Ha! There is no doubt which one you are.

I don't how much sway I have with the Australian Tertiary System but I'll send a note to say to them that I'm anointing you with an Honorary Doctorate.

Congratulations!

Nice one, that's the first thing I've achieved since my Cycling Proficiency Certificate...oops, don't actually have one of those either

It is the mixed messages from organisations like this that really winds me up. They are saying that they condone pavement cycling but then go on to suggest that it is perfectly reasonable, and the complaints from pedestrians are misguided nonsense. Their message to cyclists is that they are not causing a problem by cycling on the pavement (just that it is illegal so they can't publicly support it). They are wrong; pavement cycling is anti-social and dangerous except when organised properly into shared spaces.

Unlike this organisation, the cyclists posting on this forum are a credit to their lycra-clad brothers and sisters, or at least they say they are

As are the forum's jaywalkers, sorry, pedestrians Michael

I can accept your reading of that Michael and I admit I had similar misgivings about how it could come across. My own take on it is that it is alluding to what I think may need to become a more seriously considered option - greater sharing of non-road space by pedestrians and cyclists where appropriate. They are the most vulnerable groups of road users and the groups that, based on statistics, cause less deaths and injuries. One of those groups enjoys quite a bit of protection through segregation (pavements) while the other has a small amount of protection through segregation (some bike lanes - although most allow pedestrians and drivers to legally encroach on them). There is limited space available on the roads and pavements so it isn't an easy nut to crack but there is scope for improvement.

While the thread is active, did anyone see those 'cycle-friendly' roundabouts in the news recently? They look terrifying (see 2 minutes in to the video)!

“Shared space” just means the legalisation of cycling on the pavement. If you think the former is OK, then you think the latter is OK. They’re the same thing.

Statistics have nothing to do with it. Cycling organisations sometimes talk as if they accept – pro tem – that cycling on the pavement is illegal, but in fact they can’t quite see why they shouldn’t muscle in on our territory as long as we’re not injured too often, and as long as we’re hardly ever killed. The problem with this is that they don’t really understand what pavements are for. Pavements are for everybody: old, young, including very young, blind, slow, incompetent, stupid, everything. We walk at very different speeds, some very slowly indeed, some of us uncertainly due to advanced age, disability or ill health; we stop, we forget things, we suddenly turn back; we move sideways across the pavement to enter someone’s front garden or to talk to a friend. In summary, we are unpredictable and amateurish in our behaviour. And this is fine, since there can hardly be a qualification to use the pavement since it’s the only way of getting anywhere on foot.

And what does this tell us? What it should tell us is that the pavement is not simply a route for travelling. It is quite different to the road.

The road is solely for travelling, and it is reasonable to require all kinds of rules, training, skill tests and codes of behaviour, since without all of these there would be mayhem. Bringing road users onto the pavement completely ruins this system, making the pavement part of the road. This completely changes the character of the pavement, and much for the worse as far as pedestrians are concerned.

There’s also a weird displaced-religion saving-the-planet idea that we need more cyclists by any means necessary, and if anyone objects to these extra cyclists making a nuisance of themselves, then those objectors are evidently not true believers and their views don’t count. There’s no-one more intolerant than a liberal. Strength through Hoy! Or you just pretend that it’s a tiny minority and that nothing has really changed at all. Ha!

The problem is that there are more cars than in previous years and plenty of bad driving, and the relationship between cars and cyclists has degenerated. The solution is to sort this out, however, not to take the easy option of just stealing other people’s territory. One hugely overdue requirement is compulsory training. Anyone who thinks compulsory training isn’t necessary should watch the way cyclists behave on London Bridge, for example. I’m amazed someone isn’t injured there every day. As for car drivers, they evidently need to be much more aware of, and tolerant of, cyclists, and you can’t just stick this in the driving test. It’s a whole mindset. I think part of the answer is that you shouldn’t be allowed to learn to drive a car until you have passed your bicycle test. It needs a whole culture change.

Personally, I would also remove most cycle lanes, unless it is a fast road. Cycle lanes work fine as long as there are no drains, potholes, parked cars, delivery vans or people turning left, and as long as cyclists never turn right. Cyclists are road users and they should use the road. Richard Ballantine’s injunction to “ride big” was the best advice I ever had.

Nor would I spend trillions on special cycle paths. On fast roads, yes, absolutely; but on normal roads, it shouldn’t be necessary. As for the Venus fly trap system above, what on earth is that?!

However you sort out what happens on the road, that is where the problem, and the solution, lies. Hiding from the traffic amongst old ladies, small children and everyone in between is just miserably dishonest and cowardly, whatever term you refer to it by.

Hillsideresident, thanks for the reply, I do intend to respond at some point but I've been hit by the unusual scenario of having a social life for once (and being busy at work).

hillsideresident - thanks for the post. Most of me broadly agrees with you although there are points that I disagree with.

I'm not massively keen on segregated cycle paths since, like you, I believe that cyclists should be able to use the road. 'Ride big' is great advice but does require the mindset that you mention by drivers. It's also easier for fit, fast cyclists to do than less confident or children.

Pedestrians do come in all shapes/sizes and abilities and so do cyclists. The difference is that there's a few miles per hour between the fastest and slowest walkers so contention for walking space isn't generally an issue except perhaps on Oxford Street. There's 20 mph between cyclists. The faster cyclists are happy to be on the road. The surface is better, they can keep up with traffic (certainly in central London) and they don't feel unsafe. The slower cyclists are scared from being on the road until they gain more confidence or speed. So where do they go? The pavement isn't the answer. So I can see where segregated cyclist lanes on routes to schools, parks or shopping areas might be sensible.

Otherwise, I agree cyclists need to use roads since even with the best political will (assuming unlimited cash - hah!) there is no way that we will have cycle lanes on every road so at some point, cyclists will have to venture onto 'normal' roads and drivers will have to get used to it. I also have concerns around how on earth segregated paths are going to be cleaned (to avoid punctures) or gritted in the winter to avoid icy. Probably as well as pavements are (i.e. not very - which is another debate!) which isn't reassuring. That's one of those places where I think that pedestrians/cyclists could combine efforts to lobby for better winter provision!

My view of any future 'shared' space means where the cycle facilities are at the same height as the footpath but are still clearly segregated by colour/paving etc. I'm not entirely convinced how well it always works since pedestrians often walk along the cycle path rather than their empty pavement perhaps because the difference isn't apparent enough. I'm not a fan of 'free for all' shared space primarily since it generally seems to be used as a convenience for councils to tick a box on cycling provision rather than taking into account whether the location is suitable or not.

In general, they're not. Many 'shared pavements' are the same width as normal pavements and on streets with bus stops etc where pedestrians will be waiting. Even if cyclists are going slowly and considerately, the lack of space is likely still to be alarming to others sharing that space - just as a car passing a cyclist at speed in a narrow road is scary. When I'm not on my bike, I'm a pedestrian and cyclists on the pavement irritate me too - particularly at certain points on Lordship Lane where they try to weave their way through the queue at bus stops. Doh - get off and push it if you really feel you can't be on the road at that point!

They can work where the pavements are wide (although it is better if then they clearly segregate walking/riding areas) and where there's not a huge amount of traffic of either kind (i.e. the bit along the South Circular at Dulwich Common between the park gates works since car speeds are high but pedestrian traffic is low - but not at the Lordship Lane Estate where the cars are slowing and there are lots more pedestrians since there are houses/bus stops).

Training - I agree. The cycle training I did (free from council so there is no excuse) was the best thing I did before cycling regularly in London. How you make it compulsory and monitor it cost-effectively, I have no idea but I do agree that there are lots of people out there who would benefit from it - and some common sense and courtesy.

Overall, I do firmly agree with you that cyclists shouldn't be on the pavement and the ultimate aim should be to get them on the road - with urban planning that recognises this and makes it safe for all to be there (whether that's with better ASLs, potential priority lights at key junctions, ability to right turn or use some one-way streets to bypass large gyratories or through some usage of cycle lanes). That urban planning should also take pedestrians into account - creating easier places to cross the road (i.e. no islands in the middle to double the time you spend waiting for the lights to change), fewer railings to hem people in and allow them to take the shortest route.

As for that roundabout - it terrifies me. I cycle round Vauxhall Cross most days. It says something that I'd rather do that than use that roundabout!

The Forest Hill Society has a link to an interesting new initiative by Lewisham council.

http://www.foresthillsociety.com/2013/05...-hall.html

I'd certainly make use of it if they introduced one of these things near me.

Appreciation of 'IWereAbsolutelyFuming' here.

Thanks Tim...doing my best not to get involved in another cycling thread now! Not least because I haven't had time to put some proper thought into this one again yet.

Oh and Happy Bike Week everyone.

This post was last modified: 21-06-2013 08:29 AM by IWereAbsolutelyFuming.

Umm... am I missing something here? I mean, fourteen PAGES (to date) of claim and counter-claim, argument and counter-argument... it's as if we had all been charged with making a decision about whether or not to allow cycling on the pavements of SE23.

In fact, whatever we think about the rights and wrongs of it, isn't cycling on the pavement illegal? And shouldn't that be reason enough for all of us - pedestrians, cyclists and motorists (and many of us are all three) - to (a) refrain from doing it and (b) condemn those who do it?

Of course, if some cyclists want to mount a campaign to legalise pavement-cycling, they have every right to try. But unless and until they succeed, what's to debate? If you ride your bike on the pavement then, however you try to justify it, you're breaking the law. True, you're unlikely to be prosecuted... but you're a law-breaker nonetheless.

A cyclist was killed on Thurlow Park Road, near Dulwich College, this morning. Stay safe fellow cyclists.