gaz
Cycle Camera TV
- Location
- South Croydon
It's like pedal reflectors, you are meant to have them by law. many roadies don't and Police never pick up on it. It's such a minor issue.
who are pavements for?
- Thread starter gavroche
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
It's like pedal reflectors, you are meant to have them by law. many roadies don't and Police never pick up on it. It's such a minor issue.
You are a policeman who has stopped a cyclist on this wonderful bit of pavement alongside the busy A10 approaching the junction with the M11 that is clearly ideal for shared use - NOT. How far are you prepared to walk and in which direction to find out if it has a blue sign making it legal before you decide whether to make an arrest that may or may not be legal depending on the pavement status. While you are thinking about that, how long is it going to take you to have a look at the cyclist's lights to see if they have a kite mark on them?
Also you are a cyclist passing through and new to the area. What sort of checks should you do to make sure its legal before you ride on it? Do you just give up and ride on the A10 to be sure, spot other cyclists on it and hope they know the legality and are following it or walk up and down it to look for a sign before going back, getting on your bike and cycling on it?
I'm not aware of any maps or databases the police or cyclists could use that mark which pavements have been converted to shared use and which are still pavements to avoid them having to walk the pavement for hundreds of yards in some cases looking for a sign.
summerdays
Cycling in the sun
- Location
- Bristol
I find that problems often exist of lack of joined up thinking for example where there is a cycle path under a large roundabout and yet the footpath leading up to the underpass doesn't appear to be shared use. Or you use a cycle path which is going against the traffic and then it ends leaving you without a proper option.
At the lower roundabout I usually use the underpasses out of habit and which direction I'm going - and the pavement leading to the underpasses are shared use.
At the next motorway junction - I usually use the road, but if I didn't I would either have to get off and walk to the slope down to the underpass or cycle on the pavement which appears not to be shared use. There are no drop kerbs near the underpass to encourage only a short distance on the footpath either. I have used the underpass when I'm with another cyclist who prefers to use them.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=eas...d=2XwJCupigboPSkuOUa_itw&cbp=12,44.79,,1,5.54
It is certainly somewhere that you might expect an inexperienced cyclist to be able to use the argument about feeling safer on the pavement.
At the lower roundabout I usually use the underpasses out of habit and which direction I'm going - and the pavement leading to the underpasses are shared use.
At the next motorway junction - I usually use the road, but if I didn't I would either have to get off and walk to the slope down to the underpass or cycle on the pavement which appears not to be shared use. There are no drop kerbs near the underpass to encourage only a short distance on the footpath either. I have used the underpass when I'm with another cyclist who prefers to use them.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=eas...d=2XwJCupigboPSkuOUa_itw&cbp=12,44.79,,1,5.54
It is certainly somewhere that you might expect an inexperienced cyclist to be able to use the argument about feeling safer on the pavement.
That's not quite correct. They have to comply with the RVLR as currently amended as that is the current law, not the versions that were in force in 1989, '94 etc. but have now been superceded. That requires that are marked as complying with BS6102/3 or an equivalent European Standards unless they are only capable of flashing (I'm not aware of any lights that only flash)
The European bit is a bit unclear because is says "equivalent European Standard" So what is equivalent? The German one probably is because its has higher requirements than the BS one but what about the Greek standard? On that one legally you are in a grey area that will need a High Court case to resolve through Case Law.
The primary lighting point is correct.
Sorry, but as with most of this it is even less clear than that. A light CAN comply with a superseded standard if that was extant in the year it was bought. Equally there is no distinction about which European standard you apply.
I have been stopped twice about my lights, once by a Police Cyclist and once by a Senior Inspector.
In both cases I was quizzed for several minutes over my lighting arrangements - Then in both cases they have taken details and then bought similar for themselves!
The point is what is and isn't safe...... my BS6102/3 lights are totally inadequate, but legal
snailracer
Über Member
Apparently, the term "pavement" has no legal definition:
http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/
http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/
snailracer
Über Member
There is no legal requirement for councils to put up blue signs - those are merely recommended in "guidelines" written by an unofficial quango that got abolished recently. Now you probably could sue the council if they had put up signs and failed to maintain them.
.........or the classic Cateye AU100:
When it was first brought out it had the lovely BS kitemark........... so was legal?
Nope - because at the time LEDs did not comply, so it was the reflector part that carried the BS endorsement
There was another anomaly on LED lights that might have been the case for the Cateye. The BS was updated to include LED lights, hence the kitemark on LED lights. However the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations had not been updated at the time and called out an earlier version of the BS that was filament lamps only. So although it had the BS Kitemark for bicycle lights, it did not comply with the law. That was corrected in 2005 when the BS called out in the RVLR was brought up to date.
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
I would not be on the "pavement" full stop. I would be riding on the road in secondary position.
I think it probably does now. The High Court was recently quite content to use the term pavement instead of footway throughout a case about cycling on the footway. The Judge even referred in his Judgement to "cycling upon the pavement ..... contrary to Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835"
But do you still think its easier for the police to check the legality of riding on the pavement than the legality of the lights on the bike?
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
I would question if that is indeed a pavement as the definition of such is "a hard-surfaced path for pedestrians alongside and a little higher than a road". Secondly the "pavement is stationary, the bike is moving so yes unless the officer decides to stop the bike to check it is easier to tell if a cyclist is riding on a pavement illegally rather than tell if his lights conform to BS / EU standards.
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
snailracer
Über Member
Possibly - the judge may have been using "pavement" in it's colloquial sense. However, whether one can legally cycle on it still depends on the specific legal definition, and "pavement" is not that.
