advertisement


Cycling log - random events in the day of a cyclist

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's a simple tradeoff between risk and consequences:

Ride on road:
Very small chance of death or very serious injury

Ride on footpath:
Very small chance of a small fine

Not a difficult decision for me. One other important consideration is that I am 'in control' on the pavement, whereas some randomer is holding all the cards when I'm on the road.
Of course this equation is only valid for high risk, few/no pedestrian areas.
 
There's far less risk of my being injured or killed in my 4x4 by taking the Bridleway to Marlow rather than the A404. I don't do that though. It's illegal and irresponsible.
 
You admit you've got a 4X4 as well as being deaf?

What will be your next confession - that you wear a too-tight leather jacket and need to raise your voice because of your hearing deficiencies? :)

BTW I'm sure Steven Toy would have some forum speak for what you just did - "reducto absurdum" or something.
 
Actually I don't drive or cycle anymore but my point stands :)

The law is the law.
 
I just think riding a bike on the pavement does no one any favours. I doubt I'm alone in thinking that.
 
Mullardman said:
I live in what passes, by Lancashire/Merseyside border standards as a 'rural area'. There have been cyclists in the local lanes for all of the 40 years I've lived here. They've never been a problem until the last few years.
Now there are seemingly millions of them. Although there are some that are clearly family groups and some that are clearly very competent/experienced, the bulk seem to be from that same group of 30/40 something males who have got to the stage in life where they can dedicate a bit of cash to a hobby. (And we all here know what a pain in the arse that type can be!)

And the latest craze is?

They are all over the roads on their 'tourers' or whatever. I was confronted with about six of them this morning all too busy chatting ( no doubt about the relative merits of differing bottom brackets or somesuch) to notice that they were allowing legally parked vehicles to force their three wide 'pillokton' over the white line, in direct confrontation with Moi... already part way past another line of legally parked vehicles and travelling in the opposite direction.. I stopped and waited. Not much else to do really. I did give the merest and least aggressive beep I could on my horn. Just to let them know I was there you understand. (Only legal purpose for using the horn IIRC) Mercifully they missed me and went on their merry way.

It is this sudden increase in the popularity of cycling which is causng all the problems. Any old numpty can buy a bike and set off.

When I was a lad there were many fewer cars and many more cyclists. We not only had cycling proficiency classes etc., but in my school, you needed a permit to be allowed to go to school on your bike. Said permit was withdrawn and your bike 'impounded' (In the Tennis Courts) if it was found to be unsafe.

Sadly, the exponential increase in cycling has also resulted in canal towpaths, footpaths of all descriptions, National Parks, mountains, lakesides and even beaches being overrun with the bloody things. Even my local woodland is now a hell hole where some idiot on a 'mountain bike' is liable to emerge from the bushes at head height immediately in front of me with a a shout of 'thanks mate!', as I step back involuntarily in a cross between self preservation and shock.

Is nowhere sacred?

And don't give me all that 'fitness' bollocks.

If you want to get fit, get out of your car, off your bike, off your arse, onto your feet and walk, or run.

It's cheaper. And far less annoying.

Rant over.

Mull
Click to expand...

Like.
 
merlin said:
I just think riding a bike on the pavement does no one any favours. I doubt I'm alone in thinking that.
Click to expand...

http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/

"On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. The then Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:

“The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”

Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by ‘Community Support Officers’ and wardens.

“CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)"
 
Do you remember the copper who threatened to confiscate the bicycle of a four-year-old child for riding on the pavement?
 
The Ironman race is coming to town next weekend. The owner of the taxi firm I work for is planning to close for half a day given that we cannot get around while so many roads are closed. This should not be allowed.
 
Perhaps I could get the taxi trade together and sue the organisers for loss of earnings. If successful it would stop Ironman coming to town again.
 
...or consider the wider benefit to the local economy of a mass participation, international sporting event taking place in your area.
 
Well S Man - you learn something every day. Thanks. I was always under the impression it was strictly forbidden - as I suspect are the majority of pedestrians.

I would still argue it's both bad for cyclists' image and safety in general. The best way to tackle it surely has to be to prevent situations where cyclists fear for their lives in the first place?
 
merlin said:
The best way to tackle it surely has to be to prevent situations where cyclists fear for their lives in the first place?
Click to expand...

But look at the hill I linked to earlier (used on the TdY - poor sods hitting that after 200 k of racing!!!!!). There's a very decent footpath next to a narrow road up an average 1:6.5 gradient, mostly 60MPH limit, and almost no foot traffic. Car drivers hate to be held up my me doing 4MPH probably as much as I dislike them screaming past me at 70MPH. I use the path = win-win!

In a local village I often bunny hop onto the path to let cars past - they often give a toot and a wave to say thanks (at least that's my interpretation :D). It's too windey for them to get past normally. I've never, ever seen anyone walk on that particular stretch of path.

merlin said:
The best way to tackle it surely has to be to prevent situations where cyclists fear for their lives in the first place?
Click to expand...

I agree, and in urban areas it needs serious attention. However I would never expect them to waste money on it in places like my example - East Chevin Road.
 
Steven Toy said:
Perhaps I could get the taxi trade together and sue the organisers for loss of earnings. If successful it would stop Ironman coming to town again.
Click to expand...
The road closures mean you have to take longer routes and therefore earn more for the same jobs. I think you might be on a hiding to nothing there.

It's a typically small minded petty view you're expressing here. There is a substantial community benefit to hosting large sporting events. Tangible and intangible.

While I disapprove in principle of triathlon, swimming and running really should have nothing to do with bike riding, if they wanted to close a road around here for an event I'd be quite happy to make alternative arrangements for the afternoon.

Why not go to transition and watch?


Paul
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Indeed. Football excepted (as it attracts so many drunken violent idiots) I'd be happy for the town centre to be closed off for any big sporting event. I very much enjoyed going to watch the TdF when it came within a few miles of my home last year and it certainly gave the whole region a boost.
 
Tony L said:
Indeed. Football excepted (as it attracts so many drunken violent idiots) I'd be happy for the town centre to be closed off for any big sporting event. I very much enjoyed going to watch the TdF when it came within a few miles of my home last year and it certainly gave the whole region a boost.
Click to expand...

It isn't in the town centre. It's on several of the arterial routes.

Anyway, I'll lose maybe an hour so I'll have a bit of a lie-in after finishing the night before at 4 am. I may even be busier later as a result.

As for prolonging journeys in distance or time, I actually hate doing that, even legitimately.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top