Cyclists on Footpaths!

[Colin James]

On 03/11/2017 at 20:25, Clarkester said:

I agree, if you re-read pretty much all my posts, I am not defending people like the chap in the picture, far from it, I think they deserve to be punished as I have said more than once. What I have tried to do though, is attempt to bring some balance to the discussion. Something that I think nobody wants, so I will take my leave and let everybody continue without my clearly unwanted contribution.

Your taking it a little personal my friend, your contribution is totally valid! Everyone has different views and while I understand exactly where you are coming from however, I am sure you may have a different view if someone you knew was to get hurt by a cyclist riding on a footpath and not a dedicated cycle path or cycle/pedestrian pavement.

[Alex]

Spotted another one earlier almost knocked into these people with the pushchair

 

(This part of the pavement between Penhaligon Way and the junction is shared space)

[H.Wilson]

I understand that, Colin, but my wife was on the road, behaving herself and was hit, then abused by a motorist. If she was on the pavement, it wouldn't have happened, that is part of the reason for it, so it is linked to the topic in hand whether people like it or not.

I am not having a pop at you but in fairness someone could say the same thing about motorways, my wife was behaving herself in her car and was then hit by a lorry then abused by the lorry driver. If she was driving along the hard shoulder, it would not of happened...

 

So what is the difference here?

[Clarkester]

There is nothing wrong in the latest picture, the pavement from penhaligon way to the crossing is shared use.

[bobby47]

There are very few locations within our City that can accomadate people, cyclists and vehicular traffic and so I feel it's for the best that cyclists use footpaths to maintain their own safety.

In an ideal place, which our City is not, the Police could enforce the law and prosecute cyclists for riding on the pavement, but thankfully, they like many of us see that it's better to have pedestrians and cyclists on our footpaths rather than people getting killed cycling on roads that are no longer fit for purpose.

If I were a cyclist, and I'm not, I'd be on the footpath with the rest of them who see our roads and their congested traffic as a chance to get flattened and dead.

[Steve Major]

On 04/11/2017 at 10:24, bobby47 said:

There are very few locations within our City that can accomadate people, cyclists and vehicular traffic and so I feel it's for the best that cyclists use footpaths to maintain their own safety.

So sod everyone else on the footpath then.

Shared space is one thing but footpaths that are barely wide enough for pedestrians is a big no no for cyclists, the law is the law how long before people on mopeds have the same outlook? 

[Colin James]

On 04/11/2017 at 08:26, Clarkester said:

There is nothing wrong in the latest picture, the pavement from penhaligon way to the crossing is shared use.

This part of the pavement is shared space but the cyclists almost hit these people walking with the pushchair according to Alex and that was the point he was making. I have added a comment in brackets stating this is shared space.

The rest of the photographs within this whole topic are of people riding on footpaths which are NOT designated for shared space ONLY pedestrians NOT cyclists.

[M. Preece]

On 04/11/2017 at 13:26, Steve Major said:

So sod everyone else on the footpath then.

 

Shared space is one thing but footpaths that are barely wide enough for pedestrians is a big no no for cyclists, the law is the law how long before people on mopeds have the same outlook? 

I agree wholeheartedly, I read in this debate about maybe motorists in cars would drive and the hard shoulder of motorways because it would make them feel safer, imagine if we all did that, there is difference here in my opinion. Many cyclists are good law abiding people but many like the majority in these pictures are not. I watched a guy only this morning riding along the road and then decided to go up onto the pavement to avoid the traffic lights and jump the queue, they cant have it both ways. 

[Colin James]

Drove over the Old Bridge earlier this evening we were on our way to grab a Chinese from the Mee Mei, this guy clipped the guy on the outside because he hurled a load of abuse at the cyclist as he went past.

http://www.youtu.be/X13aZcBwT2k

I turned around in the car park the other side of the bridge because there was no where to park on the left. I sat outside the Chinese in St Martins Street and spotted a cyclist coming along the road in my rear view mirror and I just knew he was going to IGNORE the red traffic lights. He rode up onto the footpath went straight past the traffic lights then went back down onto the road.

[K.Butt]

Tossers! The guys walking should of pushed him off his bike

[megilleland]

I cycled tonight from Newton Farm to Lichfield Avenue, Tupsley. My route was along Great Western Way, along the river to the old bridge and across the cathedral close into St Owen Street, then down Ledbury Road to Lichfield Avenue. I came across at least six cyclists without any lights between the Great Western Way and the Cathedral. In all cases young men with hoodies. The worst example was a cyclist cycling at great speed down the Ledbury Road - no lights or high viz, I could not catch the person up. Had anyone walked out between parked cars they would have been bowled over by this stupid individual.

[Victor Wright]

I cycled tonight from Newton Farm to Lichfield Avenue, Tupsley. My route was along Great Western Way, along the river to the old bridge and across the cathedral close into St Owen Street, then down Ledbury Road to Lichfield Avenue. I came across at least six cyclists without any lights between the Great Western Way and the Cathedral. In all cases young men with hoodies. The worst example was a cyclist cycling at great speed down the Ledbury Road - no lights or high viz, I could not catch the person up. Had anyone walked out between parked cars they would have been bowled over by this stupid individual.

The police should do more, it will not be long before someone is serious hurt in Hereford again.

[Colin James]

Today's footpath cyclist

 

 

 

 

 

[Frank Smith]

The number of pedestrians left dead or seriously injured after being hit by cyclists has doubled in the past decade according to a Telegraph analysis of official data.

 

In 2016 three pedestrians died in such incidents across Great Britain while a further 108 sustained serious injury.

 

While this is a small proportion of the total number of serious injuries sustained by pedestrians annually, it continues an upward trend

This is an interesting article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/07/number-pedestrians-fatally-seriously-injured-cyclists-has-doubled/

 

 

Cyclists kill or maim two pedestrians every week, according to statistics

 

ALARMING accident statistics have shown a record number of pedestrians are being killed or seriously injured in crashes with cyclists

Here is another article http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/863550/cyclist-killed-bicycle-accident-two-pedestrians-every-week

[Frank Smith]

There are very few locations within our City that can accomadate people, cyclists and vehicular traffic and so I feel it's for the best that cyclists use footpaths to maintain their own safety.

In an ideal place, which our City is not, the Police could enforce the law and prosecute cyclists for riding on the pavement, but thankfully, they like many of us see that it's better to have pedestrians and cyclists on our footpaths rather than people getting killed cycling on roads that are no longer fit for purpose.

If I were a cyclist, and I'm not, I'd be on the footpath with the rest of them who see our roads and their congested traffic as a chance to get flattened and dead.

Just to put this into perspective bobby, here are a few facts.

 

 

20. How risky is cycling? Is cycling really that dangerous?

No. In general, cycling in Britain is a relatively safe activity.

Using official police-reported road casualty figures, road traffic reports, population stats and the National Travel Survey, Cycling UK calculates that, on average, over 2012-16:

• One cyclist was killed on Britain’s roads for every 30 million miles travelled by cycle - the equivalent to well over 1,000 times around the world;
• There were around 9.4 million cycle trips for every cyclist death;
• The general risk of injury of any severity whilst cycling was just 0.05 per 1,000 hours of cycling.

Also:

• According to a paper that looked at sports injuries, tennis is riskier than ‘outdoor cycling’ (5 injuries per 1,000 hours for tennis, 3.5 for cycling). ‘Rowing machine exercise’ came in at 6 injuries per 1,000 hours;
• As mentioned above, the health benefits of cycling outweigh the injury risks by between 13:1 and 415:1, according to various studies (and depending on the benefits/disbenefits considered).

These facts, together with the reference sources, are included in our road safety briefing.

Despite this, many people are put off cycling because they think it's unsafe, although the 'British Social Attitudes Survey 2016' found that people are less worried about it than they were in 2011, when they were first asked about it:

• Around 59% of non-cyclists in Britain feel that it is too dangerous for them to cycle on the roads. (ATT Statistical Release, August 2017).

Nevertheless, Cycling UK believes that, unfortunately, the behaviour and attitudes of some road users, sub-standard highway layout and motor traffic volume and speed all conspire to make cycling feel and look more dangerous than it actually is.

Risk per billion miles: is it going up or down?

We think it’s important not to measure the risk of cycling by the number of cyclist casualties alone (i.e. absolute numbers). How much cycling is going on comes into it too: i.e. more cycling casualties could simply reflect the fact that more people are out on their bikes. We therefore look at the risk of cycling per mile (or per trip) etc.:

• Calculations based on traffic counts suggest that the risk of being killed whilst cycling per billion miles cycled has dropped since 2005. In contrast, though, when cyclist fatalities are combined with reported serious injuries (KSI), the record for recent years is mixed, but it seems clear that the risk is higher than the 2005-2009 baseline average:

Source for both the above charts: RRCGB (RAS 30013).

For more background on cyclist road casualties, see:

• Cycling UK news story on the Dept for Transport's 'Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2016' (published September 2017) 
• Dept for Transport's useful summary, Focus on Pedal Cyclists

The 'safety in numbers' effect

There is good evidence to suggest that increasing cycling exposes each individual to a lower risk of injury: a doubling in cycling has been linked with a 40% increase in cycling casualties – or a 34% reduction in the relative risk to each individual. In 2009, Cycling UK compiled evidence from over 100 English local authorities and found that it appears to be less risky to cycle in places where there are higher levels of cycle commuting. Providing well for cycling, of course, is key to such success.

See our Safety in Numbers campaign for more.

Absolute numbers

In absolute numbers, reported cyclist casualties for the last few years are as follows:

Source RRCGB (RAS 30001)

How risky is cycling when compared to other forms of transport?

Per mile, cyclists are about as likely as pedestrians to be killed on the roads - in fact, in both 2014 and 2015, pedestrians seemed to be more at risk. Cycling and walking, however, are both more risky than car driving, although motorcycling is the most risky kind of transport of all - around 3 - 3.5 times more so than walking or cycling:

Source: RRCGB (RAS 30070)

[bobby47]

Hello Frank. My guess is that these figures and statistics reflect the fact that cyclist fatalities and serious injury are low throughout the Country because most cyclists are riding on pavements rather than upon our roads.

Do we ever see Moms and Dads riding bikes with their little ones in the City centre and in amongst the heavy congested traffic? Very rarely if ever at all. It's simply not safe and so they make use of the safety of a pavement.

If anyone can acknowledge that parts of our City are unsafe for cyclists, then it follows that there are real and valid reasons why people ride their bikes on our pavements.

[Frank Smith]

Hello Frank. My guess is that these figures and statistics reflect the fact that cyclist fatalities and serious injury are low throughout the Country because most cyclists are riding on pavements rather than upon our roads.

Do we ever see Moms and Dads riding bikes with their little ones in the City centre and in amongst the heavy congested traffic? Very rarely if ever at all. It's simply not safe and so they make use of the safety of a pavement.

If anyone can acknowledge that parts of our City are unsafe for cyclists, then it follows that there are real and valid reasons why people ride their bikes on our pavements.

 

Prove it!

 

You are just guessing in order for your argument to suit your agenda.

[H.Wilson]

As pedestrian I too do not feel safe on footpaths because of illegal cyclists, can you so please explain to me where I can walk safely without the risk of being hit by an illegal cyclist? 

[Alex]

Prove it!

 

You are just guessing in order for your argument to suit your agenda.

 

I am with you on this Frank.

 

So, lets challenge this crap about I don't feel safe so I choose to ride illegally on footpaths. My wife was out the other night at her friends having drinks, when she decided to come home it was late and dark, she could have chosen to get in her car and drive home because she said she would have felt safer and she had only had a couple of glasses of wine but instead decided to leave the car at her friends and walk home. 

 

The law is the law.

 

So some are happy to break the law when it suits them then.

[bobby47]

I haven't got an agenda. All I have is an abundance of common sense and a willingness to share it with you all. Would it be a safe and wise parenting decision to get the children onto their pedal cycles and journey across the Wye bridge, around Tesco Island and back again and remain on the roads?

If the answers 'No', and it should be, then it follows that riding on the footpath is a sensible and understandable decision given the poor infra structure we in the City enjoy. Surely you can grasp that. It's not a particularly high brow intellectual point I'm making.

The answer is in an ideal place cyclists shouldn't ride on the pavement. But they do and I can see why they do it.

I'd rather see pedal cycles riding sensibly on pavements, giving precedence to pedestrians by showing some consideration and even getting off their cycle than I would seeing people put themselves in harms way and riding a bike upon our City roads when the route is chocker block with cars, wagons, vans and buses, all with the potential to flatten you.

[Alex]

I haven't got an agenda. All I have is an abundance of common sense and a willingness to share it with you all. Would it be a safe and wise parenting decision to get the children onto their pedal cycles and journey across the Wye bridge, around Tesco Island and back again and remain on the roads?

If the answers 'No', and it should be, then it follows that riding on the footpath is a sensible and understandable decision given the poor infra structure we in the City enjoy. Surely you can grasp that. It's not a particularly high brow intellectual point I'm making.

The answer is in an ideal place cyclists shouldn't ride on the pavement. But they do and I can see why they do it.

I'd rather see pedal cycles riding sensibly on pavements, giving precedence to pedestrians by showing some consideration and even getting off their cycle than I would seeing people put themselves in harms way and riding a bike upon our City roads when the route is chocker block with cars, wagons, vans and buses, all with the potential to flatten you.

 

Utter rubbish! No you would not a child out near or onto a busy road anyway let alone on a bike, so your argument is flawed. It is not difficult to grasp, the law is the law, some people think they can do what they like if it suits them. Ironically these same law abiding cyclists are usually the ones wearing head cams 

[Mick]

Cycling on pavements can be inconsiderate and may cause inconvenience or fear for pedestrians, contributing to a hostile environment which reduces the mobility of vulnerable or disabled people such as the elderly and visually impaired. Such behaviour may ultimately cause injury or death, though such extremes are very rare and the risks exaggerated.

 

Bicycles are considered vehicles under British law and is illegal to ride a bike on a pavement which has not been designated as a cycle way. Cycling on pavements is therefore illegal, punishable by a fine. The maximum penalty is £500, but it is often dealt with by a £50 fixed penalty notice. 

[Steve Major]

I haven't got an agenda. All I have is an abundance of common sense and a willingness to share it with you all. Would it be a safe and wise parenting decision to get the children onto their pedal cycles and journey across the Wye bridge, around Tesco Island and back again and remain on the roads?

If the answers 'No', and it should be, then it follows that riding on the footpath is a sensible and understandable decision given the poor infra structure we in the City enjoy. 

 

Just to address your comments booby47 about children on pedal cycles;

 

Children under the age of 10 are below the age of criminal responsibility. Therefore, they cannot be prosecuted for a criminal offence. They cannot be issued with a fixed penalty notice either as they cannot be given to anyone under the age of 16. 

 

This means that, whilst police officers can theoretically stop young children (aged under 10) who are cycling on pavements, they have no powers to arrest, fine or even caution them. This is sensible, as young children should not be expected to cycle on the road. 

[K.Butt]

I might get one of these to ride on the pavement :) I wonder if that is acceptable too? This is no different to an electric bike and there are loads of those around and they are becoming more and more popular.

 

[Colin James]

I might get one of these to ride on the pavement :) I wonder if that is acceptable too? This is no different to an electric bike and there are loads of those around and they are becoming more and more popular.

 

hoverboard.jpg

 

They would probably be all over you like a rash if you decided to ride one of these, one rule for one and one for another, maybe these are not seen to be GREEN enough.

[Colin James]

All of these photographs of these criminals were taken within half hour just this morning.

 

The second cyclists narrowly missed the old chap here.

 

Not one but two cyclists riding down the subway!

 

Now we have two cyclists side by side on the footpath!

 

 

[Colin James]

 

Because I am a cyclist I can ride on the footpath when it suits me...

 

But I can also change my mind and ride on the road, the motorist however, I will keep guessing

[bobby47]

Not withstanding the Law that prohibits cycling upon our pavements and the general views on these pages that believe it to be wrong, and cyclists should take their chances and their proper place on our congested, narrow, not fit for purpose pot holed roads, I say no matter your age or your cycling level of competence, if you feel that there's the slightest chance that by riding on the road you'll end up getting flattened and dead, where it's safe and possible to do so, get yourself and your bike on the pavement and ride yourself safely home giving precedence and generous regard for pedestrians who occupy that same space.

That said, once our roads have been invested in and raised to a higher standard, probably in the year 2067, get yourself and your bike off the pavements and ride upon the nicely tarmac'ed road surface confident that there's little or no chance of you and your bike getting crushed by a passing commercial vehicle because it and it's bloody load have ample room to safely pass you by allowing you every opportunity to survive your journey to and from wherever it is you are travelling to.

How's that! You can't be fairer than that.

[Colin James]

I was sat in Bridge Street late this afternoon and witnessed all of these events below including the 3 previous photographs of the cyclist on the footpath then on the road in the hoody within a space of just 20-30 mins.

 

http://www.youtu.be/6gjq4I3FrcQ

Another cyclists who is colour blind...

 

This idiot risked his own life by jumping the lights

 

http://www.youtu.be/2ImDjSq17IA

Risking his life by jumping the lights

[Colin James]

http://www.youtu.be/a5ayi6GQQ8s

This cyclist jumps the red traffic lights and then decides to pull a wheelie

 

http://www.youtu.be/bpumuxcsrP8

And yet another one

 

http://www.youtu.be/gg57q9e4YsQ

This pair are not content with illegally riding on one footpath oh no these two want a footpath each!