I've frankly been amazed at the amount of credence people seem to give to the reply by Paul Boateng, so I've had another look, and I'll indulge myself with a couple more observations. The following two paragraphs are lifted from the Carlton Reed stuff which is so often bandied about. I'd invite anybody to tell me where in the second paragraph (quoting PB) it says the bit I've highlighted in red in the first.
On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. The then Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:
“The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. 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 section of the Highways Act, 1835 was purely an early traffic management measure, restricting what were then the new-fangled pavements (now called footways) to people on foot. There were other sections dealing with furious driving and all the rest of it, which have largely been superseded by the succesive Road Traffic Acts. I'd suggest that anybody riding in a manner that may endanger others should be facing a charge under section 28 of dangerous cycling or at least section 29, careless and inconsiderate cycling.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents In fact, I now understand that Paul Boateng was replying to a query from Ben Bradshaw MP who was the chair of the All Party Cycling Group. Let's put all this in context and remember that this exchange took place over a decade ago when Bliar was going to be tough on crime and the causes of crime. Furthermore, the Notional Cycling Policy had not been put out of its misery.
Perhaps Mr Bradshaw posed the wrong question. Perhaps he should have pointed out that a significant cause of this particularly heinous crime
was that the roads had become an increasingly hostile place to ride a cycle, and what did HM Govt., intend to do about it, especially in the light of its policy to promote cycling. It's just remotely possible that the attentions of the ticket issuing PCSOs might have been directed towards making the roads safer for cycling. But probably not.
OTOH, I'm confident that a cyclist may lawfully cross a footway in exactly the same way that countless drivers of motor vehicles do daily. Unfortunately, with the limited legal resources available to me, I can't find anything stating this in a nutshell; while a lawyer could go to court and argue the toss, anybody defending themselves usually has to be able to say, "please look at
Jones versus Bones (1927)" or whatever, or better still, include it in their letter trying to head off proceedings.
I get the impression from posts above that there are places where PCSO's lurk waiting to catch cyclists. In answer to the thread title, one resource to consider would be making contact with the Cyclists' Defence Fund. As I mentined above, their page on "Pavement cycling" is under construction. Hopefully, they have the answer to this specific issue.
