Riding on the pavement. Illegal / Acceptable?
Comments
-
Ollieda wrote: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!
Cycling licence. Eh, where do I mention Licencing? I'm suggesting nothing of the sort.
Interesting that you fail to quote and completely ignore my comments on bikeability and proficiency courses for building confidence and competence.
How do incompetent nervous people on bikes either on the road or pavement improve things?0 -
thesquireofbanwell wrote: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
Is it not covered here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughterbagpuss0 -
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!
Interesting. It means no vehicles. I was asked what it meant on my "speed awareness" course last year. I was one of 80 people who attended on a single day in Leeds. I was the only one who answered it. The fact that I knew isn't the point, the point is that every one of us 80 people were there for speeding in a 30mph zone (not the same one!) and we were all a sight more dangerous and illegal than pavement cyclists.Where the neon madmen climb0 -
i mostly ride on the pavements at speed, unless going onto the road to run a red light. i am often accused of being arrogant but thats not the case and i aggressively dispute it with anyone who objects. Im holier than thou because of my green credentials and have no regard for safety. i dont care because the laws dont apply to me as a cyclist. i know i can get away with it because i dont pay any tax of any kind.0
-
rake wrote:i mostly ride on the pavements at speed, unless going onto the road to run a red light. i am often accused of being arrogant but thats not the case and i aggressively dispute it with anyone who objects. Im holier than thou because of my green credentials and have no regard for safety. i dont care because the laws dont apply to me as a cyclist. i know i can get away with it because i dont pay any tax of any kind.
SAge words indeed.
Some plank was whining at me for riding through a deserted town center recently and not stopping at the lights.
Lights which if the local council had any respect for the enviropnment would not be lit at 5 in the morning. lights designed to allow pedestrians and mums to cross thebusy bus infested pedestrianised area.
Tsk busses on the footpath and people moan about kids0 -
tarquin_foxglove wrote:"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......
Actually, it is punishable by a fine of upto level 2 on the standard scale ie £500.
The FPN is at the discretion of the police officer- you could be summonsed and face a fine as described aboveWant to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
spen666 wrote:Actually, it is punishable by a fine of upto level 2 on the standard scale ie £500.
The FPN is at the discretion of the police officer- you could be summonsed and face a fine as described above
& the maximum penalty for doing 70 in a 30 zone is?0 -
0
-
illegal, no 2 ways about it
do I do it? only when I really can't avoid it, and that means that it's a) unacceptably dangerous to ride on the road at that point in time b) there is sufficient space on the pavement to ride safely away from the pedestrians
even then, I ride at walking pace or walk"I get paid to make other people suffer on my wheel, how good is that"
--Jens Voight0 -
The onl;y time it is acceptable is if it is on part of which is designated a cycle path. If it isn't, get on the road.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0
-
Agreed, A while back, I was walking on a busy pavement at rush hour, and a guy on a bike came flying around the corner frantically ringing his bell. As the pavement was busy and there was nowhere for the pedestrians to go, I just dropped my shoulder and stood my ground. He didn't change his line or slow down, I didn't move and the result was him bouncing off me and into a lamp post. He wasn't happy and swore at me a lot, but he shouldn't have been there (especially as there is a cycle lane on the pavement the other side fo the road !!)Pross wrote: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?
Bottom line is, it's illegal.
Reality is a little different. I think if the pavement is empty or quiet, the cyclist is riding courteously and is aware that he/she should give way to pedestrians, then it's not a major issue. The problem arrises when cyclists expect pedestrians to give way to them.Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
-
philthy3 wrote:
No. He's just saying what you wrote was rubbish. Like a Daily Mail reader, you're taking a stance that allows no flexibility in the face of different scenarios. As such, it is rubbish. It may be your opinion, but it's a rubbish opinion. In my opinion anyway.0 -
It's the frigging law unfortunately. Strewth. MTFU and get off the pavement.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0
-
philthy3 wrote:It's the frigging law unfortunately. Strewth. MTFU and get off the pavement.
Whether I ride on the pavement or not, your opinion is still rubbish. It leaves no space at all for discretion in ANY scenario. And you've changed you argument from 'acceptability' to 'legality'.0 -
Cannondale SS Evo Team
Kona Jake CX
Cervelo P50 -
GiantMike wrote:philthy3 wrote:It's the frigging law unfortunately. Strewth. MTFU and get off the pavement.
Whether I ride on the pavement or not, your opinion is still rubbish. It leaves no space at all for discretion in ANY scenario. And you've changed you argument from 'acceptability' to 'legality'.
Within the law is acceptable or is that too difficult for you to understand? If you don't like the rules, bugger off elsewhere. They're quite liberal where you can cycle in the middle east.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
philthy3 wrote:The onl;y time it is acceptable is if it is on part of which is designated a cycle path. If it isn't, get on the road.philthy3 wrote:Within the law is acceptable or is that too difficult for you to understand? If you don't like the rules, bugger off elsewhere. They're quite liberal where you can cycle in the middle east.
But you don't know what the law is, so how can you say 'anything within the law is acceptable'? Do you know the wording of the actual law? And any subsequent case law? Yours is just another Daily Mail-esque knee-jerk reaction to an otherwise sensible debate. A dogmatic and entrenched position that gets more entrenched whenever anybody questions it or criticises it. And your original un-modified statement is still rubbish, because it's factually incorrect. You have a right to your rubbish opinion, but I have the right to think your opinion is rubbish.
I'll help you out. The correct answer is that there is no single sensible answer to the question posed because it 'depends on the situation'.
Oh, and as for the quip about the Middle East, what on Earth is that about?0 -
jim453 wrote:
That's your mum actually, she knows I'm often a little 'drained' after I come round to visit and she likes to be sure I've got home okay. Now that I've given you two f&ckwits an equally mature response...
If my 10 year old nephew rides her bike on a bit of empty pavement is that unacceptable? Illegal? Probably. Unacceptable? Probably not.0 -
WTF are you on about? A designated cycle path or cycle zone is for the use of cyclists, the pavement isn't unless especially designated. Try reading traffic law and the highway code. I know the law more than you think and I don't read the Daily Mail. Get the chip off your shoulder and grow some testicles to enable you ride on the road instead of being a pain in the arse for pedestrians..I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0
-
bails87 wrote:jim453 wrote:
That's your mum actually, she knows I'm often a little 'drained' after I come round to visit and she likes to be sure I've got home okay. Now that I've given you two f&ckwits an equally mature response...
If my 10 year old nephew rides her bike on a bit of empty pavement is that unacceptable? Illegal? Probably. Unacceptable? Probably not.
Unacceptable? not sure, i'm quite liberal but even then.. illegal? probably.0 -
I took a trip out yesterday with SWMBO, most of which was down the M42/M40. I maintained a steady 70mph all the way and occassionaly passed the odd vehicle but was passed by literally hundreds travelling considerably faster than me. were they driving illegally? Yes. Were they driving dangerously? No (with a couple of notable exceptions!!). My point is, the law is not black and white, even the police show a little discretion in most cases, and so it is with riding on the pavement, let commonsense prevail guys, there are far more important things to get get pi$$ed off about.
Like having to go to work at 6 on a Sunday morning
The problem is we are not eating food anymore, we are eating food-like products.0 -
The pavement is a narrow thoroughfare, it is not three or four lanes of traffic all travelling in the same direction. All motor vehicles are allowed to be there provided the driver is qualified. A cyclist on the pavement is an obstacle and a danger to pedestrians. Like one of the earlier posters; if you aren't confident enough to get on the road or too young, then use the park or push it until you reach a designated cycle route. This is one copper who doesn't show any discretion with regards to cycling on the pavement other than not issuing a FPN. A bollocking will suffice.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0
-
philthy3 wrote:Get the chip off your shoulder and grow some testicles to enable you ride on the road instead of being a pain in the ars* for pedestrians.
So where and when do I ride on the pavement where I am a problem for pedestrians? This is a debate about cycling in general, and not my cycling habits, of which you know NOTHING. I have never said it is always acceptable or always unacceptable, because I'm sensible enough to understand there are situations which require discration and judgement.
Is it acceptable for somebody to ride on a pavement when there are no pedestrians using it? Is it more acceptable when it's next to a dangerous road? Your dogmatic entrenched position allows you to use absolutely no discretion in your answer.GiantMike wrote:I'll help you out. The correct answer is that there is no single sensible answer to the question posed because it 'depends on the situation'.
Still waiting to find out what on earth your Middle East comment was about.0 -
Read the definition of a highway and the priorities on it. Read rule 64 of the highway code. Try attending most police surgeries and you'll hear the things residents are bothered about amongst wheelie bins being left out and dog muck on the pavements is cyclists on the pavement.
Discretion is whether you are given an enforcement notice. Give me an example where someone under ten years of age needs to be cycling on the pavement. Under ten years in case you weren't aware is where a child can't be judged responsible for their actions in court and therefore can't be prosecuted. However, the parent can be liable for any actions by the child.
By your own rules it should be acceptable in certain circumstances for someone to break into your house and nick your property.
The middle east reference was due to the lack of transport and road structure in a lot of places meaning there is no defined footpath or road i.e. cycle where you want.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
philthy3 wrote:The pavement is a narrow thoroughfare, it is not three or four lanes of traffic all travelling in the same direction. All motor vehicles are allowed to be there provided the driver is qualified. A cyclist on the pavement is an obstacle and a danger to pedestrians. Like one of the earlier posters; if you aren't confident enough to get on the road or too young, then use the park or push it until you reach a designated cycle route. This is one copper who doesn't show any discretion with regards to cycling on the pavement other than not issuing a FPN. A bollocking will suffice.
If the pavement is empty of peds, the road is blocked by traffic and unpassable and I hop on the pavement for a short stretch to bypass the congestion, you're saying that's dangerous and unacceptable because it's against the letter of the law? So by the same token, anyone exceeding 70 on the M-way is breaking the law too, but somehow in your eyes that's ok because they're all travelling in the same direction? Not sure I follow your argument.The problem is we are not eating food anymore, we are eating food-like products.0 -
philthy3 wrote:By your own rules it should be acceptable in certain circumstances for someone to break into your house and nick your property.
I can't think of any circumstances off hand but, yes, by my logic (not a rule) it may be acceptable to somebody. In the same way that the very people who complain about cyclists on the pavement would probably consider it acceptable for them to ride on the pavement in certain circumstances.
This whole debate started because you could not understand that it would ever be acceptable. Can you not think of a single situation where it would be acceptable for a cyclist to ride on the pavement?
Would it be acceptable for a cyclist to mount the pavement to chase a rapist if the consequence of not doing so was that the rapist got away?0 -
In a letter providing explanation to the 1999 Act (introducing the fixed penalty charge) Home Office Minister Paul Boateng wrote
"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."
This was furthur clarified in 2004 by the Home Office;
"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)"
So, as long as we are considerate and do so where it is sensible, i.e. a dangerous streach of road it is somewhat acceptable.
I for one use a short streach of narrow pavement (albeit one where there are plans to widen and add a cyclepath) I am always courteous and generally ride at walking pace only overtaking when it is safe to do so (not all riders do the same). At either end of this pavement, I am straight back onto the road.
Sorry for the long post guys.0
