Should I stand my ground on pavements?

JoeSoap76

spen666 wrote:

Here's a novel idea- you could get your ars* off the bike and WALK - the law applies to you

Yes, I agree... I should if I stick to the letter of the law.

But there seems to be some confusion as to just how flexible this particular law is:

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16.
(Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

Not that I'm suggesting that a letter from the Home Office means that cycling on the pavement is legal... but it does say to me that if, as is the case on my commute, I have the choice of a brief and careful ride over a very wide and quiet pavement or a five minute battle around a busy one-way system including school crossings and blind junctions then there is a bit of flexibility to allow me to take the pavement.

Should I get off an walk? According to an 1888 law, yes. According to the Home Office in 2004, it depends on my consideration to others.

Underscore

Surf-Matt wrote:

Do you cycle at over 18mph on cycle paths?
Well if so, you have broken the law.

Is that right? I rarely use cycle paths but my understanding was that the Highway code suggests that cyclists reaching over 18mph should consider using the road rather than the cycle path. I was/am not aware that it is illegal...

_

Surf-Matt

ChrisLS wrote:

...steady on Surf Matt this is becoming way too personal...

I've been dying to use that picture for a while.This seemed like the perfect opportunity.

Cycling is about getting out there and enjoying yourself, not wallowing in a pit of pedantry, piousness and patronisation.

"According to advice issued by the Department of Transport, cyclists likely to be riding 18mph or faster should use roads not cycle-paths."

whome

Perhaps true, but you had just posted a bunch of incorrect facts that spen666 corrected for everyones education.

@JoeSoap76
As I understand it cycling on the pavement is still illegal but the guidelines from the chief police officers was that it should not be used for youngster and should only be prosecuted for anti-social activity and not all pavement cycling.

Surf-Matt

whome wrote:

Perhaps true, but you had just posted a bunch of incorrect facts that spen666 corrected for everyones education.

@JoeSoap76
As I understand it cycling on the pavement is still illegal but the guidelines from the chief police officers was that it should not be used for youngster and should only be prosecuted for anti-social activity and not all pavement cycling.

No I didn't. Apart from the bell which is law on most of the Continent, but not here.

"At night a bicycle must also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85)." Slightly different but I bet Spen uses a bike at night without re-fitting his/her reflectors back on.

spen666

Surf-Matt wrote:

Fine Spen. You are a very clever man. I must apologise.

However you cigarette needs a little flick.

I don't smoke, its a disgusting habit

whome

I may be wrong, but I had understood the speed limits only applied to motor vehicles and not to cyclists (apart from some exceptions like the bylaws in Royal Parks ). So the thing about 18mph on cycle paths sounds like "not an offense" to me. My understanding is that is advisory only.

Also the wording here suggest it is advisory only -
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/arc ... icefor1688

spen666

JoeSoap76 wrote:

...



Should I get off an walk? According to an 1888 law, yes. According to the Home Office in 2004, it depends on my consideration to others.

Sadly for them, the Home Office do not have the power to repeal the legislation it doesn't like.
















As for its age- are you suggesting that it somehow doesn't matter about this law as its so old?

If so- what do you say about the offences against the person act that creates the various assault offences eg ABH, GBH & GBH with intent? These are in the 1869 Act- shall we ignore the prohibition on assaults therein?

What about murder- that is even older- indeed it is contrary to common law- shall we ignore that one as well?

spen666

whome wrote:

I may be wrong, but I had understood the speed limits only applied to motor vehicles and not to cyclists (apart from some exceptions like the bylaws in Royal Parks ). So the thing about 18mph on cycle paths sounds like "not an offense" to me. My understanding is that is advisory only.

Also the wording here suggest it is advisory only -
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/arc ... icefor1688

You are correct- but Matt's not worried by little things like the law or legality

spen666

Surf-Matt wrote:

ChrisLS wrote:

.......

"According to advice issued by the Department of Transport, cyclists likely to be riding 18mph or faster should use roads not cycle-paths."

Note the word highlighted- its not the law

Surf-Matt

spen666 wrote:

whome wrote:

I may be wrong, but I had understood the speed limits only applied to motor vehicles and not to cyclists (apart from some exceptions like the bylaws in Royal Parks ). So the thing about 18mph on cycle paths sounds like "not an offense" to me. My understanding is that is advisory only.

Also the wording here suggest it is advisory only -
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/arc ... icefor1688

You are correct- but Matt's not worried by little things like the law or legality

Indeed, I am in fact a law breaking renegade who lives life on the edge. I never sleep as I'm in constant fear of the law finding me out. It's hard you know but I manage. Thanks for your concern though. Much appreciated.

Now go and get on someone elses nerves - it seems to be your favourite pastime.

I haven't notice you post a single positive comment on here - ever. Just moans and patronising bleats. What a contribution :roll:

Clever Pun

Robmanic1 wrote:

it's a fact that cycling on pavements IS illegal, but need not be antisocial.

Once you get through Matts vitriol ^^^^^ is the important part of this thread

I don't cycle on pavements but I can why why in certain circumstances sensible respectful people choose to.

Mark_K

spen666 wrote:

JoeSoap76 wrote:

...



Should I get off an walk? According to an 1888 law, yes. According to the Home Office in 2004, it depends on my consideration to others.

Sadly for them, the Home Office do not have the power to repeal the legislation it doesn't like.












As for its age- are you suggesting that it somehow doesn't matter about this law as its so old?

If so- what do you say about the offences against the person act that creates the various assault offences eg ABH, GBH & GBH with intent? These are in the 1869 Act- shall we ignore the prohibition on assaults therein?

What about murder- that is even older- indeed it is contrary to common law- shall we ignore that one as well?

Is it just me or has ALL common sense been lost somewhere !!!
Surely riding a bike with your kids on a pavment is not the same as
ABH or Murder
This is PC gone mad
:evil: :evil:

dondare

Clever Pun wrote:

Robmanic1 wrote:

it's a fact that cycling on pavements IS illegal, but need not be antisocial.

Once you get through Matts vitriol ^^^^^ is the important part of this thread

I don't cycle on pavements but I can why why in certain circumstances sensible respectful people choose to.

If you cycle on the pavement your are being anti-social because this society hates pavement cyclists. If anyone sees you or you leave tracks then you'll be making a Daily Mail reader cross regardless of how careful and considerate you're trying to be.

JoeSoap76

spen666 wrote:

JoeSoap76 wrote:

Should I get off an walk? According to an 1888 law, yes. According to the Home Office in 2004, it depends on my consideration to others.

Sadly for them, the Home Office do not have the power to repeal the legislation it doesn't like.

As for its age- are you suggesting that it somehow doesn't matter about this law as its so old?

Not at all, I merely included the dates to demonstrate that the Home Office advice was issued after the legislation was written.

spen666 wrote:

If so- what do you say about the offences against the person act that creates the various assault offences eg ABH, GBH & GBH with intent? These are in the 1869 Act- shall we ignore the prohibition on assaults therein?

What about murder- that is even older- indeed it is contrary to common law- shall we ignore that one as well?

Straw men? Really???

It's not that you wish you could go and debate on a high-brow political forum but find yourself outclassed so have to make do with trying to win petty squabbles on a cycling forum, is it? :roll:

dondare

Mark_K wrote:

Is it just me or has ALL common sense been lost somewhere !!!
Surely riding a bike with your kids on a pavment is not the same as
ABH or Murder
This is PC gone mad
:evil: :evil:

Of course it's nowhere near as bad and the punishment won't be as severe.

But the public outrage will be worse.

spen666

Surf-Matt wrote:

...

....

I haven't notice you post a single positive comment on here - ever. Just moans and patronising bleats. What a contribution :roll:

So its positive to boast about law breaking and trying to explain why your law breaking is in fact not law breaking?

robmanic1

dondare wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Robmanic1 wrote:

it's a fact that cycling on pavements IS illegal, but need not be antisocial.

Once you get through Matts vitriol ^^^^^ is the important part of this thread

I don't cycle on pavements but I can why why in certain circumstances sensible respectful people choose to.

If you cycle on the pavement your are being anti-social because this society hates pavement cyclists. If anyone sees you or you leave tracks then you'll be making a Daily Mail reader cross regardless of how careful and considerate you're trying to be.

Daily Mail readers are born cross, my actions just bump up there blood pressures a little and, with luck, bring on connery's.

Clever Pun

dondare wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Robmanic1 wrote:

it's a fact that cycling on pavements IS illegal, but need not be antisocial.

Once you get through Matts vitriol ^^^^^ is the important part of this thread

I don't cycle on pavements but I can why why in certain circumstances sensible respectful people choose to.

If you cycle on the pavement your are being anti-social because this society hates pavement cyclists. If anyone sees you or you leave tracks then you'll be making a Daily Mail reader cross regardless of how careful and considerate you're trying to be.

It's never to late to hate... bless the daily mail

answer your pm :x

Anonymous

I feel if you must go on the pavement then do so, but pedestrians have right of way, treat them with the same respect you would expect a motor vehicle driver to show you on the roads.

Citing laws and bylaws is easy to do I think, but we don't always stick to the law do we nor (in my opinion) is it our place to judge a certain law higher priority than another, that would be for perhaps a legal discussion and I am not even going there, I prefer cycling.

In answer to the original question, I think simply moving out of the way if you see them may be a good suggestion, that's what I would do I guess.

I don't have to cycle on the pavement, sometimes I do sometimes I don't it depends on the circumstance, sometimes it's not possible otherwise, my bike isn't allowed on the mWay.

Sorry if that offends some people about the pavement lark, but you know what,, i'ts all about consideration for the person on the pavement... take it easy and you will find that people are not robots.

anyway, too much coffee.

happy two wheeling folks

G

robmanic1

Ahhhh, Gman, where've you been?
Although you do know it contravenes bylaw 64445 section 5, subsection 33e 1923 "a velocepede may not be propelled with vigour during the hours twix'd the rising and falling of the sun by a gentleman in unusual trousers, lessen he may be smought from it by a custodian of the law", don't you?

Anonymous

Robmanic1 wrote:

Ahhhh, Gman, where've you been?
Although you do know it contravenes bylaw 64445 section 5, subsection 33e 1923 "a velocepede may not be propelled with vigour during the hours twix'd the rising and falling of the sun by a gentleman in unusual trousers, lessen he may be smought from it by a custodian of the law", don't you?

Is that if I inhale the stench of a dart board covered with Roman Centurian Belly water?

robmanic1

GmanUK101 wrote:

Robmanic1 wrote:

Ahhhh, Gman, where've you been?
Although you do know it contravenes bylaw 64445 section 5, subsection 33e 1923 "a velocepede may not be propelled with vigour during the hours twix'd the rising and falling of the sun by a gentleman in unusual trousers, lessen he may be smought from it by a custodian of the law", don't you?

Is that if I inhale the stench of a dart board covered with Roman Centurian Belly water?

Scoolboy error, that would be subsection e2. Take a thousand lines and see me after class to be tweaked.

dennisn

Here in Toledo, Ohio(USA) there was an instance where a cyclist got hit by a car
that was backing up out of a driveway. He was riding on the sidewalk(pavement)
and got cited(his fault) by the police for being over the age(16 if I remember) that you
are allowed to ride on them. So apparently, here, kids can ride on them but adults can't.
Of course there was the usual outcry from all factions involved. Death to whomever :roll: . Never heard how it turned out, if in fact if ever did amount to anything.
Just an interesting story.

Dennis Noward

snooks

Me_and_the-Tree wrote:

I agree that pavements are for pedestrians. In falmouth where I live we are lucky enough to have a resonable amount of continuous cycle lanes, however the council has seen fit to alternate these lanes between the road and the pavements at random intervals causing problems for both pedestrians who often ignore the lanes "because Its a pavement" and car drivers who overreact to cyclists rejoining the road.
My point is that If pavements are for pedestrians why exaserbate the situation with cycle lanes across them instead of following the law and saving confusion and accidents?

Don't try jumping off the pavement on Killigrew Street, get's blooming high there ...As for Windsor Terrace and wellington Terace....though it's not the pavements that are the problems...it's the hills!

snooks

Surf-Matt wrote:

ChrisLS wrote:

...there isn't any reason why adult cyclists should ride on the pavement...round my neck of the woods I see whole families, mum, dad and the kids, out for a Sunday bike ride, all on the pavement...

Yes there is.

Cycle a short distance in the pavement then under the subway just down the road.
Or try and negotiate probably the most dangerous roundabout in the South West and probably get knocked off (no one does) - even the Police have unofficially okay'd it. As long as you ride very politely.

Sorry Matt, there is no reason why a cyclist should ride on the pavement. There might be a reason when they believe it would be preferable for them to ride on the papvement, but they don't have to.

Which roundabout are you talking about in Truro?..Is it the one by the Police Station, with the lovely lights on at Xmas time?? You could have far more fun with roundabouts and roads up 'ere in London town mi 'ansom!! ...Seriously though...If you are talking about that one, the roundabouts up here make that one look almost sedate, and there are no subways for us to use, try . If you feel safe using the sub way, do, but please don't use it as an excuse to justify cycling on the pavement.

If you want to ride on the pavement, it's up to you. You don't have to ride it. You could get off and push if you really wanted to.

I'm guilty of riding on the pavement, I could get off and push, but I'm lazy, the pavement in question is more a pedestrianised road. It's not right, but it leads to our loading entrance, otherwise I'd have to go up to a set of lights, back onto a main road, down (the correct way) along a 1 way system and then still cycle across the pavement which is a road at this point. So 40 metres pedestrianised saves me 1/2 a mile and a few mins. I don't have to ride it, but I do. I know I'm in the wrong to do so, but like I say I'm lazy...unlike the fella in my OP who thought he'd ride on the pavement when he could have had the whole road to himself.

Just because I do it when no one can see me, doesn't make it right.

victor ludorum

spen666 wrote:

Actually they are not allowed at any age to ride on the pavement if you apply the law

Why should they be teaching their child to ride where cycling is not allowed?

Although your zeal for justice is admirable, your taste for mercy could be better developed...

You are quite correct that legally there is no age or wheel-size limit in the wording of the law, there is provision in the guidelines to enforcement handed to police/pcsos etc. that makes allowances for who are reasonably in fear of traffic (regardless of age and wheel-size) to ride on the pavement, provided they do so considerately.

CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

Similar wording was used by Paul Boateng as Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for the Home Office in 1999 in a letter to Chief Constables.

If you are a burly fellow, or lycra clad, or doing it because you can't be bothered walking down a one-way street, then you would struggle to justify pavement cycling and be subject to a fixed penalty. But I think most people would accept that a child riding on the pavement is permissible, provided they do so considerately. Fortunately, our legislators and police forces agree.

victor ludorum

spen666 wrote:

Actually they are not allowed at any age to ride on the pavement if you apply the law

Why should they be teaching their child to ride where cycling is not allowed?

Your zeal for justice is admirable, but your taste for mercy needs work.

Altough you are quite correct that legally there is no age or wheel-size limit in the wording of the law, there is provision in the guidelines to enforcement handed to police/pcsos etc. that makes allowances for who are reasonably in fear of traffic (regardless of age and wheel-size) to ride on the pavement, provided they do so considerately.

CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

Similar wording was used by Paul Boateng as Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for the Home Office in 1999 in a letter to Chief Constables.

If you are a burly fellow, or lycra clad, or doing it because you can't be bothered walking down a one-way street, then you would struggle to justify pavement cycling and be subject to a fixed penalty. I think most people would accept that a child riding on the pavement is permissible provided they do so considerately. Fortunately, our legislators and police forces agree.

meanwhile

Surf-Matt wrote:

ChrisLS wrote:

...there isn't any reason why adult cyclists should ride on the pavement...round my neck of the woods I see whole families, mum, dad and the kids, out for a Sunday bike ride, all on the pavement...

I do too - whole families of maniacs riding at 8mph on otherwise empty pavement while cars zoom by at 40mph. Bloody bar stewards - hang 'em, I say.

Yes there is.

Cycle a short distance in the pavement then under the subway just down the road.
Or try and negotiate probably the most dangerous roundabout in the South West and probably get knocked off (no one does) - even the Police have unofficially okay'd it. As long as you ride very politely.

I'm the first person to condemn people riding inconsiderately on the pavement when there are other choices they could easily and safely make. (Or if it not the first, then at least the one who enjoys said condemning the most.) But using a subway to avoid a very dangerous road feature, without inconvenience to other road users or peds and with police approval? To quote Bob Dylan: Oh, come onnnnnn!

The blinkered attitude of some of you on here makes cyclists seem very stroppy and dull.

Roadies, hmm? Anyone who believes that spending an extra grand to save 500g of weight is bound to be a bit obsessive.

spen666

victor ludorum wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Actually they are not allowed at any age to ride on the pavement if you apply the law

Why should they be teaching their child to ride where cycling is not allowed?

Your zeal for justice is admirable, but your taste for mercy needs work.

...

I'm merely stating what the law is to correct a mis apprehensiion an early poster was under (in relation to first part of what you quoted). I am not saying if this is right or wrong, merely what the law is

I'm also questioning whether we should be teaching our children to break the law. We should be teaching children to obey the law and lear to ride where it is allowed. Children learn by example and if you teach them from the outset to ignore the law, is it any wonder they grow up ignoring the law