Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill has reiterated that the official line from the Department for Transport (DfT) is that cyclists may ride on the footway – more commonly referred to as pavements – provided they do so considerately, and that police officers need to exercise discretion.
The confirmation came in an email sent to a cycle campaigner in London just two days after the Metropolitan Police confirmed nearly 1,000 cyclists had been fined for pavement cycling as part of its Operation Safeway.
In a letter emailed to Donnachadh McCarthy of the pressure group Stop Killing Cyclists, which has recently held protests outside the headquarters of Transport for London (TfL) on Southwark Bridge Road and at Vauxhall Cross, the minister said that original guidance issued by the Home Office 15 years ago when Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) were introduced, and repeated in 2004, was still valid.
Mr Goodwill told Mr McCarthy, who had written to his ministerial colleague at the DfT, Baroness Kramer, in December: “Thank you for bringing the issue of cycling on the pavement around dangerous junctions such as Vauxhall Cross to my attention. I agree that the police should be using discretion in enforcing this law and would support Paul Boateng’s original guidance. You may wish to write to Sir Hugh Orde, President of the Association of Chief police Officers, to bring this matter to his attention too."
That guidance from Mr Boateng, issued in 1999 said: “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.”
Stop Killing Cyclists has hailed the minister's clarification as its first major success and Mr McCarthy said: “Fining vulnerable cyclists for cycling responsibly on the pavement at extremely dangerous junctions like Vauxhall Cross, is a bedroom tax on two-wheels as there is no safe alternative for them to cycle on.”
In a press release, the group added that it "is calling for an urgent meeting with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to discuss policing of cyclists in the capital.
Together with issues such as red light jumping, cyclists riding on the pavement is an issue that regularly sees bike riders come under criticism, and is one that is regularly highlighted at meetings between the police and local residents across the country.
While it is rare for pedestrians to be killed or seriously injured following a collision with a cyclist, occasionally cases do hit the headlines where the latter has been riding recklessly.
Last month a cyclist received a suspended prison sentence for wanton and furious driving after he collided with a teenage girl on a shared footpath on Southend-on-Sea’s promenade, leaving her with life-threatening head injuries.





















59 thoughts on “Transport minister: Responsible cyclists CAN ride on the pavement”
Ooh goody.
Now that
Ooh goody.
Now that government have at last cleared up the bloody and frankly horrific carnage caused by cyclists on the pavement perhaps they can turn to the trivial matter of ensuring motorists use the roads on the condition they do it responsibly.
Define responsibly anyway? If I adopt vehicle standards I can knock off a couple of people no problem and blame them for being in my way.
Besides, the sun was in my eyes and my baby kicked me…pretty sure the magistrate won’t bother himself with details like the fact I’m male, it’s an excuse he can rubber stamp.
Shall I pay the fine in advance…think I’ve got £40 in a birthday card somewhere…
So now Stop Killing Cyclists
So now Stop Killing Cyclists write to the Met and ask them to withdraw all the FPN’s?
The cynic in me thinks this
The cynic in me thinks this may give the government and local authorities an excuse not to take cyclist provision seriously when designing road layouts.
The cynic in me thinks this
The cynic in me thinks this may give the government and local authorities an excuse not to take cyclist provision seriously when designing road layouts.
As a responsible cyclist
As a responsible cyclist won’t it be lovely to share the pavements with all those responsible pedestrians. 🙂
I am against this notion
I am against this notion completely, just yesterday I was hit by an idiot cyclist outside Kings Cross, yes you could say he wasn’t riding responsibly but what does that mean ? maybe it was me who wasn’t walking responsibly, perhaps it was my fault because I was listening to some music, but then again I could argue that bikes are silent so what difference does it make, he also didn’t have a bell on his bike anyway to tell me he was coming past… perhaps… perhaps… perhaps.
mikeprytherch wrote:I am
If you were listening to music, how can you tell if the bike was silent?
Cycling along a busy pavement is silly. But so is fining cyclists for riding along empty pavements, especially at dangerous junctions.
get real.
I personally think pavement
I personally think pavement cycling is a real problem, but I still sometimes do it…
http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/real-cyclists-and-real-problems/
It’s interesting to note that shared paths have pretty much all the problems of pavement cycling, too, of course. We’re building infrastructure that fits a pattern that we’re trying to legislate against because we know it doesn’t work. (No surprises there, of course.)
I can just see the
I can just see the conversation with the police officer now…
PO: Excuse me sir, you shouldn’t be writing on the pavement, I’ll have to issue you with a FPN.
Me: I’m dreadfully sorry officer, I am just avoiding that junction and I’m riding very responsibly.
PO: Nonetheless riding on the pavement is illegal so I’ll have to serve you with a FPN.
Me: Actually officer, the DfT minister Mr Boateng issued advice in 1999, reiterated in 2004, and again by Minister Mr Goodwill this year that if done safely and with good reason then cycling on the pavement shouldn’t be punished with a FPN.
PO: That’s nice. Now if you’ll just give me your details…
Cantab wrote:I can just see
You don’t have to accept the FPN. You can insist on having your day in court where the ministerial guidance can be presented as evidence.
Absolutely agree. If you
Absolutely agree. If you think you were riding responsibly and had good reason to avoid riding in the road then don’t accept the FPN. Accepting an FPN is pleading guilty to the offence and agreeing not to contest it or waste time in return for a minimal penalty.
If you want to take the day off to go to court feel free. The policeman will submit his report. You give your evidence. If the Magistrate agrees with you then no fine. If he/she agrees with the copper who was there at the time that you had no reasonable cause or were not being responsible you’ll get a bigger fine and have to pay some costs.
So the question you have to ask yourself is “Do you feel lucky…. Well do you?”
I’d rather pay the FPN and be done with it than take a day’s holiday to watch a magistrate decide whether to make career waves by backing a point making pavement riding cyclist rather than a copper and have to pay extra for the experience.
£40 is what the HMRC reckon is the cost of 88 miles of motoring (45p per mile). Smile at the officer. Acknowledge he is just doing his job. Tell him how much you admire the police. Cycle on.
oozaveared wrote:Absolutely
I disagree. To me that’s a lot of money. And it would also be a source of huge annoyance (I’ve been stopped and searched by the police several times as a pedestrian, even as it is, I have to really work at not showing my irritation – I’m not exactly anti-police but I have plenty of reasons to see they are just variable and as flawed as every other human being).
Concequently I’d rather take my chances on the road, or get off and walk. And so I’d rather see some of the rapscallions who menace me on the pavement get at least a ticking off.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
I disagree. To me that’s a lot of money. And it would also be a source of huge annoyance (I’ve been stopped and searched by the police several times as a pedestrian, even as it is, I have to really work at not showing my irritation – I’m not exactly anti-police but I have plenty of reasons to see they are just variable and as flawed as every other human being).
Concequently I’d rather take my chances on the road, or get off and walk. And so I’d rather see some of the rapscallions who menace me on the pavement get at least a ticking off.— oozaveared
Why do you get stopped by the Police so often? I’ve been stopped twice and I’m 53. The first time was in 1979. I’d just bought a car and was driving it home sans tax disc. I was pulled over, asked why. Showed him the documents I had for the sale. Fair enough and I was on my way with a producer for the Tax Disc. Second time was in 1995 in St James’ Park. It was a weekday morning I’d gotten off the train at Waterloo and was making my way to Manchester Square (just behind Selfridges) via Westminster Bridge, across St James’s Park onto The Mall and up over Piccadilly heading north. No-one around when a copper (Royal Parks Police) steps out from behind a bush. I mentioned that no-one was around and he told me he was around. He took my name and address and nothing ever came of it. Mind you I rode around St James’s Park not through it after that. I’ve been riding on the roads (and sometimes the pavements) since 1971 and driving (for 15 years as an international rep so 40K a year all over Europe) and never been stopped.
So what is it that you’re doing to get this much attention from plod then?
So how come you
FluffyKittenofTindalos
I disagree. To me that’s a lot of money. And it would also be a source of huge annoyance (I’ve been stopped and searched by the police several times as a pedestrian, even as it is, I have to really work at not showing my irritation – I’m not exactly anti-police but I have plenty of reasons to see they are just variable and as flawed as every other human being).
Concequently I’d rather take my chances on the road, or get off and walk. And so I’d rather see some of the rapscallions who menace me on the pavement get at least a ticking off.— oozaveared
Why do you get stopped by the Police so often? I’ve been stopped twice and I’m 52. The first time was in 1979. I’d just bought my first car and was driving it home sans tax disc. I was pulled over, asked why no disc. Showed him the documents I had for the sale. Fair enough and I was on my way with a producer for the Tax Disc. Second time was in 1995 in St James’ Park. It was a weekday morning I’d gotten off the train at Waterloo and was making my way to Manchester Square (just behind Selfridges) via Westminster Bridge, across St James’s Park onto The Mall and up over Piccadilly heading north. No-one around when a copper (Royal Parks Police) steps out from behind a bush. I mentioned that no-one was around and he told just said “I’m around”. He took my name and address and nothing ever came of it. Mind you I rode around St James’s Park not through it after that. I’ve been riding on the roads (and sometimes the pavements) since 1971 and driving since 1978 (for 15 years as an international rep so 40K a year all over Europe) and never been stopped except that once.
I am genuinely intrigued as to what it is you’re doing to get this much attention from plod?
ooz: At a guess he’s guilty
ooz: At a guess he’s guilty of being a young male in London and you’re not. That likely explains the difference. Potentially there could also be an issue of him having a skin colour more likely to attract the polices’ attention than yours (not that they’re racist or anything, oh no).
Paul. Oh Ok it’s that is it?
Paul. Oh Ok it’s that is it? Mind you I have encountered people who’d been pinged driving in France on holiday claiming that the French police were out to get British motorists and just ticketed all British cars as a matter of principle. They’d been there once and got a ticket so it must be true. I used to get off the Hovercraft and then latterly the Eurotunnel in Calais headed for various countries at least 15 times a year for 15 years. And since then camping and skiing one or the other pretty much every year. I’ve driven hundreds of thousands of miles just in France alone. Never had a ticket or even been stopped. So I’m always a bit suspicious of claims that people are stopped for what they “are” rather than what they “do” or how they behave. But if you say that’s what it is then it must be that?
oozaveared wrote:……
I’ve been driving in France over thirty years and have only been stopped once; and that was for a routine papers check when I was driving a locally registered car. I haven’t seen an anti-British bias.
Username wrote:oozaveared
I’ve been driving in France very frequently for 15 years. I’ve only ever been stopped once, and fined for doing 93mph on the autoroute near Boulogne. I maintain to this day that their radar equipment was faulty.
Because I was cruising at 120. 😉
‘Minister for Cycling Robert
‘Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill has reiterated that the official line from the Department for Transport (DfT) is that cyclists may ride on the footway – more commonly referred to as pavements – provided they do so considerately, and that police officers need to exercise discretion.’
Would it not be a good idea for cyclists to carry a card with the above printed on it to present to an officer on being pulled up. Not to argue a guilty or not on the spot but to ensure that the statement printed is to be considered before any further action is taken, a kind of cooling off period for both parties.
The one time I picked up an
The one time I picked up an FPN was 6am crossing millennium bridge (because Southwark bridge was closed) and decided to freewheel after crossing the hump of the bridge as no one was about and it was chucking it down with rain. I got lept on by a plastic copper and when i explained that there was absolutely no one else for me to endanger he told me I could contest it in court. So that folks is how discretion works.
All I can say is that this pronouncement is more garbled and mixed messages from the powers that be who could not be less interested.
“and when i explained that
…don’t for one minute think that the court will rubber stamp the decision of the PCSO or even a Police Officer
My partner is a Legal Advisor in the Mags courts…her advice is
1. it is very likely the matter will simply be dropped, and you won’t have to pay the fine…the courts are currently dropping anything they can to save money
2. do not for one second think that the opinion of the Police is held in good regard by the Courts. They are very very sceptical about their evidence and dismissive of their interpretation of the law..and that’s the polite version
so for pavement riding, always appeal, never pay up on the spot.
arfa wrote:The one time I
There’s a specific No Cycling sign on that bridge. Similarly I wouldn’t expect this ‘guidance’ to apply to sections of pavement where there are No Cycling signs.
I know the Millennium Bridge well – I certainly would consider cycling over it to be antisocial especially when it’s busy. Appreciate you were doing it at 6am but I’m not surprised that you were pulled up.
‘Plastic Copper’ seems a bit unfair. Public servant doing their job.
There’s a specific No Cycling
There’s a specific No Cycling sign on that bridge. Similarly I wouldn’t expect this ‘guidance’ to apply to sections of pavement where there are No Cycling signs.
I know the Millennium Bridge well – I certainly would consider cycling over it to be antisocial especially when it’s busy. Appreciate you were doing it at 6am but I’m not surprised that you were pulled up.
‘Plastic Copper’ seems a bit unfair. Public servant doing their job.[/quote]
If you want the specifics, I didn’t “mount” the bike and only freewheeled on one pedal on the last downhill bit as there was no one there due to very heavy rain (until he jumped out from behind the phone box he was hiding/sheltering behind). I now realise that this constitutes cycling (on the one time I crossed the bridge due to Southwark being shut & blackfriars a death trap at the time). I agree that cycling amongst pedestrians is a no no, but combine heavy rain and the time of day and you will get the picture.
Plastic copper is fair I am afraid, as he was only trying to hit his quota of proof of exercising the extremely limited powers entrusted to him, even if it meant ignoring home office guidelines which I highlighted to him at the time, hence the wholly unsatisfactory “guidance” in place at the moment.
arfa wrote:There’s a specific
If you want the specifics, I didn’t “mount” the bike and only freewheeled on one pedal on the last downhill bit as there was no one there due to very heavy rain (until he jumped out from behind the phone box he was hiding/sheltering behind). I now realise that this constitutes cycling (on the one time I crossed the bridge due to Southwark being shut & blackfriars a death trap at the time). I agree that cycling amongst pedestrians is a no no, but combine heavy rain and the time of day and you will get the picture.
Plastic copper is fair I am afraid, as he was only trying to hit his quota of proof of exercising the extremely limited powers entrusted to him, even if it meant ignoring home office guidelines which I highlighted to him at the time, hence the wholly unsatisfactory “guidance” in place at the moment.[/quote]
I cycled to my secondary school back in 70s. We weren’t allowed to cycle on the small service road inside the gates but had to walk our bikes from the gate to the bike sheds. I once pulled this same defence. I stood on the pedal and because the roads was slightly downhill just freewheeled to the bike sheds. I got caught and argued that I wasn’t actually riding the bike. The headmaster was very patient with me. “Were either of your feet on the ground?” he asked. Obviously they weren’t so after me answering they weren’t he asked “Were you floating along unsupported in mid air?” “No I wasn’t Sir” I replied. he looked theatrically puzzled then asked. “So if neither of your feet was on the ground, and you weren’t floating along in mid air, what was keeping you of the ground?” “Well the bike Sir” says I. “So you were moving along supported by a bicycle but not actually riding a bicycle were you?” “That’s right Sir” I replied. “Well that seems entirely in order then…” he said “..but please give me 1000 words under the title: How to move along supported by a bicycle without actually riding it by tomorrow… and then re-write it every time you move along the school road supported by a bicycle whether you are riding it or not — That will be all.”
arfa wrote:The one time I
There’s a specific No Cycling sign on that bridge. Similarly I wouldn’t expect this ‘guidance’ to apply to sections of pavement where there are No Cycling signs.
I know the Millennium Bridge well – I certainly would consider cycling over it to be antisocial especially when it’s busy. Appreciate you were doing it at 6am but I’m not surprised that you were pulled up.
‘Plastic Copper’ seems a bit unfair. Public servant doing their job.
I’m a responsible cyclist,
I’m a responsible cyclist, but if I take my trike onto the pavement, it would take up the majority of it. Is that responsible? 8>
Oh great, so more
Oh great, so more complications, caveats and subjective opinions in dispensing law.
It’s just moving the furniture – HGVs and fast traffic force the cyclists on to the pavement, but where do the pedestrians go?
Letting ‘considerate’ bikes cycle on the pavement is just a cop-out. I don’t want to cycle on the pavement. I want for my 3 year old child and by 85 year old grandmother to be able to walk safely on the pavement without having to worry that some cyclist’s view of considerate falls well short of common sense.
Make the road safe for those that should be there – and keep the pavements safe for those with nowhere else to go.
unsliced wrote:Oh great, so
If it’s an empty pavement at a busy junction, where is the risk to pedestrians? I don’t want to see my aged parents or my children endangered by some Strava nutter on the pavement either. But then I also want my children to be able to ride on the pavement without some plastic policeman popping up and telling them to ride on the road.
This is a reiteration of
This is a reiteration of something that has been in place since 2004. It is not a ‘new’ law. If people (or those in positions of authority) don’t want cyclists riding on the pavement maybe they should help campaign for high quality segregated cycle infrastructure.
I don’t really like this
I don’t really like this ‘discretion’ thing. Seems as if it leaves you at the mercy of the prejudices of whatever cop you happen to encounter. Seems to make it as much about luck as justice.
_So many times_ I’ve had an aggressive hoodie-wearing young bloke come zooming along a narrow or crowded pavement, either straight at me head-on or whizzing past me from behind (and it always seems to happen when I’m pushing my bike along the pavement like a good boy, having had to dismount for some reason or other – and always at places where I regularly cycle _in the road_). Nothing ever gets done about those guys.
Yet I remain convinced that if I ever get off of a nasty road onto a totally deserted pavement in the early hours of the morning _that’s_ when some cop (whose wife ran off with a lycra-wearing road-biker, leaving him with a lifelong hatred of anyone on two-wheels!) will magically appear from nowhere!
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Well discretion is better than no discretion don’t you think. No discretion given to the officer means that no matter how responsible you were, no matter how reasonable he thought your actions were, no matter how dangerous your alternatives looked, he would have to issue you with a ticket.
You should see discretion not as arbitrariness but the opportunity given to an officer to be be a reasonable person despite the official rules. In other words the law says it’s an offence and you are due a ticket. He can decide to let you off. All you’d be removing by removing discretion is his ability to let you off.
“These rules are for the guidance of wise men and the strict obedience only of fools.” That’s a quote from Douglas Bader. It was inserted in my copy of the Queens Regulations when handed to me.
Agree, relying on a PC’s
Agree, relying on a PC’s discretion is totally unsatisfactory. You just won’t know where you stand re FPN’s since discretion is completely subjective.
Reasons for cycling on the pavement- I can only think of one, and that’s if you are a young child, vulnerable adult, or accompanying one -and almost certainly cycling slowly so present less of a risk.
The ‘avoiding busy/dangerous junctions’ argument is totally spurious. Its ONE JUNCTION. WALK YOUR BIKE!!
Also feel that this deflects from the issue of dangerous junctions and lack of cycling infrastructure in the first place..
There is a horrible junction
There is a horrible junction on my commute, where the pavement has been designated a shared-use path. http://goo.gl/maps/QAdWL
However, I’d rather chance it on the road with the lorries and buses than get abused by pedestrians who think I am illegally riding on the pavement. Every time I have tried to use the pavement, I have been shouted at, and then re-joining the road further on is made difficult. You’re better off staying on the road and asserting your position in the lane.
I think it was 28 quid at the
I think it was 28 quid at the time and versus the uncertainty/hassle/time factor I just paid as I suspect many others do.
My issue is that with more ambiguous guidance, pedestrians, cyclists and PCSO’s have not got a clue and the potential for conflict is increased. If the Minister wishes to allow discretion, he should offer more specific guidance as to how it might be exercised.
Well this is interesting…
I
Well this is interesting…
I live in Tottenham and I have to quickly go on the pavement for about 30 seconds or so in order to get from the main road onto the back streets behind my house..
If I don’t.. then I’ve got another mile and a half up past Tottenham town hall and then round the gyratory and onto Broad Lane… which quite frankly I’d do anything to avoid given that the traffic there is generally mental and there’s about half a dozen splits in the road as well, which are both confusing and often lead to you being in the middle of three lanes of traffic..
However, I have had the odd pedestrian shout comments about being on the pavement when making my short incursion on it.. Despite the fact I’m riding a Pashley in 1st or 2nd gear and going so slow that I’m actually slower than the pedestrians…
How that’s a danger to anyone is quite beyond me and the slight inconvenience I may cause given the size of the bike is preferable to dicing with death on a daily basis!
Glad to see there’s some sense being spouted by the govt on this for once! I may well shout back that it’s legal, next time I’m harangued!
Gottdammerung wrote:However,
Problem in the UK is that there are a lot of people who aren’t interested in the intent of the law, simply the word. So a law banning cycling on the pavement make perfect sense, but it needs to be tempered to be used only against those who are causing danger. As per the home office guidance.
I guess it doesn’t help that the Police are set targets to fine!
Gottdammerung wrote:However,
Problem in the UK is that there are a lot of people who aren’t interested in the intent of the law, simply the word. So a law banning cycling on the pavement make perfect sense, but it needs to be tempered to be used only against those who are causing danger. As per the home office guidance.
I guess it doesn’t help that the Police are set targets to fine!
Gottdammerung wrote:Well this
How much longer would it take you to walk that section?
I have a similar need to go against the flow in my neighbourhood (just down the road from you) – I get off and push and then get back on again.
It takes me an extra 30 seconds.
I get very angry with people who don’t do this and endanger my children when walking to school etc.
Pauldmorgan
How much longer would it take you to walk that section?
I have a similar need to go against the flow in my neighbourhood (just down the road from you) – I get off and push and then get back on again.
It takes me an extra 30 seconds.
I get very angry with people who don’t do this and endanger my children when walking to school etc.— Gottdammerung
Statistically your children are at far, far greater risk from an out of control motor vehicle leaving the roadway and mounting the pavement. The numbers of people killed or seriously injured by such incidents in the UK are rather large. The numbers of people seriously injured by pavement riding cyclists each year can be counted on your fingers. I get a lot of road safety statistics across my desk at work. You really should direct your anger towards bad driving.
Gottdammerung wrote:Well this
How much longer would it take you to walk that section?
I have a similar need to go against the flow in my neighbourhood (just down the road from you) – I get off and push and then get back on again.
It takes me an extra 30 seconds.
I get very angry with people who don’t do this and endanger my children when walking to school etc.
Worth knowing these
Worth knowing these powers:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117572/pcso-powers.pdf
If, for the sake of argument, you refuse to comply with a request for details for the FPN, they can ‘detain’ you until a constable arrives (max 30 minutes). So, check your watch when being stopped. Because you’d stop… of course…
On a related note, what’s the
On a related note, what’s the law relating to cycling on pavements where half of the pavement has been officially allocated for parking bays? As cars drive along it to park, surely it must be legal to cycle along it?
This all seems like a
This all seems like a deliberate distraction from the real issues that cyclists and pedestrians face. The realisation has struck that the task of actually providing good quality infrastructure for peds, cyclists and motors is one of such enormity that the best option (for politicians and lawmakers) is just to ignore it.
userfriendly wrote:arfa
*Someone* forgot an opening QUOTE tag … :W
I know, this won’t bug anyone but me :B … Do feel free to ignore this completely OT post, its sole purpose is to fix the comment markup.
Pretty much the same as it is
Pretty much the same as it is now then.
My rule should I ever become a law upholder/minister is children acceptable to ride on a footway to say age 14, adults wearing ‘Lycra’ stay on the road.
Don’t take the Lycra bit seriously some of you (you know the over opinionated ones).
Motorist should stay off the footways too unless of course your really need to park on a footway then it’s perfectly acceptable to block the way through cos of course, plod will alway turn a blind eye as it stops cyclist riding on the path.
Sarcasm!
Guyz2010 wrote:Pretty much
So little old lady weighing 45kg sedately riding her shopping bike along a pavement at 5mph to avoid the traffic is not acceptable. But a 14 year old youth maybe weighing twice as much full of piss and vinegar and riding at quite a clip is fine?
I know people don’t like uncertainty but sometimes common sense applies to these things. You know what’s unacceptable, dangerous, irresponsible when you see it. Dangerous/ irresponsible use of pavements depends on a mixture of where, when, speed, space, presence of others and above all attitude.
When I was a kid probably about 9 or 10 riding home from the park at dusk one evening no lights etc a copper actually told me to ride on the pavement but not too fast. It was a sensible bit of policing.
Less age definitions and caveats, and rules is rules, and distrust of authority and more common sense is what we need.
One time as a a law abiding
One time as a a law abiding teenager in the late 1950’s I got off my bike to push it the ‘wrong way’ along a one way street in Shrewsbury. (Town Walls for those who know the town). Almost at the end of the street I was stopped by a policeman who told me to get on the bike and ride off the ‘right way’.
When I protested he informed my that a bicycle was a road vehicle and could not be propelled the wrong way on a one way street any more that a car of bus could.
So my entirely subjective opinion is that cyclists are sympathetically treated by police these days.
^ There’s always one…
^ There’s always one…
There is a front pedestrian
There is a front pedestrian entry into my workplace but I’m not allowed to use the walkway to walk in with my bicycle; my bicycle is allowed inside the building but I must use the inconvenient roller door entry at the rear.
So this attitude that bicycles when being walked are still a vehicle persists.
Another cop out by a govt
Another cop out by a govt minister “lets pass the buck to someone else” !
Leaving it to an officers discretion is no answer as everyone’s view of an incident is different and one person’s idea of safe cycling is another’s dangerous.
stumps wrote:Another cop out
Ignore this, my smartphone lost its intelligence briefly and fecked up
Point made relating to age
Point made relating to age oozaveared I suppose my short description didn’t portray the full scenario. Guess it’s best left as it is in reality….at the discretion of the Police. Any discerning cyclist would stay off the footway anyway.
I have on occasions hopped on the footway for say 20m to go by refuse collection trucks.
Can’t say I’ve seen many old ladies on shopping bikes in Devon….far too hilly. :H
In our (so called) democracy,
In our (so called) democracy, how can anybody (minister or not, allegedly speaking on behalf of a government department or not) proclaim that a statute law should be disregarded? If the law states that riding a bike on the footway is illegal (as in all circumstances it should be in my opinion) then that is the legal position, until parliament votes to repeal the act.
Or am I missing something?
[[[[[ I imagine many drivers
[[[[[ I imagine many drivers would be well chuffed to see more cyclists off the roads and competing with pedestrians on the pavements….they think it’s where we belong. Well, it ain’t, and I ain’t going to do it! I’m a legitimate vehicle, and I belong on the highway, and motorists better get used to the idea. Ding-ding!
P.R.
I love the sheer arbitaryness
I love the sheer arbitaryness in all this – one week riding on a particular pavement is an offence leading to risk of FPN. Next week, someone from council has come along and painted half of it a different color (no doubt to meet their quota) and suddenly its a cycle path which you are now supposed to use. Nothing’s changed, risks to pedestrians are still same etc – just a coat of paint and an arbitrary decision. Ridiculous. (Apologies if someone’s made same point – too many comments on here to go through them all at this time of night). #o
@oozaveared
I’m not 100%
@oozaveared
I’m not 100% white as it happens, but I don’t want to give the wrong impression – I’ve been searched twice and stopped and questioned more than half a dozen times over a couple of decades. And I reckon its simply the neighbourhood plus the fact that I don’t drive and before taking to a bike would be out walking _a lot_, in areas that I guess have drug and street crime “issues”. I just often seem to ‘match the description’ of some miscreant involved in an ‘incident’.
I do know that black guys I have known would get stopped much more often.
Now I come to think of it, I’ve yet to be stopped on the bike, even during that victim-blaming crackdown recently.
I don’t particularly dislike the police. There are plenty of countries where they are far, far worse. I just don’t expect them all to be entirely unprejudiced or honest, and as they have power I’d rather avoid giving them any cause to bother me, if possible. Hence I stay off the pavement.
Plus pavement racers annoy me and I don’t want to be a hypocrite.
Oh yeah – one odd thing about being questioned – cops often seem to be weirdly suspicious at the notion that someone would walk several miles rather than drive or wait hours for buses.
A couple of years ago I was
A couple of years ago I was cycling south out of Central London in an area I did t know very well. A road that I was supposed to ride down was closed for works and, it being rush hour the diversion looked a nightmare for cyclists. I decided to take to the pavement, now the pavement was busy but I didn’t get off my bike, instead I unclipped 1 pedal and began to scoot my way forward in line with the pedestrians. At the other side of the works there were 6 Police (PCSO and regular) to get cyclists. I got a FPN and absolutely no leeway at all, I wish now that I’d taken it to a magistrate.
The thing that most annoyed me was that a week earlier I had tried to stop a group of youths from cutting through bike locks near kings cross with an angle grinder, I got photos of them and threatened for my efforts. When the police arrived (1officer) I was told that I should not have put myself in danger and should have left them to it. I offered the photos and said I would testify if they found the youths (I’m sure they would have been local), one officer was put on the case and he never returned my calls. It’s easy to get a sense that the police are at war with cyclists in my opinion.
Cycling on the footway
oops
And an elderly pedestrian
And an elderly pedestrian loses their balance by walking on the kerb to move out of the way of cycles after one nearly hit him or her from the other side as they walk either side of the pavement, looking at a shop window then change mind to cross the road, so keep us cyclist of the pavements full stop.