Footpath cycling in the real world

[9494arnold]

Retired Police Officer here (don't all whinge at once) and whilst I understand all of the issues being discussed here , I see problems
1/ It's illegal and you could be liable. Not wishing to cast aspersions on someone I don't know but I am afraid there are an awful lot of folk out there who ride bikes but you couldn't honestly call 'Cyclists' because of the way they ride. If pavement cycling becomes normalised then eventually everyone will be doing it and there are bound to be unwelcome interfaces with the legitimate user of the facility, leading to injury/annoyance/bad press /injury and even death for the cyclist on the pavement to deal with.

2/ I can recall being involved in a discussion at the Council House in Birmingham about a proposed Cycle doute scheme. It struck a few of us that the 'bottom line' was to get cyclists off the road . Is this the thin edge of the wedge?

3/ Going back to 'normalisation' , if a motorist sees a machine being properly ridden, my experience (as a Tricyclist) the generally do the right thing. I know there are some nut cases out there in motor cars , part of the problem is that the Police are overwhelmed by work , I was a Police Supervisor and my main daily task was to prioritise what was important to be done first.
And the reduction in Road Policing officers particularly is a National Scandal.
So if you and the rest of us ride on the road, it 'trains' the motorist to see and react properly to the cyclist, and it prompts the less able and bold to take up their rightful position on the road.

Use it or lose it !

[ChrisOntLancs]

this is like a helmet thread really, nobody is actually reading what anybody is saying, everybody is responding to what they want other people to say.

if you think i'm not a real cyclist, because i skoot my bike to a safe point in the road, before joining it, or even getting out of the road to let busy traffic pass, before getting back in and cycling the rest of my ten miles, then i guess i have failed you.

and it's threads like these that make me thing i should find a forum for "not cyclists, but people who cycle at least twenty miles a day"

to OP in my experience officers of the law have been artists with their discretion, and can quite easily tell the difference between somebody who is making life easy for everybody by jumping on a pavement and freewheeling, and somebody speeding through a city's pedestrianised centre, expecting everybody to jump out of the way.

[Cyril Haearn]

this certainly isn't gospel but i've been spotted by police loads riding on the pavements and i've never been stopped about it. once in ancoats i apologised to an ossifer and he said it was fine, i was being careful (with the cautious behavior of an adult who is somewhere they shouldn't be)

i think you will be fine with that attitude. sometimes getting on the pavement is the safest and 'right' thing to do and the police have likely seen this to be the case before.

i don't think it's a case of 'not enforced', i think traffic systems are always a work in progress, and going on the pavement for a couple of minutes just makes life easier for a number of people involved

I was stopped by a police officer in Southport in about 1973 for cycling on the pavement. He took my name and address and said he was going to tell my parents. He never did. He was lying.

.. .

Maybe he did speak to your parents but they did not speak to you. Or did you confess to them and ask whether he had spoken to them?

Does one expect the cops to be morally perfect, even better than oneself?... Open question, alternative facts welcome as ever

[Vorpal]

this is like a helmet thread really, nobody is actually reading what anybody is saying, everybody is responding to what they want other people to say.

if you think i'm not a real cyclist, because i skoot my bike to a safe point in the road, before joining it, or even getting out of the road to let busy traffic pass, before getting back in and cycling the rest of my ten miles, then i guess i have failed you.

and it's threads like these that make me thing i should find a forum for "not cyclists, but people who cycle at least twenty miles a day"

No one even sort of vaguely implied anything like that.

[Barks]

Was involved in a discussion at work re cycling on footpaths, most seemed to think it should be allowed other than for those who want ride fast and furious, i.e. Why not for general utility cycling? Out of it came a suggested way to implement and try and give it a clear set of criteria. We are thinking of sending it to our town council but thought I would ask the Forum for comments before doing so, many of you have much greater experience on such matters

Basic premise - all cyclists retain full rights to ride on the roads whether or not there is a cycle path, lane, shared use path or footpath. All agreed that this was essential from the outset.

Suggestion - cyclists are allowed to use any footpath subject to a cycle speed limit of say around 10-12 mph and that full consideration is given to pedestrians. Sanctions would be covered under existing legislation regarding 'inconsiderate cycling'.

Where local town councils believe that this is not feasible/safe then that road should have the speed limit reduced to 20 mph and, in such zones, cyclists must NOT use the footpath - the principle is that the 20mph zones are likely to be in residential areas or town centres where pedestrian use is heavy. If pedestrian use is light, then use of a footpath by a cyclist is appropriate and those who feel uncomfortable cycling in fast moving traffic can elect to use the footpath.

In this way it was thought there is a possible way to unlock the challenge of providing an increased level safety to some of those who might otherwise not feel up to it giving cycling a try.

[squeaker]

Er, but aren't the junctions the dangerous bits of footway cycling, just like on the roads, but more so, as you need to transit modes (footpath/road/footpath) to cross them rather than staying on the road as a vehicle?

[Lance Dopestrong]

1/ It's illegal and you could be liable.

Footpath cycling is not illegal unless there's a by law in force prohibiting it. Footway cycling is the illegal act, but most people don't appreciate the very important difference, even the the police. I too am a retired Sergeant.

And no, I don't do it. Never felt the need.

[Cyril Haearn]

1/ It's illegal and you could be liable.

Footpath cycling is not illegal unless there's a by law in force prohibiting it. Footway cycling is the illegal act, but most people don't appreciate the very important difference, even the the police. I too am a retired Sergeant.

And no, I don't do it. Never felt the need.

Please explain the difference, thanks
Footway, footpath, pavement?

[gaz]

Footway: Path for foot traffic alongside a carriageway.

Footpath: Path for foot traffic, typically across fields, through woods, etc. Urban examples do exist.

Pavement: See footway.

[JohnW]

Footway: Path for foot traffic alongside a carriageway.

Footpath: Path for foot traffic, typically across fields, through woods, etc. Urban examples do exist.

Pavement: See footway.

Is that an official definition gaz? - I thought that "lineal car-park" was more the interpretation.

[andrew_s]

Footway = Pavement: that part of a road set aside for pedestrians

Footpath: away from a road, marked in green or magenta pecks on an OS map

Cycling on a footway is illegal.

On a footpath, there is no right of passage on a cycle, so you are trespassing and can be turned back by the landowner or his representatives.
In a few cases, there may be a bylaw making cycling illegal.

[Lance Dopestrong]

Amen on that John. Our local force have a footpath cycling campaign currently running in Corby, even though most of the areas being targeted are unenforceable footpaths and not footways. Better still, PCSOs are stopping cyclists, even though the do not have the power to stop vehicles of any type for a moving traffic offence, only ASB.

Meanwhile, right across the same town, cars unlawfully park partially or fully up on the footways and the behaviour goes unchallenged.

Go figure.

so you are trespassing and can be turned back by the landowner or his representatives.

You have the right to pass and repass on a footpath across private land. There is no specific legislation that permits a landowner to obstruct you or turn you back in a bicycle while on a footpath - even as a practical matter, all you need do is dismount and you have the inviobale right once again to pass and repass.

Only a court has the actual lawful power to positively stop you, and only a court can determine whether the nature of your presence on a public footpath is trespassing. It is not something a landowner has the power to summarily decide.

[gaz]

Not that simple. From a previous discussion*.

Nobody is disputing that a person wheeling a bike is a pedestrian. Case law suggests that pedestrians do not have unlimited rights on footpaths. The debate surrounds whether a bicycle is a "usual accompaniment" for a pedestrian and thus whether pushing one falls inside the right to pass along a footpath, or whether it does not fall into that category and is a trespass. In R v Mathias (1861) the judge directed the jury:

that the owner of the soil may remove anything that encumbers his close, except such things as are usual accompaniments of a large class of foot passengers, being so small and light, as neither to be a nuisance to other passengers or injurious to the soil.

*Edit - Broken link removed

[jgurney]

not a pedestrian in sight. (And no alternative cycle-friendly route.) My inclination is to take to the footpath, pull well to the side or stop for pedestrians, ...... Do you think this a reasonable tactic?

If using the footway really is both viable for cyclists and without harm to local pedestrians, why not campaign to have it made a proper shared-use path?

One of the problems with taking the view that anyone who feels a rule is unreasonable should feel free to break it is made obvious when we encounter motorists who have strange ideas about what is reasonable and feel entitled to ignore what the rules say. How much of your wish to ride on the footway is down to alarm about motorists who don't drive properly? How much of that careless driving is down to them taking the view that they don't really have to follow the rules?

[AdamS]

Footway = Pavement: that part of a road set aside for pedestrians

The law under discussion calls that a footpath