Forum Topic

Tony Purton · 4/5/2014 9:25:00 PM

new.EalingToday.co.uk Communtity Forum Topic posting

PAVEMENTS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS - 15

HERE IS A CHANCE FOR EALING’S PEDESTRIANS TO HAVE THEIR SAY ABOUT PAVEMENT CYCLING WHERE IT REALLY MATTERS!The LONDON ASSEMBLY’s Transport Committee has just issued a report entitled “Feet First – Improving pedestrian safety in London” http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/publications/feet-first-improving-pedestrian-safety-in-london , together with: a CONSULTANCY DOCUMENT in the shape of draft “Pedestrian Action Safety Plan” https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/streets/pedestrian-safety-plan/user_uploads/pedestrian-safety-action-plan.pdfBoth the report and the action plan are aimed at reducing pedestrian deaths/injuries on London’s roads.ONE GLARING OMISSION in both documents is the total absence of any reference to PAVEMENT CYCLING.Of course, IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING that PAVEMENT CYCLING IS ILLEGAL under the Section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act subject to financial penalties under the 1999 the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (SI 1999/1851).THE TROUBLE IS that, as demonstrated by many of the 200-plus responses my thirteen "PAVEMENTS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS” posts on EalingToday, unless NO PAVEMENT CYCLING is said clearly, signs displayed for all to understand and the law enforced by the Met Police, pavement cycling will continue to be seen by the growing number of cyclists as a ‘safe option’ (for themselves) response to the new cycling wave.I shall be submitting the draft GLA paper I published in earlier posts (reproduced below) in my comments on the TfL SAFETY ACTION PLAN in the hope of having the enforcement of the law against PAVEMENT CYCLING added into the plan.COMMENTS on the “Pedestrian Safety Action Plan” may be submitted on-line before 9th May at:https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/streets/pedestrian-safety-plan/consultation/intro/view before 9th May.DON’T MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE ERADICATION PAVEMENT CYCLING PUT ON THE AGENDA TOO. ===============================A DRAFT PAPER TO THE LONDON ASSEMBLYPROPOSINGA PUBLIC AWARENESS POSTER CAMPAIGN BY LONDON’S LOCAL AUTHORITIES ‘PAVEMENT CYCLING IS ILLEGAL’TO HELP THE MET POLICE ENFORCE SECTION 72 OF THE 1835 HIGHWAYS ACT BY THE EXERCISE OF THEIR POWERS UNDER THE ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACT 1988 GRANTED BY STATUTORY INSTRUMENT (SI 1999/1851) THE PROPOSALTo increase public awareness of the illegal (criminal) nature of pavement cycling by widely displaying small (75MM/3INCH) universally understandable stickers 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, surrounding a pictogram of a cycle; similar to the common NO SMOKING sign.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_symbol ].Hopefully with such a measure pavement cycling would in time attract the same social stigma as smoking in public places (Health Act 2006 http://www.health-safety-signs.uk.com/smoking-legislation-help.shtml) and become as self-policing as the anti-smoking laws. 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 – SI1999/1851You 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)PUBLIC ENCOURAGEMENT – 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.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 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” =======================

Tony Purton ● 4378d123 Comments

To Jane Kelly: Don’t be bullied into silence by the TWITS who dominate this Forum. Your reaction to the pavement cyclist you have met is NOT ‘aggressive’, it is an expression of ‘resentment’ that you have to tolerate the invasion of your pedestrian safe haven by this or any other pavement cyclist. Pavement cycling is itself AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR. It is WILLING DISREGARD for the law. It is based on the SELFISH ASSUMPTION that the rider’s personal safety and convenience is more important than the safety and convenience of the pedestrians for whom the pavements are reserved by law. Challenging pavement cyclists usually attracts an abusive response. If this is a regular occurrence you can report the offender to the police, providing a description (best photographic) and places, days and times to Inspector Susan Hayward, Ealing Broadway Safer Neighbourhoods Team Mailto:EalingBroadway.snt@met.police.uk Tel:020 8649 3573 Mobile:07843065906 – see http://www.police.uk/metropolitan/00AJGF/ You can DEMAND that the police take action to STOP the offence – you have the RIGHT to safe passage on the pedestrian pavements.AND FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT READ THE LOCAL NEWSPAPERLetters Ealing Gazette Friday May 16 2014DO NOT ENCOURAGE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY (Editor’s title)Re: “Bad cyclists give us all a bad name” – (Letters 9 May)THE noun cyclist denotes ‘a person who rides or travels by bicycle’. There is no other classification.A bicycle is a road vehicle (a ‘carriage’) which can only be ridden on the roadways or on off-road paths designated for their sole or shared use.The safety of cyclists on the roads is a major national concern into which many £millions are being poured. The proposed default urban speed limit of 20mph would help by reducing the speed differential between bicycles and motor vehicles. Cyclists respecting all the road traffic disciplines would ease their relationship with other road users - motorists. Keeping cyclists off the pedestrian pavements, where the default speed limit is 4mph (the maximum permitted speed for powered wheelchairs using the pavements - Highway Code Rule 39), should also be a major national concern.Cyclists who ride on pavements or footpaths reserved for pedestrians commit a criminal offence whether or not they do it ‘with respect to pedestrians’, as Mr Day suggests he does. Publicly admitting to the offence should bring Mr Day to the attention of Ealing’s vigilant police force who have a statutory duty to enforce Section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act. Encouraging others to commit the offence is surely also illegal.Ealing schoolchildren are being trained under the national Bikeability scheme at age 11 to cycle safely on the roads – and keep off the pavements. Tony Purton, West Ealing

Tony Purton ● 4334d

No sympathy at all for the law-breaker who has been fined twice for pavement cycling and good to see that fines are actually being imposed. I drive along Boston Manor Road at least four times every day. Pavement cyclists are a very rare sight indeed as motorists are very conscious of the sheer number of cyclists using the route and the overwhelming majority treat them with respect.If the chap who has been fined on multiple occasions feels unsafe on a road with well-defined and observed cycle paths then perhaps he should consider an alternative form of transport.

Nigel Brooks ● 4339d

Given that pavement cycling is pretty much bottom on the list of priorities for law enforcement, there is zero chance of the fines increasing anytime soon. I fully sympathise with the Boston Manor pavement cyclist, better to get fined every now and then, and live. Stickers will get ignored. Make the roads safer for cyclists and the issue will cease to exist. That's the reality of the situation.

Tom Carroll ● 4339d

Sounds like we need to dramatically increase the fines then.

Tony Colliver ● 4340d

The knowledge is that a cyclist was killed, another sustained critical injuries and both involved a HGV. One of the drivers was arrested for dangerous driving. The cyclists were killed when the lorries were turning left. Those are the facts. Is that serious enough? The relevance to this thread is, of course, that roads do need to be made safer.It is interesting to note that neither you or Nigel picked up on the factual point of the Boston Manor Road cyclist who is willing to pay a thirty quid fine if he's caught again by the police. No amount of no-cycling stickers will prevent him from doing so. He knows he is breaking the law. He does not to be reminded of that. He is willing to breaking the law. Make the roads safer, better attitude from drivers towards cyclists would be the most effective way to get him off the pavement.

Ben Owen ● 4340d

It's fair enough having an opinion but it helps to have some facts and knowledge about the circumstances if you want people to take it seriously.

Keith Iddon ● 4340d

Of course it is conjecture. It is not based on fact, but an assumption from what I see cycling on London's roads, and consistent with some coroners'reports involving cyclists killed by a HGV.I don't know if this was the reason why the police arrested the driver for dangerous driving.After all, Nigel, this forum expresses opinions. I think it is fair for me to say what I think.

Ben Owen ● 4340d

"Although the driver may not have set out to kill someone when he began his shift, it is highly probable that he wasn't prepared to give courtesy to the cyclist to pass the junction before turning left."Without knowledge of the facts your claim of the HGV driver being culpable as "highly probable" is mere, prejudiced' conjecture. It may equally have been a cyclist riding to the 'inside' of an HGV clearly indicating that he was turning left. A tragedy for both parties.

Nigel Brooks ● 4340d

Yesterday, one cyclist killed at Elephant and Castle by a HGV, and another collision with a HGV that left a cyclist with severe and critical injuries at Upper Thames Street when a lorry was turning left. One of the drivers involved was arrested for dangerous driving. Although the driver may not have set out to kill someone when he began his shift, it is highly probable that he wasn't prepared to give courtesy to the cyclist to pass the junction before turning left. We need safer roads to cycle without fear. Until such a time happens, cyclists will continue to cycle on the pavement which is something that Living Streets acknowledge.I spoke to one cyclist cycling on the pavement in Boston Manor Road. He calmly told me that although he had twice been given a £30.00 fine, he will happily accept another fine again given the choice between life or death. I am not saying he is right for cycling on the pavement - in fact I got him to cycle in the road -, but this is the type of situation you are facing. I don't think fat men are more terrifying than fat women. In a previous post, why did we have to be told the sex and weight of the cyclist that a cyclist on the pavement can be, in certain situations, terrifying? Is it legal to put a spear through a windscreen if the driver is terrifying?This Saturday there will be a led ride from Ealing Town Hall to central London to join 20,000 other cyclists on roads that will be closed off to motor traffic to get the message across loud and clear that roads need to have space for cycling. The ride will leave the town hall at 10.00 am, so arrive from 9.45am if your want to join in and take part. The ride will hook up with the main ride that departs Park Lane - Speakers Corner - at 12.00pm.

Ben Owen ● 4340d

It is never legal to kick anyone off their bike Ms. Kelly. Why are you so aggressive?

Gerry Tan ● 4340d

There are few more unpleasant urban sights than seeing a great fat man in full cycling gear coming at you at full speed on the pavement. I want to know is it legal to kick them off the bike?

Jane Kelly ● 4340d

There are few more unpleasant urban sights than seeing a great fat man in full cycling gear coming at you at full speed on the pavement. I want to know is it legal to kick them off the bike?

Jane Kelly ● 4340d

www.space4cycling.org Perhaps we should also look at this to see if it will help the streets that we know.

Philippa Bond ● 4341d

In case you missed the separate thread - see belowGerald Cabb: MORE SHARED PAVEMENTS – NOW THERE’S A NOVEL IDEA.COUPLED WITH RIGOROUS ENFORCEMENT AGAINST CYCLING ON NON-SHARED PAVEMENTS OF COURSE.- in accordance with the existing Highway laws.The TfL already envisages more shared pavements where this is feasible and desirable in accordance with DfT guidelines for local authority planners: http://www.ukroads.org/webfiles/LTN%202-04%20Adjacent%20and%20Shared%20Use%20Facilities%20for%20Pedestrians%20and%20Cyclists.pdf which says: “Converting a footway or footpath to allow use by cyclists should only be done after a rigorous assessment has been carried out. It is vital to ascertain whether it is the best option or not. This can only be done after all on-road solutions have been fully considered and rejected as unsuitable”. “3.2.3 It is important to recognise that pedestrians and cyclists are not homogeneous groups and their needs vary considerably.” COMMENT: The responsibility for creating shared pedestrian/cyclist use footpaths has always rested with local Authorities to whom all applications should be made. WHY DON’T YOU GUYS START APPLYING TO EALING COUNCIL NOW FOR YOUR FAVOURITE SHARED USE FOOTPATHS? Ealing council are bound to consider EACH proposal ‘on its merits’ – that is CASE BY CASE! Pavements are for bicycles Forum Home Posted by: Gerald Cabb Date/Time: 07/05/14 18:34:00 > To: Lucy.Brant@london.gov.uk> Dear Ms Brant. I am writing in response to your consultation document. > My consultation response is that the rapidly increasing use of shared cycle/pedestrian designation of pavements in London is to be applauded, and this should be extended until the majority of pavements are designated as shared use, as in Japan. The only exceptions should be narrow passageways where there is no room to pass a mounted cyclist, for practical reasons. All other pavements, including the wide ones outside shops, should be designated as shared cycle/pedestrian paths.> I would like to thank Mr. Tony Purton for posting the link to this document. I have passed it on to all the major London cycling organisations, and am confident that you will get many hundreds of further responses campaigning for a massive increase in the designation of all wide pavements as shared-use for cyclists.> Yours sincerelyTopic: Pavements are for bicycles being wheeled along by their owners.... Forum Home Posted by: Peter Mcleod Date/Time: 08/05/14 15:50:00 Pavements are for bicycles being wheeled along by their owners walking beside them!opic: Re:Pavements are for bicycles being wheeled along by their owners.... Forum Home Posted by: Paul James Date/Time: 08/05/14 21:46:00 Even the shared use ones?

Tony Purton ● 4345d

>Why don't you all write to TfL and tell them that they are RIGHT to IGNORE pavement cycling. Tell them it has nothing to do with pedestrian safety!Nobody is saying that here Tony.Of course a cyclist on the pavement represents a "danger", but I'd wager most of them you see are no more of a danger than another pedestrian that's not looking where they are walking, a kid on a scooter, and old fella on a motability scooter, or a jogger, a discarded milkshake or a cracked pavement slab (probably caused by somebody parking on the pavement).Certainly, if I wanted to improve pavement safety I'd be lobbying the council to grit them in the winter rather than leave them as skating rinks. Instead you want the council to spend money on stickers for people to ignore.Your perspective is totally skewed. You're banging on about cyclists on the pavement, whilst badly driven cars are killing pedestrians on pavements and pedestrian crossings by the bucket load.Calming the roads is what we need, it should be the number one goal, and everything else should fall into place.

Paul James ● 4345d

Or I take it someone will sue me?

Keith Iddon ● 4346d

Philippa,Off the top of your head, do you know the exact numbers, or is there some civil servant in a smoky filled airless office working out the statistics on the back of a fag packet?Keith, I ain't got ya den address, so I can't bruv. But, a word of advice, do not accuse anyone on this forum of doing something if you do not have substantial evidence to back up your suspicions.

Ben Owen ● 4346d

all done Tony.Btw Ben, I'm still waiting...

Keith Iddon ● 4346d

Why don't you all write to TfL and tell them that they are RIGHT to IGNORE pavement cycling. Tell them it has nothing to do with pedestrian safety!You have until tomorrow 9 May: see “Pedestrian Safety Action Plan”: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/streets/pedestrian-safety-plan/consultation/intro/view or contact TfL’s Assistant Scrutiny Manager Lucy Brant - mailto: Lucy.Brant@london.gov.uk Tel: 0207 983 4000

Tony Purton ● 4346d

Paul How many pedestrians have been buzzed by cyclists on the pavement and lost their nerve to walk down the street? Or have had a fall as a result of being approached fast by a cyclist on the pavement?

Philippa Bond ● 4346d

>There is a whole raft of people concerned with pedestrian and cyclist safety ON THE ROADSBut Tony, you seemed to have skipped or missed my earlier point.Did you not see that in the past three years 17 pedestrians have been killed whilst on the pavement in London, with over 100 seriously injured. That's pedestrians, on the pavement, not the road.All by motor vehicles, on the pavement, none by cyclists.

Paul James ● 4346d

Guys, Tony Purton is clearly a troll. His posts are absurd, provocative and irrelevant. Ignore.

Tom Carroll ● 4346d

> Chew on that!Actually Tony, every time you post on this topic here, I make a point of going out and riding at least a block's length along the pavement, just for you. Each and every time.Chew on that.

Gerald Cabb ● 4346d

Well yes pavements are for pedestrians - unless designated as shared/dedicated of course. But in the greater scheme of life's continuing inequalities, injustices, poverty, criminality, barbarity etc etc it ranks fairly low, if at all, on my wishlist to put the world to right.

Philip Coe ● 4346d

Well it is Walk to Work Week next week so hopefully some more pedestrians will be claiming back the pavements.

Philippa Bond ● 4347d

"I am pursuing MY interest..."Discuss a process through which individuals regulate their motivation to perform necessary but uninteresting activities over time. If committed to continuing, individuals may engage in interest-enhancing strategies that can change the boring activity into something more boring to perform.Who wants to begin?

Ben Owen ● 4347d

There is a whole raft of people concerned with pedestrian and cyclist safety ON THE ROADS - if you are that concerned you can join THEM.You can write to TFL on line BY 9TH MAY in response to their consultation paper “Pedestrian Safety Action Plan”: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/streets/pedestrian-safety-plan/consultation/intro/view or contact TfL’s Assistant Scrutiny Manager Lucy Brant - mailto: Lucy.Brant@london.gov.uk Tel: 0207 983 4000.TELL THEM TO GET A MOVE ON!I am concerned with the aspect of pedestrian safety, OR WELL-BEING, ON THE PAVEMENT which is being neglected by EVERYBODY - in the interests of the 'habitual criminal cyclists' lobby who are more concerned for their own safety than anybody else's.I am pursuing MY interest, YOU pursue yours! Post your input on this forum if you like - on a separate thread.

Tony Purton ● 4347d

>I'll do 5. Pavement cycling.Misguided. As said, if you were really interested in pedestrian safety you'd be concentrating on what actually kills and injures pedestrians. Look at these figures for pedestrians killed in London in 2013.None of them were killed by cyclists.Check the last one.- Pedestrians on a pedestrian crossing (25%)- Drunk pedestrians (23%)- Pedestrians not on a pedestrian crossing (19%)- Pedestrians hit by buses or coaches (17%)- Pedestrians hit by speeding vehicles (16%)- Pedestrians hit by HGVs (14%)- Pedestrians hit by motorcycles (7%)- Pedestrians hit by vehicles while on a footpath (6%)

Paul James ● 4347d

To Ben Owen,You do:1. Speeding;2. Texting or talking while driving;3. Dropping litter;4. Downloading music illegally;I'll do 5. Pavement cycling.

Tony Purton ● 4347d

http://walktoworkweek.org.uk/?gclid=CL_4l7LUl74CFe3JtAod4QUALw

Philippa Bond ● 4348d

It might not have occurred to you that millions of people who declare themselves innocent law abiding citizens actually commit around seven crimes a week. I was in two minds about asking everyone to submit their answers as to what they thought they were, but to do it now makes better sense.So, below are the most common offences, in order:1. Speeding;2. Texting or talking while driving;3. Dropping litter;4. Downloading music illegally;5. Cycling on the pavement. I would like to invite Tony Purton to tackle the top three crimes on the list before channelling his energies into berating cyclists. Cyclists who want to cycle, but feel unsafe to do because of speeding cars and / or drivers texting, calling, eating or drinking whilst driving. Something that you may do everyday.Notice how cycling on the pavement is rock bottom. Cyclists being habitual criminals? You are having a laugh!

Ben Owen ● 4348d

"BY DEFINITION THEN - PAVEMENT CYCLISTS ARE HABITUAL DANGEROUS CRIMINALS!"Brilliant!

Paul James ● 4348d

You guys can’t leave this topic alone can you! Let me help you some more:Pavement cycling is NOT a victimless crime just because no-one is hurt. The victims are all pavement pedestrians who are made too feel unsafe or uncomfortable by it. It is the pedestrian ‘PERCEPTION’ of safety that counts, not the cyclist’s opinion! See DfT’s guidance for Town Planners “LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists” 4.5.3. PAVEMENT CYCLING IS A HABIT, A BAD HABIT, A DANGEROUS HABIT, A CRIMINAL HABIT. BY DEFINITION THEN - PAVEMENT CYCLISTS ARE HABITUAL DANGEROUS CRIMINALS!Chew on that!

Tony Purton ● 4348d

>Again Paul James putting his own spin on comments and making completely untrue assumptionsIf you read your comments I think you can see where I'm coming from. Use of "They" to de-humanise or project the idea that "They" are some sort of sub species and are all of the same mindset. Then mixing in your experience with somebody on a bike that knocked an old lady over with the silent assertion that that's how all people on bikes would behave. >How about you? >You are bound to say that you do, You're asserting that I ride along on pavements. Well there you go.No I don't. I'd walk the bike if I needed to traverse a pavement where I'm not allowed to cycle.However, I do cycle on many shared use pavements and happily co-exist with pedestrians and they with me, and it's not a big deal.>and if you do why do you seem to defend those who don't.I can't get that angry about somebody riding carefully on the pavement with their kid for instance when the alternative is a lorry filled road.However, when faced with somebody riding at me expecting me to get out of their way I make myself very wide, and will often have a word.There are much more important things for our officers of the law to be worrying about considering where the death and carnage on our roads is coming from. Whilst I support them stopping and fining people on bikes on pavements who are inconsiderate, I wouldn't want too much of their time spent on this tort with little consequence in the grand scheme of things. I'd much rather they were looking for bad or inconsiderate driving for instance.In short, I think the much discussed home office guidelines surrounding this offense are good.If there are particular parts of the borough that suffer from pavement cycling we should find out why and fix it, probably by offering a calmer road environment, which would benefit everybody.That's what we should be spending out time protesting for, not this stickers on lamp posts crap.

Paul James ● 4349d

Surely just don't open any posts under threads that start off "Pavements are for Pedestrians.." Should be in full caps I know but could not bring myself to do it.I might nip back in, out of curiosity, when the topic title perhaps reaches 100.

Philip Coe ● 4349d

Is there any way we can "block" this man ' s inane repetitive comments??

Charlotte Carotenuto ● 4349d

Again Paul James putting his own spin on comments and making completely untrue assumptions. Simple basic prejudice and misrepresentation My only problem is with cyclists who cycle on the footpath as I have makde clear in just about all my posts but you seem to ignore that. Who cares? You will never change by the look of things. If cyclists stay on the road or walk their bike on the footpath I have no problem whatsoever. In fact I am a very safe driver and give them plenty of room on the road. I am also occasional cyclist myself but I stick to the law. How about you? You are bound to say that you do, and if you do why do you seem to defend those who don't. Anyway, I should imagine that the eyes of forum readers have glazed over by now so I won't say any more which I am sure you will be happy about but I look forward to the spin you are going to put on this. Do your worst as I couldn't care less.

Keith Iddon ● 4349d

He he!https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-9tfWi5aKSV4/U2ZLEI4MWyI/AAAAAAAAJ10/EtSivALdcVU/w926-h685-no/IMG_20140504_151219.jpg

Paul James ● 4350d

Again Keith Iddon with his "if they ride a bike they must all be the same".Simple basic prejudice.

Paul James ● 4350d

See you in court.

Keith Iddon ● 4350d

Who do you think you are telling me that I cycle on pavements? Apologise immediately, otherwise I will sue for libel.If there were only two things you need to know that are pertinent to this thread then it is:1. I don't cycle through red lights;2. I don't cycle on pavements.

Ben Owen ● 4350d

Not surprising that you break the law by cycling on footpaths with an attitude like that.

Keith Iddon ● 4350d

I am Ben Owen and I have strong opinions and Ealing is my fiefdom!

Ben Owen ● 4350d

And who are you to tell someone to 'stop posting' Ben?

Keith Iddon ● 4350d

Tony, if you think stick on signs on the pavement are going to stop cycling on the pavement, then you are having a laugh! People are not cycling on the pavement because they are unaware that it is illegal; instead it is a considered choice.You have been told many times to stop posting, but you continue to do so. If you don't want to, then whatever we attempt is going to fail.Your public relations exercise on behalf of pedestrians leaves a lot to be desired. You have managed, somehow, to get cyclists CELEBRATING cycling on the pavement in defiance of you. Great job, which makes you the loose canon in Living Streets armoury.

Ben Owen ● 4350d

I was READING BETWEEN THE LINES of Paul Boateng’s letter, which is what you have been doing. The law IS specific, pavement cycling is ILLEGALYou may ‘tolerate’ pavement cycling, but a police officer who ignores or condones pavement cycling could be committing the criminal offence of MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE. A police officer who encourages someone to cycle on the pavement is almost certainly committing THAT offence. In dealing with the offence of pavement cycling a police officer may use his discretion, but he CANNOT IGNORE IT OR CONDONE IT!MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/Misconduct in public office is an offence when the office holder acts (or fails to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office.Pavement cycling is NOT a victimless crime just because no-one is hurt. The victims are all pedestrians using the pavements who are made to feel unsafe or uncomfortable. My proposition is to install small stick-on NO CYCLING signs lamp posts so that NOBODY CAN BE UNAWARE of the illegality of pavement cycling, and pedestrians can be encouraged to express their displeasure of (or 'frown upon') people who do it. LET THE PEDESTRIANS DECIDE, NOT THE CYCLISTS.

Tony Purton ● 4350d

The law says nothing about you having to be 'bombing down the pavement' to be breaking it. If the woman and child 'were seeking safety from the traffic and lorries on the Uxbridge Rd' why didn't they dismount and walk with their bikes on the footpath? Really?

Keith Iddon ● 4351d

>but laws should be there to deal with the possible miscreantsLaws are there, but they are applied using guidelines, as discussed further up the thread,If a police office saw a 20 year old bombing down the pavement forcing pedestrians the scatter I suspect they'd have a word and possibly issue a fine, but a woman and child seeking safety from the traffic and lorries on the Uxbridge Road? Really?Funnily enough, had they been walking their bikes they would've presented much more of an obstacle to me!To add I'd love for them to ride on the road, at least a nice Continental standard cycle way alongside it.

Paul James ● 4351d

Prison? Not at all but a mother encouraging her child to break the law as she does is nothing to be proud of nor is it to held up as some sort of good example being set.I know not all cyclists behave in the same way Paul but laws should be there to deal with the possible miscreants and no-one is above the law. Not even mums and their daughters. Because you feel the road is unsafe for you it is not acceptable to make the footpath potentially more dangerous than it already is for pedestrians.

Keith Iddon ● 4351d

>I assume you are young enough and nimble enough to get out of the wayGet out of the way? They sort of slowed to let me pass, but I stepped aside anyway.They weren't exactly aiming to bowl me down.>Tell that to the elderly lady that I know who was knocked flying by a cyclist(who carried on regardless btw) and broke her hip as a result. Not all people on bikes are the same Keith, they don't have a hive mind.> I am not sure why you are offering up an example of a 30 year old woman who is breaking the law and encouraging her 14 year old daughter to do the same as some sort of bargaining chip. They should be walking with their bikes whilst on the footpath.Prison for them both maybe?

Paul James ● 4351d

PS..Show me someone who is not in the SAS who walks at 5mph.

Keith Iddon ● 4351d

Tell that to the elderly lady that I know who was knocked flying by a cyclist(who carried on regardless btw) and broke her hip as a result. Well you could tell her if she had not spent her last six months in hospital as a result.I assume you are young enough and nimble enough to get out of the way. I am not sure why you are offering up an example of a 30 year old woman who is breaking the law and encouraging her 14 year old daughter to do the same as some sort of bargaining chip. They should be walking with their bikes whilst on the footpath.

Keith Iddon ● 4351d

>Why can't the cyclists on this thread understand that they make many pedestrians feel unsafe on the footpath when they cycle on itKeith.I was walking down by Ealing Hospital the other day, just coming up to the bridge over the river Brent, and coming toward me, horrors of horrors, on the pavement, not one, but TWO cyclists.The one in front was a lady of about 30 years, behind her a 14 year old girl, presumably her daughter.They were coming at me at about 10 MPH! TWICE walking speed.I stepped aside, smiled and they passed me.I'm still alive, I don't know how.What should I have done?Shoved them into the road where they should have been?Stuck a stick through their spokes?Balled them out for riding on the pavement?Taken a photo and sent it to Tony Purton?

Paul James ● 4351d

KeithIn the main I think that the majority cyclists DO understand and show empathy and consideration.What has riled many is the interminable diatribes which, from a wholly objective viewpoint - I am not neutral as I dislike cyclists who use the pavement for no reason with some passion - have taken 15 efforts (thus far) to attempt to reinforce a very narrow mindset which fails to grasp the realities.

Nigel Brooks ● 4351d

Why can't the cyclists on this thread understand that they make many pedestrians feel unsafe on the footpath when they cycle on it? They know how it is to feel unsafe on the road so how can they not empathise with someone who feels unsafe on the footpath?

Keith Iddon ● 4351d

With respect Tony. You cannot read 'between the lines' in a case of law and the 'offence' must be explicit, else every case, despite our heritage of statute and precedent, would be a test case. Badly worded is bad law and should a defence wish they would drive a coach and horses through any charge that was lodged by a law enforcement officer reading 'between the lines'.

Nigel Brooks ● 4352d

Not particularly surprising that he did not argue about it, as he probably thought that £50 was a fair price to pay for not getting run over by a lorry.

Tom Carroll ● 4352d

By READING BETWEEN THE LINES!Police discretion is exercised over whether and when to EXERCISE their Fixed Penalty powers. Usually preceded by 'warnings' NOT TO DO IT.How are the words to be interpreted as "It's alright as long as you do it carefully and with consideration"?As Living Streets CEO TONY ARMSTRONG put it in his Radio 4PM interview in January this year: "We are saying there is no reasonable behaviour that doesn’t intimidate pedestrians." REMINDER: The Offence Wording reads: On **(..SPECIFY DATE..) at **(..SPECIFY TOWNSHIP..) WILFULLY rode a pedal cycle upon a footpath or causeway by the side of a road, namely **(..SPECIFY ROAD AND LOCATION..), made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers.It is the WILFUL bit that attracts the punishment!During the Met Police widely criticised 'crackdown' on all road traffic behaviour last year in 'Operation Safeway' GLA member Tony Arbour was fined £50 for cycling on the pavement. He did not argue about it.

Tony Purton ● 4352d

Let me rephrase my question: how exactly is 'showing consideration to other pavement users' defined for the purposes of applying police discretion to the law ?Because all we apparently have here is Tony's interpretation.

Tom Carroll ● 4352d

The law?

Keith Iddon ● 4352d

Where does it say that showing consideration means wheeling the bicycle and not riding slowly with due extra care ?

Tom Carroll ● 4352d

The full text of Boateng's letter is on the CTC website at http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/goodwill-reiterates-footway-cycling-guidance "The introduction of the fixed penalty is 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 pavement users.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"Boateng's letter is two full A4 pages which I published in PAVEMENTS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS - 6. This is the bit you love to misinterpret. The use of police discretion doesn't mean ignoring or condoning pavement cycling, but issuing a verbal warning to cyclists not to do it. If that is ignored a written warning or a fixed penalty can follow.Showing consideration for other pavement users means wheeling your bike on the pavement if you cannot face the dangers of the road - NOT riding it which being inconsiderate to other pavement users It is not for the police, or you, to re-write the law!PAVEMENT CYCLING IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE - FULL STOP!

Tony Purton ● 4352d

Where's No:16 ? . . . the next in this exciting series.

Fred Bray ● 4353d

You missed a bit off Tony:"The introduction of the fixed penalty is 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 pavement users.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"This has been reiterated recently.

Paul James ● 4353d

PAVEMENT CYCLING is not just TOP of my list, it is the ONLY thing I have been writing about.If you want to do something about your own pet hates then do it, but don’t drag those RED HERRING issues across the path of my clear and unassailable argument that PAVEMENT CYCLING IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE. Section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act protecting the pedestrian footpaths alongside public highways against incursion by road vehicles (‘carriages’ including bicycles) is as valid today as it has been for the last 179 years. It was reinforced by Parliament in 1999 when, at the suggestion of the Association of Chief Police Officers, pavement cycling was made a fixed penalty offence under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - Statutory Instruments 1999 No. 1851 to enable the police to enforce the 1835 Act by fining rather than prosecuting offenders. DfT guidance issued to police forces in 2009 [following the PAC’s October 2009 report on ‘Improving road safety for pedestrians and cyclists in Great Britain’ see Q.42-47] confirmed that there are no exceptions for small wheeled or children’s cycles, but any rider under the age of criminal responsibility (10) will not be guilty of the offence.YOU CAN WHEEL A BIKE ON THE PAVEMENT BUT YOU CAN'T RIDE OR 'SCOOT' IT - GOT IT?If you want to argue that black is white, I believe you will find plenty of sympathy for such a proposition on this forum: http://www.tfes.org/

Tony Purton ● 4354d

> I wonder how many would object to a clampdown on footpath cycling, I can name million things I'd like a clampdown on. Footpath cycling is pretty low on that list though, littering, speeding, bad driving, red light jumping, mobile phone use, parking on pavements, blocking dropped kerbs, parking on school keep clear signs, I could go on.Despite pavement cycling causing practically no deaths or injuries compared to other things on my list, it appears to be number one on Tony Purton's list though, above all else.Why's that?Serious question!

Paul James ● 4354d

More smokescreening Ben? I wonder how many would object to a clampdown on footpath cycling, which is the subject under 'discussion'?

Keith Iddon ● 4354d

What was the policy bloke from Living Streets giving evidence to the Transport Select Committee on?Was ita) Pavement parking; orb) Pavement cycling?'fess up, Tony. It was pavement parking. Anybody here objects to a clampdown on pavement parking please say so now. My bet that the threat of a new thread is nullified.

Ben Owen ● 4354d

Laws or no laws, ignoring clear Highway Code guidelines pedestrians constantly stray onto the roads everywhere endangering themselves and other road users, but that's for another thread.

Tom Carroll ● 4355d

Pedestrians in the UK can't jaywalk. There are no laws against crossing roads, other than you're not allowed to walk along a motorway, or loiter on a pedestrian crossing.We should all expect to have to deal with pedestrians in the road, and long may it stay that way.

Paul James ● 4355d

Under this definition most sections of the road could be unsafe to cyclists: omnipresent lorries, cars parked on cycle lanes and jaywalking pedestrians.

Tom Carroll ● 4355d

And your crusade discriminates against cyclists, who find themselves between a rock and a hard place Tony, because of ancient laws and insufficiently well designed road infrastructure, which they feel does not currently cater for them.The entire spectrum needs to be updated to make it relevant in today's world, as opposed to merely putting up stickers. That is the reason why so much money being is spent on cycling infrastructure, so that cyclists will eventually stop using pavements, as you rightly expect, when they feel safe again. Surely you are intelligent enough to see that.

Tom Carroll ● 4355d

AT LAST WE GET DOWN TO THE NITTY-GRITTY. PAVEMENT CYCLING AND SAFETY FOR CYCLISTS ON THE ROAD ARE SEPARATE SUBJECTS, NOT CHICKEN AND EGG ISSUESTom Carroll “Essentially what this means is that in order to achieve your goal of cycle-free pavements, without discriminating against any particular group of users, action would have to involve taking appropriate steps to improve road safety and investment in infrastructure for the cyclists. Looking from a neutral standpoint, I would find it unreasonable to disagree with this point of view.” COMMENT: NOT a neutral standpoint – it discriminates against pavement pedestrians UNLAWFULLY!Keith Iddon “Saying that roads are not safe enough for cyclists so let's make pavements unsafe for pedestrians by cycling on them doesn't wash. If there is a part of the road where a cyclist feels unsafe by all means use the footpath, but have the decency to dismount and walk with the bike until they feel safe enough to re-enter the road. But this would add a few minutes to the journey, and we can't have that can we?” COMMENT: Wheeling a bicycle on the pavement is LEGAL.Paul James >Saying that roads are not safe enough for cyclists so let's make pavements unsafe for pedestrians by cycling on them doesn't wash “Nobody is saying that. What people are saying is make roads safe for cycling.” COMMENT: Meanwhile discriminating against pedestrians using the pavements until cyclists are ‘Satisfied’ that the roads are safe!Tony Colliver “Agreed. In the meantime, where cyclists judge the road insufficently safe, let's have them dismount and *WALK*!” COMMENT; Wheeling a bicycle on the pavement is LEGAL.Keith Iddon “Spot on Tony. Cycling on a footpath is by nature dangerous if you are a pedestrian, particularly when approached from behind by a silent menace going like the clappers as happened to me in Brentford the other day. I gave them a piece of my mind only to be flicked a 'v'. About par for the course.” COMMENT: Hence the need for some public signing that pavement cycling is illegal as an adjunct to better enforcement of the law.Paul Boateng Home Office Minister 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 the issue as affecting the case for having a fixed penalty offence for cycling on the pavement.” COMMENT: Making the roads safer for cyclists and the enforcement of the law against pavement cycling are NOT interdependent,£100 MILLIONS are being spent on making the roads safer for cyclists. £000 MILLIONS are being spent on protecting pedestrians on the pavements from the encroachment of bicycles.Concerned pedestrians have until 9 May to comment on the absence of any mention of pavement cycling in the TfL “Pedestrian Safety Action Plan”: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/streets/pedestrian-safety-plan/consultation/intro/view or contact TfL’s Assistant Scrutiny Manager Lucy Brant - mailto: Lucy.Brant@london.gov.uk Tel: 0207 983 4000.

Tony Purton ● 4355d

Spot on Tony. Cycling on a footpath is by nature dangerous if you are a pedestrian, particularly when approached from behind by a silent menace going like the clappers as happened to me in Brentford the other day. I gave them a piece of my mind only to be flicked a 'v'. About par for the course.

Keith Iddon ● 4355d

Agreed.In the meantime, where cyclists judge the road insufficently safe, let's have them dismount and *WALK*!

Tony Colliver ● 4355d

>Saying that roads are not safe enough for cyclists so let's make pavements unsafe for pedestrians by cycling on them doesn't washNobody is saying that.What people are saying is make roads safe for cycling.

Paul James ● 4355d

>How about mandatory basic training courses for cyclists in the Highway Code and Road Safety? It seems to me that if cyclists did not try and overtake vehicles on the kerb-side of vehicles where they cannot be seen it would be safer.Whilst it's good advice to avoid riding down the passenger door side of vehicles the "cyclists don't know the highway code, no wonder they get killed and injured" is pretty much a total red herring. In the vast majority of crashes that involve motorized vehicles and cyclists, the cyclist is shown not to be at fault in any way, 15% to 75% if I recall correctly.

Paul James ● 4355d

How about mandatory basic training courses for cyclists in the Highway Code and Road Safety? It seems to me that if cyclists did not try and overtake vehicles on the kerb-side of vehicles where they cannot be seen it would be safer.

Peter Mcleod ● 4356d

Saying that roads are not safe enough for cyclists so let's make pavements unsafe for pedestrians by cycling on them doesn't wash. If there is a part of the road where a cyclist feels unsafe by all means use the footpath, but have the decency to dismount and walk with the bike until they feel safe enough to re-enter the road. But this would add a few minutes to the journey, and we can't have that can we?

Keith Iddon ● 4356d

Tony, when you say that "cycling safety is a red herring in this discussion about the criminal offence of pavement cycling" you risk making a complete fool of yourself.One obvious reason why some cyclists use the pavements is because they fear for their safety on the roads. Interestingly, I asked my primary school children for their opinion on the subject and even they could easily identify a cause and effect here, concluding that if you want to actually improve matters for everyone, you need to start advocating a more holistic approach. Essentially what this means is that in order to achieve your goal of cycle-free pavements, without discriminating against any particular group of users, action would have to involve taking appropriate steps to improve road safety and investment in infrastructure for the cyclists.Looking from a neutral standpoint, I would find it unreasonable to disagree with this point of view.

Tom Carroll ● 4356d

Tony, please look up 'brevity' there's a good chap.At the same time, a quick search for 'internet etiquette' may not go amiss.

Nigel Brooks ● 4356d

The no-cycling and other signs links below demonstrate the ultimate in BREVITY which EVERYBODY can understand!No amount of 'cyber heckling' is going to change the law.My 'PAVEMENTS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS' posts are to encourage SERIOUS PEDESTRIANS to have their say. The fact that they attract so much vitriolic RED HERRING comment from local opinion-formers serves to enhance their message. THANKS AGAIN GUYS!Much of what I have published is taken from official (government) sources which I have referenced.NO-CYCLING SIGNS http://da97hgpf35dy2.cloudfront.net/b6/98/i89364662._szw1280h1280_.jpg MORE NO-CYCLING SIGNS http://do8ae71anmf4y.cloudfront.net/83/da/i89709187._szw1280h1280_.jpg OTHER SELF-EXPLANATORY SIGNS http://d2vqx76lplv3ab.cloudfront.net/42/e0/i89710658._szw1280h1280_.jpgKEEP COMPLAINING FELLAS so that others will get the message!

Tony Purton ● 4356d

"Nigel Brooks alone, purveying much repetitive rubbish."Yes Tony, but they are erudite, punctuated correctly and overarchingly brief.Brevity is something that you would do well to consider as a 'stepping stone' toward compassionately not posting any more rehashed diatribes at all.

Nigel Brooks ● 4356d

Tony, The terms of reference that the policy bloke was giving evidence on WAS NOT about cycling on the pavement. It was about pavement parking. Get your facts right - before forcing your opinions on the uninformed. One example showing that your "15 factual posts" are, in actual fact, complete utter rubbish. Who are people going to trust more on this assertion? You or me? It says laugh here! If any of you lovely yummy Ealing Today forum addicts actually did, well that one worked very well!And since I am posting, I can't resist a bit of a snore comment:All of us (that means you, me and the bloke down the pub) observe bad habits amongst users of all transport modes — which are far more dangerous to us than cycling on a pavement. But do I start to write endless and repetitive threads on how I condem drink driving, drivers on their mobile phones, stopping in the Advanced Stop Lane or those that park in cycle lanes? No, no, no, no no, no, no, no!!! (Thanks for the copy and paste function!). No new point made by me; it has been said many times before. Does the average driver identify with any of the above faults? Although recent statistics published show that driving whilst on the phone has fallen from 20% to 13%, (which means that 1 in 8 drivers will) it is still true that those that don't drive whilst on their phone make up the majority. There is absoultely no chance that 13% of cyclists cycle on the pavement, so just a very slim percentage would identify with the problem. Do you, Tony, have the good grace to admit that? Cars and delivery vans are also routinely driven onto and parked on pavements, creating obstructions and costly damage to paving. Who remembers the photogaph of a hearse in South Ealing? Or the cash van outside Barclays in South Ealing just days after the pavement had been rebuilt? I am not making this up.To finish up, you remind me of the time that Frank Worthington (rebel footballer in the 1970's who had as many different women as he did clubs!)asked this question to a referee:-"Ref, what would you do if I said to you that A.N.Other was a xxx?" The ref replied "I would send you off"Worthington then asked,"Ref, what would you do if I thought that A.N.Other was a xxx?"The ref replied,"There's nothing I could do!"So, Worthington then said,"In that case, I think that A.N.Other is a xxx!"

Ben Owen ● 4356d

Re Ben Owen’s: “The policy bloke at Living Streets gave evidence to a Transport Select Committee (TSC) where he highlighted the problems of pavement PARKING and how the problem could be tackled in future. ……… Where in all of this is cycling on pavements mentioned?”RESPONSE: The Transport Select Committee’s terms of reference were about CYCLING SAFETY:http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/transport-committee/news/cycling---deadline-extension/ We would like to hear views on:• Whether cycling is safe, particularly in towns and cities• What central and local Government could do to improve cycling safety. Ideas could include better training and advice for drivers and cyclists, better enforcement of the law applying to drivers and cyclists, and better vehicle and road infrastructure.• Whether it would be desirable and feasible to segregate cyclists from other road users, including, for example, by prohibiting HGVs from entering city centres at peak hours.All the discussion was about cyclist safety in relation to other road vehicles – i.e. on the road or on separated cycle tracks. Lobbying at the Committee against illegal pavement cycling would have been slapped down as a RED HERRING, nothing to do with CYCLING SAFETY. Much as cycling safety is a RED HERRING in this discussion about the criminal offence of PAVEMENT CYCLING. Did any of the witnesses to the transport committee propose the abolition of the law against pavement cycling to allow cyclists free access to the pavements?Re Nigel Brooks’: “Re Still nothing new then? Ho hum. Can't actually believe it's taken 15 threads to say sod all!”RESPONSE:The OLD (179 years) is Section 72 the 1835 Highways Act. The NEW is the proposal for NO CYCLING signs on lamp posts to persuade pedestrians to REVOLT. The signs summarise all the detailed evidence I have presented (it goes without saying!) against a core of local sceptics (‘Dodo’s’ or ‘Trolls’ ?) comments: a picture is worth a thousand words. My 15 factual posts contrast with the 248 comments from 38 of Ealing’s leading ‘cyber inteligentsia’, 37 from Nigel Brooks alone, purveying much repetitive rubbish.FOR CONCERNED PEDESTRIANS – comments by 9 May on TfL’s “Pedestrian Safety Action Plan”: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/streets/pedestrian-safety-plan/consultation/intro/view or contact TfL’s Assistant Scrutiny Manager Lucy Brant - mailto: Lucy.Brant@london.gov.uk Tel: 0207 983 4000.

Tony Purton ● 4356d

Not content with boring everyone with your views on this forum you are now boring the rest if Ealing via the letters page in the Gazette. More fool them for publishing your tedious tomes.

Charlotte Carotenuto ● 4356d

Still nothing new then?Ho hum.Can't actually believe it's taken 15 threads to say sod all!

Nigel Brooks ● 4357d

Might as well feed you something more to chew on lads.Try these links:NO-CYCLING SIGNS http://da97hgpf35dy2.cloudfront.net/b6/98/i89364662._szw1280h1280_.jpg MORE NO-CYCLING SIGNS http://do8ae71anmf4y.cloudfront.net/83/da/i89709187._szw1280h1280_.jpg OTHER SELF-EXPLANATORY SIGNS http://d2vqx76lplv3ab.cloudfront.net/42/e0/i89710658._szw1280h1280_.jpgAnd the following letter was published in last Friday's Gazette to encourage the discerning pedestrians of the Borough (again) to write to TfL.CYCLING ON PATHS IS SUBJECT TO FINE (Editors title)Ronald Roe’s highly personalised view of English law (Letters 18 April) is nonsense.There are no ‘buts’ about it, pavement cycling is a criminal offence under Section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act punishable by a £50 fixed penalty fine or a £500 fine in court under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Both Acts are part of criminal law which can only be enforced by the police. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.Section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act protecting the pedestrian footpaths alongside public highways against incursion by road vehicles is as valid today as it has been for the last 179 years. It was reinforced by Parliament in 1999 when, at the suggestion of the Association of Chief Police Officers, pavement cycling was made a fixed penalty offence under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - Statutory Instruments 1999 No. 1851 to enable the police to enforce the 1835 Act by fining rather than prosecuting offenders. DfT guidance issued to police forces in 2009 confirmed that there are no exceptions for small wheeled or children’s cycles, but any rider under the age of criminal responsibility (10) will not be guilty of the offence.The Road Traffic Act 1991 and the Traffic Management Act 2004 decriminalised highway parking offences, allowing local authorities to take over the enforcement of on-street car parking regulations from the police; an activity which has become a controversial multi-million pound ‘industry’. Local by-laws apply only to paths and open spaces away from the public highways.Concerned pedestrians have until 9 May to comment on the absence of any mention of pavement cycling in the TfL “Pedestrian Safety Action Plan”: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/streets/pedestrian-safety-plan/consultation/intro/view or contact TfL’s Assistant Scrutiny Manager Lucy Brant - mailto: Lucy.Brant@london.gov.uk Tel: 0207 983 4000.Tony Purton

Tony Purton ● 4357d

Oh, dear old Tony, you do give Living Streets a really bad press and the Head of Communications must be pulling her / his hair out. For those that might not know, Living Streets are throwing their full weight on the subject of local authority parking enforcement, and not cycling on pavements. The policy bloke at Living Streets gave evidence to a Transport Select Committee (TSC) where he highlighted the problems of pavement PARKING and how the problem could be tackled in future. The TSC report recognised the lack of a coherent regulatory framework around the issue of pavement parking stating that 'we recognise that parking restrictions should reflect local circumstance. However, in areas such as pavement parking, where there is a confusing patchwork approach across the country, local authorities must ensure that they communicate clearly to motorists. The needs of pedestrians must be considered alongside other road users' (paragraph 8). Where in all of this is cycling on pavements mentioned?Further, the latest e-newsletter from Living Streets encourages people to support their local street hero. I already know who I won't be voting for: yes, it's you Tony! Well done for earning that vote. It did make me laugh the photograph of a group of people on a pavement hands aloft with two bicycles in the foreground. Could they have, by any chance, jumped the kerb to freewheel along the pavement to their gathering group? Vote now if you think there might have been a possibility!

Ben Owen ● 4359d

Oh, I quite enjoyed 'Purton baiting' or, as I prefer to think of it, giving a balanced view so it #counted' as a Lenten 'abstinence'.However, as he has nothing interesting to say anymore with the record firmly stuck in its groove, I may well leave it alone until it is fun again.

Nigel Brooks ● 4359d

I always thought that for Lent you should abstain from things you enjoy - eg chocolate, alcohol etc. If you can give up things that you would not prefer to do anyway I might try it next year....

Philip Coe ● 4359d

Well done Nigel for ignoring him during Lent on this issue I hope you can now ignore him forever :)

Jack Ryan ● 4359d

Thank you for the historical background Tony, I am new to this so found it and the links very informative.You did not, however, answer my question, so please let me rephrase it:Do you understand the reason why so many cyclists are scared to use the roads ? They justify it by advocating that their activity is far less likely to cause deaths or serious injuries, than if they used the roads. From a neutral standpoint, it appears to be a very reasonable point of view, even if it is currently illegal.Do you understand this point of view ? Yes or no ?

Tom Carroll ● 4360d

Good, morning, O babbling one, nothing new to say as usual.Glad I gave you up for Lent, but now I'm back I must take the time to read your diatribes posted in my absence.No wait, life is too short.Be happy in your bubble, the world goes on.

Nigel Brooks ● 4360d

Only another TWO weeks (to 9th May) to have your say to the London Assembly about the absence of any mention of pavement cycling in their draft “Pedestrian Action Safety Plan” https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/streets/pedestrian-safety-plan/user_uploads/pedestrian-safety-action-plan.pdf.Don't miss this chance!

Tony Purton ● 4360d

Only another three weeks (to 9th May) to have your say to the London Assembly about the absence of any mention of pavement cycling in their draft “Pedestrian Action Safety Plan” https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/streets/pedestrian-safety-plan/user_uploads/pedestrian-safety-action-plan.pdf.Don't miss this chance!

Tony Purton ● 4367d

Did you see all those little cyclists in the article on the front page? I don't believe that they are being told at all that they are not supposed to cycle on the pavement when they are bigger and they are allowed and tolerated simply because of their age and good behaviour.It is a joy to see a youngster scoot carefully along the pavement and stop at a junction ahead of parent/carer. They need to be taught that they have to think about other users of the pavement and some have obviously been taught/are being taught. Others obviously aren't and scoot/ride dangerously across crossovers on the pavement with adults nattering behind. They youngsters are far too small to be seen by a reversing car and the situation can be quite worrying.

Philippa Bond ● 4373d

See also my letter in today's Ealing Gazette "Don't forget about pavement cycling".

Tony Purton ● 4373d

Hopefully some of the money that LBE has gained from Transport for London will go towards making cycle lanes that are safer for cyclists which will mean that they are more likely to stay off the pavements.I've also seen more and more stickers on the backs of lorries telling cyclists to stay back as lorries in particular can miss seeing them when they turn.We need to find safer solutions for us all.

Philippa Bond ● 4373d

Type c) are the ones that run you down at the PEDESTRIAN crossings as they jump the lights overtaking the stopped cars.(Just missed me but parted my hair and left me shocked and shaking - and I DO look before I cross on PEDESTRIAN crossings. I'm lucky I'm not blind.)Type b) there are far too many of.

Philippa Bond ● 4373d

your post is becoming boring... and to pick Gerry as a supporter is pretty pathetic as the usual posts from the gentleman in question is usually of the "ooh aren't flowers lovely?" type of thread.

Al Stuart ● 4373d

Watching the traffic waiting by the crossing on Popes Lane I was struck by the thought that there are probably three types of cyclists. a) There is the gentleman in front of me on an ordinary bike in his paint-stained work-clothes making his way to work, waiting at the crossing until the lights change. b) There is the unpleasant and selfish herbert like the one that I encountered yesterday on the Maytree Rest Garden footbride where it crosses the Piccadilly Line, the narrow footbridge with the "Cyclists Dismount" signs on both sides of the bridge. Not wishing to squeeze myself against the size of the narrow walkway I kept on walking and the on-coming cyclist had to stop (or run into me or the sides). I gently pointed out to him that this was a pedestrian walkway and the Cyclists Dismount signs and that what he was doing was probably illegal. His response was: "I don't give a sh*t", and then "You are now wasting my time" as he played with his smartphone. c) The third type of cyclist is the adrenaline lycra monster out of whose way I get very quickly on the pavement...

Peter Mcleod ● 4374d

NOTHING TO DO WITH PAVEMENT CYCLING OF COURSE!Re ‘SHOUTING’ capitals (Phillip Coe 08/04/14 19:24:00) It may have escaped your notice, but the device of using not only CAPITALS but bold, red capitals is employed in the DfT’s Highway Code to delineate those rules in the Code which are “legal requirements and if you disobey these rules you are committing an offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison.” (Highway Code Introduction page 4)It seems that government recognises that to ram a message home you have to SHOUT!

Tony Purton ● 4374d

This news is alarming. About every day we read of another road cyclist killed - its frighening - how do we stop these fatalities?Good bit of news reporting and photography btw.

Gerry Tan ● 4374d

Cyclist hit by lorry in hospital with life threatening injuries Also explains the air ambulance I captured in the distance.

Fred Bray ● 4374d

The 1835 Highways Act introduced the concept of a vehicle-free pedestrian area at the side of the highway to protect pedestrians from the dangers of vehicular traffic. The Act didn’t mention bicycles, because pedal propelled bikes weren’t developed until the late 1860s, so at first bicycles had no legal status, no legal right to be on either roads or footpaths. The Cyclists’ Touring Club, founded in 1878, fought tooth and nail to secure highway rights for cyclists which they eventually did in the 1888 Local Government Act which classified bicycles as carriages giving them full legal rights to pass and repass along highways. The legal definition of bicycles as carriages allowed cycling to prosper.Section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act is as valid today as it was in 1835, as providing a ‘safe haven’ for pedestrians free from the dangers of vehicular traffic. The relevance of the law against pavement cycling was reaffirmed by Parliament only 15 years ago by granting the police powers to fine pavement cyclists - Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - Statutory Instruments 1999 No. 1851. If you want to change the law, that will certainly be a matter of wide-ranging debate, but there is no proposal at present to change the law – rather to enforce it.An ‘academic’ review of cycling safety: http://rachelaldred.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/cycling-review1.pdf says “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)". That does not excuse cyclists for cycling on the pavements.

Tony Purton ● 4374d

Whatever one's stance on the matter, for me, it is pleasing to read a coherent, well set down and non-aggressive counter-view. No "shouting" as well - far easier on the eye.

Philip Coe ● 4375d

I read your posts with much interest Tony, however one thing remains particularly unclear to me with regards to your viewpoint, namely: would you please care to explain why do you think that the notion of "whether cyclists hardly ever kill or injure pedestrians is irrelevant" to this debate ?I would venture to guess that the exact reason why many cyclists decide to ignore the law is precisely because the opposite is particularly relevant, and that is the fact that on today's roads motor vehicles very often kill cyclists. Perhaps it would be beneficial for the advocates of a strict enforcement of the 1835 Highways Act, such as yourself, to take a step back and perhaps realise that the clue may be in the name. The law appears to have been introduced in the early 19th century, shortly after the velocipede was first invented, before fast moving motor vehicles become common on our roads, and specifically way before heavy motor vehicle traffic became extremely dangerous to other road users, and cyclists in particular.The fact that, as you correctly state, pavement cycling is currently illegal, does not necessarily mean that it is a positive or the right thing for it to remain so, and a far more wide-ranging debate on the matter is required, rather than your short-sighted crusade to have stickers put up on lamposts.If you remain unconvinced, then the next logical step would be to extend your campaign and ask the London Assembly to lobby the Government to change the law and have parking and driving on cycle lanes also made uniformly illegal and to avoid any accusations of discrimination, have the roadsides plastered with reminders to motor vehicle users of that fact and have it policed with the same zest and vigour as you are advocating for the pavements.Which, if you think about it, could very likely have the unintended consequence of actually achieving what you set out to achieve in the first place.

Tom Carroll ● 4376d

PAVEMENT CYCLING IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.No amount of (T)wittering will change thatRest assured that ALL the comments against ALL my posts have been forwarded to TfL - UNEXPURGATED - as evidence of the persistence of pavement cyclists.Thanks for your help in making my case.PEDESTRIANS TAKE NOTE AND TAKE ACTION!

Tony Purton ● 4376d

"My editing of Nick Cohen's Observer text was an attempt to be CONCISE."CONCISE, YOU? I don't think you'd recognise CONCISE if it hurtled down the pavement and took away your undercarriage.Nope I think you edited it because it was inconvenient to your cause.

Tony Wood ● 4377d

My editing of Nick Cohen's Observer text was an attempt to be CONCISE.Whether cyclists 'hardly ever kill or injure pedestrians' - on or off the pavements - is IRRELEVANT.They certainly make many pedestrians feel vulnerable in their own 'protected space' - the pavements.PAVEMENT CYCLING IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE!Not sure what 'Dodos' are. Perhaps they are the equivalent of 'Trolls' mentioned by Christine Daniels 27/01/14 15:14:00 Good advice - ".......if you keep rehashing the message it finally gets through." Ben Owen 08/02/14 16:16:00Note: 228 comments by 36 people on this topic. Top scores - Paul James 54, Nigel Brooks 34, Ben Owen 29, Gerry Tan 14.

Tony Purton ● 4377d

"...it's kinda like dodos getting all het up about occasionally being killed or inured by a metorite."An excellent analogy - well said.

Gerry Tan ● 4377d

Tony P is writing to pedestrians, to get them to complain to authorities about cyclists riding on pavements, he's not appealing to cyclists to stop riding on pavements.In the grand scheme of thing it's kinda like dodos getting all het up about occasionally being killed or inured by a metorite.Pedestrians and cyclists (and to some extent drivers) are being exterminated by poorly and hastily driven motorised vehicles.

Paul James ● 4377d

For the first time, I just can't be bothered to read what Tony wrote. Can someone paraphrase it?!An utter waste of time. All that time writing a post that is not going to be read by a cyclist is futile if your gun is aimed on cyclists. (Judging by previous posts it will be)!

Ben Owen ● 4378d

Not really Gerry, I just don't like people trying to dupe me or anybody else for that matter. Cheers!

Tony Wood ● 4378d

Well spotted Tony W., you've got eagle eyes.

Gerry Tan ● 4378d

Selective editing alert!Why Tony P did you cut the last line of your Observer quote,the part that was in brackets as shown below,didn't it fit in with your mono-perspective view? Special interests triumph over general interests in democracies, they said, because special-interest groups are highly motivated: cyclists, for instance, are finally getting a hearing because they tend to be young, professional and articulate. (I'm not knocking them. Despite myths to the contrary, cyclists hardly ever injure pedestrians.)

Tony Wood ● 4378d

TO COMMENT ON TfL’s PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACTION PLAN:ONLINE: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/streets/pedestrian-safety-plan/consultation/intro/viewOR WRITE TO: TfL Transport Committee Members: Valerie Shawcross (Chair), Caroline Pidgeon (Deputy Chair), Tom Copley, Onkar Sahota, Murad Qureshi, Roger Evans, Richard Tracey, Victoria Borwick, Darren Johnson. Contact: Lucy Brant, Assistant Scrutiny Manager email: Lucy.Brant@london.gov.uk Tel: 0207 983 4000In his less than concise article in today’s Observer, Nick Cohen made at least one good point. “Special interests triumph over general interests in democracies ……… because special-interest groups are highly motivated: cyclists, for instance, are finally getting a hearing because they tend to be young, professional and articulate. ………. Special interests can raise money for lobbyists and persecute politicians if they don't, in the case of roads, listen to the AA, RAC and Road Haulage Association. No powerful lobby, however, upholds the general interest in being able to walk without constraint or danger. There's no money in it and everyone expects someone else to put in the hard work.” PEDESTRIANS GET LOBBYING!

Tony Purton ● 4378d

Well said Emily, I think you've spoken for the vast majority of posters."...writing posts repeating the same thing. You'd benefit from learning how to write politely and concisely."Emily, you sound like my English teacher of years ago! She would have frightened the heebeejeebees out of Tony!

Gerry Tan ● 4378d

Here's the real reason Britain is a dangerous place for walkers - motorists! http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/06/odds-against-nation-of-walkers "the London assembly was issuing a doubtless vain appeal to stop the killing of walkers. More pedestrians are killed or seriously injured on London's streets than any other type of road user, its members said.They were "astonished" to find that a quarter of the deaths occurred on pedestrian crossings – which are meant to be places of safety. Others were inflicted by bus drivers, who, despite being privatised, are meant to be publicly accountable, and by the drivers of heavy goods vehicles, who are also meant to meet minimum safety standards."By the way your overuse of capitals and lengthy writing style does you no favours. Neither does your constant hogging of the forum by writing posts repeating the same thing. You'd benefit from learning how to write politely and concisely.

Emily Heath ● 4378d

>ONE GLARING OMISSION in both documents is the total absence of any reference to PAVEMENT CYCLING.Glaring ommission? Or perhaps they looked a the stats and realised pavement cycling is the lowest of the low low,and then bottom of that and then in the bottom drawer of that when it comes to danger to pedestrians.I bet more people are injured or killed just tripping up or walking into each other compared to being struck by a cyclist on the pavement.