Antisocial Cycling – A Way Ahead

The way I see it is that pavement cycling is an inconsiderate annoyance, but it is also a reaction to the fact that a lot of people feel unsafe and constantly marginalised when they are forced to mix with other traffic. Here in Manchester, most of the pavement cyclists I see are teenagers, and occasionally a parent with a child on a separate bike, and it is almost always along A-roads. I don’t think anyone likes cycling on a pavement, be they the cyclist in question or pedestrians, but it seems that a lot of pavement cycling is merely a reaction to the fact that the roads have become so unsuitable and subjectively unsafe for many cyclists.

All you need to stop pavement cycling is the right infrastructure.

that will stop people complaining about antisocial cycling is when they start getting on a bike themselves….

Ahead of a meeting tomorrow, I googled "antisocial cycling" and this post was the first promising thing I found.

My immediate suggestion would be to redefine the subject as "considerate cycling".  I'm not sure if accepting a negative label is likely to help.  We are almost put in the position of defending something that is indefensible. The argument that cycling transgressions are not as bad as other traffic misdemeanours leaves the conflict unsoothed.  We're starting the struggle by getting hold of the wrong end of a stick.

My own slow movement to the idea of "considerate cyclist" started when I helped out at a local school on what is now organised as Bikeabily Training. What I learned (after 20+ years of feral cycling) from the instructors and children was that there was so  much more I could do to make my own life on the road safer, less threatened, and pleasanter.  However reluctant we are to accept a need, good training and awareness sessions can be encouraged and enjoyed while the deep politics work undercover on the essential infrastrutural changes. Such training could even bring the perceptions of other road users into the sessions (most of us are multimodal anyway).

So:

1.  Expand and extend existing good things in Bikeability - encourage all to get invovled
2.  Drop the Dead Donkey (stop using the phrase "antisocial cycling")

PS having taught social science to A Level students for many years, I don't hold out much hope of changing minds through comparative statistics (enlightening though they are for the converted and the willing).

http://thislast.blogspot.com/2011/08/considerate-cycling-2.html has some primitive ideas on the thinking. I think it needs developing.

At a residents meeting in Hove this eve, the discussion reached the point where residents advise police on what needs doing in their neighbourhood and the police try to do something about it. Pavement cycling came up which opened the floodgates for an outpouring of unformed, ignorant and contradictory predjudice. Cyclists went too fast - or, too slowly, they don't use lights or their lights are too bright, helmets, bells, red lights - a whole panopoly of bad words which expressed a kind of hurt and rage toward people on bikes. I'm not sure that anything any of us can do to offer an exemplary model of considerate cycling would satisfy this audience (and many like them).  Having a road/pavement/cycleway network which minimises conflict in busy urban spaces would help a lot, but this is a long haul.

In the meantime Theresa May has announced an antisocial behaviour 'call for action' which would mandate the police to take action against anyone accused of ASB by five non related members of the community. If this proposal is taken forward, I don't expect it will be long before community members not disimilar to those I spent this evening with will use this to promote local crackdowns on cyclists.

I'm not saying we shouldnt practice considerate cycling but I fear that focussing on educating cyclists to be good is unlikely to bear fruit.

I've blogged fairly extensively on this subject. There's a particularly popular post about why people get so angry about cyclists here. I do think cyclists should follow the road rules - we have more to gain than most if driving standards improve. But, as I explain here, we shouldn't get suckered into thinking we're the problem when the vast bulk of damage is done by cars.

In Bristol we're setting up an Action Group to see how the situation can be redressed. Also gives us the opportunity to influence what others such as the council and police and local community groups might do.

Martin McD

As i was cycling along the other day,i was struck by the fact that most roads have two pavements,and that pedestrians can,and do use both to walk in any direction they wish.So what if we, that is cyclists shared i.e. 50/50 one side for walkers other for cyclists with cross over points for accsess to shops ect,. MR C. 

If suddenly the law was changed to allow cycling on all pavements except where there were specific "No Cycling" signs, would it still be antisocial?

More and more councils are turning pavements into shared use which is making the law of not cycling on pavements look ridiculous.  There are far more cars, and speeding cars at that, on the roads now than there used to be and many aren't prepared to cycle amongst those cars.   Cycling through many junctions is lethal and some are going to hop on the pavement and cross with pedestrians.  Therefore, like it or lump it, more people are going to ride on the pavements.

I think it is wrong to try and train people to be more "sociable" by cycling on the road when that could lead them to have a nasty accident. 

I believe the best way forward is to convince people to be more sociable by teaching them how to cycle on pavements.

One first of all explains it's against the law and one can get an on the spot fine.  Then point them in the direction of the 1999 (I believe it was) Home Office instructions to police about when and who to give a ticket to.

Then teach them the manners of pavement cycling.  Giving way to pedestrians at all time.  Hanging back until that pedestrian has heard and seen you, and then passing them slowly with a thank you.  Don't weave in and out of pedestrians.  And of course, getting off and walking the bike in crowded pedestrianised areas. 

There are other unofficial rules that one could follow as a pavement cyclist.  Sticking to a speed of about 5 -7mph on a clear pavement.  Slowing to walking speed when coming up to a pedestrian. Make sure as a cyclist one is always closest to the road so pedestrians don't feel compelled to step into the road when passing you.

At some point most of our pavements (probably not cities but elsewhere in the country) are going to be turned into real wider cycling/pedestrianised pathways.  More and more we are going to have to share and therefore the younger cyclists must start being taught the correct and safe way to share.  It may be illegal now but dare I say it, pedestrians are going to have to get used to sharing.

I agree with the last few comments, and disagree with the thrust of most of the earlier ones.

If we are constantly being defensive about pavement cycling we will make no progress. The rhetorical answer is to move the debate along by taking a more radical line, as Dave Horton suggests, in a post where he suggests that pavement cyclists are being "heroic" for defying norms of society for the wider good of the environment. Nobody is going to sue the Embassy, or him, or me, for encouraging pavement cycling. All that's going to happen is individuals will be fined, as they are now.

Pavement cycling is not antisocial unless it's antisocial by being inconsiderate. With Horton, I'd rather people rode on pavements than added to the number driving on the roads in cars. And in many places that really is the choice. Hardly anyone is going to cycle on the road on which I live, which is a narrow road with high volumes of aggressive traffic, random constriction of the road by unregulated parking, and no space for cycling, but with generous, alomost deserted pavements. I would encourage people to cycle on the pavements, and that's where at least 50% of the people I see cycling on my road are.

The aim has to be to make conditions on minor roads like this suitable for cycling by removing most of the motor traffic and calming the remainder, and controlling the parking. But my interim solution would certainly be what Zandranna suggests, which is training and even encouraging people to cycle considerately on pavements. There is, as has been pointed out, absolutely no logic in which pavements are designated "shared use" and which not, many of those designated being far less suitable than many of those not so designated, as those on my road. This is not, long-term, a tenable situation, and I think we are in a period of transition.

Then again, I would not waste too much time in the Embassy or wider campaigning thinking about or reacting to this issue. It's a symptom of other problems that we do best concentrating on providing positive solutions for.

I should start by saying that I try very hard to be a polite and considerate cyclist. Pedestrians get right of way in my book, I cycle as considerately and patiently as I know how. I avoid cycling on pavements, but use a lot of shared use paths. As a pedestrian I don't feel the slightest bit threatened or annoyed by pavement cyclists, although I can understand why others might not feel the same.

The whole pavement cycling thing seems to have become such an emotion laden issue, that I no longer try and counter it. Pointing out facts, has no effect on people who have already made up their minds. There is a vast media out there happy to push the line that cyclists, particularly the pavement variety, are a huge threat to life and limb. Nonsense of course.

How did we get to a stage where the vast dangers from motoring have become normalised, even trivialised, and yet cyclists are held up as the bad guys? It's just familiarity. Motoring is normal, so is relatively harmless. Cycling is weird and abnormal, so is obviously dangerous. No further thought required.

This will only cease, I believe, when cycling becomes normal. That will only happen when there are more cyclists. There will only be more cyclists when a wider variety of people are happy to cycle. A wider variety of people will only be happy to cycle when they don't feel threatened by motor vehicles. At the moment, the threat of motor vehicles can be largely avoided by cycling on the pavement. It's a wonder there aren't more pavement cyclists.

Ergo, I don't believe we should be worried about pavement cycling. Just be pleased to see any cyclists swelling the ranks. Politicians and the popular press are just that, populists. Don't worry about them. Once there are enough cyclists, and only then, they will change their tune.

Pavement cycling is illegal. The common reaction is that illegal cycling will dampen political support. Yet when the government were floating the idea of raising the motorway speed limit to 80 mph, one of their supporting arguments was that most motorists already break the existing 70 mph limit! Politicians and the popular press aren't really interested in the law abiding. They just want votes and paper sales respectively. Pavement cycling wouldn't bother them, so long as enough people were doing it. 

Decades of polite law abiding cyclists have have failed to dent the car dominated status quo, or change the image of cycling for the better. Pavement cyclists in large numbers might be the break through cycling needs. What's to lose!

I should start by saying that I try very hard to be a polite and considerate cyclist. Pedestrians get right of way in my book, I cycle as considerately and patiently as I know how. I avoid cycling on pavements, but use a lot of shared use paths. As a pedestrian I don't feel the slightest bit threatened or annoyed by pavement cyclists, although I can understand why others might not feel the same.

The whole pavement cycling thing seems to have become such an emotion laden issue, that I no longer try and counter it. Pointing out facts, has no effect on people who have already made up their minds. There is a vast media out there happy to push the line that cyclists, particularly the pavement variety, are a huge threat to life and limb. Nonsense of course.

How did we get to a stage where the vast dangers from motoring have become normalised, even trivialised, and yet cyclists are held up as the bad guys? It's just familiarity. Motoring is normal, so is relatively harmless. Cycling is weird and abnormal, so is obviously dangerous. No further thought required.

This will only cease, I believe, when cycling becomes normal. That will only happen when there are more cyclists. There will only be more cyclists when a wider variety of people are happy to cycle. A wider variety of people will only be happy to cycle when they don't feel threatened by motor vehicles. At the moment, the threat of motor vehicles can be largely avoided by cycling on the pavement. It's a wonder there aren't more pavement cyclists.

Ergo, I don't believe we should be worried about pavement cycling. Just be pleased to see any cyclists swelling the ranks. Politicians and the popular press are just that, populists. Don't worry about them. Once there are enough cyclists, and only then, they will change their tune.

Pavement cycling is illegal. The common reaction is that illegal cycling will dampen political support. Yet when the government were floating the idea of raising the motorway speed limit to 80 mph, one of their supporting arguments was that most motorists already break the existing 70 mph limit! Politicians and the popular press aren't really interested in the law abiding. They just want votes and paper sales respectively. Pavement cycling wouldn't bother them, so long as enough people were doing it. 

Decades of polite law abiding cyclists have have failed to dent the car dominated status quo, or change the image of cycling for the better. Pavement cyclists in large numbers might be the break through cycling needs. What's to lose!

We've got to the point where our campaign is coming up with a policy on respecting pedestrian space. It's not for people who cycle on pavements, who I'm pretty sure don't read our site. It's for the politcians and the community groups who complain about it.

See also the case against shared-use: http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/111/article11.html

I don't want to cycle on pavements. I don't want to develop coping mechanisms for doing so, or encourage others to do so. I want separate space.

This is actually a perfect opportunity to agree with pedestrians who have a problem with sharing space with cyclists. Ask them to help you to compaign for separate space. We have the same issue, which is not wanting to share with faster-moving modes of transport. The potential for empathy is there. Few are going to insist on a 6 year-old and parent cycling on a busy road, or grandma taking the lane on a roundabout.

If nothing else, it will help split the people who enjoy moaning from the people who actually want a solution.

It's hard enough reaching out to the people who have made a decision to join a cycle campaign. Trying to reach pavement cyclists is a fruitless task, unlikely to have any impact on people's perceptions of cyclists, and I for one don't have the time for it.

Hmm, anti-social cycling...

Last time I tried to tell a cyclist off for jumping off the road at a set of lights on red to go riding on the pavement after dark without lights I got a torrent of abuse... and threatened with violence unless I minded my own business.

I've given up, and merely try to set a good example myself by always stopping for red lights and always having lights after sunset. So when I stop for a red light and the cyclist following me rides right on through, the motorists behind me can't claim that we all run red lights.

Mind you, I get really upset with the rubbish allocated to us as shared paths... never quite wide enough, and not enough signs warning people about it either... and don't get me started off on pedestrians wandering about with their ears closed off to the world listening to music and then being surprised by a cyclist... some of them can't even hear my 140dB horn when I use it... and then those that do hear it usually move in the wrong direction...

And those stupid extending dog leads should be banned as the users are not in control at all of their dogs.

Bicycling is safe for literally everyone i am unable to get what people would be against it. Who would rather have their child or themselves run ov er by a bicycle or any other vehi8cle that will most definitely kill them. cheap car parking Manchester

https://archive.org/stream/AmazingStoriesVolume02Number11#page/n29/mode/2up

This is a fiction story from the 1930's, revolt of the pedestrian.  It requires some pdf navigation skils to read, but please read the first paragraph!

I think there are two issues here.

 Bicycles are percieved psychologically as threatening - they are silent, fast and move in a chaotic way - all symptoms after a few billion years of evolution of threat.  Then add in young fit males moving fast in bright colours and you are at Agincourt being attacked by the mounted knights in full armour.

We do not have the daily experience of the slow sit up and beg bikes where everyone, grandma and granddad, business executive, young children, are cycling.

The other vector is we ignore how dangerous cars actually are - we don't even collect statistics properly.