Edit - crap - what happened to my poll options? Trying again... Well, that sucks. Ok, well, the third option was supposed to be 'No, it's always wrong' and the fourth one was 'I don't care either way'. Tch.
As a daily cyclist this is a subject that bothers me a lot, and for some reason it's one that seems to inspire very strong feelings in general. And as I got tutted at today, I thought I'd pass it by others. (tl;dr version: cyclists should be allowed to ride on pavements within reasonable limits)
So, in most countries if not all, cycling on the pavement is illegal (note to Americans: UK 'pavement' = US 'sidewalk'; US 'pavement' = UK 'road'). The logic of this is that a bicycle is a vehicle, and vehicles belong on the road, but it's always seemed to me that this is more of a cultural convention than a logical position - after all, by the same logic wheelchairs should also be banned, and electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters even more so (trust me, those mothers can move!)
Suggest that bikes should be allowed on pavements and people throw their arms up in horror. But those crazy cyclists! They'll be knocking people down left right and centre, and there will be carnage. But I have two answers to this. Firstly, the image people have of reckless cyclists is far in excess of the truth. Sure, most cyclists do occasionally or even regularly break the law - jumping red lights or nipping on to the pavement. But injuries and accidents due to reckless cycling are very rare. According to figures on this page, out of 51,192 injuries to pedestrians in the UK over eight years, there were just 18 deaths and 434 injuries from cyclists. Even taking into account the smaller number of bikes on the road, that's a pretty trifling amount.
The fact is that cyclists are far more at risk from others than any risk they cause. In fact, in my experience most of the time the principal reason for a cyclist to break the law is for their own safety, such as jumping a red light to get ahead of the traffic.
The second point is that there is a simple solution, which is to change the law to allow cycling on the pavement with the following provisos (which are also my own personal code of conduct when cycling on a pavement myself):
1) A speed limit of, say, 10mph on any pavements with doorways that open directly onto them.
2) An absolute right of way of pedestrians over cyclists. If people are in your way, you have to wait. And no furious ringing of bells either.
3) An assumption of liability in the case of accident. Any unintentional collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian is automatically assumed to be the cyclist's fault.
Under those conditions, I believe that a change in the law would not only be fair, but would save lives, by allowing cyclists to avoid dangerous traffic areas without fear of prosecution. And they would also not clog up the pavement, because the speed limit would encourage cyclists to keep to the road whenever possible, just as they do now.
And no one would be allowed to tut at me any more.
As a daily cyclist this is a subject that bothers me a lot, and for some reason it's one that seems to inspire very strong feelings in general. And as I got tutted at today, I thought I'd pass it by others. (tl;dr version: cyclists should be allowed to ride on pavements within reasonable limits)
So, in most countries if not all, cycling on the pavement is illegal (note to Americans: UK 'pavement' = US 'sidewalk'; US 'pavement' = UK 'road'). The logic of this is that a bicycle is a vehicle, and vehicles belong on the road, but it's always seemed to me that this is more of a cultural convention than a logical position - after all, by the same logic wheelchairs should also be banned, and electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters even more so (trust me, those mothers can move!)
Suggest that bikes should be allowed on pavements and people throw their arms up in horror. But those crazy cyclists! They'll be knocking people down left right and centre, and there will be carnage. But I have two answers to this. Firstly, the image people have of reckless cyclists is far in excess of the truth. Sure, most cyclists do occasionally or even regularly break the law - jumping red lights or nipping on to the pavement. But injuries and accidents due to reckless cycling are very rare. According to figures on this page, out of 51,192 injuries to pedestrians in the UK over eight years, there were just 18 deaths and 434 injuries from cyclists. Even taking into account the smaller number of bikes on the road, that's a pretty trifling amount.
The fact is that cyclists are far more at risk from others than any risk they cause. In fact, in my experience most of the time the principal reason for a cyclist to break the law is for their own safety, such as jumping a red light to get ahead of the traffic.
The second point is that there is a simple solution, which is to change the law to allow cycling on the pavement with the following provisos (which are also my own personal code of conduct when cycling on a pavement myself):
1) A speed limit of, say, 10mph on any pavements with doorways that open directly onto them.
2) An absolute right of way of pedestrians over cyclists. If people are in your way, you have to wait. And no furious ringing of bells either.
3) An assumption of liability in the case of accident. Any unintentional collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian is automatically assumed to be the cyclist's fault.
Under those conditions, I believe that a change in the law would not only be fair, but would save lives, by allowing cyclists to avoid dangerous traffic areas without fear of prosecution. And they would also not clog up the pavement, because the speed limit would encourage cyclists to keep to the road whenever possible, just as they do now.
And no one would be allowed to tut at me any more.
