Cycling on public footpaths

[Trumpet]

Common sense would suggest that Stafford bound cyclists use the little used footpath between Great Bridgeford and Cresswell during the week day morning 'rush hour'. Never seen one yet.

 

[Gramaisc]

Common sense would suggest that Stafford bound cyclists use the little used footpath between Great Bridgeford and Cresswell during the week day morning 'rush hour'. Never seen one yet.

The problem with cycling on that is that there is no space to pass any pedestrians/joggers and the windage when being passed at 50/60mph with such a narrow manoeuvring space makes it a rather dangerous business.

I have seen people try it - I've never seen one a second time.

And, being a footway, rather than a footpath, attracts the possibility of an instant fixed penalty.

 

[Trumpet]

Would have thought that the extra couple of foot from the carriageway would decrease the windage effect.

 

[Gramaisc]

Would have thought that the extra couple of foot from the carriageway would decrease the windage effect.

Cycle on that path and people (including artics, etc) will actually pass rather closer and usually at a higher speed than they would if you were on the road.

 

[Trumpet]

Fair point.

 

[staffordjas]

Shouldn't be on the path unless specified, but in all honesty I often am. I never expect people to move though, I won't even alert them to my presence. Admittedly that sometimes shocks them more!

Scares me to death each time a cyclist comes whizzing past on the pavement from behind me , especially as some come so close that if I'd happened to step slightly to that side there would have been a real collision.
Others have come straight at me expecting me to jump into the hedge or road as they make it clear they think they have the right of way, especially when there's a couple together speeding along. I do move over when I can to let cyclists past when I see them, but sometimes not given chance to even see them approaching as they speed around blind corners.

 

[proactive]

Scares me to death each time a cyclist comes whizzing past on the pavement from behind me , especially as some come so close that if I'd happened to step slightly to that side there would have been a real collision.
Others have come straight at me expecting me to jump into the hedge or road as they make it clear they think they have the right of way, especially when there's a couple together speeding along. I do move over when I can to let cyclists past when I see them, but sometimes not given chance to even see them approaching as they speed around blind corners.

I ALWAYS slow to a crawl when approaching people and animals from behind, regardless of the type of route I'm on, as you just never know if they're going to step in front of you at the last minute. I'll then politely say excuse me and thank them for moving. I really don't understand the need for aggression when cycling or walking. After all we're not driving Audis.

I suppose I could ring my bell (ooh er), but that can make people jump and seems out of order to me.

 

[staffordjas]

I ALWAYS slow to a crawl when approaching people and animals from behind, regardless of the type of route I'm on, as you just never know if they're going to step in front of you at the last minute. I'll then politely say excuse me and thank them for moving. I really don't understand the need for aggression when cycling or walking. After all we're not driving Audis.

I suppose I could ring my bell (ooh er), but that can make people jump and seems out of order to me.

Your the sort of cyclist I like @proactive. I always look over my shoulder for cyclists or runners when side-stepping whilst passing other people, but just wish cyclists would give me a bit wider berth when they can, or at least make me aware they ae approaching for both my safety and theirs .

Bells have sometimes given me a bit of a jump, but would rather that than ending up in a heap on the floor!

 

[Jammyb86]

Ok I totally get the helmet issue. I'm a newish cyclist and do need to purchase one. When I purchased the bike he did mention a helmet but didn't suggest it was essential. I mainly use my bike to cycle to the gym and around town. What I have noticed is the following. People walking on cycle paths especially near Asda almost everytime I've cycled passed there (and don't move!)
Cycle paths just disappear into the roads and there are zero signs to say when they reappear back onto the path (causes weaving from a drivers view).
The roads in Stafford are horrendous to cycle on due to the vast amount of potholes, which are everywhere!
The paths are not very busy and can easily have walkers cyclist and runners without fights breaking out.
The cycle paths are sometimes in very random places and are not used, I.e roads off near the collage, but no clear cycle path to the train station!?!
I have used my bell to warn people I'm coming (it's what it is there for) realistically if I'm cycling I'm not going to be 'please sir, get out of the way I'm cycling' that is just utter nonsense. Anyone who is scared of a high pitched 'ping' needs to get out more.
I'm cycling more to use my car less therefore being more environmentally friendly. I think Stafford has tried with cycle paths here and there but not got it correct, especially when one cycle path puts you into the main bus stops outside Sainsbury's because they couldn't fit the cycle path behind the bus shelters (great planning)
I use my bike to get around quickly. I'm 30 work mon to fri and I want to get to the gym do my workout and get home in a reasonable time. People who Moan about cyclists are just sad lonely people who use cycle paths to walk their bloody dogs!

 

[Withnail]

As far as the 'helmet issue' goes, it also tends toward being a non-issue. There is plenty of research available out there - that i shall refrain from boring you with - but the key elements are;
a) head injuries are far (far) from the most common injuries suffered by cyclists
b) in general, the speed involved when cyclists do incur head injuries means that a helmet will certainly mitigate against more severe damage but not usually of a life/death, or even animal/vegetable, nature. Terms and conditions apply
c) counter intuitively, as has been previously mentioned, helmets can actually endanger you - drivers feel more confidant that you are 'protected' and give you less room than they would a non-helmeted rider

I hasten to add that i personally wear a helmet while commuting - and while MTBing - but i often go bare headed when pootling, especially if my pootle will involve very little mileage on road.

The single most persuasive argument against mandatory helmet use, is that it demonstrably drives down cycle use, especially amongst young folk. Which i think most of us, well those of us who are not @marky anyway, would consider a Bad Thing.

 

[Gramaisc]

As far as the 'helmet issue' goes, it also tends toward being a non-issue. There is plenty of research available out there - that i shall refrain from boring you with - but the key elements are;
a) head injuries are far (far) from the most common injuries suffered by cyclists
b) in general, the speed involved when cyclists do incur head injuries means that a helmet will certainly mitigate against more severe damage but not usually of a life/death, or even animal/vegetable, nature. Terms and conditions apply
c) counter intuitively, as has been previously mentioned, helmets can actually endanger you - drivers feel more confidant that you are 'protected' and give you less room than they would a non-helmeted rider

I hasten to add that i personally wear a helmet while commuting - and while MTBing - but i often go bare headed when pootling, especially if my pootle will involve very little mileage on road.

The single most persuasive argument against mandatory helmet use, is that it demonstrably drives down cycle use, especially amongst young folk. Which i think most of us, well those of us who are not @marky anyway, would consider a Bad Thing.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html

 

[Noah]

I may be wrong, I usually am, but I understood that under the Road Traffic Act bikes were legally vehicles. This meant that any law or regulation that specified "motor vehicles" didn't apply to bikes but if instead it referred to "vehicles" then it did apply to bikes.

The one thing that really annoys me about some cyclists is the Toc H trail on the Chase. This was built using charity funding to provide a safe walk for wheelchair users and people with small children in prams/pushchairs. Cyclists were banned from it to protect the vulnerable. Now if you turn up at Marquis Drive with a wheelchair or pushchair you are warned by staff there not to go near the Toc H Trail because of offensive and threatening behaviour by cyclists. What gives the lycra lout element the right to steal facilities intended for others?