Updated, 16:47: Avon and Somerset Police has now given a statement to road.cc. The original article appears below the statement.
"We have received video footage of an incident that occurred in near Castle Park, Bristol, on 24 February reportedly showing a motorist contravening regulations by driving a vehicle on the pavement.
"Enforcement action has been taken against the motorist.
"The person who submitted the footage was contacted by the investigator during the course of our enquiries because the clip showed them cycling on the pavement, where there were no markings or signs apparent showing they were permitted to do so.
"Following further correspondence, the investigator was able to establish the cyclist had been using a shared pavement and not contravening any regulations. No enforcement has been taken against the cyclist and no further action is planned.
"We are grateful for all submissions of potential motoring offences that are uploaded through our website. But people should be aware that if it is identified that the person submitting the footage has also committed an alleged offence, they may also be prosecuted. This is made clear on our website before a submission is made.”
A Bristol cyclist who submitted footage of a motorist driving across a pavement was told by a police officer that he himself was breaking the law by cycling on a footpath. The section of path in question occurs after a marked cycle lane off a roundabout in Bristol City Centre that ends abruptly, with most cyclists assuming that the unmarked path is shared use due to the lack of signage.
The Old Market Roundabout in Bristol has a segregated central route for cyclists and pedestrians, and was described as "a safer, more accessible" route for those travelling to and from the city centre on bike or foot when Bristol City Council announced its completion last year.
The cyclist, Joe, says he was told by a police officer via email that the motorist, who was caught on camera driving across a pavement, would receive either a warning, fixed penalty or a prosecution; however, the officer also said that the footage supplied shown that Joe was in contravention of the Highways Act 1835 by "cycling on the footpath". The officer added that a defence solicitor for the motorist would point this out, therefore both the motoring and the cycling offence would result in a £50 fine.
Joe told road.cc that although it was "unclear" if he would definitely receive a fine, he assumed he would despite "a lot more back and forth as I tried to argue that I was not illegally cycling on the pavement."
A number of people jumped to Joe's defence on social media, with locals suggesting that there are a number of features on the roundabout that imply the unmarked sections of path are shared use.
Referring to traffic lights on the other side of the roundabout, one commented: "The traffic lights ha[ve] a pedestrian and cyclist sign on them indicating that people on bikes are allowed there. Seems like they [Bristol City Council] forgot to stick up shared path signs there considering the traffic lights have the shared crossing signs.
"The bike path ahead of you also leads onto that bit of pavement with no "end of cycle lane" sign or markings anywhere. So you would be allowed to ride there. Again another sign that Bristol forgot to put up shared space signs."
Another pointed out that the 'nearest pavement' on Lower Castle Street has a shared use sign, which implies that the whole crossing is shared space.
"Missing links"
A number of people noted that other cycle lanes in Bristol (such as the one above near Bristol Temple Meads train station) don't 'join up', and this particular incident highlights the confusion among cyclists and the police about whether the cycle routes can be used legally.
Toby Wells, Co-Chair of the Bristol Cycling Campaign, told road.cc: "While we are slowly starting to see more cycling infrastructure delivered in Bristol City Centre, it often arrives in a very piecemeal fashion.
"There are many "missing links", like the one in Joe's images, where there is a clear intention to join up two sections of route but the money ran out. Often, cycle tracks give up at junctions, creating unnecessary conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians just at the point where safe infrastructure is needed the most.
"Our understanding is that the connection from Old Market Roundabout to Castle Park is intended as shared use at the moment, even if the signs aren't there, with a fully segregated path due to connect the two at some point in the future.
"Bristol needs a strong and continuous investment in cycling infrastructure, so that ambiguous "interim" situations like this don't have to occur."
road.cc has asked Avon and Somerset Police and Bristol City Council for comment. A Bristol City Council employee has since responded to Joe on Twitter, saying they will "get in touch with the team responsible for the design of these cycles lanes for comment..."
Add new comment
25 comments
Paul Boateng (then Home Office Minister-now Lord B) stated during his tenure that a cyclist should never be prosecuted for riding sensibly and responsibly on a pavement or footpath. This statement has never been withdrawn or challenged as far as I can see.
https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/n-a-3319/
Search 'Paul Boateng Cycling on pavement footpath' for a raft of info.
No doubt the cop won't remember Paul or 1999! 🤣🤣🤣
West Midlands police do not prosecute for cycling on the footway if done so carefully and with consideration for pedestrians.
Almost a pity that A&S police have seen sense.
Would have loved it for the OP to plead 'not guilty' and call their bluff!
Even if were the case that both were committing an offence, there's something very wrong if
There ought to be some sort of relation between the seriousness of the offence in terms of the danger caused and the penalty applied - £500 for the motoring offence and £5 for the cycling offence perhaps?
Here is an odd Toucan crossing from near me.
You can just see the bicycle image in red on the right.
Just beyond the planter on the right is a bit of NCN4, and the Thames.
Neither pavement is shared use, but there is a disused ReadyCycle rack just beyond the planters, and it could be that cyclists are meant to ride to the Toucan that way.
Here it is from the other side, showing the well signed NCN4, but ONLY in that direction, you have to go back and a fair bit up the hill to get any NCN4 signs.
It just sort of dissapears for a bit. Not very helpful.
Though I will say that the bakery just before the left to go up the hill is very good, their bread is excellent and they do an incredible glazed double ring knot doughnut.
But as I say no cycle route at all on one side of the Toucan.
There's a classic missing link on Gloucester Road.
https://goo.gl/maps/nZJFrmQodSzi7BXBA
You come down Elton Rd in a contraflow cycle lane, which briefly becomes shared use where it leads you to the pedestrian crossing. If you want to turn right, heading into town, you're in trouble: you can ride across the pedestrian crossing but the opposite pavement is not shared use (quite rightly, it's far too narrow and very busy) but if you ride on the road, you've effectively jumped the lights. It seems the highway people didn't consider where people might actually want to go when using these facilities.
At least they have come to their senses.
I was going to say I'm glad the PC took all that time to study the TROs for the area to know that it wasn't an error due to poor installation of the paint on the footway.
Those cycle lanes are a mess.
...despite "a lot more back and forth as I tried to argue that I was not illegally cycling on the pavement."
PC Mistaken had time to argue the pointless toss, yet the stock response for the police not taking action is 'cuts to policing...way too busy fighting real crime..not in the public interest.' Etc.etc.
Hello police, I'm on the high street and want to report a stabbing in progress, yes I am on my mobile phone, yes I'm in my car, what's that you want to try me and the attempted murderer together...?
Good spot - there are circumstances that can be taken into account for mobile phone use.
" The officer added that a defence solicitor for the motorist would point this out, therefore both the motoring and the cycling offence would result in a £50 fine."
Whataboutary at it's finest.
The police can make a separate judgement on each incident bearing in mind advice to Chief Constables reagrding discretion on cycling on the pavement.
What I want to know is did the cyclist have to swerve for a dildo ?
No. The policeman wasn't actually there.
Indeed - I was about to pick up the same thing. At the time of its introduction, Paul Boateng stated: "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".
Definitely looks like the Police responder had fucked up here with his interpretation as It is only indicating it is shared path now and not seperated as we have the same situation here in Brum .
I would also state he seems to be threatening the cyclist here with "If we prosecute the car for riding on the pavement, we would also have to prosecute you for the same thing". Seems like he is hoping the cyclist will say don't bother then.
Shame the poster doesn't show the car on the pavement as well so we can see how badly they were driving to see who was supposedly the most dangerous.
That's the impression I got.. typical lazy plod trying to avoid the work involved with investigating and prosecuting the offence by the motorist.
What do folks think of mixed pedestrian / cycle ways in urban areas? Personally, I think I feel safer on the road.
What's the explanation for the Toucan crossing if the 'pavement' isn't designated as shared use? Highways agency tend to be pretty sharp with installing ped-only crossings in segments that aren't shared use. Given the lack of an 'end of lane' or similar I'd definitely contest this!
"road.cc has asked Avon and Somerset Police and Bristol City Council for comment."
Wow, some action taken by road cc on behalf of cyclists. I'd like to say thank you and I look forward to reading the response. It's something I'd like to see more of especially in relation to some near misses of the day where I would be very interested to know why action hasn't been taken by the police. We need all the help we can get.
Absolutely! Every lazy or anti-cyclist police force needs to be pressured into taking appropriate action when drivers are clearly shown to have endangered lives. This will do far more for improving cycle safety and encouraging more cycling than a bit of white paint along the gutter.
This is probably SOP for most police forces - who don't want to take action in the first place but are forced to do so by the court of public opinion. Witness the (still massive) disparity in being able to report close passes between different forces. The most intransigent will clearly be issuing edicts to the (civilian) staff they have responding to these events to either do nothing at all, or try and 'catch the cyclist out' to 'teach them a lesson' and discourage then from reporting further incidents.
There needs to be national police guidance on this, and their response needs to be enshrined in national police policy.
I think Avon & Somerset are quite happy to take action, but occasionally get it wrong (as do we all). In this case, they've recognised their mistake, but it is made clear that all of the submitted footage will be examined, so it's best to not incriminate yourself. Personally, I try to ensure that my cycling is legal on the approach to known trouble spots (e.g. busy roundabouts) so that I can submit footage without getting penalised.
I can assure you that it is not SOP in my force area. We will accept footage from anyone of dangerous behaviour, although I will openly admit that we need to get slicker and make it easier to report matters.
Yep, some forces are much much better than others. Hence the need for there to be agreed policy from all forces pushed out consistently, either via the NPCC (if they have the power to do so) or government.