- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)Cambridge cyclist receives criminal record for cycling on the pavement
A cyclist in Cambridge now has a criminal record after he faced a Magistrates’ Court trial for cycling on the pavement.
David Arnold, 35, was one of 40 cyclists who were caught on the pavement in Arbury Road in a police sting.
They were all offered the opportunity to pay a fine, but Arnold refused, saying that the footpath had been mixed use further along, and there had been no signage to indicate bicycles were no longer permitted.
He was convicted of riding a pedal cycle on a footpath after a one-hour trial at Cambridge Magistrates’ Court, and was fined £30 plus a £15 victim surcharge. The fixed penalty notice that he was offered on the day would have been a £30 fine.
However Arnold now carries a criminal record, potentially something he has to declare to employers and other officials.
Cambridgeshire police defended their actions though, saying that local communities had requested the crackdown, because they were angry that cyclists dodged traffic lights by cycling on the pavement.
A spokesman told Cambridge News: “We want cyclists to stop using the pavement as they pose a danger to pedestrians.
“We will continue to carry out enforcement days and anyone caught riding on pavements faces being fined.
“Ultimately we do not want them riding on the pavement, but if they do we will give them fixed penalty notices and it is their decision to contest that.”
Mr Arnold said after the trial: “I have cycled along that bit of pavement on what must be 500 occasions. I am not the only one who is confused by this.
“There must be better signage so people know when they can cycle on pavements and when they can’t so this does not happen to anyone else.”
Colin Rosenstiel, a cyclist and city councillor, said some of the signage in the city was “appalling” and he was surprised the cyclist was made to go through legal proceedings.
He added: “It’s a bit harsh if he was saying he was genuinely confused by the signage. The trouble is as a cyclist you are trying to stick to the law and some of the signage does not help at all.”
A Cambridgeshire County Council spokesman said: “Shared use footpaths are clearly marked and our advice to cyclists would be that unless the footpath is clearly signed as such they should not use it as a cycleway.”
Latest Comments
- Argos74 1 sec ago
Ah, Thérèse. Approaching irrelevancy like her leadout train has just fallen away. She's so gammon, she's more uncomfortable with pineapple than an...
- john_smith 6 min 23 sec ago
Are you absolutely sure that is genuine? What do you hope to achieve by posting it here?
- Rendel Harris 25 min 39 sec ago
In a TT with poor bike handlers/inexperienced bottle handers, would it not be possible to have the bottle placed on an appropriate-height structure...
- IanMSpencer 1 hour 36 min ago
I don't think you need have any concern about cycling safety improving with #toxicadi Ashley Neal advocating for us on protected cycle lanes....
- andystow 1 hour 40 min ago
Court case thrown out after attorney can't find parking near courthouse. https://abovethelaw.com/2024/04/case-tossed-when-lawyer-cant-find-any-pa...
- mark1a 1 hour 43 min ago
Surely it's the sensor that is 8K, not the lens?
- Nagai74 2 hours 6 min ago
No proof of this, but wouldn't you imagine that the majority of drivers have ridden pushbikes at some point in their lives, even if only as kids?
- chrisonabike 2 hours 12 min ago
Indeed... though to be fair the Dutch have some contraflow cycling in narrow streets. Although I think increasingly they would try to avoid this ...
- NPlus1Bikelights 2 hours 29 min ago
The inventor of the wall mounted triangles needs to be shamed. They only take a standard bike and damage the rims. Also the wheel is secure but the...
- Secret_squirrel 2 hours 31 min ago
The Triban 520 still seems to be available in 11x 105! guise for 899 and Microshift 749.
Add new comment
45 comments
It's delicious - if you pan the view to the right and zoom in you will see a man, apparently in late middle age, riding a bike on the pavement!
Putting aside the rights and wrongs of Cambridgeshire plod persecuting cyclists (don't you have any burglaries or robberies to solve? you might well ask) and the atrocious conditions which apparently have earned Cambridge the title of "UK's top cycling town" (er, what?)it does appear to me that the defendant here made a grave error of judgement in contesting the FPN.
If you look at google streetview - perhaps not a definitive guide but all we have - you can see that there is a shared use path on Milton Rd both sides of the Arbury Road junction, in each case set on the right hand side of the road as it approaches Arbury Rd. There is a clear "End" plate on both paths at that junction. Arbury Rd itself, and Union Lane opposite, appear to have no cycle paths at all.
If this chap decided to challenge the case he would have been a lot safer to engage a good solicitor - perhaps one of those who seem successful at getting footballers off speeding charges on the basis of technicalities about signage - rather than attempt to defend himself. That of course would have cost a lot of money. Coughing up the £30 FPN would have been much wiser, even if it does stick in the craw.
I wonder whether his case is strong enough, in relation to defective signage, to get assistance from the CTC defence fund? Remember Daniel Cadden, convicted of inconsiderate cycling for riding on a road insead of a glass-strewn cycle path, whose conviction was overturned on appeal?
I'm local...
You're correct that the bottom end of Arbury Road and Union Lane there is no cycle lane; it isn't clear at all whether on the run up to that junction on Milton Road there is a cycle lane (if heading up Milton Road as if to turn Left on to Arbury Road). And as such it may seem not unreasonable that you can continue up Arbury Road for a distance.
If we interpret the infrastructure as ending at the roundabout before Arbury Road then we must ask why this shared use facility vanishes as soon as its actually required.
The problem here is simple enough - you can't morally prosecute someone where the signs are so ambiguous, and he interprets their meaning in what is the safest way. I hope everyone would agree that to do so is a nonsense.
Your interpretation is flat out wrong - he's gone to court because he's not passed a sign saying the cycle lane ends. Cambridge Evening News article tells us that he was at the junction of Milton Road and Arbury Road - he hasn't passed a sign telling him the shared use facility has ended (not one that makes sense to anyone anyway - most cyclists on the shared use path remain on the pavement to that junction). And he's been done for it. Thats flat out a misuse of police time and resources.
If there isn't a sign telling you the shared use facility has ended, why ought you assume that it has?
The time periods have just been changed under Section 139 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offecnders Act. Although convictions are available to the police that isn't most people's concern. Most people are concerned about how they affect their employment.
The reason that there was a change in the time periods is that those with convictions who needed to be steered away from a criminal lifestyle were finding it impossible to do so because they always had to declare their convictions. Whether one agrees with that or not, that was the reason.
As you say some jobs such as those involving the govern,ent or child are require you to declare them in any event but even then you wouldn't have to declare cycling on a pavement!
The government and companies involved in children / pensioners will make a full convictions search prior to interview so if you tell fibs you will be caught out, regardless of offence its still a conviction.
Sounds like some legal advice would have been useful. As comes free with CTC or LCC membership. Probably to members of BC too.
The 3rd party insurance is handy too.
Considering the pressure that is growing for a Go Dutch type system you think simple things like making the transport infrastructure easy to understand would take some sort of priority but alas no...
On a secondary note, Due to unclear signage, pedestrians tend to wander all over "shared space" cycle lanes and when cyclists wizz past get pissed off. My route for instance has a shared space cycle lane on the A23 by a bus shelter and roundabout that are so laughable and have no way of making it clear to joe public there might be bikes coming. Spot the bike lane http://goo.gl/maps/xRlnZ
Thirdly- How may pedestrians get done for J - walking a year i wonder?
Re. Jay-walking; there is no such offence in UK law.
[[[[[[ But why should he "pay the fixed penalty"? Wouldn't that be an admission of guilt? The guilty party here is the local council, for neglecting to provide proper signs at the end of the shared-use section. In this cyclist's position, I would be appealing the court's decision immediately. Was he represented in court by an idiot?
P.R.
Seems to me he has good grounds for an appeal. Peterborough is plagued with shared use cycle paths and they are really badly signposted. In some cases you're already on the wrong path before you realise and there is no road to ride on alongside. Good to see the City Councillor backing him too.
I was fined £30 for riding at 2mph on an empty pavement for a distance of ten yards. When I asked the officer if he was going to do anything about the 4x4 parked on the cycle lane directly behind him, he just said it wasn't his job.
[/quote]
But why should he "pay the fixed penalty"? Wouldn't that be an admission of guilt?[/quote]
Totally agree; it's just an attempt to bully you into admitting guilt that you to not agree with.
[/quote]
The guilty party here is the local council, for neglecting to provide proper signs at the end of the shared-use section.
[/quote]
In my opinion the police share the blame, for failing to recognise the problem, and for abusing their powers.
Cambridge signage is woefully inadequate. Leaving a 20 zone in the town centre there is a sign that marks the end of that zone. There is nothing to warn you that you have subsequently entered a 20 limit. With normal street lighting and no zone 'furniture' it is easy to imagine that you are in a 30 limit and it is only when they have been pointed out that the (smaller than usual and poorly sited) repeaters are evident. Repeaters are not enough, and if you have to search for them then you're not looking for pedestrians who have meandered onto the road, are you? Driving around Portsmouth there is absolutely no doubt about the speed limit/zone, there are signs painted on the roads and huge signs at the entrance to each zone/limit.
My guess is Cambridge want to A. Save money at road users expense. B. Don't want to litter their streets with ugly signage. At road users expense. C. Both of the above.
I hope they'll be censured/made to do something about it, but I bet they won't be required to compensate all those who've unwittingly fallen foul of their rubbish signage.
Shame on Cambridge Council.
Great picture of a street furniture zone with a bike lane attached
Pages