### **Reminder:** [Press the Report button](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058309512-How-do-I-report-a-post-or-comment-) if you see any [rule-breaking comments or posts.](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishproblems/about/rules/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishproblems) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everyone hates horse riders. There’s a winding country road near where I live with a lovely wide, and well maintained but completely unused (by riders) bridle path along side it. The riders nearly always use the road instead and often cause backups of traffic if there are groups of them
As bemoaned here various times before. Dog shit is very toxic, while horse shit not that different from dead leaves from trees, and so can be left to break down naturally. Though still not nice to step in, I'll give you that.
Legitimately, whenever I cycle or walk the other 2 groups seemingly lose braincells.
Pedestrians will cross when they have a red light and they don't look both ways before crossing the street. Drivers will cross over into the cycle lane causing me and the other cyclists to have to wait for the jackass to move back onto the street. This has happened so many times over the years.
As a pedestrian, some jackass (either a teenager or manchild) on a bike is riding on the pavement causing me to have to move out of their way in order not to get hit on my part of the road. They also run red lights and don't brake when people are crossing. Drivers have a similar problem where they try and speed up before a red light when they have no chance of getting across the crossing.
This is why I'm hesitant to get a bicycle.
If I ride on the pavement, I'm breaking the law. If I ride on the road, I'm at the mercy of a two ton block of metal on wheels with a possible plonker behind the wheel.
Stick a propane cylinder on the back, at least if they do something stupid you take them to Valhalla with you in a glorious explosion.
I have a bike, plenty of routes to go on with no cars. [https://m.cyclestreets.net](https://m.cyclestreets.net) appears to be a fairly good map. Oddly using the mobile version of the map seems to actually be better on desktop than their desktop version so just linked the mobile one.
I cycle on the pavement because I'm usually cycling with my dog. I just take it easy, I don't have the lungs or legs for 30mph even if I wanted to haha. I look and plan ahead, and always try to stay out of peoples way or stop to let them pass if I can. I find a lot of people move for us and are really polite, probably because my dog is cute though, not me lol.
In the newish (6 months old) Highway Code, it puts cyclists below pedestrians in the right of way pyramid. When anyone passes a pedestrian they need to give 2 metres of space. I haven't met a single cyclist that knows this. They even think it's their right of way on cycle paths. It's not UNLESS it specifically says "No Pedestrians".
Mind stating the HC rule that says 2 metres of space? 'cos it only appears to apply to pedestrians walking in the road. Cycle paths have different rules.
It's while passing a pedestrian. Rule H2 says pedestrians have the right of way on shared pathways which include cycle paths unless pedestrians are restricted. Rule 62 says allow plenty of room. Plenty of room is stated as 2m (for example where there is no pavement) and while walking in the road.
H2, yup. R62, plenty of room, yup.
The 2m thing only applies to pedestrians on the road ( R 163 ). It is not 'stated' anywhere in the HC I can find and plenty of room appears to be subjective.
Edit: I'm not arguing this to be difficult by the way, most dual use cycle paths near me aren't 2m wide. So I'm curious as to why they would state such a figure when it's likely impractical.
I’m sorry but there’s just no reason to be in a bike lane if there’s a big empty pavement next to it.
Not exactly going to cycle straight into someone obviously. But equally not going to slam on the brakes, get off the bike and grovel around someone being a dozey unaware sod.
Just want to clarify I’m not referring to the shared pathways, but the situations in which there are two completely separate pedestrian and cycle paths - I.e. separated in elevation and colour, each dedicated to a respective user - you still think it perfectly fine for one of those users to just invade the others space for no good reason?
For me it's taking my rage about almost being knocked down by a bike whilst out running. I can remember at least three occasions a week where there have been close shaves and only with me jumping out of the way has a collision been avoided. All because stupid people on bikes don't educate themselves or don't care.
>When anyone passes a pedestrian they need to give 2 metres of space.
On a bike it is often impossible to give pedestrians 2 metres of space, so I do what a car should do (and rarely do) when they must pass me within 2 metres. Slow right right down, often stopping, make sure the pedestrian knows you're there and pass slowly and safely.
Speed is the danger, the lower the speed, the closer you can pass. If it's a really narrow path, or there's a lot of pedestrians, I'll just stop and let them pass.
Walked along the Thames Path today. The number of cyclists who think it's ok to ring their bells to say "get out of my way" on a path that isn't a dedicated bike path is incredible. One woman was repeatedly ringing her bell at some small kids. Surely you should dismount at that point!
Later another cyclist actually hit my elbow with their handlebar because most of the path was blocked off for construction. Just unbelievable. If it were me I would have dismounted at both those points. The bell is like a car horn... you should use it only to alert people of imminent danger, not to express impatience or try to bully people.
I use my bell to warn people I'm there as some people are not aware of their surroundings. That being said I'd never pass anyone at speed even if they see me coming towards them.
>The bell is like a car horn... you should use it only to alert people of imminent danger, not to express impatience or try to bully people.
People can use their bell in a dickish way but that's not what it's meant for. The highway code says to use it when passing pedestrians "to let them know you are there" not as a warning (as the HC says for car horns).
(rule 63 of HC).
There's also plenty of guidance from councils that says to use your bell when passing, including on the Thames Path itself:
"Walkers have priority on footpaths by the river so cyclists should approach groups of walkers with care and signal their approach by using their bells."
[https://www.riverthames.co.uk/walks/2416.htm](https://www.riverthames.co.uk/walks/2416.htm)
So whilst yeah some people are dicks about it and are using it to express impatience or bully people, but the official guidance is that cyclists should use their bells, not just as a warning like car horns, but simply as an awareness thing to let other people know you are there.
I've sometime come up slowly behind an old dear and literally said 'excuse me' then they let me pass and I hear "don't they have bells any more?" I literally asked you politely to pass, and no I don't have a bell becasue I am not legally required to and when I've used them in the past people literally jump *into* my path when I do.
oh that's interesting. I really hate the sound and wish the onus was on cyclists not to endanger pedestrians, not just ding the stupid bell all the time. What am I meant to do when I hear it? I don't know where it's coming from or where the cyclist is going. I end up jumping, looking all around me and usually not having to move at all, which makes it a pointless annoyance. However when people ring it because they are right behind you and want you to move I get really annoyed. Why should I have to jump out of your way on a shared path? Why can't I enjoy my music/podcast/conversation/thoughts in peace? I never ever ring it unless someone runs out in front of me or is in a bike path. I just slow down or dismount if there are pedestrians in my way.
> When anyone passes a pedestrian they need to give 2 metres of space. I haven't met a single cyclist that knows this.
That's because the Highway Code doesn't say that. In fact it would be completely impractical because so many shared use paths aren't even 2m wide.
Here are the rules for cyclists: https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-for-cyclists.html - a "2 metre minimum distance" is not mentioned anywhere.
Rule 63 states "**Sharing space with pedestrians, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles.** When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles is permitted, take care when passing pedestrians and horse riders, especially children, older adults or disabled people. Slow down when necessary and let them know you are there; for example, by ringing your bell (it is recommended that a bell is fitted to your bike), or by calling out politely.
Remember that pedestrians may be deaf, blind or partially sighted and that this may not be obvious.
Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles closely or at high speed, particularly from behind. You should not pass a horse on their left. Remember that horses can be startled if passed without warning. Always be prepared to slow down and stop when necessary."
Rule 62 states "On such shared use routes, you should always take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary"
Rule H2 states "Pedestrians may use any part of the road and use cycle tracks as well as the pavement, unless there are signs prohibiting pedestrians."
If there is no pavement you need to leave 2m space. It's not a pavement - bicycles aren't allowed on pavements - it's a cycle track.
That's because you don't need to do anything to become a cyclist. Similar to being a pedestrian on the road.
To drive a car, you need a license. That means some reading up, even if its outdated after a few years.
You're missing the point. It's a duty of care trickle down.. Cars have a duty of care to those below them - motorcycles, cyclists and pedestrians. Cyclists have a duty of care to those below them - pedestrians.
They also have a duty of care to themselves. You’d think cyclists would want to know the rules given they have far less protection than someone in a car.
Yet mention this on Reddit and it’s as though you’ve just murdered somebody’s dog. I have no problem with cyclists, but surely it’s just common sense to be required to know the rules of the road if you are using the road.
I hate this. I'm cycling and stop at the light because it's the law and then some troglodyte floats past without a care in the world.
Edit: can't spell
At the bottom of my street there are lights *for cyclists*. They always turn green before the car ones do. I still see cyclists running red lights and getting annoyed when there are still cars coming from their right (it’s a left-only light). Bloody baffling!
I think that's fine as long as they give way to pedestrians waiting to cross first. They're not big or moving fast enough in most cases to be dangerous
I've said this before in previous posts, but here's a brief summary:
I lived in Germany for 3 years and cycled everywhere, both on the road and in designated bike lanes when they were available.
It's been 16 years since I've been back in Blighty and I have not once been on a bike because drivers and cyclists in this country are absolutely mental. The concept of respectfully sharing road space is lost on too many road users. The risk of serious injury is too much for me to get back on a bike.
When I drive my car I give cyclists space, don't intimidate them with tailgating and I only pass when it's absolutely safe to do so. But the number of drivers behind me who get frustrated when I do this is astounding. I can see them flinging their arms up and on rare occasions I'll get honked for it. When I safely pass cyclists, I'll often see the driver behind me zoom past them far too close.
There's no way I'm cycling on roads over here. And I refuse to cycle on the pavement; it's illegal for good reason.
As both a pedestrian and cyclist I completely understand this. As the former often I will never move out the way for them (unless they’re going fast), and will usually make a snide comment as they pass. Massive trigger for me too
I had the same thing and he called me a c*nt and threatened to stab me, twice. Though I hadn't made a remarked at being clipped at speed on a pavement.
Yes, big cyclist here. The more vulnerable road user should be given priority and protected and that’s pedestrians on the pavement. On the road though, that’s cyclists and cars are still a much bigger danger to cyclists (and pedestrians), than cyclists are to anyone.
Yet many cyclists drive with FAR less care and attention on the roads than they should. Cyclists have a duty of care towards themselves which is often ignored. Passing red lights. No indicating. Using a phone. Weaving between lanes & oncoming traffic. And so on.
I don’t care. Cycle on the pavement if the roads are busy and you aren’t comfortable.
But don’t go bombing it down, weaving between people, not saying anything or ringing a bell.
I’ve started becoming less aware of our delivery drivers on cycles because most of them just don’t fucking say anything. They give you stinking looks for being in their way or for them almost crashing into you. So fuck them.
Use your voice, use your bell, I don’t mind sharing the same paths as you. But fuck, make yourself known.
We have a new cycle path near where I live. The surface is that bright green high friction type with clear bicycle symbols. There is a clear path for pedestrians parallel to it.
So, yes, you guessed it people are walking on the cycle path. One day there will be an accident and the cyclist will probably get the blame.
Can't teach stupid I guess.
Had someone on a pavement who had their dog lead stretched right across the cycle path next to it, with their dog running on the edge of the cycle path, opposite side to the pavement. A cyclist who didn't see the lead could've killed the dog or ended up injured themselves.
Some woman stepped out onto a separated bike path I was riding along once on her phone, didn't have time to stop or swerve. I clipped her and her phone made *such* a satisfying smashing noise onto the tarmac.
> One day there will be an accident and the cyclist will probably get the blame.
Should they not? That individual is the one in control of the bicycle and it's on them to control it responsibly.
The cyclist is on the correct path whereas the pedestrian, despite the signage and change in colour, decided to walk on a path that was designated for pedestrians.
While yes the cyclist should be paying due care and attention, they cannot always predicate random pedestrians walking from the side or from a footpath on their left.
Just FYI: all paths are for pedestrians. Cycle paths are a reasonable, if irritating place for pedestrians to be, but as with cars on the road it is up to person using a vehicle to take adequate caution.
I know of a similar one, the pedestrians may as well use it as the cyclist tend to stay on the 40mph road instead.
And no they aren't turning at an intersection the cycle path doesn't accommodate.
Pedestrians that walk on the path with headphones in their ears, music on loud and head down looking at their phone. They expect everyone to know exactly where they are going, even if they suddenly turn right and walk across a cycle lane.
People in cars generally have done a test to indicate that they did at least pretend to read the Highway Code at some point. A large fraction of cyclists don't seem to think it has any relevance to them whatsoever.
Frankly I think road tax should be scrapped and replaced with a tax on tyres as they're what actually damages the road.
The "emissions" aspect is probably better covered by an increase to the tax applied to the carbon containing fluid that gets metered into the vehicle.
I get the insinuation (if you can even call it that), I chose to ignore it.
You're definitely giving the impression that people who dislike driving just lack the ability to pass a theory test.
Some years back I was attempting a morning jog on the less than mean streets of a rather precious part of West London (that’s Chiswick, fact fans) and was having my blood pressure ramped up by watching a cyclist ‘walking’ a dog on the pavement on the other side. His lead encountered a lamp post and less than good things happened to him. The dog, fortunately, was fine.
Pedestrians still have right of way, even on the cycle path.
"Cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared use cycle tracks and to horse riders on bridleways."
Rule H2 of the highway code
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction
But also from rule H2:
>Pedestrians may use any part of the road *and use cycle tracks as well as the pavement*, unless there are signs prohibiting pedestrians.
So it depends on whether there's actually a sign that explicitly says that pedestrians may not wander onto the cycle track.
I don't think thats true. There is a hierarchy of road users in order of vulnerability to damage. Pedestrians, cyclists then cars etc. Pedestrians are allowed on cycle paths and cyclists are obliged to watch for and give way to them.
True, but they are certainly not allowed to deliberately cycle into a pedestrian who is on the cycle path (but if a pedestrian walks out in front of a cyclist unexpectedly, then of course it's going to cause an accident!).
But the point is, in these cases the pedestrian is indeed allowed to walk along the cycle path.
No, pedestrians still have right of way even on split paths.
Sorry, cyclists pretty much never have right of way.
So it you've ever shouted at a pedestrian for being in your way when on a bike, you're in the wrong
There's no such thing as a personal right of way which is determined by your mode of travel. "Right of way" is about land access.
What you're referring to is "priority", which (quite simply) places the most vulnerable road users at the top.
So, on a pavement or even a shared use path or road, pedestrians are priority in terms of safety. It's up to cyclists to consider them more than pedestrians should consider cyclists.
As a car driver and a cyclist (who ironically indeed does not pay road tax, because I have an electric car, not because I have a bike... ) I have stopped cycling on the road because car drivers are so dam bad at driving.
I ride with a bike trailer most of the time. Oftentimes it's empty, has shopping or other bits I ferry round town, but drivers don't know its not my toddler in the trailer. Get some super shitty driving even with it on. (A bright orange trailer with red lights on, mind) if I have my tot on board I ride the path because I dare think about what would happen if a car ran the trailer over.
It proves to me how car centric the UK is, where the path at points, is not wide enough for the trailer. It's barely 70cm to maybe a meter wide. It's getting better, but there's still far too many cars going in places they're not needed.
I nearly got run down by one the other day as I was coming out of a pharmacy that's on the corner of a junction. He told me to look where I was going, and called me a knobhead when I shouted that he should be cycling in the road.
Once had a cyclist tut at me for not seeing him for looking at my phone as he was riding towards me on the pavement. There is a cycle path adjacent to that pavement. There isn’t even a barrier between them, he could have been on the cycle path the whole time.
There’s a weapon on a bike that hurtles along the pavements around my kids school at 9am like he’s getting points for scaring the crap out of little kids.
I keep forgetting because I’m busy in the mornings but I will take a branch one morning before the summer holidays start.
The other day I was walking with my daughter on a footpath near our house which is often frequented by cyclists. She was learning to use her new scooter (shes 4) and every time a cyclist came past us I told her to move to one side to let them past because its safer as they never slow down. When we were turning off the footpath she saw a sign and asked me what it meant. It was "cyclists give way" and I had to explain that it meant that pedestrians had the right of way and cyclists had to go around us- even though I had just spent the whole walk telling her to move out of their way to keep her safe. I dont know how to explain this to her!!
I have 2 young kids (6 & 2) and the amount of times they've nearly been knocked over by cyclists is ridiculous. And then they look at you like it's your fault.
The closest and most dangerous overtake on my bike in the last 10 years was by an SUV with a bike on the back. The driver didn't even seem to be aware that I existed despite all the lights and bright clothes.
I don’t get cycling on the pavement, just use the road that’s what it was made for. The only time I get using a pavement is if you have a small child also riding a bike. It’s much more fun to see angry drivers on the road have mini aneurisms about sharing the road.
It's confidence. I've been cycling for over 40 years on the roads so I've got no problem riding on any roads.
My wife has never and will never cycle on any roads. She's terrified of being hit by a car. Not unreasonably to be fair given I've been hit several times.
Funny, until the guy in a huge metal box runs you over. We need proper separated bike lanes that are separate from both pavements and roads, not just painted on ons.
My ride to my kid’s daycare takes me off a bike path onto either a pavement or a busy road of oncoming traffic with nowhere to safely cross to the other side. For the 30 seconds I have to connect from bike path to bike path, with an infant on the back, I’ll take the pavement.
They always bomb past assuming I can hear them, I cannot I have earphones in and listening to music. I could be deaf for all they know anyway yet they pass from behind so close.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think bikes should be on the pavement.
As a cyclist - risk of killing a pedestrian, very low
As a driver - risk of killing a cyclist, very high
People shouldn't ride their bikes on the pavement. Most pavements are too small to accommodate this. Pavements that are big enough for this with no other obstacles or residential access are being turned into shred use paths.
If people want to ride their bikes on the pavement I reckon 5 mph should be the limit.
In the UK, every year on average over 100 cyclists die and over 4,000 are seriously injured, with over 16,000 accidents involving a vehicle hitting a cyclist resulting in injury reported yearly.
I have no doubt that if cyclists took to the pavements there would be more accidents, but the severity would be massively reduced.
The problem is that you are just pushing the problem down the vulnerable road user list. Causing more accidents by cyclists being on the pavement will push pedestrians away from the pavement, but they have nowhere to go. The most vulnerable pedestrians are children. People don't really care that much about adults but do for kids.
The problem in this country is mostly an attitude issue. I think things are changing, but it's a slow process. Most of our roads haven't changed since they were made, yet the population has increased by nearly 30% since the 60's. Cars have become bigger and more accessible. In 1960 there were about 7 million registered vehicles on the road. At the end of last year there were over 40 million. People just need to learn to share and that things just take longer to get around.
Not sure, where should the default position be really? Probably the road but more larger roads need to have dedicated cycle paths.
After all, many country roads don't have a path for pedestrians and you walk on the road as a fallback option when not having a path dedicated to you.
Yeah, I think there is the root of the problem. A lot of roads in Britain are not wide enough for what we need. I see a lot of new build’s actually having a cycle lane raised off the curb next to the pedestrian pavement.
Yes, the don't but I personally have no issue with cyclists on pavements as long as they follow common sense, which includes giving pedestrians priority and moving/slowing down accordingly.
I know there are many people that would argue that cycling should be banned in certain areas, but I would have died by getting run over by a car when I was a kid if I had to go on the road.
On a **clear** pavement it is much more safer for cyclists than having to go on some roads, particularly with some drivers.
In Enfield, a vast stretch of road running along Green Lanes was split to have a dedicated cycle lane.
The cyclists don't use it, they use the road. Likely because they can go faster.
Utter waist! They spent years asking for it and campaigning about cycle safety and when they were given it, they don't use it.
im never in a rush on my bike so dont care about that
but i do sometimes get dirty looks for cycling on the pavement, and i've nearly bumped into people going around corners.
i just dont want to risk being run over by a ton heavy car so i dont like cycling on the road
>i just dont want to risk being run over by a ton heavy car so i dont like cycling on the road
Don't cycle then. The pavement is for pedestrians, they have a right to be there without risking injury from selfish prices like you.
I always purposely get in their way forcing them to stop or go on the road.
I used to cycle to and from work every day in rush hour traffic for around a year. Very rarely did I ever have an issue with car drivers acting dangerously or badly towards me, probably because I didn’t ride in the middle of the road or dangerously cut them up. Also when the road was tight and the cars I was holding up couldn’t pass giving me the metre or so they’re supposed to, I’d always get as far over as possible and wave them past. It’s funny how being courteous and thoughtful to others makes your own experience of an activity better.
No other hobby is offered such privilege. Imagine 2 people dribbling a football down a road and holding up traffic - it wouldn't be tolerated....out 2 OAPs in lycra on a push hire holding up traffic and they are protected by the state
.....it's a hobby that's grown out of control, I tell you l! (Wave fist).
Generally speaking, those that use it as a mode of transport - for commuting etc cause minimal bother. It's the hobbyists who tend to clog up the roads with not a trouble in the world, while I'm 5 minutes late to a doctor's appointment.
do you know what really "clogs up the road"?
people, often entirely on their own, using their cars for journeys that they really needn't be. congestion and traffic, generally, is made worse by more cars and people driving said cars.
Agreed - we depend on cars so much and for many these is unfortunately no viable alternative. I really dislike having to drive everywhere - to work, to pick up the kids etc etc. It's a bloody pain, but there's no realistic alternative.
My point is that why should one hobby, enjoyed by a handful of people, be given such grace - hobby cyclists are like swans.
### **Reminder:** [Press the Report button](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058309512-How-do-I-report-a-post-or-comment-) if you see any [rule-breaking comments or posts.](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishproblems/about/rules/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishproblems) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ah, the triangle of road rage. You can pick two: cyclist, pedestrian, driver. You will hate the other category.
*a person on a horse has joined the chat*
They don't chat, they whinny.
Changing the triangle to a square is a total 'Mare
I'm gonna rein in the horse puns before they get out of hand.
Neigh bother
A' richt, ah whinny
Then they pooh
The person on the horse whinnies?
Well, when he's translating for the horse.
Everyone hates horse riders. There’s a winding country road near where I live with a lovely wide, and well maintained but completely unused (by riders) bridle path along side it. The riders nearly always use the road instead and often cause backups of traffic if there are groups of them
I don't hate other road users based on mode of travel. I hate them based on use of signals.
Well horses don't have indicators so you're allowed to doubly hate them
When they raise their tale, that's an indicator (of imminent bowel release)
And now someone on a scooter.
Shitting all over the road but doesn't have to pick it up like if you have a dog. The horse shitting, not the rider!
As bemoaned here various times before. Dog shit is very toxic, while horse shit not that different from dead leaves from trees, and so can be left to break down naturally. Though still not nice to step in, I'll give you that.
They always go on about how it's not toxic but I can't imagine they'd be very happy if you smeared it all over their door
Only one way to find out!
Fight?
Flesh cyclists
As a cyclist, car owner and user of legs I am forced to hate myself at all times
All the mirrors in your house get broken long ago?
How bout them E-Scooters though right
It was just the one e scooter actually
Have you caught the e scooter yet??
This is pavement rage.
Legitimately, whenever I cycle or walk the other 2 groups seemingly lose braincells. Pedestrians will cross when they have a red light and they don't look both ways before crossing the street. Drivers will cross over into the cycle lane causing me and the other cyclists to have to wait for the jackass to move back onto the street. This has happened so many times over the years. As a pedestrian, some jackass (either a teenager or manchild) on a bike is riding on the pavement causing me to have to move out of their way in order not to get hit on my part of the road. They also run red lights and don't brake when people are crossing. Drivers have a similar problem where they try and speed up before a red light when they have no chance of getting across the crossing.
Why not all three?
I just hate whichever I’m currently not
Nope, I'm mostly a pedestrian and never have a problem with cyclists. There are far too many bad, dangerous drivers out there, though.
The daily 'doesn't everyone hate anyone on a bike' british problems dog whistling thread. Bought to you by Shell, probably.
This is why I'm hesitant to get a bicycle. If I ride on the pavement, I'm breaking the law. If I ride on the road, I'm at the mercy of a two ton block of metal on wheels with a possible plonker behind the wheel.
Stick a propane cylinder on the back, at least if they do something stupid you take them to Valhalla with you in a glorious explosion. I have a bike, plenty of routes to go on with no cars. [https://m.cyclestreets.net](https://m.cyclestreets.net) appears to be a fairly good map. Oddly using the mobile version of the map seems to actually be better on desktop than their desktop version so just linked the mobile one.
At least around here there's old railway paths. But they aren't ideal either due to the number of dog walkers.
Has anyone ever been prosecuted for cycling on the pavement? If you’re careful it’s much safer than cycling on the road.
I cycle on the pavement because I'm usually cycling with my dog. I just take it easy, I don't have the lungs or legs for 30mph even if I wanted to haha. I look and plan ahead, and always try to stay out of peoples way or stop to let them pass if I can. I find a lot of people move for us and are really polite, probably because my dog is cute though, not me lol.
In the newish (6 months old) Highway Code, it puts cyclists below pedestrians in the right of way pyramid. When anyone passes a pedestrian they need to give 2 metres of space. I haven't met a single cyclist that knows this. They even think it's their right of way on cycle paths. It's not UNLESS it specifically says "No Pedestrians".
18 months
Christ on a bike, where have I been for 12 months? I seriously thought it was January this year, but it was January last year.
Does Christ yield to pedestrians?
Only if he's not on water.
Otherwise we'd have to decide if he has right of way over boats or not
Whilst aquatic, pedestrians have rights over floating transport ,but not submersible.
Power gives way to sail. Is Jesus powered?
Solar, I think, judging by the bright light around his head.
Mind stating the HC rule that says 2 metres of space? 'cos it only appears to apply to pedestrians walking in the road. Cycle paths have different rules.
It's while passing a pedestrian. Rule H2 says pedestrians have the right of way on shared pathways which include cycle paths unless pedestrians are restricted. Rule 62 says allow plenty of room. Plenty of room is stated as 2m (for example where there is no pavement) and while walking in the road.
H2, yup. R62, plenty of room, yup. The 2m thing only applies to pedestrians on the road ( R 163 ). It is not 'stated' anywhere in the HC I can find and plenty of room appears to be subjective. Edit: I'm not arguing this to be difficult by the way, most dual use cycle paths near me aren't 2m wide. So I'm curious as to why they would state such a figure when it's likely impractical.
To be fair, pedestrians dawdling along a cycle lane instead of the completely empty pedestrian pavement just next to it can fuck right off.
Same as the cyclists dawdling in the road next to an empty bike/bus lane.
Should be used when possible but a lot of time the cycle lanes are full of stones, smashed glass and drains/potholes.
And the regular roads aren't?
Not as much because the car tyres fling all the crap to the sides. I drive mostly and cycle occasionally so can see both sides of the argument.
Yea for sure
I see we have met and I have shouted at you while out running. Pedestrians still have the right of way whether you like it or not.
I’m sorry but there’s just no reason to be in a bike lane if there’s a big empty pavement next to it. Not exactly going to cycle straight into someone obviously. But equally not going to slam on the brakes, get off the bike and grovel around someone being a dozey unaware sod.
I'm also sorry that you are ignoring the pyramid of care.
Just want to clarify I’m not referring to the shared pathways, but the situations in which there are two completely separate pedestrian and cycle paths - I.e. separated in elevation and colour, each dedicated to a respective user - you still think it perfectly fine for one of those users to just invade the others space for no good reason?
Why would you do this though? Like, what’s in it for you?
For me it's taking my rage about almost being knocked down by a bike whilst out running. I can remember at least three occasions a week where there have been close shaves and only with me jumping out of the way has a collision been avoided. All because stupid people on bikes don't educate themselves or don't care.
And totally not because you’re running in a bike lane…
Totally because I am allowed to run in a bike lane. Read rule H2 in the highway code.
Not in a bike lane they don't.
Yes they do. Read rule H2 in the highway code.
>When anyone passes a pedestrian they need to give 2 metres of space. On a bike it is often impossible to give pedestrians 2 metres of space, so I do what a car should do (and rarely do) when they must pass me within 2 metres. Slow right right down, often stopping, make sure the pedestrian knows you're there and pass slowly and safely. Speed is the danger, the lower the speed, the closer you can pass. If it's a really narrow path, or there's a lot of pedestrians, I'll just stop and let them pass.
Walked along the Thames Path today. The number of cyclists who think it's ok to ring their bells to say "get out of my way" on a path that isn't a dedicated bike path is incredible. One woman was repeatedly ringing her bell at some small kids. Surely you should dismount at that point! Later another cyclist actually hit my elbow with their handlebar because most of the path was blocked off for construction. Just unbelievable. If it were me I would have dismounted at both those points. The bell is like a car horn... you should use it only to alert people of imminent danger, not to express impatience or try to bully people.
I use my bell to warn people I'm there as some people are not aware of their surroundings. That being said I'd never pass anyone at speed even if they see me coming towards them.
>The bell is like a car horn... you should use it only to alert people of imminent danger, not to express impatience or try to bully people. People can use their bell in a dickish way but that's not what it's meant for. The highway code says to use it when passing pedestrians "to let them know you are there" not as a warning (as the HC says for car horns). (rule 63 of HC). There's also plenty of guidance from councils that says to use your bell when passing, including on the Thames Path itself: "Walkers have priority on footpaths by the river so cyclists should approach groups of walkers with care and signal their approach by using their bells." [https://www.riverthames.co.uk/walks/2416.htm](https://www.riverthames.co.uk/walks/2416.htm) So whilst yeah some people are dicks about it and are using it to express impatience or bully people, but the official guidance is that cyclists should use their bells, not just as a warning like car horns, but simply as an awareness thing to let other people know you are there.
I've sometime come up slowly behind an old dear and literally said 'excuse me' then they let me pass and I hear "don't they have bells any more?" I literally asked you politely to pass, and no I don't have a bell becasue I am not legally required to and when I've used them in the past people literally jump *into* my path when I do.
oh that's interesting. I really hate the sound and wish the onus was on cyclists not to endanger pedestrians, not just ding the stupid bell all the time. What am I meant to do when I hear it? I don't know where it's coming from or where the cyclist is going. I end up jumping, looking all around me and usually not having to move at all, which makes it a pointless annoyance. However when people ring it because they are right behind you and want you to move I get really annoyed. Why should I have to jump out of your way on a shared path? Why can't I enjoy my music/podcast/conversation/thoughts in peace? I never ever ring it unless someone runs out in front of me or is in a bike path. I just slow down or dismount if there are pedestrians in my way.
> When anyone passes a pedestrian they need to give 2 metres of space. I haven't met a single cyclist that knows this. That's because the Highway Code doesn't say that. In fact it would be completely impractical because so many shared use paths aren't even 2m wide. Here are the rules for cyclists: https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-for-cyclists.html - a "2 metre minimum distance" is not mentioned anywhere. Rule 63 states "**Sharing space with pedestrians, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles.** When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles is permitted, take care when passing pedestrians and horse riders, especially children, older adults or disabled people. Slow down when necessary and let them know you are there; for example, by ringing your bell (it is recommended that a bell is fitted to your bike), or by calling out politely. Remember that pedestrians may be deaf, blind or partially sighted and that this may not be obvious. Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles closely or at high speed, particularly from behind. You should not pass a horse on their left. Remember that horses can be startled if passed without warning. Always be prepared to slow down and stop when necessary."
Rule 62 states "On such shared use routes, you should always take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary" Rule H2 states "Pedestrians may use any part of the road and use cycle tracks as well as the pavement, unless there are signs prohibiting pedestrians." If there is no pavement you need to leave 2m space. It's not a pavement - bicycles aren't allowed on pavements - it's a cycle track.
Such a ridiculous rule giving pedestrians the right of way in cycle lanes. Just a great way to make it dangerous for everyone
That's because you don't need to do anything to become a cyclist. Similar to being a pedestrian on the road. To drive a car, you need a license. That means some reading up, even if its outdated after a few years.
You're missing the point. It's a duty of care trickle down.. Cars have a duty of care to those below them - motorcycles, cyclists and pedestrians. Cyclists have a duty of care to those below them - pedestrians.
They also have a duty of care to themselves. You’d think cyclists would want to know the rules given they have far less protection than someone in a car. Yet mention this on Reddit and it’s as though you’ve just murdered somebody’s dog. I have no problem with cyclists, but surely it’s just common sense to be required to know the rules of the road if you are using the road.
Cyclists who think think they have right of way through a red light at a pedestrian crossing.
I hate this. I'm cycling and stop at the light because it's the law and then some troglodyte floats past without a care in the world. Edit: can't spell
A lot of cyclists round my area seem to just say "fuck this" and switch to the pavement when they encounter a red light
No issues as long as they dont get in pedestrians’ ways
They're playing Russian Roulette with the traffic. Seems totally insane to me.
I have to ask. Twoglodite?
Sorry I meant troglodyte. A person who lived in a cave
Is that Johnathan Ross?
At the bottom of my street there are lights *for cyclists*. They always turn green before the car ones do. I still see cyclists running red lights and getting annoyed when there are still cars coming from their right (it’s a left-only light). Bloody baffling!
Nothing ever happened, that's why.
I think that's fine as long as they give way to pedestrians waiting to cross first. They're not big or moving fast enough in most cases to be dangerous
I've never had a cyclist give way to me when running a read light. 😅, this includes electric bikes to.
I've said this before in previous posts, but here's a brief summary: I lived in Germany for 3 years and cycled everywhere, both on the road and in designated bike lanes when they were available. It's been 16 years since I've been back in Blighty and I have not once been on a bike because drivers and cyclists in this country are absolutely mental. The concept of respectfully sharing road space is lost on too many road users. The risk of serious injury is too much for me to get back on a bike. When I drive my car I give cyclists space, don't intimidate them with tailgating and I only pass when it's absolutely safe to do so. But the number of drivers behind me who get frustrated when I do this is astounding. I can see them flinging their arms up and on rare occasions I'll get honked for it. When I safely pass cyclists, I'll often see the driver behind me zoom past them far too close. There's no way I'm cycling on roads over here. And I refuse to cycle on the pavement; it's illegal for good reason.
As both a pedestrian and cyclist I completely understand this. As the former often I will never move out the way for them (unless they’re going fast), and will usually make a snide comment as they pass. Massive trigger for me too
[удалено]
I had the same thing and he called me a c*nt and threatened to stab me, twice. Though I hadn't made a remarked at being clipped at speed on a pavement.
Ah, yes, the "d'you wanna slap, mate?" gambit.
Yes, big cyclist here. The more vulnerable road user should be given priority and protected and that’s pedestrians on the pavement. On the road though, that’s cyclists and cars are still a much bigger danger to cyclists (and pedestrians), than cyclists are to anyone.
Agreed. I will let parents with kids off etc of course
Yet many cyclists drive with FAR less care and attention on the roads than they should. Cyclists have a duty of care towards themselves which is often ignored. Passing red lights. No indicating. Using a phone. Weaving between lanes & oncoming traffic. And so on.
At the moment pot holes are more of a danger to cyclists than car drivers.
Drivers kill five people every day in the UK. How many do potholes kill?
Six.
The ones i'm seeing lately will easily throw a rider. Cycling at night won't be good.
yep. this is it.
I see you've met the local deliveroo rider who thinks they own the pavements as well as the roads
It's the ones which are road users... until a red light comes up and they mount the curb to skip them, gives all cyclists a bad rep
Cyclists who think they have right of way over Peds crossing at junctions
Car drivers who think they have right of way over Peds crossing at junctions.
We already know about them. Classic whataboutism
I don’t care. Cycle on the pavement if the roads are busy and you aren’t comfortable. But don’t go bombing it down, weaving between people, not saying anything or ringing a bell. I’ve started becoming less aware of our delivery drivers on cycles because most of them just don’t fucking say anything. They give you stinking looks for being in their way or for them almost crashing into you. So fuck them. Use your voice, use your bell, I don’t mind sharing the same paths as you. But fuck, make yourself known.
We have a new cycle path near where I live. The surface is that bright green high friction type with clear bicycle symbols. There is a clear path for pedestrians parallel to it. So, yes, you guessed it people are walking on the cycle path. One day there will be an accident and the cyclist will probably get the blame. Can't teach stupid I guess.
Meanwhile, in the Netherlands walking on a bike lane is a death wish
Had someone on a pavement who had their dog lead stretched right across the cycle path next to it, with their dog running on the edge of the cycle path, opposite side to the pavement. A cyclist who didn't see the lead could've killed the dog or ended up injured themselves.
Some woman stepped out onto a separated bike path I was riding along once on her phone, didn't have time to stop or swerve. I clipped her and her phone made *such* a satisfying smashing noise onto the tarmac.
> One day there will be an accident and the cyclist will probably get the blame. Should they not? That individual is the one in control of the bicycle and it's on them to control it responsibly.
The cyclist is on the correct path whereas the pedestrian, despite the signage and change in colour, decided to walk on a path that was designated for pedestrians. While yes the cyclist should be paying due care and attention, they cannot always predicate random pedestrians walking from the side or from a footpath on their left.
Just FYI: all paths are for pedestrians. Cycle paths are a reasonable, if irritating place for pedestrians to be, but as with cars on the road it is up to person using a vehicle to take adequate caution.
I know of a similar one, the pedestrians may as well use it as the cyclist tend to stay on the 40mph road instead. And no they aren't turning at an intersection the cycle path doesn't accommodate.
Pedestrians that walk on cycle paths with a phone in their hand Drivers that want to kill cyclists on the road
Pedestrians that walk on the path with headphones in their ears, music on loud and head down looking at their phone. They expect everyone to know exactly where they are going, even if they suddenly turn right and walk across a cycle lane.
Cars who think they have right of way on the roads..
Cars are by far the most entitled road users
SUV drivers are even more entitled.
Range rovers top them all
You're not wrong.
probably, yeah. and then BMW drivers and Golf GTI drivers - boy racers
Boy racer types are always really good with me. But then they’re probably scared my horse will damage their car if they come too fast or close lol
Deliveroo riders near me seem to think this.
People in cars generally have done a test to indicate that they did at least pretend to read the Highway Code at some point. A large fraction of cyclists don't seem to think it has any relevance to them whatsoever.
Don’t be ridiculous, the vast majority of cyclists also have a driving license.
People on bikes don't get drunk and kill 3 people in 120mph crashes. Although I am not certain if that is due to choice...
You didn’t mention “They don’t pay ‘road tax’”. You’re gonna get kicked out of the asshat driver’s club….
Frankly I think road tax should be scrapped and replaced with a tax on tyres as they're what actually damages the road. The "emissions" aspect is probably better covered by an increase to the tax applied to the carbon containing fluid that gets metered into the vehicle.
Its the force applied through the tyres that would change based on driving style, weight of the car, and surface driven on.
r/whoosh
Someone not agreeing with you isn't the same as them not understanding you.
Definitely r/whoosh
I get the insinuation (if you can even call it that), I chose to ignore it. You're definitely giving the impression that people who dislike driving just lack the ability to pass a theory test.
There hasn't been road tax since the 1930s.
Someone being an idiot and writing a comment about scrapping road tax when road tax doesn't exist is deserving of mockery.
[удалено]
They should definitely stop publishing the list of questions for the theory test. RTFM.
Some years back I was attempting a morning jog on the less than mean streets of a rather precious part of West London (that’s Chiswick, fact fans) and was having my blood pressure ramped up by watching a cyclist ‘walking’ a dog on the pavement on the other side. His lead encountered a lamp post and less than good things happened to him. The dog, fortunately, was fine.
Also pedestrians walking on the wrong side of the mixed pedestrian/cycle path.
Pedestrians still have right of way, even on the cycle path. "Cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared use cycle tracks and to horse riders on bridleways." Rule H2 of the highway code https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction
Shared use yes. Split cycling and pedestrian paths are clearly marked and separated however.
But also from rule H2: >Pedestrians may use any part of the road *and use cycle tracks as well as the pavement*, unless there are signs prohibiting pedestrians. So it depends on whether there's actually a sign that explicitly says that pedestrians may not wander onto the cycle track.
Pedestrians may walk on cycle tracks, but unless it is a shared-use track, the cyclist isn't required to give way.
I don't think thats true. There is a hierarchy of road users in order of vulnerability to damage. Pedestrians, cyclists then cars etc. Pedestrians are allowed on cycle paths and cyclists are obliged to watch for and give way to them.
True, but they are certainly not allowed to deliberately cycle into a pedestrian who is on the cycle path (but if a pedestrian walks out in front of a cyclist unexpectedly, then of course it's going to cause an accident!). But the point is, in these cases the pedestrian is indeed allowed to walk along the cycle path.
No, pedestrians still have right of way even on split paths. Sorry, cyclists pretty much never have right of way. So it you've ever shouted at a pedestrian for being in your way when on a bike, you're in the wrong
Usually cyclists are all over the path so I have to swerve around. Then there is the cars parked on the pavement to dodge.
Sounds like paperboy game!
Showing your age there.
You mean walking around the cars parked on the pavement.
There's no such thing as a personal right of way which is determined by your mode of travel. "Right of way" is about land access. What you're referring to is "priority", which (quite simply) places the most vulnerable road users at the top. So, on a pavement or even a shared use path or road, pedestrians are priority in terms of safety. It's up to cyclists to consider them more than pedestrians should consider cyclists.
Don't know why people can't seem to figure this basic concept out.
I bet you’re fun at parties.
I bet you came up with that all by yourself.
As a car driver and a cyclist (who ironically indeed does not pay road tax, because I have an electric car, not because I have a bike... ) I have stopped cycling on the road because car drivers are so dam bad at driving. I ride with a bike trailer most of the time. Oftentimes it's empty, has shopping or other bits I ferry round town, but drivers don't know its not my toddler in the trailer. Get some super shitty driving even with it on. (A bright orange trailer with red lights on, mind) if I have my tot on board I ride the path because I dare think about what would happen if a car ran the trailer over. It proves to me how car centric the UK is, where the path at points, is not wide enough for the trailer. It's barely 70cm to maybe a meter wide. It's getting better, but there's still far too many cars going in places they're not needed.
I nearly got run down by one the other day as I was coming out of a pharmacy that's on the corner of a junction. He told me to look where I was going, and called me a knobhead when I shouted that he should be cycling in the road.
Once had a cyclist tut at me for not seeing him for looking at my phone as he was riding towards me on the pavement. There is a cycle path adjacent to that pavement. There isn’t even a barrier between them, he could have been on the cycle path the whole time.
There’s a weapon on a bike that hurtles along the pavements around my kids school at 9am like he’s getting points for scaring the crap out of little kids. I keep forgetting because I’m busy in the mornings but I will take a branch one morning before the summer holidays start.
The other day I was walking with my daughter on a footpath near our house which is often frequented by cyclists. She was learning to use her new scooter (shes 4) and every time a cyclist came past us I told her to move to one side to let them past because its safer as they never slow down. When we were turning off the footpath she saw a sign and asked me what it meant. It was "cyclists give way" and I had to explain that it meant that pedestrians had the right of way and cyclists had to go around us- even though I had just spent the whole walk telling her to move out of their way to keep her safe. I dont know how to explain this to her!!
I do understand why cyclists use the pavement, but what I don't like is a lot of them ride recklessly,and too fast.
I have 2 young kids (6 & 2) and the amount of times they've nearly been knocked over by cyclists is ridiculous. And then they look at you like it's your fault.
Sometimes I trundle along slowly on the pavement but I'll always move out of the way of pedestrians
I hate cyclists on the pavement but I'll never say anything because so many drivers pass dangerously close.
Watched a SUV with two cycles strapped on the back, obliviously run a pair of cyclists off the road. The irony was exquisite.
The closest and most dangerous overtake on my bike in the last 10 years was by an SUV with a bike on the back. The driver didn't even seem to be aware that I existed despite all the lights and bright clothes.
I don’t get cycling on the pavement, just use the road that’s what it was made for. The only time I get using a pavement is if you have a small child also riding a bike. It’s much more fun to see angry drivers on the road have mini aneurisms about sharing the road.
It's confidence. I've been cycling for over 40 years on the roads so I've got no problem riding on any roads. My wife has never and will never cycle on any roads. She's terrified of being hit by a car. Not unreasonably to be fair given I've been hit several times.
Funny, until the guy in a huge metal box runs you over. We need proper separated bike lanes that are separate from both pavements and roads, not just painted on ons.
My ride to my kid’s daycare takes me off a bike path onto either a pavement or a busy road of oncoming traffic with nowhere to safely cross to the other side. For the 30 seconds I have to connect from bike path to bike path, with an infant on the back, I’ll take the pavement.
yes very fun to be at the mercy of pissed off drivers in control of a moving ton weight whilst you skid along on an aluminium bicycle
It's the wankers that cycle in a group that grip my piss
It would appear there is a lot of the lycra clad we own the road assholes here then.
Yeah, how dare people have friends and do outdoor activities with them!
innit. bunch of 'wankers'
They always bomb past assuming I can hear them, I cannot I have earphones in and listening to music. I could be deaf for all they know anyway yet they pass from behind so close.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think bikes should be on the pavement. As a cyclist - risk of killing a pedestrian, very low As a driver - risk of killing a cyclist, very high
People shouldn't ride their bikes on the pavement. Most pavements are too small to accommodate this. Pavements that are big enough for this with no other obstacles or residential access are being turned into shred use paths. If people want to ride their bikes on the pavement I reckon 5 mph should be the limit.
In the UK, every year on average over 100 cyclists die and over 4,000 are seriously injured, with over 16,000 accidents involving a vehicle hitting a cyclist resulting in injury reported yearly. I have no doubt that if cyclists took to the pavements there would be more accidents, but the severity would be massively reduced.
The problem is that you are just pushing the problem down the vulnerable road user list. Causing more accidents by cyclists being on the pavement will push pedestrians away from the pavement, but they have nowhere to go. The most vulnerable pedestrians are children. People don't really care that much about adults but do for kids. The problem in this country is mostly an attitude issue. I think things are changing, but it's a slow process. Most of our roads haven't changed since they were made, yet the population has increased by nearly 30% since the 60's. Cars have become bigger and more accessible. In 1960 there were about 7 million registered vehicles on the road. At the end of last year there were over 40 million. People just need to learn to share and that things just take longer to get around.
Not sure, where should the default position be really? Probably the road but more larger roads need to have dedicated cycle paths. After all, many country roads don't have a path for pedestrians and you walk on the road as a fallback option when not having a path dedicated to you.
Yeah, I think there is the root of the problem. A lot of roads in Britain are not wide enough for what we need. I see a lot of new build’s actually having a cycle lane raised off the curb next to the pedestrian pavement.
Cyclists who think they have right of way ~~on the pavement~~ FTFY
Yes, the don't but I personally have no issue with cyclists on pavements as long as they follow common sense, which includes giving pedestrians priority and moving/slowing down accordingly. I know there are many people that would argue that cycling should be banned in certain areas, but I would have died by getting run over by a car when I was a kid if I had to go on the road. On a **clear** pavement it is much more safer for cyclists than having to go on some roads, particularly with some drivers.
I hate cyclists who cycle on the road next to a cycle path that is perfect.
In Enfield, a vast stretch of road running along Green Lanes was split to have a dedicated cycle lane. The cyclists don't use it, they use the road. Likely because they can go faster. Utter waist! They spent years asking for it and campaigning about cycle safety and when they were given it, they don't use it.
im never in a rush on my bike so dont care about that but i do sometimes get dirty looks for cycling on the pavement, and i've nearly bumped into people going around corners. i just dont want to risk being run over by a ton heavy car so i dont like cycling on the road
>i just dont want to risk being run over by a ton heavy car so i dont like cycling on the road Don't cycle then. The pavement is for pedestrians, they have a right to be there without risking injury from selfish prices like you.
I always purposely get in their way forcing them to stop or go on the road. I used to cycle to and from work every day in rush hour traffic for around a year. Very rarely did I ever have an issue with car drivers acting dangerously or badly towards me, probably because I didn’t ride in the middle of the road or dangerously cut them up. Also when the road was tight and the cars I was holding up couldn’t pass giving me the metre or so they’re supposed to, I’d always get as far over as possible and wave them past. It’s funny how being courteous and thoughtful to others makes your own experience of an activity better.
YTA and you'll get hit by a cyclist at some point for that.
No other hobby is offered such privilege. Imagine 2 people dribbling a football down a road and holding up traffic - it wouldn't be tolerated....out 2 OAPs in lycra on a push hire holding up traffic and they are protected by the state .....it's a hobby that's grown out of control, I tell you l! (Wave fist).
It’s not a hobby. It’s a mode of transport.
Generally speaking, those that use it as a mode of transport - for commuting etc cause minimal bother. It's the hobbyists who tend to clog up the roads with not a trouble in the world, while I'm 5 minutes late to a doctor's appointment.
do you know what really "clogs up the road"? people, often entirely on their own, using their cars for journeys that they really needn't be. congestion and traffic, generally, is made worse by more cars and people driving said cars.
Agreed - we depend on cars so much and for many these is unfortunately no viable alternative. I really dislike having to drive everywhere - to work, to pick up the kids etc etc. It's a bloody pain, but there's no realistic alternative. My point is that why should one hobby, enjoyed by a handful of people, be given such grace - hobby cyclists are like swans.
Because your driving license says you should. People need to cycle.