Pavement cyclists.

[Clandy]

[QUOTE 1101494"]
Quoted yesterday, and easily findable with the simple Googling which you've done to find the HC references.
[/quote]



I'm asking you for links to references to back up your claim that government and police say it is ok to cycle on pavements. Please provide them.

 

[Clandy]

[QUOTE 1101495"]
I've had plenty and the response, both from beat bobbies and managerially, is that if they're not bothering anyone then they're happy for them to continue.
[/quote]

This is purely anecdotal and means nothing. Please provide the links requested.

 

[Jezston]

Just googled 'home office guidance pavement cycling' and got this:

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php

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. At the time 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)

 

[Angelfishsolo]

+1

The more people who ride illegally on the pavement the more government will introduce restrictions on cyclists. The selfish, ignorant, morons who ride on the pavement should be fined heavily and their bicycles confiscated and sold for charity. Those idiots are a damned nuisance who do all cyclists an enormous disservice, and are responsible for damaging cycling as a whole.

 

[Cyclopathic]

You're speaking for 'all' now are you? Where I live you will be told to get off the pavement. In town you will be stopped and handed an on the spot fine. If you are riding on the pavement you are breaking the law. Stop being a baby, and get in the road.


Highway Code.

Rule #64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

Because it is technicaly against the law does not automaticaly mean that it is wrong or that it shouldn't be challenged. Using the logic that it is against the law and therefor should not be done at all then all men, until recently would have had to practice their archery on a Sunday.
I think a certain amount of careful and responsible riding on the pavement is perfectly acceptable and if done with respect is a good way of showing the law up for being unnecessary and in need of modification. When I am a pedestrian I am only really bothered by the cyclists who race down the path without proper care. The careful responsible riders (which seem to be the majority) are not a problem at all.

 

[Cyclopathic]

[QUOTE 1101501"]
Incidentally, I've just taken my daily hour-long walk through the city centre. I saw 7 pavement cyclists. None of them were causing any problem for pedestrians. All courteous and responsible cycling, giving way and staying out of the path of walkers. I don't think I saw a ped even lifting their head, most of them didn't notice the cyclists.

Conversely, I had to jump out of the way of one car which was being driven at inappropriate speed through a pedestrianised area. The driver had no intention of giving way to me.

And as for the pedestrians! Sheesh, it's like a slalom.
[/quote]


I will be contravercial and say that in my opinion a cyclist who dismounts and wheels their bike through a pedestrian area can often cause more of an obstruction than a rider who stays on their bike and makes their way carefuly through the area. I think I'm much more likely to clobber some poor sod with my pedal when I'm wheeling my bike than I am when riding. Like every aspect of road use and indeed life, if done with care and respect then many of the problems fall away,

 

[mickle]

I will be contravercial and say that in my opinion a cyclist who dismounts and wheels their bike through a pedestrian area can often cause more of an obstruction than a rider who stays on their bike and makes their way carefuly through the area. I think I'm much more likely to clobber some poor sod with my pedal when I'm wheeling my bike than I am when riding. Like every aspect of road use and indeed life, if done with care and respect then many of the problems fall away,

Yup.

 

[suecsi]

I do often think this as I dismount to go through the pedestrian area in Kingston town centre. I always obey the rules on my way home, as it can be really busy, and I still see people cycling through there regardless. The shared use section through to the station is so full of pedestrians (why do students have to walk in groups of 20 spread right across?) that I don't bother there, where it is legal to cycle.

I do cycle through the pedestrian area in the morning, as I pass through at 07:45 and there is no-one about apart from the odd street cleaner or those motorised mini road sweepers, or the bin men. The shops don't open till 09:30.

 

[Clandy]

[QUOTE 1101501"]
Incidentally, I've just taken my daily hour-long walk through the city centre. I saw 7 pavement cyclists. None of them were causing any problem for pedestrians. All courteous and responsible cycling, giving way and staying out of the path of walkers. I don't think I saw a ped even lifting their head, most of them didn't notice the cyclists.

Conversely, I had to jump out of the way of one car which was being driven at inappropriate speed through a pedestrianised area. The driver had no intention of giving way to me.

And as for the pedestrians! Sheesh, it's like a slalom.
[/quote]

More anecdotal evidence.

 

[Clandy]

[QUOTE 1101500"]
On the contrary, it's necessary to make progress with this. The law is clear but so is the guidance, and they're contradictory. So the next step is to look at what's happening on the street. In the absence of anything to support your claim that "you will be fined" for pavement riding in your area, you could come up with some stats on fines. Failing that, speak to the people who police the streets. In Brum, they'll say that they won't ticket you if you're not causing a nuisance.
[/quote]

Purely anecdotal. Hard evidence please.

 

[Jezston]

You keep demanding evidence from people Clandy, but decline to provide any yourself or comment on evidence given.

You asked for proof that HO guidance states that police should not prosecute pavement cyclists unless they are being a nuisance.

I provided you with this, and you have not responded.

Kindly start acting with a little more dignity or STFU.

 

[Clandy]

You keep demanding evidence from people Clandy, but decline to provide any yourself or comment on evidence given.

You asked for proof that HO guidance states that police should not prosecute pavement cyclists unless they are being a nuisance.

I provided you with this, and you have not responded.

Kindly start acting with a little more dignity or STFU.

I did not see any evidence that riding on the pavement is no longer against the law.

 

[Clandy]

[QUOTE 1101508"]
Look up......

You've had the hard evidence, you've had the anecdotal evidence which compliments it and you've had a clear explanation as to why both go together.
[/quote]


Anecdotal evidence means nothing. It is unsubstantiated. I could just as easily write that every copper I know insists on nicking every cyclist they see on the pavement. It would be meaningless without evidence, just as your anecdotes are meaningless without evidence.

As for cycling on the pavement, stop trying to justify illegal behaviour, take the stabilisers off your bike, and get in the road.

 

[Clandy]

You keep demanding evidence from people Clandy, but decline to provide any yourself or comment on evidence given.

You asked for proof that HO guidance states that police should not prosecute pavement cyclists unless they are being a nuisance.

I provided you with this, and you have not responded.

Kindly start acting with a little more dignity or STFU.

Dignity? Try not telling people to STFU, and I might listen to that, but as it is I tend to ignore hypocrites.

 

[mightyquin]

I sometimes ride for short stretches on the pavement, if I do I go very slowly and then only if the pavements clear. I really don't see why that should be a problem for anyone. I've been hit a fair few times by inconsiderate pushchair wielding mums before!

In my immediate area there are cycle lanes marked on the roads (often ignored by cars/buses who block them), and some stretches of pavement with a cycle lane marked on them, which pedestrians totally ignore.

There are also some long stretches of A road with a pavement on one side, which are rarely used by pedestrians anyway.

On my commute to work I can cross a major road junction by going straight over, with the traffic, and cycle for a short section on the pavement to get to the entrance for the car park, or I can take a left hand filter lane and then have to cross two very busy lanes of traffic to get to a filter road to the car park, which also crosses another two very busy lanes. I'd rather do a little to preserve my life and take a shortcut that inconveniences no one, even if it is technically against the law.

It's not a black and white issue. To say 'never' ride on pavements makes the shared use cycle path/footpath thing a bit silly - is the pedestrian breaking the law by stepping into the cycle lane side and vice versa?

I don't cycle on pavements as a rule, but there are always exceptions to every rule.