In the Bridgend case it appears the fines escalated because 'on principle' the driver ignored reasonable requests (from the courts) for a simple outcome.
It seems to make sense that if you object to something 'on principle' you tell them.
why is this even up for debate?
- Thread starter passionate off roader
- Start date
It seems to make sense that if you object to something 'on principle' you tell them.
So if, as in the Bridgend case, the driver initially refuses to co-operate, how can anyone know if the reasons are 'perversity or principle' ?
I've no idea whether he did or didn't. I'm commenting on the number of these cases that have suddenly cropped up due to unfair political misuse of the highway code.
Yesterday there was no offence, suddenly there is an alleged offence occasioning illegal penalty accumulations.
If something is considered illegal, then bloody well make it illegal and paralyse parts of the country and it's capital city.
But not this shambles where this so called law is officially ignored out of expedience for cyclists of the well over 730,000 daily bike trips in Greater London and immediate surroundings, but harshly penalised elsewhere.
.
As I've already replied to you, I'm not speaking of that case.
If someone refuses to state the principle they stand on, then clearly it's perversity.
.
It is of course his right to contest a summons. The point is there is a legal requirement to drive with due care and attention including when overtaking a cyclist. The Highway Code gives us guidance as to what constitutes due care in overtaking, which is 1.5m. There could well be situations were less than 1.5m would still be considered to have taken due care. In this case we can only guess at how close the car was from the shadows. Some of us think it too close while others disagree. Clearly the police and the court also thought it too close. The drivers in the vehicles before and after appear to of considered more space was needed by the wider gaps they left.
As a driver of over 52years experience I’ve driven during a time when small gaps to cyclists were the norm. I may consider my years of experience have given me the skills to safely ignore the latest guidance on what constitutes taking due care, but then again others may think that a poor attitude to take. I know that twelve years ago I was cycling along the main road into town. The grass verge ended and was replaced by a stone wall. I found myself with my left handlebar 6” from the wall and my right handlebar 4” from the car overtaking, one wobble could of been serious. I rode back home on the footpath on the other side of the road and sod the consequences if I was caught. I stopped cycling and never used that bike again. I only returned to cycling when my sister bought an ebike and persuaded me to get one two and a half years ago. Originally I had intended to only ride on cycle paths but the empty roads over the first lockdown tempted me back to roads. After reading road positioning advice on Cycling UK's website I always stay well out from the kerb and find that encourages motorists to leave a safe gap.
We all have a comfort zone for how close we are happy to be overtaken. If someone overtook me at 1.2m in most cases I wouldn’t worry about that but I’d object if it was only 0.3m.
That happened to me a couple of weeks ago! It was a SUV and it blocked my view of a car which would have flattened me. I don't know if they're genuinely trying to help, or skint psychos replacing Netflix horror shows with grisly cylist deaths. Now I ignore them.
Last edited:
His definition of "reasonable" differed. Therefore he disagreed on principle.
"Reasonable" is a highly subjective word, which doesn't lend itself to quantitative definition. Therefore it's going to mean different things to different people.
To escalate the punishment because of that, is arrogant and morally indefensible in my view.
What you did then was perfectly legal, since you did it out of fear of the traffic. That is still the case, see this link and read it all.
.
From the highway code;
"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence."
Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129
"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence."
Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129
Read and learn
Like so many laws, that law has various exceptions which you are apparently unaware of.
Many of the rules = Only some
You may be fined = You may not
you may be sent to prison = You may not
In other words, there is no must about it.
.
Last edited:
Aversion therapy works, it works in the army. Punishment works better than a pat on the back. Signs only work on people who will comply anyway, those that don't comply need to be fined and sentenced. So what if it gets their backs up? There are other sets of laws to deal with them, if they then go on a cyclist killing rampage. We can record evidence of them doing it, if all us cyclists have cameras.
Last edited:
Under certain circumstances it is OK to use the pavement. I personally wouldn't make a habit out of it, but it can be done.
link to relevant post
Thats appears to show that there are 'suggestions' where the fixed penalty notice scheme 'should' not be used.
Do the rules on fixed penalty notices actually say that one 'cannot' legally be issued in the circumstances described ?
And do the suggestions on use of fixed penalty notices say the normal method of procecution, the magistrates courts, can no longer be used ?
You really are desperately trying to convince that cyclists can never use the pavement, but you don't understand the purpose of the 1999 law and the extensive guidance on its use. It wasn't to stop pavement cycling, it was to encourage some of it. Prior to that cycling on the pavement was always illegal for everyone of any age and in any circumstances, so beat police issued warnings and on very rare occasions charged. Ergo no new law was needed to stop it.
But with so many in cars, the roads congested and unsafe for cyclists and the pavements so underused with so many driving, the government planned on using the pavements to relieve the pressure. Hence the 1999 law and guidance to introduce the concept of some cycling on the pavement. It was the thin edge of a wedge to get people used to the idea, to be followed by ever more shared footpaths for pedestrians and bikes.
As a result since 1999 the police take no notice of pavement cycling and that has been the case ever since the original guidance was issued and reiterated several times since. Of course they are supposed to act when someone cycles irrresponsibly on the pavement, such as too fast and too close to pedestrians, but it seems they can't be bothered to risk arguing such cases in order to issue a small fixed penalty.
This outcome is not unlike the position on the illegal pedelecs everywhere. The law on them is so complex, police officers regard it as too much hassle to act, so they just ignore.
.
Last edited:
There are two levels of law-breaking in the Highway Code:
- 'MUST/MUST NOT' in the Highway Code means you must obey the referenced law. That 'MUST/MUST NOT' is black & white.
- 'should/should not' means a more general driving law may be applied such as that of 'driving without due care and attention'* or 'dangerous driving'*, if the police deem it appropriate.
As flecc says, and regardless of which variant above, whether you actually get fined depends on being spotted, the outcome of your action (nothing, injury, death), repeated offending, how overloaded the police are, and how polite/apologetic/rude/pig-headed/entitled you are.
In the case of the van + bicycle collision, there's no specific law being broken by either party (i.e. a MUST/MUST NOT rule), but I'd suggest the cyclist was 'driving without due care and attention' - "At junctions with no separate cyclist facilities, it is recommended that you proceed as if you were driving a motor vehicle". The van driver may also be partially at fault if that crossing was deemed to be a cycle way but the road markings suggest it isn't.
In the case of the car + near miss again it isn't a MUST/MUST NOT rule, but this time it's the car that's 'driving without due care and attention' - "Give ... cyclists ... at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car". Combine that with 'how polite/rude you are' and you can see why the car driver is being held up as a example. The motorist believed he was in the right - he tested the law, and lost, so maybe not 'rude' - just pigheaded or entitled.
*Some examples of offences here, when you expand the sections:
Last edited:
That's a big chunk of illustration, very useful.
The bit about 'at least as much space as you would give a car' is very different to '...1.5m...' and might start to explain why so many passes only leave 0.3 to 0.5m when so much more space is available.
I have long thought that cyclists should legally be allowed to share the pavements with pedestrians, if its done in a responsible way. I also think the law should be changed so that it is indeed allowed.
It would be a great surprise to many if the recently issued Highway code, and the House of Commons guidance to MPs in 2020 on the issue are both incorrect;
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01097/SN01097.pdf
See page 29;
5. Cycling: offences
5.1 Can cyclists ride their bikes on the
pavement?
It is a criminal offence to ride a bicycle on the pavement.
There has long been debate about whether this is properly enforced.
Legal position
It is a criminal offence to ride a bicycle (defined as a ‘carriage’ by section
85 of the Local Government Act 1888, as amended) on a “footpath or
causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or
accommodation of foot passengers” under section 72 of the Highway
Act 1835, as amended. Cycling on the footway is also prohibited in
London under section 54(7) of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 and in
other areas under section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.
The real issue is why are the Goverment being so duplicitous ?
They inform the public, correctly, that cycling on the pavement is illegal (Highway Code) yet try to usurp the law by persuading the Police not to issue fixed penalty notices ?
Many of the public must wonder if cycling on the pavement is illegal (HighWay Code) why do the Police apparently do very little to stop it ?
Perhaps in the modern Boris era we should not be surprised the Goverment has the taken the approach that breaking the law is OK really.
Of course they wonder, and protest at the police inaction in letters to their local press.
The reason is nothing to do with this Boris era since it long predates that. It is as I've explained, quite deliberate, intentionally to increase pavement use by cyclists, but responsibly done.
The duplicitousness is to gradually persuade the public that it is ok after all, so long as the circumstances are right. As the old empire saying goes, "Softly, softly, catchee monkey".
The section in italics that you quoted is obviously no more than empty words to satisfy MPs when they seek to support constituents on this issue: "Yes public, it is illegal and criminal", then whispered aside to the police, "Not really, here's the reasons why you should do nothing about it".
After all, how can it be a criminal act, when painting a bicycle symbol on the pavement makes it a responsible citizen's act? That alone makes those words in italics meaningless.
I agree with you about sharing the pavements. Other countries have done it successfully, Japan being a notable example where taking to the pavement in cities is often compulsory for cyclists. We just need a government with the courage to state it outright, instead of this duplicitous approach.
But we are stuck with what we have, so we might as well make use of this form of permission where it is suitable, but with courtesy and consideration for pedestrians at all times. It's what I've done and I've never suffered any pedestrian dissent, quite the opposite in fact.
.
Last edited:
I’ve been very interested and encouraged in flecc’s posts regarding pavement use. I remember during Tony Blair’s time that John Prescott was championing a change in the law to allow cycling on the pavement. Legalising children cycling on the path was one of the quoted benefits. After the law was changed I seem to recall a high profile cycle/pedestrian accident where the pedestrian died, the cyclist having been on the pavement at excessive speed. The government were then saying the law was going to be reversed and I just assumed that it had been done. But was it? If not then we can cycle on the path as long as it’s in a safe and considerate way. Does anyone know if the pavement cycling law was reversed or modified?
In addtion to my reply above, I'm returning to show that this statement in italics that you quoted does not mean what it appears to mean, it is deliberately fluffed. The mention of the 1888 act is to show a bicycle is a carriage in this law. The mention of the 1835 act is to show that the riding on the footway was made illegal then with a fine applying. A number of times over the intervening years the specified fine was replaced, increased by new laws.
I've tracked the history and all the italic passage needed to have said was that the Criminal Justice Act 1982 previously specified a fine of £50 for the offence. This was once again REPLACED by the new 1999 act with a fixed penalty, originally £20, now commonly £30, with restrictions on who it can be issued to. To take care of any serious breaches of this law, a fine in court of up to £500 is permitted. Other laws permit prison sentences and community orders.
This latter part of the italics statement IS A LIE, obviously intended to deceive. These acts do not specify that cycling on the pavement is illegal. Both acts mentioned make it very clear that an offence is only committed if an annoyance or nuisance is caused by obviously wrongful conduct in the many activities mentioned. For example when cycling "furiously", to use the quaint language of the day. You can read them for yourself on the links below:
Metropolitan Police Act 1839
Town Police Clauses Act 1847
No offence is committed by anyone cycling responsibly on the pavement with due care and attention for pedestrians, as the conditions pertaining to the 1999 act make clear.
.
Last edited:
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
