Anyone seen this bill?

[The Maestro]

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/community-policing/accpersonpowers?view=Binary

I'd love to see someone stop me and try and fine me for riding on the pavement (safely). They would deserve a good smack in the bracket.

 

[flecc]

Don't worry, they are still subject to the the directions issued to Chief Police officers which specify that anyone in fear of traffic may ride carefully on the footpath. Here's the legal position:

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)
.

 

[Barnowl]

I don't believe the above is widely known Flecc. It irritates me no end that local papers and teletext letter writers are continually sniping at cyclists riding on the pavement. I'll accept it's a bit of a problem in parts of some cities but the locations of some of these writers indicate it's a bit unlikely that they personally have a problem and that they're just grumpy g£^s with nothing better to moan about except how crap local policing is (which it isn't). Sorry rant over.

 

[flecc]

No, it's not widely known, but I publish it in here very regularly, every time this subject crops up, to ensure that members are aware of their rights and do not tamely accept a fine or prosecution thinking it impossible to challenge.

It's clear that the spirit of the law is on the side of cyclists who are genuinely fearful of a particular traffic risk.

However, although the public at large are not aware, I think that most police forces and their officers are aware of the true position since tickets are very rarely issued. When a survey of forces was carried out some while ago, only Manchester had an appreciable number of fixed penalty tickets issued by officers for pavement cycling, but the total was still small. At that time London amazingly didn't have any tickets issued!

So it seems the risk of a ticket is very small, and I have a feeling that officers don't like vague laws like this that say something is illegal but no action should be taken in so many instances.
.

 

[lectureral]

I used to regularly ride up Northumberland Street on my way to work (wide, pedestrianised road always quiet at 8 a.m. - a good shortcut). One morning I saw a bobby on the other side of the street making his way purposefully towards me - he tried to grab my arm but just brushed it (an, almost literal, brush with the law). Oddly he didn't shout "stop", or I might have done, but as I went on my way he shouted "I'll catch you next time". Fortunately he didn't before I left the city about 2 weeks later. I don't know though whether he was planning to fine me or merely give me a talking to.

 

[flecc]

Almost certainly a "talking to" Lectureral, since even on the recent campaigns against the more reckless cycling that occurs on pavements in Central London, they've mostly started with advice only, accompanied by warnings of stronger action later if necessary.

I only use the pavement in one particular spot in my outer London borough where a new junction layout has left no safe room for cyclists, but many other cyclists of all ages routinely use the pavements everywhere and the police of all species appear to take little notice. As long as the cycling is at safe speeds and gives precedence to pedestrians I doubt that there's anything to worry about. Personally, if passing a pedestrian on shared use pavements I always slow to near walking pace, and if there's any chance my sudden appearance from behind might alarm, I usually speak first to give due warning. Really these things are just a matter of everyday good manners rather than anything specific to cycling, and if everyone practiced them, I'm sure that most of pedestrian's anti-cyclist talk would disappear.
.

 

[Dynamic Position]

Flecc,

It was interesting to read about new legislation in regards to cycling on pavements. It certainly has not been publicised. Last year I assisted our local primary school with the P7 children doing their cycling proficiency course and assessments. The childeren were made to push their bikes to the area which was being used because they were told it was illegal for them to cycle on the pavement and they could not cycle on the road because they had not passed their cycling proficiency test.

I think the school was just being careful just in case they got letters of complaints from pedestrians and road users.

The children enjoyed the cycling proficiency and I enjoyed watching them as they mastered the skills which should allow them to cycle with safety.

 

[Barnowl]

they were told it was illegal for them to cycle on the pavement and they could not cycle on the road because they had not passed their cycling proficiency test.

They were wrong on both counts. Children can't be prosecuted for cycling on the pavement. I never passed my cycling proficiency test and I can cycle on the road.

 

[flecc]

Flecc,

The childeren were made to push their bikes to the area which was being used because they were told it was illegal for them to cycle on the pavement and they could not cycle on the road because they had not passed their cycling proficiency test.

Yes, that was over-cautious. We have cycle proficiency training in our area and with one exception it's always held on the roads. The one exception was when the school playgrounds were used, but that was too unrealistic to have any value so it was back to the roads from then on.
.

 

[frank9755]

Of course - as we all know - the main reason why so many people cycle on the pavements now when there is a perfectly safe road available is not due to traffic or perceived danger but because so many cycle paths have been created on pavements, or been designed to look like pavements.

Pedestrians and cyclists are often confused as to whether a pavement is a pavement or a shared-use path and the psychological barrier which formerly made people not ride on a pavement has been breached.