Cycling on the footpath
Discussion
JagXJR said:
CaptainSlow said:
Unless you use the M5 toll alot I don't see how you do?
Unless you are stupid or rich, I take it you understand how much it costs to run a car?The VED is a legal tax required to run a car and is (a small part) of the running costs.
But we digress, the topic is about cycling on the footpath, perhaps you could comment on that?
Edited by JagXJR on Tuesday 17th September 14:03
JagXJR said:
Fed up of hearing cyclists winging if I'm honest. I pay a lot of money to use my car on the roads, if I had a moan every time I'm inconvenienced I would not have time to sleep. Despite the difficulties of getting around you don't see me taking to the pavements in my car.
A common lawyer said:
I think the "oh dear" was probably aimed at the classic assumptions that (i) motorists pay for 100% of the upkeep of roads, and (ii) cyclists do not in any way contribute to the upkeep of roads. For what it's worth, both are wrong.
You don't pay any money to use the roads, except for that bridge into Wales, the Dartford Tunnel, that bit on the M6, and so on. "Road tax", as many car drivers used to shout at me, is actually a car tax, "vehicle excise duty". The VED plus the tax on petrol wouldn't cover the cost of roads. You all pay for roads, whether you like it or not, whether you drive or not, whether you have one car or ten. That includes cyclist. So you might be fed up of hearing them whinging, but they pay for the roads on exactly the same basis as motorists (if cyclists were part of the VED scheme, they'd be zero-rated, like prius drivers. There are so many cyclists it would cost a small fortune to give them all zero-rated tax discs. Lots of cyclists have cars and motorbikes, and pay VED on those, but leave them at home for the commute, thus reducing traffic, and cutting YOUR commuting time).
Hence the "oh dear".
Declaration of interest: I pay no taxes in the UK, I have a motorbike, two cars, and five bicycles.
Thanks for the clarification, fixed my comment to be more accurate.You don't pay any money to use the roads, except for that bridge into Wales, the Dartford Tunnel, that bit on the M6, and so on. "Road tax", as many car drivers used to shout at me, is actually a car tax, "vehicle excise duty". The VED plus the tax on petrol wouldn't cover the cost of roads. You all pay for roads, whether you like it or not, whether you drive or not, whether you have one car or ten. That includes cyclist. So you might be fed up of hearing them whinging, but they pay for the roads on exactly the same basis as motorists (if cyclists were part of the VED scheme, they'd be zero-rated, like prius drivers. There are so many cyclists it would cost a small fortune to give them all zero-rated tax discs. Lots of cyclists have cars and motorbikes, and pay VED on those, but leave them at home for the commute, thus reducing traffic, and cutting YOUR commuting time).
Hence the "oh dear".
Declaration of interest: I pay no taxes in the UK, I have a motorbike, two cars, and five bicycles.
While mildly interesting, this does not explain why some cyclists think they can ride how and where they like including "riding on pavements". Do you think this is acceptable?
JagXJR said:
JagXJR said:
Fed up of hearing cyclists winging if I'm honest. I pay a lot of money to use my car on the roads, if I had a moan every time I'm inconvenienced I would not have time to sleep. Despite the difficulties of getting around you don't see me taking to the pavements in my car.
A common lawyer said:
I think the "oh dear" was probably aimed at the classic assumptions that (i) motorists pay for 100% of the upkeep of roads, and (ii) cyclists do not in any way contribute to the upkeep of roads. For what it's worth, both are wrong.
You don't pay any money to use the roads, except for that bridge into Wales, the Dartford Tunnel, that bit on the M6, and so on. "Road tax", as many car drivers used to shout at me, is actually a car tax, "vehicle excise duty". The VED plus the tax on petrol wouldn't cover the cost of roads. You all pay for roads, whether you like it or not, whether you drive or not, whether you have one car or ten. That includes cyclist. So you might be fed up of hearing them whinging, but they pay for the roads on exactly the same basis as motorists (if cyclists were part of the VED scheme, they'd be zero-rated, like prius drivers. There are so many cyclists it would cost a small fortune to give them all zero-rated tax discs. Lots of cyclists have cars and motorbikes, and pay VED on those, but leave them at home for the commute, thus reducing traffic, and cutting YOUR commuting time).
Hence the "oh dear".
Declaration of interest: I pay no taxes in the UK, I have a motorbike, two cars, and five bicycles.
Thanks for the clarification, fixed my comment to be more accurate.You don't pay any money to use the roads, except for that bridge into Wales, the Dartford Tunnel, that bit on the M6, and so on. "Road tax", as many car drivers used to shout at me, is actually a car tax, "vehicle excise duty". The VED plus the tax on petrol wouldn't cover the cost of roads. You all pay for roads, whether you like it or not, whether you drive or not, whether you have one car or ten. That includes cyclist. So you might be fed up of hearing them whinging, but they pay for the roads on exactly the same basis as motorists (if cyclists were part of the VED scheme, they'd be zero-rated, like prius drivers. There are so many cyclists it would cost a small fortune to give them all zero-rated tax discs. Lots of cyclists have cars and motorbikes, and pay VED on those, but leave them at home for the commute, thus reducing traffic, and cutting YOUR commuting time).
Hence the "oh dear".
Declaration of interest: I pay no taxes in the UK, I have a motorbike, two cars, and five bicycles.
While mildly interesting, this does not explain why some cyclists think they can ride how and where they like including "riding on pavements". Do you think this is acceptable?
There was bloody good reason to too!
JagXJR said:
While mildly interesting, this does not explain why some cyclists think they can ride how and where they like including "riding on pavements". Do you think this is acceptable?
Which is where the majority of car drivers would prefer to see them.Some cyclists, some drivers are just too impatient and need to chill out.
I have always found cycling on the road a bit strange and I think it is because as a youngster I never really saw anybody cycle on it. I grew up in Stevenage and it has a cycle path that pretty much encompasses the entire town. As kids we either used the cycle path or the pavement for the last 100 yards or so.
I have a distinct memory as a kid in the passenger seat of a car shouting out 'Look out Dad there is someone on a bike on the road!'
I have a distinct memory as a kid in the passenger seat of a car shouting out 'Look out Dad there is someone on a bike on the road!'
JagXJR said:
JagXJR said:
Fed up of hearing cyclists winging if I'm honest. I pay a lot of money to use my car on the roads, if I had a moan every time I'm inconvenienced I would not have time to sleep. Despite the difficulties of getting around you don't see me taking to the pavements in my car.
A common lawyer said:
I think the "oh dear" was probably aimed at the classic assumptions that (i) motorists pay for 100% of the upkeep of roads, and (ii) cyclists do not in any way contribute to the upkeep of roads. For what it's worth, both are wrong.
You don't pay any money to use the roads, except for that bridge into Wales, the Dartford Tunnel, that bit on the M6, and so on. "Road tax", as many car drivers used to shout at me, is actually a car tax, "vehicle excise duty". The VED plus the tax on petrol wouldn't cover the cost of roads. You all pay for roads, whether you like it or not, whether you drive or not, whether you have one car or ten. That includes cyclist. So you might be fed up of hearing them whinging, but they pay for the roads on exactly the same basis as motorists (if cyclists were part of the VED scheme, they'd be zero-rated, like prius drivers. There are so many cyclists it would cost a small fortune to give them all zero-rated tax discs. Lots of cyclists have cars and motorbikes, and pay VED on those, but leave them at home for the commute, thus reducing traffic, and cutting YOUR commuting time).
Hence the "oh dear".
Declaration of interest: I pay no taxes in the UK, I have a motorbike, two cars, and five bicycles.
Thanks for the clarification, fixed my comment to be more accurate.You don't pay any money to use the roads, except for that bridge into Wales, the Dartford Tunnel, that bit on the M6, and so on. "Road tax", as many car drivers used to shout at me, is actually a car tax, "vehicle excise duty". The VED plus the tax on petrol wouldn't cover the cost of roads. You all pay for roads, whether you like it or not, whether you drive or not, whether you have one car or ten. That includes cyclist. So you might be fed up of hearing them whinging, but they pay for the roads on exactly the same basis as motorists (if cyclists were part of the VED scheme, they'd be zero-rated, like prius drivers. There are so many cyclists it would cost a small fortune to give them all zero-rated tax discs. Lots of cyclists have cars and motorbikes, and pay VED on those, but leave them at home for the commute, thus reducing traffic, and cutting YOUR commuting time).
Hence the "oh dear".
Declaration of interest: I pay no taxes in the UK, I have a motorbike, two cars, and five bicycles.
While mildly interesting, this does not explain why some cyclists think they can ride how and where they like including "riding on pavements". Do you think this is acceptable?
k? That's messed up. It's not widespread, but there is a lot of aggression out there. Just doesn't exist in Europe, so I don't know where it comes from. So no, I don't think pavement cycling is OK, but I have the luxury of safe road cycling. 161BMW said:
What gets me is cyclists cycling the wrong way in one way street. If they get run over going the wrong way I have zero sympathy for them.
In canary wharf some cyclists reduce this risk by cycling on the pavement the wrong way up a one way street. Possibly the most annoying cyclist behaviour As above - where I live the pavements describe different routes to the roads, and they are very underused as pavements. A few years ago the council painted a white line down the middle of many of the pavements and dual purposed them for pedestrians and cyclists.
In towns, around shops especially, bikes on pavements would seem intrusive but elsewhere it seems a much better and sensible suggestion to allow cyclists the relative safety of pavements. Their impact on pedestrians ought to be limited. And there's always the general note that the faster you're capable of going, the more you should cede to the others. In other words, cars give way for bikes and pedestrians. Bikes should give way to pedestrians.
In towns, around shops especially, bikes on pavements would seem intrusive but elsewhere it seems a much better and sensible suggestion to allow cyclists the relative safety of pavements. Their impact on pedestrians ought to be limited. And there's always the general note that the faster you're capable of going, the more you should cede to the others. In other words, cars give way for bikes and pedestrians. Bikes should give way to pedestrians.
Cyclists - berated for being on the pavement, berated for being on the roads. They can't win.
Cycle Paths are the answer... except as a nation we are absolutely st at providing this sort of infrastructure. If a road is wide enough, the council will paint another white line and decree "miles of cycle lanes in our town!". That is not a cycle lane, that is just where cyclists would be anyway because you are not providing appropriate cycle paths.
Give them propper lanes.
Personally, I think the pavement is the better place for cyclists. It is far less dangerous and an accident with a pedestrian is less likely to end up in serious injury than with cyclist and a car. But as with everything, general consideration for others is needed and a bit of common sense when it is busy.
Cycle Paths are the answer... except as a nation we are absolutely s
t at providing this sort of infrastructure. If a road is wide enough, the council will paint another white line and decree "miles of cycle lanes in our town!". That is not a cycle lane, that is just where cyclists would be anyway because you are not providing appropriate cycle paths.Give them propper lanes.
Personally, I think the pavement is the better place for cyclists. It is far less dangerous and an accident with a pedestrian is less likely to end up in serious injury than with cyclist and a car. But as with everything, general consideration for others is needed and a bit of common sense when it is busy.
otolith said:
I think I would allow anyone who needs stabilisers and doesn't have gears to use the pavement. For adults cycling at 15-25mph, the road is the right place.
Totally ignoring the fact that not all pavements are alike and that many pavements are perfectly suitable for cycling with no impact on anyone.There does not need to be such a black and white approach. Each route needs assessing individually.
Bayerischer said:
he's talking about the M6 toll road. awash with cyclists that place
No I'm talking about dheads like the one I met on a blind bend in the middle of the road, on a single track road doing 40mph downhill making me swerve! Should be compulsory to have insurance riding like that, knob!And dicks that cycle on the road when it suits them, then take to the footpaths to avoid waiting at red lights!
From the comments on here, there are one or two on here that think they own the road when cycling
Bicycles should be on the road not on the path unless it is a cycle path. Yes fully agree there should be more of them and better sited. Never seen any with glass or debris on them though, see more on roads actually. So that excuse doesn't hold water.
If you want others to respect you try acting a bit less knobish, whether riding or driving. Respect has to be earned.
JagXJR said:
Never seen any with glass or debris on them though, see more on roads actually. So that excuse doesn't hold water.
You're risking your credibility with that one unless you ride cycle paths very often. I ride almost exclusively on cycle paths. I'm a recreational/leisure cyclist only and usually have my young kids with me - hence the desire to stay off the roads. Very many of the paths we ride have broken glass on them - and these are dedicated paths a long way from roads.The sectioned-off cycle lanes on roads are often far worse with potholes, poorly-levelled drain covers, glass and a generally poor surface. On the occasion I need to use one, I will try to ride on the white divider line because it is the smoothest surface.
Watchman said:
otolith said:
I think I would allow anyone who needs stabilisers and doesn't have gears to use the pavement. For adults cycling at 15-25mph, the road is the right place.
Totally ignoring the fact that not all pavements are alike and that many pavements are perfectly suitable for cycling with no impact on anyone.There does not need to be such a black and white approach. Each route needs assessing individually.
JagXJR said:
Fed up of hearing cyclists winging if I'm honest. I pay a lot of money to use the roads, if I had a moan every time I'm inconvenienced I would not have time to sleep.
Just about every day there is a new whinge about cyclists thread. Very few whinges about motorists over on 'pedal powered'. If I was going to stereotype one of the groups as whingers, it wouldn't be the cyclists...margerison said:
motco said:
Try walking along the Marine Parade in Brighton. You sidestep the dozens of cyclists and tread straight in to a dog turd!
As it's Marine Parade I suspect some of those turds didn't originate from a dog...
Actually I love Brighton despite its shortcomings - and I am not a city lover normally but it has a vitality you simply cannot ignore.
BTW, I walked down Dukes Mound once, family in tow as well. Never again!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff