Cycling on pavements.

[Cab]

What's to say they didn't hit someone 30secs after you saw them?

Whats to say that any or all of the cyclists I saw on the roads didn't do something stupid 30 seconds after I saw them?

 

[thomas]

Whats to say that any or all of the cyclists I saw on the roads didn't do something stupid 30 seconds after I saw them?

Because they're riding where they legally can...duuuhh

On my old commute there was a women who rode on the pavement. The stretch of road was very busy so didn't blame her. Also, few peds around so not really an issue. I'd always say morning to her and just be friendly which she seemed to appreciate. Better than looking like a moron making some stupid comment about if she's allowed to ride on the road.

@Arch: I do get that some pavement cyclists could be quite scary to the elderly and do get your points. Recently the Police around here started ticketing cyclists at one point after complaints from people who had been knocked over (I don't believe anyone was knocked over, probably just had a close pass/annoyed because it's against the law)....yet when I've gone to the Police after nearly being crushed by a bus (worst than nearly being hit by a cyclist) they couldn't care less.

 

[Barbelier]

So, who here condoned pavement cycling? I'm aware of no one. I haven't seen anyone doing so.

Cad, that's not what I said - please read my post properly:

Where do you draw the line with such an argument (I hardly ever see dangerous pavement riding so it's not a big deal)?

Oh, and on my lunchtime pootle in to town and back, I counted six pavement cyclists, none of them causing the slightest bit of harm.

Oh that's okay then! So if a motor cycle did the same but "didn't do any harm" you would accept that as well? So matter what the law stipulates people should feel free to ignore it so long as they don't do any harm. Jumping a red light - that's okay because I didn't actually hit anyone!

 

[BentMikey]

I'm with Cab. Like him I don't ride on pavements and I don't think it's right, but really, it's near the bottom of the list of things harmful to others.

 

[Cab]

Cad, that's not what I said - please read my post properly:

I did read your post properly, which is why I replied as I did. I think we over-react to this kind of thing, and, further, I think that we over-react to anyone pointing out that we over-react!

Oh that's okay then! So if a motor cycle did the same but "didn't do any harm" you would accept that as well?

Pretty much. Shouldn't I?

So matter what the law stipulates people should feel free to ignore it so long as they don't do any harm. Jumping a red light - that's okay because I didn't actually hit anyone!

Nope. I didn't say that, nor do I mean it. But yes, I do think that we get too hot under the collar about cyclists jumping red lights too (as said offense is not a significant cause of accidents on our roads).

 

[eldudino]

it's near the bottom of the list of things harmful to others.

I agree in principle, it's a pretty benign practice but it can be harmful and it is illegal.

My argumentative side :

Waving a knife around in front of you is illegal, most people would stay out of your way for fear of being cut so you're not really likely to do anyone any damage providing they can see you, but if someone runs out of a side street/shop and gets cut then you're doing something wrong and you're going to hurt someone.

 

[ChrisKH]

I agree in principle, it's a pretty benign practice but it can be harmful and it is illegal.

My argumentative side :

Waving a knife around in front of you is illegal, most people would stay out of your way for fear of being cut so you're not really likely to do anyone any damage providing they can see you, but if someone runs out of a side street/shop and gets cut then you're doing something wrong and you're going to hurt someone.

Not sure I follow that. Getting back to the pavement cycling, you would be okay with your five year old cycling on the road then as this is clearly illegal otherwise?

 

[eldudino]

Not sure I follow that. Getting back to the pavement cycling, you would be okay with your five year old cycling on the road then as this is clearly illegal otherwise?

Bit of a grey area there. A 5 year old cycling on the pavement is quite clearly different to a grown man riding on the pavement. I don't think you can expect 5 year olds to treat the road as an adult does, nor would it be reasonable to expect people driving or riding on the road to have to deal with 5 year old riding abilities!

 

[Arch]

Not sure I follow that. Getting back to the pavement cycling, you would be okay with your five year old cycling on the road then as this is clearly illegal otherwise?

A child as young as that is specifically exempted I think. From what I vaguely remember hearing, kids up to 10 or so are exempt.

 

[BentMikey]

AFAIK no-one is exempt. Not on the basis of age or of wheel size.

 

[Cab]

A child as young as that is specifically exempted I think. From what I vaguely remember hearing, kids up to 10 or so are exempt.

They're not. They merely cannot be prosecuted because they're under the age of criminal whats its name. They're still breaking the law and Plod should, technically, stop them.

 

[Debian]

A child as young as that is specifically exempted I think. From what I vaguely remember hearing, kids up to 10 or so are exempt.

AFAIK no-one is exempt. Not on the basis of age or of wheel size.

The law applies to footways, not footpaths, as follows:

It is important to note that most legislation relating to 'cycling on footpaths' actually relates to the riding of cycles on a 'footway set aside for the use of pedestrians' which runs alongside a road. For example, the 'fixed penalties' brought in a few years ago do NOT apply to country footpaths where there is no road. Fixed penalty notices also cannot be applied to areas such as parks, shopping precincts etc. unless a byelaw has been passed making cycling such areas an offence, nor do they apply to anyone under 16. Many people (including police officers) seem to think that 'a footpath is a footpath' wherever it is and that the same laws apply. This is not the case.

 

[Cab]

That a kid on a footpath (running next to a road) cannot be punished with a FPN does not mean that the law isn't being broken, it just means that below the age of criminal responsibility a FPN cannot be issued. Its still illegal.

 

[Debian]

That a kid on a footpath (running next to a road) cannot be punished with a FPN does not mean that the law isn't being broken, it just means that below the age of criminal responsibility a FPN cannot be issued. Its still illegal.

Yes, you're quite correct.

 

[Debian]

However, Home Office advice is:

"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."

and:

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)