Should people who cycle on footpaths be prosecuted?

Duke Leonal Felmet

I'm not sure whether it is illegal or not, but it is a fairly dangerous practice and I have nearly been hit by cyclists many times who come flying at me from behind. All would take is for me to take an unexpected (from the cyclists perspective) step to the side as I walk and I would end up battered and bruised (or worse).

It is the height of idiocy, in my opinion, and in the very least there should be fines imposed.

As cycling enthusiasts, what are your thoughts on this?

ThisRegard

Royalty and the gentry are generally not respected by the natives here like they are on the mainland, get rid of the patronage and monocle and dress down and you'll have less clashes with the proles.

Doctor Bob

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I'm not sure whether it is illegal or not

Best to check! I think illegality is a pre-requisite for prosecution.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Best to check! I think illegality is a pre-requisite for prosecution.

Ah, but my question is should!

Duke Leonal Felmet

I'm surprised people are voting no. In my opinion, it's just common sense. Safer for both cyclist and pedestrian.

Doctor Bob

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Ah, but my question is should!

Exactly!

CianRyan

I've had to mount the curb a few times to avoid being crushes myself. I'd never cycle on the path, only hop up momentarily and generally dismount if I do.

People cycling on the path is just mad stuff really but if they're not use to city traffic I can understand as it can be scary stuff at first. Still shouldn't be doing it though.

Sure you're not walking on an off road cycle path, OP? Not being funny, genuine question.

Duke Leonal Felmet

CianRyan wrote: »

I've had to mount the curb a few times to avoid being crushes myself. I'd never cycle on the path, only hop up momentarily and generally dismount if I do.

People cycling on the path is just mad stuff really but if they're not use to city traffic I can understand as it can be scary stuff at first. Still shouldn't be doing it though.

Sure you're not walking on an off road cycle path, OP? Not being funny, genuine question.

No, my route to work is all footpaths. The only place of ambiguity is Dame Lane (Dublin), which anything an everything walks/drives down. I generally find that the 'proper' cyclists don't commit this much (the people who have helmets and good bikes), it's those god damn Dublin Bikes. They are an absolute menace.

pawrick

I think they should be prosecuted but with regards to the context of the situation. In most cases it's simply a hazard on the path especially going fast or on busy paths where the cyclist has to go almost walking pace.

CamperMan

it's not safe for a cyclist on the roads with all the traffic and loony drivers about that have no consideration for cyclists

Thinkingaboutit

There are so many stupid junction designs that a person has to move on to the path for at least a few metres. No, therefore. Also a good many segregated lanes marked on paths have buggies pushed by women who seem to think having a baby exempts them from having good manners, and generally people walking in them. Cycling really close to peds at 30 plus km/h gives some of them a fright:D.

johnam

Yes... people spend enough time on this forum bitching about how drivers do not give us the respect we deserve in terms of space on the road etc, and then turn around and break every rule of the road going, overtaking on the left, breaking lights etc. Cyclists should be treated the same as any other road user, and should be prosecuted for breaking the law... that being said... I do see the point in allowing children cycle on footpaths.

Lumen

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

There are so many stupid junction designs that a person has to move on to the path for at least a few metres

I often get frustrated by poor junction design when driving, so I just pull up on to the footpath and continue on my way.

kirving

I agree with the point about DublinBikes, I often see them doing crazy stuff! To be fair though, I sometimes cycle, sometimes walk a DB across the new ha'penny bridge at about 5kph because the route around would take me all day on the road.

I do like cycling that little bit fast by some people who walk on the cycle lane instead of the path (Where the two are seperated by only a line). Not dangerously so, but enough to remind them where they should be. :P If it was me on the path, I'd be getting abuse.

p

I prefer a more relaxed attitude to cycling and laws generally. I've seen first hand the difference between Denmark & Germany. Germany tends to be have stricter rules, and you're made follow them with hefty fines. Denmark, tends to veer towards a little more human approach, trying to make people cycle safely rather than religiously follow the rules. Just see the desire paths as an example. (http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/04/subconscious-democracy-and-desire.html)

Therefore, I think dangerous cycling should be prosecuted, but just cycling on a footpath alone should not. I'd also particularly favour many 'mixed use' paths in places like parks and waterfronts, where people know to cycle a bit more leisurely and bikes, buggies, roller bladers and pedestrians all intermingle in a courteous fashion.

doozerie

Ooh, so far this thread has "flying at", "menace", "helmet", "Dublin bikes", "wimmin with buggies, grrr", "manners", "prosecute", plus some passive aggression to boot. All I need is some mention of "hi-vis", "lights", "dark clothes, grrr", "ninja cyclists" and "burn them!" and my Cycling Aggro Bingo card will be complete.

ThisRegard

There's a new ha'penny bridge ?

Duke Leonal Felmet

CamperMan wrote: »

it's not safe for a cyclist on the roads with all the traffic and loony drivers about that have no consideration for cyclists

So the answer is for cyclists to go on the footpath and have no consideration for pedestrians?

You don't see the hypocrisy there?

paddyandy

€10 on the spot.End of problem.Must be serious about enforcing it and thats where EVERYTHING fails in this Country.

tomasrojo

I can't decide what to vote because the question is too black-and-white.

I thought the comment here was quite good (about the UK, obviously):
http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/23/riding-on-footpaths-the-basics/

On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. At the time Home Office Minister Paul Boateng 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.”

Duke Leonal Felmet

doozerie wrote: »

Ooh, so far this thread has "flying at", "menace", "helmet", "Dublin bikes", "wimmin with buggies, grrr", "manners", "prosecute", plus some passive aggression to boot. All I need is some mention of "hi-vis", "lights", "dark clothes, grrr", "ninja cyclists" and "burn them!" and my Cycling Aggro Bingo card will be complete.

Yeah, its funny how the words 'helmet' and 'bikes' pop up in cycling threads, alright.

Let's face it, those who use DB tend to be people with very little cycling experience... and it shows.

petethedrummer

It depends.

tomasrojo

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Yeah, its funny how the words 'helmet' and 'bikes' pop up in cycling threads, alright.

Let's face it, those who use DB tend to be people with very little cycling experience... and it shows.

Your equation of helmet-wearing with savvy cycling is arguable though.

doozerie

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Let's face it, those who use DB tend to be people with very little cycling experience... and it shows.

Interesting theory. It kinda suggests though that couriers should be shining examples of how to ride a bike (and that taxi drivers should be shining examples of how to drive a car), at which point it falls apart as a theory.

Chips Lovell

I dont think prosecution would work. The Gardai should be empowered to administer on the spot kneecappings to people found cycling on the footpad. An Irish solution to an Irish problem.

Duke Leonal Felmet

tomasrojo wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Yeah, its funny how the words 'helmet' and 'bikes' pop up in cycling threads, alright.

Let's face it, those who use DB tend to be people with very little cycling experience... and it shows.

Your equation of helmet-wearing with savvy cycling is arguable though.

Possibly, but the decision to wear one surely points to a safety-concious cyclist, and thus not one who cycles next to pedestrians as if he is in the movie Tron.

RobFowl

petethedrummer wrote: »

It depends.

I was cycling with my 5 year old earlier. he was on the path I on the rad along side him.
Should I shop him now? seems a bit cruel to wake him up after the stories I read, to drag him down to the cop shop..........

tomasrojo

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Possibly, but the decision to wear one surely points to a safety-concious cyclist, and thus not one who cycles next to pedestrians as if he is in the movie Tron.

Not in my experience. I am cycled at on the footpath by hiviz-wearing helmeted cyclists all the time. Years ago, I might have agreed with you, but helmet-wearing has spread to a point where even scofflaws wear them for peace of mind. They aren't the preserve of cautious people anymore.

In fact, I see much reckless cycling by helmeted cyclists. It may be a logical consequence of telling people that they prevent 85% of head injuries. (Search this forum for the helmet debate in all its tedious glory.)

tomasrojo

RobFowl wrote: »

I was cycling with my 5 year old earlier. he was on the path I on the rad along side him.
Should I shop him now? seems a bit cruel to wake him up after the stories I read, to drag him down to the cop shop..........

According to a response to a comment on that ukcyclerules post, children that young can't actually commit a crime, so he's in the clear. Consider fining him yourself though.

doozerie

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Possibly, but the decision to wear one surely points to a safety-concious cyclist, and thus not one who cycles next to pedestrians as if he is in the movie Tron.

I don't follow your logic. If I were to wear steel toe-capped boots it would be to protect my toes , it would in no way make it less likely that I would administer a kick up the arse to someone else while I was wearing them. In fact, given the sense of invincibility I'd feel while wearing them I might be even more inclined to dish out some kicks up the arse while wearing them.

RobFowl

tomasrojo wrote: »

According to a response to a comment on that ukcyclerules post, children that young can't actually commit a crime, so he's in the clear. Consider fining him yourself though.

On the way down to hand myself in.
20years to life??

(just been watching Law and Order)

tomasrojo

Incidentally, while I fully accept that dublinbikes are not a completely unalloyed blessing (my sister finds the footpath around St. Stephen's Green is becoming hazardous), they must have a pretty detailed picture of journeys cyclists are taking, illegal as well as legal.

It would be instructive to look at this to derive "desire lines" and see whether as well as the stick of on-the-spot fines the authorities could use a carrot of trying to make some of these journeys legal. Some exemptions for one-way streets are surely possible, and indeed have already been discussed by Dublin City Council.

I saw the idea here:

http://memex.naughtons.org/archives/2010/12/02/12385

The data also shows that bike journeys between two points are shorter in distance than the corresponding journey by car. There are no bike lanes in Lyon so this suggests that cyclists use other techniques to make short cuts, say Jensen and co. Their shocking conclusion is that cyclists often ride on the pavement, along bus lanes and the wrong way up one way streets.
That kind of information will be useful for urban planners. For the first time they have real data to show where to build cycle lanes and how well they will be used…

Mech1

I am no longer a cyclist. I'm 43, until i was 20 my bike went everywhere i went. Peugeot 10spd for play, work, holidays everywhere!

But in the past 5 years i have been hit and knocked down twice.
Missed by inches and the cyclist fell off on 4 occassions.
Missed by inches and the cyclist stayed on many many times.(verbal both ways)

and all just while walking out of my workplace in Monkstown to join the footpath.

Cyclists just cannot stop quick enough to avoid a collision if someone walks from a shop type entrance onto the path, simple.

Use the road, thats where you are fighting for rights etc.

You will get no help from me while you still use the paths

Iwannahurl

Lumen wrote: »

I often get frustrated by poor junction design when driving, so I just pull up on to the footpath and continue on my way.

You and a lot of other motorists.

And cyclists.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Mech1 wrote: »

I am no longer a cyclist. I'm 43, until i was 20 my bike went everywhere i went. Peugeot 10spd for play, work, holidays everywhere!

But in the past 5 years i have been hit and knocked down twice.
Missed by inches and the cyclist fell off on 4 occassions.
Missed by inches and the cyclist stayed on many many times.(verbal both ways)

and all just while walking out of my workplace in Monkstown to join the footpath.

Cyclists just cannot stop quick enough to avoid a collision if someone walks from a shop type entrance onto the path, simple.

Use the road, thats where you are fighting for rights etc.

You will get no help from me while you still use the paths

I have accepted that some day I will be hit by one of these muppets. Came very close a couple of months ago. I am less concerned about being hit by a car, at least they tend to stick to the road. You know where you stand.

doozerie

Mech1 wrote: »

Use the road, thats where you are fighting for rights etc.

This I fully agree with.

Mech1 wrote:

You will get no help from me while you still use the paths

You are making the mistake here of tarring all cyclists with the one brush. Yes there are certainly idiots who do idiotic things on bikes but despite the fact that on any one day there may be many of them, they are also many people on bikes who adhere to the rules and are just as frustrated by the idiots as you are. In the same way that not all motorists are the psychos that some people glibly label them, not all cyclists are obnoxious idiots.

The gist of this thread is that Dublin Bike users are the main scourge but I don't think that's entirely true either, it's just another lazy generalisation.

reallyunique

The current system seems to work very well indeed. As a regular pedestrian I have occasionally been bumped into by drunks or pushed out of the way by people in a hurry but I've never been hit by a cyclist.
I haven't been made aware of problems in A&E wards caused by pedestrian/cyclist injuries and even the tabloids, which seem happy to use the words "scare" or "tragedy" to describe almost any occurrence have not leaped on this particular "outrage". No further action by police, courts or lawmakers seems justified.

My two daughters (7&9) cycle on the pavement where junctions are dangerous or where the road becomes cluttered beyond their ability to cope. Although several people have shouted abuse at them and me, they have never run into a pedestrian and are careful and courteous (as much as kids ever are) to other pavement users. Fines, jail time or beatings from roving mobs of vigilantes will not make the streets safer. They are safe already.
Shouting abuse is a form of assault but it would seem churlish to prosecute people who seem already to have the weight of the world on their shoulders. I don't advocate prosecuting foul mouthed pedestrians, cyclists or drivers though they annoy me and frighten my children.

Cycling on pavements is doubtless against the law but is a minor infraction compared to driving on the pavement. Prosecution takes police time and that time should be used to save lives, reduce injury and improve the flow of traffic (in a "road centric" view of Garda work). The courts time is precious and dealing with petty squabbles regarding who should and should not be on the pavement is a waste of that time.

Prosecute dangerous activities, not those that merely irritate and annoy.

Mech1

After reading this thread I have made a decision that in general life I disagree with.

Next time i'm hit, i'm going to get paid.

Mech1

In the main I dont have a problem with children on the path. BUT children are teenagers soon.

Children go slow enough and if parents are with them I can see the point that cycling on the road would be too slow and dangerous.

THIS IS NOT THE TYPE OF CYCLISTS I'M TALKING ABOUT.

Iwannahurl

The poll options are too limited, so I didn't vote.

Enforcement of the law prohibiting footpath cycling should be done in proportion to the extent that other road traffic laws are enforced.

What I am trying to say is that there are many other road traffic offences that can and should be enforced, and IMO it would not be fair or sensible to clamp down on footpath cycling while failing to curb (or while turning a blind eye to) more serious and dangerous lawbreaking on the roads.

Such offences include speeding, dangerous overtaking, driving on the pavement, parking on footpaths and in cycle lanes etc.

If possible there should also be prosecution -- or at least persecution -- of roads engineers, Ministers for Transport, Local Authority officials and government agency managers for a wide range of crimes against cycling over the last two or three decades. It is because of their culpable ignorance, in addition to our Irish culture of lax or non-existent law enforcement, that we have such poor cycling conditions and behaviour, IMO.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Suffolk Street:


This is a contra-flow-cycle track, except that if somebody parks on it (as they often do) cyclists are forced to ride down a one-way street into oncoming traffic.

In this case, as soon as the An Post van moved off, the white mini-bus drove down the cycle track against oncoming cyclists forcing them to take evasive action. He then parked there, completely obstructing the cycle track, which is bounded by a continuous white line which means 'do not drive here' and double yellows.



It's all part of Ireland's light-hearted attitude towards road safety.

Iwannahurl

reallyunique wrote: »

The current system seems to work very well indeed.

What system?!

tomasrojo

There are marginal cases as well. Is it really that bad to cycle a metre or two along the footpath from the road to get to the bicycle stand beside the supermarket? I know you could walk, but is it really a terrible crime to be a little lazy and cycle it? The Daily Mail ran a Gotcha! story on Jon Snow where they photographed him in pretty much this scenario.

Or is it that bad to cycle slowly across a footpath to get out of a housing estate, where the road takes an impractical, circuitous route?

Mech1

Since you took the time to photograph, did you take the time to report / attend as a witness?

Iwannahurl

tomasrojo wrote: »

There are marginal cases as well. Is it really that bad to cycle a metre or two along the footpath from the road to get to the bicycle stand beside the supermarket? I know you could walk, but is it really a terrible crime to be a little lazy and cycle it? The Daily Mail ran a Gotcha! story on Jon Snow where they photographed him in pretty much this scenario.

Or is it that bad to cycle slowly across a footpath to get out of a housing estate, where the road takes an impractical, circuitous route?

Crossing a footpath to get to a parking spot is legal for motorised vehicles, so logically it applies to bikes too.

Having to use a footpath to exit a housing estate is the fault of the "planners" and/or engineers. If it's a short stretch then it's a trivial infringement. If it's a longer (or narrower) stretch that leads to conflict between cyclists and pedstrians, then prosecute the "planners".

Iwannahurl

Mech1 wrote: »

Since you took the time to photograph, did you take the time to report / attend as a witness?

You'd need to ask the poster.

Check out the Obnoxious Parking thread for many more examples of foot/cycle path abuse by motorists, among them those agents of the State whom you would expect to do the enforcing.

studiorat

Two things I don't understand here.

Mech1 wrote: »

I am no longer a cyclist. I'm 43, until i was 20 my bike went everywhere i went. Peugeot 10spd for play, work, holidays everywhere!

What relevance does the previous statement have? What is your point?

Mech1 wrote: »

and all just while walking out of my workplace in Monkstown to join the footpath.

When you say join the foot path? From where? the road?

Finally, should pedestrians who walk in cycle lanes be subjected to a similar fine?

Mech1

Sorry just assumed they where your own pics my bad.

rollingscone

Enforcing it on Grafton st would be a good start, so many hipsters gaily cruising around crowds of pedestrians on their sit down bikes with scarves blowing behind.

That said, while footpath cycling is a personal hate, enforcement on a wider scale is not feasible, what we need is to internalise discipline and stop expecting grown ups to make us obey rules that are there to protect us.

reallyunique

Iwannahurl:
The system of people ignoring the prohibition on cycling on the pavement. Ignoring it seems to cause no fatalities and even Mech1 (hit twice in five years) has survived and is waiting for his next incident so that he can "get paid". Traumatic incidents all but perhaps not requiring a change in policing. Vehicles parked on cycle lanes is irritating but in many cases not dangerous. It has been said many times here that cycling is a safe and environmentally friendly activity, right now. No more rules, no more enforcement, just a little more care and consideration perhaps.

@Mech1:
Please don't shout.:o
Before you "get paid" for the next time you are hit and knocked down consider if it is good value for money. Don't forget that people running can also hit you when you come out of a doorway, shop etc. They can also be an opportunity to "get paid". In these tough economic times it is good to have several streams of income.

Enforcing rules does not always have the intended effect. The US locks up a greater percentage of it's population than Ireland but I would not trade our level of crime for theirs.

Mech1

Your 1st quote = I have cycled many many miles in the past, granted it was 23 years ago when I parked it.

But I still learned the "what will work" from my cycle racing days on and off road. It still stands to me today when using the 600cc version, and it stood to me 10 years ago when traversing the Ulster Grand Prix circuit in Northern Ireland (on closed roads I admit) at mad speeds avoiding the wet white lines and manhole covers. (its called reading the road ahead, hasnt changed).

Your second quote = from a converted (to business use) house onto the path. no driveway the door is almost on the path.

Your question answer = No all vehicles (even cycles) must yield to pedestrians. Jay walking is already in law.

studiorat

Mech1 wrote: »

Your 1st quote = I have cycled many many miles in the past, granted it was 23 years ago when I parked it.

But I still learned the "what will work" from my cycle racing days on and off road. It still stands to me today when using the 600cc version, and it stood to me 10 years ago when traversing the Ulster Grand Prix circuit in Northern Ireland (on closed roads I admit) at mad speeds avoiding the wet white lines and manhole covers. (its called reading the road ahead, hasnt changed).

In reality they are in fact very different and that I believe is where your misunderstanding lies. Riding a bicycle you have only one phase of control available; speed, gear and acceleration are irrelevant on a bicycle. Position is the only viable defense.

To my regret I've never had the opportunity to give it socks around Dundrod. However, in thousands of miles of riding sports bikes only once have I had a car wedge me off the road and only once have I had a driver clearly see me and pull out regardless forcing me to emergency stop. Cycling this is a daily if not weekly occurrence. A motorcycle commands much more respect on the road than a bicycle does, from both pedestrians and other vehicles.

Does jaywalking then cover pedestrians walking on the cycle lane where they are oblivious to the threat of an approaching bicycle?

And does the fact that you are on the foot path negate any responsibility to actually being aware of your environment and possible hazards?

I'm not advocating wreckless use of pavements by cyclists, but to expect a law to be enforced prosecuting someone for cycling a bicycle on the foot path is simply another example of the daft "nanny state" mentality people in this country have come to expect.