electric scooter/skateboard laws

[MikeS]

so riding slowly on a pavement because it's a narrow urban road and heavily congested with traffic is OK?
or on a rural road near me where traffic is routinely doing 60-70mph I often use the 'pavement' (which is poor quality tarmac actually) and I notice that SOME pedestrians are not happy that I am doing so despite the fact that I always slow down for them and if the path is too narrow for us both I will stop or ride on nearby grass. Is this allowed by law?
Mike

 

[soundwave]

so riding slowly on a pavement because it's a narrow urban road and heavily congested with traffic is OK?
or on a rural road near me where traffic is routinely doing 60-70mph I often use the 'pavement' (which is poor quality tarmac actually) and I notice that SOME pedestrians are not happy that I am doing so despite the fact that I always slow down for them and if the path is too narrow for us both I will stop or ride on nearby grass. Is this allowed by law?
Mike

Yobs on bikes return to cause mayhem in Gloucester

Report of '21 youths' threatening to throw eggs and causing danger to themselves and motorists in Abbeymead

www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk

 

[MikeS]

Hmmmm ... I'm not really asking about the lunatic fringe as presumably there are a host of laws that can deal with them. But in connection with this thread. If you are riding slowly on a pavement because in your opinion to ride in the traffic at that time would have been dangerous, is that illegal? And more importantly if a pedestrian took you to court because they were distressed and frightened, are you immediately liable because you were breaking the law?
Mike

 

[soundwave]

Can cyclists ride on pavements and what are the rules for riding on roads?

With fewer cars on the road, many are getting their bikes out for lockdown travel and exercise - we take a look at the rules, regulations and advice

www.chroniclelive.co.uk

Bicycles are considered vehicles under British law and is illegal to ride a bike on a pavement which has not been designated as a cycle way.

The maximum penalty is £500, but it is often dealt with by a £50 fixed penalty notice. However, the law is not always enforced by police.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

Paris is banning e-scooters from September because of the number of accidents they're causing:

Paris bans e-scooters from sidewalks, citing rise in accidents

France will ban electric scooters from its sidewalks from September, after locals grew frustrated with the vehicles congesting public areas and causing an increase in accidents.

edition.cnn.com

 

[flecc]

so riding slowly on a pavement because it's a narrow urban road and heavily congested with traffic is OK?
or on a rural road near me where traffic is routinely doing 60-70mph I often use the 'pavement' (which is poor quality tarmac actually) and I notice that SOME pedestrians are not happy that I am doing so despite the fact that I always slow down for them and if the path is too narrow for us both I will stop or ride on nearby grass. Is this allowed by law?
Mike

Hmmmm ... I'm not really asking about the lunatic fringe as presumably there are a host of laws that can deal with them. But in connection with this thread. If you are riding slowly on a pavement because in your opinion to ride in the traffic at that time would have been dangerous, is that illegal? And more importantly if a pedestrian took you to court because they were distressed and frightened, are you immediately liable because you were breaking the law?
Mike

Pedestrians always complain about cyclists wherever they are, local papers constantly get letters complaining about them.

As I've already posted, you can take to the pavement out of genuine fear of traffic, but obviously must do as you and I already do, ride very slowly when near pedestrians and stop if necessary.

You can read a fuller version of what I posted on this link, showing that the authorities have been duly informed and reminded of this provision for cyclists.
.

 

[Nealh]

Print out Flecc's linked statement and carry it with you in case of a query, ultimately discretion will be with the law enforcer.

 

[tonyw]

so riding slowly on a pavement because it's a narrow urban road and heavily congested with traffic is OK?
or on a rural road near me where traffic is routinely doing 60-70mph I often use the 'pavement' (which is poor quality tarmac actually) and I notice that SOME pedestrians are not happy that I am doing so despite the fact that I always slow down for them and if the path is too narrow for us both I will stop or ride on nearby grass. Is this allowed by law?
Mike

As above, Boateng issued guidance suggesting that police use their discretion where appropriate. So riding on the pavement is still illegal, and if pc plod decides not to exercise discretion and gives you a ticket, you have no defence. Realistically you're unlikely to be prosecuted unless you meet a real jobsworth. You might regard a fine as preferable to getting wiped out on a nasty bit of road?

 

[flecc]

As above, Boateng issued guidance suggesting that police use their discretion where appropriate. So riding on the pavement is still illegal, and if pc plod decides not to exercise discretion and gives you a ticket, you have no defence.

I disagree, one still has a defence. The guidance from the minister is very clear. The cyclist may take to the pavement with care if they feel threatened, not whether a police officer feels they are threatened. The cyclist can take the matter to court instead of accepting the ticket, arguing that only they could possibly know whether they felt threatened.

Under the Home Office guidance below, the function of a police officer is to determine if the manner of pavement riding was dangerous, not to determine how the cyclist felt:

"I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are 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 road users when doing so."
.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

I disagree, one still has a defence. The guidance from the minister is very clear. The cyclist may take to the pavement with care if they feel threatened, not whether a police officer feels they are threatened. The cyclist can take the matter to court instead of accepting the ticket, arguing that only they could possibly know whether they felt threatened.

Under the Home Office guidance below, the function of a police officer is to determine if the manner of pavement riding was dangerous, not to determine how the cyclist felt:

"I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are 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 road users when doing so."
.

I wonder how this guidance from a minister would stand up in court? Are you aware of there being any court cases where this guidance has been used in defence?

And on another point, I've seen many cyclists using pavements when the roads are almost clear, I presume this would be an offence and the cyclist couldn't plead that he/she was worried that a lorry might come up from behind for example.

 

[soundwave]

I disagree, one still has a defence. The guidance from the minister is very clear. The cyclist may take to the pavement with care if they feel threatened, not whether a police officer feels they are threatened. The cyclist can take the matter to court instead of accepting the ticket, arguing that only they could possibly know whether they felt threatened.

Under the Home Office guidance below, the function of a police officer is to determine if the manner of pavement riding was dangerous, not to determine how the cyclist felt:

"I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are 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 road users when doing so."
.

i never past my cycling test

 

[flecc]

I wonder how this guidance from a minister would stand up in court? Are you aware of there being any court cases where this guidance has been used in defence?

No, police officers generally seem aware of the correct position. I've ridden past them on the pavement with no notice taken. On one occasion in Selsdon when I was riding slowly toward three officers walking, one stepped back into line for me to pass.

And on another point, I've seen many cyclists using pavements when the roads are almost clear, I presume this would be an offence and the cyclist couldn't plead that he/she was worried that a lorry might come up from behind for example.

Agreed. No-one should take advantage in that way, there should be clear evidence of some danger being present. However, in my experience police officers still take no action against protracted riding on clear pavements with a painted cycle lane on the road and moderate traffic alongside.
.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

Agreed. No-one should take advantage in that way, there should be clear evidence of some danger being present. However, in my experience police officers still take no action against protracted riding on clear pavements with a painted cycle lane on the road and moderate traffic alongside.

Yes, cycle lanes often seem to be a waste of good road space.

 

[tonyw]

I disagree, one still has a defence. The guidance from the minister is very clear.
.

I think you could quote the minister's advice in mitigation, but not as a legal defence. If you get a FPN, then you're probably better off paying it than trying to argue the toss in court

 

[gray198]

i see Halfords are selling a range of these quoting a top speed of 13mph, and I believe Decathlon sell a range. I understand that in many cities scooters are used as a means of getting about. Don't know but would assume that the non powered could be just as dangerous as thepowered if not used sensibly

 

[flecc]

I think you could quote the minister's advice in mitigation, but not as a legal defence. If you get a FPN, then you're probably better off paying it than trying to argue the toss in court

No need to argue. When the officer gives his evidence, don't challenge it, merely cross examine and get him to acknowledge you were not riding in a dangerous fashion.

Then pass a copy of the Minister's statement to the magistrates for the charge to be dismissed.
.

 

[flecc]

ebiker, I don't know your grounds for disagreement, but perhaps you aren't aware that ministerial orders distributed to police forces have the force of law. In the highly unlikely event of the magistrates convicting, taking it to appeal would result in dismissal.

A prior example pertaining to us is between 13th April 2013 and 6th April 2015, two years when a ministerial order prevented the police prosecuting 250 watt e-bikes when the law clearly stated the limit was 200 watts.

Even before that the DfT blocked a police prosecution for 250 watts when they considered it not in the public interest following representations from us.
.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

perhaps you aren't aware that ministerial orders distributed to police forces have the force of law

I'm surprised that ministers can, in effect, create laws this way. Don't the House of Commons and House of Lords have any say?

 

[flecc]

I'm surprised that ministers can, in effect, create laws this way. Don't the House of Commons and House of Lords have any say?

Not normally, since they aren't creating law, they are merely qualifying how a law should be used. It's rather similar to the position of any law in a senior court. It's not the letter of the law that counts, it's the spirit of the law, what parliament intended.

Remember the law they are qualifying was written by their own ministry, so it's very much their business to say what it means.

Where the Commons and Lords come into play is if a minister abuses this power. This happened when Michael Howard as Home Secretary arbitrarily increased an 8 year court sentence to 15 years, quite improper and he was overruled.
.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

Not normally, since they aren't creating law, they are merely qualifying how a law should be used. It's rather similar to the position of any law in a senior court. It's not the letter of the law that counts, it's the spirit of the law, what parliament intended.

Remember the law they are qualifying was written by their own ministry, so it's very much their business to say what it means.

Where the Commons and Lords come into play is if a minister abuses this power. This happened when Michael Howard as Home Secretary arbitrarily increased an 8 year court sentence to 15 years, quite improper and he was overruled.
.

I take your point but this is rather more than a clarification of a law that says you MUST NOT cycle on a pavement, see HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129.

From the Highway Code

Highway code cycling

You should wear a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened

www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk

:

64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129