Who's right of way on the pavement ?

[Arthurgray50@blu]

I was going to work this morning and reading a paper, when l heard ' Out the way' looked up, and there was this damn cyclist on the pavement, making me move out of the way as he wanted to pass.

I felt that should l push him off, or stand in his way and let him hit me.

Who has right of way on the pavement, him or me, or have they never heard of the road.

You. He should be on the road - Highway Code rule 64.

[Derek]

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAn...code/DG_069837

next time stick your elbow out accidentally of course.

You have right of way - however, you also have the responsibility to be looking where you are going (reading the paper whilst walking may restrict this ability....).

[Ignitionnet]

Some pavements are shared use.

62
Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated).

This certainly applies to a number of them in TW1.

That said he could have tried 'Excuse me' rather than demanding you move, what an obnoxious prat.

Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary.

[Pog66]

We also have a lot of Cycle tracks on pavements - usually they are separated by a white line and pedestrians & cyclists should be aware of which side of the line is theirs (but often don't - as a pedestrian and a cyclist I have been victim to that).
There are also some shared use paths that are only single track - where the pedestrian surely has right of way?

If of course it was just a pavement then the cyclist is totally in the wrong - get those elbows going Arthur

[techguyone]

I try and avoid roads when I'm on my bike, too many big trucks trying to make you a splat on the tarmac, i try and avoid pavements too and go cross country, but I must admit to feeling an awful lot safer on the pavement than in the road.

I do wonder what will happen in the future, as you see more and more of these mobility scooter thngies out and about.

and they're everywhere, road, pavement, in shops etc.

And whilst not undermining anyone who genuinely needs one of these things, I do see a trend where more and more younger, fit bodied types use them as 'alternative transport' to get about on.

I know what I said in reply to the little snot who didn't even warn me he was on the pavement while I had my back to him..and I was 25 years younger and 8 months pregnant at the time..He was lucky not to get a slap as well.As it was I had to sit on a neighbour's wall for some considerable time to recover.

All bikes should be licensed so you can at least report the prats.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

All bikes should be licensed so you can at least report the prats.

And car airbags should be replaced with sharp metal spikes

[Tezcatlipoca]

Ah, obnoxious & dangerous cyclists...

There have been plenty of times I've seen cyclists shoot through red lights at pedestrian crossings (whether clear of pedestrians or not), and plenty of times I've seen cyclists cut people up (including myself) on pedestrian-only pavements.



Reminds me of this recent story:

Is dangerous cycling a problem?

Originally Posted by BBC News

MPs could introduce a new offence of causing death by dangerous cycling. But how much of a danger do these two-wheeled travellers really pose?

There is little that divides UK public opinion more sharply than cyclists.

To their supporters, Britain's bike-riders are clean, green, commuters-with-a-conscience, who relieve congestion on the nation's roads while keeping themselves fit.

But to certain newspapers, and indeed plenty of motorists, they are "lycra louts", jumping red lights, hurtling past pedestrians on pavements and denying the Highway Code applies to them.

Now this debate - regularly articulated, with the aid of Anglo-Saxon dialect, during rush-hour traffic - has found a forum in the House of Commons, where MP Andrea Leadsom has introduced a private members' bill to create new crimes of causing death or serious injury through dangerous or reckless cycling.

She cites the case of Rhiannon Bennett, who was 17 when she was killed by a speeding cyclist in 2007. The cyclist - who, the court heard, had shouted at Rhiannon to "move because I'm not stopping" - was fined £2,200 and avoided jail.

The MP, herself a keen cyclist, insists she does not want to penalise Britons from getting on their bikes. Her intention is to ensure all road users take "equal responsibility" for their actions, as drivers are already subject to analogous legislation. The government has said it will consider supporting the bill.

But the discussion raises the question of how much of a danger bicycles actually pose on the nation's roads.

[bw41101]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

All bikes should be licensed so you can at least report the prats.

Not only that, they should carry insurance as well. Especially when you see the megga prats who seem to think that they have a god given right to peedle through red traffic lights!

I've seen a few accidents caused by this irresponsible behaviour, in fact the last time this happened (being at the junction opposite - with a clear view) I deliberately came forward as a witness to make sure that the cyclist concerned was brought to book. In fact he tried to escape but was quickly stopped by a community support officer who just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

There's justice for you - obviously one of those more satisfying moments.

Si thee

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I was going to work this morning and reading a paper, when l heard ' Out the way' looked up, and there was this damn cyclist on the pavement, making me move out of the way as he wanted to pass.

I felt that should l push him off, or stand in his way and let him hit me.

Who has right of way on the pavement, him or me, or have they never heard of the road.

He would have been given a very big push by me, In defense to stop him riding in to me

[Arthurgray50@blu]

There are two sides to this problem of cycling on the pavement and on the road.

1) By cycling on the pavement, you are in danger of doing many things, one you can knock someone down, and seriously injure them, you can knock someone down who may have an injury already or even expecting, so who can you claim damages off - no one.

2) If a cyclist is on the road and an accident happens, and the cyclist gets injured in a car accident or gets squashed up against a lorry or car - so you can claim damages.
What about going through red lights and causing accidents then whose fault is it.

I have seen cyclist go up to the red lights, cycle on the pavement go across the road and rejoin the road further up, In London they tried out a scheme where igf you cycled through a red light, you would be stopped and fined.

To me when you buy a cycle (Adults) you have to sign a document, saying you obtain insurance within sat 7 days, like you do with a Tv, you need a licence. So if a cyclist has an accident, you can sue.

To me

[Ignitionnet]

Complain to Hounslow and/or Europe on this one. European law on cycle paths, implemented locally.