who are pavements for?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
[QUOTE 1463409"]
Let's get some perspective - I see many pavement cyclists every day. I've never heard of a single one being fined in Birmingham, adult or child.
[/quote]

We live in different parts of the country.

Bottom line I don't agree with pavement cycling, others do.

The original question asks "Who are pavements for?" The answer is Pedestrians (unless otherwise stated) end of.
 

MontyVeda

a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
This is like the argument illegal off-road motorbikers use. The legal trails are too far away, why should I go to a legal place when I have a forest on my doorstep. Doesn't wash I'm sorry.

Yet another irrelevant and inaccurate parallel... you're good at this!
 

MontyVeda

a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
We live in different parts of the country.

Bottom line I don't agree with pavement cycling, others do.

The original question asks "Who are pavements for?" The answer is Pedestrians (unless otherwise stated) end of.

OK... best let the mods know they should delete every post in this thread that doesn't say 'pedestrians'.

correct me if I'm wrong but forum's are about discussion, not quizzes.
 

Cyclopathic

Veteran
Location
Leicester.
I have no problem with cyclists on the pavement as long as they are careful and don't hare along like an idiot. I am a pedestrian a lot of the time and in my own experience i estimate that about 1 in 5 cyclists on the pavement are a nuicance. Obviously this is highly subjective and just my interpretation of the matter.

I'd go as far to say that a careful, controlled cyclist is less of a problem on the pavement than a person pushing their bike. From what I see on the roads and pavements in my area I would have to conclude that the whole issue of the nuicance caused by pavement cyclists has been grossly exaggerated and is usually spoken of in hugely emotive terms that reflect one group or anothers prejudices with very little thought to how much of a problem it really is, or isn't as the case may be.

I do not hold with the idea of simply obeying the law for the sake of it. Some laws are not very good laws and some laws are out of date and need revising. The fact that an awful lot of pavements seem to have been redesignated as multiple use really emphasises this point and shows that looking at it in black and white is not the most realistic approach. I will continue to use the odd bit of pavement where I think it is suitable whilst at the same time confronting stupid and dangerous riding where and when I think it is safe to do so. (I don't want to spend an afternoon in A and E having bike parts removed from my anatomy)
 

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
OK... best let the mods know they should delete every post in this thread that doesn't say 'pedestrians'.

correct me if I'm wrong but forum's are about discussion, not quizzes.

Yes they are about discussions. Sometimes a question has a very simple answer. The thread moved away from the question and onto pavement cycling. Some agree some don't. In my last post I answered the posted question which has a very simple answer.
 

MontyVeda

a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
And saying no harm no foul excuses them does it?

Yes. And i think the concept of no harm no foul is backed up here...

Angelfishsolo, on 06 July 2011 - 08:19:35, said:

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. See below.

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. The then 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

A Velocipedian
[QUOTE 1463414"]
No, that's not the end of. Yours maybe, but not the government's. And the latter shows a more appropriate, encouraging and supportive view of cycling.

Of course, if you're teaching people how to cycle on the road then you'll not be teaching them to cycle on the pavement. Unfortunately you're allowing this weighting to blinker you to some important issues, to the detriment of cycling.
[/quote]

If pavements become shared use paths they are no longer pavements by definition. I am not so much blinkered as obliged to respond in a certain way. I feel it may have been better to say nothing.
 

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
Yes. And i think the concept of no harm no foul is backed up here...

Angelfishsolo, on 06 July 2011 - 08:19:35, said:

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. See below.

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. The then 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)

I would ask one question about the above. Why as the law not changed to allow all cyclist to use the pavements with the provision to fine dangerous cyclists?
 

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
[QUOTE 1463420"]
That definition is irrelevant.

You say it may be a geographic thing for you. I think you might be right. Come up to Brum some time and I'll show you round.
[/quote]

Should I bring a flack jacket? ;) :whistle:
 

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
[QUOTE 1463422"]
That, I think, is an important consideration. I suspect that it's because it's far cheaper, easier and quicker to blur the boundaries than go through the legal processes. And laws are strict. With issues like this there has to be and element of discretion, and with the current arrangements we have this.
[/quote]

That is a valid point :smile:
 
Could you tell me why you find it strange that someone wants to obay the law of the land?

I find it strange that someone should so unquestionably want to follow every law to the letter.

I do generally follow the law but I often eat my boiled eggs from the illegal end and eat mince pies on Christmas Day. I don't have pedal reflectors on my SPDs, I used illegal LED lights before they became legal and still use illegal flashing ones because there seem to be none that don't have a steady mode and I don't find the legal power limit gives enough light on my main light to be safe . I do go into ASLs via the safest route, not the feeder lane and if its full of vehicles sit ahead of it. I don't wear a helmet when I cycle in Spain

But then as George Bernard Shaw said, The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. YMMV
 

MontyVeda

a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
I would ask one question about the above. Why as the law not changed to allow all cyclist to use the pavements with the provision to fine dangerous cyclists?

At a guess, to encourage them to use the roads rather than the pavements. However the law does have provision to allow cyclists to use the pavements should they deem it necessary due to personal safety reasons. (that's how i interpret the bold bits in post #183)

All the cyclists here condoning pavement cycling are not saying 'cycle on the pavements all the time', they're saying in certain areas it's safer to use the pavement, and for that reason they do so. It's this fact you seem unable to either grasp or accept.

I totally respect the fact that you don't condone pavement cycling when teaching road sense to adult cyclists... however is some circumstances the pavement is the best option all round.

For example, Morecambe road heading towards Lancaster. One lane of traffic, usually slow moving. One bus lane in which cycling is permitted and one very wide pavement. I prefer to cycle in the bus lane because it's a better surface than the pavement, but when a bus is 'coming up my rear' :eek: it has no room to pull out and over take due to the constant slow moving traffic, so either i force the bus to hang behind me or I hop onto the pavement allowing the bus to pass but more importantly, preserving my safety from a potential squeeze through if the bus driver is an impatient pillock.

(edited for clarity)
 

Cyclopathic

Veteran
Location
Leicester.
If pavements become shared use paths they are no longer pavements by definition. I am not so much blinkered as obliged to respond in a certain way. I feel it may have been better to say nothing.


Personally I can understand why you and others express the view that it is the law that is the definitve factor in this debate, especially as you have to consider your obligation to the ctc. However my view is that I'd like to see some more debate about it but in a calm and less emotive way than tends to be the case.

I think that it has become very clear that there will be very little real consessions made to cyclists by the way of properly designed roads with properly considered cycle paths or other proper and worthwhile aids to cycling as a viable means of transport for all and not just those brave enough and skilled enough to handle modern city traffic. It is because of this that I think other solutions have to be sought albeit not entirely ideal ones. I think that perhaps if cyclist do use pavements considerately that it may just work to show that properly designating more areas as multiple use might be workable. Alongside this I do think that wreckless and dangerous cycling should be tackled in a way that will discourage and hopefully all but stop people doing it.
 
Top Bottom