who are pavements for?

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463498"]
Bit of a selfish view though, isn't it? What of the parent taking two children into town on their bike, who can't keep up with traffic and doesn't want to mix with the racing cars?
[/quote]

In that respect yes. I don't know that area. I would ask if an alternate route to the same destination exist as the area of road beyond the white line affords no protection to a cyclist and seems to be akin to gutter riding. This is my issue with all such types of cycle paths, pavements whatever they are.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

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.

Agreed 100%

 

[Angelfishsolo]

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.

Also Blue signs are advisory not mandatory signs (unless on a Motorway of course)

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463503"]
I'm talking generally. In big cities there often isn't an appropriate alternative route. It's easy for the confident, fast cyclist to speak as you do, especially as you only have yourself to expose to the risk.
[/quote]

Then I guess the answer lies in how much you want to protect your children v how much risk you want them exposed to. In the photo shown I would see no issue with using the area beyond the white line in terms of legality but I would not trust it to offer my children of myself any protection. I would be happier to ride as a family group with the children in secondary and myself in primary to alert other road users to the potential hazards ahead.

 

[Red Light]

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.

Its a "pavement". Its meets the criteria of the 1835 Act for "cycling on the pavement" of being a "footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers". Nothing there about its relative height or surface.

It is fun though watching you wriggle to maintain the pretence that illegal lights are somehow acceptable in your world of absolute adherence to the law.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Its a "pavement". Its meets the criteria of the 1835 Act for "cycling on the pavement" of being a "footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers". Nothing there about its relative height or surface.

It is fun though watching you wriggle to maintain the pretence that illegal lights are somehow acceptable in your world of absolute adherence to the law.

If it is a pavement that riding on it is illegal but as the law states acceptable in certain circumstances. I am not wriggling to maintain a pretence about anything. If lights are illegal then they should not be used from dusk to dawn. My question is short of stopping a cyclist how would a Police Officer or anyone else other than the cyclist know (especially if the light provided adequate lumen's and complied with the flashes per minute regulations) if the lights were BS / EU approved.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463506"]
Please try not to twist what I'm saying to fit your response. I think you know what I'm saying.
[/quote]

I am answering the question based on the training I have received from the CTC in order to become an acredited National Standards / Bikability Instructor.

 

[ufkacbln]

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?

Nope neither is an easy task.

To check the legality of riding on the "pavement" the Officer would need access to the specific Traffic Regulation Order that applied to that stretch.

There have been many cases where the TRO and what is on the road differ. For instance the Council takes out a TRO to build a shared Use facility between A and B, but can only afford to build half.... the rest of the route is still legally ridable despite having no markings to that effect.

Equally A TRO may take effect before the Council builds or marks the path. For instance the stretch between Shearwater Avenue in Fareham and Beaulieu Avenue was "legal" to use as a cycle facility some 4 months before the first signpost went up!

Similarly I know of at least one section in Portsmouth where the cycle track was in place before the TRO was in place, so technically although marked, it was illegal to cycle upon it.

Another case is the "South Bank" in London, where there are lots on NO Cycling signs, the Police can only advise cyclists to dismount, but cannot issue an FPN, due to the lack of the TRO to make the act illegal and hence the "No Cycling" is unenforceable.


Which then brings us to the favourite:

Advisory only, no legal standing whatsoever and totally unenforceable

 

[Red Light]

In that respect yes. I don't know that area. I would ask if an alternate route to the same destination exist as the area of road beyond the white line affords no protection to a cyclist and seems to be akin to gutter riding. This is my issue with all such types of cycle paths, pavements whatever they are.

Nope, no alternative route that is not miles away. Link

The white line is not a cycle lane but an edge of carriageway line leaving an area beyond of variable and mostly narrow width. It also runs out just as the road becomes a dual carriageway approach to the M11 roundabout.

So what is your solution for the parent with two children? Perhaps they should leave their children at the roadside while they go off to hunt for signs indicating its legal to cycle. If you come out of Church Road to join the cycle track for Cambridge, your first blue sign or any sign indicating its legal to cycle is over 300yds away. At that point the white line on the road is about a foot from the edge.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Nope, no alternative route that is not miles away. Link

The white line is not a cycle lane but an edge of carriageway line leaving an area beyond of variable and mostly narrow width. It also runs out just as the road becomes a dual carriageway approach to the M11 roundabout.

So what is your solution for the parent with two children? Perhaps they should leave their children at the roadside while they go off to hunt for signs indicating its legal to cycle. If you come out of Church Road to join the cycle track for Cambridge, your first blue sign or any sign indicating its legal to cycle is over 300yds away. At that point the white line on the road is about a foot from the edge.

As already stated I would be happier to ride as a family group with the children in secondary and myself behind them in primary to alert other road users to the potential hazards ahead.

Also keep in mind that whilst cyclists have freedom of the highway it is a parents responsibility to ensure the safety of their children. If as a parent you deem it is not safe to ride on a stretch of road don't. As I have already said riding beyond that white line affords no protection to anyone.

 

[Dan B]

My question is short of stopping a cyclist how would a Police Officer or anyone else other than the cyclist know (especially if the light provided adequate lumen's and complied with the flashes per minute regulations) if the lights were BS / EU approved.

There are many opportunities to inspect a cyclist's lights when he is not moving: e.g. at bike racks, at junctions, or when you have stopped him for some other reason. Just because it can't be enforced against a moving vehicle doesn't mean they're not exercising discretion in enforcing it at other times

 

[Red Light]

I would be happier to ride as a family group with the children in secondary and myself in primary to alert other road users to the potential hazards ahead.

Would love to see you ride down the A10 there in primary position. And that's on the A10 just outside Cambridge so in an area where most drivers are used to cyclists being on the roads.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Would love to see you ride down the A10 there in primary position. And that's on the A10 just outside Cambridge so in an area where most drivers are used to cyclists being on the roads.

So how would you ride on that road with your family? As I have previously stated if a parent deems a road too dangerous for a child to ride on then that road should not be ridden.

 

[Red Light]

As I have already said riding beyond that white line affords no protection to anyone.

I wonder if you are looking at the right place. Beyond the white line and beyond the roadside grass is a shared use cycle track of probably 2ft width. Perfectly legal to cycle on but you would only know that by hunting down the signs or, as Cunobelin says, visiting the Council to see if there is a TRO is place.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

There are many opportunities to inspect a cyclist's lights when he is not moving: e.g. at bike racks, at junctions, or when you have stopped him for some other reason. Just because it can't be enforced against a moving vehicle doesn't mean they're not exercising discretion in enforcing it at other times

I'm sure that they take every opportunity to do just that. Discretion is turning a blind eye to an offence not not bothering to check for an an offence in the first place.