Pavements for people?

Most cyclists and have cars, more than a few like me, two cars. So when we are cycling we are not using these cars and as far as I a concerned this means by default we are paying.

So people with caravans have to tax them, no, how about these massive mobility scooters, they use the pavement and take up far more room than a cyclists, what do they pay, nothing. We have someone locally who has a double mobility scooter so he can take a passenger.

Yes there cyclists who speed, just the same as motorists, but as I said its all about tolerance and attitude is changing, more and more councils are going down the route of safe spaces for cyclists and that will include pavements.

Just to say, I use to work in Highways and I can tell you parking on the pavement is illegal. The pavements are made to a different standard to roads and so cars damage the pavements by parking on them.

Fiachna50
You find it amusing that cyclists face aggression?

I can see nothing to laugh about in car passengers leaning out of their window to stub out a cigarette on a cyclist's arm, or hurling objects at them, of passing as near as they can to them and loudly shouting 'boo' or something similar in an attempt to unnerve them, or even trying deliberately to knock them off their bike. These things happen regularly (well, not the cigarette one, fortunately) to perfectly law-abiding cyclists who are riding sensibly and considerately on roads of all types, even in rural areas.

I'm not trying to condone bad cyclists using pavements, as that is a separate issue, albeit the topic of the thread, but really, how can that possibly amuse you?

The problem of cyclists on pavements isn't so bad where we live now because the level of road traffic and the condition of the pavements are so horrendous they mostly stay away.
The council has made cycling routes and maps for serious cyclists.
The only pavement cyclists I see are young children and only a few of them.
That's another aspect - children living in urban areas need an outlet for physical activity, cycling is very attractive to them.

Most cyclists and have cars, more than a few like me, two cars. So when we are cycling we are not using these cars and as far as I a concerned this means by default we are paying.

The logic of this escapes me entirely.

If you have a car (no idea why anyone needs two, but that's another matter) then you pay tax on that car, and insurance in case you cause an accident or it is stolen.

How does that entitle you to ride a bike on a pavement? In what way are you paying for the right to do this?

You seem to have a beef with people using mobility scooters; but these are for the disabled, who have no choice in the matter, and would, presumably, much prefer to be able to use the pavement to walk on. Also, it would be dangerous for others if they drove them on the road, as they don't go as fast as other traffic. They are not designed for road use, unlike bikes.

It seems to me ironic that someone who complains about disabled people having allowances made for them is asking for tolerance.

Yes we have two cars as we both have different interested and are not joined at the hip. I have no beef at all about disability scooters, could well end with one myself. But what I do object to is these huge heavy ones and believe me they go fast along the pavement. Get a bump from of these and you will know it. Are they taxed and insured?

Found it interesting you didn't mention caravans not having to be taxed, is that because you have one I wonder.

I will say just once again, many pavements are shared space, they don't always have a line down them just a sign saying
cycle these are the ones that are legal to use and there are great many of them in my area and Wales.

Where I live I e had my mobility car struck by vehicles because repeatedly I parked on the road . Being a good citizen I struggle back and forth getting from house to car the insurance now refuses to fix my car as it’s been struck again so I had to pay out of my pocket I went to the police station and asked what could I do they told me because out steer is very narrow I should use some of the pavement and out my car on like others do in the street . ! I understand where your coming for but don’t tar us all with being inconsiderate A holes . I need a car or I would never see anyone no buses come along no taxis within 60 miles of me . So if you have an answer I also use crutches please write to me .

So sorry Elliemae about your car, the problem is narrow streets and cars. I don't have a quick fix answer, it all boils down to the council when they give planning permission for new houses or the problem could be old houses on roads not built for a large number of cars.

We have the problem where I live and its a new build area. The council just didn't think, thought everyone would have one car and built 4 bedroom houses. The problem was so bad that buses refused to do a route because of becoming stuck. A few yellow lines have helped. So its the same for us cyclists, where the road is narrow its not often safe to cycle.

Could you contact your MP and discuss the problem with him, election coming up he might be able to help and get brownie points.

Mobility scooters for pavements have a top speed of 4 mph...a fast walking speed. Those that go faster eg 8 mph should NOT be in the pavements either, they are to bev driven on the roads.

Personally I do not think you should be able to buy a car unless you have somewhere to park it that doesn’t cause inconvenience to other users or pedestrians.

Found it interesting you didn't mention caravans not having to be taxed, is that because you have one I wonder.

No, and if I did I wouldn't use it on a pavement! I didn't mention caravans, or quad bikes, or lorries, or anything else, as they are not remotely relevant to my point, which is that bikes are not supposed to be on pavements.

You said that you had two cars, not that you and your husband had one each, hence my confusion. I still don't understand how the fact that you pay car tax means that you have paid to ride your bike though.

Yehbutnobut but what happens when you move house or develop a disability while still in your original house where previously you didn't need or own a car?

Firstly when starting this thread I wish I had remembered the word for people on pavements i.e. pedestrians (escaped my mind completely ?).
Secondly, I don’t think I have ever seen a shared pavement (marked with a line or sign) around where I live (did see one in Ireland though). Are they common?

Yes we have a lot of cyclists who think nothing about bombing along on the path where we are trying to walk. Despite having a cycle path next to the path I’m walking on, we also have kiddies zooming along on their scooters twirling round spinning them and stopping on an angle to talk to their parents who are quite a way behind,Cambridge is worse you nearly get mowed down trying to cross the road they stop for no one

Personally I think there are far too many cars and far too many large cars.
I used to be a census enumerator and have watched the car population grow out of all proportion to the human population. Thus a house which had one car parked outside back in 1981, by 2011 had 3 or 4.
This seems quite daft to me.

Road tax ought to reflect the luxury of owning a car (or other vehicle which takes up space) and thus the money received should be spent on improving public transport, cycle paths, footpaths and restoring railways.

Is it just me thinking like this? - it seems so obvious.
Car owners - I can hear you wailing now - will say that their car isn't a luxury etc. I say it is!

For some a car is a necessity but it's true that many people want a car of their own so they have total freedom. Cycling has become increasingly popular, mobility scooters too. Add all those together and remember the population of this small country has skyrocketed. So basically we have far too many people trying to get around with different forms of transport, often in small cramped streets!

Mamacaz, if you read my post properly, that is not what I said at all. I was not laughing at cyclists facing aggression and certainly the examples you gave are terrible. I have never witnessed that myself and no, I do not condone that violence. However, seems that some cyclists are happy to be aggressive towards people on the pavement and crossing the road. I was laughing about cyclists complaining as they do not seem to get that their behaviour is PART not all of the problem. I do not condone violence or aggression against anyone. I have met cyclists who have verbally abused me and one who threatened me.

Monica if you move house you should consider the parking implications. I would have thought that was high on anyone’s list of priorities anyway.

Re disability. Get a scooter perhaps?

Grammaretto I agree that there are too many cars especially too many large cars. 4x4 drivers in particular seem to think they own the road, the pavement and parking spaces.

Just one example when on a rare trips to Waitrose yesterday I parked next to 4x4 which was blatantly astride two parking spaces.

But you cannot see into the future and you may choose a house that has perfctly satisfactory when you move in - and then something changes. It could be anything. Double yellow lines, parking meters, a need to cater for someone with a disability.

The older we get, often the longer we have lived in our current homes. When we buy a property we do not know how long we will stay there and cannot look ahead and foresee changes in us, our families or traffic decisions that may be 20 years or more years in the future. It seems unreasonable to expect people to take on all the expense of moving home, (£20,000 plus), possibly leaving a home that meets their needs in every other way just because the council has installed double yellow lines or that they are not as mobile as they were.

A scooter is very limited, only holds one, usully has little space for shopping and depends on there being pavements and pedestrian paths with satisfactory surfaces and is no use for travelling 3 or 4 miles to the local supermarket or longer distances.

We were very lucky when we happened on our present home. 50 yards from the doctors, 250 yards from the shops and chemists, etc. But not everyone can live within walking distance of all facilities, there just isn’t room and not every disabled/elderly/mother-with-toddler is prepared to spend all his/her days stuck indoors as happened 50/60 years ago.

DD1 and her husband have jobs 75 miles apart so they live somewhere in between, but it means both have to travel daily in opposite directions with no feasible public transport. In these days of equality for women with both partners working this is quite normal.

Sorry, Grammaretto for many, if not most people a car is a necessity.

Just my point, NfkD that there is no feasable public transport . There should be far more investment in planning for the future demographic.

The population is growing but it isn't skyrocketting or exploding - yet. at least not in Britain.

Women are choosing to work and to have smaller families so the population shape is changing. We have more old people, as we are living longer, and fewer young people..

I still maintain owning a car is a luxury but maybe my definition of a luxury is not the same as yours
A washing machine is a luxury too as is having a garden.

Round here there are roads where cars are allowed to bump up onto the pavement. A white line is shows how far onto the pavement the car can park. Parking is allowed like this on narrow roads so that road users can drive down them. As for cyclists, this morning driving over Kingston bridge where there is a designated cycling lane protected by a small wall, some lycra clad cyclist decided it wasn't for him and that he would use the main road instead!

How nice to live the kind of relaxed unpressured life that means a car can be a luxury. For many people no car means no money in the bank, no food on the table or roof over their heads.

Ove the last 50 years our environment has been designed around the car; supermarkets, shops, offices, factories are scattered around the edges of towns. or in special out of town developments. DD works in a big rural science park. Her journey to work is 35 minutes in her car, over 2 hours, if she uses public transport. Over 4 hours travelling between work and home each day compared with just over an hour.

With 2 working adults in most family households and with people changing jobs more often, travel patterns are now so complex that it is not possible to design public transport patterns that, for example, allows a parent to drop a child off at school, drive to work, nip out at lunchtime to do some shopping and then get home quickly in the evening.

I live in a rural area and DH and I rarely go out to just do one thing. We will go out with an itinerary that will take us into the local town centre, then out to a retail park for some DIY materials or collect something we had ordered on click and collect, calling in at the surgery to collect a prescription before taking in the Farmshop on the way home. By bus?

Village shops are a thing of the past as are house-calling doctors, village schools and even local churches. These needs cannot be met with a bus service that will probably only run 6 days a week with the last bus at 5.00pm.

Better more reliable public transport would help, but for most it will not make owning a car a luxury.

Quite so MOnica.

I would also take issue with 'women choose to go out to work'. Very few families are priveliged enough to pay a mortgage on a single income.