Cycling on the pavement, who has the right of way?

[Snowcrash]

wow! such strong reactions. seriously, if a cyclist see a pregnant woman walking on the pavement, any cyclist would slow down and stop and glide across. ;p chill man..

my main point is that some people are really "attitude" and really don't like to give a little way for bikers. this is the only thing i don't understand, we can share the pavement right?

I disagree on "any cyclist" would slow down part. There are black sheep around that's why you get such strong reactions.

Same for pedestrians, there are also 'attitude' people that you won't get to UNDERSTAND. they want right of way and DO NOT WANT TO share the pavement. I think you are angry at these minority of attitude people and the topic drift to cycling on the road vs cycling on pavement.

My main point:- You don't need to "understand" these demand right of way people. On pavement, cyclist do not have right of way here in Singapore. If you cannot live with that and don't wish to cycle on the road, be a pedestrian.

 

[ortega]

quote the relevant legislation pls.

i do not wish to know, if you do, ask mr policeman yourself
I do not have anything to prove

 

[evq]

i do not wish to know, if you do, ask mr policeman yourself
I do not have anything to prove

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
Gvien up?

 

[ortega]

not yet, but why should i do the work for him?
I know that there is a law, i do not need to know the exact code for it,

read this

"Cyclists

15. The next cut is on the safety of cyclists in Singapore. TP takes enforcement action against inconsiderate motorists. For instance, TP issues summonses against inconsiderate drivers. On Ms Irene Ng’s suggestion, we will review whether or not to allow cycling on pavements or footpaths, but not without conditions. This is because pavements are a shared space. The current rule is quite strict. But we may allow under certain circumstances, for example, where they do not cause inconvenience or danger to pedestrians. We have to balance the interest of one group with that of other road users. Bearing in mind, Singapore roads are for many road users. We must be mindful that cycling on footpaths could impact negatively on pedestrians.

16. We will also consider Ms Irene Ng’s suggestion to set up a task force to study how cycling on our roads can be made safer. TP will also consider Ms Ng’s suggestion to organise a Bike Wise week as part of its efforts to reach out to cyclists. In any case, we would welcome her views and as she has spoken passionately on this issue on many occasions in this House. "

extracted from here
http://www2.mha.gov.sg/mha/detailed.jsp?artid=1451&type=4&root=0&parent=0&cat=0&mode=arc

 

[StreetShooter]

Strange that this topic keeps coming up every now and then.

The two sides of the coin:

 

[ortega]

quote the relevant legislation pls.

i think it is called common sense

 

[melnjes]

Ok i am sorry if i offended someone.
but the fact is the bike's speed will not cause serious injury to the pedestrian. Seriously.

My tour guide in my recent trip talked about the cycling culture in her country. The people too ride on the pavement and she recounted an incident where a girl suddenly let go of her mother's hand, and stepped into the path of an oncoming cyclist. The girl flew and ended up in hospital with a broken arm.

Maybe you don't ride very fast, but bikers can and do cause serious injuries.

 

[StreetShooter]

My tour guide in my recent trip talked about the cycling culture in her country. The people too ride on the pavement and she recounted an incident where a girl suddenly let go of her mother's hand, and stepped into the path of an oncoming cyclist. The girl flew and ended up in hospital with a broken arm.

Maybe you don't ride very fast, but bikers can and do cause serious injuries.

Yes, and cars can and do cause fatal accidents.

But I don't think there's any legislation banning cars from using the road.

Not trying to stir trouble, but there's some inconsistency, don't you think?

If the few bad drivers don't justify banning cars from using the road, why should a few bad cyclists justify banning the majority of good cyclists from using the pavement?

You know which side I'm on.

 

[kongping]

Yes, and cars can and do cause fatal accidents.

But I don't think there's any legislation banning cars from using the road.

Not trying to stir trouble, but there's some inconsistency, don't you think?

If the few bad drivers don't justify banning cars from using the road, why should a few bad cyclists justify banning the majority of good cyclists from using the pavement?

You know which side I'm on.

Erm... there's no inconsistency.

There's no inconsistency because you're using an analogy to advance your argument.

Try this argument which is actually an analogy in disguise: -

Cars need to get their engines warmed up from a cold start before moving off, else the engine / internal moving parts may get damaged. It's common sense, humans also need to get warmed up before exercising, else they are at risk of injury themselves.

Unless humans drink engine oil, I don't see the relevance of the above statement.

In a similar vein, cars are not quite the same as bicycles.

We should argue the case on its own merits.

Oh yes, Singapore is not Japan either.

 

[hondasleeper]

Yes, and cars can and do cause fatal accidents.

But I don't think there's any legislation banning cars from using the road.

Not trying to stir trouble, but there's some inconsistency, don't you think?

If the few bad drivers don't justify banning cars from using the road, why should a few bad cyclists justify banning the majority of good cyclists from using the pavement?

You know which side I'm on.

I don't think there is any inconsistancy. If the cyclists were the only users of the pavement then there will be no issue. But the FACT is, that the pavement is and has always been for pedestrians, not bicycles. Why should pedestrians have to make way for bicycles?

I think cars, or in this case the bicycle, is not the issue but the persons using the vehicle. I think drivers are held accountable for their actions, so should cyclists if they ride on the sidewalk and cause an accident.

Guns don't kill people do. So I use the same analogy, it's not the bike but the person riding the bike that is the problem.

 

[Ballack]

I think the rule is flexible enough for cyclists to cycle either on the road or on the pavement. I also believe that motorists are also, in driving theory, supposed to keep 1m to 1.5m away, ie parked vehicle, pedestrian, motorcyclist, cyclist.

I personally cycle on the road, keeping to the left most lane. Should the vehicle want to overtake, I move inwards onto the double yellow line. Should I need to cross, I signal with my ride hand the intention to cross, or I wait till the traffic junction and cross like a pedestrian.

If the traffic is really bad, I either slow down or move up onto the pavement. Even on the pavement, I recognise that the pedestrian has the right of way and would slow down should there be one. If there are too many pedestrians, I get off my bike and push.

The simple thing on pavements. Respect their rights, and they will respect yours. The simple rule on the road. Defensive riding. Remember, bicycle vs car. Car always win.

 

[StreetShooter]

I don't think there is any inconsistancy. If the cyclists were the only users of the pavement then there will be no issue. But the FACT is, that the pavement is and has always been for pedestrians, not bicycles. Why should pedestrians have to make way for bicycles?

I think cars, or in this case the bicycle, is not the issue but the persons using the vehicle. I think drivers are held accountable for their actions, so should cyclists if they ride on the sidewalk and cause an accident.

Guns don't kill people do. So I use the same analogy, it's not the bike but the person riding the bike that is the problem.

Nobody's asking pedestrians to make way for bicycles.

I have to disagree with your statement that the pavement is and always has been for pedestrians. It's just the present legislation that says so. Is there any good reason the pavement cannot be used by well behaved cyclists? I don't believe so. I cycle on the cycle paths provided by the National Park Service throughout the island which are shared with pedestrians, and there is no problem as long as all parties exhibit musual respect.

You are absolutely correct that it's the operator of the vehicle and not the vehicle itself which causes the problem. If you agree with that, then the inconsistency exists - if cars are not banned because of bad drivers, then why should cyclists be banned because of bad cyclists?

 

[ortega]

Nobody's asking pedestrians to make way for bicycles.

the TS is

 

[ortega]

I personally cycle on the road.....

kudos to you

 

[ortega]

Yes, and cars can and do cause fatal accidents.

But I don't think there's any legislation banning cars from using the road.

Not trying to stir trouble, but there's some inconsistency, don't you think?

If the few bad drivers don't justify banning cars from using the road, why should a few bad cyclists justify banning the majority of good cyclists from using the pavement?

You know which side I'm on.

the road was made for vehicles and the pavement for Pedestrians (this is Spore)
I am not against cyclists from using the pavement but do so with respect of the other users as well. As I do.

 

[eikin]

Singapore's road system has never been designed with bicycle users in mind. The only paths bicycle users have right of way are the designated so-called park connectors and routes with the bicycle sign painted on them. So there you have it, no need to argue.

 

[kongping]

You are absolutely correct that it's the operator of the vehicle and not the vehicle itself which causes the problem. If you agree with that, then the inconsistency exists - if cars are not banned because of bad drivers, then why should cyclists be banned because of bad cyclists?

Shucks... we should really be comparing apples to apples.

Okay, man can go running topless without causing a scene, but a woman cannot.

Inconsistent rite?

I still don't buy the "cars are not banned because of bad drivers, then why should cyclists be banned because of bad cyclists" argument but shall attempt to explain the 'inconsistency' -

Cars are a lot more important economically to a country than bicycles.

Does this explain the inconsistency? Does this explain why "cars are not banned because of bad drivers, then why should cyclists be banned because of bad cyclists"?

 

[StreetShooter]

the TS is

Indeed.

Well, I'm not. What I am arguing for is the right for cyclists to use the pavement.

 

[ortega]

the law is not enforced, so it is a non issue

 

[StreetShooter]

I still don't buy the "cars are not banned because of bad drivers, then why should cyclists be banned because of bad cyclists" argument but shall attempt to explain the 'inconsistency' -

Cars are a lot more important economically to a country than bicycles.

Does this explain the inconsistency? Does this explain why "cars are not banned because of bad drivers, then why should cyclists be banned because of bad cyclists"?

Absolutely. You've hit the nail on the head. Cyclists have been marginalized. The true mark of a society's greatness is how it treats its underclass.