Why are mtb riders such wimps??

[petitpal]

2010 data for the UK (source DfT)
111 Cyclists killed
410 Pedestrians
Total 1850 killed on UK roads (remainder car/HGV occupants or motorcyclists.

Purely as a matter of interest what's the total number of regular cyclists vs pedestrians? If there are 4 times as many pedestrians as cyclists then there's no real difference, and in reality there are likely to be a lot more pedestirans - if only because eveyone not in a car or on a bike at the time counts as one.

 

[hamster]

A fair question - which is why the death rate per km travelled is important - and again cycling is safer than walking! See the link I posted above.

I tried this one out at my son's school after they tried to forbid cycling to school.

The issues is mis-placed risk. The biggest danger is a heart attack from lying on the sofa eating chips watching Sky, not cycling! :?

 

[Neil]

The stat's certainly indicate that road deaths are still falling; 2009 DoT fig's:-

"This article reviews the main trends in the number of reported road accident casualties in Great Britain in 2009 compared with recent years. In 2009:

There were a total of 222,146 reported casualties of all severities, 4 per cent lower than in 2008. 2,222 people were killed, 12 per cent lower than in 2008, 24,690 were seriously injured (down 5 per cent) and 195,234 were slightly injured (down 4 per cent).
The number of fatalities fell for almost all types of road user, with a fall of 16 per cent for car occupants, 13 per cent for pedestrians, 10 per cent for pedal cyclists and 4 per cent for motorcyclists."

...but look at the number of reported casualties above and imagine them all in one place at the same time!

Those numbers just would not be accepted in any other context...

I'm just wondering how many domestic or DIY casualties there are per year...

 

[We_are_Stevo]

http://www.hassandlass.org.uk/query/rep ... 02data.pdf

 

[hydorah]

Hmm 'Basic Needs' looks quite a dangerous passtime... I also see five people got themselves hospitalised by suffering 'acute over-exertion' while shopping Shop 'til you drop eh?

Also found this quick legal overview, properly referenced to the relevant acts and statutes

http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/cycling/l ... t-cycling/

It's clear that cycling on 'the pavement' is not legal, unless it is designated for that purpose: Known as 'shared use'

But it also clear that cycling on other footways is legal, unless the are signs to the contrary

- One article I read referred to delinquent/anti social cyclists as 'Lycra Louts'

 

[We_are_Stevo]

Info' just Googled;

"When Fixed Penalty Notices for
'pavement cycling' were introduced 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.'

This guidance applies to FPN's issued by 'community wardens' as well.
This is a letter I got from the Home Office on this topic...

Reference: T5080/4 23 February 2004

Thank you for your e-mail dated 22:01:2004 14:07:11 about cycling on
the pavement.

The enforcement of cycling offences is an operational matter for
individual chief officers of police. The Government wishes to promote
cycling, but are concerned about irresponsible cycling which cannot be
condoned.

One of the key aims in the police reform process is to free up police
officers for front line operational duties and to harness the work of
the extended police family in supporting the police in tackling low
level crime and anti-social behaviour. To help the police deal with
cyclists who use the pavement inconsiderately or irresponsibly the
Government included provisions in the Police Reform Act which received
Royal Assent on 24 July 2002 which will enable Community Support
Officers (CSOs) and accredited persons to be given the power to issue
fixed penalty notices for offences such as cycling on the pavement.
CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as
police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the
chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat
officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system.

The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour
Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling
irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty
notice. I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling
on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible
cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of
the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing
so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used
with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to
anyone under the age of 16.

The cycling infrastructure and environment are currently under
improvement as a result of our National Cycling Strategy. We expect
this improvement to reduce the incentive to cycle on the pavement.

BUILDING A SAFE, JUST AND TOLERANT SOCIETY.

Worth bearing in mind if you are handed a FPN without real
justification. After all the speed yobs would soon be up in arms if
the police ignored the guidance relating to speed enforcement and
started pulling drivers who were doing 70 MPh on the motorway arguing
'the law is the law and that's the end of it'.."

 

[hydorah]

As someone else said in this thread, it is impossible to get a straight answer

'Discretionary'?

It seems to explicitly permit under sixteens to ride on the pavement

However in part 2 which is an email response of unknown origin the phrase "...issue
fixed penalty notices for offences such as cycling on the pavement." appears. Note it is still referred to as an offence

...But he has just undermined the very definite rule in the Highway Code, as Anthony pointed out

If you ride on the pavement, as an adult, I'd guess if you had any sort of an accident you'd be a good target for a bit of the old blame and claim

 

[We_are_Stevo]

When I lived in Norwich, and then Cambridge, (for those who are unfamiliar with either City) where the centres are extensively paved and closed to traffic I always used to ride my bike, on the grounds that I took up far less room riding it that walking alongside pushing it - and never got pulled up for it either...

...it just depends how you go about it

I generally found that if I sat there 'track-standing' with an inane grin on my face until the way was clear most ped's were usually good natured about it all.

 

[mudokon]

pfft must be just ur area i ride on the roads

 

[Anthony]

As someone else said in this thread, it is impossible to get a straight answer
'Discretionary'?
It seems to explicitly permit under sixteens to ride on the pavement
However in part 2 which is an email response of unknown origin the phrase "...issue
fixed penalty notices for offences such as cycling on the pavement." appears. Note it is still referred to as an offence
...But he has just undermined the very definite rule in the Highway Code, as Anthony pointed out
If you ride on the pavement, as an adult, I'd guess if you had any sort of an accident you'd be a good target for a bit of the old blame and claim

Although it is still classified as an offence, the Home Office guidance means that you could appeal against a fixed penalty notice if you were in fact riding safely and considerately. But as you say, it does give the police officer the discretion to decide whether to give you a ticket - it is his/her opinion that determines whether you were being safe/considerate or not, and you would probably need witnesses to be able to appeal successfully.

It's worth remembering that even if you are cycling on a shared-use foot/cycle path, you are effectively in the same position. Pedestrians still have right of way, cyclists still have to cycle safely and considerately, and so a cyclist involved in a collision with a pedestrian is likely to be blamed, unless it is completely clear that the pedestrian was at fault.

So the fact that it's a marked cyclepath doesn't really seem to make much difference to the position of cyclists using it, compared to other pavement.