jamabikes":2bwn8ebh said:
riding on the pavement is very dangerous, imagine hitting a toddler at even 5 miles an hour on a bike. shudder. there will always be the one about "i only ride on the pavement when its empty" rubbish. what if someone gets out a car, or steps out of their house? there is no defence for an adult to ride on the pavement. if more adults ride on the road, the more kids will too.
I'm sorry, but this is rubbish. Cycling on pavements is officially encouraged, provided it is done safely.
All along the Brighton and Hove seafront, there is a cyclepath on the pavement. It was very expensive, and all funded with government grant. Cyclists bomb along inches from toddlers, other pedestrians, holidaymakers who don't know it is a cyclepath, etc. Maybe you would be horrified, but even the Conservative former Leader of the City Council describes it as "excellent".
Like all joint-use cycle/footpaths, pedestrians have right of way and cyclists have to cycle safely, slowing down and giving way to pedestrians who stray into the cyclepath (which is red). I personally find it slightly dangerous, but it works.
The trouble with this thread is that it confuses the issue by conflating two very different things - cycling dangerously and cycling on pavements. I think it's clearer to put it this way - cycling dangerously is against the law, irrespective of whether you do it on the road or on a pavement; whereas cycling safely and considerately is permitted, whether you do it on the road or on a pavement.
Not everybody knows that, but in fact Home Office guidance to Chief Constables says that, although cycling on pavements remains illegal, fixed penalty notices should apply only to irresponsible cycling. Cycling on a pavement in a safe and considerate fashion should not attract a fixed penalty notice, as the government considers it reasonable behaviour, especially where roads are busy or hazardous.
When I attended a meeting of the City Council's Local Access Forum, a Council official said that they had identified several miles of pavements that were considered suitable to be re-designated as joint-use cycle/footpaths. The only thing that was stopping them from re-designating those footpaths was the high cost of painting them and providing the waymarking, for which they had no budget.
Almost half of all motorists owns a bike, but very few of these bikes are used for commuting, or other journeys that would replace cars (or indeed at all). It would be greatly in the national interest for millions of motorists to use their bikes instead. It would reduce global warming, make us fitter and diminish the burden on the NHS, reduce congestion and pressure for costly road improvements. But the only way to achieve it is to make cycling safer so that people who currently find it too dangerous are encouraged to try it. That is why cycling safely on pavements is in fact a useful part of the way forward.
Yes, there might be some accidents, but how many people are killed or injured by bikes compared to the number killed or injured by cars? Reducing car use and increasing bike use would surely reduce the number of accidents overall.
