Cycling on the pavement, who has the right of way?
- Thread starter gary wong
- Start date
- Status
reachme2003
Senior Member
I think we have to live with it, that there are many different types of people in this world. They like to think that they are right and always question the validity of your answer, without putting any effort in themselves to find out (the burden of proof theory). This argument will never end, like it or not. Unless everyone in Singapore become considerate (I doubt it will happen in the next 100 years), there will be cyclists, considerate or not, on the pavement, riding slowly or zooming pass all the pedestrians, pregnant or not. That's life. If the pregnant lady meets a hell-rider cyclist on the pavement, well, good luck to her and her baby. Also good luck to this cyclist, because any accident, he may be put in jail for killing somebody on the pavement. I don't think the argument of how small the chance of such meeting is valid, as long as it can happen, it will happen. Any one such case is one case too many.
Pedestrians need to feel safe when they are walking on pavements. The pavement is the main place where the majority of the people use to go about our daily routines such as walking to the train station or market, exercise, etc.
It is indeed sad that, nowadays, you can hardly take a relaxing stroll with your spouse or dog, or alone, on the pavement after a busy day at work, without encountering an inconsiderate cyclist interrupting and ringing at you to give way.
Really pity those elderly who need to stay healthy by keeping themselves mobile. The most convenient places to exercise are the void decks or pavements below their flat. They are less agile, and should they meet a menacing cyclist on the void decks or pavements, the consequences of them taking a fall can be severe.
Safe riding and walking to all.
It is indeed sad that, nowadays, you can hardly take a relaxing stroll with your spouse or dog, or alone, on the pavement after a busy day at work, without encountering an inconsiderate cyclist interrupting and ringing at you to give way.
Really pity those elderly who need to stay healthy by keeping themselves mobile. The most convenient places to exercise are the void decks or pavements below their flat. They are less agile, and should they meet a menacing cyclist on the void decks or pavements, the consequences of them taking a fall can be severe.
Safe riding and walking to all.
StreetShooter
Senior Member
Strictly speaking it's not part of the legislation. The legislation simply assigns authority to the Minister of Transportation to make the road traffic rules as he sees fit. In effect, these are formulated by the Traffic Police, and enforced by them. At the moment, the traffic rules stipulate that cycling on the pavement is not allowed (although I can't find this stated in the list of rules found in the pdf document here). But then these rules were made in 1955 and last updated in 1996. The part that makes me laugh and cry is the one about pedestrians not being allowed to use bicycle crossings. I've never seen a "bicycle crossing" before. We do know that cycling is not allowed on pavements because the traffic police has highlighted this in several press statements over the years.
There are indeed many active cycling advocates in Singapore. One excellent website that records these efforts is Cycling in Singapore. Look through the archives. All has been discussed before.
There are indeed many active cycling advocates in Singapore. One excellent website that records these efforts is Cycling in Singapore. Look through the archives. All has been discussed before.
You are mixing your points. As student pointed out, riders are secondary to pedestrians on the pavements. Please adjust your mentality to that. No one is saying that riders are banned from using the pavements but on the point of pedestrians givings way to riders, that is not right.
And where did you get the idea that riders hitting pedestrians is less than vehicles hitting riders? I believe the former happens a lot more but just less likely to be reported, unless it is like what you say suay suay hit a pregnant lady and cause a mishap.
StreetShooter
Senior Member
Gary, a few points:
1. Since you're technically not allowed to cycle on the pavement, if you choose to do so, please consider yourself as a "guest" and ride carefully and slowly. If you come across pedestrians, slow down and give way (not expect it the other way around). It's not a matter of targeting anyone, but accidents can and do happen, and a pedestrian is less likely to react quickly enough to a fast-moving bicycle to avoid an accident.
2. If your brakes cannot stop your bike faster than a taxi or bus, I seriously suggest you get them checked before you ride on the road.
3. You should also assume that every vehicle you ride alongside with is going to suddenly stop and swerve in your direction. It's called defensive riding. Assume that everyone hates cyclists, whether or not it's true. That way you're more likely to stay alive. I worry for you.
denniskee
Senior Member
sad to say, TS just dont get the point. his I, Me, Myself has blind him from see it objectively. no one is trying too ban cycling on the pavement. but if all cyclist have your mentality, than i think there is no choice but the ban.
TS, it is your mentality that i hate. i seriously hope you dont stay around my area casue i will be very worried for my parents, siblings, nieces.
TS, it is your mentality that i hate. i seriously hope you dont stay around my area casue i will be very worried for my parents, siblings, nieces.
Hi all,
Just want to get everybody's opinion. I cycle a lot. I cycle to buy food, I cycle to exercise, etc. However I always try to cycle on the pavement. Why?
it is safer
there are no crazy bus drivers wanting to ram you at the back
there is no taxi driver in front of you and suddenly brake
there are less rocks and stones and glass on the pavement
etc
everytime i cycle on the pavement, i always make it a point to have a small bell to warn people that I am coming from behind or in front. however, nowadays i notice that people are beginning to ignore the bell rings as well.what is happening? some pretend that they never hear and force you off the pavement purposely. who has the right of way? can everybody give cyclists a break? :cry:
I doubt you were seriously asking when you posed the question, but its now patently obvious that it is less of a question and more of an attempt at rallying enough support your justification for riding on the pavement.
Try your spiel at the Speakers' Corner, or complain to your MP lah, coming in to Clubsnap to complain about it is useless. More worthy and important petitions have come through the forums and fallen flat due to lack of representation when it really counted.
denniskee
Senior Member
are you able to generate a push of 237kgm/s? i can only bench press 80kgm/s for 5 reps, 100kgm/s at 1 rep max. when i am fittest.
how much force do a one needs to push a person caught of guard to the ground?
So one or two cases, it's okay? :think:
For a moving vehicle, maybe it might be able to reach that at impact? And, it's not just about falling. What about shocking an elderly person into cardiac arrest? :nono:
denniskee
Senior Member
i think you should direct this question to TS. he is the one who say it will only be scratches.
BBTM
Senior Member
I dont mind cyclist on the pavement as long :
1) They dont speed like mad!
2) Ring the bell like mad!
3) Over taking by the side.
Like that is ok for me. Like a person who is fast walking, would he keep on saying excuse me or best, bring a bell along n ring like mad? Sure cut over ppl by walking the grass patch mah. POV, there are abt 90% or more inconsiderate cyclist in SG. :angry: Hope govt come out one rule, no rights are given to cyclist for overtaking even they ring the bell. :devil: :thumbsup:
1) They dont speed like mad!
2) Ring the bell like mad!
3) Over taking by the side.
Like that is ok for me. Like a person who is fast walking, would he keep on saying excuse me or best, bring a bell along n ring like mad? Sure cut over ppl by walking the grass patch mah. POV, there are abt 90% or more inconsiderate cyclist in SG. :angry: Hope govt come out one rule, no rights are given to cyclist for overtaking even they ring the bell. :devil: :thumbsup:
what mentality are we talking about? the fact that is the mentaility that pedestrians like you think that you own the pavement. why do pedestrains like yourself own the pavement? why do you have to insist that you must walk right in the middle of the pavement? The pavement is so wide, you did not buy the pavement. you can just walk slightly to the side a bit and everybody is happy. Why do you have to think that just because the pavement belongs to pedestrians, so all others jolly well bugger off? I have already said so many times, what I am talking about are cyclists that ride safely. cyclists like myself and others included that ride nicely. we have a bell to warn people that we are coming, so please can you move yourself to the side a bit and we can pass. everybody is happy. I am not fighting for the fact that those stunt riders that you mentioned before. I also dislike those stunt riders, they give us a bad name.
I am talking about the nice riders. Why can't you just move a bit? do you have to be so selfish?
yes, i agree that there are accidents that bike riders hit pedestrians, what i am saying is that, comparing the number of fatalities between being hit by the bicycle and getting killed on the road. the number of fatalities getting hit and killed on the road is much much much higher. Why do so many cyclists have to be killed by cars?
If cyclists are also given the right to cycle on the pavement. It would greatly reduce the number of deaths on the road. The statistics for last year is alarming, if you go the togoparts forum, it is estimated that there are on the average one cyclist killed on the road per day. To draw an example, everybody knows that NS / IPPT / RT. SAF has fatalities every year. Do we scrap NS just because of the few fatalities? No. As a country, we are getting better because of NS, our soldiers are more properly trained and can fight better in times of war.
I am thinking on the whole here. if tommorow we have legislation that allows cyclists to legally ride on the pavement, yes I agree, freak accidents do occur and the number of fatalities of being hit by a bike increases. ok. But can you realise the number of fatalities that are caused by being hit by a car / bus will decrease much much more. for every 100 cyclists saved, one pedestrain is killed. ( just assuming ) On the whole we save on TOTAL fatalities. On the whole, we save more lives.
Yes. if one or two cases of fatalities can save 100 more lives. I think it is worth it.
- Status
Similar threads
