View Full Version : F%&*&$g CYCLISTS!!! ARRGGGHHH!!!
walking my girlfried to the bus stop at 7:20am, we have to walk up this alleyway and out onto Lickey Road where the bus stop is. so we are chatting, laughing, as you do, we reach the end of the alleyway and this W4&*ER of a cyclist who was riding on the footpath at a stupid speed just plowed right into me and my girlfriend :smt013, i shouted at him rather loudly and he just got on his bike and rushed off, i tried to chase after him but im not as fit as i used to be.
got to say that if i do see him while im on my bike and he is up my inside while im indicating, i might have to smidsy him to see how he likes something bigger and heavier plowing into him first thing in the morning.
anyone else have this problem??
he's a middle aged bald guy on a black bicycle, anyone see him around Lickey Road/Bristol Road South area, let me know. :smt092
the_lone_wolf
03-09-10, 06:45 AM
Driving my girlfried to the bus stop at 7:20am, we have to travel up this minor road and out onto Lickey Road where the bus stop is. so we are chatting, laughing, not paying attention as you do, we reach the end of the road and this W4&*ER of a motorcyclist who was riding on the main road at a stupid speed just plowed right into me and my girlfriend while I was turning:smt013, i shouted at him rather loudly and he just got on his bike and rode off, i tried to chase after him but we hit traffic.
Sounds like you need to watch where you're walking...;)
im confused on alot of levels with the quote haha, but my real argument is, what is it with, most likely, the minority of cyclists who decide its their RIGHT to ride on pavements, then in road, to go through red lights, to hit people and not even stop to say sorry or ask if your alrite, to flie through pedestrian crossings weaving through people and then moan that it is dangerous on the roads for them.
the_lone_wolf
03-09-10, 07:01 AM
im confused on alot of levels with the quote haha, but my real argument is, what is it with, most likely, the minority of cyclists who decide its their RIGHT to ride on pavements, then in road, to go through red lights, to hit people and not even stop to say sorry or ask if your alrite, to flie through pedestrian crossings weaving through people and then moan that it is dangerous on the roads for them.
Like the minority of motorcyclists who decide it's their right to cross double whites, then ride on the wrong side round corners, to push their way to the front of traffic lights, clip wing mirrors and not even stop to say sorry or fix the damage, to speed through villages weaving in and out of traffic and then moan how dangerous it is to be on the road for them?;)
You get ******s in all modes of transport, just be thankful the one you met today was on a push bike and not driving an artic
I would say it was my hubby Drew? But he isn't middle aged or bald, and it's also the wrong side of Birmingham for him cycling in! ;)
I hop on and off the pavements when I have cycled into Brum! Have you seen how some of the nutters drive!
You were laughing at 7.20am. Bad night in bed last night ;) :lol:
454697819
03-09-10, 07:39 AM
Like the minority of motorcyclists who decide it's their right to cross double whites, then ride on the wrong side round corners, to push their way to the front of traffic lights, clip wing mirrors and not even stop to say sorry or fix the damage, to speed through villages weaving in and out of traffic and then moan how dangerous it is to be on the road for them?;)
You get ******s in all modes of transport, just be thankful the one you met today was on a push bike and not driving an artic
pmsl.. brill
You were laughing at 7.20am.
Waking the neighbours at with laughter at 7:20am? Very antisocial ;-)
I'm with TLW - bad eggs in all transport modes. Maybe he's learnt a lesson.
tigersaw
03-09-10, 07:56 AM
I assume you are injured? You have told the police about the cyclist not stopping at the scene of an accident? ;)
Owenski
03-09-10, 08:40 AM
so...
go out to the bus stop again on Monday, go 5mins earlier and with a broom. See if he's on the path again when he comes past at 7.20 no doubt. If he is then introduce mr broom to mr spokes then politly ask him while he's laid on the floor if he'll be riding on the pavement on Tuesday still.
Then if he's a big feller run like feck, cos I suspect he'll be annoyed.
Somewhere on the internet this morning, there's a thread entitled:
F%&*&$g PEDESTRIANS!!! ARRGGGHHH!!!
:D
Luckypants
03-09-10, 10:07 AM
Cyclists on pavements, really, really, really makes me cross!! Anyone I see gets stopped and given an ear bashing. Just as well I don't live down that London (or other city) where the laws on cycling appear to not apply. :rolleyes:
Hope you and your lady are OK.
Jackie_Black
03-09-10, 10:24 AM
There is nothing wrong with cycling on pavements, some roads are lethal! As long as you are courteous to others its fine. I use the road when I can but sometimes it's just too dangerous.
Cyclists on pavements, really, really, really makes me cross!! Anyone I see gets stopped and given an ear bashing. Just as well I don't live down that London (or other city) where the laws on cycling appear to not apply. :rolleyes:
Hope you and your lady are OK.
I never did cycling proficiency at school, so i feel this makes me exempt :D
the_lone_wolf
03-09-10, 10:36 AM
Cyclists on pavements, really, really, really makes me cross!! Anyone I see gets stopped and given an ear bashing. Just as well I don't live down that London (or other city) where the laws on cycling appear to not apply. :rolleyes:
Hope you and your lady are OK.
They've got pavements in Wales now???:confused:
Drew Carey
03-09-10, 11:01 AM
It wasn't me thats for sure. However, as people have said you deal with idiots in all forms of transport.
For me personally, I ride on the roads and pavements depending on the situation.
In areas where there are a lot of walkers, I ride on the road. However there are some parts like down the main road (Hagley Road) into Brum, that the road is two lanes but not wide enough. On these parts I pre-plan and go on the pavement when safe to do so and there is no one there. If I see a pedestrian, then I slow right down and go past politely and safely.
I guess it comes down to some people being idiots and some being ok. But not all cyclists presume they can cycle anywhere. In fact most are fully aware that cars rule the roads and pedestrians rule the pavements......we just evaulate the safest place to be at any one time.
Luckypants
03-09-10, 11:12 AM
There is nothing wrong with cycling on pavements, some roads are lethal! As long as you are courteous to others its fine. I use the road when I can but sometimes it's just too dangerous.
errr
It's illegal.
It's dangerous for the slow moving and vulnerable pedestrians who don't expect to find cyclists in 'their space'.
There will be children on pavements.
etc. etc.
What is it with some cyclists (and some motorcyclists) that think the laws of the land do not apply to them?
I do cycle but have to admit it is not in city traffic and it is for pleasure / fitness not commuting. BUT when I did cycle commute in York for 6 years, pavements were out of bounds and traffic lights obeyed. It could be dodgy at times on busy roads, but using my D-lock to 'alert other road users to my presence' worked pretty well. I have had instances here where drivers 'have not seen me' on the push bike and cut me up. I normally let them know they did wrong... But none of that gives me the right as a cyclist to put pedestrians in danger by cycling on the pavement. Cycles belong on the road or designated cycle paths.
timwilky
03-09-10, 11:12 AM
Having been hit and abused by a woman on a bike riding on the pavement because I was "in her way" I sympathise.
Push bikers are a bloody nuisance. ride 2 or more abreast when they are actually on the road blocking legitimate overtaking. no consideration for traffic lights etc. I was taken to court and fined 30 years ago because I did not have a rear light on my brothers push bike, he was also fined for aiding my offence. Cops these days have no interest in making push bikers abide by the law.
Shoot them all
For me personally, I ride on the roads and pavements depending on the situation.
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Cyclist who think they are above the law annoy me as much as motorcyclists, bus drivers, or cagers who ignore the highway code. As an adult, there is no excuse for cycling on a pavement.
Drew Carey
03-09-10, 11:24 AM
Cyclist who think they are above the law annoy me as much as motorcyclists, bus drivers, or cagers who ignore the highway code. As an adult, there is no excuse for cycling on a pavement.
Well I'm sorry, but when you are on a road with no cycle lanes, a bus overtaking you whilst there is a lorry on the other side on a road that is not wide enough....then I use the pavement breifly for my own safety, but only when others are not walking on there.
If there are people on the pavement I will NOT go on there at that time. In fact I regulry will pull over into a junction when I can see a large vehicle is trying to overtake, then set off again when road is clear.
Bottom line, I always ensure that I don't endanger myself or others. That to me is the safest way to cycle regardless of the rules.
Well I'm sorry, but when you are on a road with no cycle lanes, a bus overtaking you whilst there is a lorry on the other side on a road that is not wide enough....then I use the pavement breifly for my own safety.
We'll have to agree to differ, but it's a bit like being on a 125; good road positioning and not riding in the gutter can stop that kind of thing.
benji106
03-09-10, 11:42 AM
there are parts of the road on my commute to work that have pavements but I rarely if ever see anyone walking on them. the roads are in a terrible state with absolutely massive potholes and sunken drains that could easily buckle the front wheel on a racing bike. to avoid these you have to ride further out in the road, risking rash overtaking by other road users and slowing down traffic. if there is nobody on the pavement why remain in a more dangerous position on the road?
Jackie_Black
03-09-10, 11:46 AM
I'm going to have to agree with drew. As long as you use common sense and courtesy paths are fine. If you use "proper road positioning" half the time you will cause massive bloody tailbacks and **** people off more.
Sir Trev
03-09-10, 12:05 PM
For me personally, I ride on the roads and pavements depending on the situation.
In areas where there are a lot of walkers, I ride on the road. However there are some parts like down the main road (Hagley Road) into Brum, that the road is two lanes but not wide enough. On these parts I pre-plan and go on the pavement when safe to do so and there is no one there. If I see a pedestrian, then I slow right down and go past politely and safely.
I do the same.
Having been told off the the village Bobby (remember when we used to have them?) for riding like a twit on the pavement when a kid I'm aware it is not allowed, but common sense and manners make it fine in reality. The key, as Drew said, is to slow down (to a pedestrian's speed), be polite, and thank. I regularly do this in Wycombe town centre in full view of any passing police officers and PCSOs with no problem.
Although I would not condone violent encounters I was waiting at a pedestrian crossing once where a cyclist ignored the red light and the guy beside me pushed the little scrote over as he shot past. As he lay bleeding on the road the guy told him where his hadlebars would be inserted next time he ignored the red light. It was bound to happen - that crossing point was notorious for cyclists hitting pedestrians (and yes, I do know pedestrians should look before blindly stepping out into the road).
there are parts of the road on my commute to work that have pavements but I rarely if ever see anyone walking on them. the roads are in a terrible state with absolutely massive potholes and sunken drains that could easily buckle the front wheel on a racing bike/
There are big potholes around here too and sometimes I cannot see a pedestrian on the pavement; would anybody mind if I rode my motorbike down the pavement? courteously of course. :rolleyes:
benji106
03-09-10, 12:15 PM
There are big potholes around here too and sometimes I cannot see a pedestrian on the pavement; would anybody mind if I rode my motorbike down the pavement? courteously of course. :rolleyes:
well you conveniently cut off the alternative method for avoiding them in my post - riding around them, which is perfectly viable on a motorbike, but slightly more of an a*se clenching moment when on a pushbike on a busy road. plus the obvious size/weight/speed difference between the two modes of transport :rolleyes:
well you conveniently cut off the alternative method for avoiding them in my post - riding around them, which is perfectly viable on a motorbike, but slightly more of an a*se clenching moment when on a pushbike on a busy road. plus the obvious size/weight/speed difference between the two modes of transport :rolleyes:
I'm just trying to understand why it is fine to do it on a push-bike, but not a small motorbike? Both can go slowly and courteously, both are a similar size. Why one and not the other?
I'm just trying to understand why it is fine to do it on a push-bike, but not a small motorbike? Both can go slowly and courteously, both are a similar size. Why one and not the other?
some thing to do with:
Push bike owners have no need of licence, insurance, road tax etc, and it is against the law for a motor powered vehicle to be used on a public foot path.
Luckypants
03-09-10, 01:17 PM
some thing to do with:
Push bike owners have no need of licence, insurance, road tax etc, and it is against the law for a motor powered vehicle to be used on a public foot path.
It is also illegal to cycle on a footpath. :rolleyes:
It is also illegal to cycle on a footpath. :rolleyes:
does it no depend on wheel size ?
i think it's under 24" ok for foot path. could be wrong though.
illegal to cycle on a footpath........so what about kids on small bikes ?
hum...def wheel size.
benji106
03-09-10, 01:25 PM
I'm just trying to understand why it is fine to do it on a push-bike, but not a small motorbike? Both can go slowly and courteously, both are a similar size. Why one and not the other?
well the answer to me seems fairly obvious, on a motorbike the potential for damage to property and injury to yourself or third parties is greater and outweighs any potential benefit in any situation I can think of.
I think you believe that the risk of riding a bicycle on the pavement outwieghs the benefits in any situation. this is were we disagree but the comparison to riding a motorcycle on the pavement is not a good one.
does it no depend on wheel size ?
i think it's under 24" ok for foot path. could be wrong though.
illegal to cycle on a footpath........so what about kids on small bikes ?
hum...def wheel size.
It is illegal at any age, and any wheel size. It is just you cannot prosecute somebody under the age of 10 for it. (age 16 according to some folk)
I think you believe that the risk of riding a bicycle on the pavement outwieghs the benefits in any situation.
No, I think it is illegal and people shouldn't do it. I'm fed up of people picking and choosing which parts of the highway code to apply depending on their current level of selfishness, which is defined by the vehicle they are driving at the time.
You know, I really don’t care who rides a push bike on the foot path or not.
I just care the way they ride it, if I’m with my kids and they are not in any danger then I don’t mind, but if they are riding like idiots then obviously yes I do mind.
so its going to be the way you ride on the foot path.
Luckypants
03-09-10, 01:54 PM
does it no depend on wheel size ?
i think it's under 24" ok for foot path. could be wrong though.
illegal to cycle on a footpath........so what about kids on small bikes ?
hum...def wheel size.
AFAIK it is illegal to ride a bicycle on the pavement at any age. As alluded to earlier, you cannot prosecute under a certain age, but the parents could be if needs be. If an 8 year old steamed into me at 20mph on the pavement, I'd be suing their parents.
AFAIK it is illegal to ride a bicycle on the pavement at any age. As alluded to earlier, you cannot prosecute under a certain age, but the parents could be if needs be. If an 8 year old steamed into me at 20mph on the pavement, I'd be suing their parents.
And quite rightly so....
Drew Carey
03-09-10, 02:14 PM
No, I think it is illegal and people shouldn't do it. I'm fed up of people picking and choosing which parts of the highway code to apply depending on their current level of selfishness, which is defined by the vehicle they are driving at the time.
Are you saying you have never broken the highway code?
Are you saying you have never broken the highway code?
No, but I don't cycle down the footpath.
robh539
03-09-10, 02:26 PM
Are you saying you have never broken the highway code?
my thoughts. everybody does things that break the law in one form or the other.
cyclist some times drive me nuts, but hell i do the same back to other road user im sure.
come ride a bike through the queens way tunnels in birmingham I bet most of you poo yourselfs, equally try the same route above ground at rush hour, when moving traffic. they all use the footpaths that i have seen for good reason. bad enuff in a car or on a motorbike.
OP what he did was distusting, no excuss. should of waited or gone around you.
What is it with some cyclists (and some motorcyclists) that think the laws of the land do not apply to them?
There are Laws! When did this happen?
If an 8 year old steamed into me at 20mph on the pavement, I'd be suing their parents.And there my firends lies the rub in this country. You go round and get their parents to sort thier kids out, but suing them. FFS, we're not america. Its this reason and this alone that the Uk has gone PC and H&S mad for statments and actions like this.
I live and ride in london, and to be honest i have seen it and done it, life goes on.
My work mate Scott cycles every day. The ohter day a pedestrian walks out in front of him on a crossing which he has right of way. He crashes his bike, smashes his laptop thats in his rucksack, and hurts his shoulder and what happens, nothing, he gets blamed...for being in the road and having right of way.
Well I agree that the guy mentioned in OPs post was irresponsible without a doubt and he deserves a bo!!*cking of some sorts. I'd like to think he is not a typical cyclist. Sadly I also know he's not the only idiot out there.
As for the general point about for cyclists, roads and pavements, it's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. If we ride on footpaths to avoid dangerous traffic we get lambasted for being irresponsible, if we ride on roads to be law abiding we get agro for holding up the world 'cos most of us can't pedal at Tour de France speeds and those extra couple of seconds that might be saved if we weren't there are oh, so vital to the success of the car drivers journey.
Yep, I'm a cyclist, I ride most days, commuting and socially. Personally, I believe cycles are road vehicles and belong on the highway, not the pavement. There should be no exceptions (alright, maybe little kids accompanied by walking parents are better off on the path). So I ride on the road, not the pavement, 99.9% of the time.
But to go with this, other road users have to accept the fact we have a right to be there and treat us like we belong there, not like we're scum of the earth.
Sadly, we're the vulnerable ones on the road. Generally in an incident on the road, we come off worst. Give some consideration to that fact and, with some tolerance, we may start to behave a little less aggressively in protecting ourselves and our space.
the_lone_wolf
03-09-10, 04:05 PM
All in all, it sounds like people need to MTFU and ride a real bike off-road - riding on the road must only be for law breaking lycra fetishists...
;)
Specialone
03-09-10, 04:42 PM
I saw a cyclist t boned at a junction about a mile or so from me today, he was ok, but he got up and was giving the old duffer driving his malaysian fugly super mini a right ear bashing.
Tb fair to the cyclist he was hi-vized up, helmet etc so n ot hard to see.
tactcom7
03-09-10, 05:31 PM
was it something like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDXechr1Kuw
Specialone
03-09-10, 06:28 PM
was it something like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDXechr1Kuw
Thats funny, i was cursing the pedestrian then realised the nob on the bike was going down a 1 way street.
cut and paste from the comments .... the guy looked the only way that should have mattered on that street... you're Xucking biking through intersections and weaving through lanes and cars like a goddamn **** head... I await the day you get leveled by a box truck and other bikers learn some Xucking sense and courtesy if they're going to ride where they don't belong.
yorkie_chris
03-09-10, 07:58 PM
We'll have to agree to differ, but it's a bit like being on a 125; good road positioning and not riding in the gutter can stop that kind of thing.
Haha, you want to try that on a push iron?
You're holier than most on here...
Haha, you want to try that on a push iron?
It's what I do. Live in the gutter and half the time they won't even see you. Another foot or so out and you (generally) don't have a problem.
You're holier than most on here...
It's a cross I have to bear :p
EssexDave
04-09-10, 08:20 AM
We'll have to agree to differ, but it's a bit like being on a 125; good road positioning and not riding in the gutter can stop that kind of thing.
I'm sorry but I fail to see the similarity. A 125 capable of 70mph and easily continuing with the flow of traffic around most roads is a different story to a push bike. And, on a bike push, it is very difficult to ride 100% straight, especially uphill due to the way we cycle.
I agree (I'm on page 3 or 4) entirely with what Drew has been saying.
I was in a car, stuck behind a cyclist along with a few cars infront of me. There are no overtaking opportunities for quite a while, and is uphill so cyclist is probably doing about 5mph. Cyclist, pulls onto pavement as it is clear, lets cars go, see's a pedestrian and pulls back out into road, checking it is safe before he does so.
The end of the day, if everyone is safer, then surely it's a good thing? I'm not standing up for peopl cycling through busy towns etc, more, when the pavements are clear, use what is available to you.
metalangel
04-09-10, 09:01 AM
What is it with some cyclists that think the laws of the land do not apply to them?
Haven't you heard? They're SAVING THE PLANET.
yorkie_chris
04-09-10, 09:35 AM
I'm sorry but I fail to see the similarity. A 125 capable of 70mph and easily continuing with the flow of traffic around most roads is a different story to a push bike. And, on a bike push, it is very difficult to ride 100% straight, especially uphill due to the way we cycle.
I agree (I'm on page 3 or 4) entirely with what Drew has been saying.
I was in a car, stuck behind a cyclist along with a few cars infront of me. There are no overtaking opportunities for quite a while, and is uphill so cyclist is probably doing about 5mph. Cyclist, pulls onto pavement as it is clear, lets cars go, see's a pedestrian and pulls back out into road, checking it is safe before he does so.
The end of the day, if everyone is safer, then surely it's a good thing? I'm not standing up for peopl cycling through busy towns etc, more, when the pavements are clear, use what is available to you.
Yup, I agree.
Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.
Obey the spirit of the law and don't go barreling through crowds of toddlers like some lycra-clad torpedo... but there's certainly no harm in nipping onto a path when it is helpful to other road users.
Bedhead
04-09-10, 10:02 AM
It's what I do. Live in the gutter and half the time they won't even see you. Another foot or so out and you (generally) don't have a problem.
I'd rather not take my chances with an 11 ton bus if it's all the same with you. :rolleyes:
In NI there are sections of the pavement set aside for cyclists on some routes, but one section of my cycle to work is suicidal on a pushbike if you stay on the road, you have a bus lane ending and merging with another lane, several cyclists have been badly hurt there in the past few years.
Don't ride like a tool on the bits you have to use the pavement for and you should be ok, I see plenty of pushbike cops doing it.
Don't ride like a tool on the bits you have to use the pavement for and you should be ok, I see plenty of pushbike cops doing it.
Well that makes it alright then :rolleyes:
Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.
So they guy who collided with the OP; was he wise to ride on the footpath until somebody emerged from an alleyway, and then became a fool when he hit them? Or is it just .orgers who can be wise enough to weigh up the risks?
yorkie_chris
04-09-10, 10:37 AM
Seemed to be taking a foolish risk in that pedestrians are not obliged to look that the pavement is clear before emerging, and don't.
A pointless and poorly leading question TBH. 1/10.
Bedhead
04-09-10, 10:38 AM
Well that makes it alright then :rolleyes:?
In my eyes, yes, it's a stupid and potentially dangerous one sided law that's so far wide of the mark it's laughable, there are already laws that cover riding like a muppet on the pavement without a blanket ban.
And seriously, you're coming across like a blinkered old fart.
Sell your bike and buy a mobility scooter, as you obviously don't need anything that will break the speed limit.
Serious question, have you ever broken the law, including speed limits?
Simple yes or no.
yorkie_chris
04-09-10, 10:39 AM
Serious question, have you ever broken the law, including speed limits?
Oh but those are different... :rolleyes:
Bedhead
04-09-10, 10:48 AM
The guy who skittled the OP could be found guilty of "reckless cycling" most likely, charging across a pedestrian zone at 20mph is equally bad, but hopping up on a footpath to avoid a dangerous stretch of road and riding SLOWLY, seriously, where's the danger in that?
yorkie_chris
04-09-10, 10:49 AM
The guy who skittled the OP could be found guilty of "reckless cycling" most likely, charging across a pedestrian zone at 20mph is equally bad, but hopping up on a footpath to avoid a dangerous stretch of road and riding SLOWLY, seriously, where's the danger in that?
But it's AGAINST THE RULES!!!!!eleven!!!111
Bedhead
04-09-10, 10:53 AM
But it's AGAINST THE RULES!!!!!eleven!!!111
I'm deeply ashamed, I'll go home and immediately put the baffle back in my endcan as pennance! :p
yorkie_chris
04-09-10, 10:54 AM
F*** it I'd best part the bike out on eBay and buy a nissan micra, I'd best restrict it to 70mph too in case it ever falls off a cliff with a tailwind too...
Bedhead
04-09-10, 10:58 AM
Actually, I just remembered that I have no horn on my pushbike, I must go out and buy one of those air horns that you get at the footy, so instead of a cheery "excuse me" when I come across granny with her poodle on the local greenway, I can give her 110Db of noise! All legal! :D:D:D
A pointless and poorly leading question TBH. 1/10.
Whereas your implication that law breaking makes you 'wise' but law abiding is 'foolish' is the heights of reasoned argument? I know you like a good troll, but seriously...
In my eyes, yes, it's a stupid and potentially dangerous one sided law that's so far wide of the mark it's laughable, there are already laws that cover riding like a muppet on the pavement without a blanket ban.
Actually, it has never been legal to cycle on a footway. There is no new law about it; the 'blanket ban' has been in place for 50+ years.
Serious question, have you ever broken the law, including speed limits?
Simple yes or no.
Yes. Both knowingly and unknowingly (and we all know ignorance is no defence). What I don't do is say that I'm doing it because it is a stupid law and that I know better.
BernardBikerchick
04-09-10, 11:28 AM
want me to rub him out / ! ??
yorkie_chris
04-09-10, 11:32 AM
Whereas your implication that law breaking makes you 'wise' but law abiding is 'foolish' is the heights of reasoned argument? I know you like a good troll, but seriously...
Yes, seriously. Not trolling.
The law states, don't cycle on a footpath.
I take that to mean don't cycle full tilt down a footpath with pedestrians on it. Or even when there are entryways from which pedestrians may emerge.
But, to cycle down an empty footpath without hidden hazards, or to cycle down one at a speed which allows you to stop in time for those hazards if they develop (sorry to sound like DSA!)... is fine, when "safe and necessary".
You could even call it common sense. You're obeying the spirit of the law if not the letter and harming noone.
I would call that being "law abiding", but consider blind obedience completely foolish.
And I think even you could have inferred that from me saying the law is for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.
Without me going into every plausible scenario in a big rule book, which only an idiot would require, or think necessary, just apply common sense. Bloke in OP obviously got it a bit wrong, in those cases just call it an unfortunate accident, apologise and get on with your life.
Bedhead
04-09-10, 12:21 PM
Whereas your implication that law breaking makes you 'wise' but law abiding is 'foolish' is the heights of reasoned argument? I know you like a good troll, but seriously...
Actually, it has never been legal to cycle on a footway. There is no new law about it; the 'blanket ban' has been in place for 50+ years.
Yes. Both knowingly and unknowingly (and we all know ignorance is no defence). What I don't do is say that I'm doing it because it is a stupid law and that I know better.
Where did I say it was a new law? There are a number of laws concerning cycling on the pavement that would cover accidents like the OP's. I never claimed any of them were new?:confused:
In admitting you break the speed limit knowingly, you ARE saying you are doing it because you know better, or else you wouldn't do it. You can't pick and choose what laws to adhere too when it suits you if you want to keep the moral high ground.
If everyone adhered to every law, all of the time it'd be ridiculous.
Put it this way, you get knocked off your bike, you're lying in the road, yer femur poking out through your skin, claret everywhere, now do you expect the ambulance to trundle along to you at 30mph?:rolleyes:
yorkie_chris
04-09-10, 12:37 PM
I don't think emergency vehicles are actually breaking the law when going faster than the speed limit.
I take that to mean don't cycle full tilt down a footpath with pedestrians on it. Or even when there are entryways from which pedestrians may emerge.
But, to cycle down an empty footpath without hidden hazards, or to cycle down one at a speed which allows you to stop in time for those hazards if they develop (sorry to sound like DSA!)... is fine, when "safe and necessary".
You could even call it common sense. You're obeying the spirit of the law if not the letter and harming noone.
I would call that being "law abiding", but consider blind obedience completely foolish.
Bloke in OP obviously got it a bit wrong, in those cases just call it an unfortunate accident, apologise and get on with your life.
So by extension, I am foolish to stop at pedestrian crossings (the spirit of which is to allow pedestrians to cross a road safely) if the lights are red but no pedestrians are present? If I think it is safe and necessary then I can just proceed at a speed that is safe, and if no-one is hurt then no laws have really been broken. On the other hand, if somebody ran out and I got it a bit wrong, then I can call it an unfortunate accident, apologise and get on with my life. Or like riding a scooter slowly down a footpath, is that somehow different?
Laws should be about protecting the individual from the risk of injury by a 3rd party. Footpaths should be safe for pedestrians without danger of being run over by anything. I'm glad that your superior hazard awareness skills replace the necessity for laws to do this, although I'll admit to being concerned that not all drivers/riders/cyclists may be so blessed.
Bedhead
04-09-10, 01:02 PM
So by extension, I am foolish to stop at pedestrian crossings (the spirit of which is to allow pedestrians to cross a road safely) if the lights are red but no pedestrians are present? If I think it is safe and necessary then I can just proceed at a speed that is safe, and if no-one is hurt then no laws have really been broken. On the other hand, if somebody ran out and I got it a bit wrong, then I can call it an unfortunate accident, apologise and get on with my life. Or like riding a scooter slowly down a footpath, is that somehow different?
Laws should be about protecting the individual from the risk of injury by a 3rd party. Footpaths should be safe for pedestrians without danger of being run over by anything. I'm glad that your superior hazard awareness skills replace the necessity for laws to do this, although I'll admit to being concerned that not all drivers/riders/cyclists may be so blessed.
And by the same token, I should put myself at the mercy of drivers who are jostling for position where there's an empty footpath? Do you stop at Zebra crossings too, just in case someone 100yds down the road wants to cross.
Most pedestrian crossings are at junctions, you couldn't go through without your route being blocked by more traffic, pedestrian crossings where you could go through are pedestrian activated with a button, unless they're broke they need someone to activete them, someone who will be crossing. If you came across one stuck at red, would you turn round or wait for an engineer to come out and fix it? Would you?
Bedhead
04-09-10, 01:05 PM
I don't think emergency vehicles are actually breaking the law when going faster than the speed limit.
I know that Paramedic bikes and fast response cars that can't carry a patient are not classed as ambulances and are subject to the speed imit.
Linconshire police are doing a bloke transporting a liver for speeding at the minute, Cambs. cops threw it out but Linconshire are sticking to the letter of the law.
yorkie_chris
04-09-10, 01:20 PM
So by extension, I am foolish to stop at pedestrian crossings (the spirit of which is to allow pedestrians to cross a road safely) if the lights are red but no pedestrians are present? If I think it is safe and necessary then I can just proceed at a speed that is safe, and if no-one is hurt then no laws have really been broken. On the other hand, if somebody ran out and I got it a bit wrong, then I can call it an unfortunate accident, apologise and get on with my life. Or like riding a scooter slowly down a footpath, is that somehow different?
Laws should be about protecting the individual from the risk of injury by a 3rd party. Footpaths should be safe for pedestrians without danger of being run over by anything. I'm glad that your superior hazard awareness skills replace the necessity for laws to do this, although I'll admit to being concerned that not all drivers/riders/cyclists may be so blessed.
"Being run over", you can't really get "run over" by a bicycle doing barely the pace of a fast walk. Not like driving a monster truck through a playground is it?
Pedestrians share towpaths and bridleways with bicycles all the time and the world doesn't end...
Red light example, different again. There are red lights around here where you would be sat until morning if you stopped at them on your bike, because the sensors don't pick up bikes. You sit there all night?
Safe and necessary? Well it's going to stop you moving for 15 seconds, so not really necessary to go through it. If you do go through it, stop at the line, check carefully for traffic and then go without hesitation.
What the hell... anyway, you're trying to trip up common sense with extreme examples. It doesn't work.
The law is an ass, sticking absolutely to the letter of it is foolish, and will leave you sat for 6 hours at some red lights when they're broken. Which I am sure even you can admit, is a f***ing mugs game.
metalmonkey
04-09-10, 01:37 PM
I know that Paramedic bikes and fast response cars that can't carry a patient are not classed as ambulances and are subject to the speed imit.
No they are exempt why the do you think they have blue lights and sirens? I would suggest its not just to look kool:rolleyes:
What the hell... anyway, you're trying to trip up common sense with extreme examples. It doesn't work.
I didn't think it was an extreme example; after all I wasn't the one comparing it to driving a monster truck through a childs playground. :rolleyes:
I am just interested to understand why some people seem to feel that when presented with two parts of the highway code intended to protect pedestrians, they can flaunt one on their own private risk assessment, but not the other.
As for "safe and necessary", it is never 'necessary' to ride on a footway. After all, there is nothing to stop you getting off and pushing. Or is that just too inconvenient?
yorkie_chris
04-09-10, 01:40 PM
That was a comparison, not an example. And meant to be a slightly humourous one at that.
You are the one saying you can flaunt one bit and not the other.
riding on a footway at walking pace is no more dangerous than walking.
SoulKiss
04-09-10, 01:43 PM
Well I am not going to get into the ins and outs of the what to ignore and not to ignore on the law books, just going to say that "The law is an ass" is NEVER going to stand up in a court of law. :p
The BIG difference is that when most motorcyclists get caught out, they take it on the chin, put their hands up to it and take the consequences.
Cyclists in my experience get VERY defensive when called out on it - they are not doing any harm etc etc - tell that to the pensioner they hit and cause them to break a hip.
For the cyclists justifying that its ok to go on the pavement for safety reasons - no its not - if that road is too dangerous to cycle on then pick another route. The road network is designed for motorised vehicles that are not reduced to 5mph by a hill.
If you need to use the pavement, get off the bike and push it.
You are the one saying you can flaunt one bit and not the other.
No, all I've said is that cyclist shouldn't ride on the footway and that it is illegal. I don't advocate breaking laws (but that doesn't mean I don't break any)
riding on a footway at walking pace is no more dangerous than walking.
Does that hold for horses too, or just push bikes?
yorkie_chris
04-09-10, 01:53 PM
Does that hold for horses too, or just push bikes?
I dunno, you seem to know more about cycling than me, has your bicycle ever kicked anyone in the face for no reason?
I dunno, you seem to know more about cycling than me.
I never professed any such thing, I just dare to disagree with you.
I am interested in the evidence for the assertion that riding on the footpath at walking speed is no more dangerous than walking. I was wondering, also, why the cycling campaign groups have missed this gem and aren't lobbying the powers that be to allow it.
Or maybe it's because they'd all speed on the footpath? ;)
Bedhead
04-09-10, 03:20 PM
No they are exempt why the do you think they have blue lights and sirens? I would suggest its not just to look kool:rolleyes:
Well, maybe you should phone Linconshire Police and give them the benefit of your knowledge? :rolleyes:
Bedhead
04-09-10, 03:22 PM
For the cyclists justifying that its ok to go on the pavement for safety reasons - no its not - if that road is too dangerous to cycle on then pick another route. The road network is designed for motorised vehicles that are not reduced to 5mph by a hill.
Err, with the exception of M-way and dual carriageways, the vast majority of roads were actually laid out before the advent of the motor vehicle.:rolleyes:
widepants
04-09-10, 03:25 PM
No they are exempt why the do you think they have blue lights and sirens? I would suggest its not just to look kool:rolleyes:
Well, maybe you should phone Linconshire Police and give them the benefit of your knowledge? :rolleyes:
Well Im sure Mr Monkey is one of our finest ,so I hope he knows without having to ask
Bedhead
04-09-10, 03:34 PM
Well Im sure Mr Monkey is one of our finest ,so I hope he knows without having to ask
Legal definition of an ambulance
"an ambulance, being a vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) which is constructed or adapted for the purposes of conveying sick, injured or disabled persons and which is used for such purposes. "
Road Safety Bill 2004
Road Safety Bill
24
18
Exemptions from speed limits
(1)
Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (exemption of fire,
ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits) is to be renumbered as
subsection (1) of that section.
(2)
In that subsection, after “when” insert “(a)” and for “if” substitute—
5
“(b)
it is being used for other prescribed purposes in such
circumstances as may be prescribed, or
(c)
it is being used for training persons to drive vehicles for use for
any of those purposes,
if”.
Milky Bar Kid
04-09-10, 03:34 PM
Well, maybe you should phone Linconshire Police and give them the benefit of your knowledge? :rolleyes:
And your qualifications for making such statments are??? Reading the daily mail???? Metalmonkey and YC are correct in what they say.
ALL emergency vehicles are exempt from speed limits (and certain other RT laws) whether they are capable of taking passengers or not. A Paramedic bike or response car is no different if they are heading to an emergency.
Milky Bar Kid
04-09-10, 03:37 PM
Legal definition of an ambulance
"an ambulance, being a vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) which is constructed or adapted for the purposes of conveying sick, injured or disabled persons and which is used for such purposes. "
Road Safety Bill 2004
Road Safety Bill
24
18
Exemptions from speed limits
(1)
Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (exemption of fire,
ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits) is to be renumbered as
subsection (1) of that section.
(2)
In that subsection, after “when” insert “(a)” and for “if” substitute—
5
“(b)
it is being used for other prescribed purposes in such
circumstances as may be prescribed, or
(c)
it is being used for training persons to drive vehicles for use for
any of those purposes,
if”.
And this is the problem we have with google.
It says "fire, ambulance and police vehicles". It does not specify "a vehicle described as an ambulance under the definition of an Ambulance under the Road Saftey Bill 2004..."
Bedhead
04-09-10, 03:37 PM
And your qualifications for making such statments are??? Reading the daily mail???? Metalmonkey and YC are correct in what they say.
ALL emergency vehicles are exempt from speed limits (and certain other RT laws) whether they are capable of taking passengers or not. A Paramedic bike or response car is no different if they are heading to an emergency.
A direct quote from Lincs police?
Oh well, good to see the police are as clued up as ever?
Milky Bar Kid
04-09-10, 03:41 PM
I know that Paramedic bikes and fast response cars that can't carry a patient are not classed as ambulances and are subject to the speed imit.
Linconshire police are doing a bloke transporting a liver for speeding at the minute, Cambs. cops threw it out but Linconshire are sticking to the letter of the law.
Perhaps carrying a liver is not deemed an "emergency". It would depend how far from the hospital he was, how long he had to transport the liver, etc etc etc. Perhaps carrying a liver is not classed as a prescribed use.
Organ transportation also tends to be different vehicles, not classed as emergency vehicles.
If you are using this as your argument, please provide links to the appropriate news report or information.
I like this post. it is well entertaining........
oh and metalmonkey is one of our finest...
right now carry on...:smt024
Milky Bar Kid
04-09-10, 04:10 PM
I like this post. it is well entertaining........
oh and metalmonkey is on of our finest...
right now carry on...:smt024
And so am I.
SoulKiss
04-09-10, 04:12 PM
Err, with the exception of M-way and dual carriageways, the vast majority of roads were actually laid out before the advent of the motor vehicle.:rolleyes:
You forgot the <pedant> tags there.
Laid out, yes, but the modern road network is definately aimed at the motorised user,
And so am I.
oh, well done...:smt045
robh539
04-09-10, 04:13 PM
grabs popcorn....... :)
EssexDave
04-09-10, 04:20 PM
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. At the time 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."
widepants
04-09-10, 04:21 PM
grabs popcorn....... :)
comfy chair and fizzy pop
Drew Carey
04-09-10, 04:24 PM
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. At the time 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."
Music to my ears. :D
EssexDave
04-09-10, 04:27 PM
Music to my ears. :D
And to me common sense?
robh539
04-09-10, 04:29 PM
comfy chair and fizzy pop
you got it ;)
Drew Carey
04-09-10, 04:30 PM
And to me common sense?
Yup. I agree. I fully agree that the cyclist in the OP was a prat and many cyclists are. But I would add that not all are, much in the same way bikers are tarnished with one bad brush, so are a lot of cyclists.
I don't need to re-iterate my earlier post, but I am polite, courteous to others and don't endanger any pedestrians during my riding.
widepants
04-09-10, 04:31 PM
Yup. I agree. I fully agree that the cyclist in the OP was a prat and many cyclists are. But I would add that not all are, much in the same way bikers are tarnished with one bad brush, so are a lot of cyclists.
I don't need to re-iterate my earlier post, but I am polite, courteous to others and don't endanger any pedestrians during my riding.
Only other orgers who are having a happy bimble through the welsh countryside:p
Drew Carey
04-09-10, 04:34 PM
Only other orgers who are having a happy bimble through the welsh countryside:p
Slight sidetrack....but thats on a motorbike, plus never had any complaints bought to me over my riding. In fact I went and apologised to a few people that I thought I may have overtaken a little spirited and each of them all said along the lines of, "Nah....no worries, was fine and safe".
:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by robh539 http://forums.sv650.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?p=2360999#post2360999)
grabs popcorn....... :smile:
comfy chair and fizzy pop
And some bicquits......what flavour pop ?
widepants
04-09-10, 07:55 PM
Slight sidetrack....but thats on a motorbike, plus never had any complaints bought to me over my riding. In fact I went and apologised to a few people that I thought I may have overtaken a little spirited and each of them all said along the lines of, "Nah....no worries, was fine and safe".
:D
still love u though grumpy:grouphug:
Legal definition of an ambulance
"an ambulance, being a vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) which is constructed or adapted for the purposes of conveying sick, injured or disabled persons and which is used for such purposes. "
Road Safety Bill 2004
Road Safety Bill
24
18
Exemptions from speed limits
(1)
Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (exemption of fire,
ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits) is to be renumbered as
subsection (1) of that section.
(2)
In that subsection, after “when” insert “(a)” and for “if” substitute—
5
“(b)
it is being used for other prescribed purposes in such
circumstances as may be prescribed, or
(c)
it is being used for training persons to drive vehicles for use for
any of those purposes,
if”.
sorry but i speak with the two paramedic bikers in birmingham city centre and im 100% sure that the speed they use to get to an "emergency" can and has, in the future WILL, save lives. and im pretty sure that in a gridlocked city centre at rush hour, if anything happened to you, you wouldnt mind the paramedic biker speeding to get to you. even tho he isnt a "real" ambulance.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.