Well, that’s alright then, as long as your stress is reduced. Meanwhile, over on Pistonheads, Mumsnet and [insert non-cycling forum du jour here] everyone is wailing about how cyclists ride on pavements, run red lights, pile across pedestrian crossings without looking, etc etc etc… You might well be courteous but it does us no favours.
It’s always a funny one, perceived vs actual risk.
They will wail against something that in reality cause 4’ish deaths a year versus something that’s causing roughly the same every day.
Although I bang on about the law in reality I’m not that bothered about e-bikes/scooters and people riding on the pavement , the problem is that people can’t help themselves being dicks you just can’t rely on people being ‘sensible’ so have to enforce stuff over all of us.
Cyclists are just the target of so much hate because people can’t moan anymore about peoples/colour/sex/nationality or sexual orientation and some people seem unhappy when they can’t complain/hate about someone in a conversation.
Nothing you do can do is going to do us any favours and in reality we are not an ‘us’ and that is part of the problem.
We have to be perceived as ‘them’ but on a bike that day 🙂
I'm with sirromj on this one. Living in a semi-rural area, pavements were the only thing that enabled me to travel between towns growing up. I still use them occasionally now, and almost exclusively with child in tow (I don't care how much road awareness they have, it's the awareness from other road users that worries me).
The important thing is that we all get to live another day, and in my experience the vast majority of people understand that and have no issues with people riding responsibly on pavements. In fact I think they often see those on the pavements as more human, somebody like themselves.
I will keep parroting this, but I firmly believe pandering to these arguments, and categorising ourselves into groups, or more specifically, a group that includes vehicles weighing several tonnes and capable of speeds well in excess of 100mph, is more damaging than not. It's already pretty well understood by all that we don't have the infrastructure to support cycling, so a little compromise and common sense is often seen as perfectly acceptable. Let's not change that. At the end of the day, we're WAY closer to pedestrians on the scale, yet we seem intent on dangerously placing ourselves on the other far side next to most motor vehicles, abiding by all the same rules, when in actual fact we have virtually nothing in common and present none of the dangers those rules were designed to alleviate. Rules that put us in danger. It makes no sense to keep reaffirming that position.
And it does all come back to this whole issue of ebikes and electric motorbikes, because that's where the boundaries easily get blurred, making these arguments all the more difficult.
TBH I don’t see an issue with ebikes and electric motorbikes they are all regulated and the laws are in place.
I do see an issue with the media’s click bait approach to it,lazy reporting and pandering to peoples fears and serving up what they want to hear.
You do have a good point on where we are betwixt pedestrians and cars thou and forcing us to play alongside vehicles that totally outclass us in weight/speed and risk to pedestrians is bad.
Ironically surrons are may possibly more risky to the riders, (who aren’t into helmets and prefer the stylish wearing of balaclava).
(It’s a guess as I’m not currently sure if the details would be recorded and I can only go by scrotes bouncing off buses)
Work colleague's grandson in West Yorkshire took out his dad's Sur-ron a couple of weeks ago (wearing a balaclava, obvs) and managed to put his head through a lady's car side window. Insurance, what insurance? Rather than expressing concern I said I hoped he'd managed to get rid of his drugs stash before the police arrived, but it turned out that was superceded by events - while he was sitting on the pavement holding his face together, two Asian lads nicked the E-motorbike and razzed off on it....
Most people don’t really care sabot the difference
Would you, if the shoe was on the other foot.
TBH riding on the pavement is a little bit more nuanced than people seem to think (and seems to have got more draconian as times moved on.)
Hmmm, I think people cycle on pavements as much as they ever did, the difference now is perhaps that we have electrically powered personal vehicles operating well outside of the rules that exist to regulate them.
I have actually been stopped by the police for riding a bicycle on the pavement, as a teenager, it would have been circa 1996/97ish, waiting at a crossing on a stretch of tree lined 'pavement' (the same width as a road) in the not very busy town I grew up in. It was clearly a slow day, and the cops parked their car across the crossing/junction to bollocks me and demand a name and address (that they didn't actually write down). It's always stuck with me as an event because even to teenage dickhead me, they were so clearly off the deep end stopping a kid who was doing no harm, and using a crossing/pavement rather than just darting across the road.
Fast forward to now though and I would kind of like some judgement exercised in that same location, bicycles IMO still OK, surron or privately owned e-scooter, I think I would want them to stop. You might consider that a double standard (perhaps it is) but the potential for harm from various types of twist 'n' go 'personal E-Transport' to pedestrians is greater (IMO)...
To me the police have demonstrated that they can be zealous (often over) in their application of all kinds of laws they already have, when it suits them. But right now, I get the feeling that they either don't care or are so bewildered by recent changes in available technologies and products that they aren't even bothering...
To me the police have demonstrated that they can be zealous (often over) in their application of all kinds of laws they already have, when it suits them. But right now, I get the feeling that they either don’t care or are so bewildered by recent changes in available technologies and products that they aren’t even bothering
Or at present there isn't a political will to push the under resourced services into yet another focus. No longer forces but services no longer proactive but reactive. You know who to blame for this situation and it wears a suit not a uniform.
Is the ethnicity of the thieves pertinent here? What about your colleague’s grandson’s skin colour? You forgot to mention it.
Is the gender of the thieves pertinent here? In your haste to accuse someone of implied racism you forgot to mention the implied sexism in highlighting that they were lads.
Hmmm, I think people cycle on pavements as much as they ever did, the difference now is perhaps that we have electrically powered personal vehicles operating well outside of the rules that exist to regulate them.
The rules exist, they're just misunderstood or ignored and largely unenforced.
the police .... either don’t care or are so bewildered by recent changes in available technologies and products that they aren’t even bothering…
At work the other day I discovered one of the versions of trading standards in partnership with the county council had ended and the associated logos, now outdated, had become criminal to use, and it mentioned something vague about police enforcement. Tickled me to imagine police out on the beat looking making sure logos on the sides of trader's vans were kosher. Possibly a factor!
It’s pretty easy to police. Riding without a helmet, but wearing a face covering? Not pedalling but the “bike” is moving at a rate of knots. Illegal. Crush it. Find me one example where the above two phenotypic descriptors do not hold. The correlation I have seen is remarkable.
And I’ve seen people riding electric bikes without helmets, and they pedal, not normally feeling the need to cover their faces. But I’ve seldom seen non-pedalling riders wearing helmets as the converse. Makes you think.
It’s pretty easy to police.
Well, you've got to catch the bastards first. It sounds easy sure, but the first whiff of hot fuzz and they'll be off down a ginnel like a ferret up a Northerner's pants.
Illegal. Crush it.
Presumably the same approach will apply to our proud pavement riders on here, and to me when I get a 3-year old on a balance bike?
You know who to blame for this situation and it wears a suit not a uniform.
I reckon it's more like a bit from column 'A' a bit from column 'B' really. Politicians and police are as fallible as any other Humans and as prone to taking their queues from "public opinions" which in turn are generally influenced by whatever is published in the media. Which of course gets us back to the beginning of the thread. Media narratives, leading public perceptions and lazy journalism, lacking in detail and nuance.
My trust of the Police's ability to correctly and proportionately act in a given situation is about on par with my estimation of a politician's capacity to put the public good ahead of their own advancement... You can't assume the worst of them all, but the bad apples aren't as rare as they should be.
Agreed that police resources are as lacking as many other public services, and choices have to be made, but it feels like road safety has been on the back burner for a solid couple of decades now...
@Cougar. I reckon that you know that I was making the point that there was no (apparent to me) reason to state the ethnicity of the thieves in this situation (a comment on a mostly MTB-based website). It is surely entirely irrelevant but maybe I'm wrong.
I was in Southampton the other day going across a toll bridge. A person was riding one of those very fat bike looking e motorbikes and flying along up hill without pedalling while a police car drove right by them. I would say that is just blatantly ignoring the crime in that case.
A person was riding one of those very fat bike looking e motorbikes and flying along up hill without pedalling while a police car drove right by them. I would say that is just blatantly ignoring the crime in that case.
It's hardly surprising that it's ignored. The officers decide to try and stop them, the scrote speeds off and injures/kills themselves or someone else, and the officer is then suspended and dragged through the courts by people looking to blame them.
18 months later and still stopped from doing their jobs and under the threat of prosecution.
Presumably the same approach will apply to our proud pavement riders on here
No. The law and the reasonableness about safety are appropriate for pavement cycling. The police rightly will not prosecute for appropriate cycling on a pavement where a cyclist (or their parent) has a rightful fear for their safety. This has been stated multiple times, including to my son when he was younger and cycling to school along a very busy road. But riding an unlicensed motorcycle on a public highway without a helmet or insurance is a much more serious offence.
And my children always rode with appropriate insurance thanks to the CTC/CUK family membership policy /halo
@Cougar. I reckon that you know that I was making the point that there was no (apparent to me) reason to state the ethnicity of the thieves in this situation (a comment on a mostly MTB-based website). It is surely entirely irrelevant but maybe I’m wrong.
There was no reason to state their gender either. It's flavour text. Did you ever read a book which started "Harry Potter was a person. He was friends with Ron and Hermione, both of whom were also people." Me neither, I know what colour Ron's hair was despite it having absolutely no bearing on the plot.
I take your point, and you're correct in that it's not directly relevant, but I think you're looking for a problem where none exists. If the poster had said that the bike was stolen by two blonde girls, would you have reacted?
No. The law and the reasonableness about safety are appropriate for pavement cycling.
Then why not lobby to have that written into statue rather than relying on a policeman being "reasonable"? Walking down the high street waving a machete about is a more serious offence than me having an Opinel in the bottom of my rucksack, but they're both still illegal.
