Close passing

[flecc]

You do know that cycling on the pavement is illegal don't you?

No it isn't necessarily illegal, see this link
.

 

[nigelbb]

No it isn't necessarily illegal, see this link

That just says that it is illegal to cycle on the pavement but if you are lucky then you might get away with it.

 

[Benjahmin]

The phrase, 'owning the road', is not an aquisative, arrogant or selfish stance. Rather it is an acknowledgement of being another road user with a right to be there, not merely tolerated. Too often have I seen cyclists (begginers or not regulars) wobbling along in the gutter, bouncing over drain covers, at risk of catching their peddles on the kerb. If a large truck or van forces a pass with traffic coming the other way, the air wash alone could cause a severe wobble or fall, not to mention the fear factor of such a large vehicle being so close.
Again, I unapolagetically ride 2-3 feet away from the edge and keep an eye on my mirror and my ears open. I will call drivers on when safe to do so and pull in, when possible, if needed. Most drivers give all the space needed, though there are some who seem totally unaware of the width of their vehicle.
Yes I am a driver, I drive my own long wheel base, high top Movano and am well aware of it's possible effect on cyclists. I have been hooted at when slowing down to cyclist speed when approaching a corner, waiting until I can see a clear road ahead so I can cross the white line. I wish all drivers woukd treat me (as a cyclist) with the same consideration.
As to horses, I live in Wales so see plenty of them. If you pass them without going wholly and slowly onto the other side of the road you risk causing it rearing and the rider being thrown. So, yes, they do, in effect, own the space. It is a very rare driver that will close speed pass a horse, there is a generally accepted attitude of allowance. I just wish for the same consideration for cyclists.

 

[Amoto65]

Totally agree with the above, which is why I find the previous photo showing the road position of the cyclist fully acceptable.

 

[flecc]

That just says that it is illegal to cycle on the pavement but if you are lucky then you might get away with it.

What it says is what actually happens, that all over the country the police no longer take notice of cycling on the pavement so it's commonplace with impunity. That's reinforced by the proliferation of shared pavements and paths, marked for both bikes and pedestrians. Faced with the instructions from their chief police officers and this further official allowance, little wonder the police don't bother.

It makes sense. With most of the population travelling in vehicles, the majority of pavements are empty most of the time. Built many decades ago when few owned vehicles and most walked, nationally they are now a vast area of very underused resource.

Obviously those near vacant pavements can carry some of the road overburden and I don't think politicians are unwise to employ them. Given the low speed of pedestrians, the only suitable roads element to transfer are bicycles, but of necessity ridden with care.

In many other countries this works without complaint. Indeed in Japan cyclists have to by law move onto the pavement in many urban areas. In the Netherlands there are many areas co-used by cyclist and pedestrians, and the same is true in many other countries, probably the majority worldwide.

It's the propagation of the myth that pavement cycling is always illegal that encourages pedestrians to continue to complain. It would be better that those like yourself stated the truth instead of the myth, so pedestrians and cyclists start to co-operate more like they do everywhere else.
.

 

[nigelbb]

What it says is what actually happens, that all over the country the police no longer take notice of cycling on the pavement so it's commonplace with impunity. That's reinforced by the proliferation of shared pavements and paths, marked for both bikes and pedestrians. Faced with the instructions from their chief police officers and this further official allowance, little wonder the police don't bother.

It makes sense. With most of the population travelling in vehicles, the majority of pavements are empty most of the time. Built many decades ago when few owned vehicles and most walked, nationally they are now a vast area of very underused resource.

Obviously those near vacant pavements can carry some of the road overburden and I don't think politicians are unwise to employ them. Given the low speed of pedestrians, the only suitable roads element to transfer are bicycles, but of necessity ridden with care.

In many other countries this works without complaint. Indeed in Japan cyclists have to by law move onto the pavement in many urban areas. In the Netherlands there are many areas co-used by cyclist and pedestrians, and the same is true in many other countries, probably the majority worldwide.

It's the propagation of the myth that pavement cycling is always illegal that encourages pedestrians to continue to complain. It would be better that those like yourself stated the truth instead of the myth, so pedestrians and cyclists start to co-operate more like they do everywhere else.
.

I'm delighted to have your confirmation that I won't get fined for riding on the pavement. However if I do can I send you the bill?

 

[trevor brooker]

No it isn't necessarily illegal, see this link

I think we should keep this quiet - if the motorists realise then they will all shout at us to get off their roads & use the pavements!

 

[flecc]

I'm delighted to have your confirmation that I won't get fined for riding on the pavement. However if I do can I send you the bill?

I haven't said that riding on the pavement is unconditionally ok. Without knowing how you ride on or off pavements I cannot offer that facility, since too many UK cyclists seem to think 20 mph or more on pavements is ok. And the attitude you are displaying here makes me suspect you wouldn't defend your riding to the police or a court in an acceptably courteous manner.

If you are riding on the pavement in a reasonable manner out of fear of the current traffic, you won't get fined. Indeed you probably would never get stopped.
.

 

[flecc]

I think we should keep this quiet - if the motorists realise then they will all shout at us to get off their roads & use the pavements!

They already want us to be compelled to use cyclepaths where they are provided. Hopefully that will not happen, but it has in some countries.
.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

That at that moment of time I have "ownership" of that piece of road in order to allow me to continue my journey.
ie the majority of my rides are on single track country lanes, where I will pull over at a layby but not into a hedge.
I don't worry if the vehicle behind can go faster & is forced to wait behind me, until its safe to allow an overtake.
The vehicle behind does not have any priority but due consideration is required as we all need to share the road.

Yes, I totally agree with you and my cycling routes and behavour are like yours.
To many though, "owning the road" means blocking the carriageway indefinitely. Some cycling clubs follow this "rule".

 

[Deleted member 25121]

As to horses, I live in Wales so see plenty of them. If you pass them without going wholly and slowly onto the other side of the road you risk causing it rearing and the rider being thrown. So, yes, they do, in effect, own the space. It is a very rare driver that will close speed pass a horse, there is a generally accepted attitude of allowance. I just wish for the same consideration for cyclists.

I live in the countryside and encounter many horse riders on single track roads. Good riders will pull into a field entrance or other opening to allow cars to pass. I just wish for the same consideration from some cyclists.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

You do know that cycling on the pavement is illegal don't you?

No, I don't know that and I think your statement is incorrect.

 

[E-Wheels]

The phrase, 'owning the road', could be also be rephrased as “taking the primary position”