- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Pedestrian zone cyclist.JPGLocal papers take aim at pavement cyclists as fines drop and pedestrian casualties rise - we take a closer look at the numbers
Local newspapers across Britain are this week highlighting the low numbers of cyclists fined for cycling on the pavement while the number of pedestrians injured in collisions with people on bikes is said to be at a “record high” – we take a closer look at the figures, which Cycling UK says are reflective of cuts in police numbers that affect road safety generally.
The story, based on a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, has been covered by outlets including Devon Live, Birmingham Live and Cambridgeshire Live, with the latter’s headline of “No one is being fined for cycling on pavements, but number of pedestrians injured by bikes at record levels” reflecting the general tone of the coverage.
The titles are owned by Reach plc, known until last year as Trinity Mirror, which bought more than 80 local newspaper operations from Daily Mail & General Trust in 2015.
We’ve seen similar coverage before from them, where a single FOI request gets tailored to individual local or regional titles – and with pavement cycling being one of those issues that seems to push readers’ buttons across the country, it’s an obvious topic to choose.
Responses to the FOI request show that the number of fines issued for cycling on the footway has decreased dramatically in recent years, falling steadily from 11,577 in 2010/11 to 443 in 2017/18, a drop of 96 per cent. In some police force areas, none at all were issued in the most recent year.
While that downwards progression is consistent over the period, it’s less easy to identify a clear trend when it comes to pedestrian casualties following collisions involving cyclists.
But while there were no fatalities in 2017, the latest year for which records are available, the number of serious or slight injuries, at 30 and 78 respectively, were the highest they had been in at least a decade – hence the talk of “record levels.”
That combined figure of 108 – there were no fatalities in that year – does seem to be an outlier, however, with pedestrian casualties averaging 61 a year during the previous decade, the figures fluctuating from year to year.
It’s worth noting that the mainstream media often conflates pedestrians being involved in collisions with bike riders as being due to people cycling on the pavement when often – as in the high-profile case of Kim Briggs – the incident actually happened on the road.
The comparative rarity of collisions between pedestrians and cyclists is what makes them newsworthy, yet the numbers are a fraction of those involving motorists in which someone is killed or seriously injured – go onto any of those local news websites on any day, and one or more of the top stories will almost certainly relate to a road traffic collision.
Roger Geffen, policy director at Cycling UK, which is calling on people to support its campaign for more investment in cycling and walking, said: “Pedestrians, as well as cyclists, are more likely to be the victims in road accidents.
“Numbers of road casualties have stopped declining, after declines from the mid-60s onwards to a few years ago, and have started to go up.
“The decline in road policing may be a factor that has contributed to that. It’s something we’re concerned about more generally," he continued.
“Awareness and enforcement need to go hand in hand. [As seen with] drink driving, there’s that need for awareness to get people on side with the tougher enforcement, which is needed to ensure that the minority isn’t seen to get away with it.
“That’s the problem of lack of road policing. I don’t think it’s a change in how they exercise discretion, it’s been in place since 2000, 2001. I don’t think there’s been a great turning of blind eyes, just that there’s less eyes.”
He added: “There needs to be a willingness to reduce road space, rather than putting cyclist on the pavement. Policies that put cyclists and pedestrians in conflict are not good policies.”
While cycling on the footway, other than designated shared use paths, is illegal, official guidance issued by then Home Office minister Paul Boateng in 1999 and reissued by former transport minister Robert Goodwill five years ago makes clear it should not automatically result in a fine.
The guidance originally outlined by Boateng says: “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.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- ktache 3 hours 44 min ago
The batteries were not the easiest to find, and the brackets broke easily. The switch was far better than the D cell quick release ever readys that...
- ktache 4 hours 11 min ago
There are people out there who will make you the belt out of your old tyre.
- chrisonabike 4 hours 12 min ago
Furry dice and an air freshener for your helmet.
- AidanR 4 hours 25 min ago
Looking at the pictures in the linked article, the bikes aren't actually inconsiderately parked. The only issue is that they're on private property...
- Simon E 5 hours 18 sec ago
Ah yes, those are hopefully not the 'master craftsmen' that has constructed a wide range of shoddy Italian cars and motorbikes over the years with...
- Simon E 5 hours 22 min ago
A SuperSix is definitely not an all-rounder....
- JLasTSR 5 hours 29 min ago
Since most of.my clothes come.from.charity shops.or the eBay nearly for.nothing clothing section I don't tend.to.worry if they wear out, I am also...
- chrisonabike 6 hours 14 min ago
Just get them to walk a treadmill - or better, ride exercise bikes to power path lighting.
- AidanR 6 hours 50 min ago
So his advisers were trying to move funds around to cover losses, but in a way that needlessly created additional liabilities? It would have been...
Add new comment
25 comments
No complaints about motorists driving on, along and parking on the pavements, they do nearly all the road accident killing on the pavements - about 40 a year.
And councils would make a fortune by sending someone to drive by and take photos of all the front gardens which have been converted into parking without the property owner bothering to apply for a dropped kerb; after all, every one of those property owners is breaking the law by driving on the footpath to access their property (as I understand it)
I've been trying to find some data for that in Europe and the UK before - mostly seems to be mortality rates and accident partner data - would you have a link/links to something more concrete please ? Cheers
Sorry, I'm sure I've read that somewhere, but I can't find the source, so best not quote it.
So Devon news head their article with a picture of two cyclist apparently on a road, Cambridgeshire Live main picture is of two cyclist on what appears to be a cycle track, and one probably not even in the UK, captioned "It is against the law for cyclists to ride on footpaths" - it isn', it's against the law to ride on a footway but they obviously never bothered to check the difference, while BirminghamLive heads it's article with an advert for MOTs at Halfords and halfway down has a link to dramatic footage of the aftermath of a Multi vehicle pile up!!!!!
Does anyone in the local press have any pride in their work anymore?
In our local urban transport plan they've said multiple times (going back to 1999 at least) about deregulating the previous order on cycling on the footpaths around the town. There are still many 'no cycling' signs on the paths but on the rare occasion I cut through to pick up my grandson from school I'm certainly not bothered if I use them, most of the time I'll cycle on the grass if there's no space or give a verbal ding- ding', far better to slow, give a friendly warning of you wanting to get past than how a bell is perceived by many pedestrians. as a get out of the effing way I'm coming through.
There's another huge difference between 2010/11 and now, the use of smartphones. People weren't generally walking down the street using a map, watching a feature film, ordering their latest wedding outfit, taking selfies for insta points, running around after fictional pixelated creatures in 2010...
I commute to and from work five days a week, 80% shared paths, clearly marked with painted bikes and pedestrians, and a white line down the centre. Yet 95% of pedestrians I come across are walking on the cycle lane. Of that 95%, most are so engrossed in their phones that they are oblivious to anything around them, including bells and shouts. I had a run in last week when I was ringing my bell right behind a man who was strolling along, head in phone. I couldn't be arsed shouting as well, so I passed him on the grass to his right. He had the cheek to berate me for not having a bell! I used a few choice words about him paying more attention to his phone than his surroundings. I did consider investing in a Hornit, but I think they are too loud and could land you in more arguments than the few times I ring my bell and the f*ckwits can't hear it. Btw I have just invested in a Lion Bellworks brass bell for my winter bike and it is amazing, so much so that I am going to buy another for my commuting bike and ditch the brass Lezyne, good though that is.
That's not a cycle lane. The white paint indicates that cycles will be (somewhat) tolerated on one side of the line, but it's still primarily a footway, and those on foot have right of way - it's your responsibility to avoid them and give way if necessary.
The mistake is to think that these shared-use paths are some sort of cycle infrastructure - they're not - they're just a way of allowing councils to get out of building real infrastructure.
This. The number of people who navigate the city using only their senses of taste, smell and touch is amazing, hearing and sound being unavailable when watching Netflix on your mobile with headphones. I was thinking the other day, after a near miss with a zombie ped who stepped out in front of me, that a good public information film could be made, showing someone sniffing the pavement and licking the street furniture, like a dog, then stepping out into the path of a car or bike. "You're not a dog. Look up."
Pity they can't run stories about gridlocked towns and city centres because cyclists are too afraid to cycle because of the number of cars. Plus all the associated pollution, which ran as a story yesterday in my local paper following the release of the story about the places you'll be stuck in traffic for the longest.
The only time they get their knickers in a twist about cars and gridlock, is when the highways agency closes the Orwell Bridge in high winds, and all the traffic has to be diverted through Ipswich. The usual clamour is for a Northern Bypass; reducing car usage isn't seen as an option.
My local paper did run an anti cycling story last year, it's part of the EDP group
I can guess the comments section of these articles as it is what get posts on Kent Traffic and Travel each time one of these articles is shared- "some thing needs to be done about cyclists", "this is why I give them no room", "this is why you should push them off", "bla, bla, bla road tax, insurance, might scratch my car in traffic, Lyra wearing peacocks". Etc etc. In the mean time a motorist tries to run over a cyclist and get an 18month driving ban. I really think it is time cyclist started a religion then we can claim it is religious persecution.
From what I read a little while back cyclist deaths caused by pedestrians run at twice the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists...yet there is no law to prosecture at fault pedestrians in this case.
I'm sure they'll run a feature on this soon...
Hmmm, of the pedestrians injured, how many when hit by a cyclist on a footpath, and how many from stepping out into the road without looking?
I have made known my displeasure about this article to two of the companies who advertise, one of which was Merlin Cycles! but I can't find an email address for Nike UK. Does anyone know of one?
The EDP did similar piece last week prompted by a Green party councillor complaining about nuisance pavement cyclists, the comments section was particularly depressing
im sure local papers run these kinds of stories just for the clickbait ad revenues https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/norwich-pavement-cycling-nuisance-...
Local paper, Cambridge News, has syndicated this clickbait and the comments section is the usual minority of anti cyclist ranting amongst the more sane contributions.
108 cycle v pedestrian injuries reported pales into insignifigance (at the population level, not for those involved) when set against almost twice that number, including deaths on just one local road during the same period. Yet for some, cyclists are public enemy #1.
And that 108 includes minor injuries, compare that to the circa 23500 serious and total injured around 185,000 annually on our roads (that are actually reported).
Also the governments study last year proved that pedestrians were more at fault than people on bikes when it came to pedestrians being killed ... 50% more at fault. 4 killed by cyclists in 7 years, whilst 6 of them were decreed to be the fault of the pedestrian, that's from the usual slanted UK police who love a bit of cyclist bashing and rarely have a balanced view on matters.
Injuries of peds is such an insignificant matter, I wonder how many cyclists were injured by pedestrians?
Yay! You're back!!
Thanks, I'm going to be a good lad from now on
Could you share a link to that report please?
Always looking for useful stats to aid our case!
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
The footnote in tiny lettering which is cleverly done by the bias compiler so as not to highlight what are in fact extremely important facts, as I said, this is from the viewpoint of the police who have proven time and again to discriminate against people on bikes in collisions with pedestrians and apply different rules/thinking with respect to how motorists are assessed in incidents/crashes.
4 proven cases where the cyclist was solely at fault, Laura Thomas who compiled the report is part of the road haulage association, so clearly no bias whatsoever! Typical snake lawyer!
She had the temerity to write this little doozer which complete and utter bullshit, and this was in an official report!
it's not just factually incorrect as we know from the above data and from the data contained within the report but it's bias and a blatent lie, serious injuries and death on the pavement [sic] has absolutely not become a "significant problem". How she can get away with these lies is beyond belief! That she make to emphasis this is even more sick.
" If, as is widely believed, the risk of death or serious injury to pedestrians caused by dangerous riding of cycles on pavements has become a significant problem, Parliament may wish to consider legislating for an appropriate specific offence and maximum penalty. [my emphasis]”
pedestrian cycling fault for deaths 2018 report.JPG
OK, referring back to a previous thread, there is no msm which treats cyclists fairly, in a balanced manner; we're all marauding lycra louts and nothing pleases us more than sending a few innocent pedestrians flying. With coverage like this, and no msm giving the opposite view it is entirely understandable why so many people have such a bad opinion of cyclists.
The deliberate conflating of all cyclist/pedestrian collisions to be on the footpath is clearly designed to be click bait for the gammon readers, and to get them payback from the adverts they sell. Perhaps we could start to influence things by letting the advertisers know that we won't be buying anything featured in such anti-cycling nonsense.
I've never hit anyone when I've been riding on the footpath, which I have done, entirely legally for my own safety, but I've been knocked off three times by pedestrians running into the road without looking. I wonder if these rags would like to run a story about cyclists being knocked off by stupid pedestrians.
Such as the case in London last year initially reported as "Pedestrian knocked down by cyclist at pedestrian crossing", where ALL the media suddenly lost interest when the CCTV showing her run across against a red man straight into the side of a passing e-bike's front wheel, knocking him to the ground.
As soon as the CCTV was out, they all shut up immediately.
And she wasn't on the crossing either, but 5-10 m away towards the cyclist.