electric scooter/skateboard laws

[flecc]

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

I didn't say it was a clarification of the law, I said it was a qualification. Please bear in mind that the minister's statement was first made when the law was introduced in parliament in 1999, so parliament was in no doubt what the law meant. As the minister made clear, it was not directed at responsible cyclists who took to the pavements out of fear of the traffic.

In addition government policy is clearly that our very undersused pavements should be used to supplement cycling facilities, hence the proliferation of shared footpaths.

And the highway code is not law, it only has the status of guidance.
.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

And the highway code is not law, it only has the status of guidance.

Obviously, I was quoting its references to Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129.

Cycling on pavements is very much a grey area, and I agree that there are exceptional circumstances when it's justifiable.

But who's to say what the dangerous traffic conditions are that make it justifiable? Is it related to traffic speed? Traffic density? Cycle tracks are too narrow? Is it acceptable to cycle on pavements all the time, as some do, because cars can be dangerous when driven badly?

 

[flecc]

Obviously, I was quoting its references to Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129.

Cycling on pavements is very much a grey area, and I agree that there are exceptional circumstances when it's justifiable.

But who's to say what the dangerous traffic conditions are that make it justifiable? Is it related to traffic speed? Traffic density? Cycle tracks are too narrow? Is it acceptable to cycle on pavements all the time, as some do, because cars can be dangerous when driven badly?

I don't know why you are protracting this. I've already posted earlier that only the cyclist can say if they feared the traffic at a given time, so what others think is not relevant. They cannot possibly know what was in the cyclist's mind.

And I've already answered your other points. Of course riding on the pavement all the time isn't allowed, and of course the danger must be present and not just a possibility in the mind.
.

 

[soundwave]

And I've already answered your other points. Of course riding on the pavement all the time isn't allowed, and of course the danger must be present and not just a possibility in the mind.

i have been riding on the pavement for the last 30 years pmsl

 

[Deleted member 25121]

I don't know why you are protracting this. I've already posted earlier that only the cyclist can say if they feared the traffic at a given time, so what others think is not relevant. They cannot possibly know what was in the cyclist's mind.

And I've already answered your other points. Of course riding on the pavement all the time isn't allowed, and of course the danger must be present and not just a possibility in the mind.
.

So to summarise your first paragraph, I could cycle on the pavements all the time because I'm fearful that a car could knock me off and what others think is irrelevant. All that matters is what's in my mind.

But your second paragraph rather contradicts this in all respects.

Sorry to "protract" this but I'm keen to get some clarification/qualification of the law.

 

[soundwave]

So to summarise your first paragraph, I could cycle on the pavements all the time because I'm fearful that a car could knock me off and what others think is irrelevant. All that matters is what's in my mind.

But your second paragraph rather contradicts this in all respects.

Sorry to "protract" this but I'm keen to get some clarification/qualification of the law.

the police dont care as it will not be in the public interest to prosecute unless you splat someone

 

[flecc]

So to summarise your first paragraph, I could cycle on the pavements all the time because I'm fearful that a car could knock me off and what others think is irrelevant. All that matters is what's in my mind.

For goodness sake, of course you cant. I've just posted that what is in the mind alone isn't sufficient, please reread my last phrase. Didn't I just post that the danger must be present? For example a difficult to negotiate roundabout with vehicles entering and leaving at various points. Or a narrow two lane road with streams of fast moving traffic in both directions so unable to pass you without endangering you.

You need to be realistic. Clearly in busy town areas where there's lots of pedestrians on the pavements it can limit to the point of impossibility when you can take advantage of the permission. It's just a matter of using your head to decide what is reasonable.

But if you are looking for an absolute definition, there isn't one, just as there isn't for any other aspect of law. It's why we have senior courts to decide their meaning and scope.
.

 

[sjpt]

Quote 1: I've already posted earlier that only the cyclist can say if they feared the traffic at a given time, so what others think is not relevant. They cannot possibly know what was in the cyclist's mind.
Quote 2: Didn't I just post that the danger must be present?

The problem is that it is impossible to be precise; who is to decide if danger is present? The only way to write a precise law is to have a very clear rule; the law has this: you must not ride on the pavement. There are then various unclear qualifications. So Quote 3: It's just a matter of using your head to decide what is reasonable, and hoping that your decision is not contested my police and/or magistrates. And, most important where ever you ride, being careful and courteous to others.

 

[flecc]

most important where ever you ride, being careful and courteous to others.

Exactly, do that and use the minister's permission with care and common sense and there will be no problems.
.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

the police dont care as it will not be in the public interest to prosecute unless you splat someone

So if you splat someone while riding on the pavement and prosecution says that you shouldn't have been on the pavement in the first place you can say "it was OK to ride on the pavement there because I felt endangered on that bit of the road".
And if the pedestrian had walked into the front of you on the pavement you'd be off Scott-Free.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

The problem is that it is impossible to be precise; who is to decide if danger is present? The only way to write a precise law is to have a very clear rule; the law has this: you must not ride on the pavement. There are then various unclear qualifications.

Exactly, the law is so cloudy it's of little value.

 

[Wicky]

Well if you splat someone while on the pavement while avoiding riding on the road - be prepared to explain how you were riding carefully and responsibly. Nab any witnesses your prior to splatting to back you up...

I had this in mind on a certain stretch I used a couple of days of the week - leaving a town centre train station there was a narrow main road out of town bordered on one side by a Roman wall and a pavement up the other. At rush hour cyling on the road uphill was IMHO dangerous and so I often used the pavement being very careful with respect to pedestrians. Sometimes to the extent of having to dismount and push if it was too crowded to make forward progress.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.co.uk

 

[Deleted member 25121]

Well if you splat someone while on the pavement while avoiding riding on the road - be prepared to explain how you were riding carefully and responsibly. Nab any witnesses your prior to splatting to back you up...

I had this in mind on a certain stretch I used a couple of days of the week - leaving a town centre train station there was a narrow main road out of town bordered on one side by a Roman wall and a pavement up the other. At rush hour cyling on the road uphill was IMHO dangerous and so I often used the pavement being very careful with respect to pedestrians. Sometimes to the extent of having to dismount and push if it was too crowded to make forward progress.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.co.uk

Yes, safest just to get off and push when on the pavement unless there are very few pedestrians around. Although some would claim otherwise eh.

 

[flecc]

Exactly, the law is so cloudy it's of little value.

Yes, safest just to get off and push when on the pavement unless there are very few pedestrians around. Although some would claim otherwise eh.

You are being needlessly negative. Are you incapable of riding at close to walking pace? There's one spot I always do that with many pedestrians present and it's where I mentioned the three police officers with one stepping aside for me to get past them.

It's a complex junction road situation when I leave the local supermarket making it impossible to cycle away on the roads. It would take ages to explain, but to overcome it I cycle that short stretch of busy pavement very slowly. I can't walk it with the bike alongside since it's too narrow and I'd obstruct pedetrians more. Then I cross at the traffic lights and stop ahead of the white line and waiting cars. I then set off a few seconds before the lights are about to change so I can get though a pinch point and not obstruct cars as they the pass or endanger myself unnecessarily. That has never caused me any problems, including with police present. They aren't daft, they recognise when someone is being entirely responsible and are aware that the pavement law isn't to be enforced in all circumstances.

As cyclists we get few enough privileges, so when we have a benefit like this ministerial ruling we should use it and keep it alive, not deter others by negativity like yours. You aren't doing cycling any favours by undermining this valuable concession.
.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

Are you incapable of riding at close to walking pace?

No

 

[Wicky]

The only problem I've had riding in town cutting through the precinct was from a PCSO who got me stop - my excuse was Intermittent Claudication which made them think I was a nutty Frenchman...

 

[flecc]

The only problem I've had riding in town cutting through the precinct was from a PCSO who got me stop

PCSOs are subject to the same restrictions on implementing the law, but unfortunately their high turnover means not all are brought up to speed with the minutiae. A good case for carrying a copy of the minister's instructions.
.

 

[Wicky]

In that particular case it was bang to rights as I was taking a sneaky shortcut - less road traffic fear more a routing problem with the town centre roads being a one way system designed around cars which on a bike would lead to longer than necessary journeys.

https://mediafiles.thedms.co.uk/Publication/CE/cms/pdf/Colchester%20Town%20Map.pdf

 

[flecc]

In that particular case it was bang to rights as I was taking a sneaky shortcut - less road traffic fear more a routing problem with the town centre roads being a one way system designed around cars which on a bike would lead to longer than necessary journeys.

https://mediafiles.thedms.co.uk/Publication/CE/cms/pdf/Colchester%20Town%20Map.pdf

Yes, obviously not a genuine case of fear of traffic. We should only use the permission if it's actually alongside the clearly visible danger.
.

 

[anotherkiwi]

Personal transport vehicle enters the French road code today, 26th of October.

Helmet, high-vis vest, lights on 24/24, 25 kph top speed... Haven't read it all because I don't have one. Fine of 1500€ for not complying and 3000€ if you get caught a second time.