Who's right of way on the pavement ?

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by danielf

I'm insured...

But you are not the cyclist referred to above.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Masque

But you are not the cyclist referred to above.

No, but that person may be insured. BTW: Are you insured when you're a pedestrian?

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by danielf

No, but that person may be insured.

What for being a lunatic flying through a red light, they should be sectioned instead as the carnage such stupidity like that can cause is usually left behind well them.

[Angua]

Now the other side of the coin is - if a cyclist gets off their bike & pushes it along the pavement they are taking up more room than if they cycled, but they would be going at a slower speed so easier for the pedestrian. Not so good where there is a narrow pavement where the cyclist could get through in a couple of seconds but far longer to walk. Especially as the cars are 2" from the kerb so no room for the cyclist there. Yet if they stayed on the road the car drivers would be impatiently waiting to get by or forced into oncoming traffic to overtake.

As a cyclist I get very annoyed with other cyclists who hog the pavement especially when the roads are perfectly fine. Also get peeved with the dog walkers and retractable leads, drivers who go through on red and who drive too close to the kerb.

All groups have their faults. Cyclists seem to be worse in university towns/cities. Car drivers & pedestrians in rural areas.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Masque

What for being a lunatic flying through a red light, they should be sectioned instead as the carnage such stupidity like that can cause is usually left behind well them.

Not for breaking the highway code obviously. The point was that you appeared to be assuming that all cyclists are uninsured. They aren't all. It's very easy to include public liability in your household insurance. It isn't expensive either. I have. It means I'm insured as a pedestrian or cyclist (but excludes motorised vehicles). Are you?

[craigj2k12]

i had this conversation with a police officer recently. he told me that while it isnt illegal to cycle on the pavement, the police advise against it, because if you hit anyone you can be sued

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by danielf

Not for breaking the highway code obviously. The point was that you appeared to be assuming that all cyclists are uninsured. They aren't all. It's very easy to include public liability in your household insurance. It isn't expensive either. I have. It means I'm insured as a pedestrian or cyclist (but excludes motorised vehicles). Are you?

Automatically in my policy.

I still see no reason why adult cyclists should be treated differently than other road users and should have their cycles tested, taxed and insured and the rider to pass a road riding test to get a licence.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Masque

Automatically in my policy.

I still see no reason why adult cyclists should be treated differently than other road users and should have their cycles tested, taxed and insured and the rider to pass a road riding test to get a licence.

It just seems pointless and overly complex to me. At a time when there's massive congestion, pollution and obesity at record levels, we should make it easier for people to get on bikes. Not more difficult. Do we really want to prevent a father from taking his son on a bike ride by making him take a test and pay tax beforehand? Want to hire a bike for the day while on vacation? No sir, you first need to take a riding test offered at designated testing stations on Mondays between the hours of 8.43 en 9.24. It's stupid, and it's not going to happen.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by danielf

It just seems pointless and overly complex to me. At a time when there's massive congestion, pollution and obesity at record levels, we should make it easier for people to get on bikes. Not more difficult. Do we really want to prevent a father from taking his son on a bike ride by making him take a test and pay tax beforehand? Want to hire a bike for the day while on vacation? No sir, you first need to take a riding test offered at designated testing stations on Mondays between the hours of 8.43 en 9.24. It's stupid, and it's not going to happen.

It would stop the morons getting on a bike though.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Masque

It would stop the morons getting on a bike though.

It would be better to make the morons behave imo. Just fine them for breaking the rules. I have no problem with that. To punish all cyclists for stupid behaviour (largely confined to London and Cambridge it seems) is just silly. Cycling is an excellent workout, it's clean and (nearly) every commuter on a bike that you encounter in the morning is one car less clogging up the road in ahead of you. You should try it some time. You might enjoy it

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Masque

It would stop the morons getting on a bike though.

I'm not sure it would. After all, we still have morons driving cars while uninsured and untaxed.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Stuart

I'm not sure it would. After all, we still have morons driving cars while uninsured and untaxed.

If caught the car gets crushed and they get a massive fine.

[danielf]

And even that doesn't deter them...

[dave6x]

Originally Posted by craigj2k11

i had this conversation with a police officer recently. he told me that while it isnt illegal to cycle on the pavement, the police advise against it, because if you hit anyone you can be sued

Not sure your policeman was correct! The following is an extract from http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cy...nd_the_law.php

Cycling on footways (a pavement at the side of a carriageway) is prohibited by Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, amended by Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888. This is punishable by a fixed penalty notice of £30 under Section 51 and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Cyclists have no right to cycle on a footpath away from the road but only commit an offence where local by-laws or traffic regulation orders create such an offence.

Paul Kitson, partner at cyclist-friendly solicitor Russell, Jones and Walker of London says: "There may also be offences committed in relation to 'walkways' (which is a footpath under a walkway agreement) under Section 35 of the Highways Act 1980. However, the conditions on which these can be ridden is dependent on local council bye-laws, which vary from council to council."

Could be a bit confusing cycling in different areas when you don't know the local bye-laws though!!!

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by danielf

And even that doesn't deter them...

We all know that on both sides but we can all hope.