Target pavement cyclists, say MPs

David Curry rt Hon MP - WAC

i freely admit that i will ride on th pavement if its faster
cars should fined for cutting up/bullying cyclists and intimidating them from riding on the road where they have a right to be

One rule for them, one rule for us then?

About time too, getting fed up of teenager/yobs speeding up and down pavement on their sit-up-and-beg full suspension mountain bike.

Excellent point.
All those broken legs arms fingers, concussions, bruises, damaged property and all are ok though..

Little old ladies are 2 points but children are 10 as they move faster and are more difficult to hit.

That's right, because I said that riding into little old ladies on my bike is way cool, didn't I?

Once again, cyclists on pavements are annoying. MP David Curry is a slack-jawed, goggle-eyed mouth-breathing shitclown who takes the bad behaviour of the worst cyclists and applies it to all of us.

In Oz, if you are an adult you are allowed to cycle on the footpath if you are leading a under-12yo kid, I think. Obviously you are also allowed to cycle on the footpath if you are under 12 too.

Do they have any laws like that here?

yes, children are allowed to ride on pavements but not adult, they can ride alongside the pavement.

Even so, it's a good political move on David Curry, all politician have to do is says the magic word, everyone cried with happiness, and then forget about it once the politician become Mayor.

like Boris with his silly notion of removing bendy buses.

One rule for them, one rule for us then?

Not at all - not all cycling on the pavement is dangerous - if there arent any people on it/very few you can easily get by without endangering other peds. if ur buzzing along at 20mph on a crowded pavement that is dumb. Making an automatic fine wont differentiate between the two though and i can see bored police jumping on the chance to fine someonefor riding on an empty pavement

Not at all - not all cycling on the pavement is dangerous - if there arent any people on it/very few you can easily get by without endangering other peds.

or take your time and wait in traffic.

seriously, what's the rush?

if your job is to rush

Dave Moulton wrote a piece about riding on the pavement too;

http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/blog/2008/7/25/a-good-reason-not-to-ride-on-the-sidewalk.html

Ed, do you know the maximum age you're allowed to cycle on the pavement? I was stopped by a policeman once (when I was a child) for cycling into town from my parents house. He asked me how far I as going, and then said to be careful and let me continue...

i can't be arsed to get up on the curb tbh. too lazy.

Not at all - not all cycling on the pavement is dangerous - if there arent any people on it/very few you can easily get by without endangering other peds. if ur buzzing along at 20mph on a crowded pavement that is dumb. Making an automatic fine wont differentiate between the two though and i can see bored police jumping on the chance to fine someonefor riding on an empty pavement

I could hit 120 mph down Creek Road late at night- which in some circumstances would not be dangerous, according to me anyway.

Same thing at midday would be horrifyingly dangerous- so by your logic I should be allowed to do it late at night?

I can't believe this a even a debate. The MP's comments are obviously delusional but the point is riding on the pavement is stupid.

But then I tend not to be too much of a rush. I give myself an hour to get from Stokey to fulham even if I dont need it. Less sweaty back.

Ed, do you know the maximum age you're allowed to cycle on the pavement? I was stopped by a policeman once (when I was a child) for cycling into town from my parents house. He asked me how far I as going, and then said to be careful and let me continue...

I think the max is 10, since that's the age of criminal responsibility.

Nope- you should only cycle on a pavement if you are under 12 years old, any older than that and you should have the bicycle confiscated and a £500 fine.

It's completely unacceptable.

/end_of_thread

Actually,

Having been issued a PFN for cycling on a public footpath, I am doing research in order to contest the ticket and came across your site which has raised some issues, namely how PCSO's view the law in relation to this.

I do not believe it is legal to stop a cyclist or issue a PFN on a 'footpath'.

The 1835 Highway Act (extended to include bicycles in the Local Gvt Act 1888) does indeed refer to cycling "
upon any footpath" but it goes on to say "....by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers"

This means it refers only to 'pedestrian paths' by the side of the road and this interpretation was upheld in 2 court cases,-R v Pratt (1867) 3 QBD, and Selby v DPP (1994) RTR 157.

In Pratt the judgement stated;

(the 1835 Act)..".was intended not to protect footpaths simpliciter, but only footpaths or causeways by the side of a road"

In Selby the judgement stated;

"the alleyway in question did not constitute a footpath "(as defined in the 1835 Act)

The Highways Act 1980 section 392(1) has defined the meanings of 'footpath' and 'footway', a footway being by the side of a road, and the Department of Transport in 'Annex B Legal definitions and procedures' confirms this but goes on to say " Footways are the pedestrian paths alongside a carriageway, and are often referred to as a pavement".

**In summary then, he is suggesting that pavements in parks, alleyways and generally anywhere that doesn’t have a road beside it, is exempt from this law. **There are a few cases which appear to have agreed with this viewpoint and found in favour of the cyclist.
(emphasis added)

Still so certain?

I can't believe this a even a debate. The MP's comments are obviously delusional but the point is riding on the pavement is stupid.

But then I tend not to be too much of a rush. I give myself an hour to get from Stokey to fulham even if I dont need it. Less sweaty back.

Well said that man.

Actually,

(emphasis added)

Still so certain?

Yep- I never said I was basing my opinion on anything legal, merely that as Soul said previously in this thread that if you cycle on the pavement you are a cunt and/or peado.

yes, children are allowed to ride on pavements but not adult, they can ride alongside the pavement.

It is actualy illegal for anyone to cycle on the pavement no matter what age. In cases of children (and acompanying adults) the police are to use there discression.

It is actualy illegal for anyone to cycle on the pavement no matter what age. In cases of children (and acompanying adults) the police are to use there discression.

this is what I found so far;

http://www.rjw.co.uk/ctc/q-a-from-cycle-magazine/q-a-from-cycle-magazine#pavement2

I'm not sure I agree with some of the 'pavement riding = cunt' rhetoric. For the record, I don't do it. However, there are situations where I have absolutely no problem with it.

Before I moved to London I lived near Warwick - there are roads that cyclists have to share with cars hitting 60mph (narrow single carriage ways). It's ridiculous to say that someone has to ride on that if they feel, justifiably, unsafe doing so (it's essentially tantamount to banning them from cycling at all on certain routes). I daresay there are horrible junctions in London which are similar to a number of people.

As has been said, anyone causing hurt to a ped, hit them with Assault / GBH. We all go on about how drivers try to have a go at us with their 'lethal weapons' (cars / buses) - same thing with peds / cyclists.

It's already illegal to do it - what more do they want. Allow the police some discretion for parts of the road where a cyclist feels in danger from other users surely.

Q19 Mr Curry: ** If a cyclist or any driver of a car drove his car like cyclists ride their bikes, there would be nobody left on the roads of Britain at all. **

Wanker.

Q22 Mr Curry: The point I am making is that they do not have a bell, they do not have a horn and they do not have a speedometer. Do you not think that cyclists should be equipped with that basic equipment, even if it does provide a bit of drag or add to the weight?

Who doesn't? I do. My computer tells me the speed, it's not a legal requirement.

**Q26 Mr Curry: What is your view of these flat bikes, bikes which are parallel to the ground where the cyclist lies back on them with his feet above his head? Do you think they are safe, according to some Health & Safety Executive rule, in that they are likely to go sliding under a lorry or under a dog's nose?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmpubacc/uc665-i/uc66501.htm
**

I'm not sure I agree with some of the 'pavement riding = cunt' rhetoric. For the record, I don't do it. However, there are situations where I have absolutely no problem with it.

Before I moved to London I lived near Warwick - there are roads that cyclists have to share with cars hitting 60mph (narrow single carriage ways). It's ridiculous to say that someone has to ride on that if they feel, justifiably, unsafe doing so (it's essentially tantamount to banning them from cycling at all on certain routes). I daresay there are horrible junctions in London which are similar to a number of people.

As has been said, anyone causing hurt to a ped, hit them with Assault / GBH. We all go on about how drivers try to have a go at us with their 'lethal weapons' (cars / buses) - same thing with peds / cyclists.

It's already illegal to do it - what more do they want. Allow the police some discretion for parts of the road where a cyclist feels in danger from other users surely.

agreed

Mr Devereux: I guess it is always possible to have ever more compulsory laws about ever more things, and I guess bells on bicycles are in the category that we should be delivering them with bells.
Q56 Mr Curry: Whistles will do.
Mr Devereux: Or whistles. As I understand it, and correct me if I am wrong, we are now expecting new bicycles to be delivered with bells on them.
Q57 Mr Curry: Welded to them?

Priceless.

Look. Firstly, he's a conservative and I don't like his face, glasses or expression.

...Either way - face? Conservative? those glasses?

Gold

the discussion should be about why are there so many kids/adults riding on the pavement? not some lazy-arsed finger pointing by chauffeur driven numpties.
the answer sadly is that so many 'normal' riders are shit scared of riding on the roads, and for all the cycle training in the world, they arent gonna start unless the thing that causes the fear:- the volume of traffic, is reduced.

I think this is all good stuff

Target MPs duckponds, say cyclists

Gold

...I said that there is a disproportionate amount of squawking about a relatively trivial problem.....

My point entirely. Its a Moral Panic. the STandard have been at it, Michael Hodges in Time Out was a while ago, its just your average no-mark columnist beef.

...
i went for a ride with my mum a few weeks ago and at a couple of busy intersections she got on the pavement "because it was scary" which to someone who is a very occasional bike rider i can imagine it is.

no way should cyclists be fined for riding on pavements - cars should fined for cutting up/bullying cyclists and intimidating them from riding on the road where they have a right to be

Good post.

C'mon. We need to get some perspective on this. Dammit and a couple of others are, I think, being a bit too dogmatic. You oughtn't get all uppity about people using their discretion, so yes its ok to do things where there are no peds, yet it isn't if there are.

i still think people who refuse to just wait when they can't filter at lights are twerps.

Every road user should be insured and have a valid driving / cycling licence. Any fool can buy a cycle and, with no knowledge of the road law or Highway Code, venture out to cause mayhem. I have a car driving licence and tax & insurance and I would be happy for the same on my bikes. Not the tax bit though. Would solve a lot of the issues here.
Anyone caught being illegal should be deported or at least told to walk for the next 500 metres holding a sign saying 'I've been naughty'.
Perhaps a disc on the bike saying it is in good working order and road worthy. A rusty chain will be removed and you'll have to walk home.
Anyone cycling at night wearing black with no lights gets shot where they stand. It's safer in the long run to remove these people before they win the Darwin award injuring someone else.
Old people get re-tested as per current driving licensing.
Helmets should be compulsory. A fall at 30+ mph is going to mess you up.
Summary executions for arsehole / most taxi drivers.
No bendy busses - bad drivers to be stabbed up a bit.
HGV's should have cameras in blind spots and not be allowed in towns during daylight.

If all road users are treated the same, there can be no cause for the other groups to attach a general blame to all cyclists for the actions of a few nobs.