Would Cyclists be safer riding on pavements?
O-J
Posts: 18,846 Forum Member
✭✭
I know in the UK you can't ride bikes on the pavements but Its safer for everyone in my opinion, Is it really a big deal anyway, as long as the bicycle rider has eyes and their breaks are working, they have the power to stop or slow down for pedestrians, to be honest If I cycled I'd rather feel safer on the pavements than on a busy road,
They are more likely to be in accidents on the road than on the pavements, it should be a choice,
They are more likely to be in accidents on the road than on the pavements, it should be a choice,
0
Comments
I agree with Cycle paths if Cyclists are too scared to use the road, or they can bleddy well walk
Well the Home Office don't seem to think it is a big deal. In guidance issued at the same that fixed penalty notices were introduced for pavement cycling, it stated.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10577958/Let-cyclists-go-on-pavements-if-roads-are-dangerous-minister-tells-police.html
If they have to 'stop' and 'slow down' for pavement walkers on the pavement, unless the pavements walkers start to walk at the same speed as a Cyclist riding on a bike, why wouldn't the cyclist just be a pavement walker?
You mean they aren't allowed to ???
Somebody should tell the idiots that charge down them then.
I cycle occasionally but i am fed up of the way that everything cycling related is everybody else's fault the same way that everything accident related to motorcyclists is everybody else's fault.
NEWSFLASH
This country has a hell of a lot of stupid mindless idiotic cyclists both human and engine powered who think rules do not apply to them.
It just needs to be done with discretion when conditions are suitable, which in many places they often are.
I do it all the time when with my daughter on busy roads with un-occupied pavements, never had a complaint from any policeman, PCSO or pedestrian - because we ride with consideration for others and always give pedestrians right of way.
However, fast cyclists - the lycra brigade - need to stay on the roads (even cycle tracks can be inadequate for them when at high speed).
No, it would just mean they would have to act with due care and consideration around vulnerable pavement users just like cyclists expect of drivers on the roads.
Would they have to take a test and apply for a licence and insurance?
Cyclists can get quite vocal with pedestrians if they stray into the cycle lane. I believe that's the only time I've heard a Dutch person swear so far...
Dave
Any vehicle with wheels attached to it and capable of going at a reasonable speed needs to be on a ROAD. There are a number of cyclists (you know the ones - the fashion victims with all the 'gear' who cycle like they are competing in the Tour De France) who will be positively dangerous to pedestrians on the pavements as they are to other road users on the road. There are a growing number of cycle paths built with Lottery Monies for cyclists to use. Even with good brakes it takes distance to stop a bike, just as with a car.
So, in summary, I think it is a ridiculous idea and very unsafe for pedestrians, particularly the old or infirm.
Oh you mean like the mobility scooters driven by the old or infirmed.
Yes - because those people who drive them are as bad often as the 'tour De France' cyclists.:D
I wouldn't go as far as a full driving test and licence, but I can see merits in a CBT for cyclists perhaps in conjunction with the bikeability scheme. I'm also ambivalent on insurance, if a cyclist wants to take the risk of a huge personal injury claim against them so be it.
It's called IGNORANCE.:D
Or maybe stupidity?
Probably both!!:D