Pavement cyclists

[Numptycorner]

A country lane with no pavement?

As a cyclist you're always allowed to overtake on the right in stationary traffic.

I find a shrill whistle or bell helps too.

And how many cars would you pass before you were decorating someones bonnet? At least on a motorbike you have a chance of avoiding. Too many idiots to risk doing that (plus you now have 2 sides to deal with). Best to get on the empty pavement.

[Moscow Mule]

And how many cars would you pass before you were decorating someones bonnet? At least on a motorbike you have a chance of avoiding. Too many idiots to risk doing that (plus you now have 2 sides to deal with). Best to get on the empty pavement.

Its called riding defensively - this should be taught to cyclists as it is to motorcyclists.

[dang65]

Here's some stats and a row about pavement cycling. Quite interesting.

[Moscow Mule]

Here's some stats and a row about pavement cycling. Quite interesting.

Can you post the gist of it? Blocked here (it's got chat in the URL)

[dang65]

Here you go. There's a number of responses after the article, but I won't post them. Just a general drivers/cyclists row.

Cyclists riding on the footpath can be annoying but it is important to keep a sense of perspective, and although cycling on footways is very common in the UK, it actually poses a very little risk to pedestrians.

Firstly, to give some perspective, in 2004 670 pedestrians were killed after being hit by a motor vehicle and 34,628 injured, 6,765 of these seriously.

By comparison in 2004 1 (one) pedestrian died after being hit by a cyclist and 2 cyclists died in such collisions.

All 3 of these collisions occurred on the road, not a footpath.

(It is also worth noting that the basic statistics produced by the DfT combine both the pedestrian and cyclist casualties arising from such collisions).

It is clear that one is far, far more likely to be killed or seriously injured by the user of a motor vehicle than a cyclist when walking along a roadside pavement.

For example, In 2005 50 pedestrians were run down and killed by someone driving a motor vehicle as they walked along a footway and over 3,300 were injured.

Another 69 pedestrians were run down and killed by a motor vehicle user as they used a pedestrian crossing and over 3,100 injured.

The official DfT figures combine collisions which occur on the roads, on cycle paths which are within the highway boundary, pedestrianised areas and footways.

As such they include many collisions where they cyclist cannot be held to be totally responsible, such as when they are on the road and a pedestrian steps without looking into their path.

Such collisions account for most of the serious pedestrian injuries sustained and almost all the fatalities, as is to be expected given that the speed of cyclists on the highway tends to be higher than on footways.

The figures below for casualties arising from collisions between pedestrians and relate to all collisions, including those that occurred on the road.

They relate to the year and, in order, the number of pedestrian deaths, pedestrian serious injuries, pedestrian slight injuries, cyclist deaths, cyclist serious injuries and cyclist slight injuries.

2001: 0, 53, 162 ..... 0, 4, 46

2002: 3, 40, 127 ..... 1, 9, 29

2003: 4, 38, 172 ..... 0, 7, 42

2004: 1, 42, 167 ..... 2, 6, 51

With regards the recording of 'off carriageway' collisions the 'stats 19' guidance given to police regarding the recording of such injuries includes pedestrianised roads with limited access for motor vehicles, cycle lanes, cycleways or shared access footways (if part of Highway) and the footway or pavement (again if part of highway).

An answer in Hansard gives the following figures for pedestrians injured (including slight injuries) on the 'footway or verge' as a result with a collision involving 1) a motor vehicle and 2) a cyclist between 2000 and 2003.

Year. Motor vehicles. Pedal cycles.

2000: 3,445 ..... 77

2001: 3,504 ..... 78

2002: 3,432 ..... 65

2003: 3,453 ..... 72

http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/50316w01.htm

It is not stated but it seems likely that these figures relate to all 'not on carriageway' collision, that is including those which also occurred on shared use pavements, pedestrianised areas and so on where the cyclist may well have had legitimate access.

A House of Commons written answer given on 20/11/02 supports this assumption as this states that in 2001 there were 64 collisions between cyclists and pedestrians on pavements in the whole of the UK which resulted in a pedestrian injury (most of which will have been minor), rather than the '78' figure given above.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...w18.html_sbhd3

A reply to a further Parliamentary question in Hansard for 16 Jan 2006 notes that in the 5 years between 2000 and 2004, not a single pedestrian was killed in the UK as a consequence of being in collision with a cyclist riding on a footway.

See

http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/60116w12.htm

True, not all casualties get reported, but this seems to affect cycle casualties far more than any other road user group.

The OECD report 'Safety of Vulnerable Road Users (RS7)' Found that in the UK 82-91% of serious injuries to pedestrians were reported and 60-80% of slight injuries.

In comparison only 12-41% of serious injures to cyclists were reported and 9-29% of slight injuries to cyclists.


This suggests that there is not a large scale under-reporting of injuries arising from cycle/pedestrian collisions, and given the rather irrational level of hostility to 'pavement cyclists' in the media, there is no reason to suspect that any pedestrian injured in such a collision would feel inhibited about reporting any resultant injury.

Indeed, even very minor injuries arising from such collisions may well be given a significant amount of publicity in the local media.

With regards the enforcement of the law with regards 'pavement cycling', it should be noted that the Home Office does not support a 'zero tolerance' approach.

(In fact one can imagine the outcry if driving offences such as speeding were treated in a 'zero tolerance' manner, with drivers doing even 71 Mph on the motorway being fined on the basis that 'the law is the law and that is the end of it'!

And this is despite the fact that exceeding the legal speed limit is recorded as being a contributory factor in almost one third of all fatal road crashes!).

When FPN's were introduced Home Office Minister Paul Boeteng 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 has been reiterated by John Crozier of the Home Office who in a letter dated 23/02/04 (Ref T5080/4) with reference to the use of FPN's by Community Support Officers's Stated:

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.

[Moscow Mule]

Ta - it is quite interesting.

[Let-Me-In]

12:24

[Moscow Mule]

1536