Be warned

[Ian]

I agree with Jimmy. I don't make a habit of riding on pavements, except where they are marked as dual use, but there are some stretches of road where it would be bordering on suicidal not to use the pavement. There is one such stretch that I use regularly, a very busy 40mph road that is for much of it's length is a dual carriageway with dual use paths on both sides, however at one point the dual carriageway becomes single, the dual use path becomes a pedestrian path and the road narrows and passes over a blind hump-back bridge.. needless to say I, and every other cyclist I've ever seen stay on the pavement, the risk of a fine being preferable to the much greater risk of an accident.

Situations like the above are not going to change while cyclists avoid accidents by breaking the law. So any volunteers to force a change?

 

[HarryB]

It's illegal to ride on the pavements here in England as well, has been for a very long time. For the past 20 years it's been an offence that is subject to a fixed penalty of £30.

We can all try to justify breaking the law, although obviously most would prefer not to, I would hope. Some of us are in positions where we cannot break the law, no matter how ludicrous we might think certain laws to be. It is no defence, no matter how morally just an individual may think it is, to argue that "I broke the law because it wouldn't inconvenience another by doing so", or to argue that "I broke the law because I considered it safer than riding on the road". The obvious retort in law would be "if you consider that the use of a bicycle is only safe if you break the law, then you should not use the bicycle".

In my view I believe that this law is in need of some review. The basic law, the Highway Act, dates back well over 100 years and bicycles are only covered by it by being defined as carriages. Roads nowadays can be too dangerous for cycling and the matter is complicated by local authorities who seem unclear on whether cycle paths are pavements or not in some areas.

Not withstanding all of the above, I would not ever cycle on a pedestrian pavement. Quite apart from it being against the law, I would not wish to bring cycling into disrepute by being seen to do this.

Jeremy

It appears that it is not quite that clear cut and that the Police should be using their discretion. This is what Paul Boatang, the Home Office minister said at the time of the introduction of fixed penalties for cycing on the pavement.

'The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle in the road... sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required'.

I am sure a lot of the good will that was originally intended has gone out of the window due to loutish behaviour of a minority of cyclists.

 

[jimmyengland1000]

I'd certainly volunteer. The police should devote more time to stopping cars being parked on pavements (as mentioned earlier), being driven recklessly and carelessly. Actually, one one occasion, Iwas actually chased by a policeman (on foot) for cycling on the pavement. I found this quite ironic in that Humberside police have a 'no-chase' policy re stolen motorcycles. One can ride past a police car with no crash helmet, tax, insurance or lights on and the police will NOT pursue. I checked this myself with them. But they'll chase me for cycling 50 yards on a pavement that had no pedestrians on it.

Bring it on, is my view. We have global warming, diminishing natural resources, more and more cars with all the problems they bring...... and the police make life difficult for cyclists in a land where there are virtually no cycle paths but more and more motorways and bypasses.

In any event, there's no way that I will ever risk my life or body, merely to adhere to a law just for the sake of saying "I never break the law". That's just daft.

 

[jimmyengland1000]

[/I].

I am sure a lot of the good will that was originally intended has gone out of the window due to loutish behaviour of a minority of cyclists.

No, I think the goodwill has gone out of the window because of a target-driven police force which wants nice, easy convictions which require no expenditure or detective work.

 

[HarryB]

No, I think the goodwill has gone out of the window because of a target-driven police force which wants nice, easy convictions which require no expenditure or detective work.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. If at work I ever mention I am a cyclist, without fail somebody will tell me a story of how they were run off the pavement or crossing by a cyclist as if we are all one person 'the cyclist'. I am sure that the Police are responding to the anger that the public feels about this and I am sure it is a minority of cyclists who cause it. The problem is that the Police are bit like a switch, either on or off and are not acting with the discretion that was originally intended with this on the spot fine.

I agree about everything else you say, I think that in most cities in the UK there is very little consideration for cyclists. I do think that the more cyclist there are, the better it becomes and drivers/motorcyclists will accept us as part of the traffic. You can tell this is happening in London. Whenever I ride in the inner part, I rarely have any problems with the traffic and most drivers give you room. The same cannot be said of my home which is 10 miles from the centre. There are very few cyclist so drivers have no idea how to deal with us, so you get drivers too afraid to overtake you or drivers who give you no room (or always want to overtake you on a pinch point).

I see some appalling cycling when riding in London but then this morning I saw a lorry deliberatly go through two red lights - as far as I am concerned they are all antisocial people and I wish there was a greater Police presence to enforce and educate.

 

[jimmyengland1000]

Yes, true, there are also a few cyclists out there who are reckless and selfish (they probably are when driving a car too). Wasn't a pedestrian killed recently by a cyclist (who was then jailed)?

I just wish that the police were less conviction-focussed and applied the spirit of the law, rather than the letter.

 

[HarryB]

I just wish that the police were less conviction-focussed and applied the spirit of the law, rather than the letter.

Quite agree and I think my original post was supposed to illustrate that this is supposed to happen. Maybe somebody would be brave enough to quote the Home Office if ever they are stopped on a (pedestrian free) pavement (while riding courteously of course).

I am rarely on a pavement - the only time I relent is on a four lane road near my home where they have put a pinch point for pedestrians, but as a cyclist you are forced into the path of fast moving traffic. What is more ridiculous about this road is that there is a cycle lane all along it. They obviously had no idea what to do with the obstruction in the road so they just stop the cycle lane 25 metres before the crossing and re-start it 25 metres afterwards. Classic bit of thoughtless, cheap road design.

 

[flecc]

It's illegal to ride on the pavements here in England as well, has been for a very long time. For the past 20 years it's been an offence that is subject to a fixed penalty of £30.

Jeremy

This reference to £30 fixed penalties for the last 20 years puzzles me. On the 1st August 2000, for the first time a fixed penalty of £20 was introduced for pavement cycling, and at the same time the instruction to police forces was issued that this must not be applied to those under 16 years old.

While the fixed penalty amount has been increased since then, I understand there were no fixed penalties for the offence before that date, though it was against the law of course.

I don't have a problem with the Metropolitan Police in my area, judging by the number of occasions on two parking obstructed roads where I've helped them past me by momentary pavement usage, usually when they've not been on emergency calls.

However, I do disapprove of the few adults who routinely use the pavements for cycling all the time, even when the road is safe and traffic very light, so would be happy for more cautions or penalties in these instances, especially when the cyclist's speed is high.
.

 

[Jeremy]

I don't have the relevant book in front of me at the moment, but am sure that the fixed penalty for this offence was introduced in about 1988. It has changed in value, I believe, but I would need to check.

The issue of what an individual's conscience decrees that they do is very valid, but does not change the law. One would hope that a bench might take into account the circumstances if faced with an over-zealous administration of this particular bit of law.

Clearly we would all (I hope) wish to see irresponsible behaviour that is a real danger to pedestrians treated with the full force of the law. By the same token I would hope that the full penalty would not be applied in inappropriate circumstances.

The real problem here is that fixed penalties are a very black and white way of dealing with an offence and the judgement for handing them out has been taken away from the judiciary and given to the police. The police are not always blessed with the same judgement as the judiciary, hence some of the comments here.

As you may be able to tell, I am a strong advocate of the independence and importance of the judiciary and am personally very concerned at the way politicians and some police offices seek to erode this.

Jeremy

 

[jimmyengland1000]

Mind you, the judiciary are often sadly lacking too, aren't they? Didn't a judge just grant bail to someone (a policeman) charged with attempted murder... who then went on and killed his mother-in-law, then himself? A very wise decision....not.

No, I think the best way is to use footpaths as and when required and if the law (which they sometimes say is an ass, do they not?) decides to prosecute, then make it cost as much as possible to get the £30 fine.

 

[flecc]

As you may be able to tell, I am a strong advocate of the independence and importance of the judiciary and am personally very concerned at the way politicians and some police offices seek to erode this.

Jeremy

Yes, I share that concern.

On the fixed penalty matter, I made a precautionary note at the time of the 1st August 2000 introduction and the accompanying Home Office instruction to forces, and that's why I'm puzzled by the earlier reference, since it seems most odd to introduce a fixed penalty again, and at a lower level. I'd appreciate it if you have further information on that.
.

 

[fcurran]

CYCLING AND THE LAW :: Bike For All >> The essential resource for everyone who cycles... or is thinking about it.

 

[Neil^P]

I remember them having a crackdown in Leicester not long ago, saw several people in the pedestrianised shopping centre area being stopped by police and looked like they were beign issued with some kind of ticket.

There's one really busy street in the centre of Leicester which is supposed to be for buses and taxis only, but loads of people in cars uses it - every now and then they have a police operation with lots of traffic wardens and police halfway down there, stopping every single car that goes down it and making them pull over into a queue waiting to be given a fixed penalty notice
I love watching that when I'm passing - anything that makes life harder for car drivers who disregard the law always makes me smile. Usually when it's going on, you see a couple of cars that have been seized with a notice on the windscreen about them not having tax or insurance too.

 

[flecc]

The law I referred to was in fact in force from 1st August 1999, not 2000, I should have looked back at my note first!

This extract clears up it's nature:

"On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a £20 fixed penalty notice (FPN) to be served on anyone who is cycling on the pavement. The new regulation clears up an anomaly where only some police forces could issue FPNs because pavement cycling was defined as an offence under a local by-law. Offenders will not face on-the-spot fines; they will have 28 days to pay."

So only a qualified national law before.

If you scroll down on the site that F Curran helpfully gave, you'll see that responsible cycling on the pavement is approved, with guidance that FPNs shouldn't be issued for it, and that fear of traffic is a legitimate reason to do it.
.

 

[HarryB]

If you scroll down on the site that F Curran helpfully gave, you'll see that responsible cycling on the pavement is approved, with guidance that FPNs shouldn't be issued for it, and that fear of traffic is a legitimate reason to do it.
.

But the problem is that the guidance given by Paul Boateng in 1999 is widely ignored by the Police forces in 2008 - I am afraid quoting this to a policeman is unlikely stop him issuing you with a ticket (although it would be worth trying). The Police deal in absolutes and I would have thought that Community Support Officers/Traffic Wardens would be even worse. It would be interesting to see what the independent judiciary would say if you challenged the ticket - I very much suspect they would side with the Police regardless of whether or not there was any evidence that you were being irresponsible. But the objective of the FPN system is that nobody will bother to challenge them and so we end up with this very ambiguous situation.

 

[flecc]

Of course they might well side with the police Hal, but it would then go to appeal where the Home Office instruction and the spirit of the law do carry weight.

My method if stopped with an intent to give a ticket would be to politely warn the officer that these would be my tactics. In general they hate endless days in court on petty matters, and it displeases their senior officers too.
.

 

[HarryB]

Good tactic Flecc and definitely worth a try - for anybody who tries this make sure you get them to write down why they think you were riding irresponsibly as evidence, and get witnesses as well.

 

[flecc]

I'm afraid there wouldn't be any witnesses for me Hal, since I only ever take to a pavement briefly if there are no pedestrians anywhere on that section within at least 100 yards.

If there's a pedestrian anywhere who I could conceivably alarm or annoy, I stay on the road, stopping and waiting if necessary. My own law is that pedestrians always have precedence, even when annoyingly on a cycle only path, since movement on foot is a natural right of birth. All other means of locomotion I see as deviations with lesser natural rights, potentially inconveniencing or endangering others.
.

 

[Jeremy]

I see that someone has tracked down the Road Traffic Offenders Act reference, which is the one I was thinking of.

The issue of judgement and the law is always contentious, not least because few media reports contain more than 1% of the evidence presented to the court. In my experience, judgements are mostly about right, but given that there are many hundreds of offences judged every day, it's inevitable that there will be the occasional one that looks awry when viewed with perfect hindsight.

Members of the judiciary are only human and the vast majority are unpaid volunteers, albeit carefully selected and trained. I would still rather have a bench decide on an offence like this than trust to the target-focussed judgement of a police officer, who may well be disinclined to take mitigating circumstances into account. As far as I am aware (but I will admit to not have checked this particular variation on a fixed penalty) you retain the right to appeal against it and present your case to the bench.

I would fully expect that, provided you had not endangered anyone and had shown that your behaviour was safe and reasonable in the circumstances, that a fixed penalty might well be overturned.

Of course, I would much prefer it if our courts were not clogged up with such trivia, but that would require common-sense policing. Somehow we have managed to lose this in many places.

As a young lad, my village bobby (who was actually a sergeant) saw his job as preventing crime, encouraging good behaviour and educating youngsters in the process. He once found a friend and myself pushing a stripped down motorcycle along a lane, with the intention of riding around some local woodland (we were about 14). He told us we were breaking the law by pushing it on the road, but went away and came back the next day with a solution. He'd had a chat to a farmer, got permission for us to ride around the edge of one of his fields and had worked out a way of getting our bike there without using roads. He also gave us some useful safety advice and sorted us out with some old crash helmets. He earned the respect of the community and probably prevented (and detected) more real crime as a consequence of his approach.

I doubt that we have many police officers that are allowed to behave like this today, but if we did, perhaps the issue of inappropriate fixed penalties might not arise so often.

Jeremy

 

[Mandy]

I am afraid I am with Jimmy England Jeremy on this one.

I am quite sure that a lot of people in this country may break the law without feeling they are or causing any distress to others?

I too ride on the pavement on occasions on my way to and from work for safety reasons because it is madness on the roads I need to travel on at 8am!

I never whiz past anyone or cause distress to pedestrians as other cyclists may have done to me in the past, I use it as a safe way of getting to work as the roads are too narrow, end of.

I consider myself to be a very law abiding citizen and will continue to think this way and no one is going to tell me otherwise, Jeremey, lol!

Regards Mandy :0)