Yet another group of pedestrians object to pavement cycling.

See http://tiny.cc/wXpzQ

WSR

On 22 Nov, 00:25, webreader  wrote:
> Yet another group of pedestrians object to pavement cycling.
>
> Seehttp://tiny.cc/wXpzQ
>
> WSR

While I dont agree to verges being removed and the sharing of a
footpath to the side of a road, I will say that the residents should
learn to reverse their cars into their driveways if they are unable to
turn them around for safe exit.  What about all the elderly?  They are
at more risk from residents reversing out of their driveways (think
frosty mornings) than they are from a cyclist.

thirty-six wrote:

> webreader  wrote:

>> Yet another group of pedestrians object to pavement cycling.
>> Seehttp://tiny.cc/wXpzQ

> While I dont agree to verges being removed and the sharing of a
> footpath to the side of a road, I will say that the residents should
> learn to reverse their cars into their driveways if they are unable to
> turn them around for safe exit.  What about all the elderly?  They are
> at more risk from residents reversing out of their driveways (think
> frosty mornings) than they are from a cyclist.

Not many people have gardens big enough for a motor vehicle bigger than a 
motor-bike to be turned. That's a non-starter. So either entry to or egress 
from a garage or driveway will involve reversing (and which one it is will 
depend on a range of factors).

The system is predicated on proper sightlines and on the "traffic" flowing 
past the entrance being quite slow - ie, pedestrian. Cycling past a driveway 
on the footway is crazy, whether sanctioned by the council or not. By-laws 
don't change the laws of physics.

On 22 Nov, 01:15, JNugent  wrote:
> thirty-six wrote:
> > webreader  wrote:
> >> Yet another group of pedestrians object to pavement cycling.
> >> Seehttp://tiny.cc/wXpzQ
> > While I dont agree to verges being removed and the sharing of a
> > footpath to the side of a road, I will say that the residents should
> > learn to reverse their cars into their driveways if they are unable to
> > turn them around for safe exit.  What about all the elderly?  They are
> > at more risk from residents reversing out of their driveways (think
> > frosty mornings) than they are from a cyclist.
>
> Not many people have gardens big enough for a motor vehicle bigger than a
> motor-bike to be turned. That's a non-starter. So either entry to or egress
> from a garage or driveway will involve reversing (and which one it is will
> depend on a range of factors).


Including laziness.

>
> The system is predicated on proper sightlines and on the "traffic" flowing
> past the entrance being quite slow - ie, pedestrian. Cycling past a driveway
> on the footway is crazy, whether sanctioned by the council or not. By-laws
> don't change the laws of physics.

thirty-six wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:
>> thirty-six wrote:
>>> webreader  wrote:

>>>> Yet another group of pedestrians object to pavement cycling.
>>>> Seehttp://tiny.cc/wXpzQ

>>> While I dont agree to verges being removed and the sharing of a
>>> footpath to the side of a road, I will say that the residents should
>>> learn to reverse their cars into their driveways if they are unable to
>>> turn them around for safe exit.  What about all the elderly?  They are
>>> at more risk from residents reversing out of their driveways (think
>>> frosty mornings) than they are from a cyclist.

>> Not many people have gardens big enough for a motor vehicle bigger than a
>> motor-bike to be turned. That's a non-starter. So either entry to or egress
>> from a garage or driveway will involve reversing (and which one it is will
>> depend on a range of factors).

> Including laziness.

How would that work, then?

The amount of reversing is identical in either case.

The only situation where you could be right is in the contrived case where 
person A always performs the outward-bound manoeuvre and person B performs 
the inward-bound manoeuvre. But I don't think you meant that.

>> The system is predicated on proper sightlines and on the "traffic" flowing
>> past the entrance being quite slow - ie, pedestrian. Cycling past a driveway
>> on the footway is crazy, whether sanctioned by the council or not. By-laws
>> don't change the laws of physics.

In message 
, 
thirty-six  writes
>On 22 Nov, 00:25, webreader  wrote:
>> Yet another group of pedestrians object to pavement cycling.
>>
>> Seehttp://tiny.cc/wXpzQ
>>
>> WSR
>
>While I dont agree to verges being removed and the sharing of a
>footpath to the side of a road, I will say that the residents should
>learn to reverse their cars into their driveways if they are unable to
>turn them around for safe exit.

If they can. We live on the main road going through our village (also by 
the shops, so lots of people parking on the road on both sides. When 
it's reasonably busy (which is much of the day really) Reversing in is 
pretty much impossible, as by the time you have stopped and got into 
reverse, someone has got to near you behind and is blocking the drive. 
and then we are also blocking traffic coming the other way, etc. etc.

When we lived in Lees ona  suburban road I always reversed in.


>What about all the elderly?  They are
>at more risk from residents reversing out of their driveways (think
>frosty mornings) than they are from a cyclist.

Can't see why it's really more risky for older people. If they are near 
enough they will see us coming out and stop or we will spot them and let 
them pass.

Ironically, the  only incident I can remember was with a pavement 
cyclist who almost crashed into the side of the car. I guess he was 
cycling to fast for the pavement as he didn't have time to stop it seems 
but managed to swerve out into the road. We take great care reversing 
out to take it slow, so he would have had enough warning of the car 
leaving the drive getting in his way.

This is Cambridgeshire BTW, where pavement cycling is de rigeur it would 
seem.
-- 
Chris French

webreader wrote:
> Yet another group of pedestrians object to pavement cycling.
> 
> See http://tiny.cc/wXpzQ
> 
> WSR

Put a 20mph speed limit on the road and a safety camera, then you wouldn't need
a cycle track.

On 22 Nov, 00:25, webreader  wrote:
> Yet another group of pedestrians object to pavement cycling.
>
> Seehttp://tiny.cc/wXpzQ
>
Another anti-cyclist post. Are you a motorist?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

JNugent wrote:
> thirty-six wrote:
> 
>> webreader  wrote:
> 
>>> Yet another group of pedestrians object to pavement cycling.
>>> Seehttp://tiny.cc/wXpzQ
> 
>> While I dont agree to verges being removed and the sharing of a
>> footpath to the side of a road, I will say that the residents should
>> learn to reverse their cars into their driveways if they are unable to
>> turn them around for safe exit.  What about all the elderly?  They are
>> at more risk from residents reversing out of their driveways (think
>> frosty mornings) than they are from a cyclist.
> 
> Not many people have gardens big enough for a motor vehicle bigger than 
> a motor-bike to be turned. That's a non-starter. So either entry to or 
> egress from a garage or driveway will involve reversing (and which one 
> it is will depend on a range of factors).
> 
> The system is predicated on proper sightlines and on the "traffic" 
> flowing past the entrance being quite slow - ie, pedestrian. Cycling 
> past a driveway on the footway is crazy, whether sanctioned by the 
> council or not. By-laws don't change the laws of physics.
> 
> 

Myself I will nearly always reverse into my drive & drive out, as I get 
a better view along the pavement. This usually means that traffic will 
have to stop to enable me to reverse as the road can be busy, but it is 
easier than backing into a busy road.
The ladies of the house see the road as bigger than the driveway so the 
road is easier to back into.
I have tried to make them change, but it would be easier to knit fog.

-- 

Tony Dragon

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:06:46 +0000, Tony Dragon
 wrote:

>The ladies of the house see the road as bigger than the driveway so the 
>road is easier to back into.
>I have tried to make them change, but it would be easier to knit fog.

It took about 30 seconds for my father to persuade me of the right way
of doing it.  This was done by reference to a diagram of a car and a
parking space, and pointing out which end has the wheels that steer. I
almost always reverse park and it irritates me beyond measure when
supermarkets fail to provide a trolley aisle between adjoining parking
rows.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc
GPG public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:06:46 +0000, Tony Dragon
>  wrote:
> 
>> The ladies of the house see the road as bigger than the driveway so the 
>> road is easier to back into.
>> I have tried to make them change, but it would be easier to knit fog.
> 
> It took about 30 seconds for my father to persuade me of the right way
> of doing it.  This was done by reference to a diagram of a car and a
> parking space, and pointing out which end has the wheels that steer. I
> almost always reverse park and it irritates me beyond measure when
> supermarkets fail to provide a trolley aisle between adjoining parking
> rows.
>  
> Guy

I don't need persuading, I know that it is easier to back into a space 
than to drive in, the stupid thing is that the wife can reverse park 
better than most other people.

I think it may be due to the fact that when they arrive home it is 
quicker to drive in than to reverse in.

-- 

Tony Dragon

Tony Dragon wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> Tony Dragon  wrote:

>>> The ladies of the house see the road as bigger than the driveway so 
>>> the road is easier to back into.
>>> I have tried to make them change, but it would be easier to knit fog.

>> It took about 30 seconds for my father to persuade me of the right way
>> of doing it.  This was done by reference to a diagram of a car and a
>> parking space, and pointing out which end has the wheels that steer. I
>> almost always reverse park and it irritates me beyond measure when
>> supermarkets fail to provide a trolley aisle between adjoining parking
>> rows.

> I don't need persuading, I know that it is easier to back into a space 
> than to drive in, the stupid thing is that the wife can reverse park 
> better than most other people.
> I think it may be due to the fact that when they arrive home it is 
> quicker to drive in than to reverse in.

That's one thing, certainly: you are out of the traffic flow quicker. If you 
live on a busy road which is a bus route, that's not an inconsiderable factor.

Another factor is what the situation is once you're off the road. On my 
driveway, if I reverse in, the offside doors cannot easily be opened. In 
order to overcome this problem, I have three options:

(a) become rather more agile and climb across inside the car, over the 
console and gear lever, etc - not a real option at my age- I'd do my back in 
in no time;

(b) cut down the hedgerow (and that's what it is - a hedgerow, not a hedge) 
just within the boudary of the property in order to vacate more door-opening 
space; not a starter because of the aesthetic desirability of that effective 
visual screen and haven for wildlife; or

(c) drive in and reverse out.

It's (c).

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:25:30 -0800 (PST), webreader
 wrote:

>Yet another group of pedestrians object to pavement cycling.
>
>See http://tiny.cc/wXpzQ
>
>WSR

If you read the article (you did do that before you posted it, did
you?), I think you will find they are actually complaining about the
introduction of a cycle lane. Cycling in a cycle lane or designated
shared path is not "pavement cycling".

Whether cycle lanes or shared paths are A Good Thing is another
subject.
 
-- 

Pete

JNugent wrote:
> Tony Dragon wrote:
> 
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> Tony Dragon  wrote:
> 
>>>> The ladies of the house see the road as bigger than the driveway so 
>>>> the road is easier to back into.
>>>> I have tried to make them change, but it would be easier to knit fog.
> 
>>> It took about 30 seconds for my father to persuade me of the right way
>>> of doing it.  This was done by reference to a diagram of a car and a
>>> parking space, and pointing out which end has the wheels that steer. I
>>> almost always reverse park and it irritates me beyond measure when
>>> supermarkets fail to provide a trolley aisle between adjoining parking
>>> rows.
> 
>> I don't need persuading, I know that it is easier to back into a space 
>> than to drive in, the stupid thing is that the wife can reverse park 
>> better than most other people.
>> I think it may be due to the fact that when they arrive home it is 
>> quicker to drive in than to reverse in.
> 
> That's one thing, certainly: you are out of the traffic flow quicker. If 
> you live on a busy road which is a bus route, that's not an 
> inconsiderable factor.

The road is not that busy, but it is a bus route (the bus drivers are 
trainee F1 drivers)

> 
> Another factor is what the situation is once you're off the road. On my 
> driveway, if I reverse in, the offside doors cannot easily be opened. In 
> order to overcome this problem, I have three options:

No such problem in my case.

> 
> (a) become rather more agile and climb across inside the car, over the 
> console and gear lever, etc - not a real option at my age- I'd do my 
> back in in no time;

That would certainly be a no.

> 
> (b) cut down the hedgerow (and that's what it is - a hedgerow, not a 
> hedge) just within the boudary of the property in order to vacate more 
> door-opening space; not a starter because of the aesthetic desirability 
> of that effective visual screen and haven for wildlife; or
> 
> (c) drive in and reverse out.
> 
> It's (c).

It is really what is best for you, another plus for reversing in is you 
don't have to walk round the car when you empty the boot.
-- 

Tony Dragon

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:51:27 +0000, Tony Dragon
 wrote:


>
>It is really what is best for you, another plus for reversing in is you 
>don't have to walk round the car when you empty the boot.

That's geographically sensitive too. We park at the side of the house
and the car is parked beyond the side door, so if we backed in we
would have to walk round the car to get at the boot...
 
-- 

Pete

Tony Dragon wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:06:46 +0000, Tony Dragon
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The ladies of the house see the road as bigger than the driveway so 
>>> the road is easier to back into.
>>> I have tried to make them change, but it would be easier to knit fog.
>>
>> It took about 30 seconds for my father to persuade me of the right way
>> of doing it.  This was done by reference to a diagram of a car and a
>> parking space, and pointing out which end has the wheels that steer. I
>> almost always reverse park and it irritates me beyond measure when
>> supermarkets fail to provide a trolley aisle between adjoining parking
>> rows.
>>  
>> Guy
> 
> I don't need persuading, I know that it is easier to back into a space 
> than to drive in, the stupid thing is that the wife can reverse park 
> better than most other people.
> 
> I think it may be due to the fact that when they arrive home it is 
> quicker to drive in than to reverse in.
> 

Make that 'easier' to drive in to.
There can be a short wait until traffic allows for a reverse in.
There will be a bit of hooting once in a blue moon but generally most 
other motorists are patient while you back in.

Here it's a 'reverse J turn' as the parking is parallel to the road and 
there's usually parked cars to negotiate, getting it right in one go 
seems to have come quickly to SWMBO.
Getting out again is so much easier as you can see both ways before even 
going across the paving slabs. That means not blocking the progress of 
pedestrians, too (have been known to spot cyclists coming up the 
pavement and eased out a little bit (not when they are only a few feet 
away) - they should be on the road where I can see them easier).


-- 
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle

On 22 Nov, 11:51, Tony Dragon  wrote:

> The road is not that busy, but it is a bus route (the bus drivers are
> trainee F1 drivers)

Poles.

>
>

On 22 Nov, 08:37, Doug  wrote:
> On 22 Nov, 00:25, webreader  wrote:> Yet another group of pedestrians object to pavement cycling.
>
> > Seehttp://tiny.cc/wXpzQ
>
> Another anti-cyclist post. Are you a motorist?

Doug, surely you agree that the best place for a cyclist is in the
road, best for a pedestrian is on the pavement, and the best place for
a car, bus, or other motor vehicle is a long way away?