why is this even up for debate?

[flecc]

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?

No it wasn't, that was just more empty words. Unnecessary too, since existing laws cover all eventualities adequately.

I've posted further just above your reply.
.

 

[Chainmale]

As everyone's idea of what is reasonable is not definable and that it would not be possible to enforce speed limits on cyclists, the only logical solution to problem pavement cycling would be a complete ban. There is a world of difference between pootling along at 8mph ringing your bell and giving way to pedestrians as appropriate and charging along at 20mph (or faster in the case of some illegal ebikes I've encountered recently). As a pedestrian I expect the pavement to be for pedestrians as a cyclist I expect to be able to take my rightful place on the highway without too much difficulty.

 

[flecc]

As everyone's idea of what is reasonable is not definable and that it would not be possible to enforce speed limits on cyclists, the only logical solution to problem pavement cycling would be a complete ban. There is a world of difference between pootling along at 8mph ringing your bell and giving way to pedestrians as appropriate and charging along at 20mph (or faster in the case of some illegal ebikes I've encountered recently). As a pedestrian I expect the pavement to be for pedestrians as a cyclist I expect to be able to take my rightful place on the highway without too much difficulty.

The was the logic of 1835, when the government of the day passed the Highway Act 1835, which banned all locomotives (motor vehicles) from the roads. It is still law, have you noticed any lack of motor vehicles on the roads? Fortunately what is logical changes according to circumstances, so the law changes accordingly.

I don't see the problem you see. All any cyclist taking to the pavement needs is to remember that the pavement is primarily for pedestrians and concede them that priority. That means slowing to as little as walking pace when near any pedestrians and not causing them to be startled in any way. That might even mean stopping at times, hardly a hardship and only amounting to the same simple good manners we practice when walking on the pavement.
.

 

[Chainmale]

Sadly here in the West Midlands many pavement cyclists are the equivalent of the must get in front close passers we meet on the road.

 

[flecc]

Sadly here in the West Midlands many pavement cyclists are the equivalent of the must get in front close passers we meet on the road.

I understand that, and it's where the police should be acting firmly.

But once again we dont have the police on the beat any more, only ineffectual PCSOs and the like, and them too rarely.

Laws we have aplenty, but almost no-one to enforce them any more.
.

 

[StuartsProjects]

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.

Which was the 1999 Act ?

 

[flecc]

Which was the 1999 Act ?

It wasn't a separate act, that was just shorthand to avoid lengthy explanation. It was a Ministerial Order with force of law made by Home Office Minister Paul Boateng in 1999, regulating the application of the Cycle Track Act 1984. That act permitted Highway Authorities to designate part or all of footways/pavements for shared or segregated use of cyclist and pedestrians.

The intention of course was to achieve more use of the pavements by cyclists, as I've already explained, since the act hadn't been used as much as the government wished. The Ministerial Order loosened the reins, making the cycling legal under certain circumstances even where the pavement wasn't designated for such use.
.

 

[AndyBike]

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.

I've cycled past policemen on the pavement and not once have they stopped me.

 

[flecc]

I've cycled past policemen on the pavement and not once have they stopped me.

I've done the same Andy. On one occasion a trio of them stepped aside to clear the way for me, so not just permission but approval.
.

 

[AndyBike]

I've done the same Andy. On one occasion a trio of them stepped aside to clear the way for me, so not just permission but approval.
.

Yup, it's all about riding slowly with care for other users.

 

[StuartsProjects]

The Ministerial Order loosened the reins, making the cycling legal under certain circumstances even where the pavement wasn't designated for such use.

Do you know where the details of this order are to be seen ?

It would be usefull to know the exceptions the order (a Statutory Instrument?) created.

 

[nigelbb]

As everyone's idea of what is reasonable is not definable and that it would not be possible to enforce speed limits on cyclists, the only logical solution to problem pavement cycling would be a complete ban.

As everyone's idea of what is reasonable is not definable and that it would not be possible to enforce a close passing limit on motorists overtaking cyclists, the only logical solution to problem overtaking would be a complete ban.

See how ridiculous your proposition sounds in other circumstances?

I have no problem either as a cyclist or as a pedestrian with the sharing of pavements. It's far safer than having cyclists share roads with motorists.

 

[Benjahmin]

I have had people step into the road in front of me whilst looking at their 'phone. Both on my bike, where quietness of approach could be a factor, but also when in the van.
I can only imagine that cycling an urban or city pavement would be a bloody nightmare, even at walking pace.
Locally there is a shared use path through wildlife reserve marsh land. Obviously there a birdwatchers, kids, elderly et al, so care has to be taken. I have come up behind people, having rung my bell at distance, to find them not only looking at their 'phone, but wearing ear buds. In the midst of natures glory!
Then there is the panic reaction from a group of people when they become aware of a bike. Some go one way, some go the other, then the heard instinct kicks in and they start dashing from one side to the other 'cos no-one wants to be billy no mates.
It's comical really.
However it does kinda negate the use of a bike as a means of transport (i.e. travelling from AtoB with a purpose and timetable)and turn it into an alternative method of pootling.
I've been on shared use paths with the white line segregation. Unfortunately pedestrians are wholly unaware of it/ignore it. So on has to weave through receiving tuttings and mutterings along the way.
I really don't see a viable, safe or useful future for shared use paths. It's a typical British fudge that serves no-one well.
And don't get me started on "Cyclists dismount here".

 

[guerney]

Another plus for cyclists with cameras: Drivers in London are to be fined for entering cycle lanes:

 

[I893469365902345609348566]

I have had people step into the road in front of me whilst looking at their 'phone.

Is colliding with the fat ones especially hazardous? It could be a soft landing, but f = ma

 

[StuartsProjects]

I agree with most all of that, although for shared cycleapaths you missed out the walker and dog problem, you know, oblivious walker on one side of the cycleway, dog on lead on the other side.

 

[I893469365902345609348566]

I have no problem either as a cyclist or as a pedestrian with the sharing of pavements. It's far safer than having cyclists share roads with motorists.

This is a partial list in no particular order, I'd cycle on pavements if:

1. Pedestrians didn't moan about it

2. It was completely legal

3. People didn't walk their dogs

4. Mobile phones didn't have internet or music playback facilities

5. People walking out of doorways directly in front of me, wasn't a possibility

6. Pedestrians didn't move or react in unpredictable ways (I use a Hornit 140db)

7. People with sensory impairments never went outside

8. Kids were kept locked at home

9. Getting from A to B was as fast as using the road, which is isnt. At all.

 

[WheezyRider]

This is a partial list in no particular order, I'd cycle on pavements if:

1. Pedestrians didn't moan about it

2. It was completely legal

3. People didn't walk their dogs

4. Mobile phones didn't have internet or music playback facilities

5. People walking out of doorways directly in front of me, wasn't a possibility

6. Pedestrians didn't move or react in unpredictable ways (I use a Hornit 140db)

7. People with sensory impairments never went outside

8. Kids were kept locked at home

9. Getting from A to B was as fast as using the road, which is isnt. At all.

You forgot people in cars coming out of driveways without looking/or from restricted visibility driveways. I've had a few close calls on shared paths. Not clear who has priority.

Also, wheely bins and other obstructions. Pavement space is being made even smaller as car chargers are often installed on the pavement, not the road.

 

[Nealh]

Cars coming out of drive ways don't have priority as they have to cross a pedestrian path.

 

[I893469365902345609348566]

You forgot people in cars coming out of driveways without looking/or from restricted visibility driveways. I've had a few close calls on shared paths. Not clear who has priority.

Also, wheely bins and other obstructions. Pavement space is being made even smaller as car chargers are often installed on the pavement, not the road.

Plus all those blasted drivers who park their cars or vans so far up onto the pavements, that it's difficult for even pedestrians without pushchairs to get through the narrow gap