Riding on the pavement. Illegal / Acceptable?

petemadoc

Following on from the Daily Mail thread which has descended into an argument about children riding on the pavement which is just silly.

So ignoring the group in society know as children is it acceptable to ever ride on the pavement? An what does the law say?

GiantMike

Don't know what the law says, but I say 'it depends'.

Yes: No pedestrians, busy/dangerous road.

No: Lots of pedestrians, quiet road.

tarquin_foxglove

"Cycling on footways (a pavement at the side of a carriageway) is prohibited by Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, amended by Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888. This is punishable by a fixed penalty notice of £30 under Section 51 and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988."

This puts it in the same FPN category as other offences such as littering & "unnecessary idling of a stationary vehicle engine", anti-social but not the worst crime known to man.

The way people go on about it, they wouldn't be happy until the Police are pulling cyclists over & giving it:
"And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to cycle on the footway. And you will know my name is the Law when I lay my vengeance upon ye!"

FWIW I don't cycle on the pavement, in fact I never have.

shouldbeinbed

You need competence and confidence to ride a bike well enough not to be a liability to yourself and others. If you have those why would you need to ride on a pavement, if you don't then you need pulling up and it pointing out to you that it is illegal, (occasional riders may not know) dangerous to peds and people leaving their homes on foot, you if people are leaving driveways by car and that there are plenty of bikeability and proficiency courses out there to help you ride legally and with confidence wherever.

I live on a busy fast urban bus route with plenty of parked cars and barely see any pavement riding, it seems to have very little to do with road fear/safety round here or I'd be mown down daily by bikes at my front gate.

jibi

How do you feel when a car has wheels on a cycle path???

Same as pedestrians feel when a bike has wheels on the footpath I bet...

Think about others, and how they feel...

illegal? yes..

acceptable....not really

george

petemadoc

Just for the record I never ride on the pavement and don't feel the need to.

However, now I think about it I probably have with the kids at some point, but we'd always be courteous, stop and move to the side if there was a pedestrian coming. I would not expect to be stopped by a copper for this.

If some guy was bombing it on the pavement I would expect a copper to stop him. Common sense has to be applied me thinks.

BarryBonds

and whilst were at it those mobility vehicles are very heavy and travel much faster than little kids on bikes. GET IN THE ROAD

jefflad

GiantMike wrote:

Don't know what the law says, but I say 'it depends'.

Yes: No pedestrians, busy/dangerous road.

No: Lots of pedestrians, quiet road.

Agreed but could add a No - if policeman spotted

SimonAH

When I take my little one out for a ride then, between bike path sections, then damn right I cycle on the pavement. Roughly a bike length back and a foot or two out.

We are always very courteous about announcing our coming to pedestrians, and always say 'thankyou' when they move aside to let us pass. And almost invariably leave them smiling at the polite little girl who thanked them so sweetly.

If someone wants to give me a £30 fine for doing that then I hope that he can write in a notebook legibly whilst running behind us. Sod 'em.

loveaduck

I oftern see Policemen and women ridiing there bikes in the town centre of Birmingham on the pavement and outside of the town centre still on the pavement. Do they hand themselves a fine at the end of each shift?

MrChuck

PeteMadoc wrote:

I probably have with the kids at some point, but we'd always be courteous, stop and move to the side if there was a pedestrian coming. I would not expect to be stopped by a copper for this.

If some guy was bombing it on the pavement I would expect a copper to stop him. Common sense has to be applied me thinks.

I agree that it's all in the context, although personally it pains me to see adults riding on the pavement when there's a perfectly good road next to it.

So I think only the grumpiest curmudgeon could take issue with Pete riding with his kids as above, but pedestrians can be rightly pi$$ed at people riding as they would on the road but on the pavement.

griffter18

It could be difficult to prosicute in the UK. Bring in any specialist Highways Whitness and ask them what the bit you walk on is called. Answer Footway.
Ask them what the bit the cars travel on is called. Answer Pavement.
Check dictionary definition: Civil engineering the hard layered structure that forms a road carriageway.
In addition to this many councils have now put cycleways on the Footway making it more confusing. :?:

Pross

SimonAH wrote:

When I take my little one out for a ride then, between bike path sections, then damn right I cycle on the pavement. Roughly a bike length back and a foot or two out.

We are always very courteous about announcing our coming to pedestrians, and always say 'thankyou' when they move aside to let us pass. And almost invariably leave them smiling at the polite little girl who thanked them so sweetly.

If someone wants to give me a £30 fine for doing that then I hope that he can write in a notebook legibly whilst running behind us. Sod 'em.

That is the problem for me - why should they have to move aside to let you pass when you aren't supposed to be riding there? Maybe we should move aside and let cars pass everytime they need to on the road?

Ideally footways would be wider and children could cycle safely and legally on them without inconveniencing pedestrians. Or possibly do away with all delineation as it accentuates ownership of the space?

Ollieda

shouldbeinbed wrote:

You need competence and confidence to ride a bike well enough not to be a liability to yourself and others.

Are you suggesting that there should be a set standard level of competency before people are allowed to ride in public, i.e. a cycling licence?

Ignoring children from this debate, not every adult who owns or has accses to a bike is a fully competent rider and can be a danger to road users if on the road. Granted if they are not competent on the bike then their safest option is to walk but it's their choice to use a bike or not and it should be their choice to choose the option of cycling on the pavement (much lower risk to them, and a relatively low risk to pedestrians if they chose not to travel at an uncontrolable speed) as opposed to riding on the road (very high risk to them, significantly higher risk to other road users than the risk to pedestrians in the other option)

For instance there is a main road near where I live which has a high traffic flow of both cars and buses, the pavement is very wide and set back from the road with a grass divide. Someone who is not confident riding on the road with fast moving traffic is legally presented with the option of walking their bike on the pavement, riding on the road or selecting a different route. Not really the best situation considering the relative saftey of the pavement and low risk to pedestrians!

guy.spartacus

how about pedestrianised areas?

or the paths that are half red/half black for cyclists on the red parts and land whales still waddle down the middle of the red bit

bails87

There's one bit of road on my commute where I do ride on the pavement. To be fair, it's a 'shared use lane' or whatever they're called. No dividing line, just a blue sign at each end of the relatively narrow pavement, so it's safe....:roll:

It's here

I'm confident on the road, but being confident doens't help when you're being put into various plastic bags after being splatted by a lorry doing 60. I prefer riding in urban conditions, where I can ride much closer to the traffic speed. This stretch of road is nasty, people seem to speed up in anticipation of the dual carriageway up ahead, and it's a NSL, but not particularly wide, so people go past at 70mph without leaving much room.

So, to get to the point, even if the pavement wasn't a cyclelane I'd still ride on it, just for this stretch. There's barely any peds on it, and if I do come across a ped then I slow to barely above walking pace to get past so there's no way I'm a hazard to them, but I genuinely feel this is a dangerous stretch of road. Purely because of drivers' behaviour, I should add.

tarquin_foxglove

guy.spartacus wrote:

how about pedestrianised areas?

It is not against the law to cycle in a pedestrianised area (assuming it isn't by the side of a road set apart for pedestrians) unless there is a local byelaw or Traffic Regulation Order prohibiting it. ie Woking are banning cycling in the pedestrianised town centre and are having to apply to amend the TRO that established the zone.

Also you get private 'public open space', like through a shopping centre or retail park. They can ban cycling and could seek damages against you for trespass if you cycled there.

Ignorance is no defence etc but you'd expect their to be signs erected giving warning in both cases.

guy.spartacus wrote:

or the paths that are half red/half black for cyclists on the red parts

Assuming they are by a road they will be 'cycle tracks' & footways. Peds allowed on both, cyclists allowed on the cycle track, cars allowed on neither.

Cleat Eastwood

Why not ride a bike thats also a pedestrian. Simples

Pross

guy.spartacus wrote:

how about pedestrianised areas?

How many people know what this sign means?



I had to do some research into sign recognition as part of my dissertation and hardly anyone (including quite a few traffic / highway engineers) knew its full meaning. A lot thought it was a sign where the legend had faded!

tarquin_foxglove

Pross wrote:

How many people know what this sign means?

Not me. I had to google it... :oops:

RichN95.

For every hundred miles ridden by people on pavements illegally, about 100 yards of it is actually acceptable and justified.

(I'm excluding 'shared use' sections in this)

Anonymous

Pross wrote:

guy.spartacus wrote:

how about pedestrianised areas?

How many people know what this sign means?



I had to do some research into sign recognition as part of my dissertation and hardly anyone (including quite a few traffic / highway engineers) knew its full meaning. A lot thought it was a sign where the legend had faded!

It means "warning- bad curry house ahead."

Pross

Nah, that's the other way around like the Japanese flag

MichaelW

I generally avoid pavements for all the well known reasons (peds, dogs, childrens, driveways and junctions).
I do have specific places where there long sections of empty pavement, free of driveways and peds alongside narrow, busy roads full of accelerating trucks. On balance I think it is easier and safer to ride on these stretches of pavement rather than risk being overtaken by an articulated lorry on a narrow road or having artics stack up behind me in an industrial estate zone.
I make a careful, considered choice based on knowing the dangers. I could ride legalistically but it wouldnt be the safest way.

thesquireofbanwell

By coincidence heard this yesterday and was meaning to post on its own but seems
appropriate to feed it in here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13036619

Ollieda

RichN95 wrote:

For every hundred miles ridden by people on pavements illegally, about 100 yards of it is actually acceptable and justified.

(I'm excluding 'shared use' sections in this)

Source?

thesquireofbanwell

It's in the link-BBC Radio 5

RichN95.

Ollieda wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

For every hundred miles ridden by people on pavements illegally, about 100 yards of it is actually acceptable and justified.

(I'm excluding 'shared use' sections in this)

Source?

My head.

Ollieda

fair enough, i think thats how local councils make up most of their statistics anyway!

nwallace

Nash vehicles

Never seen it used, always the No Motor Vehicles sign, which for some reason often has a except for cycles exception on it. But means bicycles not motorcycles :?:

nwallace

Nash vehicles

Never seen it used, always the No Motor Vehicles sign, which for some reason often has a except for cycles exception on it. But means bicycles not motorcycles :?:

Don't worry about what Highway engineers don't know, they have arguments and slag fests between each other which involves taking photos of their mistakes and showing them at official highway presentations.*

*Sample, and IAM trip to BEAR Scotland in Perth.