Should people who cycle on footpaths be prosecuted?

Captain Havoc

rocstar wrote: »

T I'm thinking, and am probably being naive, that people on bicycles aren't of the boy-racer variety

Captain Havoc

rocstar wrote: »

There's alot of pointless initiatives undertaken by the government, at least it would be cheap. I'm thinking, and am probably being naive, that people on bicycles aren't of the boy-racer variety and might respond to being shamed into changing their behaviour.

Personally I think there's as many dicks on bicycles as in cars.

Lumen

rocstar wrote: »

There's alot of pointless initiatives undertaken by the government, at least it would be cheap. I'm thinking, and am probably being naive, that people on bicycles aren't of the boy-racer variety and might respond to being shamed into changing their behaviour.

Lets start with the students on brakeless fixies. How do you shame a student? Is it even possible?

Ole Rodrigo

Lumen wrote: »

Lets start with the students on brakeless fixies. How do you shame a student? Is it even possible?

Simples. Dress up as a pregnant lady with a pram, arm yourself with some ketchup, throw yourself under the wheel of the next loose jawed, tousle haired, fixie ridin slacker that mounts the pavement. Have an associate video the whole thing..and bam - straight up to twitter and youtube. See if he ever does it again

Iwannahurl

doozerie wrote: »

But at least the campaigners would feel better about themselves, which is important of course 'cos they know what's best, you know...



...where's my exasperated bleedin' smiley?...

Why exasperation?

Iwannahurl

rocstar wrote: »

Simples. Dress up as a pregnant lady with a pram, arm yourself with some ketchup, throw yourself under the wheel of the next loose jawed, tousle haired, fixie ridin slacker that mounts the pavement. Have an associate video the whole thing..and bam - straight up to twitter and youtube. See if he ever does it again

This I like: "Last edited by rocstar; Today at 15:04. Reason: embellishment"

doozerie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Why exasperation?

Because the study is stated to have found that, in the view of people that don't cycle, cycling is some sort of high risk activity, and the study apparently concludes that this demonstrates a "greater need for segregation" (of traffic presumably, although maybe it means segregation of the hand-wringers from the rest of the population which might actually be a good thing!) and "lower traffic speeds". The views of people about something that they've not tried should be taken with a large pinch of salt and certainly not used as justification for something as potentially drastic as removing bicycles even further from the roads.

Iwannahurl

doozerie wrote: »

Because the study is stated to have found that, in the view of people that don't cycle, cycling is some sort of high risk activity, and the study apparently concludes that this demonstrates a "greater need for segregation" (of traffic presumably, although maybe it means segregation of the hand-wringers from the rest of the population which might actually be a good thing!) and "lower traffic speeds". The views of people about something that they've not tried should be taken with a large pinch of salt and certainly not used as justification for something as potentially drastic as removing bicycles even further from the roads.

I would agree that the dangers of cycling are exaggerated (and its benefits undervaued) but it is not helpful to characterise current and potential cyclists as "hand-wringers" for expressing an understandable desire to be segregated from motorised traffic.

Elsewhere in the EU where there are higher numbers of cyclists and generally a much greater level of respect for cycling, segregation has been and continues to be a cornerstone of cycling provision. You won't find Copenhageners, a very large proportion of whom cycle regularly, getting exasperated about "removing bicycles even further from the roads".

See for example the annual Copenhagen Bicycle Account. If you find any reference in any issue to Copenhageners expressing a strong desire to mix with motorised traffic, please post the quote and reference here. I would be genuinely interested in seeing examples of such sentiments from the Danish perspective.

Meanwhile, back in Ireland we have resistance to both cycling on the road and cycling on the only perceived 'alternative' in many cases, ie the footpath. It's the usual Irish mess, and no wonder cycling promotion is such a frustrating exercise.

paddyandy

Everything that's wrong begins with 'It looked good on the telly let's do it'

RobFowl

rocstar wrote: »

Simples. Dress up as a pregnant lady with a pram, arm yourself with some ketchup, throw yourself under the wheel of the next loose jawed, tousle haired, fixie ridin slacker that mounts the pavement. Have an associate video the whole thing..and bam - straight up to twitter and youtube. See if he ever does it again

You mean Freshers week?

seamus

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I would agree that the dangers of cycling are exaggerated (and its benefits undervaued) but it is not helpful to characterise current and potential cyclists as "hand-wringers" for expressing an understandable desire to be segregated from motorised traffic.

I think the point is that it's a bit like crime statistics.

Crime statistics have shown that across the western world, crime rates have plummetted for the last 40 years. It's never been safer to live in a western country and you're far less likely to be a victim of crime.
Then you'll find surveys that tell you that people are more afraid than ever of being a victim of a crime - i.e. they feel less safe than they are - and the media will demand that the government do something about this outrage.
The actual reason why people are so afraid is because so much emphasis is put on personal security that people assume it's necessary and by extension get scared when it's not available. I could disconnect my alarm tomorrow and I won't be any more likely to be burgled. But I'm not going to

In the same way, if non-cyclists are afraid of cycling, then putting more emphasis on safety infrastructure won't make them less afraid - it'll make them more afraid by reinforcing the "cycling is dangerous" fallacy.

There has to be a fine balance struck between, "Here are some good things you can do to minimise your risk on the road" and, "Here's a big roll of bubble wrap so that you don't stand any possibility of ever being hurt by anything, ever". In the latter case, if you take away the bubble wrap, people will "feel" less safe, even though they're not.

doozerie

Iwannhurl wrote:

I would agree that the dangers of cycling are exaggerated (and its benefits undervaued) but it is not helpful to characterise current and potential cyclists as "hand-wringers" for expressing an understandable desire to be segregated from motorised traffic.

Elsewhere in the EU where there are higher numbers of cyclists and generally a much greater level of respect for cycling, segregation has been and continues to be a cornerstone of cycling provision. You won't find Copenhageners, a very large proportion of whom cycle regularly, getting exasperated about "removing bicycles even further from the roads".

See for example the annual Copenhagen Bicycle Account. If you find any reference in any issue to Copenhageners expressing a strong desire to mix with motorised traffic, please post the quote and reference here. I would be genuinely interested in seeing examples of such sentiments from the Danish perspective.

Meanwhile, back in Ireland we have resistance to both cycling on the road and cycling on the only perceived 'alternative' in many cases, ie the footpath. It's the usual Irish mess, and no wonder cycling promotion is such a frustrating exercise.

I don't characterise all current and potential cyclists as hand-wringers, just those that publicly (such as in this study) characterise cycling as somehow extremely dangerous based on ignorance. Like any member of the public I am a potential skydiver but I'm not especially fond of heights - I've never actually done a skydive though so I am entirely ignorant of the risks and safety measures in place so it would be ludicrous for me expressing an opinion that skydiving is expensive suicide to be given any credence whatsoever. This study appears to be drawing conclusions about what's best for all cyclists on the basis of the extreme views of some people that apparently have no experience of cycling, which reflects poorly on the study itself.

As for further segregation of cyclists from motorised traffic, that has been tried over the course of many years already in this country and the cycle lanes in Dublin at least are a very embarrassing reminder that the approach has largely been a failure. There are many reasons for that, not least the fact that segregation to date seems to have been motivated more by the desire to remove cyclists as impediments to motorised vehicles than by safety concerns for cyclists, but whatever the reasons the existing mess gives little cause for optimism at the prospect of even more efforts to segregate us from other traffic.

Rubbish cycle lanes aside though, I personally don't see segregated cycle lanes generally being the nirvana that many people (pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, the media, etc.) seem to. When I look at my daily commute routes (2 of them) I can't see how it would be feasible to provide a dedicated segregated cycle lane from my home to my workplace, the roads simply couldn't support it (too narrow in places for a start), which means that at best there might be islands of segregated lanes and that you have to merge with traffic between these islands. The junctions where you merge would potentially become the most dangerous points on my commute, just like junctions of existing bike lanes and roads are right now. My commute routes right now are not dangerous in themselves (the actions of other road users is another thing but that is frequently unrelated to the road infrastructure), I have no desire to see them made dangerous because people who don't cycle on them perceive them to be some sort of death trap as they currently stand.

RobFowl

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Personally I think there's as many dicks on bicycles as in cars.

+1 on that
Plenty of good cyclists and good drivers about too though.

HivemindXX

Iwannahurl wrote: »

See for example the annual Copenhagen Bicycle Account. If you find any reference in any issue to Copenhageners expressing a strong desire to mix with motorised traffic, please post the quote and reference here. I would be genuinely interested in seeing examples of such sentiments from the Danish perspective.

I'd be interested to see opinions from Danish people that have actually lived and cycled here with regards to how our cycle lanes serve their purpose.

Ireland is, by and large, car and road obsessed. The roads go everywhere you might want to go. Cycle lanes tend to go where the councils find it most convenient. There's little point in digging up examples of terrible cycle lanes they are easy to find.

My main concern is that an emphasis on increasing the amount of cycle lanes will only serve to corral cyclists out of the way to make life easier for motorists with no effort to ensure those additional cycle lanes are actually useful to the cyclist. We already have an extensive network of roads in this country (90k I read recently) and I think it's a far better idea to make that existing network more suitable for cycling by widening roads where necessary and educating people than it is to build an entirely distinct network for cyclists. Do we really intend to build 90k of cycle lanes? I doubt it.

Incidentally, related to the topic of the thread, painting a white line and a few icons on a footpath merely encourages people to think it's fine to cycle on the footpath whenever they want. After all if a white line makes it safe then surely it's safe anywhere right? Also I wouldn't be surprised to hear that some of these apparently frequent incidents of cyclists nearly hitting or hitting pedestrians actually occur on cycle paths. I know I've been abused when I've passed pedestrians walking in the cycle lane more than once. Clearly they thought they were on a footpath (just because it's exactly like a footpath except for a strip of white paint).

So, an excellent network of cycle paths that are just as convenient to use as the roads but with no cars on them? Sure! Great! Sign me up now. However additional scattered fragments that don't go where you want, bring you in to conflict with pedestrians and endanger you at frequent junction crossings? I'm not so sure...

BostonB

Iwannahurl wrote: »

.... If you find any reference in any issue to Copenhageners expressing a strong desire to mix with motorised traffic, please post the quote and reference here. I would be genuinely interested in seeing examples of such sentiments from the Danish perspective.....

From a quick glance every second photo in that is of a cyclist beside some sort of motor vehicle. Even where there are cycle lane you are mixing with motor traffic. its impossible not to, if you have to turn right, or use a roundabout.

rubadub

As said the poll is too black & white, it would be like asking "Should people who jaywalk be prosecuted?"

We have "jaywalking" laws in place here, but they are rarely enforced, needs common sense, staggering along pissed on a motorway is a world of difference from crossing an small empty road at 6 in the morning.

BostonB

I remember seeing people stopped for jaywalking and being made to use a pedestrian crossing at 6am in a German city. Not a car in sight.

rubadub

BostonB wrote: »

I remember seeing people stopped for jaywalking and being made to use a pedestrian crossing at 6am in a German city. Not a car in sight.

I remember being in germany and everybody was stopped at a pedestrian crossing, no cars in sight, I was about to cross but looked around and presumed one of them must be an undercover cop or something. All standing perfectly still looking right ahead at the red man, really weird.

BostonB

We treat rules and laws like Pirates...

...the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325980/quotes

John_Rambo

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

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.

Translation.

I'm not sure whether it is illegal or not, but I have never been hit, killed or injured by cyclists on the footpath. Many times I don't know they even exist until they have overtaken me, so they are not really a bother for anyone, but I'm bored, and I don't have much to complain about, so I decided to do a poll.

Aren't I great?

Peetrik

tomasrojo wrote: »

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.” /

I think this would be open to abuse, both on the side of cyclists (just slowing down when they see a guard) and on the side of guards (power tripping/letting off people who kowtow and fining those who dont)

A much easier solution is to have no law regarding it. I would imagine (guessing here) that people who cycle on the footpath are already commiting public order offences for near misses (Disorderly conduct in public place) or common assault for actually hitting someone anyway.

Iwannahurl

seamus wrote: »

I think the point is that it's a bit like crime statistics.

Crime statistics have shown that across the western world, crime rates have plummetted for the last 40 years. It's never been safer to live in a western country and you're far less likely to be a victim of crime.
Then you'll find surveys that tell you that people are more afraid than ever of being a victim of a crime - i.e. they feel less safe than they are - and the media will demand that the government do something about this outrage.
The actual reason why people are so afraid is because so much emphasis is put on personal security that people assume it's necessary and by extension get scared when it's not available. I could disconnect my alarm tomorrow and I won't be any more likely to be burgled. But I'm not going to

In the same way, if non-cyclists are afraid of cycling, then putting more emphasis on safety infrastructure won't make them less afraid - it'll make them more afraid by reinforcing the "cycling is dangerous" fallacy.

There has to be a fine balance struck between, "Here are some good things you can do to minimise your risk on the road" and, "Here's a big roll of bubble wrap so that you don't stand any possibility of ever being hurt by anything, ever". In the latter case, if you take away the bubble wrap, people will "feel" less safe, even though they're not.

Thanks for the above, and to other posters for their lengthy and considered responses. I don't have time just now to respond in kind, so here are just a few quick points.



1. Perception of safety is important, as is perception of danger. That is why some* cyclists won't go on the road, but will go on the footpath. They are voting with their wheels.

2. Yes, there is a somewhat difficult balance to be struck in the promotion of cycling, between the fully justified description of it as an inherently safe and healthy activity and acceptance of the reality that it carries real and perceived risks in the Irish context.

3. I take your point about the provision of segregated facilities reinforcing the idea that cycling is less safe without them. This is also the case in Copenhagen for example, but the response there is to try to meet that need by providing more segregation and other supports, not by trying to persuade current or potential cyclists to think differently. If cyclists want bubble wrap they should get bubble wrap, IMO. Give people what they want and they will reward that effort by cycling in larger numbers.

4. And finally, I completely agree that most Irish cycling infrastructure to date has been very poor (criminally so, in many cases, which is why I avoid it like the plague) and is definitely not giving cyclists what they deserve. It remains the case, however, that most cyclists desire segregation and that cycling on roads in current conditions is a very hard sell. IMO that is the primary reason for footpath cycling. Going back to the OP, prosecution of footpath cyclists would have the effect of reducing the modal share of cycling. Would that be a desirabe outcome?










*Not counting asshats like the inconsiderate nutter who flew past me yesterday, mounting the dished kerb near a blind corner at high speed to avoid the red light I was stopped at.

monument

doozerie wrote: »

Because the study is stated to have found that, in the view of people that don't cycle, cycling is some sort of high risk activity, and the study apparently concludes that this demonstrates a "greater need for segregation" (of traffic presumably, although maybe it means segregation of the hand-wringers from the rest of the population which might actually be a good thing!) and "lower traffic speeds". The views of people about something that they've not tried should be taken with a large pinch of salt and certainly not used as justification for something as potentially drastic as removing bicycles even further from the roads.

The preference for segregation was high among all groups surveyed -- including cyclists of different levels.

BostonB

seamus wrote: »

....Crime statistics have shown that across the western world, crime rates have plummetted for the last 40 years. It's never been safer to live in a western country and you're far less likely to be a victim of crime.
Then you'll find surveys that tell you that people are more afraid than ever of being a victim of a crime - i.e. they feel less safe than they are....

Crime statistic can be very flawed.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/flawed-data-paints-false-picture-of-crime-battle-2280596.html

I think if you get more people cycling though segregation on cycle highways, main commuter routes. The increased numbers will eventually filter down to other streets where there is no segregation. But segregation is not going to work, when the people doing the segregation haven't a clue what they are doing, and indeed making it worse for cyclists.

Many of the cycle lanes and segregation they are doing is a horrendous waste of money.

Iwannahurl

rubadub wrote: »

As said the poll is too black & white, it would be like asking "Should people who jaywalk be prosecuted?"

We have "jaywalking" laws in place here, but they are rarely enforced, needs common sense, staggering along pissed on a motorway is a world of difference from crossing an small empty road at 6 in the morning.

Our wonderful Irish "common sense" has gifted us with a c. 3% modal share for cycling and long-term car dependence.

Give me Danish 'non sense' any day...

Iwannahurl

BostonB wrote: »

From a quick glance every second photo in that is of a cyclist beside some sort of motor vehicle. Even where there are cycle lane you are mixing with motor traffic. its impossible not to, if you have to turn right, or use a roundabout.

"Beside" is the key word. In Copenhagen cyclists are not mixing with motor vehicles on the cycle paths. At junctions they are generally able to avoid conflict with motorised traffic due to various priority measures.

I saw a single solitary urban roundabout in Copenhagen, which was a small one in a residential 30 kph zone.

The biggest annoyance in my experience was their practice of routing cyclists between the bus stops and the buses. This meant that as a bus passenger you had to watch out for cyclists and as a cyclist you had to stop and yield to bus passengers. I rarely saw this arrangement abused, however. In Ireland we would probably just speed past on the footpath...




EDIT: I should also say that there are many streets in Copenhagen, usually outside the main city centre area, where cyclists mix with motorised traffic. Some of these roads even have a 60 kph speed limit, yet there is a constant stream of cyclists, among them parents carrying children. This is where Copenhagen cycle culture and Danish law comes into play, I suppose. That said, Copenhagen cyclists still want more and more cycle paths. They keep cycling on roads with no segregated facilities, but their preference is for more facilities.

BostonB

You have to remember they've been working on their infrastructure since 1910, and thus their awareness is that deep in their culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_Copenhagen

Bicycles became common in Copenhagen at the beginning of the 20th century. The first separate cycle paths were established around The Lakes in 1910, when the existing bridle paths were converted into isolated cycleways to accommodate the heavy growth in cycling at the time.[8] In the 1920s and 1930s the popularity increased even further. As a spectator sport, six-day racing became popular in the 1930s. The first race was held in 1934 in the original Forum Copenhagen and its popularity topped in the 1960s.[9]
During World War II, petrol was strictly rationed, making cycling even more important as a means of transportation. During the 1940s, the first recreational bicycle routes were also developed, through green spaces in the periphery of the municipality.[10]
Starting in the 1960s, Copenhagen experienced a decline in utility cycling due to increasing wealth and affordability of motor vehicles. With the energy crisis and the growing environmental movement in the 1970s, cycling experienced a renaissance.
Although the first separate cycle paths were constructed much earlier, they did not become the norm until the early 1980s. On June 4, 1983 the Danish Cyclists' Union, at a large bicycle demonstration, gave a "Cyclist Award" to Jens Kramer Mikkelsen in the form of a two metre long curb. Mikkelsen was the head of the traffic department and later Lord Mayor. The curb was placed on the bike lane on Amagerbrogade at the corner of Hollænderdybet.[11] In the mid 1980s, Copenhagen also began to develop its first coordinated strategies for increasing cycling in the municipality. Since 1995, when the city started a monitoring system, cycling has constantly risen reaching 41% by 2004.[6]

That said cycling was the norm in the 40's and 50's in Ireland, but cycle lanes weren't.

I think the first problem is to stop whomever is developing the current moronic cycling infrastructural. They'd be dangerous with a crayon. They haven't a clue what they are doing.

doozerie

Iwannahurl wrote:

It remains the case, however, that most cyclists desire segregation and that cycling on roads in current conditions is a very hard sell. IMO that is the primary reason for footpath cycling.

Has the desire amongst cyclists for further segregation really been measured properly? And by properly I mean outside of any study that is pushing a bias one way or the other, and also with reference to how the segregated lanes would integrate with existing roads - it's one thing asking people whether they'd be in favour of dedicated cycle lanes that *never* interact with motorised traffic (a ludicrous proposition I know, but if you look at TV adverts for cars showing the car being driving along entirely empty streets/roads then it seems clear that marketing agencies believe people will lap up ludicrous ideas if presented in the right way and they may well be right), it's another thing again to ask people if they'd be in favour of cycle lanes with regular junctions (for bus stops, drive ways, loading bays, roads, etc., etc.). Perhaps such a study has been done in Ireland but I've not seen one. I'd vote against segregation and I'm sure many others would too, but I wonder what the outcome would be if a large number of cyclists voted.

As for the primary reason for people cycling on footpaths, I'm not at all convinced that personal safety concerns are it. I see people cycling on footpaths regularly on my commute and in the majority of cases that I see it is used as a means of getting past traffic stopped on the road (buses at a bus stop, traffic stopped at red lights, traffic stopped due to an obstruction ahead, etc.), or of taking a shortcut the wrong way up a one-way street, taking a shortcut by going over a pedestrianised bridge, etc. And typically done at speed too, regardless of whether there are pedestrians about. My perception of footpath cycling generally is that it is mostly done for personal convenience rather than safety and that, in fact, in most cases safety concerns never enter the head of the person doing it at all. I have seen very nervous people cycling on the footpath, where safety seems to be their motivation, but they are usually distinguishable by their very slow speed and their nervous body language generally - on my commute these people account for a small minority of cyclists who use the footpaths.

monument

As it might be better to debate the report it self and not an article written about it, I've started a new thread on the report here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74129626#post74129626

BostonB

+1 with doozerie comments.