I know its illegal but...

DanDax1990

On my route to work I cut out a very busy and in my eyes dangerous junction by cutting over a short footpath (20 metre'ish in length) and most of the time ill ride on the grass next to said footpath. But today whilst cycling down the footpath a woman was walking her dog towards me up the path. The dog ran infront of my bike and as I swerved to avoid the dog I fell off my bike. Lucky for me I only twisted my leg a little bit.

Am I being a twerp for cycling on the path? Or is there others out there that do the same? I'm confident cycling on the roads but the junction is bad enough in a car. Loads of lorries and foreign wagon drivers doesn't give me much confidence... Adding to the fact the poor road condition.

I know its classed as being illegal... But why shouldn't cyclists have a choice to cut out junctions to avoid being put in more danger than normal? P.S my Cateye computer was indicating my speed was 5 MPH, I never ride fast on the bit of pavement, I was just unlucky when I swerved there was a covering of moss on the path.

EKE_38BPM

DanDax1990 wrote:

On my route to work I cut out a very busy and in my eyes dangerous junction by cutting over a short footpath (20 metre'ish in length) and most of the time ill ride on the grass next to said footpath. But today whilst cycling down the footpath a woman was walking her dog towards me up the path. The dog ran infront of my bike and as I swerved to avoid the dog I fell off my bike. Lucky for me I only twisted my leg a little bit.

Am I being a twerp for cycling on the path? Or is there others out there that do the same? I'm confident cycling on the roads but the junction is bad enough in a car. Loads of lorries and foreign wagon drivers doesn't give me much confidence... Adding to the fact the poor road condition.

I know its classed as being illegal... But why shouldn't cyclists have a choice to cut out junctions to avoid being put in more danger than normal? P.S my Cateye computer was indicating my speed was 5 MPH, I never ride fast on the bit of pavement, I was just unlucky when I swerved there was a covering of moss on the path.

20 metres isn't far to walk. If peds are around maybe you should do that. Of course I mean that you should always walk on the footpath, even if there is no-one around, yeah, thats what I mean.

DanDax1990

'PEDS'?

napoleond

Jimmy and Gary. You know...

EKE_38BPM

DanDax1990 wrote:

'PEDS'?

Pedestrians.

daddy0

I'd do the same, but I'd avoid the grass. Check the by-laws - it might even be legal to ride on that path.

tailwindhome

DanDax1990 wrote:

Am I being a twerp for cycling on the path?

IMHO not in this instance, however when you fall on your bum expect nothing less than..

Santa cruzing

I use a foot path to cut out a busy roundabout on a dual carriageway exit, the lane discapline there is amazingly poor. Needing to take the furthest exit makes it hairy. This is out of the town and very rarely any peds around, but on the odd occaision there are I stop for them. Never managed to topple whilst doing so, though.

zx6man

You should know that some dog walkers own all the paths and you shouldn't be within 50 meters of them.

Anonymous

EKE_38BPM wrote:

DanDax1990 wrote:

'PEDS'?

Pedestrians.

Performance enhancing drugs - have you not been following the armstrong saga?

jds_1981

Yeah, as others have said, check legality of whether can cycle on that path. Also, I'm not aware of any laws stopping you from cycling on the grass next to the path. Anyone else?

The Rookie

Strictly pushing a bike on the path is illegal (though I very much doubt anyone has ever been done for it).

Personally if there is any doubt, walk.

CiB

After the outbreak of famous cyclists being knocked from or falling off their bikes lately, one very noticeable fact for me was the absolute hostility & dislike bordering on hatred that a large part of the population has towards us, judging by the comments sections of various on-line news papers. The justification for this is largely due to all cyclists being arrogant gits who imagine themselves to be above the law and all jump red lights, ride on the pavements etc.

The answer to your question is that yes you are being a twerp, because you're adding to the overwhelming view (judging by the moronic comments in these papers) that we're all a bunch of renegades who feel that the law doesn't apply to us and we can ride on pavements skittling people aside willy-nilly.

Clearly on here we all know that that isn't the case but a large part of it is perception, and if fewer cyclists did break the law it might improve our v tarnished image. So no - don't ride on the pavement.

rjsterry

CiB wrote:

After the outbreak of famous cyclists being knocked from or falling off their bikes lately, one very noticeable fact for me was the absolute hostility & dislike bordering on hatred that a large part of the population has towards us, judging by the comments sections of various on-line news papers. The justification for this is largely due to all cyclists being arrogant gits who imagine themselves to be above the law and all jump red lights, ride on the pavements etc.

The answer to your question is that yes you are being a twerp, because you're adding to the overwhelming view (judging by the moronic comments in these papers) that we're all a bunch of renegades who feel that the law doesn't apply to us and we can ride on pavements skittling people aside willy-nilly.

Clearly on here we all know that that isn't the case but a large part of it is perception, and if fewer cyclists did break the law it might improve our v tarnished image. So no - don't ride on the pavement.

I think you give newspapers' online comments section too much credit CiB. Like radio phone-ins, they are self-selecting for the under-informed and over-opinionated. That said, I agree with your main point.

daviesee

I come up to a pedestrian crossing with a red light but no pedestrians.
It feels silly waiting for no reason. I know it's illegal but......

Now apply that logic to when driving the car. Still okay?

You know it's wrong. Don't do it.

zx6man

The pedstrian might have a cloak of invisiblity on while crossing and you could hit them....

CiB

rjsterry wrote:

I think you give newspapers' online comments section too much credit CiB. Like radio phone-ins, they are self-selecting for the under-informed and over-opinionated.

But pers exp adds to that view; my squash oppo the other, my old boy, a few people who I work with...

Sad but true, as we say.

daviesee

zx6man wrote:

The pedstrian might have a cloak of invisiblity on while crossing and you could hit them....

They can't be wearing it as I have it.
At least that's my conclusion as to why pedestrians don't see me even with lights & reflectives.

Bustacapp

Who actually cares? Did that woman have her dog off it's lead? I bet she lets is shit everywhere too.

Just ride on the pavement and use common sense when pedestrians are around.

pdw

Have a read of this http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/

Unless the footway runs alongside the main carriageway, whether it is illegal or not will depend on local bye laws and signage.

If the junction is that bad, have you tried pestering the local authority to actually make some provision for cyclists? e.g. by turning the section of path into a shared use thing?

kelsen

NapoleonD wrote:

Jimmy and Gary. You know...

Drfabulous0

The Beginner wrote:

Strictly pushing a bike on the path is illegal (though I very much doubt anyone has ever been done for it).

Personally if there is any doubt, walk.

That's absolute bull, there is precedant that clearly defines a bike being pushed as no different from any other peice of luggage, I can't be bothered looking it up but go ahead and google it.

Kieran_Burns

Drfabulous0 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

Strictly pushing a bike on the path is illegal (though I very much doubt anyone has ever been done for it).

Personally if there is any doubt, walk.

That's absolute bull, there is precedant that clearly defines a bike being pushed as no different from any other peice of luggage, I can't be bothered looking it up but go ahead and google it.

Agreed. You are on foot at this time, this is why it is legal to cycle to a Pelican / zebra crossing, get off, walk across and get back on the bike (as if you were crossing the road)

I saw the case myself and likewise cannot remember it, but it perfectly legal to walk with a bike on the pavement.

Daz555

Swerved to avoid?

That was your first mistake. The bunny hop was invented in order to allow cyclists to easily avoid small dogs and leads whilst at the same time looking cool and irresponsible in equal measure.

The Rookie

Drfabulous0 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

Strictly pushing a bike on the path is illegal (though I very much doubt anyone has ever been done for it).

Personally if there is any doubt, walk.

That's absolute bull, there is precedant that clearly defines a bike being pushed as no different from any other peice of luggage, I can't be bothered looking it up but go ahead and google it.

It is illegal to have anything wheeled (Carrying it may change it) other than 'bath chairs' (or similar quaint expression I'd have to look it up again) even push chairs are not strictly legal, you say it's bull, back it up with fact!

alfablue

I think the confusion about this relates to public footpaths; i.e. those paths common in the countryside marked with a yellow arrow and often a green sign. These are not the same as paths beside roads (that we usually call pavements). In law, these are called "footways".

It is fine to push a bike on a footway, but on a public footpath a walker is allowed to take any "suitable accompaniment". As I understand it, it has never been tested whether a bicycle is a suitable accompaniment, so people suggest it is not because the law doesn't specify.

If you cycle on a footpath (or push a bicycle which may or may not be okay) you cannot be fined (unless a bylaw has made it a specific offence), it is not a criminal offence, but you may be sued by the landowner for trespass. The landowner can sue you for damages caused by you (which may be little or zero just from walking with a bike, or could be greater if riding). No one can be "prosecuted" for trespassing as it is not a criminal offence, despite the many "trespassers will be prosecuted" signs that exist.

If you cycle on a footway (pavement beside road) you can receive a fixed penalty notice of £30, or if you are being a real menace you might get up to £1000 fine for careless cycling or £2500 for dangerous cycling.

Kieran_Burns

The Beginner wrote:

Drfabulous0 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

Strictly pushing a bike on the path is illegal (though I very much doubt anyone has ever been done for it).

Personally if there is any doubt, walk.

That's absolute bull, there is precedant that clearly defines a bike being pushed as no different from any other peice of luggage, I can't be bothered looking it up but go ahead and google it.

It is illegal to have anything wheeled (Carrying it may change it) other than 'bath chairs' (or similar quaint expression I'd have to look it up again) even push chairs are not strictly legal, you say it's bull, back it up with fact!

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/scooting-your-bike/

“freewheeling or standing on one pedal still counts as riding. (DPP v Selby [1994] RTR 157, 162; Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441, 442-3)”

The judgement stated:

"In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a ‘foot passenger’. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a ‘foot passenger’. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand. I regard it as unarguable the finding that she was not a foot passenger "

Also relevant to the OP

On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. The then Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:

“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.”

Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by ‘Community Support Officers’ and wardens.

“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)

and finally:

‘CARRY THAT BIKE!’
Don’t fall for the piffle that you have to carry a bicycle when on a footway or pedestrian crossing. Anyone pushing a bicycle is a “foot-passenger” (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441) and is not “riding” it (Selby). In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ said: “In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a ‘foot passenger’. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a ‘foot passenger’. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand.”

http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-artic ... d-the-law/

EKE_38BPM

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Lots of very good stuff.

The Beginner should consider him/herself thoroughly schooled and quit whilst they only look a little bit silly.

tailwindhome

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Lots of very good stuff.

The Beginner should consider him/herself thoroughly schooled and quit whilst they only look a little bit silly.

Nooooo.

The Beginner is on the ropes and under pressure.

I'm backing him/her to come out swinging.

Let's see what happens.

Kieran_Burns

CTC have a note as well:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views ... land-wales

There is good evidence, although no direct case law, to support the view that pushing a cycle on a footpath is not illegal. The presence of obstacles such as stiles should not be considered a deterrent to a footpath’s use by cyclists.

A little more:
http://cycling.access-legal.co.uk/2010/ ... e-law.html

Where a local byelaw is in place, it should be clearly signed. However, many signs can fall into disrepair and are often not seen. According to the Department for Transport's Code of Conduct, ‘In pedestrianised areas, only ride your cycle if there aren't too many pedestrians about; otherwise dismount and push it."

and a further example of the previously mentioned judgement in the same article:

Pushing your bicycle along any footpath is allowed. By doing this you would be considered to be a ‘foot passenger’. In his Court of Appeal Judgement in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ said:

<snip>

It is therefore clear that anything other than walking with both feet on the ground, regardless of what one is holding, pushing, pulling or dragging should be considered walking.

SteppenHerring

If pushing your bike were illegal then also those stupid little suitcases on wheels should be illegal. Which would be good. Along with garbage-collecting programming languages, they are responsible for the nation's moral decline.