No cycling on the pavement! But if you come along with your car, the council has literally painted parking bays on it for you, so you can drive up onto it and legally take up 1/3 of the pedestrian space.

(Not supporting pavement cycling at all, but this does demonstrate the double standards/car-blindness many seem to have)

by Mr_Pickles3

31 comments

  2. Something could also be done about the privet gradually occupying more pavement as well.

  6. You want fire engines, ambulances etc to be able to squeeze down these narrow roads right? Sometimes getting up on the curb is the only way to keep a road accessible for larger vehicles.

    Outlawing it would force families to give up their family vehicles. We’ve all got to make the best of what we’ve got sometimes. Live and let live.

  10. Good to see there is at least one council in London that does not allow people to concrete over their front gardens.

  11. Whine whine whine. Cycling on the pavement is dangerous. Parking on that strip of pavement is sensible, to allow traffic to move. You wouldn’t be one of those people advocating for car owners to be rounded up in Gulags just because they dare to own a car, would you..? How about knocking on the doors of the home owners whose hedges are stealing a foot of space from the pavement and asking them to sort it out, instead of bitching about neatly parked cars that don’t even take up any real pavement space because there are freaking lamp / cable posts all the way down, and you couldn’t walk or push a buggy or a wheelchair there anyway?

  12. Which pavement tho? There’s asphalt on the street, and concrete on the sidewalk – both pavement

  13. It’s not ironic is it? Narrow street with bays that creep a tiny bit on the pavement so the street is still driveable. Cars parking there cause no danger to pedestrians and there’s plenty of room left.

    Cycling on the pavement is dangerous and stupid, cycle on the road like the rest of us.

  14. I don’t see the point of this post Wandsworth council allows parking on the pavement and has marked bays as such.

    Seems to me the OP is trying to bait / get attention for ‘nought.

    Such parking allows emergency vehicles to go down the roads easily and residents to park (who pay to do so).

    The issue is those bikes left all over the pavement and overgrown hedges – which should be addressed.

  15. Is that a serious response. You honestly think I’m talking about this one road?

    I’m interacting will a numpty! 😆

    Ta ta.

  16. I’ve never had to dive out the way of a parked car

    The things are obviously not comparable

  17. These are two different things. You are also allowed to park a bicycle on the pavement. And you wouldn’t be allowed to drive a motorbike down it.

  18. The remaining pavement looks wide enough for a wheelchair if people keep their hedges under control, so where’s the problem?

    Even if cars weren’t parked on the pavement, it still would not be wide enough to safely have cycles pass pedestrians, so your point is irrelevant.

  19. Now you know how drivers and pedestrians feel when cyclists don’t obey traffic lights… or zebra crossings… and no, it’s not every cyclist, but yes, it happens frequently enough for me to rant about it

  20. Tbh im not seeing how cars taking up a small amount of space on the pavement, where pedestrians wouldn’t be anyway (ie on the “wrong side” of lampposts) is in any way comparable to cyclists endangering pedestrians in their only space because they just didn’t fancy using the roads they’re meant to be on

  21. I interpreted the sign as no active cycling on the pavement.

    The point of the sign is safety – a parked car can’t hit a pedestrian whereas someone cycling on the pavement can quite easily hit a pedestrian (hence the general rule across London that people should cycle on the road/bike lanes, not the pavement).

    In fact, I suspect the sign was planned, paid for and installed (despite general knowledge and rule that people shouldn’t cycle on pavements) because someone was hit by a bicycle on the pavement there before.

    You’re fixating on the issue of space, which is fair enough, but that’s not what the sign is addressing. It’s about safety, not space.

  24. I think your point just isn’t as profound as you thought.

    The sign states “no cycling on the pavement”, not parking. You say its a busy walking route, hence the need of the sign.

    Would you rather the cars be parked off the pavement and the road be pushed down to a single lane? Do you think that would have a negative of positive affect on the road? Its not very easy to simply widen a road.

    How would you fix this problem of yours without going for the obvious “ban all cars”?

  26. The cars are parked in line with the lamposts so aren’t blocking where people would realistically walk and now they won’t be restricting the road users . Cycles zooming on the pavement are a danger to people walking out of their front gardens. 

    What is the issue with this! Cars parking like this makes more room on the road, which makes cycling safer, driving safer and doesn’t impact pedestrians 

  27. Eh it’s still in line with the pole, you wouldn’t be walking there anyway

  28. It doesn’t say “cyclists not allowed to ride on pavement” so it’s not double standards, cars are not allowed to drive on the pavement, they’re allowed to park on a pavement BUT only when it is displayed to do so, otherwise they’ll get a ticket, the only reason for why they have to park on the curb of the pavement in the picture is because otherwise, how else do you expect

    It would be double standards if the sign said “no cyclists allowed to STOP on the pavement” a double standard example would be when a rule applies to one person, but not another who is doing the same thing. The bicyclists are not allowed to cycle on the pavement neither are case allowed, and cars are only allowed to park on the pavement when it says you can, but bicyclists always stop on the pavement, they always go when the traffic lights are green for pedestrians and very rarely you see a bicyclist stop for someone crossing at a zebra crossing when you’re supposed to stop.

    And if you didn’t know, the cars there are only parked on the pavement a little due to the road being narrow, not allowed people to drive up and down the road if cars were parked with all 4 wheels on the road.

  29. The hedges are more annoying than the cars tbh…
    Just laziness on the homeowners part.

  31. As an avid cyclist, this seems more a design flaw than a double standard.

Comments are closed.