SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Businesses & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Site Feedback | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (6): « First < Previous 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next > Last »
Granny spinners
Author Message
hillsideresident


Posts: 148
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #81
07-06-2011 09:32 PM

Using your imagination, tell a story to explain how these men cycling along the pavement are not really doing so at all. Be as free with your imagination as you like.

Post office man cycles along the pavement from the telephone box, past those girls. Get off and push.

The other one up by the library is also just riding along the pavement. If he'd gone onto the pavement to miss the obstruction, he would be back on the road by now. Even if that is what he did - why? Why not cycle past it on the road? What actually prevents that?

The cars have not been "driven on the pavement". They have been parked on those evidently designated parking areas. That is not "driving along the pavement", in the way that cyclists ride along the pavement.

Perfectly good examples.

Find all posts by this user Reply
michael


Posts: 3,217
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #82
07-06-2011 10:08 PM

jollyrog Wrote:
http://goo.gl/maps/Iyx4
In the background I see another five or so (probably) illegal pavement parked cars.

I see one cyclist on the pavement, clearly avoiding a temporary constraint due to roadworks. I don't see any pedestrians behind him or in his immediate path.

I don't particularly like seeing the cars parked there, but residents have been parking there for 30 years, so it probably counts as a right of way, even without the dropped kerb. There is even a sign saying residents parking only: http://goo.gl/maps/9z8S

If you look at the previous image (by moving backwards) you will see the cyclist riding between the bus stop and the temporary traffic lights which are on red. He is jumping lights and riding on the pavement at the same time. The temporary lights apply equally to cyclists as to cars, and there is no excuse for riding on the pavement.

jollyrog Wrote:
http://goo.gl/maps/A3RK

In the follow on image to that, you can see that he's turned his bike to join Dartmouth Road proper from the slip road. Looks to me like he's actually come from the bike racks on the corner (you can see the lock on his top tube) and is looking to be on the road. His crime? possibly cycling two or three metres from the cycle racks to the corner.

I don't think you are correct. From what I can make out (again moving backwards) the cyclist is coming from the direction of Century Yard. In the following images, as the camera car goes past him and after he squeezes past the girls, he hops off his bike, either because he thinks he has just been caught on camera or because he wants to cross the road.

Find all posts by this user Reply
IWereAbsolutelyFuming


Posts: 531
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #83
07-06-2011 10:08 PM

Quite right, no excuses for those google cyclists.

Those cars are highly likely to have committed an offence though as it would be nigh on impossible to have parked the way they have using just the two dropped kerbs to the far left. It is an offence to drive over a footway if there is no dropped kerb where you mount the pavement. Not sure what harm they'd cause in this case but then this thread isn't about cars on pavements. Or leniency.

Find all posts by this user Reply
hillsideresident


Posts: 148
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #84
07-06-2011 10:16 PM

It's just bad manners. It's a shame it needs explaining.

Find all posts by this user Reply
hillsideresident


Posts: 148
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #85
08-06-2011 08:24 AM

If you canít police yourselves it has to be licensing; and if you canít see the problem, how can you police yourselves?

Find all posts by this user Reply
michael


Posts: 3,217
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #86
08-06-2011 09:02 AM

While looking through Google Streetview I spotted a nice car on the South Circular, with somebody who looks strangely familiar:
http://goo.gl/maps/D5ey

Find all posts by this user Reply
IWereAbsolutelyFuming


Posts: 531
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #87
08-06-2011 10:13 AM

OK, so where does this trend of licensing stop? Do we license people to buy things from shops in case they drop litter? Shall we license people with pushchairs to ensure they behave appropriately on buses? Should joggers be licensed if they want to run on pavements?

We don't need to agree on this. You feel there is a significant problem with people cycling on pavements that needs a thorough legal and bureaucratic response. I don't think there is a significant enough problem to warrant it, I certainly haven't denied that it happens. My rationale is that the evidence says there are not enough serious incidents surrounding pavement cycling in the country and that it is not as prevalent as suggested to justify the cost and effort to set up laws and licensing schemes. The system would be expensive, overly complex, there are no clear benefits, it would be difficult to police by an already overstretched force and it would discourage a form of transport that should be encouraged. You feel differently, we've debated the issue and continue to disagree. What's wrong with that?

Find all posts by this user Reply
Cellar Door


Posts: 356
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #88
08-06-2011 10:48 AM

I have very much enjoyed reading this thread. There have been some very insightful links and responses.

Iíd like to particularly thank hillsideresident for raising this originally last week. Ever since then my awareness as a pedestrian and a cyclist has raised another notch.

Post #46 from nork1 raised some excellent examples. I laughed and winced reading nork1ís Frankfurt experience where the Frankfurters started yelling as they viewed nork1ís light-footed pedestrian frolic crossing the road as setting a bad example to kids. I do like their thinking this way. Frankfurt, based on this, sounds wonderful. nork1, Iím sorry to hear the Germans were getting shouty with you but all for the best, I hope.

IWereAbsolutelyFuming, I tip my cycling helmet towards your experience and thoughtful analysis. Iím still waiting eagerly to read hillsideresidentís response on the nitty gritty of their proposed licensing. Iím still confused about licensing the cyclist as you raised in post #70. I donít think hillsideresident has clarified that aspect. Identifying the cyclist is a bit of a bump on the road for hillsideresidentís licensing proposal, as far as I can see.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Londondrz


Posts: 1,538
Joined: Apr 2006
Post: #89
08-06-2011 03:48 PM

Working in the City and frequently seeing clients in the West End I have to say I think a lot of people who ride Boris bikes shouldnt be allowed out on their own two feet let alone one of Boris's finest bikes!

Find all posts by this user Reply
ryananglem


Posts: 167
Joined: Apr 2009
Post: #90
08-06-2011 03:52 PM

I totally agree @CellarDoor, its been interesting to see lots of differing views aired.

I had some thoughts about licencing (funnily enough as I was riding to work this morning) - it was more about the licencing of bikes for purchase. I was thinking more about providing a certificate of cycling proficiency in order to purchase a bike. There are lots of pitfalls with my proposed plan and I had shot myself down by the time I got to work. Still, I did think about the subject more than I would have before, so thanks for that @hillsideresident

Its nice also to see some sun today. Makes my trip to work a lot more fun.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Jane_D


Posts: 189
Joined: Jan 2010
Post: #91
08-06-2011 03:54 PM

I've found this thread extremely thought provoking too. I was mulling it over as I walked down a quiet street in the City yesterday evening, until started by a frantic ringing of bells from an approaching cyclist as I crossed a side road. In the spirit of this thread, I shouted an apology after him. Must look more carefully in future.

I hope it wasn't anyone on here...

Find all posts by this user Reply
Cellar Door


Posts: 356
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #92
08-06-2011 04:08 PM

ryananglem Wrote:
Its nice also to see some sun today.

Lovely, isn't it. Although it poured down here at Marylebone like the start of a rain storm that would last a thousand years. Luckily for us, it stopped.

Jane_D Wrote:
I hope it wasn't anyone on here...

If it was me, then you would've heard the clucking of my tongue. If it was IWereAbsolutelyFuming, then the wheezing, I read earlier, would have been their giveaway.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Jane_D


Posts: 189
Joined: Jan 2010
Post: #93
08-06-2011 04:17 PM

No clicking or wheezing occurred this time. Phew.

Find all posts by this user Reply
AMFM


Posts: 306
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #94
08-06-2011 05:03 PM

wasn't me either, my bell broke (from overuse...) ages ago and has yet to be replaced - shouting beep beep actually works much better than a bell anyway!

Find all posts by this user Reply
Cellar Door


Posts: 356
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #95
08-06-2011 05:40 PM

hillsideresident Wrote:
Like the oldie beardie today...

Yikes! That sounds like me.

hillsideresident Wrote:
...pedalling his sad, self-centred way...

*Gulp*...still sounds like me.

hillsideresident Wrote:
...through a crowd of schoolchildren on the pavement...

Phew! Not me. I'd never have the nerve to ride through a crowd of schoolchildren. And certainly never to ride on a pavement. That other oldie beardie was lucky to survive.

Find all posts by this user Reply
hillsideresident


Posts: 148
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #96
09-06-2011 10:16 AM

I never had a bell. I just shouted at pedestrians who wandered into the road in front of me. And if I passed them from behind while they were walking along the road I would pat them on the arm and say "hello". See, I'm consistent.

Licensing. From a car driver's point of view, I think it's rather like paying to go to a pop concert and then seeing people climbing in through the fence for free. You don't go out of your way to be nice to them. But cyclists do need car drivers to go out of their way to be nice to them. I think it would be safer for pedestrians as well, as the police would bother to stop cyclists more, as there would be proper penalities. I also think cyclists having the same status as drivers and bikers would help change the mindset of cycling into something more adult. The current mindset of many cyclists is pretty childish.

With regard to that, CD, I think the 12-year-old I saw on the road in Dulwich (no cycle path) was more of an adult than the 40-year-old on the pavement (right next to a cycle path).

What pavement cyclists have done is to bring the road onto the pavement. Now we have to be continually watching out, not just for each other, but for actual road vehicles. What the &$%! are they even doing there?! That's a one-way intrusion into our lives. It's bad manners. That's mainly why I object. It's no good telling me I shouldn't mind. It would be like me coming and setting up a deckchair on your front lawn and telling you you shouldn't be offended. Except that with pavement cycling there is also a risk of injury, and occasionally seriously so.

I'm sure IWAF doesn't hate blind people, but I don't think he's terribly bothered about them either. Personally, I found that piece really shocking.

We're not going to agree on the need for licencing, or whether it would make any difference, but I don't see the problem about it being workable. The simplest version would be for cyclists to have to have a one-off licence, like everyone else. If they're stopped for something by the police, then they have to produce their licence (on the spot or in 7 days). The case would go to court and they'd get points deducted. Too many points, licence withdrawn. And get caught cycling without a valid licence - big trouble. Just like everyone else on the road.

Find all posts by this user Reply
IWereAbsolutelyFuming


Posts: 531
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #97
09-06-2011 11:17 AM

Quote:
I'm sure IWAF doesn't hate blind people, but I don't think he's terribly bothered about them either. Personally, I found that piece really shocking.


I think it's best not to personalise these things. My comments have been based on whether or not I think the experiences of blind people such as those reported in the Cambridge article justify licensing cyclists to use the public highways. It is sobering to be made to think about how difficult living with blindness must be but I wasn't shocked by what I read as it lacked enough detail to be clear about the nature of the incidents mentioned.

Find all posts by this user Reply
edd


Posts: 147
Joined: Mar 2008
Post: #98
10-06-2011 11:37 PM

Having trawled through this thread, I'm surprised by how often proponents of illegally cycling on the pavement justify it by saying that car-drivers break laws too. Good to know that two wrongs do indeed make a right. Angry


My worst experience is my twice daily walk with a three year old and a six year old under FH railway bridge (Coop side) in order to do the nursery and school run. It's noisy, sometimes extremely dusty, and very close to fast-moving traffic. The last thing I need, when leading a toddler and instructing a Year 1 child on where to walk safely, is a cyclist pedalling past me from behind at speed with no warning, but it hasn't happened once.




Oh no, it's happened six times this school term. Twunts.


N.B. Can't say I'd cycle that bit of road either; it looks lethal. But I'd get off my bike and walk it on the pavement.

Find all posts by this user Reply
hillsideresident


Posts: 148
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #99
11-06-2011 07:30 PM

Very sorry to hear about your experience, edd. Absolutely appalling. I can't remember that sort of thing happening ten years ago, and certainly not on a routine basis.

I think it's time for action if we want this kind of thing to stop. If we don't speak up the powers that be will just cave in and make pavement cycling legal everywhere.

Write to and phone councillors, and make sure we're heard.

Find all posts by this user Reply
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #100
11-06-2011 07:37 PM

Sorry stories of pavement abuse by the biking fraternity.
Bikes should be used on the ROAD only , the sole exception being young children , say 10 and under.
Police never seem to get involved .
Amazing that some cyclists seem to try to justify their dangerous and selfish behavior.
Come on bikers play the game. It could be your granny on the pavement that gets knocked over.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (6): « First < Previous 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields