Stay off footpath

Stay off footpath

Stay off footpath

First published in Letters by

WHILE more people are taking to riding bicycles, more and more are riding on pavements rather than on road.

Cyclists at least have the option of riding on the road or on the pavement; pedestrians do not have that choice if they want to stay alive.

Cyclists can ride at great speed and do so on roads and pavements. Generally, they ride up behind pedestrians who do not know they are there and may deviate in their walking, for one reason or another, such as old age.

There is no way a cyclist could avoid a collision in such circumstances, which in the elderly could cause severe injury or even death.

Old people have the right to walk in safety on pavements, but they are too frightened of being mowed down to go out, which again can be detrimental to their health.

Another similar hazard is children on scooters, where they can and do travel at great speed on pavements, with parents trailing behind them at great distance.

These children come in droves from schools some dangerously near the edge of the pavement with a very busy Shipton Road inches away.

It is a bad enough that pavements are so badly pot-holed as to cause serious injury to pedestrians without these extra dangers.

Where have the bells gone that used to be on all bikes? At least it would give pedestrians a chance.

C M Ritchie, Alwyne Drive, Shipton Road, York

Comments (16)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:16pm Mon 24 Mar 14

wildthing666 says...

Cycle tracks should not be put on pavements they should be part of the road system. Anyone caught cycling on the pavement should have their cycle conficated.
Cycle tracks should not be put on pavements they should be part of the road system. Anyone caught cycling on the pavement should have their cycle conficated. wildthing666
  • Score: 5

3:43pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Yorkshine1 says...

This is getting pretty monotonous now, and does nobody any favours.
This is getting pretty monotonous now, and does nobody any favours. Yorkshine1
  • Score: 4

4:11pm Mon 24 Mar 14

greenmonkey says...

If motorists want to encourage more cyclists off the pavement and onto the roads, they need to drive with more consideration and pass wide of any on road cyclists! Dont support antisocial pavement cycling, but you can understand why some choose to do this in the interests of 'self preservation' - However they should not pass that risk on to pedestrians, especially the elderly who may not hear them approaching.
If motorists want to encourage more cyclists off the pavement and onto the roads, they need to drive with more consideration and pass wide of any on road cyclists! Dont support antisocial pavement cycling, but you can understand why some choose to do this in the interests of 'self preservation' - However they should not pass that risk on to pedestrians, especially the elderly who may not hear them approaching. greenmonkey
  • Score: 16

5:47pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Dr Robert says...

And the Police do nothing.
And the Police do nothing. Dr Robert
  • Score: 5

9:37pm Mon 24 Mar 14

LindaNess says...

Cyclists are a danger on footpaths, so are motorists who frequently abandon their vehicles completely blocking the pavement, so pedestrians have to leave the path and take their chance on the road.
Cyclists are a danger on footpaths, so are motorists who frequently abandon their vehicles completely blocking the pavement, so pedestrians have to leave the path and take their chance on the road. LindaNess
  • Score: 6

12:19am Tue 25 Mar 14

AnotherPointofView says...

greenmonkey wrote:
If motorists want to encourage more cyclists off the pavement and onto the roads, they need to drive with more consideration and pass wide of any on road cyclists! Dont support antisocial pavement cycling, but you can understand why some choose to do this in the interests of 'self preservation' - However they should not pass that risk on to pedestrians, especially the elderly who may not hear them approaching.
As you are a member of York Council, I feel you are part of this problem. Over the years the council has introduced cycle paths to many of our pavements.

Many cyclists use these cycle paths but when the cycle paths return to the road, many cyclists continue along the path. It would be better if cycle paths occupied part of the road rather than have this hit and miss approach (no pun intended) to where cycle paths are located.
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: If motorists want to encourage more cyclists off the pavement and onto the roads, they need to drive with more consideration and pass wide of any on road cyclists! Dont support antisocial pavement cycling, but you can understand why some choose to do this in the interests of 'self preservation' - However they should not pass that risk on to pedestrians, especially the elderly who may not hear them approaching.[/p][/quote]As you are a member of York Council, I feel you are part of this problem. Over the years the council has introduced cycle paths to many of our pavements. Many cyclists use these cycle paths but when the cycle paths return to the road, many cyclists continue along the path. It would be better if cycle paths occupied part of the road rather than have this hit and miss approach (no pun intended) to where cycle paths are located. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 5

2:36am Tue 25 Mar 14

Magicman! says...

I don't know who opened up this can of worms with the cycling debate again...

The thing is it all goes round in a circle: some motorists drive dangerously past a cyclists and scares the living daylights out of them because they're nearly killed, they then take to cycling on the pavements, same class of motorist who drove dangerously in the first place sees person cycling on pavement and says "look at these law-breaking cyclists riding on the pavement, why should I give them room on the road I pay for through this fictional thing called 'road tax'??", and then they overtake another cyclist in a dangerous manner resulting in them cycling on the pavement too.... and on the circle goes.
Just forcing illegal pavement cyclists onto the roads by enforcement does comply with the law, but it doesn't really tackle the root cause of the problem: and that is people driving with a lack of respect and consideration for other road users.... And until such people are educated to show more respect, pavement cycling will never go away. I do not cycle illegally on pavements unless I have been forced off the road by a dangerous driver, and cannot condone anybody who does ride illegally on pavements, but the fact is there are dangerous drivers out there who have caused this situation.

As for shared pavements, I am not totally convinced by them. Technically the Minster Plazza is a 'shared space', and for cyclists it is quite simply an accident waiting to happen - a skateboarder came out from the middle of a crowd of people the other day and practically went straight at my front wheel there, it was only my well-maintained brakes that prevented a collision; then we have shared pavements without any markings on the surface to show it as being shared, again an accident waiting to happen - a pedestrian will think it's just a normal pavement, and might go to check their phone whilst walking, and because they're looking down they might list to one side just as a bike is coming along and the rider was not prepared for a sudden listing o the pedestrian and then you have a collision....

... I would much rather see a physically segregated cycle lane that is seperated BOTH from pavements and the road. As a trial location, the council could try it on James Street on the side where Hazel Court goes off - take the existing cycle lane, and where the white lines are change those lines for angled kerbstones (not the sudden drop types, the slanted ones), lower the cycle lane to road level, then put in standard kerbstones (double width, or maybe even kassel kerbs) to seperate the cycle lane from the carriageway.... such measures are done in parts of Manchester and they work well, you don't get pedestrians in those dropped cycle lanes and motorists cannot overtake a cyclist really close because the kerbstones physically prevent that.
I don't know who opened up this can of worms with the cycling debate again... The thing is it all goes round in a circle: some motorists drive dangerously past a cyclists and scares the living daylights out of them because they're nearly killed, they then take to cycling on the pavements, same class of motorist who drove dangerously in the first place sees person cycling on pavement and says "look at these law-breaking cyclists riding on the pavement, why should I give them room on the road I pay for through this fictional thing called 'road tax'??", and then they overtake another cyclist in a dangerous manner resulting in them cycling on the pavement too.... and on the circle goes. Just forcing illegal pavement cyclists onto the roads by enforcement does comply with the law, but it doesn't really tackle the root cause of the problem: and that is people driving with a lack of respect and consideration for other road users.... And until such people are educated to show more respect, pavement cycling will never go away. I do not cycle illegally on pavements unless I have been forced off the road by a dangerous driver, and cannot condone anybody who does ride illegally on pavements, but the fact is there are dangerous drivers out there who have caused this situation. As for shared pavements, I am not totally convinced by them. Technically the Minster Plazza is a 'shared space', and for cyclists it is quite simply an accident waiting to happen - a skateboarder came out from the middle of a crowd of people the other day and practically went straight at my front wheel there, it was only my well-maintained brakes that prevented a collision; then we have shared pavements without any markings on the surface to show it as being shared, again an accident waiting to happen - a pedestrian will think it's just a normal pavement, and might go to check their phone whilst walking, and because they're looking down they might list to one side just as a bike is coming along and the rider was not prepared for a sudden listing o the pedestrian and then you have a collision.... ... I would much rather see a physically segregated cycle lane that is seperated BOTH from pavements and the road. As a trial location, the council could try it on James Street on the side where Hazel Court goes off - take the existing cycle lane, and where the white lines are change those lines for angled kerbstones (not the sudden drop types, the slanted ones), lower the cycle lane to road level, then put in standard kerbstones (double width, or maybe even kassel kerbs) to seperate the cycle lane from the carriageway.... such measures are done in parts of Manchester and they work well, you don't get pedestrians in those dropped cycle lanes and motorists cannot overtake a cyclist really close because the kerbstones physically prevent that. Magicman!
  • Score: 8

7:07am Tue 25 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

Magicman! wrote:
I don't know who opened up this can of worms with the cycling debate again...

The thing is it all goes round in a circle: some motorists drive dangerously past a cyclists and scares the living daylights out of them because they're nearly killed, they then take to cycling on the pavements, same class of motorist who drove dangerously in the first place sees person cycling on pavement and says "look at these law-breaking cyclists riding on the pavement, why should I give them room on the road I pay for through this fictional thing called 'road tax'??", and then they overtake another cyclist in a dangerous manner resulting in them cycling on the pavement too.... and on the circle goes.
Just forcing illegal pavement cyclists onto the roads by enforcement does comply with the law, but it doesn't really tackle the root cause of the problem: and that is people driving with a lack of respect and consideration for other road users.... And until such people are educated to show more respect, pavement cycling will never go away. I do not cycle illegally on pavements unless I have been forced off the road by a dangerous driver, and cannot condone anybody who does ride illegally on pavements, but the fact is there are dangerous drivers out there who have caused this situation.

As for shared pavements, I am not totally convinced by them. Technically the Minster Plazza is a 'shared space', and for cyclists it is quite simply an accident waiting to happen - a skateboarder came out from the middle of a crowd of people the other day and practically went straight at my front wheel there, it was only my well-maintained brakes that prevented a collision; then we have shared pavements without any markings on the surface to show it as being shared, again an accident waiting to happen - a pedestrian will think it's just a normal pavement, and might go to check their phone whilst walking, and because they're looking down they might list to one side just as a bike is coming along and the rider was not prepared for a sudden listing o the pedestrian and then you have a collision....

... I would much rather see a physically segregated cycle lane that is seperated BOTH from pavements and the road. As a trial location, the council could try it on James Street on the side where Hazel Court goes off - take the existing cycle lane, and where the white lines are change those lines for angled kerbstones (not the sudden drop types, the slanted ones), lower the cycle lane to road level, then put in standard kerbstones (double width, or maybe even kassel kerbs) to seperate the cycle lane from the carriageway.... such measures are done in parts of Manchester and they work well, you don't get pedestrians in those dropped cycle lanes and motorists cannot overtake a cyclist really close because the kerbstones physically prevent that.
I agree with the last paragraph of your comment, as trying to 'shoe horn' a cycle lane onto an existing road is an accident waiting to happen, but with regard to the part regarding dangerous driving by motorists, I can only say that I drive all the time, I give due regard to cyclists, and with hand on heart I have not yet witnessed this inexcusable disregard to the safety of cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: I don't know who opened up this can of worms with the cycling debate again... The thing is it all goes round in a circle: some motorists drive dangerously past a cyclists and scares the living daylights out of them because they're nearly killed, they then take to cycling on the pavements, same class of motorist who drove dangerously in the first place sees person cycling on pavement and says "look at these law-breaking cyclists riding on the pavement, why should I give them room on the road I pay for through this fictional thing called 'road tax'??", and then they overtake another cyclist in a dangerous manner resulting in them cycling on the pavement too.... and on the circle goes. Just forcing illegal pavement cyclists onto the roads by enforcement does comply with the law, but it doesn't really tackle the root cause of the problem: and that is people driving with a lack of respect and consideration for other road users.... And until such people are educated to show more respect, pavement cycling will never go away. I do not cycle illegally on pavements unless I have been forced off the road by a dangerous driver, and cannot condone anybody who does ride illegally on pavements, but the fact is there are dangerous drivers out there who have caused this situation. As for shared pavements, I am not totally convinced by them. Technically the Minster Plazza is a 'shared space', and for cyclists it is quite simply an accident waiting to happen - a skateboarder came out from the middle of a crowd of people the other day and practically went straight at my front wheel there, it was only my well-maintained brakes that prevented a collision; then we have shared pavements without any markings on the surface to show it as being shared, again an accident waiting to happen - a pedestrian will think it's just a normal pavement, and might go to check their phone whilst walking, and because they're looking down they might list to one side just as a bike is coming along and the rider was not prepared for a sudden listing o the pedestrian and then you have a collision.... ... I would much rather see a physically segregated cycle lane that is seperated BOTH from pavements and the road. As a trial location, the council could try it on James Street on the side where Hazel Court goes off - take the existing cycle lane, and where the white lines are change those lines for angled kerbstones (not the sudden drop types, the slanted ones), lower the cycle lane to road level, then put in standard kerbstones (double width, or maybe even kassel kerbs) to seperate the cycle lane from the carriageway.... such measures are done in parts of Manchester and they work well, you don't get pedestrians in those dropped cycle lanes and motorists cannot overtake a cyclist really close because the kerbstones physically prevent that.[/p][/quote]I agree with the last paragraph of your comment, as trying to 'shoe horn' a cycle lane onto an existing road is an accident waiting to happen, but with regard to the part regarding dangerous driving by motorists, I can only say that I drive all the time, I give due regard to cyclists, and with hand on heart I have not yet witnessed this inexcusable disregard to the safety of cyclists. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 5

10:07am Tue 25 Mar 14

old_geezer says...

"... and with hand on heart I have not yet witnessed this inexcusable disregard to the safety of cyclists." Fair enough, but you can't have done much cycling recently! I've been driving for over 45 years, and am also a frequent cyclist, and I experience it most times I take the bike out.
"... and with hand on heart I have not yet witnessed this inexcusable disregard to the safety of cyclists." Fair enough, but you can't have done much cycling recently! I've been driving for over 45 years, and am also a frequent cyclist, and I experience it most times I take the bike out. old_geezer
  • Score: 6

10:56am Tue 25 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

old_geezer wrote:
"... and with hand on heart I have not yet witnessed this inexcusable disregard to the safety of cyclists." Fair enough, but you can't have done much cycling recently! I've been driving for over 45 years, and am also a frequent cyclist, and I experience it most times I take the bike out.
Thats the reason then, as I dont cycle and have no wish to.
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: "... and with hand on heart I have not yet witnessed this inexcusable disregard to the safety of cyclists." Fair enough, but you can't have done much cycling recently! I've been driving for over 45 years, and am also a frequent cyclist, and I experience it most times I take the bike out.[/p][/quote]Thats the reason then, as I dont cycle and have no wish to. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 1

2:44pm Tue 25 Mar 14

greenmonkey says...

Magicman is right - there is actually a problem with having so many different solutions depending on the space available and costs of implementing a scheme. Confusion easily arises when shared use gives way to segregated space then back onto a narrow on-road lane or nothing! Unfortunately when you try to apply a rigid design principle, we get to the situation at Water Lane junction where a set standard runs up against road capacity - and we all know what happened there! The narrow lanes on Gillygate work up to a point keeping drivers away from the kerb, but then you have the situation experienced last week of a driver pulling over into the lane as I approached, because a bus coming the other way was passing a vehicle loading on the other side of the road. I cussed the driver, asking what was she doing, she said she was moving out of the way of the bus (and into my way instead!) No one was hurt, we just got annoyed with each other! But my response wasnt then to cycle down the pavement.
Magicman is right - there is actually a problem with having so many different solutions depending on the space available and costs of implementing a scheme. Confusion easily arises when shared use gives way to segregated space then back onto a narrow on-road lane or nothing! Unfortunately when you try to apply a rigid design principle, we get to the situation at Water Lane junction where a set standard runs up against road capacity - and we all know what happened there! The narrow lanes on Gillygate work up to a point keeping drivers away from the kerb, but then you have the situation experienced last week of a driver pulling over into the lane as I approached, because a bus coming the other way was passing a vehicle loading on the other side of the road. I cussed the driver, asking what was she doing, she said she was moving out of the way of the bus (and into my way instead!) No one was hurt, we just got annoyed with each other! But my response wasnt then to cycle down the pavement. greenmonkey
  • Score: 2

10:36pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

greenmonkey wrote:
Magicman is right - there is actually a problem with having so many different solutions depending on the space available and costs of implementing a scheme. Confusion easily arises when shared use gives way to segregated space then back onto a narrow on-road lane or nothing! Unfortunately when you try to apply a rigid design principle, we get to the situation at Water Lane junction where a set standard runs up against road capacity - and we all know what happened there! The narrow lanes on Gillygate work up to a point keeping drivers away from the kerb, but then you have the situation experienced last week of a driver pulling over into the lane as I approached, because a bus coming the other way was passing a vehicle loading on the other side of the road. I cussed the driver, asking what was she doing, she said she was moving out of the way of the bus (and into my way instead!) No one was hurt, we just got annoyed with each other! But my response wasnt then to cycle down the pavement.
Are you saying that you were behind the car, and you were both traveling in the same direction?, then as you state a bus coming towards the both of you pulled out to pass a vehicle being loaded on the other side of the road, why didn't the bus give way as he was the one with the vehicle on his side of the road?, but as he didn't and you were presumably not along side the car but behind it, the driver of the car can legally cross into the cycle lane as the cycle lane is marked with a broken line, as she did in this case so that she was not at risk of colliding with the oncoming bus being driven by an inconsiderate bus driver, instead of feeling peeved that a car had crossed into your space why didntvyou read the situation and slowed down, and then as the car pulled away and out of the your cycle lane you would be free to carry on your journey, what's your problem?
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: Magicman is right - there is actually a problem with having so many different solutions depending on the space available and costs of implementing a scheme. Confusion easily arises when shared use gives way to segregated space then back onto a narrow on-road lane or nothing! Unfortunately when you try to apply a rigid design principle, we get to the situation at Water Lane junction where a set standard runs up against road capacity - and we all know what happened there! The narrow lanes on Gillygate work up to a point keeping drivers away from the kerb, but then you have the situation experienced last week of a driver pulling over into the lane as I approached, because a bus coming the other way was passing a vehicle loading on the other side of the road. I cussed the driver, asking what was she doing, she said she was moving out of the way of the bus (and into my way instead!) No one was hurt, we just got annoyed with each other! But my response wasnt then to cycle down the pavement.[/p][/quote]Are you saying that you were behind the car, and you were both traveling in the same direction?, then as you state a bus coming towards the both of you pulled out to pass a vehicle being loaded on the other side of the road, why didn't the bus give way as he was the one with the vehicle on his side of the road?, but as he didn't and you were presumably not along side the car but behind it, the driver of the car can legally cross into the cycle lane as the cycle lane is marked with a broken line, as she did in this case so that she was not at risk of colliding with the oncoming bus being driven by an inconsiderate bus driver, instead of feeling peeved that a car had crossed into your space why didntvyou read the situation and slowed down, and then as the car pulled away and out of the your cycle lane you would be free to carry on your journey, what's your problem? Igiveinthen
  • Score: -2

10:40pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Igiveinthen says...

Are you saying that you were behind the car, and you were both traveling in the same direction?, then as you state a bus coming towards the both of you pulled out to pass a vehicle being loaded on the other side of the road, why didn't the bus give way as he was the one with the vehicle on his side of the road?, but as he didn't and you were presumably not along side the car but behind it, the driver of the car can legally cross into the cycle lane as the cycle lane is marked with a broken line, as she did in this case so that she was not at risk of colliding with the oncoming bus being driven by an inconsiderate bus driver, instead of feeling peeved that a car had crossed into your space why didn't you read the situation and slow down, and then as the car pulled away and out of your cycle lane you would be free to carry on your journey, what's your problem?

Amended version
Are you saying that you were behind the car, and you were both traveling in the same direction?, then as you state a bus coming towards the both of you pulled out to pass a vehicle being loaded on the other side of the road, why didn't the bus give way as he was the one with the vehicle on his side of the road?, but as he didn't and you were presumably not along side the car but behind it, the driver of the car can legally cross into the cycle lane as the cycle lane is marked with a broken line, as she did in this case so that she was not at risk of colliding with the oncoming bus being driven by an inconsiderate bus driver, instead of feeling peeved that a car had crossed into your space why didn't you read the situation and slow down, and then as the car pulled away and out of your cycle lane you would be free to carry on your journey, what's your problem? Amended version Igiveinthen
  • Score: -1

11:18pm Tue 25 Mar 14

SB Dubs says...

Just live on Fulford Road, you have a choice of cycle paths either on the road or on the footpath, the choice is yours. Dont worry if elderly people are walking along, if the path is particularly narrow or if, infact it isn't s real cycle path. Just carry on because you will have the support of your local cycling councillor.
Just live on Fulford Road, you have a choice of cycle paths either on the road or on the footpath, the choice is yours. Dont worry if elderly people are walking along, if the path is particularly narrow or if, infact it isn't s real cycle path. Just carry on because you will have the support of your local cycling councillor. SB Dubs
  • Score: -1

11:42am Wed 26 Mar 14

It'sallso'Tragic' says...

I think cycling on the pavement is out of order. Some cyclists need to follow the rules of the road and not only stay off pavements but also obey red lights, cycle the correct way down one way streets etc. But this is the same for drivers too, for example a bus came through a red light the other day and nearly hit me. There are bad eggs in all camps, including pedestrians.

I agree with some of the points in the letter, cyclists on pavements are a danger. I couldn't agree more about children on scooters, they are not only a danger to others but also themselves, the number of them that don't stop at junctions is fightening. They also have no awareness or consideration for others, forcing people to move out of their way and racing towards dogs being walked. But they are children and need to be taught these things, which doesn't appear to be happening.

I'm all for getting cyclists off pavements, but what about getting pedestrians off cycle paths?! The cycle path at the top of Water End at the traffic lights to Boroughbridge Road is constantly used by dog walkers and pedestrians, despite it being clearly marked. But then if you look at the layout of that section of road surely it makes more sense for cyclists to have the path next to the road?

The issue continues down Water End with walkers on the cycle path and as a cyclist getting down on to the road to pass them is dangerous as the curb is pretty high. Again this stretch is clearly marked as a cycle route with a foot path on the other side of the road.

Down by the river is the same story, walkers obliviously wandering in to the cycle lane, despite a thick, raised white line and pictures of bicycles every couple of metres. Who then usually give the cyclist abuse when they ring their bells and try to pass them.

Everyone using the roads, paths etc need to ensure they are following the rules and being considerate and until this happens letters like this will continue to be written and tempers will flare.

I do however find it odd that someone with no road experience or knowledge can pick up a bike and use the roads. Drivers have to take theory and practical exams to prove their knowledge and suitability to use them. Perhaps mandatory road safety training should be introduced for cyclists who do not have a vehicle license?
I think cycling on the pavement is out of order. Some cyclists need to follow the rules of the road and not only stay off pavements but also obey red lights, cycle the correct way down one way streets etc. But this is the same for drivers too, for example a bus came through a red light the other day and nearly hit me. There are bad eggs in all camps, including pedestrians. I agree with some of the points in the letter, cyclists on pavements are a danger. I couldn't agree more about children on scooters, they are not only a danger to others but also themselves, the number of them that don't stop at junctions is fightening. They also have no awareness or consideration for others, forcing people to move out of their way and racing towards dogs being walked. But they are children and need to be taught these things, which doesn't appear to be happening. I'm all for getting cyclists off pavements, but what about getting pedestrians off cycle paths?! The cycle path at the top of Water End at the traffic lights to Boroughbridge Road is constantly used by dog walkers and pedestrians, despite it being clearly marked. But then if you look at the layout of that section of road surely it makes more sense for cyclists to have the path next to the road? The issue continues down Water End with walkers on the cycle path and as a cyclist getting down on to the road to pass them is dangerous as the curb is pretty high. Again this stretch is clearly marked as a cycle route with a foot path on the other side of the road. Down by the river is the same story, walkers obliviously wandering in to the cycle lane, despite a thick, raised white line and pictures of bicycles every couple of metres. Who then usually give the cyclist abuse when they ring their bells and try to pass them. Everyone using the roads, paths etc need to ensure they are following the rules and being considerate and until this happens letters like this will continue to be written and tempers will flare. I do however find it odd that someone with no road experience or knowledge can pick up a bike and use the roads. Drivers have to take theory and practical exams to prove their knowledge and suitability to use them. Perhaps mandatory road safety training should be introduced for cyclists who do not have a vehicle license? It'sallso'Tragic'
  • Score: 0

2:32pm Wed 26 Mar 14

MarkyMarkMark says...

Okay, I'll bite ......

Notwithstanding that there shouldn't be any adult cyclists on the footway at the side of the roads....

Original letter is stating several opinions/supposition as facts, with nothing other than anecdotal evidence.

"WHILE more people are taking to riding bicycles, more and more are riding on pavements rather than on road." Really? Numbers please? Any proof of this assertion please other than the fact you've noticed a few who managed to annoy you?

"Cyclists can ride at great speed and do so on roads and pavements. Generally, they ride up behind pedestrians who do not know they are there and may deviate in their walking..." So, on roads, there shouldn't be a problem, should there? You've already pointed out the fact that you think pedestrians shouldn't use the road and expect to live. But if you can ride at great speed on a pavement (especially since you've also claimed they are too badly potholed to walk on safely) you're a better cyclist than most.

"There is no way a cyclist could avoid a collision in such circumstances, which in the elderly could cause severe injury or even death." Again, that's your perception. Travelling at about 10 mph on the bike, there's a speed differential of somewhere around 7 or 8 mph and the RoSPA/NHS stats seem to show very low levels of serious injury or death after impact even with a car at that speed. Even one death is too many, but based on that argument statistically you would have a much stronger argument for banning cars from the pavement - more pedestrian deaths on the pavements are caused by cars each year. So let's get enforcement of the existing laws around driving dangerously (since a car driver would never choose to drive on the roadside pavements.....) sorted first, then get ratty with cyclists.

"Old people have the right to walk in safety on pavements, but they are too frightened of being mowed down to go out, which again can be detrimental to their health." What, all of them? Give us a feel for how many old people you've actually spoken to out of the population of the city, please.

"Another similar hazard is children on scooters, where they can and do travel at great speed on pavements, with parents trailing behind them at great distance." Hmm. Great speed. I doubt it. They only have litte wheels, and scooting is painfully inefficient compared to cycling. Annoying, yes. Dangerous, probably not.

"These children come in droves from schools some dangerously near the edge of the pavement with a very busy Shipton Road inches away." There are droves of children along the edges of the Shipton Road pavement on their scooters? Can't say I've noticed that, ever. I agree it's stupid to let your children scoot unattended alongside a busy main road, though.

"Where have the bells gone that used to be on all bikes? At least it would give pedestrians a chance." They're still fitted when sold. I regularly use mine to ring at pedestrians and dog walkers on the cycle paths, and it gives them plenty of time to compose their preferred terms of abuse before I reach them.

And then, there is the vexed issue of dog walkers and pedestrians on a "cycle path" as highlighted by "It'sallsotragic". I expect it to be used by others who are not on two wheels. But I would appreciate a little more understanding that it is still primarily a cycle track. I've started counting the numpties & types I encounter each day. The ratio this morning was 2 responsible dog walkers to 3 complete dog walker pillocks who were unaware of the whole existence of anyone else in the world....
Okay, I'll bite ...... Notwithstanding that there shouldn't be any adult cyclists on the footway at the side of the roads.... Original letter is stating several opinions/supposition as facts, with nothing other than anecdotal evidence. "WHILE more people are taking to riding bicycles, more and more are riding on pavements rather than on road." Really? Numbers please? Any proof of this assertion please other than the fact you've noticed a few who managed to annoy you? "Cyclists can ride at great speed and do so on roads and pavements. Generally, they ride up behind pedestrians who do not know they are there and may deviate in their walking..." So, on roads, there shouldn't be a problem, should there? You've already pointed out the fact that you think pedestrians shouldn't use the road and expect to live. But if you can ride at great speed on a pavement (especially since you've also claimed they are too badly potholed to walk on safely) you're a better cyclist than most. "There is no way a cyclist could avoid a collision in such circumstances, which in the elderly could cause severe injury or even death." Again, that's your perception. Travelling at about 10 mph on the bike, there's a speed differential of somewhere around 7 or 8 mph and the RoSPA/NHS stats seem to show very low levels of serious injury or death after impact even with a car at that speed. Even one death is too many, but based on that argument statistically you would have a much stronger argument for banning cars from the pavement - more pedestrian deaths on the pavements are caused by cars each year. So let's get enforcement of the existing laws around driving dangerously (since a car driver would never choose to drive on the roadside pavements.....) sorted first, then get ratty with cyclists. "Old people have the right to walk in safety on pavements, but they are too frightened of being mowed down to go out, which again can be detrimental to their health." What, all of them? Give us a feel for how many old people you've actually spoken to out of the population of the city, please. "Another similar hazard is children on scooters, where they can and do travel at great speed on pavements, with parents trailing behind them at great distance." Hmm. Great speed. I doubt it. They only have litte wheels, and scooting is painfully inefficient compared to cycling. Annoying, yes. Dangerous, probably not. "These children come in droves from schools some dangerously near the edge of the pavement with a very busy Shipton Road inches away." There are droves of children along the edges of the Shipton Road pavement on their scooters? Can't say I've noticed that, ever. I agree it's stupid to let your children scoot unattended alongside a busy main road, though. "Where have the bells gone that used to be on all bikes? At least it would give pedestrians a chance." They're still fitted when sold. I regularly use mine to ring at pedestrians and dog walkers on the cycle paths, and it gives them plenty of time to compose their preferred terms of abuse before I reach them. And then, there is the vexed issue of dog walkers and pedestrians on a "cycle path" as highlighted by "It'sallsotragic". I expect it to be used by others who are not on two wheels. But I would appreciate a little more understanding that it is still primarily a cycle track. I've started counting the numpties & types I encounter each day. The ratio this morning was 2 responsible dog walkers to 3 complete dog walker pillocks who were unaware of the whole existence of anyone else in the world.... MarkyMarkMark
  • Score: 0

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