CJG ks said:

On the stretches where I do cycle on the pavement I show as much
respect as possible.

If you were showing them respect your be walking your bike rather than
riding it. Pavements are there for walking. Not riding a bike on. End of
story.

Except that if you cycle on a pavement at or below walking pace you
have more control over your bike, you take up less space, and you
shield pedestrians better from the oily bits than if you push the thing.

Obeying the law /= respect for or courtesy towards pedestrians.

John

In message , SabineUK
writes
Except that if you cycle on a pavement at or below walking pace you
have more control over your bike, you take up less space, and you
shield pedestrians better from the oily bits than if you push the thing.

Well if you want to be "THAT" practical maybe couples should walk single
file to maximise the amount of pavement area available to other
pedestrians.
--
CJG

Robin May writes
I have no objection to the idea that cycling on the pavement is not
always ok. I do however object to the idea that it is at all times and
in all places a naughty and evil thing to do, particularly as the
people promoting this view seem to think this as a matter of principle
rather than based on any good reasoning. I don't see how taking offence
at the mere sight of a person cycling on the pavement, regardless of
whether it poses any threat to anyone, is helpful.

The problem is that your (hypothetical) assessment of whether it is safe
may differ to my (hypothetical) assessment. Without an external set of
rules to guide, there will always be a disagreement between pedestrians
and cyclists who cycle on pavements.

--
Dave

In message , Robin May
writes
Which is pretty much the same as my view on cycling on pavements: as
long as I'm not inconveniencing pedestrians, I don't see why it's a
problem.

Because its um dangerous. Not everyone expects to see a cyclist going
along the pavement so tend not to look out for them. You may not be
inconveniencing them but your putting them at risk.
--
CJG

CJG wrote the following in:


In message , Robin May
writes
Which is pretty much the same as my view on cycling on pavements:
as long as I'm not inconveniencing pedestrians, I don't see why
it's a problem.

Because its um dangerous.

Umm, actually, sometimes it's not.

Not everyone expects to see a cyclist
going along the pavement so tend not to look out for them. You may
not be inconveniencing them but your putting them at risk.

You can't put people at risk when there are none nearby. And seeing as
where I cycle on the pavement the visibility is good enough that I can
see any pedestrians stepping out well in advance of actually meeting
them, this claim that it's dangerous is just daft.

You seem to have this belief that cycling on the pavement is always
dangerous with no exceptions, no matter what the pavement in question
is like or how the cyclist cycles. I'm sorry, but it's just not true.

--
message by Robin May, founder of International Boyism
"Would Inspector Sands please go to the Operations Room immediately."

Unofficially immune to hangovers.

"Robin May" wrote in message
...
CJG wrote the following in:


Not everyone expects to see a cyclist
going along the pavement so tend not to look out for them. You may
not be inconveniencing them but your putting them at risk.

You can't put people at risk when there are none nearby. And seeing as
where I cycle on the pavement the visibility is good enough that I can
see any pedestrians stepping out well in advance of actually meeting
them, this claim that it's dangerous is just daft.

You seem to have this belief that cycling on the pavement is always
dangerous with no exceptions, no matter what the pavement in question
is like or how the cyclist cycles. I'm sorry, but it's just not true.

Do you also think that it's perfectly acceptable for motorists to go through
red lights as long as they're pretty sure they're not going to hit any cars
or pedestrians when they do so?

"CJG" wrote in message
...
In message , Robin May
writes
You can't put people at risk when there are none nearby. And seeing as
where I cycle on the pavement the visibility is good enough that I can
see any pedestrians stepping out well in advance of actually meeting
them, this claim that it's dangerous is just daft.

And this is great until the time your distracted/come to a bit where
their is poor visibility and you can't see pedestrians but hey its 6am
and its only a few 100 yards with poor visibility.

So at or before that point one modifies one's speed or maybe get's off the
pavement.

Easy innit?

In message , Robin May
writes
Let's say for example that there's a stretch of straight pavement where
on one side there's a busy road and on the other side there's a fence.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that cycling is dangerous on that
stretch of pavement, where you can see straight ahead to see any
pedestrians there might be and can stop a long time before you meet
them? If you are well that's ok, you're entitled to that opinion, but
I'll ignore it.

Well you could say if you come up to traffic lights and they are red but
you can see there is nothing coming up ahead and to the left and right
of you then its okay to go through red lights.
Maybe the perception of what's right and wrong needs to be though about.
If you did things which are thought to be "normal" according to London
standards up in Yorkshire you'd get it pointed out to you in graphic
terms that what your doing isn't right.
Maybe we have just all become use to doing what we want and not giving a
**** about anyone else.

"Stop this city, I would like to get off".

--
CJG