Forum Topic

PAVEMENTS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS – 10

TO THE PEDESTRIAN ‘SILENT MAJORITY’IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE - HAVE YOUR SAY  CONTACT LIVING STREETS info@livingstreets.org.uk see: http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/pavements-are-for-pedestrians-says-living-streets (T)WITTERING ON THIS WEBSITE IS A WASTE OF TIME AND ENERGY AND WILL CHANGE NOTHING. COMMENTS SO FAR: Living Streets have been provided with a compendium of the 134 comments on this topic posted on this Forum by just 25 people demonstrating all the usual prejudices against the enforcement of the law against pavement cycling for which the police were granted fixed penalty powers 15 years ago under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - Statutory Instruments 1999 No. 1851.MOST SENSIBLE CONTRIBUTION yet by Phillipa Bond: “NOT everybody does know that it is illegal to cycle on the pavement  - It would be good if everybody DID know that cycling is illegal on the pavement and DID appreciate that the pavement is used by many elderly people who can/do no longer drive/cycle and for whom a fall could be devastating. Unfortunately they don't and because people are more self-centred nowadays they often just don't want to know when told and are dismissive of anything that doesn't suit them.” [see ‘Dear Tony Purton’ comment 29/01/14 12:03:00] =================================A DRAFT PAPER TO THE GREATER LONDON ASSEMBLYPROPOSINGA PUBLIC AWARENESS POSTER CAMPAIGN BY LONDON’S LOCAL AUTHORITIES ‘PAVEMENT CYCLING IS ILLEGAL’TO HELP THE POLICE ENFORCE SECTION 72 OF THE 1835 HIGHWAYS ACT AS INTENDED BY THE CREATION OF FIXED PENALTY POWERS UNDER THE ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACT 1988 – SI 1999/1851 THE PROPOSALTo increase public awareness of the illegal (criminal) nature of pavement cycling by widely displaying small (75MM/3INCH) universally understandable self-adhesive labels on street lamp posts based on the ISO 3864-1 prohibition sign [a red circle with a red diagonal line through it running from top left to bottom right on a white background, surrounding a black pictogram of a cycle; similar to the common NO SMOKING sign] see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_symbol .Such a measure would ensure that no-one could be in any doubt about the law. POSSIBLE INFORMATIVE SIGN WORDINGRiding on the footpath is illegalSection 72 Highways Act 1835 – Highway Code Rule 64 Riding on the footpath is illegalFixed penalty £50 – Fine £500Fixed penalty £50 – Fine £500Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 – SI 1999/1851You MUST NOT cycle on the pavementHighway Code Rule 64POLICE FOLLOW-UPOnce the police are able to take for granted that anyone cycling on the pavement is doing so deliberately (willingly) in defiance of the law, they can deploy the full range of sanctions at their disposal to deal with serial offenders:1. A ‘verbal’ warning with advice that the offender should take a ‘Bikeability’ course2. A ‘formal’ (written/recorded?) warning with advice that the offender should take a ‘Bikeability’ course 3. A £50 fixed penalty notice, waived if the offender presents proof of having taken a ‘Bikeability’ course within the 28 day appeal period4. Prosecution and £500 fine with a court order that the offender MUST take a ‘Bikeability’ course before cycling on the road again5. Apply the Fixed Penalty system to children below the age of 16 but above the age of criminal responsibility (10 years of age at present)6.  Pedestrians should be encouraged to remonstrate with pavement cyclists and report incidents of pavement cycling to their local community police team – with photographic evidence if possible.THE EFFECT - Hopefully the result would be that in time pavement cycling will attract the same social stigma as smoking in public places, a criminal offence under the Health Act 2006,  and become as self-policing as the ‘SmokeFree’ laws; the enforcement of which is the responsibility of managers of ‘smokefree’ premises through compulsory signage and ‘verbal’ warnings to customers under the supervision of local authority enforcement officers, such as environmental health officers, trading standards or local community support officers – if physical violence is threatened by a person smoking, managers should seek assistance from the police. See http://www.health-safety-signs.uk.com/smoking-legislation-help.shtml FUNDING – In London, the Mayor’s Policing and Crime Office could allocate just 1% of the promised £100M funding to local authorities for road cycling safety measures to be devoted to such a publicity campaign. Further funds could be made available from the surplus income on the ‘Parking Fund’ of many London boroughs which is ring-fenced to be spent only on transport-related projects including funding London’s ‘Freedom Passes’.VALUE FOR MONEY – If pavement cycling is popularly discouraged as an anti-social as well as an illegal activity and becomes self-policing, the cost and effort of policing the offence would be greatly reduced.PAVEMENT CYCLING IS A SEPARATE ISSUE FROM ROAD CYCLING SAFETY – Pavement cycling is illegal and should not be allowed under any circumstances. Safety for cyclists on the roads is a separate objective in its own right. As Home Office minister Paul Boateng said in the last paragraph of his guidelines letter of 9 July 1999 “I note your particular concerns about other offences which pose a threat to cyclists and I am very willing to discuss and consider those problems with you. But I do not see that issue as affecting the case for having a fixed penalty offence for cycling on the pavement” [see PAVEMENTS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS – 6 on Page 4]=======================OFFICIAL REFERENCESHighway Code Rule 64 – You MUST NOT cycle on the pavementSection 72 Highways Act 1835 - Offence Wording: “On (date) at (town) wilfully rode a pedal cycle upon a footpath or causeway by the side of a road, namely (location), made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers”Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - Statutory Instruments 1999 No. 1851: The Fixed Penalty Offences Order 1999  - Section 3 2(b) ‘cycling on the footway contrary to section 72 of the Highways Act 1835’  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1851/made

Tony Purton ● 4465d61 Comments

TO RESPOND TO YOUR LATEST IRRELEVANCIES THE POLICE ASKED FOR POWERS TO FINE PAVEMENT CYCLISTS - The proposal for the new fixed penalty offences was originally put forward by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and were subject to public consultation in July 1996.” (Home Office Minister Paul Boateng 9 July 1999 para 3) [PAVEMENTS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS – 6 now on Page 3]. They still need our help to enforce the law.AND, in this extract from an ‘academic’ review of cycling safety ON THE ROAD: http://rachelaldred.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/cycling-review1.pdf  CYCLISTS WERE INVITED TO TAKE THEIR CHANCES ON THE ROADS while keeping off the pavements: “The BMA report stated that ‘even in the current hostile traffic environment, the benefits gained from regular cycling are likely to outweigh the loss of life through cycling accidents for the current population of regular cyclists’ (BMA, 1992: 121). ……. the BMA called for a wide range of policy measures, including …..making cyclists ‘aware of their responsibilities as road-users’ (BMA 1992: 124)".DUAL USE PAVEMENTS may allow cyclists to legally ride on the pavement, but even then pedestrian safety has priority.MY 560 PHOTOS are a local snapshot representing the tip of the iceberg of pavement cycling which scaled up represents thousands across the Borough. KEEP LOOKING! I am not trying to convince you lot with your heads buried in the sand. I am addressing the pedestrian'silent majority'. BUMP. BUMP!THE 'SILENT MAJORITY' take note!

Tony Purton ● 4441d

Gerry, Thank you so much for your comments on how rarely you come across an inconsiderate cyclist.Now, Purton, Tony Purton, you continue to make Living Streets' Head of Commuincations job an absoulute LIVING nightmare. Why? Can I remind you, again, that I spoke with Anna Collins at Living Streets to check for myself whether they have a concerted campaign on the minority of cyclists who do cycle on the pavement? No they do not! Anna made it abundantly clear that Living Streets does not have a 'public facing campaign on cycling on the pavement', but instead the charity is putting its efforts into getting cars off pavements rather than bicycles. It is abundantly clear that you have misunderstood what their major public - facing campaign on PAVEMENTS ARE FOR PREDESTRIANS is all about. How many times does it need explaining to you? CARS...CARS...BROOM BROOM CARS...CHELSEA TRACTORS...SECURITY VANS DELIVERING MONEY TO BANKS...Get cars off pavements! Get cars off pavements! Get cars off pavements! Got it? When will you get the message? I am sure you do not wish to sully Living Streets reputation with ill informed comments, but you are doing just that. Supporters of charities can often be loose cannons and, Tony, you are just such a prime example. I can be excused from explaining myself.Keep it to yourself, and not wishing to give you any encouragement, but the topic of cars on pavements has never been discussed in any of your PAVEMENTS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS posts before and since I orginally pointed this out to you.Finally, one question that you must answer with honesty.  Please tell me if are you holier than thou.Yours,Ben

Ben Owen ● 4444d