken to "educate" such drivers to show respect for law-abiding cyclists using the road, of which they are entitled to use... and until such actions are taken then York cannot be called a "cycling city", and people will still cycle on the pavements. Magicman!
  • Score: 6

7:33am Wed 22 Jan 14

Igiveinthen says...

Magicman! wrote:
Grey Lady wrote:
Some roads are dangerous for cyclists, especially where there are traffic calming measures and you have to ride into the middle of the carriage way to pass it, or to pass parked cars. There have been many occasions when I have nearly been knocked off my bike by vehicles (buses and lorries are the worst) and in daylight too.
Cyclists are forced into the side of the road by other road users, where the edge of the road surface is often potholed or there are drains, this makes for an unpleasant ride.
Sharing the footpath between cyclists and pedestrians might seem like a reasonable solution, however, I don't see it as the answer when pedestrians are at the risk of injury by being hit by a bike.
There need to be dedicated cycle lanes , not just the advisory ones where traffic can park in them or drive in them, this of course would be difficult on existing roads, but where new ones are being constructed they could be made wide enough to accommodate everybody.
Take a look at this example, one of my favourite examples of good cycling provision: http://goo.gl/maps/B

OH4N (or a bit further up: http://goo.gl/maps/8

k811 ) - the cycle lane is technically on the road, but is physically seperated from passing vehicles and so prevents vehicles from passing a bike when there's not enough room (in addition to being physically seperate from the pavement by means of a height difference and a kerb); and at the crossroads further up, the cycle lane diverges and cyclists wanting to turn right at the crossroads get their own traffic light.... the closest example we have to this in York is along Water End, whereby cyclists wanting to go from Landing Lane area into the Leeman Road area get a seperate traffic light (but it goes green at the same time as the right turn light for motor vehicles going into the same road) - but the other end of the Water End cycle route was ruined and so any good efforts made on the rest of it have been invalidated as a result. In addition, the Manchester example also has two options at the next junction where there is a lane for left-turning traffic - bikes can then carry on at road level whereby they are only seperated from road traffic by a solid white line BUT on the flipside the on-road cycle lane retains priority over left-turning vehicles, or the less-experienced cyclists can follow a 2nd cycle lane which goes onto a shared pavement up to the traffic lights which provide a toucan crossing function so bicycles can cross with pedestrians on their own signal.

On road in York where it is believed that traffic calming measures are required, those could still be done in the above example, but the buildouts/chicanes/w

hatever would not then lead car drivers into racing cyclists and forcing them out of their way. Obviously the Manchester example is a dual carriageway, but this could still be done on roads in York where there is a wide grassed/cobbled verge... including but not limited to: Fulford Road, Hull Road, Melrosegate, Crichton Avenue, Bur Dyke Avenue, Shipton Road, Water End, Bootham, Boroughbridge Road, Beckfield Lane, Cornlands Road, Askham Lane... etc... the road carriageway width not being affected as the cycle lane would be taken out from space occupied by any current on-road cycle lanes plus 60cm-100cm from the verge - and if it was done properly there would be bollards along the physical segregation so cars physically cannot park on the cycle lane (which is a recurring problem on Crichton Avenue).

Let's compare that fine Manchester example, that bastion of cycling provision, against what York seems to think passes off as cycling provision:
http://goo.gl/maps/K

nNuG
The road has wide verges and so the capacity for expansion to accommodate good cycle lanes. But instead it was decided to just paint white lines on what little bit of roadspace they could shoehorn a cycle lane into - even the bicycle symbol painted onto the road cannot fit into the cycle lane! There is barely 10cm gap between drain covers and the edge of the cycle lane, and because a marked cycle lane denotes segregation it has been proven by research and experiments that vehicle drivers will drive much close to a cyclist on this road than if the cycle lane was not there - the result being that a cyclist cannot ride at the edge of the cycle lane to avoid the drain covers as a passing vehicle will sideswipe them - and some drains are sunken which has resulted in the road surface fracturing and tearing across the full width of the cycle lane which then creates unavoidable potholes. Whilst on a dual suspension mountain bike, my tyres and suspension can absorb most of these bumps, a road bike with skinny tyres does not have such a capability. An almost identical example of cycle lane provision can be found on Huntington Road in the Byland Avenue area.

Here's what Crichton Avenue looks like most of the time: http://goo.gl/maps/F

HQHJ - a significant amount of money was spent widening the road and providing decent width cycle lanes. However those who live in the area now selfishly see it as a glorified parking space. If the Manchester example had been applied here (a little more of the verge on the left would have been required for the space to provide the raised segregation) then vehicles physically would not be able to block the cycle lane in this manner - or at least not without rupturing their fuel tank. There will be some people who look at that and say "yes but the cyclist can just go around the parked car" - but what happens if there is a car coming up from behind the cyclist? 8 out of 10 times, the driver will force their way through in front of the cyclist which either forces the cyclist to brake sharply (which could result in going over the handlebars and suffering injury), or swerving onto the pavement.

Here's another York example of a poorly thought out provision: http://goo.gl/maps/J

G3Yo - in this example, the cycle lane originally was completely seperate from the road, the road going over the cycle route by means of a bridge. The rebuilding of the road meant a new junction was required, BUT the unhindered cycle lane was lost. Technically speaking, the cycle lane should be clearly marked across the road mouth and have priority - there is even a speed table in place and so the cycle priority would conform to amended DfT laws about road markings, yet instead cycles have to wait for cars to come from a BLIND BEND before proceeding. All it takes is for a vehicle to be going round that corner a little too fast and there will be a cyclist fatality. And there's no cycle lane on the road or any drop-off kerbs nearby so that a cylist (if they so chose) could go onto the road whilst passing the minor road entrance. A bit further up we have a pedestrian and cycle exit from Morrisons, and yet no dropped kerb. But the most poorly thought out part of this scheme is a bit further up: http://goo.gl/maps/8

eeOQ - there has been no space allocated for cyclists using the road, cyclists being directed onto the pavement instead. On the road, this junction is crossed in one movement; but using the pavement cycle lane as directed takes three moves (1. going onto the pavement lane, 2. crossing to the centre island, 3. crossing from centre island to other cycle lane) in addition to the fact the centre island is so narrow a cyclist cannot pass a pedestrian on it safely.

I could reel off several more examples of poorly thought out 'cycle provision', but the simple fact is this: York has a very small number (2 maybe 3) decent cycle lanes, zero examples of 'good' cycle lanes, and countless bad and even dangerous cycle lanes (with new ones being added all the time, such as Stirling road at Clifton Moor). If I didn't know any better, I'd be inclined to say that City of York Council just paints on cycle lanes in a bizarre and completely random fashion, without any matter of consultation with proper engineers or safety experts, just in order to bleat out "cycling city york" at the government, along with a thrusting hand asking for more money.....
Magicman! - I am a tad confused by part of one of your prolific comments where you state "..........and if it was done properly there would be bollards along the physical segregation so cars physically cannot park on the cycle lane (which is a recurring problem on Crichton Avenue)........" I don't know the area, only that it is in Clifton, but are these cycle lanes in front of residential properties? If they are and assuming the resident has a vehicle but has no off street parking, then where does that resident park his/her vehicle?
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grey Lady[/bold] wrote: Some roads are dangerous for cyclists, especially where there are traffic calming measures and you have to ride into the middle of the carriage way to pass it, or to pass parked cars. There have been many occasions when I have nearly been knocked off my bike by vehicles (buses and lorries are the worst) and in daylight too. Cyclists are forced into the side of the road by other road users, where the edge of the road surface is often potholed or there are drains, this makes for an unpleasant ride. Sharing the footpath between cyclists and pedestrians might seem like a reasonable solution, however, I don't see it as the answer when pedestrians are at the risk of injury by being hit by a bike. There need to be dedicated cycle lanes , not just the advisory ones where traffic can park in them or drive in them, this of course would be difficult on existing roads, but where new ones are being constructed they could be made wide enough to accommodate everybody.[/p][/quote]Take a look at this example, one of my favourite examples of good cycling provision: http://goo.gl/maps/B OH4N (or a bit further up: http://goo.gl/maps/8 k811 ) - the cycle lane is technically on the road, but is physically seperated from passing vehicles and so prevents vehicles from passing a bike when there's not enough room (in addition to being physically seperate from the pavement by means of a height difference and a kerb); and at the crossroads further up, the cycle lane diverges and cyclists wanting to turn right at the crossroads get their own traffic light.... the closest example we have to this in York is along Water End, whereby cyclists wanting to go from Landing Lane area into the Leeman Road area get a seperate traffic light (but it goes green at the same time as the right turn light for motor vehicles going into the same road) - but the other end of the Water End cycle route was ruined and so any good efforts made on the rest of it have been invalidated as a result. In addition, the Manchester example also has two options at the next junction where there is a lane for left-turning traffic - bikes can then carry on at road level whereby they are only seperated from road traffic by a solid white line BUT on the flipside the on-road cycle lane retains priority over left-turning vehicles, or the less-experienced cyclists can follow a 2nd cycle lane which goes onto a shared pavement up to the traffic lights which provide a toucan crossing function so bicycles can cross with pedestrians on their own signal. On road in York where it is believed that traffic calming measures are required, those could still be done in the above example, but the buildouts/chicanes/w hatever would not then lead car drivers into racing cyclists and forcing them out of their way. Obviously the Manchester example is a dual carriageway, but this could still be done on roads in York where there is a wide grassed/cobbled verge... including but not limited to: Fulford Road, Hull Road, Melrosegate, Crichton Avenue, Bur Dyke Avenue, Shipton Road, Water End, Bootham, Boroughbridge Road, Beckfield Lane, Cornlands Road, Askham Lane... etc... the road carriageway width not being affected as the cycle lane would be taken out from space occupied by any current on-road cycle lanes plus 60cm-100cm from the verge - and if it was done properly there would be bollards along the physical segregation so cars physically cannot park on the cycle lane (which is a recurring problem on Crichton Avenue). Let's compare that fine Manchester example, that bastion of cycling provision, against what York seems to think passes off as cycling provision: http://goo.gl/maps/K nNuG The road has wide verges and so the capacity for expansion to accommodate good cycle lanes. But instead it was decided to just paint white lines on what little bit of roadspace they could shoehorn a cycle lane into - even the bicycle symbol painted onto the road cannot fit into the cycle lane! There is barely 10cm gap between drain covers and the edge of the cycle lane, and because a marked cycle lane denotes segregation it has been proven by research and experiments that vehicle drivers will drive much close to a cyclist on this road than if the cycle lane was not there - the result being that a cyclist cannot ride at the edge of the cycle lane to avoid the drain covers as a passing vehicle will sideswipe them - and some drains are sunken which has resulted in the road surface fracturing and tearing across the full width of the cycle lane which then creates unavoidable potholes. Whilst on a dual suspension mountain bike, my tyres and suspension can absorb most of these bumps, a road bike with skinny tyres does not have such a capability. An almost identical example of cycle lane provision can be found on Huntington Road in the Byland Avenue area. Here's what Crichton Avenue looks like most of the time: http://goo.gl/maps/F HQHJ - a significant amount of money was spent widening the road and providing decent width cycle lanes. However those who live in the area now selfishly see it as a glorified parking space. If the Manchester example had been applied here (a little more of the verge on the left would have been required for the space to provide the raised segregation) then vehicles physically would not be able to block the cycle lane in this manner - or at least not without rupturing their fuel tank. There will be some people who look at that and say "yes but the cyclist can just go around the parked car" - but what happens if there is a car coming up from behind the cyclist? 8 out of 10 times, the driver will force their way through in front of the cyclist which either forces the cyclist to brake sharply (which could result in going over the handlebars and suffering injury), or swerving onto the pavement. Here's another York example of a poorly thought out provision: http://goo.gl/maps/J G3Yo - in this example, the cycle lane originally was completely seperate from the road, the road going over the cycle route by means of a bridge. The rebuilding of the road meant a new junction was required, BUT the unhindered cycle lane was lost. Technically speaking, the cycle lane should be clearly marked across the road mouth and have priority - there is even a speed table in place and so the cycle priority would conform to amended DfT laws about road markings, yet instead cycles have to wait for cars to come from a BLIND BEND before proceeding. All it takes is for a vehicle to be going round that corner a little too fast and there will be a cyclist fatality. And there's no cycle lane on the road or any drop-off kerbs nearby so that a cylist (if they so chose) could go onto the road whilst passing the minor road entrance. A bit further up we have a pedestrian and cycle exit from Morrisons, and yet no dropped kerb. But the most poorly thought out part of this scheme is a bit further up: http://goo.gl/maps/8 eeOQ - there has been no space allocated for cyclists using the road, cyclists being directed onto the pavement instead. On the road, this junction is crossed in one movement; but using the pavement cycle lane as directed takes three moves (1. going onto the pavement lane, 2. crossing to the centre island, 3. crossing from centre island to other cycle lane) in addition to the fact the centre island is so narrow a cyclist cannot pass a pedestrian on it safely. I could reel off several more examples of poorly thought out 'cycle provision', but the simple fact is this: York has a very small number (2 maybe 3) decent cycle lanes, zero examples of 'good' cycle lanes, and countless bad and even dangerous cycle lanes (with new ones being added all the time, such as Stirling road at Clifton Moor). If I didn't know any better, I'd be inclined to say that City of York Council just paints on cycle lanes in a bizarre and completely random fashion, without any matter of consultation with proper engineers or safety experts, just in order to bleat out "cycling city york" at the government, along with a thrusting hand asking for more money.....[/p][/quote]Magicman! - I am a tad confused by part of one of your prolific comments where you state "..........and if it was done properly there would be bollards along the physical segregation so cars physically cannot park on the cycle lane (which is a recurring problem on Crichton Avenue)........" I don't know the area, only that it is in Clifton, but are these cycle lanes in front of residential properties? If they are and assuming the resident has a vehicle but has no off street parking, then where does that resident park his/her vehicle? Igiveinthen
  • Score: -1

9:21am Wed 22 Jan 14

The Great Buda says...

Sillybillies wrote:
Highway code -
64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
Want it any clearer? The Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill is wrong. If he wants it to be decriminalised he should put if before parliament to consider that the law be changed.What about where the pavement is part of the cycle path?
[quote][p][bold]Sillybillies[/bold] wrote: Highway code - [quote]64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 [quote] Want it any clearer? The Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill is wrong. If he wants it to be decriminalised he should put if before parliament to consider that the law be changed.[/p][/quote]What about where the pavement is part of the cycle path? The Great Buda
  • Score: 1

7:55pm Wed 22 Jan 14

CaroleBaines says...

It is not just about the chances of pedestrians being hit - its also about perception. Especially for the elderly and disabled, the thought of pavements no longer being a safe haven and instead an area where one has to dodge speedy folk on two wheels, means that going out for some becomes stressful. Pavements need to be for pedestrians for all our sakes. I am not adverse to cycle lanes etc which encroach pavements, but please please leave us walkers something to feel safe on!
It is not just about the chances of pedestrians being hit - its also about perception. Especially for the elderly and disabled, the thought of pavements no longer being a safe haven and instead an area where one has to dodge speedy folk on two wheels, means that going out for some becomes stressful. Pavements need to be for pedestrians for all our sakes. I am not adverse to cycle lanes etc which encroach pavements, but please please leave us walkers something to feel safe on! CaroleBaines
  • Score: 3

8:23pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Magicman! wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
Lyslander wrote:
Sillybillies wrote:
Highway code -
64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
Want it any clearer? The Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill is wrong. If he wants it to be decriminalised he should put if before parliament to consider that the law be changed.and also from the HC ,

You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34

Yet we have already effectively decriminalised driving up onto the pavement to park (apart from London).Its sadly predictable that, in a case like this, whichever side feels under attack will try to divert attention from the issue by saying "what about X breaking the law?". You would have to ask why the council are so zealous about enforcing the Lendal Bridge rules where after all motorists are merely driving on the road, yet someone somewhere in the police seems to have decided that the spot fine for cycling on the pavement will not be enforced?EH?!
After a comment made about paople parking illegally on the pavement, this is what you said: "Its sadly predictable that, in a case like this, whichever side feels under attack will try to divert attention from the issue by saying "what about X breaking the law?""
... followed by, to the effect of "why do the council fine people for driving over a bridge and not fine pavement cyclists"

... so you are doing EXACTLY what you are accusing others of! If you had only made the first statement then your comment would have had merit; but by adding the Lendal Bridge comment in comparison to pavement cyclists, you then invalidated your post and showed yourself up as a hyprocrite.Sadly Magicman, your reading comprehension skills have deserted you. In this particular case I referred to "whichever side feels under attack". I am neither a car or vehicle driver of any kind nor am I a cyclist, so I can draw analogies without bias and whilst I respect the Law I think it should be applied fairly and equally. So, when I point out the unfairness of applying the Lendal Bridge fines and yet not applying the £30 fine to cyclists I am simply being fair and cannot indeed be attacking myself?
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lyslander[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sillybillies[/bold] wrote: Highway code - [quote]64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 [quote] Want it any clearer? The Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill is wrong. If he wants it to be decriminalised he should put if before parliament to consider that the law be changed.[/p][/quote]and also from the HC , You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34 Yet we have already effectively decriminalised driving up onto the pavement to park (apart from London).[/p][/quote]Its sadly predictable that, in a case like this, whichever side feels under attack will try to divert attention from the issue by saying "what about X breaking the law?". You would have to ask why the council are so zealous about enforcing the Lendal Bridge rules where after all motorists are merely driving on the road, yet someone somewhere in the police seems to have decided that the spot fine for cycling on the pavement will not be enforced?[/p][/quote]EH?! After a comment made about paople parking illegally on the pavement, this is what you said: "Its sadly predictable that, in a case like this, whichever side feels under attack will try to divert attention from the issue by saying "what about X breaking the law?"" ... followed by, to the effect of "why do the council fine people for driving over a bridge and not fine pavement cyclists" ... so you are doing EXACTLY what you are accusing others of! If you had only made the first statement then your comment would have had merit; but by adding the Lendal Bridge comment in comparison to pavement cyclists, you then invalidated your post and showed yourself up as a hyprocrite.[/p][/quote]Sadly Magicman, your reading comprehension skills have deserted you. In this particular case I referred to "whichever side feels under attack". I am neither a car or vehicle driver of any kind nor am I a cyclist, so I can draw analogies without bias and whilst I respect the Law I think it should be applied fairly and equally. So, when I point out the unfairness of applying the Lendal Bridge fines and yet not applying the £30 fine to cyclists I am simply being fair and cannot indeed be attacking myself? Pinza-C55
  • Score: 0

8:33pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Magicman! wrote:
John Cossham wrote:
I look forward to a reply from the Police, as there *seems* to be conflicting advice and law. I do not know the answer. I'm a very keen cyclist and I really dislike it when I see adults cycling on pavements. I'm a strong supporter of roads being safe enough to ride bikes on. THIS is my campaign, nothing more, nothing less.
Indeed. In an ideal world, everybody would be able to cycle on the roads in safety... yet we have people like certain posters on here that pop up everytime to have an anti-cycling rant (Sillybillies, Pinza-C55, spiritofyork.... etc) who most likely drive on the roads with zero respect for cyclists and so make it dangerous to cycle on the road.

Here's an example of bad driving: at Walmgate Bar junction I was watching as a female cyclist waited until the green light on Foss Islands Road. She was heading into Cemetary Road for Fulford, and so was in the left hand lane. When the lights went green, she set off and cycled across the junction... however a the driver of the flatbed ford transit behind her obviously didn't like being held up for 3 seconds, held his hand on the horn and blasted at her from behind, followed by putting his head out the window and swearing at her. Unfortunately we cannot build cameras to fine drivers for driving in such a dangerous and arrogant manner, but action needs to be taken to "educate" such drivers to show respect for law-abiding cyclists using the road, of which they are entitled to use... and until such actions are taken then York cannot be called a "cycling city", and people will still cycle on the pavements.
More nonsense;
"yet we have people like certain posters on here that pop up everytime to have an anti-cycling rant (Sillybillies, Pinza-C55, spiritofyork.... etc) "
I pointed out that the Law says "You MUST NOT cycle on the pavement". If you wish to break the law that is up to you, but don't say you weren't warned. My posts are concise and don't qualify as "rants" unlike yours which run to the equivalent of an A4 page.
"Here's an example of bad driving:" etc etc etc
Give it up man! You are simply proving my point. Anecdotes about bad car drivers hold no more water than anecdotes about bad cyclists.
"and people will still cycle on the pavements."
And they are breaking the law, and should be fined £30 on the spot.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Cossham[/bold] wrote: I look forward to a reply from the Police, as there *seems* to be conflicting advice and law. I do not know the answer. I'm a very keen cyclist and I really dislike it when I see adults cycling on pavements. I'm a strong supporter of roads being safe enough to ride bikes on. THIS is my campaign, nothing more, nothing less.[/p][/quote]Indeed. In an ideal world, everybody would be able to cycle on the roads in safety... yet we have people like certain posters on here that pop up everytime to have an anti-cycling rant (Sillybillies, Pinza-C55, spiritofyork.... etc) who most likely drive on the roads with zero respect for cyclists and so make it dangerous to cycle on the road. Here's an example of bad driving: at Walmgate Bar junction I was watching as a female cyclist waited until the green light on Foss Islands Road. She was heading into Cemetary Road for Fulford, and so was in the left hand lane. When the lights went green, she set off and cycled across the junction... however a the driver of the flatbed ford transit behind her obviously didn't like being held up for 3 seconds, held his hand on the horn and blasted at her from behind, followed by putting his head out the window and swearing at her. Unfortunately we cannot build cameras to fine drivers for driving in such a dangerous and arrogant manner, but action needs to be taken to "educate" such drivers to show respect for law-abiding cyclists using the road, of which they are entitled to use... and until such actions are taken then York cannot be called a "cycling city", and people will still cycle on the pavements.[/p][/quote]More nonsense; "yet we have people like certain posters on here that pop up everytime to have an anti-cycling rant (Sillybillies, Pinza-C55, spiritofyork.... etc) " I pointed out that the Law says "You MUST NOT cycle on the pavement". If you wish to break the law that is up to you, but don't say you weren't warned. My posts are concise and don't qualify as "rants" unlike yours which run to the equivalent of an A4 page. "Here's an example of bad driving:" etc etc etc Give it up man! You are simply proving my point. Anecdotes about bad car drivers hold no more water than anecdotes about bad cyclists. "and people will still cycle on the pavements." And they are breaking the law, and should be fined £30 on the spot. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 1

12:38am Thu 23 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
Magicman! wrote:
Grey Lady wrote:
Some roads are dangerous for cyclists, especially where there are traffic calming measures and you have to ride into the middle of the carriage way to pass it, or to pass parked cars. There have been many occasions when I have nearly been knocked off my bike by vehicles (buses and lorries are the worst) and in daylight too.
Cyclists are forced into the side of the road by other road users, where the edge of the road surface is often potholed or there are drains, this makes for an unpleasant ride.
Sharing the footpath between cyclists and pedestrians might seem like a reasonable solution, however, I don't see it as the answer when pedestrians are at the risk of injury by being hit by a bike.
There need to be dedicated cycle lanes , not just the advisory ones where traffic can park in them or drive in them, this of course would be difficult on existing roads, but where new ones are being constructed they could be made wide enough to accommodate everybody.
Take a look at this example, one of my favourite examples of good cycling provision: http://goo.gl/maps/B


OH4N (or a bit further up: http://goo.gl/maps/8


k811 ) - the cycle lane is technically on the road, but is physically seperated from passing vehicles and so prevents vehicles from passing a bike when there's not enough room (in addition to being physically seperate from the pavement by means of a height difference and a kerb); and at the crossroads further up, the cycle lane diverges and cyclists wanting to turn right at the crossroads get their own traffic light.... the closest example we have to this in York is along Water End, whereby cyclists wanting to go from Landing Lane area into the Leeman Road area get a seperate traffic light (but it goes green at the same time as the right turn light for motor vehicles going into the same road) - but the other end of the Water End cycle route was ruined and so any good efforts made on the rest of it have been invalidated as a result. In addition, the Manchester example also has two options at the next junction where there is a lane for left-turning traffic - bikes can then carry on at road level whereby they are only seperated from road traffic by a solid white line BUT on the flipside the on-road cycle lane retains priority over left-turning vehicles, or the less-experienced cyclists can follow a 2nd cycle lane which goes onto a shared pavement up to the traffic lights which provide a toucan crossing function so bicycles can cross with pedestrians on their own signal.

On road in York where it is believed that traffic calming measures are required, those could still be done in the above example, but the buildouts/chicanes/w


hatever would not then lead car drivers into racing cyclists and forcing them out of their way. Obviously the Manchester example is a dual carriageway, but this could still be done on roads in York where there is a wide grassed/cobbled verge... including but not limited to: Fulford Road, Hull Road, Melrosegate, Crichton Avenue, Bur Dyke Avenue, Shipton Road, Water End, Bootham, Boroughbridge Road, Beckfield Lane, Cornlands Road, Askham Lane... etc... the road carriageway width not being affected as the cycle lane would be taken out from space occupied by any current on-road cycle lanes plus 60cm-100cm from the verge - and if it was done properly there would be bollards along the physical segregation so cars physically cannot park on the cycle lane (which is a recurring problem on Crichton Avenue).

Let's compare that fine Manchester example, that bastion of cycling provision, against what York seems to think passes off as cycling provision:
http://goo.gl/maps/K


nNuG
The road has wide verges and so the capacity for expansion to accommodate good cycle lanes. But instead it was decided to just paint white lines on what little bit of roadspace they could shoehorn a cycle lane into - even the bicycle symbol painted onto the road cannot fit into the cycle lane! There is barely 10cm gap between drain covers and the edge of the cycle lane, and because a marked cycle lane denotes segregation it has been proven by research and experiments that vehicle drivers will drive much close to a cyclist on this road than if the cycle lane was not there - the result being that a cyclist cannot ride at the edge of the cycle lane to avoid the drain covers as a passing vehicle will sideswipe them - and some drains are sunken which has resulted in the road surface fracturing and tearing across the full width of the cycle lane which then creates unavoidable potholes. Whilst on a dual suspension mountain bike, my tyres and suspension can absorb most of these bumps, a road bike with skinny tyres does not have such a capability. An almost identical example of cycle lane provision can be found on Huntington Road in the Byland Avenue area.

Here's what Crichton Avenue looks like most of the time: http://goo.gl/maps/F


HQHJ - a significant amount of money was spent widening the road and providing decent width cycle lanes. However those who live in the area now selfishly see it as a glorified parking space. If the Manchester example had been applied here (a little more of the verge on the left would have been required for the space to provide the raised segregation) then vehicles physically would not be able to block the cycle lane in this manner - or at least not without rupturing their fuel tank. There will be some people who look at that and say "yes but the cyclist can just go around the parked car" - but what happens if there is a car coming up from behind the cyclist? 8 out of 10 times, the driver will force their way through in front of the cyclist which either forces the cyclist to brake sharply (which could result in going over the handlebars and suffering injury), or swerving onto the pavement.

Here's another York example of a poorly thought out provision: http://goo.gl/maps/J


G3Yo - in this example, the cycle lane originally was completely seperate from the road, the road going over the cycle route by means of a bridge. The rebuilding of the road meant a new junction was required, BUT the unhindered cycle lane was lost. Technically speaking, the cycle lane should be clearly marked across the road mouth and have priority - there is even a speed table in place and so the cycle priority would conform to amended DfT laws about road markings, yet instead cycles have to wait for cars to come from a BLIND BEND before proceeding. All it takes is for a vehicle to be going round that corner a little too fast and there will be a cyclist fatality. And there's no cycle lane on the road or any drop-off kerbs nearby so that a cylist (if they so chose) could go onto the road whilst passing the minor road entrance. A bit further up we have a pedestrian and cycle exit from Morrisons, and yet no dropped kerb. But the most poorly thought out part of this scheme is a bit further up: http://goo.gl/maps/8


eeOQ - there has been no space allocated for cyclists using the road, cyclists being directed onto the pavement instead. On the road, this junction is crossed in one movement; but using the pavement cycle lane as directed takes three moves (1. going onto the pavement lane, 2. crossing to the centre island, 3. crossing from centre island to other cycle lane) in addition to the fact the centre island is so narrow a cyclist cannot pass a pedestrian on it safely.

I could reel off several more examples of poorly thought out 'cycle provision', but the simple fact is this: York has a very small number (2 maybe 3) decent cycle lanes, zero examples of 'good' cycle lanes, and countless bad and even dangerous cycle lanes (with new ones being added all the time, such as Stirling road at Clifton Moor). If I didn't know any better, I'd be inclined to say that City of York Council just paints on cycle lanes in a bizarre and completely random fashion, without any matter of consultation with proper engineers or safety experts, just in order to bleat out "cycling city york" at the government, along with a thrusting hand asking for more money.....
Magicman! - I am a tad confused by part of one of your prolific comments where you state "..........and if it was done properly there would be bollards along the physical segregation so cars physically cannot park on the cycle lane (which is a recurring problem on Crichton Avenue)........" I don't know the area, only that it is in Clifton, but are these cycle lanes in front of residential properties? If they are and assuming the resident has a vehicle but has no off street parking, then where does that resident park his/her vehicle?
The vast majority of the houses have their own driveway... and on the side of the road with no grass verge, a lot of the driveways are wide eough to accommodate 2 cars. If people in such houses then find there is nowhere to park a car despite already owning 2 cars, then serious consideration should be given as to why/how such people in 2/3 bed council houses (some are ex-council) can and do run 3 or more cars.
Ideally, similar setups would exist on roads such as New Lane in Huntington - not only does every house have a driveway on their property, but the approach to the driveway can also accommodate a second car in addition to the one on the drive.... and so a physically seperate cycle lane with measures to prevent parking on it would be able to be built.

Although York has very little of them, I have never seen somebodys car parked in a bus lane - and yet I see cars parked in cycle lanes all the time.
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grey Lady[/bold] wrote: Some roads are dangerous for cyclists, especially where there are traffic calming measures and you have to ride into the middle of the carriage way to pass it, or to pass parked cars. There have been many occasions when I have nearly been knocked off my bike by vehicles (buses and lorries are the worst) and in daylight too. Cyclists are forced into the side of the road by other road users, where the edge of the road surface is often potholed or there are drains, this makes for an unpleasant ride. Sharing the footpath between cyclists and pedestrians might seem like a reasonable solution, however, I don't see it as the answer when pedestrians are at the risk of injury by being hit by a bike. There need to be dedicated cycle lanes , not just the advisory ones where traffic can park in them or drive in them, this of course would be difficult on existing roads, but where new ones are being constructed they could be made wide enough to accommodate everybody.[/p][/quote]Take a look at this example, one of my favourite examples of good cycling provision: http://goo.gl/maps/B OH4N (or a bit further up: http://goo.gl/maps/8 k811 ) - the cycle lane is technically on the road, but is physically seperated from passing vehicles and so prevents vehicles from passing a bike when there's not enough room (in addition to being physically seperate from the pavement by means of a height difference and a kerb); and at the crossroads further up, the cycle lane diverges and cyclists wanting to turn right at the crossroads get their own traffic light.... the closest example we have to this in York is along Water End, whereby cyclists wanting to go from Landing Lane area into the Leeman Road area get a seperate traffic light (but it goes green at the same time as the right turn light for motor vehicles going into the same road) - but the other end of the Water End cycle route was ruined and so any good efforts made on the rest of it have been invalidated as a result. In addition, the Manchester example also has two options at the next junction where there is a lane for left-turning traffic - bikes can then carry on at road level whereby they are only seperated from road traffic by a solid white line BUT on the flipside the on-road cycle lane retains priority over left-turning vehicles, or the less-experienced cyclists can follow a 2nd cycle lane which goes onto a shared pavement up to the traffic lights which provide a toucan crossing function so bicycles can cross with pedestrians on their own signal. On road in York where it is believed that traffic calming measures are required, those could still be done in the above example, but the buildouts/chicanes/w hatever would not then lead car drivers into racing cyclists and forcing them out of their way. Obviously the Manchester example is a dual carriageway, but this could still be done on roads in York where there is a wide grassed/cobbled verge... including but not limited to: Fulford Road, Hull Road, Melrosegate, Crichton Avenue, Bur Dyke Avenue, Shipton Road, Water End, Bootham, Boroughbridge Road, Beckfield Lane, Cornlands Road, Askham Lane... etc... the road carriageway width not being affected as the cycle lane would be taken out from space occupied by any current on-road cycle lanes plus 60cm-100cm from the verge - and if it was done properly there would be bollards along the physical segregation so cars physically cannot park on the cycle lane (which is a recurring problem on Crichton Avenue). Let's compare that fine Manchester example, that bastion of cycling provision, against what York seems to think passes off as cycling provision: http://goo.gl/maps/K nNuG The road has wide verges and so the capacity for expansion to accommodate good cycle lanes. But instead it was decided to just paint white lines on what little bit of roadspace they could shoehorn a cycle lane into - even the bicycle symbol painted onto the road cannot fit into the cycle lane! There is barely 10cm gap between drain covers and the edge of the cycle lane, and because a marked cycle lane denotes segregation it has been proven by research and experiments that vehicle drivers will drive much close to a cyclist on this road than if the cycle lane was not there - the result being that a cyclist cannot ride at the edge of the cycle lane to avoid the drain covers as a passing vehicle will sideswipe them - and some drains are sunken which has resulted in the road surface fracturing and tearing across the full width of the cycle lane which then creates unavoidable potholes. Whilst on a dual suspension mountain bike, my tyres and suspension can absorb most of these bumps, a road bike with skinny tyres does not have such a capability. An almost identical example of cycle lane provision can be found on Huntington Road in the Byland Avenue area. Here's what Crichton Avenue looks like most of the time: http://goo.gl/maps/F HQHJ - a significant amount of money was spent widening the road and providing decent width cycle lanes. However those who live in the area now selfishly see it as a glorified parking space. If the Manchester example had been applied here (a little more of the verge on the left would have been required for the space to provide the raised segregation) then vehicles physically would not be able to block the cycle lane in this manner - or at least not without rupturing their fuel tank. There will be some people who look at that and say "yes but the cyclist can just go around the parked car" - but what happens if there is a car coming up from behind the cyclist? 8 out of 10 times, the driver will force their way through in front of the cyclist which either forces the cyclist to brake sharply (which could result in going over the handlebars and suffering injury), or swerving onto the pavement. Here's another York example of a poorly thought out provision: http://goo.gl/maps/J G3Yo - in this example, the cycle lane originally was completely seperate from the road, the road going over the cycle route by means of a bridge. The rebuilding of the road meant a new junction was required, BUT the unhindered cycle lane was lost. Technically speaking, the cycle lane should be clearly marked across the road mouth and have priority - there is even a speed table in place and so the cycle priority would conform to amended DfT laws about road markings, yet instead cycles have to wait for cars to come from a BLIND BEND before proceeding. All it takes is for a vehicle to be going round that corner a little too fast and there will be a cyclist fatality. And there's no cycle lane on the road or any drop-off kerbs nearby so that a cylist (if they so chose) could go onto the road whilst passing the minor road entrance. A bit further up we have a pedestrian and cycle exit from Morrisons, and yet no dropped kerb. But the most poorly thought out part of this scheme is a bit further up: http://goo.gl/maps/8 eeOQ - there has been no space allocated for cyclists using the road, cyclists being directed onto the pavement instead. On the road, this junction is crossed in one movement; but using the pavement cycle lane as directed takes three moves (1. going onto the pavement lane, 2. crossing to the centre island, 3. crossing from centre island to other cycle lane) in addition to the fact the centre island is so narrow a cyclist cannot pass a pedestrian on it safely. I could reel off several more examples of poorly thought out 'cycle provision', but the simple fact is this: York has a very small number (2 maybe 3) decent cycle lanes, zero examples of 'good' cycle lanes, and countless bad and even dangerous cycle lanes (with new ones being added all the time, such as Stirling road at Clifton Moor). If I didn't know any better, I'd be inclined to say that City of York Council just paints on cycle lanes in a bizarre and completely random fashion, without any matter of consultation with proper engineers or safety experts, just in order to bleat out "cycling city york" at the government, along with a thrusting hand asking for more money.....[/p][/quote]Magicman! - I am a tad confused by part of one of your prolific comments where you state "..........and if it was done properly there would be bollards along the physical segregation so cars physically cannot park on the cycle lane (which is a recurring problem on Crichton Avenue)........" I don't know the area, only that it is in Clifton, but are these cycle lanes in front of residential properties? If they are and assuming the resident has a vehicle but has no off street parking, then where does that resident park his/her vehicle?[/p][/quote]The vast majority of the houses have their own driveway... and on the side of the road with no grass verge, a lot of the driveways are wide eough to accommodate 2 cars. If people in such houses then find there is nowhere to park a car despite already owning 2 cars, then serious consideration should be given as to why/how such people in 2/3 bed council houses (some are ex-council) can and do run 3 or more cars. Ideally, similar setups would exist on roads such as New Lane in Huntington - not only does every house have a driveway on their property, but the approach to the driveway can also accommodate a second car in addition to the one on the drive.... and so a physically seperate cycle lane with measures to prevent parking on it would be able to be built. Although York has very little of them, I have never seen somebodys car parked in a bus lane - and yet I see cars parked in cycle lanes all the time. Magicman!
  • Score: 3

12:41am Thu 23 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
It is not just about the chances of pedestrians being hit - its also about perception. Especially for the elderly and disabled, the thought of pavements no longer being a safe haven and instead an area where one has to dodge speedy folk on two wheels, means that going out for some becomes stressful. Pavements need to be for pedestrians for all our sakes. I am not adverse to cycle lanes etc which encroach pavements, but please please leave us walkers something to feel safe on!
I personally feel that there should always be some sort of visual segregation, but ideally physical segregation too. Where there is a shared pathway by the river behind St Georges Field for example, the cycle lane is at a different level to the footpath - so visually impared people can feel the drop in level, akin to walking off a kerb edge.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: It is not just about the chances of pedestrians being hit - its also about perception. Especially for the elderly and disabled, the thought of pavements no longer being a safe haven and instead an area where one has to dodge speedy folk on two wheels, means that going out for some becomes stressful. Pavements need to be for pedestrians for all our sakes. I am not adverse to cycle lanes etc which encroach pavements, but please please leave us walkers something to feel safe on![/p][/quote]I personally feel that there should always be some sort of visual segregation, but ideally physical segregation too. Where there is a shared pathway by the river behind St Georges Field for example, the cycle lane is at a different level to the footpath - so visually impared people can feel the drop in level, akin to walking off a kerb edge. Magicman!
  • Score: 5

12:43am Thu 23 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
Magicman! wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
Lyslander wrote:
Sillybillies wrote:
Highway code -
64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
Want it any clearer? The Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill is wrong. If he wants it to be decriminalised he should put if before parliament to consider that the law be changed.and also from the HC ,

You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34

Yet we have already effectively decriminalised driving up onto the pavement to park (apart from London).Its sadly predictable that, in a case like this, whichever side feels under attack will try to divert attention from the issue by saying "what about X breaking the law?". You would have to ask why the council are so zealous about enforcing the Lendal Bridge rules where after all motorists are merely driving on the road, yet someone somewhere in the police seems to have decided that the spot fine for cycling on the pavement will not be enforced?EH?!
After a comment made about paople parking illegally on the pavement, this is what you said: "Its sadly predictable that, in a case like this, whichever side feels under attack will try to divert attention from the issue by saying "what about X breaking the law?""
... followed by, to the effect of "why do the council fine people for driving over a bridge and not fine pavement cyclists"

... so you are doing EXACTLY what you are accusing others of! If you had only made the first statement then your comment would have had merit; but by adding the Lendal Bridge comment in comparison to pavement cyclists, you then invalidated your post and showed yourself up as a hyprocrite.Sadly Magicman, your reading comprehension skills have deserted you. In this particular case I referred to "whichever side feels under attack". I am neither a car or vehicle driver of any kind nor am I a cyclist, so I can draw analogies without bias and whilst I respect the Law I think it should be applied fairly and equally. So, when I point out the unfairness of applying the Lendal Bridge fines and yet not applying the £30 fine to cyclists I am simply being fair and cannot indeed be attacking myself?Had you mentioned that at the start of your comment then that would have validated your point.
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lyslander[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sillybillies[/bold] wrote: Highway code - [quote]64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 [quote] Want it any clearer? The Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill is wrong. If he wants it to be decriminalised he should put if before parliament to consider that the law be changed.[/p][/quote]and also from the HC , You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34 Yet we have already effectively decriminalised driving up onto the pavement to park (apart from London).[/p][/quote]Its sadly predictable that, in a case like this, whichever side feels under attack will try to divert attention from the issue by saying "what about X breaking the law?". You would have to ask why the council are so zealous about enforcing the Lendal Bridge rules where after all motorists are merely driving on the road, yet someone somewhere in the police seems to have decided that the spot fine for cycling on the pavement will not be enforced?[/p][/quote]EH?! After a comment made about paople parking illegally on the pavement, this is what you said: "Its sadly predictable that, in a case like this, whichever side feels under attack will try to divert attention from the issue by saying "what about X breaking the law?"" ... followed by, to the effect of "why do the council fine people for driving over a bridge and not fine pavement cyclists" ... so you are doing EXACTLY what you are accusing others of! If you had only made the first statement then your comment would have had merit; but by adding the Lendal Bridge comment in comparison to pavement cyclists, you then invalidated your post and showed yourself up as a hyprocrite.[/p][/quote]Sadly Magicman, your reading comprehension skills have deserted you. In this particular case I referred to "whichever side feels under attack". I am neither a car or vehicle driver of any kind nor am I a cyclist, so I can draw analogies without bias and whilst I respect the Law I think it should be applied fairly and equally. So, when I point out the unfairness of applying the Lendal Bridge fines and yet not applying the £30 fine to cyclists I am simply being fair and cannot indeed be attacking myself?[/p][/quote]Had you mentioned that at the start of your comment then that would have validated your point. Magicman!
  • Score: -1

12:46am Thu 23 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

Pinza-C55 wrote:
Magicman! wrote:
John Cossham wrote:
I look forward to a reply from the Police, as there *seems* to be conflicting advice and law. I do not know the answer. I'm a very keen cyclist and I really dislike it when I see adults cycling on pavements. I'm a strong supporter of roads being safe enough to ride bikes on. THIS is my campaign, nothing more, nothing less.
Indeed. In an ideal world, everybody would be able to cycle on the roads in safety... yet we have people like certain posters on here that pop up everytime to have an anti-cycling rant (Sillybillies, Pinza-C55, spiritofyork.... etc) who most likely drive on the roads with zero respect for cyclists and so make it dangerous to cycle on the road.

Here's an example of bad driving: at Walmgate Bar junction I was watching as a female cyclist waited until the green light on Foss Islands Road. She was heading into Cemetary Road for Fulford, and so was in the left hand lane. When the lights went green, she set off and cycled across the junction... however a the driver of the flatbed ford transit behind her obviously didn't like being held up for 3 seconds, held his hand on the horn and blasted at her from behind, followed by putting his head out the window and swearing at her. Unfortunately we cannot build cameras to fine drivers for driving in such a dangerous and arrogant manner, but action needs to be taken to "educate" such drivers to show respect for law-abiding cyclists using the road, of which they are entitled to use... and until such actions are taken then York cannot be called a "cycling city", and people will still cycle on the pavements.
More nonsense;
"yet we have people like certain posters on here that pop up everytime to have an anti-cycling rant (Sillybillies, Pinza-C55, spiritofyork.... etc) "
I pointed out that the Law says "You MUST NOT cycle on the pavement". If you wish to break the law that is up to you, but don't say you weren't warned. My posts are concise and don't qualify as "rants" unlike yours which run to the equivalent of an A4 page.
"Here's an example of bad driving:" etc etc etc
Give it up man! You are simply proving my point. Anecdotes about bad car drivers hold no more water than anecdotes about bad cyclists.
"and people will still cycle on the pavements."
And they are breaking the law, and should be fined £30 on the spot.
The fact is that everytime there is a topic that can in any way be related to cyclists, there is a select hardcore of posters who always come on and comment to the words of "cyclists are bad, they are dangerous and we should get rid of them and not encourage them". My comments are the Ying to that Yang... and are long because I provide valid examples to back up a point, that is how a discussion works - not by making a brash statement and then leaving.
[quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Cossham[/bold] wrote: I look forward to a reply from the Police, as there *seems* to be conflicting advice and law. I do not know the answer. I'm a very keen cyclist and I really dislike it when I see adults cycling on pavements. I'm a strong supporter of roads being safe enough to ride bikes on. THIS is my campaign, nothing more, nothing less.[/p][/quote]Indeed. In an ideal world, everybody would be able to cycle on the roads in safety... yet we have people like certain posters on here that pop up everytime to have an anti-cycling rant (Sillybillies, Pinza-C55, spiritofyork.... etc) who most likely drive on the roads with zero respect for cyclists and so make it dangerous to cycle on the road. Here's an example of bad driving: at Walmgate Bar junction I was watching as a female cyclist waited until the green light on Foss Islands Road. She was heading into Cemetary Road for Fulford, and so was in the left hand lane. When the lights went green, she set off and cycled across the junction... however a the driver of the flatbed ford transit behind her obviously didn't like being held up for 3 seconds, held his hand on the horn and blasted at her from behind, followed by putting his head out the window and swearing at her. Unfortunately we cannot build cameras to fine drivers for driving in such a dangerous and arrogant manner, but action needs to be taken to "educate" such drivers to show respect for law-abiding cyclists using the road, of which they are entitled to use... and until such actions are taken then York cannot be called a "cycling city", and people will still cycle on the pavements.[/p][/quote]More nonsense; "yet we have people like certain posters on here that pop up everytime to have an anti-cycling rant (Sillybillies, Pinza-C55, spiritofyork.... etc) " I pointed out that the Law says "You MUST NOT cycle on the pavement". If you wish to break the law that is up to you, but don't say you weren't warned. My posts are concise and don't qualify as "rants" unlike yours which run to the equivalent of an A4 page. "Here's an example of bad driving:" etc etc etc Give it up man! You are simply proving my point. Anecdotes about bad car drivers hold no more water than anecdotes about bad cyclists. "and people will still cycle on the pavements." And they are breaking the law, and should be fined £30 on the spot.[/p][/quote]The fact is that everytime there is a topic that can in any way be related to cyclists, there is a select hardcore of posters who always come on and comment to the words of "cyclists are bad, they are dangerous and we should get rid of them and not encourage them". My comments are the Ying to that Yang... and are long because I provide valid examples to back up a point, that is how a discussion works - not by making a brash statement and then leaving. Magicman!
  • Score: 2

7:33am Thu 23 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

Magicman! wrote:
Pinza-C55 wrote:
Magicman! wrote:
John Cossham wrote:
I look forward to a reply from the Police, as there *seems* to be conflicting advice and law. I do not know the answer. I'm a very keen cyclist and I really dislike it when I see adults cycling on pavements. I'm a strong supporter of roads being safe enough to ride bikes on. THIS is my campaign, nothing more, nothing less.
Indeed. In an ideal world, everybody would be able to cycle on the roads in safety... yet we have people like certain posters on here that pop up everytime to have an anti-cycling rant (Sillybillies, Pinza-C55, spiritofyork.... etc) who most likely drive on the roads with zero respect for cyclists and so make it dangerous to cycle on the road.

Here's an example of bad driving: at Walmgate Bar junction I was watching as a female cyclist waited until the green light on Foss Islands Road. She was heading into Cemetary Road for Fulford, and so was in the left hand lane. When the lights went green, she set off and cycled across the junction... however a the driver of the flatbed ford transit behind her obviously didn't like being held up for 3 seconds, held his hand on the horn and blasted at her from behind, followed by putting his head out the window and swearing at her. Unfortunately we cannot build cameras to fine drivers for driving in such a dangerous and arrogant manner, but action needs to be taken to "educate" such drivers to show respect for law-abiding cyclists using the road, of which they are entitled to use... and until such actions are taken then York cannot be called a "cycling city", and people will still cycle on the pavements.
More nonsense;
"yet we have people like certain posters on here that pop up everytime to have an anti-cycling rant (Sillybillies, Pinza-C55, spiritofyork.... etc) "
I pointed out that the Law says "You MUST NOT cycle on the pavement". If you wish to break the law that is up to you, but don't say you weren't warned. My posts are concise and don't qualify as "rants" unlike yours which run to the equivalent of an A4 page.
"Here's an example of bad driving:" etc etc etc
Give it up man! You are simply proving my point. Anecdotes about bad car drivers hold no more water than anecdotes about bad cyclists.
"and people will still cycle on the pavements."
And they are breaking the law, and should be fined £30 on the spot.
The fact is that everytime there is a topic that can in any way be related to cyclists, there is a select hardcore of posters who always come on and comment to the words of "cyclists are bad, they are dangerous and we should get rid of them and not encourage them". My comments are the Ying to that Yang... and are long because I provide valid examples to back up a point, that is how a discussion works - not by making a brash statement and then leaving.
"The fact is that everytime there is a topic that can in any way be related to cyclists, there is a select hardcore of posters who always come on and comment to the words of "cyclists are bad, they are dangerous and we should get rid of them and not encourage them".
I comment on several topics, including Stonebow House which I think is ugly and should be demolished. That doesn't mean I hate all skyscrapers. My original post addressed the sole topic of whether it was lawful for cyclists to cycle on the pavement, which it is not. I then pointed out the unfairness of applying the law to one group and not another. You responded by calling me a hypocrite which is a term I take strong exception to.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pinza-C55[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Cossham[/bold] wrote: I look forward to a reply from the Police, as there *seems* to be conflicting advice and law. I do not know the answer. I'm a very keen cyclist and I really dislike it when I see adults cycling on pavements. I'm a strong supporter of roads being safe enough to ride bikes on. THIS is my campaign, nothing more, nothing less.[/p][/quote]Indeed. In an ideal world, everybody would be able to cycle on the roads in safety... yet we have people like certain posters on here that pop up everytime to have an anti-cycling rant (Sillybillies, Pinza-C55, spiritofyork.... etc) who most likely drive on the roads with zero respect for cyclists and so make it dangerous to cycle on the road. Here's an example of bad driving: at Walmgate Bar junction I was watching as a female cyclist waited until the green light on Foss Islands Road. She was heading into Cemetary Road for Fulford, and so was in the left hand lane. When the lights went green, she set off and cycled across the junction... however a the driver of the flatbed ford transit behind her obviously didn't like being held up for 3 seconds, held his hand on the horn and blasted at her from behind, followed by putting his head out the window and swearing at her. Unfortunately we cannot build cameras to fine drivers for driving in such a dangerous and arrogant manner, but action needs to be taken to "educate" such drivers to show respect for law-abiding cyclists using the road, of which they are entitled to use... and until such actions are taken then York cannot be called a "cycling city", and people will still cycle on the pavements.[/p][/quote]More nonsense; "yet we have people like certain posters on here that pop up everytime to have an anti-cycling rant (Sillybillies, Pinza-C55, spiritofyork.... etc) " I pointed out that the Law says "You MUST NOT cycle on the pavement". If you wish to break the law that is up to you, but don't say you weren't warned. My posts are concise and don't qualify as "rants" unlike yours which run to the equivalent of an A4 page. "Here's an example of bad driving:" etc etc etc Give it up man! You are simply proving my point. Anecdotes about bad car drivers hold no more water than anecdotes about bad cyclists. "and people will still cycle on the pavements." And they are breaking the law, and should be fined £30 on the spot.[/p][/quote]The fact is that everytime there is a topic that can in any way be related to cyclists, there is a select hardcore of posters who always come on and comment to the words of "cyclists are bad, they are dangerous and we should get rid of them and not encourage them". My comments are the Ying to that Yang... and are long because I provide valid examples to back up a point, that is how a discussion works - not by making a brash statement and then leaving.[/p][/quote]"The fact is that everytime there is a topic that can in any way be related to cyclists, there is a select hardcore of posters who always come on and comment to the words of "cyclists are bad, they are dangerous and we should get rid of them and not encourage them". I comment on several topics, including Stonebow House which I think is ugly and should be demolished. That doesn't mean I hate all skyscrapers. My original post addressed the sole topic of whether it was lawful for cyclists to cycle on the pavement, which it is not. I then pointed out the unfairness of applying the law to one group and not another. You responded by calling me a hypocrite which is a term I take strong exception to. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 1

2:57pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Ninja9 says...

speaking as a cyclist and a driver...
I was horrified to see an official Sky Ride (they were wearing bibs) cycling on a pavement in Bish. It was a very ill-advised place to do it as they were on a very narrow pavement, facing the on-coming traffic on Sim Balk Lane, headed towards the Methodist Church and they shot round the blind corner.
Two big reasons why this was totally unnecessary:
1. It's a village with no busy through roads. The roads are safe to cycle here.
2. There is a cycle path, NCR 65, which goes right through Bish.
WHY would anyone, organising an official cycle route here, ride on a narrow pavement? Talk about giving cyclists a bad name...
speaking as a cyclist and a driver... I was horrified to see an official Sky Ride (they were wearing bibs) cycling on a pavement in Bish. It was a very ill-advised place to do it as they were on a very narrow pavement, facing the on-coming traffic on Sim Balk Lane, headed towards the Methodist Church and they shot round the blind corner. Two big reasons why this was totally unnecessary: 1. It's a village with no busy through roads. The roads are safe to cycle here. 2. There is a cycle path, NCR 65, which goes right through Bish. WHY would anyone, organising an official cycle route here, ride on a narrow pavement? Talk about giving cyclists a bad name... Ninja9
  • Score: 2

4:15pm Thu 23 Jan 14

spiritofyork says...

"Stop Killing Cyclists" more like "Start cycling properly then".

Cyclists are a menace and should be dealt with by the police before people start taking matters into their own hands, which we can see happening almost daily already

The sooner these people are 'managed' the better it will be for motorists and pedestrians.
"Stop Killing Cyclists" more like "Start cycling properly then". Cyclists are a menace and should be dealt with by the police before people start taking matters into their own hands, which we can see happening almost daily already The sooner these people are 'managed' the better it will be for motorists and pedestrians. spiritofyork
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree