Pavements, Cycle Lanes and Roads.

[meic]

I only have the draft Feb 2006 highway code.

Page 57 Rule 200 Includes the words "Give way to pedestrians who are on the pavement" This makes it fairly clear that motorists have a right to drive on the pavement if they are being asked to give way to pedestrians.
There is no statement that cyclists should do any such thing because they are not allowed to cycle on the pavement at all.

I have been saying drive ON the pavement and I think many of you are hearing ALONG the pavement.
I frequently see cars who mount the pavement at a convenient point and drive along the pavement to their parking place. Sometimes they dont even find a place to park.

Cyclists have no such right at all.

[meic]

The word is "except"

As the word except is used then cars MAY drive on pavements.

Your (and my) interpretation of what constitutes gaining access to property is probably much narrower than most peoples.

Pedestrians are NOT allowed to walk on Motorways.

notice that no exceptions are given so your Venn diagram is perfectly valid there.

[skrx]

Not lazy, they're just concerned about their cars being hit. Of course it does encourage people to squeeze past tearing off wing mirrors, so it's pointless.

Also parking two wheels on the pavement regularly ruins the suspension as well as blocking the pavement for wheelchair users.

There are lots of places round here with official half-on-pavement parking, signed at both ends and with the white dotted parking space boxes drawn.

http://www.haringey.gov.uk/sq/index/env ... entparking

It's annoying -- it doesn't block the pavement, but it makes it too narrow to e.g. pass someone while carrying shopping, or with a pram.

[sirmy]

Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act (1988) says

"34 Prohibition of driving motor vehicles elsewhere than on roads

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a motor vehicle—

(a) on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or

(b) on any road being a footpath or bridleway,

he is guilty of an offence."

which makes it an offence to drive on a footpath, bridleway or footway (a path running alongside a carriageway)

The highway code is only a simplified explanation of the law not the law itself. If a vehicle is exiting or entering a property by a legal means which crosses the footway then the driver must give way to pedestrians on the footway.

[irc]

At the risk of being pedantic S34 RTA does not make it an offence to drive on a footway. If it did it would say "footway". In Scotland it is sec 129 of the Roads Scotland Act 1984 which forbids driving on a footway.

This act does not appear to be online but there are references to this section ie

"Driving on the footway contrary to section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 or section 129 (5) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984"

as per http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 9w0052.htm

[sirmy]

The relevant part is "not being land forming part of a road" which footways don't, footways are part of the highway but not the carriageway/road

[drossall]

My clear understanding is that cars are not allowed to drive on footways (e.g. pavements alongside roads), except to cross them into drives and so on. It is not illegal to park on a footway, but you need a crane to put the car there because otherwise you would have to drive along the footway to get it there, which is an offence as above.

[thirdcrank]

As you get older, everything does seem to come round so much quicker and it only seems like yesterday that this last came up.

In the meantime irc gets the coveted "thirdcrank lawyer of the moment award" * for being right. (Subject as always, of course, to an appeal to the international court of whatnot.)

* With brass knobs on.

[anothereye]

At the risk of being pedantic S34 RTA does not make it an offence to drive on a footway. If it did it would say "footway". In Scotland it is sec 129 of the Roads Scotland Act 1984 which forbids driving on a footway.
This act does not appear to be online but there are references to this section ie
"Driving on the footway contrary to section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 or section 129 (5) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984"
as per http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 9w0052.htm

Irc, you are being pedantic, There is a difference between "driving on a footway" and across a footway!

But you link was interesting; it also refers to "Overtaking a moving or stationary vehicle on a zebra ...". Something I've wondered about. Rather than mixing it with this topic I've started a new on here:
http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=22145

Gerry

[thirdcrank]

I think the point that irc was making is that s 34 does not create any offences in respect of footways: not driving on, across, sideways or diagonally. It covers what are now generally called 'footpaths' (to differentiate them from what we now call 'footways' formerly known as 'pavements.') If it did not create an offence, then action for trespass would be the only way to stop drivers from going all over the place.

The only footway legislation covering cars (there is something much more recent for lorries) is the Highways Act 1835 and the decided cases have held that in s 72 'driving on' means 'driving along'. This is at the heart of the problem: somebody posted a link on here to a huge document explaining all the niceties about footway parking.

[anothereye]

Who said a picture says a thousand words? My 'picture' has certainly triggered some unexpected issues. But I don't care about pedestrians (I do really, but this thread is not about them). I'm a cyclist: the picture is intended to illustrate something about signs that could benefit cyclists! Think of it as a puzzle; perhaps I should have titled the thread: spot the deliberate deception.

[PRL]

Presumably the "Shared Road" sign which should exist but doesn't. Actually by analogy with the situation on shared paths it should go with a " give way to cyclists " sign.

[thirdcrank]

The most obvious thing to me is that I think you have created a road sign - shared use road - blue sign with cyclist and car.

The other, which is probably technical, is that the 'no cycling' sign is normally only used in respect of footpaths (i.e. not footways where cycling is always prohibited unless specifically permitted by a shared use TRO) so it's not really logical, to me at least, in your diagram.

I've never seen a shared-use sign with the logo about considering others - the nearest I've seen had the extra text 'Cyclists give way to pedestrians' or some such.

[sirmy]

Section 329 of the Highways Act 1980 defines as footway as

"footway" means a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only;"

It's therefore not a road, having rights on foot only so driving on a footway would be an offence under S 34, parking may or may not be obstruction but as someone already said, how do you get a car onto the footway without driving it. S 34 specifically says that contravention of its provisions is an offence but just try getting the local constabulary to act on it

[thirdcrank]

driving on a footway would be an offence under S 34

While the message of your post is probably right, the bit I have quoted is IMO simply wrong.