# Sustrans Cycle Leader advocates law breaking.



## Angelfishsolo (25 Jan 2009)

_*EDIT - I must make clear that this comment only refers to the ride led from Rhondda Heritage Park on a Sunday.*_
I came back from a group ride today organised by two people either employed by or at least paid by "_Mentro Allan_" (a subsiduary of Sustrans). Within a minute of the ride starting we exited the car park and made to join a B road. To my surprise we were told to ride on the pavement. I point blankly refused and pointed out to the 'Leader' that this was unlawful. He stated that I was talking Bollox as the legislation didn't take into account novice cyclists (and he had been doing it for 17 years and never got caught!!) He then went onto state that as_ "the law is corrupt then we need to be as well._" I was ammazed and left the group to cycle in my own instead.

I have just looked up the relevent legislation (just to be sure). Please correct me if I am missing something here.

The primary legislation which makes cycling on a footway an offence is _section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act_, this provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he "shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers or shall wilfully lead or drive any carriage of any description upon any such footpath or causeway."
_Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888_ extended the definition of "carriage" to include "bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines."
The object of _Section 72 Highways Act 1835_ was intended not to protect all footpaths, but only footpaths or causeways by the side of a road, and that this is still the case has been ruled in the high court. The legislation makes no exceptions for small wheeled or children's cycles, so even a child riding on a footway is breaking the law. However, if they are under the age of criminal responsibility they cannot, of course, face prosecution.
[FONT=&quot]On [/FONT][FONT=&quot]1st August 1999[/FONT][FONT=&quot], new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway[/FONT]


----------



## jonesy (25 Jan 2009)

Hmm. That explains why so much of the urban sections of the NCN consist of white lines on pavements...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Jan 2009)

White lines on pavements usually imply cycleway or shared pavements. I am referring to pavements dedicated to pedestrians.


jonesy said:


> Hmm. That explains why so much of the urban sections of the NCN consist of white lines on pavements...


----------



## jonesy (25 Jan 2009)

Angelfishsolo said:


> White lines on pavements usually imply cycleway or shared pavements. I am referring to pavements dedicated to pedestrians.



I know. But my point is that people who think cycling on the pavement should be permitted are more likely to want to put cycle paths on the pavement.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Jan 2009)

Sorry mate, I misunderstood you the first time. I agree with you 100%.



jonesy said:


> I know. But my point is that people who think cycling on the pavement should be permitted are more likely to want to put cycle paths on the pavement.


----------



## wafflycat (25 Jan 2009)

Is it Sustrans? Possibly not. And as much as I'm no fan of Sustrans (ick.. ick..), according to Mentro Allan, the partners are:-

Sports Council for Wales – lead organisation
Countryside Council for Wales 
National Public Health Service 
Wales Council for Voluntary Action 
Welsh Local Government Association

Perhaps an email to each outlining what happened (factual, not emotional) and asking if they condone activities carried out under the Mentro Allan banner to breaking the law?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Jan 2009)

Take a look here 

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/default.asp?sID=1232121873552



wafflycat said:


> Is it Sustrans? Possibly not. And as much as I'm no fan of Sustrans (ick.. ick..), according to Mentro Allan, the partners are:-
> 
> Sports Council for Wales – lead organisation
> Countryside Council for Wales
> ...


----------



## wafflycat (25 Jan 2009)

Include Sustrans in the list of who a complaint goes to then.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Jan 2009)

It already has been done :-)


wafflycat said:


> Include Sustrans in the list of who a complaint goes to then.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jan 2009)

Sustrans  Good Cycling Code does not state Pavemnet cycling OK and makes it clear that cyclists should follow th Highway Code.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Jan 2009)

Thank you very much for that. More ammo for my complaint.



Cunobelin said:


> Sustrans  Good Cycling Code does not state Pavemnet cycling OK and makes it clear that cyclists should follow th Highway Code.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jan 2009)

This is the response I received from my e-mail to Sustrans Wales.

*Mentro Allan also forwarded me a contact form you sent them regarding cycling on the pavement with the group on Sunday. I'm sorry that you've been upset by this and I will speak to the leaders of the ride about this. With your permission, I will forward the comments to Steve Smith, who manages the cycle project there, leaving out your name to preserve your anonymity.*

*Please let me know if there is any further action you would like to take or if anything else has upset you and I will do my best to resolve things.*

*All the best,*


----------



## wafflycat (26 Jan 2009)

Angelfishsolo said:


> This is the response I received from my e-mail to Sustrans Wales.
> 
> *Mentro Allan also forwarded me a contact form you sent them regarding cycling on the pavement with the group on Sunday. I'm sorry that you've been upset by this and I will speak to the leaders of the ride about this. With your permission, I will forward the comments to Steve Smith, who manages the cycle project there, leaving out your name to preserve your anonymity.*
> 
> ...



Good response as a start, but do you think they may just have an inkling of which rider it was on the ride?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jan 2009)

I replied stating that I wanted my name included. I get the humour of the sentence though lol


wafflycat said:


> Good response as a start, but do you think they may just have an inkling of which rider it was on the ride?


----------



## Tony (26 Jan 2009)

Mutter mutter Sustrans.....


----------



## dellzeqq (26 Jan 2009)

Sorry about the lengthy cut and paste, but this, I think, is worth reading. The red highlighting sums it up. 

It's a wee bit unfair to lay this at the door of Sustrans (checks pulse). Sounds like one individual has lost it a little bit.

*CYCLING AND THE LAW*

*"Can my 11 year old cycle on the pavement?" and "Can I be done for cycling furiously?" and many other legal questions answered.* 

Many cyclists are afraid of vehicular traffic so cycle on footpaths. While understandable at certain busy intersections and the like, it's very much against the law. If a certain stretch of road is deemed too dangerous to cycle on, choose an alternative route or walk your bike on the dangerous stetch. If you ride on the footpath or footway, you could cop a fine and you'll certainly antagonise pedestrians. 
Bicycles are, in law, carriages (as a consequence of the Taylor v Goodwin judgment in 1879) and should be on the highway not footpaths. 
However, despite what was said above, it's confusing for cyclists and pedestrians because many local authorities allow cycle access to what look like footpaths. Pedestrians often don't know where they stand, literally. 
Cycling on footpaths is bad PR for cycling but it's got to be said that the greater offence of driving on footpaths is generally ignored by society. Pavement parking is a menace yet is rarely highlighted as such by the sort of newspapers who like to rant about 'Lycra louts' cycling on pavements. Ditto for driving and parking in cycle lanes. 
Cycling on _footways_ (a pavement at the side of a carriageway) is prohibited by _Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, amended by Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888_. This is punishable by a fixed penalty notice of £30 under _Section 51_ and _Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988_. 
Cyclists have no right to cycle on a footpath away from the road but only commit an offence where local by-laws or traffic regulation orders create such an offence. 

Paul Kitson, partner at cyclist-friendly solicitor Russell, Jones and Walker of London says: "There may also be offences committed in relation to 'walkways' (which is a footpath under a walkway agreement) under _Section 35 of the Highways Act 1980_. However, the conditions on which these can be ridden is dependent on local council bye-laws, which vary from council to council."
HOWARD PEEL ADDS:
It is important to note that most legislation relating to 'cycling on footpaths' actually relates to the riding of cycles on a 'footway set aside for the use of pedestrians' which runs alongside a road. For example, the 'fixed penalties' brought in a few years ago do NOT apply to country footpaths where there is no road. Fixed penalty notices also cannot be applied to areas such as parks, shopping precincts etc. unless a byelaw has been passed making cycling such areas an offence, nor do they apply to anyone under 16. Many people (including police officers) seem to think that 'a footpath is a footpath' wherever it is and that the same laws apply. This is not the case.
The primary legislation which makes cycling on a footway an offence is _section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act_, this provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he "shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers or shall wilfully lead or drive any carriage of any description upon any such footpath or causeway."
_Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888_ extended the definition of "carriage" to include "bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines."
The object of _Section 72 Highways Act 1835_ was intended not to protect all footpaths, but only footpaths or causeways by the side of a road, and that this is still the case has been ruled in the high court. The legislation makes no exceptions for small wheeled or children's cycles, so even a child riding on a footway is breaking the law. However, if they are under the age of criminal responsibility they cannot, of course, face prosecution.
On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. At the time Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:
"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of 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 on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."
Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by 'Community Support Officers' and wardens. 
_"CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice._
_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. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004) _
​


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jan 2009)

I found the same documentation. Interestingly enough I got a slap on the wrist from a police officer the day before the ride in question (for riding about 10 yards on a pavement), thus I was very aware of the legal situation. *Also I am not laying this at the door of Sustrans but rather the Sustrans Cycle Leader as stated in the message title.
*


dellzeqq said:


> Sorry about the lengthy cut and paste, but this, I think, is worth reading. The red highlighting sums it up.
> 
> It's a wee bit unfair to lay this at the door of Sustrans (checks pulse). Sounds like one individual has lost it a little bit.
> 
> ...


----------



## summerdays (26 Jan 2009)

That almost makes it sound as if the pathways that don't run beside roads aren't covered by that act. Which may be the ones that cyclists find useful joining up different areas. 


> Cyclists have no right to cycle on a footpath away from the road but only commit an offence where local by-laws or traffic regulation orders create such an offence.



Out of interest in the original group would you of said that there was anyone of a very nervous disposition?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Jan 2009)

There were several inexperienced cyclists which is why I was amazed at the choice of route in the first place. Whether or not they were of a nervous disposition I could not say.


summerdays said:


> Out of interest in the original group would you of said that there was anyone of a very nervous disposition?


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Jan 2009)

I can see some reasons for cycling on the Pavement!

Let me clarify that......

I attend occasional courses that mean I have to use the A32 between Fareham and Wickham. This is a bad road, speed limits ignored and a blind corner which everyone takes too fast and then cuts in to the kerb as they "overcook" and see the oncoming traffic.

Alongside is a wide pavement that is unsused (it is actually a sccle track for about 20 yards at one point)



In this case there is some merit in pavement cycling!

However busy pavements in towns and pedestrian areas are a definite NO!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Jan 2009)

In that case you would probably be OK under the discretionary powers highlighted earlier. However you still know that it is actually illegal but choose the lesser of two evils.



Cunobelin said:


> I can see some reasons for cycling on the Pavement!
> 
> Let me clarify that......
> 
> ...


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Jan 2009)

I've seen people cycle along the footpath alongside York Road in Wandsworth, and, to be honest, you can see their point. Still n' all the vast majority of pavement cycling is by young men on BMX bikes on streets that are not in the least intimidating. I'm afraid that I do call out 'oi, f**kwit, ride on the road' as I pass them.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Mar 2009)

*I can not believe it.* A friend of mine went along to another Sunday ride from the same location (Rhondda Heritage Park) and was astounded to find the same leader taking the exact same route including riding on pavements. In his group he had at least one cyclist who was unsteady on a bike (the the point of bumping into walls etc). I know that some will say the pavement is the lesser of two evils *but* there was no reason for that route to be used at all as the park is a virtual hub for non-road routes suitable for cyclists of all abilities. The Leader seems to want to flaunt the law because he is "in charge".


----------



## very-near (30 Mar 2009)

Angelfishsolo said:


> *I can not believe it.* A friend of mine went along to another Sunday ride from the same location (Rhondda Heritage Park) and was astounded to find the same leader taking the exact same route including riding on pavements. In his group he had at least one cyclist who was unsteady on a bike (the the point of bumping into walls etc). I know that some will say the pavement is the lesser of two evils *but* there was no reason for that route to be used at all as the park is a virtual hub for non-road routes suitable for cyclists of all abilities. The Leader seems to want to flaunt the law because he is "in charge".



If the rider is not competent, they should stay off the roads until they achieve a minimum standard. Using the pavement as an alternative is not an option.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Mar 2009)

Thank you very much. I am now a National Standards Cycle Instructor and find this approach unbelievable, especially after he was warned about it previously. (In fact I have just found out that the Leader in question was making remarks about me reporting him whilst cycling on the pavement yesterday!!!)


very-near said:


> If the rider is not competent, they should stay off the roads until they achieve a minimum standard. Using the pavement as an alternative is not an option.


----------

