Forum Topic

PAVEMENT CYCLING

IT GOES WITHOUT SAYINGPavement cycling is dangerous, anti-social, illegal, and a criminal act!Cycling is a road carriageway activity for a vehicle classed in law as a ‘carriage’ Highways Act 1835 Section 72 – Rule 64 of the Highway CodeThe government is actively promoting cycling as an alternative means of transport to reduce public dependence on private motor cars, improve personal fitness and reduce environmental pollution. The overall object is said to be to increase cycle use in the UK from 2% of journeys in 2011, to 10% of all journeys in 2025, and 25% by 2050In March 2013 London Mayor Boris Johnson published his ‘Vision for Cycling in London’ and appointed journalist Andrew Gilligan as his Cycling Commissioner. In April 2013 the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group published its ‘Get Britain Cycling’ report. Parliament debated the issue for four hours on Monday 2 September 2013. Some £100million is on offer from TfL to enable London Boroughs to improve road safety for cyclists..A national ‘Bikeability’ scheme is sponsored by the Department for Transport to teach safe cycling on the roads, administered through local authorities. Its training programme concentrates on youngsters of school age.Yet the danger to pedestrians of pavement cycling ‘goes without saying’. It is barely acknowledge in the above reports. It was mentioned only once in the Parliamentary debate. The issue is not addressed at all in any of the central or local government cycling publicity.Enforcing the law against pavement cycling is the responsibility of Britain’s police forces under the overall command of Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, since road laws are part of the criminal law. Yet it seems police policy to view pavement cycling as a ‘petty crime’, not worth bothering about, and certainly not worth any serious policing effort. As Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee commented in its October 2009 report on ‘Improving road safety for pedestrians and cyclists in Great Britain’ “Enforcing cycling offences was typically not high on the agenda of most police forces.”The legal sanctions against the crime of pavement cycling reflect this ‘petty crime’ attitude. Police officers can issue an on-the-spot £30 Penalty Notice to anyone over the age of 16 for cycling ‘irresponsibly’ on the pavement. Children under the age of criminal responsibility (10) cannot be prosecuted. The maximum penalty the courts can impose for causing death by dangerous cycling (on the pavements or on the road) is £2500. Pavement cycling occurs because a) many pavement cyclists believe (or claim) that cycling is a ‘pedestrian’ activity which is allowed on the pavements, b) most cyclists use the pavements because of the perceived danger of cycling on the roads, c) many pedestrians either believe the same thing or are pressured into ‘tolerating’ pavement cycling, d) there are no public notices declaring that pavement cycling is illegal.In 2007 a law was introduced banning smoking in public places. That law is widely respected, and many premises display a simple notice reinforcing the law. A similar simple sign widely displayed on our streets could have a similar effect to eliminate pavement cycling, if only police and local authorities would spend a fraction the money they have available for improving cycling safety on the roads - to keep cycling off the pavements. Transport for London is said to be developing a new ‘Pedestrian Safety Action Plan’ which should address the threat of pavement cycling to pedestrian safety.The message to cyclists must be: ‘’KEEP DEATH OFF THE ROADS – BUT DON’T BRING IT ONTO THE PAVEMENTS!”Tony Purton, Ealing W13

TONY PURTON ● 4576d23 Comments

Also, you seem to have forgotten the pensioner who was killed a couple of years ago by a pavement cyclist in Ealing. See the Ealing Today website archive and previous discussion on the Ealing Today Forum.

Amanda Smith ● 4552d

Not really Tony.I think, and have always maintained, that this is a problem caused by a law-breaking minority. I would simply like to see the law enforced almost as much as I want to see 'the book' thrown at those who hold their phone to call or text while driving their cars.

Nigel Brooks ● 4553d

Worth another look

Tony Purton ● 4553d

Not in favour of transport depts who make the footpaths the same height as the roads.

George Knox ● 4574d

If you're that tired, go to bed mate!

Nigel Brooks ● 4574d

Yawn.

Al Stuart ● 4574d

I don't 'hate' cyclists either. I have posted before that I was  a regular cyclist until orthopaedic problems prevented me walking let alone cycling. I do have issues though, as I limp along the pavements, with the MINORITY (can't make it clearer) that weave in and out of pedestrians and those who choose to ride at night with no lights - I guess they don't care about dying or serious injury.My biggest gripe is, and has always been with phoning/texting motorists, something I find it impossible to defend.

Nigel Brooks ● 4574d

You have this completely wrong Ben imo...speaking for myself the ONLY problem I have with cyclists is that they sometimes cycle on footpaths. That is dangerous for pedestrians. What they chose to do on the carriageway is up to them. Please don't make out that I hate cyclists per se  because I do not.

Keith Iddon ● 4575d

Hi there,This is totally mad! If I could give you one reasoned view would it change your view of thinking? Probably not, but here it is. In for a penny, in for a pound....Car drivers who drive through red lights are 82% more likely to cycle on the pavement compared to drivers who do not go through a red light. (The majority of adult cyclists are licence holders too). So, can we safely deduce that an adult who cycles on the pavement is just as likely to be the buttock hole that drives through red lights? Is this a safe conclusion? Do we ever read threads on CARS JUMPING RED LIGHTS (and I don't mean flying over them!)? No, no, no! Too nice a story...or too everyday! Funnily enough I exchanged texts with Paul on the 3rd October and this was part of the transcript:Me: ....Am I alone in seeing more and more cyclists stopping at red lights? (It was during the evening rush hour)Paul: No, deffo the case. There is a massive upsurge in compliance, huge.Me: Smiley facePaul: Still, if only one does it people will still write that all cyclists do it! I saw what must have been 50 cyclists waiting at lights coming off London Bridge the other day. One rode through and I shouted him out in front of everybody!And, guess what, fourteen days later Ealing Today's favourite topic comes up again for discussion. Paul amazing foresight is proven right AGAIN!Inicdentally, who got caught in the traffic on Monday evening? I almost did - and I was just on my bike. At the junction of Uxbridge Rd / Church Rd (where the Shell petrol station is) the traffic lights had changed to red as I cycled into the ASL. So I stopped. But, hang on this bloody car behind me wanted to jump the red light because the traffic was hardly moving. Frustratingly for him I was in his way. He declutched and reved and reved and reved again. I pointed out the red light. He either was a bull (the red making him go mad!) or the red light might as well not have existed because he suddenly drove on to the pavement to overtake me, bounced back onto the road and then did a slalom around the traffic already in the yellow box on the Uxbridge Road to get across to the other side. All of this with kids in the back. Totally moronic.Yes, I am proud to be part of the cycling army whose theme tune is "no one likes us, but we don't care!". However, I would prefer it if you all joined up (no annual membership fee, or MOT, or fuel rises, just peace and love for everyone!). One of our biggest aims in spreading the love is to help car drivers. Just love us, for once please, for doing our bit by getting another car off the road enabling you gas guzzlers to get to where you want to go quicker.Must dash - the butler is calling. Lots of loveBen xxx

Ben Owen ● 4575d

Lack of perspective?Hysterical, unreasonable, bordering on raving lack of perspective more like!- Compulsory helmets for cyclists, never going to happen.- Compulsory Insurance, never going to happen- Compulsory training/licensing, never going to happen- VED for bikes, never going to happen (VED is a pollution tax, and is NOT spent on roads)And here's what the home office has to say about pavement cycling, which indicates the risk posed. Note many pavements are shared use, and considerate cyclists and pedestrians get on fine."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.""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)".

Paul James ● 4575d

From the House of Commons debate in April 2011"Ten pedestrians were killed by cyclists and 262 seriously injured between 2005 and 2009". Insignificant compared to the number of pedestrians killed by motorists but still 29 lives needlessly lost.How many of these were on the pavement is not made clear.The debate was as a result of a private member's bill.Conservative MP Andrea Leadsom last month (March 2011)introduced a private member's bill to the Commons, proposing a new offence of causing death by dangerous cycling.She used the example of 17-year-old Rhiannon Bennett, who was knocked down and killed by cyclist John Howard as she walked with friends in Buckingham in April 2007.The South Northamptonshire MP told the Commons: "There needs to be a charge that reflects the seriousness and consequences of a cyclist's actions.""A cyclist approached the group at speed, jumping from the road to cut across the pavement and yelling, 'Move! I'm not stopping!"'"He was travelling so fast the group had no time to act. He hit Rhiannon, knocking her over and smashing her head against the kerb."She was rushed to hospital with head injuries and she died six days later."You can read the rest in the Hansard reports for April 2011.

Nigel Brooks ● 4575d

My point exactly!As per the original post: ‘’KEEP DEATH OFF THE ROADS – BUT DON’T BRING IT ONTO THE PAVEMENTS!”What pavement death?As per my first post, "I agree that cyclists need to use the road not the pavement etc."

Phil Kay ● 4575d

I do not understand the comment about pavement deaths.If there are none it is still not ok to cycle on the pavement,thus breaking a law and quite possibly someone else's bones.I'll leave it there for now.

Keith Iddon ● 4575d

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I feel that the point has been missed here, as well as a fundamental mis-reading of my posts.  Implied apology accepted.Presumably the original poster will also be admonished for discussing the smoking ban on a topic ostensibly about pavement cycling?I do not disagree with the high level point raised in the original post but the screaming caps and apparent lack of perspective seem strange.  What level of death is there currently on the pavement?  I'm not saying it's not extraordinarily high and deserving of enormous public awareness and police resources, I genuinely don't know.

Phil Kay ● 4575d

Sure Phil but the thread is about footpath cyclists and not as I am aware about jumping red lights.It's up to cyclists if they chose to endanger themselves(or others) by jumping a light but at least the others would probably have a ton of metal wrapped around them.Pedestrians are not so well protected.

Keith Iddon ● 4575d

I believe that these threads very often struggle to break out of a mud-slinging mindset because people tend to interpret posts in very personal ways rather than trying to accept the messages being communicated.To be clear, my post carried no "assertion that no one who was hit by a bike on the footpath was ever injured".  Nor was this implied.It is true that I did mention traffic lights - as a link to my next point, not because the original poster had mentioned them.  I used that example to highlight how, in my opinion, the scale of problems caused by cyclists is misunderstood and that I find a wider view to be useful.For further clarity: I am a cyclist who tries hard to obey the highway code; a driver who doesn't drive on the pavement nor jump red lights; and a pedestrian who is often appalled at drivers' behaviour and occasionally frustrated with cyclists doing daft things.I have seen cyclists colliding with pedestrians on the pavement but not injuries as a result.  Of course there have been injuries and I would ask again: are figures available showing the level of morbidity and mortality caused by cyclists using the wrong causeway?On the technical point re helmets, I have seen convincing arguments on both sides regarding whether or not they prevent injuries - to the degree that I use a helmet and have encouraged others to do so.  18 months ago I read a Which? review of helmets that was ambivalent but concluded that they probably wouldn't cause injuries even if they didn't prevent them, so bought one of their "best buys" which was lightweight and relatively inexpensive.Regarding insurance cover for cyclists - I am by no means against the idea - how would it work?  Would it require a regulator and would premiums be linked to age and postcode of residence as per car insurance?I'm not so sure about road fund licences.  Personally, all the cyclists I know also own cars.  However, one of these has a low emission car and has a licence disk but it's £0 rated.  I don't know if she pays an admin fee to have it sent to her.

Phil Kay ● 4575d

Perhaps so Emily but I was responding to Phil's assertion that no one who was hit by a bike on the footpath was ever injured. That is plainly not the case. I would also say that not being able to be identified makes it easier for anyone to commit crime.

Keith Iddon ● 4576d

At least you have a chance to identify a car.Man in Lycra on a bike - no chance.I'm no advocating number plates, just helmets, compulsory insurance, working lights and adherence to THE LAW!

Nigel Brooks ● 4576d

There's plenty of hit-and-run drivers out there who zoom off too - reg. plates have nothing to do with it.

Emily Heath ● 4576d

The post says nothing about traffic lights.You must be joking btw about no-one getting injured by cyclists on footpaths.I know of an elderly woman who was knocked over and broke her hip and the a***hole just pedalled off at full pelt.No reg. plates,no responsibility.

Keith Iddon ● 4576d

I agree that cyclists need to use the road not the pavement etc.Are figures available showing the level of morbidity and mortality caused by cyclists using the wrong causeway?  I think the answer to this question will show why governments do not police this more actively.I have seen collisions on the pavement but not injuries.  Previous posts have equated cyclists going through red lights with car drivers doing the same.  I would not argue that there is a difference in the legal status here but there is a huge difference in terms of the affects on other road users.

Phil Kay ● 4576d

Oh God, here we go again. I couldn't agree more but cue the*I never break the law*You are making sweeping generalisations based on limited evidence*It's too dangerous to cycle on the roads*I pay my taxes*Insurance and helmets aren't compulsory lobbies.

Nigel Brooks ● 4576d

Couldn't agree more Tony but you have re-opened this can of worms for the cycle lobby to slaughter you.It isn't a pavement btw..it's a FOOTPATH. The clue is in the name..if you have to use your bike on the footpath because you don't feel safe on part of the road,either have a proficiency test or WALK your bike on the footpath until you reach a safe part of the road.

Keith Iddon ● 4576d