Is This The Final Nail In The Coffin For...
News1 min ago
Is It Illegal To Cycle On The Pavement
35 Answers
When out for my daily exercise i am constantly having to avoid people who cycle on the pavement. It is absolutely ridiculous. How on earth are people supposed to social distance when cyclists take over the pavement? Surely it is contrary to the Highway Code? About 90 per cent of the cyclists I nearly bump into are adults ! They should be setting an example to younger cyclists
Answers
Illegal https://
19:31 Wed 29th Apr 2020
It is against the law. I asked a policeman once who was parked up at the side of a road I had just walked along and had been passed by about six cyclists, some going very fast. He said it is illegal, but very hard to police these days (probably because there are no longer police on the beat). He said if they saw someone going to fast and endangering pedestrians, they would stop the car and have a word with them, but this is tosh! I've lost count of the number of times a cyclist has speeded past me on the pavement or come hurtling around a corner as if they are entitled to do just that, and glared at me and my dog because WE were on the pavement where we should be! It's got out of hand now. No cycle lanes here.
Cyclists do get prosecuted occasionally but only if there is a serious outcome. Quaintly, the offence is 'cycling furiously' because it is impossible to prosecute a cyclist for speeding. This is one example of a successful prosecution
https:/
https:/
Manchester police had a crackdown in 2011
https:/
And Norfolk police enforce the cycling on pavement laws
https:/
I suggest people who are concerned about pavement cyclists lobby their Chief Constable, MP and councillors.
https:/
And Norfolk police enforce the cycling on pavement laws
https:/
I suggest people who are concerned about pavement cyclists lobby their Chief Constable, MP and councillors.
That London cyclist is an interesting case. He was prosecuted for careless driving as his cycle was classed as a motorbike - it was an ecycle fitted with an electric motor. "Although Hanlon's bike used a battery rather than an engine, the court heard it is classed as a motorcycle rather than an electrically-assisted pedal cycle because it could travel more than the legal 15.5mph limit."
https:/
https:/
I think Margie was referring to this case (links are very helpful)
https:/
https:/
//NJ, that isn't the current wording of the Act though, is it?//
It is the one cited in the Highway Code (along with the “Roads (Scotland) Act 1984” as the authority for “must not”.
Yes thanks, barry. I was aware of the latest penalty. I posted the 1835 Act as it stood to illustrate its antiquity. In particular I liked:
//…or shall wilfully lead or drive any Horse, Ass, Sheep, Mule, Swine, or Cattle, or Carriage of any Description, or any Truck or Sledge upon any such Footpath or Causeway ; or shall tether any Horse, Ass, Mule, Swine, or Cattle on any Highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered Animal to be thereon ;//
Mr Alliston (mentioned above) is a twonk of the first order though his offence did not occur on the pavement. He collided with a pedestrian who had stepped off the pavement and into his path whilst on her phone. His case was not helped by the fact that his bike effectively had no brakes. It was a track bike with just a fixed rear wheel for braking (i.e. the rider cannot stop the pedals rotating as they are permanently in chain with the rear wheel. He can resist their rotation to reduce speed). I owned such a bike (albeit with a proper front brake) and the rear wheel braking upon which Alliston solely relied is scarcely effective. It is only meant for slowing down after a track race.
That said, I witnessed a woman on her mobile step into the path of a bus on which I was travelling (I remember buses - Happy Days!)in London's Strand last year. She was completely oblivious to it. Fortunately (for her) the bus had proper brakes.
It is the one cited in the Highway Code (along with the “Roads (Scotland) Act 1984” as the authority for “must not”.
Yes thanks, barry. I was aware of the latest penalty. I posted the 1835 Act as it stood to illustrate its antiquity. In particular I liked:
//…or shall wilfully lead or drive any Horse, Ass, Sheep, Mule, Swine, or Cattle, or Carriage of any Description, or any Truck or Sledge upon any such Footpath or Causeway ; or shall tether any Horse, Ass, Mule, Swine, or Cattle on any Highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered Animal to be thereon ;//
Mr Alliston (mentioned above) is a twonk of the first order though his offence did not occur on the pavement. He collided with a pedestrian who had stepped off the pavement and into his path whilst on her phone. His case was not helped by the fact that his bike effectively had no brakes. It was a track bike with just a fixed rear wheel for braking (i.e. the rider cannot stop the pedals rotating as they are permanently in chain with the rear wheel. He can resist their rotation to reduce speed). I owned such a bike (albeit with a proper front brake) and the rear wheel braking upon which Alliston solely relied is scarcely effective. It is only meant for slowing down after a track race.
That said, I witnessed a woman on her mobile step into the path of a bus on which I was travelling (I remember buses - Happy Days!)in London's Strand last year. She was completely oblivious to it. Fortunately (for her) the bus had proper brakes.
