Poll: Cycling on the pavement / sidewalk

[TehCookie]

I'm for moving out of the way of the bigger vehicle, after all the one with less metal is going to be hurt more.

 

[mbarker]

I got hit by a cyclist on the sidewalk once I do not want that to happen to me again. How about It stays illegal for cyclists to travel on sidewalks but there are dedicated cycling lanes on the city streets. The people in wheelchairs and scooters swhouldn't use sidewalks because the equipment is the same as a bike.

"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!)"

I hope you were just being facetious.

 

[Souplex]

It's already illegal everywhere that matters.
I think there are exceptions if you're a little kid though.

 

[Souplex]

No.
My country has dedicated bicycle lanes. Look it up. Tell your governments to make some.

You mean those things that the pedestrians think is an extra lane of sidewalk and therefore decide to walk in?
Or that motorists think are there for them to park in?
We can impose more restrictions on cyclists when they make it legal for any cyclist to smack anything that's not on a bike in the bike lane with their bike locks.

 

[Xisin]

I don't think bikes should be on sidewalks. Frankly it's non-issue where I'm from and where I live now. The island I'm from has bike lanes and even a bike highway that cuts straight through. Where I live now has no sidewalks...so yea.

 

[likalaruku]

Bicycles need to be on the sidewalk & off the roads. A kid on a slow bike can't do nearly as much damage to a pedestrian as a car can do to a person on a bike.

 

[Tayh]

You mean those things that the pedestrians think is an extra lane of sidewalk and therefore decide to walk in?
Or that motorists think are there for them to park in?
We can impose more restrictions on cyclists when they make it legal for any cyclist to smack anything that's not on a bike in the bike lane with their bike locks.

It's not impossible.

 

[teebeeohh]

no, make your locale government build dedicated bicycle lanes.
around these parts we have a good infrastructure in terms of dedicated bicycle lanes and kids under 10(and i think adults who accompany them) are supposed to ride on the sidewalk/pavement anyway.
i do however have to admit i live in hipster bicycle central and thus the people here extremly annoying, ignoring rules left and right, taking their bikes on a crowded train(because how else would their colleagues know they ride their bike every day?) and being overall annoying twats.
i also read an really interesting article a couple of years ago about how the young, educated well off people would have bought a mercedes and acted like it gave them the right of way ten years ago but will know buy 10000? bikes and act the same way, only they are way more dangerous to pedestrians.

 

[SwimmingRock]

No.
My country has dedicated bicycle lanes. Look it up. Tell your governments to make some.

I wish it was that simple. Holland also has bike lanes, but I've still been hit by cyclists on the pavement multiple times. Worryingly, always from behind. They just give 0 fucks. They don't even ring their bell or anything. Just slam into you. Worst was one time I got hit from behind and fell down as a result. Girl who hit me also fell down, but her 3 friends got off their bikes and started kicking me. So, yeah, fuck cyclists who ride on the pavement.

 

[Vegosiux]

Anyway, bikes have no business sharing either the road or the sidewalk. They're too slow for roads, and piss off drivers because of it, and they're too fast for the sidewalk, making them a danger to pedestrians. They should only be allowed in designated bike lanes, where they belong.

Well, I disagree but that's likely cause of our traffic regulations - if there's no bike lane, cyclists have right to use up to 1 meter width of the road on the side. It does work quite well.

 

[Tom_green_day]

I am always having to dodge out the way of a cyclist while on the pavement, and am always seeing cyclists knocked over... but rarely on the road. More often on the pavement, on lights or bins. Also, it's more often than not children who are crashing into things on the pavement- they should be the first people off the pavement!
Now I seem like an old man. I'm still in school, and the people who cycle in are really, really bad cyclists.

 

[TheSYLOH]

I've seen alot of anectdotal evidence in this thread.
"I've almost been knocked down by a cyclist!"
"I've seen bicyles swerving"
The fact is this.
For the UK:
Casualties from Cyclist Hitting Pedestrians : 18 dead, 434 injured, Over 10 years 2001-2009
Casualties from Cyclists on road: 104 deaths, 2606 injured, over ONE year 2009
http://road.cc/content/news/24515-updated-2009-road-casualty-stats-show-uk-cycling-deaths-continuing-fall

I agree with the rules posted by the OP.
But think that he should add another.
"These rules only apply on roads where cars are going more than 40 mph,with out a bike lane."
I think at that point the safety gained by the pedestrians outweighs the saftey gained by the cyclist.

 

[Raikas]

As a pedestrian living in a city with designated bike lanes, I find it is a common occurrence for me to be struck or nearly struck while on the sidewalk. It happens more frequently in a tunnel where there is a sign explicitly banning riding bikes and instructing cyclists to walk their vehicles. The signage is routinely ignored, and I frequently find myself in minor altercations with individuals whose convenience was more important than my safety.

This.

I live in a city with extensive bike lanes (I use them myself to get to the train station), and despite that I'm regularly forced to jump into the street to avoiding oncoming bikes while I'm out running or walking my dog. And never mind the mountain bikes who nearly run me down on trails on the weekends.

The laws here do make exceptions for young children, but if you're over the age of 10 and you're biking somewhere other than the road or a bike path (or your own private property), I'm going to think you're a selfish jackass. That said, I'd be happy to extend the exception to adults below a certain height (because that's the same danger as for kids - and in those snarky references to scooters and wheelchairs - they're below a drivers line of vision).

I'm a bike commuter myself, so I appreciate the fear of getting hit by a car, but the way to improve that is for cyclists to have more of a presence on the street, not less. And certainly not to create a situation where people are even more resentful of cyclists than they already are (which is what cyclists on pedestrian walkways causes).

 

[farscythe]

i voted for yes but regulated
i cycle 50 km everyday just for work and to me the pavement is the idiot escape route (i dont actually use it unless im avoiding some idiot) and the sad thing is...since moving from the uk to the netherlands where bike lanes are nice..and everywhere... im still having to use the idiot escape route almost daily.

the two main causes being students cycling 4 abreast the wrong way and flat out refusing to give me a lil room, and...people texting whilst cycling and never even noticing me(seriously fuck those guys)
[edit]those being the two main one in the netherlands where i can actually get to work without having to go near a road.. in the uk it was a mix of drivers just not seeing me and those flat out aiming for me in their cars

so yea.. either get the idiots of the streets... or let me have a lil liberty with sidewalks.

that said... bikes do not belong in town centres, just cycle in park up and walk around the shops like everyone else...

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Either way, be where I'm not. Else, I won't feel a shred of sympathy when this happens to you.

Spoiler

holy shit thats nuts.

In suburban America, cyclists are the primary users of most pavement. This is largely because America spaces their suburban areas too far apart to make walking a worthwhile endeavor. I used to cycle home from work about 16 kilos/10 miles, did that every day for almost two years. I can count on one hand the number of times I encountered someone else on the pavement. Kept me off the road and away from cars, everyone was perfectly happy with the situation.

and this. walking distances suck unless you are on campus for college, so 90% of the time at least cyclists are the only ones using the sidewalks, as it is 10x safer than going up and down hills with cars zooming by you.

i can understand cities that have nice setups of bicycle lanes and the flow of traffic being slower, but living in a very car-centric area you are just asking to die if you only use the roads for bicycle travel.

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.

This works so much better if we have pictures. I'll post a picture, and what I think makes sense regarding bicycling.

For this:

The primary people riding bicycles are going to be kids, and they SHOULD ride on the sidewalk, as it's far safer than the road, though for older bicyclists it really doesn't matter much since car speed is low.

For this, which is the main road just outside my neighborhood:

The speed limit is 45 mph here, and 55 mph just beyond here in both directions, so riding on the sidewalk is far, far safer than on the road, and only 'pro' bicyclists would even consider riding on the road. In California, the equivalent type of road tends to have very wide shoulders or dedicated bicyclist lanes, but anywhere that doesn't should ride on the sidewalk for safety.

I can't find a picture that would fit your first point, but outside of cities, it doesn't fit at all. In general, if you're in a city, use the damn bike line if there is one, but it should hardly matter, since everyone is going slow to begin with. If it's a road with a decent speed, unless you're a 'pro' bicyclist, just use the sidewalk, it's safer.

nice illustrations and i agree to this.

 

[The Last Nomad]

Woah woah woah woah... woah...

Since when is cycling on the pavement/sidewalk/footpath illegal? Not that I care all that much about petty laws, i do as i like on my bike as with all things but i never knew i was breaking the law every single day i go to college, only most days, in other ways.

But yeah, lets pretend i already knew this information. It should most definitely not be illegal. Its far more dangerous for everyone for bikes to be on the road then on the pavement. Sure it can lead to injuries, but its only rare that it leads to death. If a bike is involved in a crash on the road with cars, the cyclist ain't walking away from that and is most likely not walking anywhere ever again if they are even alive.

Or y'know, bike lanes?

 

[Pebkio]

What, do you think cyclists are just looking for the perfect to make sweet jumps? I honestly think the danger to cyclists on a road with speeding masses of metal is much much greater to pedestrians who might get knocked over. But maybe I'm just Mr. No Fear. I probably won't mind cars weaving around me, as long they didn't hit me. Back to the point though, bicyclists having to share the road with crazy taxi seems a bit risky just to appease whiny walkers. I like to walk more than ride and I've never had to deal with bikers aiming for my nuts.

Methinks, more than anything, it's walkers who complain: "bicycles go fast and get near me, I am afeared so you should make them have to risk life and limb dodging drivers in massive, two-ton, wide-as-the-road, trucks".

 

[Proverbial Jon]

And as I got tutted at today,

You got what now?

*Looks up "tutted"*
Tutting is the name given to a contemporary abstract interpretive street dance style that exploits the body's ability to create...

Someone danced at you?

You seriously don't know what tutting is? Hmm, perhaps it's a British thing. It's hard to explain without actually doing it but it's that sort of dismissive clicking sound you make with your tongue. That, my friend, is how you "tutt." It's for those occasions of minor annoyance that don't warrant full confrontation but can't be allowed to pass without a token display of displeasure.

OT: I don't know how I feel about this. It's kinda like the problem with motorcycles. Motorcyclists seem to think they have a raw deal over here in the UK because motorists don't pay enough attention and there's always accidents where, naturally, the motorcyclist comes off worse. Fine, I'm not disputing that, some drivers are dickheads, fact.

BUT

I have seen some crazy daredevil motorcyclists in my time who are surely only one stunt away from ending up embedded in the front of the next car to turn the corner.

It's a situation where no single party will ever win while idiots still prevail in society.

Woah woah woah woah... woah...

Since when is cycling on the pavement/sidewalk/footpath illegal?

It's definitely illegal in England; I don't know about other countries though.

 

[Wakey87]

In my part of the UK the police don't realy mind you on the pavement. Tbh they don't mind us cramming 3 people into a 1 seat tractor and 5 or 6 of us standing up on the back of a trailer bouncing down the road either. It might just be that I live in the country side and they see it everyday.

 

[jwonno]

Sure, why not. Heck might as well let Motorbikes on there too. I mean as long as we can assume all of them will be sensible, right?

[unmistakable sarcasm]

Obviously the laws are there to protect people. I have personally been hit by cyclists wile walking on the pavement no less than three times. As an occasional cyclist myself, I pretty much ride as I do in a motorised vehicle, with the exception of taking extra precautions and providing courtesy to faster moving vehicles.

Most of the problems with cyclists on pavements, and anywhere else for that matter, come from the same reason as motor-vehicle drivers: Arrogance. The belief that they know best and are fully capable of ensuring the safety of everyone and everything around them, because they are better at driving than the the government believes is statistically the case. The government are continuously testing and analysing data on safe limits than can be applied to everyone, not Lewis Hamilton or Lance Armstrong.

If passing strangers disliking your actions is that disconcerting to you, then the answer is to follow the law so they don't do it. If you're 'good enough' to manoeuvre around pedestrians and on/off pavements, why not just stick to the road?