who are pavements for?

[Angelfishsolo]

that isn't a dangerous road. several lanes at 70mph is a dangerous road...

Well said.

 

[Red Light]

Well clearly this learned man knows a huge amount about cyclists and their mode of dress and storeage solutions.

That doesn't matter. In law his word is the law until the Appeal Court decides differently and is binding on all lower Courts. And knowing what a stickler you are for following the law irrespective, I am sure you will support it without hesitation, deviation or repetition

 

[Angelfishsolo]

That doesn't matter. In law his word is the law until the Appeal Court decides differently and is binding on all lower Courts. And knowing what a stickler you are for following the law irrespective, I am sure you will support it without hesitation, deviation or repetition

Well as the ruling does not prevent cycling on the road I would have no issues complying with the law.
Could you tell me why you find it strange that someone wants to obay the law of the land?

 

[MontyVeda]

The key difference is that we are allowed on some but not others. We can pontificate as much as we want as to whether we think the rule is confusing or a nonsense. The fact of the matter is that it's really that simple. Blue sign yes and no sign no!
We get pissed off with cars giving us crap yet some think it's fine to speed along foot paths where pedestrians don't expect to see us ...............

Did you actually read the entire thread?

 

[MontyVeda]

... As I teach adults I feel it appropriate to provide the relevent information but not actively encourage it. I am an independant teaching the CTC's National Standards sylibus.

That explains your 'holier than thou' stance I guess.

What I don't understand is why you appear to be dead against some of the key points highlighted here:


Angelfishsolo, on 06 July 2011 - 08:19:35, said:

The primary legislation which makes cycling on a footway an offence is section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act, this provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he “shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers or shall wilfully lead or drive any carriage of any description upon any such footpath or causeway.”

Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888 extended the definition of “carriage” to include “bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines.”

The object of Section 72 Highways Act 1835 was intended not to protect all footpaths, but only footpaths or causeways by the side of a road, and that this is still the case has been ruled in the high court. The legislation makes no exceptions for small wheeled or children’s cycles, so even a child riding on a footway is breaking the law. However, if they are under the age of criminal responsibility they cannot, of course, face prosecution. See below.

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)

 

[Angelfishsolo]

That explains your 'holier than thou' stance I guess.

What I don't understand is why you appear to be dead against some of the key points highlighted here:


Angelfishsolo, on 06 July 2011 - 08:19:35, said:

The primary legislation which makes cycling on a footway an offence is section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act, this provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he “shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers or shall wilfully lead or drive any carriage of any description upon any such footpath or causeway.”

Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888 extended the definition of “carriage” to include “bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines.”

The object of Section 72 Highways Act 1835 was intended not to protect all footpaths, but only footpaths or causeways by the side of a road, and that this is still the case has been ruled in the high court. The legislation makes no exceptions for small wheeled or children’s cycles, so even a child riding on a footway is breaking the law. However, if they are under the age of criminal responsibility they cannot, of course, face prosecution. See below.

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)

As you quotes ".....many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”

I teach adults who wish to be road safe. I do not teach adults how to ride (Looking back I did not make that clear) as that is not part of the National Standards Syllabus. If I were to advocate pavement cycling I would be doing my clients a disservice.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463398"]
You're moving your own goalposts now.
[/quote]

Not at all - I failed to clarify what I teach ie National Standards Level 3. This is adults only and as such I would not teach pavement cycling. In previous posts I have talked about adults riding on pavements not children. I was under the impression this thread was about Adults riding on pavements. I have no real issue with under 12's on them and yes I know that FPN's can not be given to <16's). That said if I were doing a Nat Standards L2 session I would be teaching children on quite roads and not pavements as per the syllabus.

 

[MontyVeda]

Not at all - I failed to clarify what I teach ie National Standards Level 3. This is adults only and as such I would not teach pavement cycling. In previous posts I have talked about adults riding on pavements not children. I was under the impression this thread was about Adults riding on pavements. I have no real issue with under 12's on them and yes I know that FPN's can not be given to <16's). That said if I were doing a Nat Standards L2 session I would be teaching children on quite roads and not pavements as per the syllabus.

See this is where the law is a bit of an ass. Although I too have no real issue with the under 12 riding on pavements either, it's the under 12's who are less likely to be aware of people around them and are more likely to get in the way of pedestrians. We all know what kids are like... gormless

 

[Angelfishsolo]

See this is where the law is a bit of an ass. Although I too have no real issue with the under 12 riding on pavements either, it's the under 12's who are less likely to be aware of people around them and are more likely to get in the way of pedestrians. We all know what kids are like... gormless

and also far less likely to have any road sense hence my willingness to overlook them.

 

[gaz]

and also far less likely to have any road sense hence my willingness to overlook them.

So if a 30y/o has no road sense, it's ok for them to cycle on the pavement?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

So if a 30y/o has no road sense, it's ok for them to cycle on the pavement?

No. In my experience adults are far more likely to be pulled for cycling on pavements than are children. The law has provision to turn a blind eye "especially towards children". IMO Adults wishing to follow the route a road takes should be trained in how to ride on the road if no shared facilities are available.

 

[gaz]

Training isn't always the easiest thing to find and certainly not something that a lot of adult cyclists will look for.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Training isn't always the easiest thing to find and certainly not something that a lot of adult cyclists will look for.

This is like the argument illegal off-road motorbikers use. The legal trails are too far away, why should I go to a legal place when I have a forest on my doorstep. Doesn't wash I'm sorry.

 

[gaz]

It was a statement and is nothing like you suggested.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

It was a statement and is nothing like you suggested.

Yes sorry it was a statement not an argument. It does however have the same undertones as the comments illegal off-road bikers use.

My opinion is very clear. Pavements are for pedestrians unless otherwise stated. You may get away with riding on them but your actions are not legal merely unlikely to be pursued by the authorities. As a CTC representative I can not be seen to condone illegal activity.