There are two levels of law-breaking in the Highway Code:

- 'MUST/MUST NOT' in the Highway Code means you must obey the referenced law. That 'MUST/MUST NOT' is black & white.

- 'should/should not' means a more general driving law may be applied such as that of 'driving without due care and attention'* or 'dangerous driving'*, if the police deem it appropriate.

 

As flecc says, and regardless of which variant above, whether you actually get fined depends on being spotted, the outcome of your action (nothing, injury, death), repeated offending, how overloaded the police are, and how polite/apologetic/rude/pig-headed/entitled you are.

 

In the case of the van + bicycle collision, there's no specific law being broken by either party (i.e. a MUST/MUST NOT rule), but I'd suggest the cyclist was 'driving without due care and attention' - "At junctions with no separate cyclist facilities, it is recommended that you proceed as if you were driving a motor vehicle". The van driver may also be partially at fault if that crossing was deemed to be a cycle way but the road markings suggest is isn't.

 

In the case of the car + near miss again it isn't a MUST/MUST NOT rule, but this time it's the car that's 'driving without due care and attention' - "Give ... cyclists ... at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car". Combine that with 'how polite/rude you are' and you can see why the car driver is being held up as a example. The motorist believed he was in the right - he tested the law, and lost, so maybe not 'rude' - just pigheaded or entitled.

 

*Some examples of offences here, when you expand the sections:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/driving-offences

That's a big chunk of illustration, very useful.

 

The bit about 'at least as much space as you would give a car' is very different to '...1.5m...' and might start to explain why so many passes only leave 0.3 to 0.5m when so much more space is available.

You really are desperately trying to convince that cyclists can never use the pavement

 

I have long thought that cyclists should legally be allowed to share the pavements with pedestrians, if its done in a responsible way. I also think the law should be changed so that it is indeed allowed.

 

It would be a great surprise to many if the recently issued Highway code, and the House of Commons guidance to MPs in 2020 on the issue are both incorrect;

 

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01097/SN01097.pdf

 

See page 29;

 

5. Cycling: offences

5.1 Can cyclists ride their bikes on the

pavement?

It is a criminal offence to ride a bicycle on the pavement.

There has long been debate about whether this is properly enforced.

Legal position

It is a criminal offence to ride a bicycle (defined as a ‘carriage’ by section

85 of the Local Government Act 1888, as amended) on a “footpath or

causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or

accommodation of foot passengers” under section 72 of the Highway

Act 1835, as amended. Cycling on the footway is also prohibited in

London under section 54(7) of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 and in

other areas under section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.

 

The real issue is why are the Goverment being so duplicitous ?

 

They inform the public, correctly, that cycling on the pavement is illegal (Highway Code) yet try to usurp the law by persuading the Police not to issue fixed penalty notices ?

 

Many of the public must wonder if cycling on the pavement is illegal (HighWay Code) why do the Police apparently do very little to stop it ?

 

Perhaps in the modern Boris era we should not be surprised the Goverment has the taken the approach that breaking the law is OK really.

Many of the public must wonder if cycling on the pavement is illegal (HighWay Code) why do the Police apparently do very little to stop it ?

 

Perhaps in the modern Boris era we should not be surprised the Goverment has the taken the approach that breaking the law is OK really.

 

Of course they wonder, and protest at the police inaction in letters to their local press.

 

The reason is nothing to do with this Boris era since it long predates that. It is as I've explained, quite deliberate, intentionally to increase pavement use by cyclists, but responsibly done.

 

The duplicitousness is to gradually persuade the public that it is ok after all, so long as the circumstances are right. As the old empire saying goes, "Softly, softly, catchee monkey".

 

The section in italics that you quoted is obviously no more than empty words to satisfy MPs when they seek to support constituents on this issue: "Yes public, it is illegal and criminal", then whispered aside to the police, "Not really, here's the reasons why you should do nothing about it".

 

After all, how can it be a criminal act, when painting a bicycle symbol on the pavement makes it a responsible citizen's act? That alone makes those words in italics meaningless.

 

I agree with you about sharing the pavements. Other countries have done it successfully, Japan being a notable example where taking to the pavement in cities is often compulsory for cyclists. We just need a government with the courage to state it outright, instead of this duplicitous approach.

 

But we are stuck with what we have, so we might as well make use of this form of permission where it is suitable, but with courtesy and consideration for pedestrians at all times. It's what I've done and I've never suffered any pedestrian dissent, quite the opposite in fact.

.

Edited June 24, 20223 yr by flecc

I’ve been very interested and encouraged in flecc’s posts regarding pavement use. I remember during Tony Blair’s time that John Prescott was championing a change in the law to allow cycling on the pavement. Legalising children cycling on the path was one of the quoted benefits. After the law was changed I seem to recall a high profile cycle/pedestrian accident where the pedestrian died, the cyclist having been on the pavement at excessive speed. The government were then saying the law was going to be reversed and I just assumed that it had been done. But was it? If not then we can cycle on the path as long as it’s in a safe and considerate way. Does anyone know if the pavement cycling law was reversed or modified?

Legal position

It is a criminal offence to ride a bicycle (defined as a ‘carriage’ by section

85 of the Local Government Act 1888, as amended) on a “footpath or

causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or

accommodation of foot passengers” under section 72 of the Highway

Act 1835, as amended.

 

In addtion to my reply above, I'm returning to show that this statement in italics that you quoted does not mean what it appears to mean, it is deliberately fluffed. The mention of the 1888 act is to show a bicycle is a carriage in this law. The mention of the 1835 act is to show that the riding on the footway was made illegal then with a fine applying. A number of times over the intervening years the specified fine was replaced, increased by new laws.

 

I've tracked the history and all the italic passage needed to have said was that the Criminal Justice Act 1982 previously specified a fine of £50 for the offence. This was once again REPLACED by the new 1999 act with a fixed penalty, originally £20, now commonly £30, with restrictions on who it can be issued to. To take care of any serious breaches of this law, a fine in court of up to £500 is permitted. Other laws permit prison sentences and community orders.

 

Cycling on the footway is also prohibited in

London under section 54(7) of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 and in

other areas under section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.

 

This latter part of the italics statement IS A LIE, obviously intended to deceive. These acts do not specify that cycling on the pavement is illegal. Both acts mentioned make it very clear that an offence is only committed if an annoyance or nuisance is caused by obviously wrongful conduct in the many activities mentioned. For example when cycling "furiously", to use the quaint language of the day. You can read them for yourself on the links below:

 

Metropolitan Police Act 1839

 

Town Police Clauses Act 1847

 

No offence is committed by anyone cycling responsibly on the pavement with due care and attention for pedestrians, as the conditions pertaining to the 1999 act make clear.

.

Edited June 24, 20223 yr by flecc

I’ve been very interested and encouraged in flecc’s posts regarding pavement use. I remember during Tony Blair’s time that John Prescott was championing a change in the law to allow cycling on the pavement. Legalising children cycling on the path was one of the quoted benefits. After the law was changed I seem to recall a high profile cycle/pedestrian accident where the pedestrian died, the cyclist having been on the pavement at excessive speed. The government were then saying the law was going to be reversed and I just assumed that it had been done. But was it? If not then we can cycle on the path as long as it’s in a safe and considerate way. Does anyone know if the pavement cycling law was reversed or modified?

 

No it wasn't, that was just more empty words. Unnecessary too, since existing laws cover all eventualities adequately.

 

I've posted further just above your reply.

.

As everyone's idea of what is reasonable is not definable and that it would not be possible to enforce speed limits on cyclists, the only logical solution to problem pavement cycling would be a complete ban. There is a world of difference between pootling along at 8mph ringing your bell and giving way to pedestrians as appropriate and charging along at 20mph (or faster in the case of some illegal ebikes I've encountered recently). As a pedestrian I expect the pavement to be for pedestrians as a cyclist I expect to be able to take my rightful place on the highway without too much difficulty.

As everyone's idea of what is reasonable is not definable and that it would not be possible to enforce speed limits on cyclists, the only logical solution to problem pavement cycling would be a complete ban. There is a world of difference between pootling along at 8mph ringing your bell and giving way to pedestrians as appropriate and charging along at 20mph (or faster in the case of some illegal ebikes I've encountered recently). As a pedestrian I expect the pavement to be for pedestrians as a cyclist I expect to be able to take my rightful place on the highway without too much difficulty.

 

The was the logic of 1835, when the government of the day passed the Highway Act 1835, which banned all locomotives (motor vehicles) from the roads. It is still law, have you noticed any lack of motor vehicles on the roads? Fortunately what is logical changes according to circumstances, so the law changes accordingly.

 

I don't see the problem you see. All any cyclist taking to the pavement needs is to remember that the pavement is primarily for pedestrians and concede them that priority. That means slowing to as little as walking pace when near any pedestrians and not causing them to be startled in any way. That might even mean stopping at times, hardly a hardship and only amounting to the same simple good manners we practice when walking on the pavement.

.

Sadly here in the West Midlands many pavement cyclists are the equivalent of the must get in front close passers we meet on the road.

Sadly here in the West Midlands many pavement cyclists are the equivalent of the must get in front close passers we meet on the road.

 

I understand that, and it's where the police should be acting firmly.

 

But once again we dont have the police on the beat any more, only ineffectual PCSOs and the like, and them too rarely.

 

Laws we have aplenty, but almost no-one to enforce them any more.

.

This was once again REPLACED by the new 1999 act with a fixed penalty, originally £20, now commonly £30, with restrictions on who it can be issued to.

 

Which was the 1999 Act ?

Which was the 1999 Act ?

 

It wasn't a separate act, that was just shorthand to avoid lengthy explanation. It was a Ministerial Order with force of law made by Home Office Minister Paul Boateng in 1999, regulating the application of the Cycle Track Act 1984. That act permitted Highway Authorities to designate part or all of footways/pavements for shared or segregated use of cyclist and pedestrians.

 

The intention of course was to achieve more use of the pavements by cyclists, as I've already explained, since the act hadn't been used as much as the government wished. The Ministerial Order loosened the reins, making the cycling legal under certain circumstances even where the pavement wasn't designated for such use.

.

Edited June 24, 20223 yr by flecc

No offence is committed by anyone cycling responsibly on the pavement with due care and attention for pedestrians, as the conditions pertaining to the 1999 act make clear.

I've cycled past policemen on the pavement and not once have they stopped me.

I've cycled past policemen on the pavement and not once have they stopped me.

 

I've done the same Andy. On one occasion a trio of them stepped aside to clear the way for me, so not just permission but approval.

.

I've done the same Andy. On one occasion a trio of them stepped aside to clear the way for me, so not just permission but approval.

.

Yup, it's all about riding slowly with care for other users.

The Ministerial Order loosened the reins, making the cycling legal under certain circumstances even where the pavement wasn't designated for such use.

 

Do you know where the details of this order are to be seen ?

 

It would be usefull to know the exceptions the order (a Statutory Instrument?) created.

As everyone's idea of what is reasonable is not definable and that it would not be possible to enforce speed limits on cyclists, the only logical solution to problem pavement cycling would be a complete ban.

 

As everyone's idea of what is reasonable is not definable and that it would not be possible to enforce a close passing limit on motorists overtaking cyclists, the only logical solution to problem overtaking would be a complete ban.

 

See how ridiculous your proposition sounds in other circumstances?

 

I have no problem either as a cyclist or as a pedestrian with the sharing of pavements. It's far safer than having cyclists share roads with motorists.

I have had people step into the road in front of me whilst looking at their 'phone. Both on my bike, where quietness of approach could be a factor, but also when in the van.

I can only imagine that cycling an urban or city pavement would be a bloody nightmare, even at walking pace.

Locally there is a shared use path through wildlife reserve marsh land. Obviously there a birdwatchers, kids, elderly et al, so care has to be taken. I have come up behind people, having rung my bell at distance, to find them not only looking at their 'phone, but wearing ear buds. In the midst of natures glory!

Then there is the panic reaction from a group of people when they become aware of a bike. Some go one way, some go the other, then the heard instinct kicks in and they start dashing from one side to the other 'cos no-one wants to be billy no mates.

It's comical really.

However it does kinda negate the use of a bike as a means of transport (i.e. travelling from AtoB with a purpose and timetable)and turn it into an alternative method of pootling.

I've been on shared use paths with the white line segregation. Unfortunately pedestrians are wholly unaware of it/ignore it. So on has to weave through receiving tuttings and mutterings along the way.

I really don't see a viable, safe or useful future for shared use paths. It's a typical British fudge that serves no-one well.

And don't get me started on "Cyclists dismount here".

Another plus for cyclists with cameras: Drivers in London are to be fined for entering cycle lanes:

 

 

I have had people step into the road in front of me whilst looking at their 'phone.

 

Is colliding with the fat ones especially hazardous? It could be a soft landing, but f = ma

 

 

I agree with most all of that, although for shared cycleapaths you missed out the walker and dog problem, you know, oblivious walker on one side of the cycleway, dog on lead on the other side.

I have no problem either as a cyclist or as a pedestrian with the sharing of pavements. It's far safer than having cyclists share roads with motorists.

 

 

This is a partial list in no particular order, I'd cycle on pavements if:

 

1. Pedestrians didn't moan about it

 

2. It was completely legal

 

3. People didn't walk their dogs

 

4. Mobile phones didn't have internet or music playback facilities

 

5. People walking out of doorways directly in front of me, wasn't a possibility

 

6. Pedestrians didn't move or react in unpredictable ways (I use a Hornit 140db)

 

7. People with sensory impairments never went outside

 

8. Kids were kept locked at home

 

9. Getting from A to B was as fast as using the road, which is isnt. At all.

Edited June 25, 20223 yr by I893469365902345609348566

This is a partial list in no particular order, I'd cycle on pavements if:

 

1. Pedestrians didn't moan about it

 

2. It was completely legal

 

3. People didn't walk their dogs

 

4. Mobile phones didn't have internet or music playback facilities

 

5. People walking out of doorways directly in front of me, wasn't a possibility

 

6. Pedestrians didn't move or react in unpredictable ways (I use a Hornit 140db)

 

7. People with sensory impairments never went outside

 

8. Kids were kept locked at home

 

9. Getting from A to B was as fast as using the road, which is isnt. At all.

 

You forgot people in cars coming out of driveways without looking/or from restricted visibility driveways. I've had a few close calls on shared paths. Not clear who has priority.

 

Also, wheely bins and other obstructions. Pavement space is being made even smaller as car chargers are often installed on the pavement, not the road.

Cars coming out of drive ways don't have priority as they have to cross a pedestrian path.

You forgot people in cars coming out of driveways without looking/or from restricted visibility driveways. I've had a few close calls on shared paths. Not clear who has priority.

 

Also, wheely bins and other obstructions. Pavement space is being made even smaller as car chargers are often installed on the pavement, not the road.

 

Plus all those blasted drivers who park their cars or vans so far up onto the pavements, that it's difficult for even pedestrians without pushchairs to get through the narrow gap