Pavements?

[Jim_Noir]

I see it all the time here, I live in a busy street. Also RLJers, I think i'm the only person that sticks to the rules of the road here!

edit: Went to Great Cumbrae today with the other half to get her confidance up on roads (Great Cumbrae is a cycle freindly island of the west cost). So took the old MTB across and hired a bike for her. She loved it so much we went around 3 times. There was also a cycle race on, man some of their bikes are razor thin. I was hitting about 26.7 on a wee downhill section and one went roaring past me... I want one now

 

[Wigsie]

My son is 8 and where he is a sensible and confident rider for his age he still makes one or two silly mistakes which leaves him crashing (or almost crashing), so I do allow him to ride on the pavement but I will always ride adjacent in the road.

When I get into town on my commute I usually see 4-5 'cyclists' on the full suss £80 halfords specials and they are all on the pavements buzzing along at 12-18mph past primary schools, bus stops etc. It makes my blood boil! !

 

[Jim_Noir]

I don't mind kids on the pavement, it's adults that should know better. There is a group of lads I see on the road, must be 12 years old, on the road on their BMXs, stopping at lights etc... while grown men on hybrids and lyrcra zoom along the pavments RLJing!

 

[garrilla]

+1 With the exception of children riding on the pavement, anybody else should not do it.

I'm with you. Very young children - 4 to 12, say - and accompanying older cyclists are OK, but everyone else should be on the roads.

 

[summerdays]

Out of interest do you think there is a minimum speed that a cyclist should cycle at on the road. I am thinking about a cyclist at walking speed - is it ok for them to be on quiet roads but not busy roads etc? (Not talking about hills when I could easily be doing less than 5mph).

 

[Downward]

There is only one place I cycle on the pavements and thats Mucklow Hill from about Wickes up until it flattens out.
It's a 10% Gradient, Dual Carriageway 40mph speed limit with a big concrete barrier dividing off the carriageways.
From driving I know that 40mph is the minimum speed people go up there so being overtaken by cars, lorries and buses doing 40mph more is unsafe espcially being quite a narrow dual carriageway.

 

[Wigsie]

I think summerdays and Downward make good points, To dismiss pavement cycling in one fowl swoop is a little harsh and a bit narrow minded in my opinion. There will no doubt stretches of roads (such as the one Downward mentions) where it is significantly safer to be on the pavement, providing it is not in a built up area that attracts many PEDs.

Around me there are pavements in the built up areas and most are heavily used by peds so there is no need to use the pavements (other than my son in previous post), but that doesnt mean that somewhere in the uk there are stretches of roads that for the pure saftey of the cyclist itis acceptable to nip up onto the pavement and ride for 1/2 a mile.

There are some stretches of my commute along the A20 that cars, vans and HGV's tear along at 50-70mph and it gets narrow with a toughish hill climb than I can slow to 7/8mph, if there was a pavement I would probably use it then.

 

[jimboalee]

There is only one place I cycle on the pavements and thats Mucklow Hill from about Wickes up until it flattens out.
It's a 10% Gradient, Dual Carriageway 40mph speed limit with a big concrete barrier dividing off the carriageways.
From driving I know that 40mph is the minimum speed people go up there so being overtaken by cars, lorries and buses doing 40mph more is unsafe espcially being quite a narrow dual carriageway.

Scaredy cat.


The Police will only stop and warn you for riding on the footpath if 1/ You are endangering pedestrians, 2/ causing a nuisance, or 3/ they suspect you are 'under the influence'.

When you are riding on the footpath, always give way to pedestrians and keep your speed low.
If a pedestrian objects, appologise and get off and walk.

I have a short vidiclip of two 'Bobbies on bicycles' riding along the pedestrianised section of Solihull High Street on a crowded Saturday afternoon. So if I am pulled in front of the Beak, I can show I am not committing any worse an offence than the Police themselves.

Interestingly, I have never been objected to, even when I 'scoot' through Solihull's Mell Square precinct.

 

[Dan B]

The Police will only stop and warn you for riding on the footpath if 1/ You are endangering pedestrians, 2/ causing a nuisance, or 3/ they suspect you are 'under the influence'.

or 4/ they're having a "crackdown" because local pressure groups or friends of the chief constable have got a bee in their bonnet

 

[tyred]

I don't mind children doing it but I object to adults. I got knocked down once by a cyclist on a pavement. On an entrance into a housing estate in the dark, I got hit by a cyclist with no lights, no hi viz, nothing. I just walked around the corner and bang. I was bruised a bit but nothing to worry about. I wouldn't have minded if it had been a kid but this was a man in his forties so should have known better. He wouldn't even apologise.

I don't cycle much in urban areas but when I do and want to go on the pavement for whatever reason, I get off the bike and push it. Cycling on the pavement is dangerous as peds don't expect you and people wander out of shop doorways reading newspapers or unwrapping their mars bar and don't expect to find a cyclist.

 

[Blonde]

I see pavement cyclsts every day. For many, I think it's down to perceived risk. Some people don't want to cycle on a busy road, especially beginners. I can't blame them for feeling like that. It does itrritate me when numpty boys (you know, the ones wearing black track suits tucked into socks and lots of gold jewelry) go about, one hand, or no hands on the bars, talking into mobile phones or eating chips at the same time, leaping on and off kerbs, hurtling into traffic head-on, the onto the pavement and expecting pedestrians to leap out of their way or be run over. I don't object to very slow and ancient people doing their shopping, or to children under 10 on the pavement, as long as they don't giddy about and are going slowly and carefully. I wouldn't do it myself as I just feel I'd hit someone or come a cropper myself trying to bunny hop kerbs or negotiate around pedestrains and street furniture on fixed. I'd much rather use the road. For me, and for others, at the speeds I ride, it's safer that I am on the road, but I do understand why some people think it isn't for them. The fact that numpty boys see bikes as toys and appear to think they are invincible super-beings or simply not care that they aren't, suggests that they (and we) woudn't be any better off with them cycling exclusively on the road though! Gah! The thought of it! The theory of evolution somehow bypassed these cases; numpty boys seem to make it to adulthood (if you can call it that) and father more numpties despite their inabilty to cycle in a straight line, with the flow of traffic or indeed, on either the pavement or the road for more than a minute at a time....

 

[Jim_Noir]

NOB = Numpty on bike

 

[marinyork]

Out of interest do you think there is a minimum speed that a cyclist should cycle at on the road. I am thinking about a cyclist at walking speed - is it ok for them to be on quiet roads but not busy roads etc? (Not talking about hills when I could easily be doing less than 5mph).

It's quite dangerous territory in propaganda terms against cyclists. I think there is a case that on A roads with 60 and 70 limits where people drive even substantially above this there is a physical risk to you from cycling too slowly or even cycling on it at all at certain times. On all other roads minimum speed doesn't really matter. People often quote 40 roads as the changing point but it really depends on the behaviour of other motorists and the road layout. Many 40 roads can be substantially wider and not have any parking on them whatsoever so are safer. People get beeped at whatever. I get regularly beeped at on dual carriageways.

The problem is the perception of what quiet and busy roads are. What people call quiet roads can be a similar level of traffic to main roads at many times. Furthermore the side roads could be more dangerous to you, for example having to weave around poorly parked cars or double parked roads that are narrow.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

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)
According to the Department for Transport (DfT), the maximum fine for cycling on the pavement from the courts is £500. However it is more usually enforced by way of the Fixed Penalty Notice procedure (FPN) which carries a £30 fine if pleading guilty. However, there is a view that the FPN can only be issued to those over 16.
"The DfT view, from discussions with Home Office, is that the law applies to all but the police can show discretion to younger children cycling on the pavement for whom cycling on the road would not be a safe option."
The age of criminal responsibility is 10 so, technically, only children below this age can cycle on pavements without fear of redress.
A Cycle Track means a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way, that is to say, a right of way on pedal cycles (other than pedal cycles which are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1972) with or without a right of way on foot [Section 329(1) Highways Act 1980]. The words in brackets were inserted by section 1 of the Cycle Tracks Act 1984. Cycle tracks may be created through conversion of a footway or footpath or newly constructed.
A Footpath means a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, not being a footway [Section 329(1) Highways Act 1980].
A Footway means a way comprised in a highway, which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public has a right of way on foot only [Section 329(1) Highways Act 1980].
Because Cycle Tracks are often signed poorly, it can be difficult to know where one starts and then stops. For instance, how far does the remit of a traffic sign extend? Howard Peel says: "I would suggest that the extent ultimately depends on the wording of the Traffic Regulation Order which brought the cycle path into existence.
"It could happen that someone might start to ride on shared-use footway/cycle path after seeing an approved 'Cycle path' sign, assuming that they could continue to ride on the path until they saw a sign declaring it was no longer a cycle path, but as this sign was missing inadvertently continue onto a section of footway not included in the original TRO. In such a case they could very probably avoid prosecution for cycling on the footway if they highlighted the absence of the required sign.
"Then again, as a cycle path is supposed to be equipped with repeater signs as well the police might argue that once someone was riding on section of footway with no cycle path repeater signs, they should assume it was no longer a cycle path and use the road instead!"

While adults are not allowed to cycle on 'footways' (see definition above), children up to the age of 16 cannot be prosecuted for doing so, see text above for clarification.
When using segregated cycle-paths ie signed footways shared with pedestrians, cyclists ought to keep to the side intended for cyclists.
Don't fall for the piffle that you have to carry a bicycle when on a footway or pedestrian crossing. Anyone pushing a bicycle is a "foot-passenger" (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441) and is not "riding" it (Selby). In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ said: "In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a 'foot passenger'. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand."
Cyclists are not allowed to carry passengers unless their cycles have been built or adapted to carry passengers. Cyclists must not hold on to a moving vehicle or trailer; ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner; or ride when under the influence of drink or drugs, see below.
The police can prosecute cyclists who ride dangerously, carelessly, ignore traffic signs or signals, cycle on the pavement or commit any other road traffic offence. These offences carry maximum fines between £500 and £2,500. Also, £30 fixed penalty notices can be issued for cycling on the pavement, by police and community wardens.
However, if the footway is wide, and you feel it would be safer - at, say a pinchpoint - to ride on a short stretch of pavement, you ought to do what is safe at that particular moment and place. Naturally, you would be in the wrong and an official could challenge you.

 

[upandover]

My wife occasionally cycles the 3 miles into Birmingham University, all on the pavement. She's a slower cyclist (6-7mph average), and finds the large traffic coming anywhere near close to her very concerning.

Given how prone she can be to wobbling, I'm much happier with her on the pavement (though she's a great cyclist), than on the road. She's careful around people, and considerate. I think it helps her that near the uni, loads of students also cycle on the pavement.

I only ever do for a few moments if the road feels to dangerous, but then I'm somewhat faster and less patient with curbs etc. I think it largely depends on the person.

Steve