# It's ok to cycle on the pavement if.......



## User33236 (3 Jun 2014)

..... you have fear of traffic.

Well at least that's the case, albeit with some provisions, in the email sent out by a PCSO regarding an awareness event that took place last weekend at a local town centre.

"On the 2nd and 3rd of June, Exxxxx's PCSO's will be carrying out a Pedal cycle awareness and security operation in Exxxxx town centre. Officers will be handing out leaflets to pedal cyclist, informing them that it is a offence to cycle on the pavement and reminding them that Police Officers & PCSO's can issue a fixed penalty ticket of £30 to anyone who is riding a pedal cycle along a pavement. The leaflet will also give pedal cycle security advice including: Choosing a lock, where to park, locking your bike the right way and registration. 
The introduction of a fixed penalty ticket is not aimed at *responsible cyclist who* *sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic* and who show consideration to other users when doing so. Its also not aimed at children and young people who are afraid to cycle on the road and we would always encourage them to give way to a pedestrian when passing on the pavement. The people we consider to be most dangerous are those who cycle through busy town centres weaving in and out of pedestrians and disregarding there safety. If a cyclist approaches a town centre, they should always dismount. 
To coincide with this operation we will be holding a crime prevention event at Exxxxx gateway giving crime prevention advice, along with a limited supply of security accessaries. 

Kind Regards 

PCSO A. Nonomous"


----------



## Profpointy (3 Jun 2014)

sounds astonishingly sensible !

No doubt someone will object in a minute, this be the interweb an' all


----------



## glenn forger (3 Jun 2014)

Always been the case:

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.

In a January 2014 letter to Donnachadh McCarthy of the pressure group Stop Killing Cyclists, roads minister Robert Goodwill said Boeteng’s advice was still valid.

Goodwill said: “Thank you for bringing the issue of cycling on the pavement around dangerous junctions…to my attention. I agree that the police should be using discretion in enforcing this law and would support Paul Boateng’s original guidance.”


----------



## AndyRM (3 Jun 2014)

Profpointy said:


> sounds astonishingly sensible !
> 
> No doubt someone will object in a minute, this be the interweb an' all



My only objection is how poorly written that email is. I hope the writer tidied it up before hitting 'Send'.


----------



## User33236 (3 Jun 2014)

Profpointy said:


> sounds astonishingly sensible !
> 
> No doubt someone will object in a minute, this be the interweb an' all



Indeed it does. I wasn't aware it was general guidance as pointed out by Glenn and was therefore somewhat surprised that common sense was being applied by our local police and PCSO's.


----------



## raleighnut (3 Jun 2014)

Once, whilst cycling through the centre of Leicester (by the clocktower) a PCSO shouted to me to "get off your bike this is a pedestrian zone" I duly stopped and pointed out the cycling route sign that he happened to be standing under. He looked up and then turned to his colleague (a regular PC) who nodded his head, looked at me and shrugged his shoulders. How will the over-zealous PCSO's of this country be able to differentiate between a menace to pedestrians and a "nervous" cyclist as they seem to me to be K**b headed little Hit**rs crazed with the power of their paramilitary garb.
Or am I just paranoid.


----------



## User33236 (3 Jun 2014)

AndyRM said:


> My only objection is how poorly written that email is. I hope the writer tidied it up before hitting 'Send'.



The text is a straight copy of what was forwarded to me from a colleague who received the email in question.


----------



## AndyRM (3 Jun 2014)

User33236 said:


> The text is a straight copy of what was forwarded to me from a colleague who received the email in question.





Actually, I'm being overly harsh. The sentiment of the awareness event is absolutely spot on, and as long as it's an internal email there's no real problem.


----------



## KneesUp (3 Jun 2014)

User33236 said:


> The text is a straight copy of what was forwarded to me from a colleague who received the email in question.


Ouch.

"...weaving in and out of pedestrians and disregarding *there* safety."

It does sound sensible, but it's all in the execution.


----------



## User33236 (3 Jun 2014)

AndyRM said:


> as long as it's an internal email there's no real problem.



It wasn't an internal email but then let's not get too hung up on it 

Just good to see they held such an event and are both aware and considerate of nervous riders.


----------



## MontyVeda (3 Jun 2014)

raleighnut said:


> Once, whilst cycling through the centre of Leicester (by the clocktower) a PCSO shouted to me to "get off your bike this is a pedestrian zone" I duly stopped and pointed out the cycling route sign that he happened to be standing under. He looked up and then turned to his colleague (a regular PC) who nodded his head, looked at me and shrugged his shoulders. How will the over-zealous PCSO's of this country be able to differentiate between a menace to pedestrians and a "nervous" cyclist as they seem to me to be K**b headed little Hit**rs crazed with the power of their paramilitary garb.
> Or am I just paranoid.


PCSOs are in training... what one considers 'over-zealous' is simply them trying to do something they're not yet qualified for. So rather than thinking they're 'k**b head little hitlers', cut them the same slack one should give learner drivers, nervous 'newbie' cyclists and the shy teenager in Tesco with 'in training' on their badge.


----------



## AndyRM (3 Jun 2014)

User33236 said:


> It wasn't an internal email but then let's not get too hung up on it
> 
> Just good to see they held such an event and are both aware and considerate of nervous riders.



Well, if they've sent that out publicly I will resume my harsh stance 

As you say though, the main thing is the event. Something similar would go down well in Newcastle - we have a large pedestrianised shopping street and a quayside, both featuring a combination of idiots and decent folk on bikes. It would be good for the idiots to get pulled.


----------



## Dragonwight (3 Jun 2014)

I just wish they would send their FPN`s to the correct address. I have been getting letters for the scrote across the road for an unpaid fine for cycling on the pavement. Its about £300 now with expenses and they still don't listen when you tell them he lives across the road.argggh


----------



## MontyVeda (3 Jun 2014)

Dragonwight said:


> I just wish they would send their FPN`s to the correct address. I have been getting letters for the scrote across the road for an unpaid fine for cycling on the pavement. Its about £300 now with expenses and they still don't listen when you tell them he lives across the road.argggh


That old chestnut... just pay up!


----------



## raleighnut (3 Jun 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> PCSOs are in training... what one considers 'over-zealous' is simply them trying to do something they're not yet qualified for. So rather than thinking they're 'k**b head little hitlers', cut them the same slack one should give learner drivers, nervous 'newbie' cyclists and the shy teenager in Tesco with 'in training' on their badge.


I don,t get told (wrongly) what to do by any of the others you mention and I paraphrase what some regular PCs who happen to drink in my local pub, and whom I chat with, call them.  a lot more than I referred to them.


----------



## Paul.G. (3 Jun 2014)

Plod will have to catch me first


----------



## Dragonwight (4 Jun 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> That old chestnut... just pay up!



Ah if only, the DOB on the ticket is 1987 those were the days.


----------



## spen666 (4 Jun 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Always been the case:
> 
> ......


 
sorry, but this is not true.

The law is clear, cycling on the pavement is an offence - no exceptions in the wording of the law, even for children.

What Paul Boateng did was to give guidance about how the law would be enforced. This does not change the law and you are still committing an offence if you cycle on the pavement.

Whether you are prosecuted or not for the matter ( prosecution includes the use of a FPN) is a seperate matter of the application of the public interest test.


Paul Boateng did not have the power to change the law


----------



## spen666 (4 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3116027, member: 45"]Sorry, what Glen said _is_ true. He said that it's always been the case that it's ok to cycle on the pavement if....

He didn't say that it wasn't an offence. The rest of your post is what we all already know.

That wig really is welded to your head isn't it?[/QUOTE]


No, it is not ok to cycle on the pavement!

It was not ok before Paul boateng made his statement a few years ago, and its still not ok now. Paul boateng had no power to over rule primary legislation


simple constitutional law point.


----------



## spen666 (4 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3116038, member: 45"]It's not a point of law. It's permitted to cycle on the pavement in certain circumstances.[/QUOTE]
Erm if its permitted, then it is a point of law! The law prevents people riding on the pavement


I suggest you look up S72 of the Highways Act 1835 which makes it an offence to ride a bicycle on the footpath.

There are NO exceptions to this. The law is very clear.




As I have stated and you seem unable to comprehend, the fact someone may not be prosecuted for it does not make the act legal. That is a matter of the exercise of the public interest test, it does not change the law


----------



## MontyVeda (4 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> No, it is not ok to cycle on the pavement!
> 
> It was not ok before Paul boateng made his statement a few years ago, and its still not ok now. Paul boateng had no power to over rule primary legislation
> 
> ...


this thread is discussing the guidance given as to when one should or should not be prosecuted or had-a-word-with... if a pavement cyclist is being considerate and cautious, no problem, if they're being reckless, then apply the law.


----------



## spen666 (4 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3116057, member: 45"]The police* permit* pavement cycling under certain circumstances, as stated in the OP and by Glen. They *allow* it, they say *it's ok*. They make *exceptions*. You can't argue that this is not the case.

It might not be legal, but it's *ok* and *permitted* in the situations described.

Glen was quite correct.

Unless you're suggesting that the police don't permit pavement cycling in certain circumstances?[/QUOTE]


I am saying the police do not have the power to permit it.

They have the power to not prosecute someone.

The police do not have the power to over rule parliamentary legislation



As I said before, its a matter of law and its clear you do not understand the legal powers of the police or Paul Boateng


----------



## MontyVeda (4 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> I am saying the police do not have the power to permit it.
> 
> They have the power to not prosecute someone.
> 
> ...


it's also clear that you don't fully grasp the point of this thread Spen


----------



## MikeonaBike (4 Jun 2014)

Its not cycling on the footpath that irritates me, its people driving cars and vans on it, so they can use it as a car park. Nothing is ever done about cars and vans parked on the footpaths; how disabled folk in wheelchairs or mobility scooters manage I can't imagine. I recently complained to my local council about it but they couldn't care less.


----------



## Profpointy (4 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3116093, member: 45"]It happens, the police permit it. They've permitted it for years. They've told me that it's ok on many occasions. They go with the government advice. They make exceptions. They will continue to permit and allow considerate pavement cycling. It's ok.

I think one of the things you're mudding up is this - this isn't about telling people to get off the pavement but not prosecuting, this is about allowing them to continue riding on the pavement. It's fantastic.

If you have a problem with that I suggest you speak to the police, as you clearly disagree with what they're doing. Or you could stop being silly and support something that benefits our communities and will continue whether it twists your knickers or not.[/QUOTE]

please stop !

You're arguing the nuance of Permit with a capital, and turning-a-blind-eye-to , which I'll call permit with a small "p". I'm sure you both quite clearly get the others' point.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3116057, member: 45"]The police* permit* pavement cycling under certain circumstances, as stated in the OP and by Glen. They *allow* it, they say *it's ok*. They make *exceptions*. You can't argue that this is not the case.

It might not be legal, but it's *ok* and *permitted* in the situations described.
[/QUOTE]



spen666 said:


> I am saying the police do not have the power to permit it.


 
To get us over this little hump, could we agree that the police _have the discretion to ignore the offence_ in certain circumstances?

GC


----------



## Steady (4 Jun 2014)

MikeonaBike said:


> Its not cycling on the footpath that irritates me, its people driving cars and vans on it, so they can use it as a car park. Nothing is ever done about cars and vans parked on the footpaths; how disabled folk in wheelchairs or mobility scooters manage I can't imagine. I recently complained to my local council about it but they couldn't care less.




Irritates me to no end, once spotted a family in a Merc parked on the pavement only to then go and open the door and block the rest of the pavement whilst their precious one needed a nappy change (presumably outside their parents house) forcing an old bloke on a mobility scooter off the pavement with limited turning room to check the road was even clear and then with no access to rejoin until the next side road. Apparently the precious one needing a nappy change granted them immunity from how disgraceful they were.

I don't _mind _pavement cyclists, certain roads I think _"Yeah, don't blame you at all"_ but then when I get to a quiet side street and I spot a pavement cyclist then it bothers me! I think the Police always try to make a 'show' of pavement cyclists in pedestrian zones in city centres, I just think there's more important things for them to do but the general consensus pavement cyclists are death wielders on wheels.


----------



## Cyclopathic (4 Jun 2014)

Speaking as a some time pedestrian, I have no problem whatsoever with people riding on the pavement if they are careful and courteous. Nobbers bombing along at speed is another matter.


----------



## cd365 (4 Jun 2014)

Personally I don't think anyone over a certain age should ever cycle on the pavement.


----------



## broadway (4 Jun 2014)

cd365 said:


> Personally I don't think anyone over a certain age should ever cycle on the pavement.



That would be 90?


----------



## cd365 (4 Jun 2014)

broadway said:


> That would be 90?


Early teens


----------



## MontyVeda (4 Jun 2014)

cd365 said:


> Personally I don't think anyone over a certain age should ever cycle on the pavement.


Yet it appears that the police seem to think it's OK in certain cases, and so do I.

There's a number of long stretches of nice wide pavement alongside some of the main roads around these parts which I've always used instead of the road. Why? Because it's simply the safer place to be. In the last decade these particular stretches of pavement have become shared use paths... which means i was right all along.


----------



## summerdays (4 Jun 2014)

cd365 said:


> Personally I don't think anyone over a certain age should ever cycle on the pavement.


What about a parent cycling with their young child?


----------



## cd365 (4 Jun 2014)

summerdays said:


> What about a parent cycling with their young child?


Parent cycles on the road alongside the child, simples


----------



## summerdays (4 Jun 2014)

cd365 said:


> Parent cycles on the road alongside the child, simples


I had that situation, there was only a path one one side of the road, what would you do going back the other direction?


----------



## cd365 (4 Jun 2014)

summerdays said:


> I had that situation, there was only a path one one side of the road, what would you do going back the other direction?


Cycle on the road behind the child, how i was with my children


----------



## cd365 (4 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3116380, member: 45"]Why not?[/QUOTE]
Just a personal opinion, not one that everyone will agree with I know.
There are places to cycle off road if that is what you want to do.


----------



## sidevalve (4 Jun 2014)

There seems to be 2 major problems here - 1- allowing people to cycle on the pavement gives the green light to ALL the d--k heads to say "oh it's ok" and choose to ride along whenever, where ever and however they choose. Also it seems it is a little odd that parking on a pavement is a big no no and a hanging offence [no matter what the circumstances] whereas a full grown adult riding a bicycle is fine. Iam often a pedestrian and sorry but no I will not move over for a cyclist on the FOOTpath.
It seems the very few rules that apply to cyclists as usual are ok to flout as and when it suits but EVERYBODY else must obey the rules.
Keep it up boys and girls - now we know why another reason why people hate cyclists.


----------



## summerdays (4 Jun 2014)

cd365 said:


> Cycle on the road behind the child, how i was with my children


This was before I really returned to cycling, in a city, with two young children, and one of them had a very delayed road sense, the sort that meant they were accompanied when walking even in their early teens. With the youngest I did cycle but some roads in a city can be a bit too busy for primary age children.


----------



## Profpointy (4 Jun 2014)

sidevalve said:


> There seems to be 2 major problems here - 1- allowing people to cycle on the pavement gives the green light to ALL the d--k heads to say "oh it's ok" and choose to ride along whenever, where ever and however they choose. Also it seems it is a little odd that parking on a pavement is a big no no and a hanging offence [no matter what the circumstances] whereas a full grown adult riding a bicycle is fine. Iam often a pedestrian and sorry but no I will not move over for a cyclist on the FOOTpath.
> It seems the very few rules that apply to cyclists as usual are ok to flout as and when it suits but EVERYBODY else must obey the rules.
> Keep it up boys and girls - now we know why another reason why people hate cyclists.



my take on it is.people.riding like dickeads probably don't care.if it's legal (or.tollerated) or not, so a change in law (or enforcement policy) only really allows sensible (and law abiding) to ride on pavements.

A bit like dog control rules / bans / clamp downs only affect responsible owners - the irresponsible who actually cause the problem will ignore the rule anyway.

for the record I don't ride on pavements and get mildly cross when I see grown men doing so - and why are they always on full suspension mountain bikes with the saddle far to low


----------



## glenn forger (4 Jun 2014)

sidevalve said:


> Also it seems it is a little odd that parking on a pavement is a big no no and a hanging offence [no matter what the circumstances] whereas a full grown adult riding a bicycle is fine.



Who argued that?


----------



## Profpointy (4 Jun 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Who argued that?



that's official policy - do keep up.


----------



## MontyVeda (4 Jun 2014)

sidevalve said:


> *There seems to be 2 major problems here* - 1- allowing people to cycle on the pavement gives the green light to ALL the d--k heads to say "oh it's ok" and choose to ride along whenever, where ever and however they choose. Also it seems it is a little odd that parking on a pavement is a big no no and a hanging offence [no matter what the circumstances] whereas a full grown adult riding a bicycle is fine. Iam often a pedestrian and sorry but no I will not move over for a cyclist on the FOOTpath.
> It seems the very few rules that apply to cyclists as usual are ok to flout as and when it suits but EVERYBODY else must obey the rules.
> Keep it up boys and girls - now we know why another reason why people hate cyclists.


all i can see is misconceptions here.


----------



## summerdays (4 Jun 2014)

When I started on my return to cycling about 7 years ago, I was living in a city and scared to ride on the road. I did on very quiet back roads, but get to a main road and I was on the path, carefully, slowly and giving way to pedestrians. I gradually built up my confidence and found advice on the internet, (thank you the nice people who were on the old C++ site). I remember the time I plucked up the courage to try cycling tSt James Barton roundabout (it made it onto a list of worst places to cycle at one point), following another cyclist onto the roundabout. I had quite a sense of accomplishment!

As a result of my reintroduction to cycling I don't have a problem with adult cyclists on the pavement because they are scared if they are cycling at a sensible pace, giving way to pedestrians. I now don't feel comfortable doing it myself generally. But I would rather the scared got onto a bike on the pavement than remained in their cars.


----------



## Learnincurve (4 Jun 2014)

MikeonaBike said:


> Its not cycling on the footpath that irritates me, its people driving cars and vans on it, so they can use it as a car park. Nothing is ever done about cars and vans parked on the footpaths; how disabled folk in wheelchairs or mobility scooters manage I can't imagine. I recently complained to my local council about it but they couldn't care less.



My lad is in a chair, we have to see which side of the road has the the least cars parked on the pavement and go out into the road and go round them. As you can imagine on a busy road this can take quite some time. 



cd365 said:


> Personally I don't think anyone over a certain age should ever cycle on the pavement.



I'm a learner cyclist, if I didn't cycle on the pavement for certain parts of the roads near me I would be dead. There is absolutely no question of this. Don't forget that you were a learner too at some point and it's mostly fear of cars that stop people from putting down their 2 tons of metal and picking up a bike. As it happens learner or not the roads near my house are utterly_ insane_. Main roads, roundabouts, duel carriageways you name them they are betwixt me and town less than a mile away, one particular section down the bottom has some form of accident at least once a day. You sometimes see cyclists going up or down the big hill but I have never ever seen one on the roundabout from hell, they all get off the road and cycle on the pavement under the footbridge no matter if they have been cycling a day or 50 years. I'm reading that our local cycle groups are working on it but the most likely outcome will be that the bits of the pavement we already cycle on will just have a bike lane marked on it.

Also @sidevalve Where do you live that has cars that don't park on pavements? Town/city centres yes sure but there are four outside my house right now on the pavement and I own none of them.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jun 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> *PCSOs are in training...* what one considers 'over-zealous' is simply them trying to do something they're not yet qualified for. So rather than thinking they're 'k**b head little hitlers', cut them the same slack one should give learner drivers, nervous 'newbie' cyclists and the shy teenager in Tesco with 'in training' on their badge.


In training for what.... some of them around here have made a career out of training.


----------



## Cyclopathic (6 Jun 2014)

cd365 said:


> Early teens


It's really no problem if common sense is used.


----------



## cd365 (12 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3116413, member: 45"]That's fair enough, I'm just interested in your reasons.[/QUOTE]
When I was a kid, under 10, I got stopped for riding on the pavement and was lectured at how dangerous it is for pedestrians when you cycle on the pavement.
That has stuck with me ever since and never rode on the pavement again.


----------



## summerdays (12 Jun 2014)

cd365 said:


> When I was a kid, under 10, I got stopped for riding on the pavement and was lectured at how dangerous it is for pedestrians when you cycle on the pavement.
> That has stuck with me ever since and never rode on the pavement again.


Most kids aged 10 nowadays are told by their parents to ride on the pavement. And if you ask them they will think it is quite legal to do so. I think the law at that point could be made clearer as to what age we think children should transfer to the road. Ask the average person on the street and you will get a whole range of answers.


----------



## cd365 (12 Jun 2014)

I can't remember exactly what was said, it just stuck with me and the fear of being caught by the local bobby back then led me to not do it again!


----------



## summerdays (12 Jun 2014)

Well the local bobby won't be stopping a 10 year old now. I've spoken with various policemen about this and they usually say that below 16 they can't do that much since they can't issue a FPN. And if they were riding recklessly they would have a word with them.

What one did go on to say was that if someone was causing a persistent problem they would then approach the parents and eventually if that was ignored it would start to become more in the realm of maybe needing to possibly bring in the social services if they felt that the parenting skills of the child needed a little help. (That was at the extreme end of any action they would take.) And that was one specific policeman.


----------



## cd365 (12 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3128841, member: 45"]That's fair enough, but I'd suggest that the fear was instilled in you with a lie.[/QUOTE]
Nope, the fear was real, he was a right mean barsteward and would have given me a back-hander if he caught me again! He was quite partial to given the local scallys a clip around the ear


----------



## raleighnut (12 Jun 2014)

cd365 said:


> Nope, the fear was real, he was a right mean barsteward and would have given me a back-hander if he caught me again! He was quite partial to given the local scallys a clip around the ear


We had one in Enderby just like that and you daren't tell your parents for fear of another.


----------



## cd365 (12 Jun 2014)

@User I take it you are a pavement rider? Or that you have no aversion to doing it?


----------



## cd365 (12 Jun 2014)

Quite often I see middle aged men, cycling a bit quicker than pootling, older age teenagers hurtling along, people with no lights on at night deciding that it is unsafe to ride on the road so will use the pavement and nearly run you over because you can’t see them. I’ve seen whole families, mum father, two teenage children riding on the pavement, meaning pedestrians have to try and avoid them since they were riding two abreast. This lovely picture that you have tried to paint I haven’t witnessed.

When you are pulling a child, yes I can see why you would want to do that, no problem with that. Carrying? Do you mean in kid chair on the back of the bike? No problem with that. When escorting a child I would personally be on the road; each to their own.

I bet there are a lot of people with pushchairs, dog walkers, walkers who have a problem with a pushbike sharing their space. Yes it is their space since it is illegal to ride on a pavement; if they are not signed shared use then it is not ambiguous.


----------



## Learnincurve (12 Jun 2014)

No one has a problem with it if it's a quiet pavement and you stop and let pedestrians walk past you or get off, wheel round them and start up again. I have learned from my shared tow path that pedestrians are idiots and not to be trusted. Must have met 6 people in half and hour who did not hear the bell or the loud excuse me and I've been force to get off and walk round them. Every Single Time I got a gasp of surprise when they clocked that I was there. On top of that you have the people coming towards you that think giving you an inch to get past them is enough, would you give a car or a motorbike an inch? No you wouldn't, you would step back you freaking _morons_.


----------



## spen666 (12 Jun 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> No one has a problem with it if it's a quiet pavement and you stop and let pedestrians walk past you or get off, wheel round them and start up again. I have learned from my shared tow path that *pedestrians are idiots* and not to be trusted. *Must have met 6 people in half and hour who did not hear the bell or the loud excuse me* and I've been force to get off and walk round them. Every Single Time I got a gasp of surprise when they clocked that I was there. On top of that you have the people coming towards you that think giving you an inch to get past them is enough, would you give a car or a motorbike an inch? No you wouldn't, you would step back you freaking _morons_.


 

So do you regard all people who have hearing problems as idiots ?They will not hear you?

People are idiots because they do not hear something?

It could just be that you asre being unreasonable


----------



## summerdays (12 Jun 2014)

cd365 said:


> if they are not signed shared use then it is not ambiguous.


It can be ambiguous as to where the shared space ends, in the centre of Bristol the area by the fountains is shared space, and so is Pero's bridge and the bit by the museums, is the bit between them, and where does the area end. If it ends by leaving the cyclist on the wrong side of the road then it's not surprising that some will carry on cycling until there is a safe place to cross the road. Or a map may indicate that an area is shared space or a cycling route but there aren't the signs. Some of the signs are also very subtle, for example in Queens Square, part of a cycling route on the pavement (as the road is one way the opposite direction at that point), and the signs are merely engraved on the pavement about 20 cm big. I didn't realise i could cycle there until another cyclist told me.


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Jun 2014)

summerdays said:


> ...
> Or a map may indicate that an area is shared space or a cycling route but there aren't the signs.
> ...


Lancaster & Morecambe seems to have more shared use paths than signs on the lamp posts, judging by the Council's cycling maps... and yes, where some routes end is ambiguous too.


----------



## Learnincurve (12 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> So do you regard all people who have hearing problems as idiots ?They will not hear you?
> 
> People are idiots because they do not hear something?
> 
> It could just be that you asre being unreasonable



I'm talking about a shared tow path with bikes going up and down and lots of markings saying this is a public bridleway/bike path. My son is in a wheelchair, and we have never used his disability as an excuse for anything. If you can't hear the bikes bells/cyclists/horses/riders warning you and you do not have a hearing aid that people can see then it's on you to be acutely aware of your surroundings and do the simple, non-difficult thing of walking to the side of the path, or alternatively do as a lot of the blind do and have something clearly marking you as deaf a badge or sticker on your back would do it. I will always slow down or even stop when I come across people on the path, a 17 year old hoodie barrelling down and ringing his bell probably won't, anyone with a small amount of common sense and self preservation should know this, deaf or not.


----------



## Arjimlad (12 Jun 2014)

I cycle my daughter to nursery once a week with her on the bike seat.

Rather than turn right from a side street onto a very busy road, then wait in the very busy road indicating right to turn into nursery, I cycle slowly & carefully along 100yds of pavement. If the road is quiet I will brave it.

Nowt wrong with that I hope..

On the other hand I get rather bored of adult pavement cyclists annoying pedestrians, when the road is perfectly OK to use.


----------



## cd365 (12 Jun 2014)

@User every thing I say is just giving my view. People can like it or dislike it, that is their opinion. There are lots of opinions on lots of forums I have read and disagreed with, but that is the beauty of a public forum like CC, we get to air our opinions!


----------



## raleighnut (12 Jun 2014)

Arjimlad said:


> I cycle my daughter to nursery once a week with her on the bike seat.
> 
> Rather than turn right from a side street onto a very busy road, then wait in the very busy road indicating right to turn into nursery, I cycle slowly & carefully along 100yds of pavement. If the road is quiet I will brave it.
> 
> ...


Quite right too, a child in a seat is so high in the air that any impact you could shrug off could be catastrophic for her


----------



## spen666 (12 Jun 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> I'm talking about a shared tow path with bikes going up and down and lots of markings saying this is a public bridleway/bike path. My son is in a wheelchair, and we have never used his disability as an excuse for anything. If you can't hear the bikes bells/cyclists/horses/riders warning you and you do not have a hearing aid that people can see then it's on you to be acutely aware of your surroundings and do the simple, non-difficult thing of walking to the side of the path, or alternatively do as a lot of the blind do and have something clearly marking you as deaf a badge or sticker on your back would do it. I will always slow down or even stop when I come across people on the path, a 17 year old hoodie barrelling down and ringing his bell probably won't, anyone with a small amount of common sense and self preservation should know this, deaf or not.


Talk about changing the position. You called people who didn't hear you whilst you are trying to MrToad on a bike, stupid.
You also to get that pedestrians have priority on a shared use path like a bridleway or towpath.


----------



## Learnincurve (12 Jun 2014)

I re-read my initial post, and I'm not going mad, I'm clearly talking about two separate things, pedestrians on a pavement and then my experiences on the tow path. I absolutely maintain that pedestrians always always have right of way on the pavement and you should get off and walk if it's anything but quiet, and you should only be on there in the first place if it would be too dangerous for you to cycle on the road. 

Tow paths are shared and everyone has an equal right to be there, and this goes both ways, I have no problem slowing down when there are people ahead of me and we need to cross paths, but those same people need to be aware that bikes are going to be on there as well. It wasn't the deaf today, it was people with full hearing, and they only moved when I was forced to come to a complete stop behind them and say "watch yourselves" and pointedly wheel my bike past them and that was after the bell was rung and I already said "excuse me". One of them even muttered "why didn't you ring your bell" to which I replied "I did. Twice"

A special mention must also go to the chap who was walking along the pavement with a lady as I was on a bike path along a main road, he decided that as the pavement had narrowed into a single lane he would step out into the bike path missing me by about an inch. I went "oooh sh!!!t" and he went "wot!?"


----------



## summerdays (13 Jun 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> It wasn't the deaf today, it was people with full hearing, and they only moved when I was forced to come to a complete stop behind them and say "watch yourselves" and pointedly wheel my bike past them and that was after the bell was rung and I already said "excuse me".


Actually I've found that it's a good practice of my slow cycling skills, and the other thing is to look very interested in their conversation, all of a sudden they would rather let you by


----------



## spen666 (13 Jun 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> .....
> 
> Tow paths are shared and everyone has an equal right to be there, and this goes both ways....



I'm afraid this is only true in your mind. The British Waterways Website makes it clear that pedestrians have priority


> Give way to others on the towpath and warn them
> of your approach. *Pedestrians have priority*



No wonder you have problems


----------



## Learnincurve (13 Jun 2014)

@spen666 I absolutely stand my my statement of we have equal right to be there, it's how you _behave_ that's the issue. It's a grey area, clearly no one has a right to crash into pedestrians be they on a horse or a bike and that's how most people interpret "pedestrian's have priority", and I always slow down when I come behind them and go round them at walking pace once I know they know I'm there, but a pedestrian or group of pedestrians who ignore you and carry on walking very slowly is far more anti-social than me on my bike. What makes this behaviour so monumentally stupid is that _not everyone behaves like me_. 

I've been walking that path far longer than I've been riding on it. There are several types of bike riders on the path; people who potter along looking at the pretty swans and ducks like me, we don't mind slowing or giving way. People who deeply care about their stats and pace, they get really annoyed with anything that slows them down, and lastly youths on cheap mountain bikes going hell for leather, not really paying attention and weaving round people. 

I can only control my behaviour, it's up to pedestrians to have a sense of self preservation when it comes to the people who don't really care if they fall into the canal or not. This is what's wrong with modern Britain, people are using "heath and safety and the law will save us!" as some sort of protective security blanket and think it excuses them from using common sense, youth biker cares not one jot for what someone wrote on a bit of paper, he's going to do what he wants regardless.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Jun 2014)

If people are allowed to use fast heavy mobility scooters on the pavement why can't considerate cyclists use that space too, if they feel a compelling need to do so?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3130062, member: 45"]Interestingly, the Greenway Code also advises against wearing headphones on the towpath.[/QUOTE]
The sound leakage annoys fishing types?


----------



## spen666 (13 Jun 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> If people are allowed to use fast heavy mobility scooters on the pavement why can't considerate cyclists use that space too, if they feel a compelling need to do so?


 

Because the law prevents it?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Jun 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> Tow paths are shared and everyone has an equal right to be there


As a general statement of fact this is wrong. Cyclists have NO legal right to ride on towpaths but may be permitted to do so.


----------



## Learnincurve (13 Jun 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> As a general statement of fact this is wrong. Cyclists have NO legal right to ride on towpaths but may be permitted to do so.



I may not have mentioned that our tow path is part of the Trans Pennine Trail and the canal trust actively encourages cyclists. In fact they travel up and down the path on bikes themselves. 

I really genuinely don't understand why a few people here have problems with people riding on something clearly marked on maps and real life as a cycle path, at one point it even splits on to a wide nicely surfaced bit especially for us. Is it that people think you are a lesser cyclist if you don't ride on the road?


----------



## Kookas (13 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> Because the law prevents it?



True, but the law can be changed.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> Because the law prevents it?


The law prohibits. 

Prohibits=/=Prevents


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Jun 2014)

and the law prohibits fast heavy mobility scooters too I believe.


----------



## benb (13 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> Because the law prevents it?



The law also prohibits pedals without reflectors, but a lot of us think it's OK to flout that particular law.
Something being illegal is not sufficient to condemn it.


----------



## Cyclopathic (13 Jun 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> If people are allowed to use fast heavy mobility scooters on the pavement why can't considerate cyclists use that space too, if they feel a compelling need to do so?


Some of the newer mobility scooters are quite big, like a sort of tiny car. I think they are allowed to go at 8mph which is quicker than a lot of people might imagime especially on a pavement.

I can see that they might have been built large and sturdy so that they can when they have to go onto the road without being intimidated too much. Again if they are driven with care and courtesy they don't pose a problem but if not they can be a bloody menace. Just like people on bikes.


----------



## spen666 (13 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3130732, member: 45"]I think we've concluded that there is sufficient ambiguity and discretion for that statement to not stand in totality.[/QUOTE]
There is no ambiguity, the law is clear. It is illegal to cycle on the pavement. There is no room for doubt in the wording of the legislation

s72 Highways Act 1835 is clear


> If any person 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.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . every person so offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale, over and above the damages occasioned thereby.



no room for doubt in that is there?


----------



## spen666 (13 Jun 2014)

Kookas said:


> True, but the law can be changed.


but until it is changed, it is the law


----------



## spen666 (13 Jun 2014)

benb said:


> The law also prohibits pedals without reflectors, but a lot of us think it's OK to flout that particular law.
> Something being illegal is not sufficient to condemn it.


Who mentioned condeming anything? The question was why are you not allowed to ride on the footpath


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Jun 2014)

Learnincurve said:


> I may not have mentioned that our tow path is part of the Trans Pennine Trail and the canal trust actively encourages cyclists. In fact they travel up and down the path on bikes themselves.
> 
> I really genuinely don't understand why a few people here have problems with people riding on something clearly marked on maps and real life as a cycle path, at one point it even splits on to a wide nicely surfaced bit especially for us. Is it that people think you are a lesser cyclist if you don't ride on the road?


Noted.

The canal and waterway trust nationally actively encourages cyclists to use towpaths all over the country. But they don't have a legal right to do so. They may do so, only at the Canal & Waterways Trust's discretion and subject to certain conditions.

If the TP Trail is bridleway.... job's a good 'un. Legal right to ride.


----------



## sidevalve (13 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> Who mentioned condeming anything? The question was why are you not allowed to ride on the footpath


 I would think the name FOOTpath is a clue. Besides as I've said before keep on pi---ng people off - that really is handing the ammo to the anti-cylist brigade on a silken cushion. I'm sure they'll love you for it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Jun 2014)

sidevalve said:


> I would think the name FOOTpath is a clue. Besides as I've said before keep on pi---ng people off - that really is handing the ammo to the anti-cylist brigade on a silken cushion. I'm sure they'll love you for it.


Except it is more often colloquially called the pavement.


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (13 Jun 2014)

The Police here all ride on the pavement. 

Quite frankly, only a complete idiot would even think of doing anything against them if they were on the road!


----------



## Cyclopathic (14 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> but until it is changed, it is the law


One can choose to ignore it though without too many consequences.


----------



## Cyclopathic (14 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> but until it is changed, it is the law


Until fairly recently it was the law that all men over a certain age should practice archery on a Sunday. Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's fit for purpose or that not adhering to it is a bad thing.


----------



## spen666 (14 Jun 2014)

Cyclopathic said:


> Until fairly recently it was the law that all men over a certain age should practice archery on a Sunday. Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's fit for purpose or that not adhering to it is a bad thing.


Did I say it was fit to purpose or otherwise?

I merely stated what the law is


----------



## shouldbeinbed (14 Jun 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> PCSOs are in training... what one considers 'over-zealous' is simply them trying to do something they're not yet qualified for. So rather than thinking they're 'k**b head little hitlers', cut them the same slack one should give learner drivers, nervous 'newbie' cyclists and the shy teenager in Tesco with 'in training' on their badge.


No. PCSO is a separate job in its own right, not a precursor to promotion/qualification as a Police Officer. They are not warranted Police, sharing Pay scales and employment conditions with the rest of the support staff of a force not the same as those employed as Police Officers.

They are civilians with no more arrest powers than you or I and somewhat harshly are regarded as a yellow jacket deterrent without any power or oomph to actually do anything but listen and advise. Currently the job is a relatively new entity, given time it is totally possible people could spend an entire 40 odd year career as a PCSO.


----------



## JasonHolder (14 Jun 2014)

vickster said:


> My atten to this. I'd like just to say that as my mother's family was German Jewish and pretty much all of her forebears were murdered in the holocaust, I find that extremely insulting, so please do not think such things are amusing. Grow up


Unfortunately for that^ not knowing if youre joking or not. my grand father was killed in one of the concerntration camps so settle down please! Or rather he fell out a guard tower in the middle of the night. Same thing though


----------



## User33236 (14 Jun 2014)

I have not personally read beyond the first few pages of this thread but it appears it has become an example of Godwin's law and strayed far from the original point where common sense prevailed in the local PCSO's in my area.

Please allow the same common sense when people give their opinion, that they are entitled to do, and keep it friendly.


----------



## Cyclopathic (15 Jun 2014)

spen666 said:


> Did I say it was fit to purpose or otherwise?
> 
> I merely stated what the law is


Yeah, we know it's the law. What is your point?


----------



## Cyclopathic (15 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3131428, member: 30090"]Except pavement riding is dealt with as a summary offence so it does stand.[/QUOTE]
When the police around here were targeting cycling on the pavement it was very much a friendly warning. They were not handing out fines or taking any further action. For all the talk of it being against the law I can't think of a single person I know who has actually had a fine. Pavement riding may be dealt with as a summary offence but it seems rarely is.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (15 Jun 2014)

Near me, the cycle lane north is on the opposite side of a busy dual carriageway. There is a cycle path on my side of the road, but it starts about a quarter of a mile away.
I'd been fettling an old bike, and didn't fancy testing it on the main road, so rode on the footpath, with the aim of joining the cycle path.
Sods law, a Policeman saw me and pulled me over, just a few feet from the start of the cycle path.
He was very polite and understanding of what I was doing and had a good natter about the bike. As he was leaving, I thanked him, and said I didn't mind being stopped as it's reassuring to think he'd have done the same and caught me had I been a thief.
He looked quizzically, until it occurred to him what I meant. I guess I should be flattered I look so honest in the eyes of experts.


----------



## ianrauk (15 Jun 2014)

Cyclopathic said:


> When the police around here were targeting cycling on the pavement it was very much a friendly warning. They were not handing out fines or taking any further action. For all the talk of it being against the law* I can't think of a single person I know who has actually had a fine.* Pavement riding may be dealt with as a summary offence but it seems rarely is.



Hi, nice to meet you... I have had a fine by a PCSO. He wouldn't listen to reason when he stopped me as I was scooting, (not even riding), along a pavement. Outside Buckingham Palace, a real cop asked that we CYCLE' on the pavement as they were shutting the roads. So, scooting along the pavement (not even cycling), The PCSO, (a PCSO who I found out later liked to target cyclists for some reason), took it upon his special powers to fine me and threaten the other 8 riders with a £30 fine. The other PCSO that was with the jumped up twerp looked mighty embarrassed at the treatment I was getting from him that he tried to hide.


----------



## Cyclopathic (15 Jun 2014)

ianrauk said:


> Hi, nice to meet you... I have had a fine by a PCSO. He wouldn't listen to reason when he stopped me as I was scooting, (not even riding), along a pavement. Outside Buckingham Palace, a real cop asked that we CYCLE' on the pavement as they were shutting the roads. So, scooting along the pavement (not even cycling), The PCSO, (a PCSO who I found out later liked to target cyclists for some reason), took it upon his special powers to fine me and threaten the other 8 riders with a £30 fine. The other PCSO that was with the jumped up twerp looked mighty embarrassed at the treatment I was getting from him that he tried to hide.


Sounds like entrapment. Obviously people do get fined, just that in my experience if the police do anything at all then it's a friendly word rather than the full pat down and crevice search. London police can seem to be a bit extra as well. He probably thought it was his job to protect the queen from getting run over by a terrorist on a bike.


----------



## Spinney (15 Jun 2014)

*Mod message*: all posts referring to the Nazi's have been removed.


----------



## ianrauk (15 Jun 2014)

Cyclopathic said:


> Sounds like entrapment. Obviously people do get fined, just that in my experience if the police do anything at all then it's a friendly word rather than the full pat down and crevice search. London police can seem to be a bit extra as well. He probably thought it was his job to protect the queen from getting run over by a terrorist on a bike.




Nothing to do with entrapment.
The cop that said it was ok had no knowing there was a PCSO walking from the other direction.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (15 Jun 2014)

ianrauk said:


> Hi, nice to meet you... I have had a fine by a PCSO. He wouldn't listen to reason when he stopped me as I was scooting, (not even riding), along a pavement. Outside Buckingham Palace, a real cop asked that we CYCLE' on the pavement as they were shutting the roads. So, scooting along the pavement (not even cycling), The PCSO, (a PCSO who I found out later liked to target cyclists for some reason), took it upon his special powers to fine me and threaten the other 8 riders with a £30 fine. The other PCSO that was with the jumped up twerp looked mighty embarrassed at the treatment I was getting from him that he tried to hide.




I've memorised the address and personal details of people that have pissed me off for just these occasions.


----------

