Safe Speed Forums

Excellent

Now that's exactly the reponse I was after:

So it's alright to drive a car on to a pavement, but not cycle on it........

I think that proves just how sensible this argument is!

Park, not drive. Quite a difference.

And not only was that the best response he could come up with:

It was the only response he could come up with!

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Oooh ... how strong you are!

Being able to lift your car on to the pavement without driving it on or off.

As I said, why is one dangerous, the other not, surely the cyclists are being equaly considerate by aid ing traffic flow in the ame way!

The data for you belief being? Statistically new drivers have more accidents - which why insurers base their risck factors the way they do!

But which individual statistical group do you mean - and what is your source.



Supply your source!

People not look where they are going and drivers reversing out of driveways have killed people. Also these daft householders create A SMIDSY by not pruning bushes and soon. We also get children run over in driveways - running to greet parents, and other tragics whereby parent forgot to apply handbrake r failed to check cat was in neutral.

But .. hospital stats are not recording that many cases of these incidents. They occur but not as freuquently as you sugggest - so please state your source.



And fully investigated - and mostly the drivers are exonerated when they find the person concerned was drunk and failed to notice a plainly visible vehicle with flashing lights and sirens.




Your point is? The car is stationary and the driver has possibly paid a surcharge to the council for permission to park. I think this is the case in London - but this is only what people tell me.

A cyclist riding on the pavement can have collide with a pedestrian or a child. Has been known for such a cyclist to swerve into roadway without looking to avoid a pedestrian. He then ends up under the wheels of a car.

This is one of the rare occasions when a COAST skill can fail the driver - as driver observed the cyclist but could not anticipate a sudden swerve out into the roadway!

But then again - it is a matter of consideration - and I am seeing less and less of this in all walks of life anyway.

You name it ... mobile phones in cinemas and theatres, yobbish behaviour in A&E the other day for my colleagues, and had the bloke from hell on the same road as me tonight as well on my late evening jaunt with my youngest daughter. Tailgating and behaving like a right idiot - where are those night scamerati when you need'em! Am currently waiting of Wildy to return from a similar "soothe blat" . On edge - don't like her being out like this - she thinks she is is being "helpful as I have work tomorrow!"



Oh for heaven's sake! There is a big difference between parking your car on the pavement outside your own home and riding a bicycle on the pavement. Children are not daft - they know what is allowed and what's not. I should know- have seven such expensive hooligans in this household -aged 17 to 3 months. You explain the rules and differences between them.

I cannot really see the point you are making at all here. A parked car with a right to be parked there - out of common law or a permit - on a roadway where a park-up on the pavement would be an obstruction for other road users is common sense, consideration and courtesy. (C of COAST! if you like! ). HC 53 and 54 explain the reasons - unneecessary use of pavement creates a nuisance and danger to another road user.

Different if the road conditions dictate that pavement hop may be safer - and use either get off and wheel of you cycle very slowly. But generally - you cycle according to the laws - and you apply COAST in much the same way as you do when you drive. At least I do, my wife does - and all other advanced and experienced drivers/cyclists up and down the country.

Only an inconsiderate person would cycle on a pavement and whinge because a householder parked his car on the pavement area just outside his home.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

SO many requests.


1. Exactly as you say the statistical numbers of pedestrians killed by cyclists is low, so many statistical groups will have greater numbers of accidents resulting in fatality, Search this website for figures or check the DfT statistics. I can also give details of the web metasearch which gives rise to a number of articles which when summated will exceed the figures.

One incident alone can count for almost as many casualties as the cyclist numbers.(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manc ... 676337.stm)

That is why I did not give specific references as this would be unfair to particular groups, especiially if you braek down the cyclist numbers in the same way. At a complete guess - Tandems would probably be completely safe, and cheap mountain bikes from Halfords the most dangerous)If you require further guidance as to references here - please let me know.


2. Again look at websites for the Dft this will give you figures. I have NOT added in fatalities or injuries due to damage caused to infrastructure (see above).
You could also try, although this will also give figures for falls and deaths due to dmaged pavements etc, and was not ttherefore included:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 88-07.hcsp

3. I have never queried whether these accidents were investigated, but the same applies, have the number of drunk pedestrian / cyclist conflicts been investigated. In Hampshire at least there is no differentiatin between pavement and unsegregated cycle track and pavement in the records?
ALso see http://www.transport2000.org.uk/learnin ... alking.htm

4.I still fail to see how the vehicle gets on to the pavenment without ever driving on it! Motion is motion, and if you apply the basic laws of physics, athe momentum stored by a car at 5 mph is prbably equivalent to a cyclist at 15 mph ( this will of course depend on the size f car as it is a moment of the total mass.) Unfortunately the differnce will probably be lost on the pedestrian.

5. Does paying a surcharge of any sort really entitle you to obstruct a footway with the possible consequences.? I also find the concept of parking on a pavement to keep the road clear a little confusing. Surely as you yourself argue, later in your post, this will put chlldren at risk as they will have to negotiate an unneccessary obstacle.

6. You are applying your own standards can you guarantee that all children ae this well educated - that would solve most of today's social problems, ideal, nice, and unfortunately unlikely. The parenting skills of many could be improved, Ask any teacher..... ONly if this is the case will these kids know the difference, iunfortunately many won't.

7. I agree fully only inconsidrate people use pavements - their design AND sole correct use is for pedestrians. As you so rightly point out - no-one no matter has any right to perform an action which restricts, blocks, or removes the access of children, the disabled or elderly should quite rightly be censured by law as in now the case.

However to slightly contradict myself, I do feel that well supervised children who lack the skills to use the road should be able to cycle on the pavement so that they can gain experience, but without the danger of an unpredictable environent.

I'm not a fan of pavement parking either, but I have done so a few times. Last time was a no-choice situation. Idiots who painted the parking bays made them very narrow. My car is 69.5" wide, and with the outer edge of the o/s wheels on the paint both n/s wheels were well on to the pavement. Anyone know if there's minimum dimensions for painted bays on the road?

Don't think I've ever bumped up the kerb at anything like five miles per hour though. Five inches per second more like. A car mounting the pavement to park is probably going to be easier for pedestrians to see than one of those nandrolone fuelled bike couriers, though I'm not anti cyclists who ride responsibly as I think the majority do. (Just like us, small minority lets down the sensible majority... but you still won't get me on a bicycle ).

I think ideally pavement parking should be done only when the pavement is so wide it can't possibly inconvenience anyone. The pavement is for pedestrians and we're the first to bitch when they create hazards in the road. If we want to persuade them that the road is space for cars and the pavement is space for them then I think we should avoid using it. If we're going to do it I think it only reasonable that we make sure there's enough room for 2-3 people or a wheelchair/pram to get by. If there isn't i think we should find somewhere else to park unless it's a real emergency.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Thanks,
"Pavements are for Pedestrians" is very apt.
Like most things there will be extremists who feel that the restrictions do not apply to them. Looking around there are a large number of both cyclists and drivers who refuse to act in a consderate manner and threaten pedestrian safety in this way.

What does cause longer lasting problems and should be part of the ""Duty of care to others" (which should be a prime consideration of all of us) though is the damage by frequent inconsiderate parking as the footwways become cracked, uneven and dangerous to use.

Parking in an "emergency" - fine, but is there any real excuse if it is just for convenience.

I think this is getting way out of hand.

Where I lived in a London suburb for many many years, all the cars on one side of the road parked with two wheels on the pavement because doing so was by far the best compromise on use of available space. The extra couple of feet of road space was useful and the effective loss of pavement width was insignificant. I never saw a single problem over 20 years or so.

Why have we lost the ability to make intelligent rational decisions based on local circumstances?

There seems to be a "them and us" mentality where everyone wants to impose hard and fast rules on everyone else. I think we're better than that. I think we can make intelligent judgements and I think we can recognise behaviours that aren't in the public interest without falling back on rigidly demarked rules.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

When you are a driver, it is, but when you are a young mum with a baby in the push chair and holding hands with a toddler, the best compromise is for cars to stay on the roads and pedestrians to stay on the pavement. I had to make a bloke move on last week as he was pulling up on the pavement in front of me as I was pushing little Lewis in his chair!



Give drivers an inch and they take 3 feet! This is especially bad for blind people. It is also bad for wheelchair users with all manner of odd street furniture and signs everywhere. I just don’t understand why coppers don’t ticket them all more fervently. It is a source of revenue and we could afford more cops to do traffic duty to catch speeders and other troublemakers.

_________________
I stole this .sig

This is I think the problem, which will run for a long time as an argument.

The simple answer would be simply to accept that "pavements are for pedestrians"

However as pointed out this may not always be practicable, as there are coherent arguments for parking on the footway posted on this site.

Where does this stop. If I decide to park on the pavement because it means traffic can flow more smoothly, or decide to ride on the pavement because ofthe same effect - when does one argument become more valid. I am the same person using the same footway for the same reason.

Surely though this opens the floodgates as any group can now "justify" their actions in the same way - simply because you agree or disagree with that decision is a point where the law as it stands MUST be the final arbiter.

I told you clearly that there was plenty of room left on the pavement. You can't go claiming that there wasn't.



Make everyone obey hard and fast and unnecessary rules and we'll create a dumb and unpleasant society. Rules need to be directed at real harm not dumb demarkation.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Yes, in my view it's not reasonable to make a blanket statement that "people should only park on the pavement in emergencies".

Take, for example, the A34 Kingsway in Manchester, one of the main radial routes into the city. This is a two-lane dual carriageway, which also has pretty wide pavements (probably 12-14 feet). Along most of the road, there are no parking restrictions. Yet people, in general, park on the pavement, which still leaves plenty of room for pedestrians, while not partially blocking the road. This seems the best solution all round.

Arguably the council could convert half the pavement to marked parking bays, but given that they haven't, what currently happens is sensible.

On the other hand, I often see people parking half on the pavement out of habit where it gives no useful advantage in road width.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

That's not what you mean is it Peter?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Absolutely. We have laws to solve disputes. This is a dispute and the law has solved it - pavements are not for cars. Those who don't like it can campaign, within the law, to solve the dispute in a different way. Whatever the law says (on pavements, speed limits or whatever) you will sometimes get a bellicose group of resentful people who feel hard done by. As Mr Bumble said in Oliver Twist - "If the law supposes that, the law is a ass - a idiot”.

_________________
I stole this .sig

No, it is what I mean.

It's not reasonable to say "people should never park on the pavement under any circumstances", nor is it reasonable to say "people should only park on the pavement in emergencies".

IMV in general people should avoid parking on pavements, but there are some circumstances under which it may be the most sensible option, depending on the situation.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Once again, you come against a limit, in this case the curb, and you feel the urge to exceed it. I know it can be hard to get with the program, so coppers cut you margin in some areas, but you have no inherent right to use that margin. If you do take that margin, and the consequences are unpleasant for you, sympathy will be hard to come by, at least from me!

_________________
I stole this .sig

\

Isn't this a little fuzzy? Are there some circumstances when coppers will find it most sensible to tow your car to the pound for this, and some circumstances when they shouldn't? If so, are both coppers and drivers aware of the rules in force on a particular stretch? How do new coppers know the limits? How do new drivers know how far over they should go?

Look, I'm trying to help you guys out here, but it seems to me that you are following the line of least resistance in all this hoping that things will work out. Perhaps this is the famous British tolerance at work, but is this the same tolerance which has made the country so shoddy, tardy and grubby? Perhaps, instead of asking for slack all the time, we should expect people to pull their socks up and get with the programme, for God’s sake!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Sorry - my misread. Thanks for the clarification.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

It is fuzzy, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with being fuzzy.

AIUI there is no specific law against parking on the pavement, merely against "driving on the pavement", which is not normally interpreted to mean mounting the kerb to park on the pavement. There is a law against causing an obstruction which by definition is fuzzy.

As I explained, there are circumstances where parking on the pavement is the most sensible option. Another example is the hard standing areas in front of many parades of shops.

If a law was passed to make parking on the pavement specifically illegal (which it isn't at present) then there would be a lot of pressure for councils to mark out parking bays at locations where it routinely takes place at present.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed