Officers from City of London Police have reportedly been fining cyclists riding on the walkway at Tower Bridge, where the carriageway is currently closed to allow urgent maintenance and repairs to the 122-year-old structure and its road surface to be carried out.
Cyclists are allowed to push their bikes along the bridge’s pavements while the works, which will last until the end of the year, are carried out, but they are not allowed to ride across.
Following complaints that some people were riding bikes on the footway, the Evening Standard reports that City of London police were today issuing fixed penalty notices to cyclists who had not dismounted.
Transport for London (TfL) says it will station eight Road and Transport Enforcement Officers on the bridge – two of them at each end – while the works are ongoing, with a spokesman saying that “cyclists will not be able to get past on their bikes without being stopped.”
Information on TfL’s website about the bridge’s closure from Saturday 1 October to 30 December includes details of alternative routes for cyclists.
Those heading southbound across the river are advised to use London Bridge, while those riding in the opposite direction should use Southwark Bridge. Signs are in place on Tower Bridge itself telling cyclists to dismount.
Tower Bridge is closed to motor traffic until 30 December 2016. Cyclists can walk their bikes across. https://t.co/zv4LbFOXa6 pic.twitter.com/FWs3hPsfyT
— LdnCyclingCampaign (@london_cycling) October 3, 2016
Motor vehicles are banned from the bridge altogether, with diversions in place for the routes that cross it, and a higher than usual volume of pedestrians is anticipated during the period of the works – although it will be closed to people on foot, too, for three weekends from 26 November to 11 December.
Unmesh Desai, Labour London Assembly Member for City and East, told the Standard: “It’s really important that TfL and the Corporation challenge the minority of cyclists who are not dismounting whilst crossing the pedestrian walkway on Tower Bridge.
“I personally witnessed several cyclists weaving in and out between vulnerable pedestrians on the bridge yesterday evening and feel that there is a high risk of a serious accident unless enforcement action is taken,” he added.
38 thoughts on “Cyclists fined for not dismounting at Tower Bridge”
What constitutes riding?
What constitutes riding? Wondering if you’d get away dabbing along standing on the non-drive side pedal. Bit of a tongue-in-cheek question, doubt that its defined anywhere…
kil0ran wrote:
Yes, it’s cycling. Defined through case law. No one cares in the real world (Tower Bridge is currently operating outside the real world, in a strange space time bubble of anti-cycling schlock).
bikebot wrote:
Meanwhile, (as you have documented) out in the wilds of mini-Holland Kingston-upon-Thames no-one is fining the hundreds of drivers going though the experimental no entry and no motor vehicles signs on Surbiton Crescent. One law for the 4-wheeled…
Jitensha Oni wrote:
For anyone curious, (road is closed except to buses and taxis)
https://twitter.com/bicyclebot/status/783223346683080705
bikebot wrote:
My understanding is that it is not illegal, as it is “scooting” not riding. Would a skateboarder be stopped and fined? It’s the same thing.
burtthebike wrote:
It’s the vehicle. Case law, ie this was established in court. For once I don’t think it is Crank v Brooks, and I’m not going to go digging to find it.
For much the same reason, you can’t push a motorcycle through a road filtered for bicycles.
Real world, no one cares. It takes exceptional circumstance to ever create the need to resolve these questions in court.
Edit: I lied (to myself) about the not digging. DPP v Selby.
kil0ran wrote:
Yes, it’s cycling. Defined through case law. No one cares in the real world (Tower Bridge is currently operating outside the real world, in a strange space time bubble of anti-cycling schlock).
[/quote]
My understanding is that it is not illegal, as it is “scooting” not riding. Would a skateboarder be stopped and fined? It’s the same thing.
[/quote]
It’s the vehicle. Case law, ie this was established in court. For once I don’t think it is Crank v Brooks, and I’m not going to go digging to find it.
For much the same reason, you can’t push a motorcycle through a road filtered for bicycles.
Real world, no one cares. It takes exceptional circumstance to ever create the need to resolve these questions in court.
Edit: I lied (to myself) about the not digging. DPP v Selby.
[/quote]
Thanks for the info, but the case you quote doesn’t really establish that. From London Cyclist:
“freewheeling or standing on one pedal still counts as riding. (DPP v Selby [1994] RTR 157, 162; Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441, 442-3)”
The judgement stated:
“In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a ‘foot passenger’. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a ‘foot passenger’. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand. I regard it as unarguable the finding that she was not a foot passenger “
Which isn’t quite the same as saying that she was riding, a subtle point I agree, but important. Would a skateboarder or scooter rider be accused of riding? Not being a “foot passenger” is not the same thing as riding a bicycle. Needs another case to prove the point.
Are people really in so much
Are people really in so much of a hurry or so lazy that they can’t show just a bit of respect and walk across the damn bridge? Really? Never mind legal niceties and loopholes, just bloody walk for a little way!
And free up the police to clamp down on more important things like motoring offences…
burtthebike wrote:
“If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a ‘foot passenger’.”
That was the ruling, not a ‘foot passenger’. Someone with a bicycle who is not a foot passenger is a…? I wouldn’t recommend the skateboard defense in court. As before, it’s the vehicle, however you’re propelling it, which is why a motorcyclist can’t push their bike through a cycle filter.
It’s Brook v Crank which is the oddity, which establishes an exception when a cyclist is considered a foot passenger even though they are propelling a bicycle (by pushing it). The second case confirms that they are no longer a foot passenger if they have one foot on a pedal, nullifying the exception in the first case.
Whilst probably wise that you
Whilst probably wise that you’re not trying to cycle along TB it does amuse me TfL can magic 8 enforcement officers from nowhere. Strange how they can’t allocate those to police CSH infringements by vehicles.
A cyclists walking a bike
A cyclists walking a bike takes up more space than a cyclist riding a bike. As long as cyclists travel at a slow pace and prepare to stop it should be fine.
Unfortunately some people ruin things for others with their behaviour. It only takes a few dodgy cyclists to get a Daily Mail readers heckles up.
Twats. What hardship is it to
Twats. What hardship is it to walk that short distance? If it was voluntary I would have nothing but disgust for anyone walking. As its a rule it is to be obeyed. Failiure to comply is appealing. I assume that those who break the rules are happy for others to break any rule that they don’t like as well . maybe pushing a free of those riders off their bikes would be OK.
Easy…get of the ruddy bike,
Easy…get of the ruddy bike, walk and you won’t get fined. Are these the same cyclists who think red lights are optional. We can’t reasonably expect motorists to follow the law if we are not seen to do the same..
rnick wrote:
No disagreement with your first sentence. (In any case, having to walk the bike across still demonstrates why cycling is better than driving! Motorists can’t carry their cars across and resume on the other side).
But it’s a pity your final sentence seems to invoke the cyclist hive-mind/collective responsibility fallacy. There’s no “we”, and whatever some other cyclists do on Tower Bridge doesn’t mean I can’t reasonably expect motorists to follow the law (whether I’m being a pedestrian or a cyclist).
Good luck walking if you’re
Good luck walking if you’re using certain types of clipless.
Entirely apropriate as even
Entirely apropriate as even walikg at normal pace across that bridge is diffuclt given its tight barriered walkways and lots of tourists.
Having recently come back
Having recently come back from hols in Slovenia (Ljubljana) and been to Graz (Austria) a few year agos, their shared usage paths vary between as bad to far better than ours, and occasionally people seem to cycle on the pavement too.
Does anyone seem to get out of shape about it? Not that I can see…
On the other hand, in both people will patiently wait for the lights to cross before walking across the road when there’s nothing coming for miles, society norms ‘n’ all that…
As I understand it, read
As I understand it, read somewhere else, the big red Cyclists Dismount sign does carry the force of law, unlike the advisory blue one, though I am quite happy to be corrected on this.
And John Stevenson, I think the City of London Police are not The Met, they are something different. Totally surrounded by them but not part of them.
ktache wrote:
Regardless of the colour of the sign. If the pavement is not designated as a shared use path you can’t cycle there.
wycombewheeler wrote:
As I understand it, read somewhere else, the big red Cyclists Dismount sign does carry the force of law, unlike the advisory blue one, though I am quite happy to be corrected on this.
And John Stevenson, I think the City of London Police are not The Met, they are something different. Totally surrounded by them but not part of them.
— wycombewheeler Regardless of the colour of the sign. If the pavement is not designated as a shared use path you can’t cycle there.— ktache
Nope. Has be next to a highway. Have a look at the relevant legislation (Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835).
Bikebikebike wrote:
Can ride or drive down any footpath if its not by the side of a road?
Mb747 wrote:
I think this one is a “depends” and once more quite happy to be corrected. I have been a bit obsessed about riding the ridgeway, from Avebury to Goring is all bridleway and resricted byway (with a few tiny sections on roads) so legally cyclable, it’s footpath between Goring and Ewelme, the bridleway continues almost to Princes Risborough (which was where I stopped) then it becomes a bit interchangable. I think a lot of this is over private land, and the footpaths are not legally cyclable, at least according to those who look after the ridgeway. I think footpaths on public land are somehow different, hence the “footway” discussion.
I tried to ride the Thames path from Reading, downstream, lots of no cycling signs, had to push the bike more than ride it, my shins hurt.
By the way the ridgeway is fantastic to ride, very well signposted. I was pleased to have a full mountainbike, though it might be doable for a harder CX/gravel. I was also glad it was dry, the bare chalk becomes a frictionless nightmare when wet. For me 2 days worth, based around Reading.
My experience of the red Cyclists Dismount signs have all been on shared use paths, where construction work is being done, which was why I tried to find out the legal type stuff, the blue ones might make a difference when, and I have only really seen them when a cycle route crosses a road, and if a collision occurs and it might have an effect on liability and insurance.
I do not ride on pavements, I dismount when presented by the red signs, and take extra care when shown the blue.
Mb747 wrote:
Unless there is a separate bye law on that particular route. Although on country paths right of way etc makes it all a bit weird I believe.
Bikebikebike wrote:
Hence the simple rule. If there’s a TRO in place (traffice regulation order back by by-law ), it will have a no cycling sign, bike symbol, red circle.
If there isn’t, and there’s a councillor who wants to be seen to be doing something, it will have a cyclist dismount sign, which is advisory. That doesn’t mean you CAN cycle, because they use the damn things everywhere. It means whether you can cycle or not depends on the nature of the path, not the sign, which was created purely so you can have fun conversations with some of the areas retired population.
Bikebikebike wrote:
True – but in this case it is.
wycombewheeler wrote:
.
So, at the sametime the met
So, at the sametime the met are responding to the standards top story for the last 3 days “cyclists on a pavament” there are no reports of any deaths as a result of this as far as I’m aware
Across town another child is seriously injured by a motorist you have to scroll to the bottom of the page to find that story
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/kensal-rise-crash-boy-rushed-to-hospital-after-being-hit-by-a-car-in-north-london-a3363116.html
London has become such a
London has become such a building site that three sections of my quiet(ish) commute route (which I won’t tweak) require a bit of pavement action. Given the early(ish) hour I leave I could cycle on all of them. I opt to walk, much as I opt to wear bright clobber. Anything to keep the moaners quiet(ish).
Fair enough. It has been well
Fair enough. It has been well communicated and posted. Cyclists are also subject to rules and regulations, contrary to the opinions of (too) many of them…
I really don’t get all the
I really don’t get all the back-and-forth on this, or trying to make points about drivers ignoring redlights in a totally different area.
This is about London Bridge – it’s never had a shared use path, it’s illegal to cycle on the pavement (which also, btw includes rollerskates, skateboards, scooters, hoverboards, etc.) so get off and walk, it’s really not that hard, is it?
STiG911 wrote:
Reminds me of the myth discussed here:
http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/london-bridge-myth-wont-fall-down
Until December Tower Bridge
Until December Tower Bridge is subject to a road closure making it illegal basically for wheeled transport to use the bridge (with the exception I suspect of wheelchairs and mobility scooters). Therefore I would suggest that the best way to avoid being finedis to obey the law.
Is it too hard to understand?
freespirit1 wrote:
For some (a significant minority?), it appears so.
Slow crime day in London?
Slow crime day in London?
You should be able to ride a
You should be able to ride a bike on the pavement in most places anytime… assuming that when you ride on the pavement you are courteous etc and do so at an appropriate speed (walking pace). However, its unlikely to ever be appropriate to cycle over the pavement on Tower Bridge at anytime, given that its full of gawping tourists and the pavement snakes around the arches.
The notion that you need to put a sign up or fine people to police this obvious inappropriate behaviour is so annoying, people shouldnt be doing it anyway. Its idiots like this (+ children on one wheeled mountain bikes) that made a ‘no cycling zone’ appear on a pedestrianised area outside my work (which is empty at 7:30am when i arrive at work…. which is also when a police man told me off for cycling… even though i was probably the only other person in that town centre at that time).
Maybe…. if the whole of
Maybe…. if the whole of london doesnt implode, this road closure will demonstrate that space can be taken away from cars… and maybe town bridge could become a cycleway in the future?
I am puzzled as to why we are
I am puzzled as to why we are having this discussion or that people are expressing support for those fined.
You take the risk and break the law, you get caught, you get fined.
I’m sorry, but, if these people are looking for sympathy they can find it in the dictionary between shit and syphilis!
Who’da thunk it would be so complex? But it’s undeniably true that, as a general rule, circular signs give orders and instructions whereas rectangular signs give information and advice.
( Don’t follow through with the exceptions please, it’s just a general rule.)