Wheeling bikes on footpaths

[Ayesha]

Common Sense is all very well, and it will keep you safe and happy for most of your life, but it's ALWAYS better to know the actual rules.

The actual rule is....

If you cause Personal Injury to a pedestrian while wheeling your bicycle on a footpath, the claimant has three years to raise a civil claim against you for Negligence.

[mattsccm]

Haven't read all 7 pages so maybe duplicateing. What does the law say about motorvehicle on say footpaths. Does it say drive/ If so could I push my motorcycle?
I love the laws of this country, so many variables.
I have noticed that a long stretch of A road near me has the usual rush hour queue which is not safe to filter a m/c on. The verge is wide, flat and grassy and owned by the local authority. Indeed its within the boundary of the road on the map. I wonder what the legal position would be to riding there?
Ah loopholes, don't you just love them?

[Ayesha]

Haven't read all 7 pages so maybe duplicateing. What does the law say about motorvehicle on say footpaths. Does it say drive/ If so could I push my motorcycle?
I love the laws of this country, so many variables.
I have noticed that a long stretch of A road near me has the usual rush hour queue which is not safe to filter a m/c on. The verge is wide, flat and grassy and owned by the local authority. Indeed its within the boundary of the road on the map. I wonder what the legal position would be to riding there?
Ah loopholes, don't you just love them?

Some grass verges are CARED FOR by the local council. They are OWNED by the Lord of the Manor.
His Lordship usually gives dispensation to residents of Freehold properties which lie on the other side of his 'Ransom strip' from the roadway.

Motorcyclists using his Lordship's grass verge as a motocross track is Very Bad Form.

You will be instructed to leave his Lordship's property immediately, as you are trespassing a motor vehicle on his Lordships grass verge.

[Jack]

If you cause Personal Injury to a pedestrian while wheeling your bicycle on a footpath, the claimant has three years to raise a civil claim against you for Negligence.

Unless the IP is a child in which case they have 3 years after reaching the age of 18.

[Ayesha]

If you cause Personal Injury to a pedestrian while wheeling your bicycle on a footpath, the claimant has three years to raise a civil claim against you for Negligence.

Unless the IP is a child in which case they have 3 years after reaching the age of 18.

TBH, you've got to do something bloody silly to cause Personal Injury enough to cause a claim while wheeling a bicycle along a footpath.
And everybody knows, CTC members aren't THAT bloody silly.

[thirdcrank]

... However, this case law appears to have changed that, so wheeling a bike on a footway is legal....

This is the relevant bit of that link:

Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he :

A "shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers … or B shall wilfully lead or drive any … carriage of any description … upon any such footpath or causeway ". (My lettering in red.)
Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888 extends the definition of "carriage" to include "bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines".

"Leading or driving" clearly does not apply to a bicycle. It would apply only to other types of carriage drawn by animals, or to a horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine, cattle, truck or sledge (which are also referred to specifically in Section 72). The only basis of the offence would therefore be if someone pushing a bicycle were deemed to be "riding" it.

It's taken me a long time to see what I think is wrong with the analysis made in the final paragraph, because I didn't see what it was getting at. I'd suggest that s 72 of the HA 1835 creates 2 offences which I have labelled A and B for clarity. (Of a kind. ) The first, A, is "wilfully riding." In 1835 that was almost exclusively equestrian. The second, B, is wilfully leading or driving any .... carriage of any description.

The author of the analysis implies that it is the word "riding" which prohibits cycling, as in "riding a cycle." Although the author mentions s 85 of the LGA 1888 as extending the definition of a carriage to a pedal cycle, he does not seem to recognise the significance of that. If the legislators had only intended to ban riding a cycle, they could have amended A to include "riding a pedal cycle," but they didn't. They extended to definition of carriage to include cycles.

Local Government Act 1888
85 Regulations for bicycles, &c.E+W
(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F88 bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes, and other similar machines are hereby declared to be carriages within the meaning of the Highway Acts;.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/51-52/41

I'm saying that old legislation is interpreted using the contemporary meaning of the language. eg "passenger" which used to mean somebody passing and now has come to mean somebody being carried. A foot passenger isn't somebody having a piggy-back ride.
===================================================================
I'd also suggest that Crank v Brooks confirmed official thinking about cyclists wheeling bikes, rather than causing a change. In that case, a driver hit a pedestrian who was wheeling a bike across a pedestrian crossing and was prosecuted. When he was acquitted, the police took the appeal as far as the QBD for confirmation that somebody walking was a pedestrian. If there is anything to learn from that case, it is that thirty years ago, the police routinely took action against drivers colliding with people (or anything else, for that matter.)

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=58598

[Jack]

If you cause Personal Injury to a pedestrian while wheeling your bicycle on a footpath, the claimant has three years to raise a civil claim against you for Negligence.

Unless the IP is a child in which case they have 3 years after reaching the age of 18.

TBH, you've got to do something bloody silly to cause Personal Injury enough to cause a claim while wheeling a bicycle along a footpath.
And everybody knows, CTC members aren't THAT bloody silly.

It's not the silliness of the action of the cyclist ('just' negligence) but the degree of injury which determines such things. I recall 2 cases I was personally involved in:

1. Child fell off climbing frame at age 10, broken arm but no long term damage but claimed for 'pain and suffering at time' citing absence of safety surface. Dismissed; judge probably thought she was trying it on but defence (which they didn't really get round to) of safety surfaces not being intended to ameleorate long bone injuries would probably have been sufficient, too.

2. Child fell on ice slide in school playground in winter of 62/3; sustained brain damage; successfully sued County Council when he became adult. Headteacher - who by then had retired - found negligent; not helped by memorandum sent out to all headteachers in County prior to accident saying such slides should not be permitted in light of high number of serious accidents. County Council had to pay out being vicariously negligent for actions of headteacher.

[Vorpal]

A bit off-topic, but...

If there is anything to learn from that case, it is that thirty years ago, the police routinely took action against drivers colliding with people (or anything else, for that matter.)

How much of that is due to the culture of (and legal requirement for) insurance? When insurance covers civil liabilities in a car accident, perhaps there is less need than there was 30 years ago to find fault with the parties involved. Pedestrians and cyclists, who are less likely to carry insurance, and even less likely to have legal assistance to fight for compensation, are the losers. But they are such a small minority of accidents, overall, that the problems with the system are all but insignificant; except, of course, for those directly affected.

[thirdcrank]

... How much of that is due to the culture of (and legal requirement for) insurance? ...

IMO, nothing at all. Apart from anything else, compulsory third party insurance was required long before that. The only people I ever remember using phrases like, "We shouldn't be doing the insurance companies' job for them" were older colleagues who didn't want to do anybody's job, including their own.

I could support the argument that the prevention of offences is better than detection and prosecution, but I never heard that put forward. On the contrary, I think many people would take the line that the likelihood of almost inevitable detection and prosecution would prevent a lot of collisions. The simple fact is that the police steadily withdrew from traffic policing from around the early 1980's. I'd say that that was partly because of the need to concentrate a lot more resources on improving the standard of evidence in prosecutions for crime (as defined by the organisation of the system) and partly because of the utterly shambolic approach of the CPS, especially in the early days to traffic prosecutions. Whatever the CPS may have achieved in other things, their effect on traffic law enforcement was abysmal. IMO, of course, but that's based on IME.

A bit off-topic, but...

I don't think you are off topic - intentionally or otherwise, I'd suggest you have whacked it straight down the fairway. The "knock for knock" culture can only rebound on those for whom a knock can be fatal, rather than a minor scrape of the paintwork. The concentration only on collisions with serious results, when the outcome of bad driving is a chance affair, inevitably characterises the victims as the problem. The fear of bad driving among cyclists, combined with an official wish to get cyclists off the carriageway, have inevitably read to more pavement cycling, which is why the subject is so often discussed on here. We have reached the situation where, in spite of cyclists being fobbed off when they try to report bad driving, there is sufficient police manpower to deploy a sheriff's posse at the SOAS, apparently to issue tickets to cyclists who avoid the road.

[snibgo]

But they are such a small minority of accidents, overall, that the problems with the system are all but insignificant; except, of course, for those directly affected.

Pedestrians and cyclists together accounted for 21% of all casualties in 2010, and 34% of KSI. (Car occupants account for 40% of KSI.)

When a pedestrian is injured, it is more likely (than for motorists) to be serious. Pedestrians account for 12% of all casualties, but 23% of KSI.

[Ayesha]

In other words, its NOT illegal to carry someone in a Sedan Chair on the sidewalk, but IS illegal to operate a human powered machine on the sidewalk; although the Sedan Chair takes more pavement area to move forward.

It IS illegal to walk an animal powered carriage, or push an ICE powered carriage on the sidewalk.

It is NOT illegal to carry a human powered machine inside a bag while walking on the sidewalk.

It is NOT illegal to remove the front wheel, put it in a bag and wheel the remaining part of the human powered machine on the sidewalk; because, the machine has been rendered inoperable.

The BIG question remains...
What is the legality of wheeling a fully serviceable human powered machine along a pedestrian sidewalk.

Personally, I will wheel my bike to and from the Sheffield Stands along the sidewalk until a law enforcement officer states otherwise, in which case I will argue about the accessibility of the Sheffield Stands IF IT IS ILLEGAL TO WHEEL MY BIKE TO THEM

[karlt]

... How much of that is due to the culture of (and legal requirement for) insurance? ...

IMO, nothing at all. Apart from anything else, compulsory third party insurance was required long before that. The only people I ever remember using phrases like, "We shouldn't be doing the insurance companies' job for them" were older colleagues who didn't want to do anybody's job, including their own.

I could support the argument that the prevention of offences is better than detection and prosecution, but I never heard that put forward. On the contrary, I think many people would take the line that the likelihood of almost inevitable detection and prosecution would prevent a lot of collisions. The simple fact is that the police steadily withdrew from traffic policing from around the early 1980's. I'd say that that was partly because of the need to concentrate a lot more resources on improving the standard of evidence in prosecutions for crime (as defined by the organisation of the system) and partly because of the utterly shambolic approach of the CPS, especially in the early days to traffic prosecutions. Whatever the CPS may have achieved in other things, their effect on traffic law enforcement was abysmal. IMO, of course, but that's based on IME.

A bit off-topic, but...

I don't think you are off topic - intentionally or otherwise, I'd suggest you have whacked it straight down the fairway. The "knock for knock" culture can only rebound on those for whom a knock can be fatal, rather than a minor scrape of the paintwork. The concentration only on collisions with serious results, when the outcome of bad driving is a chance affair, inevitably characterises the victims as the problem. The fear of bad driving among cyclists, combined with an official wish to get cyclists off the carriageway, have inevitably read to more pavement cycling, which is why the subject is so often discussed on here. We have reached the situation where, in spite of cyclists being fobbed off when they try to report bad driving, there is sufficient police manpower to deploy a sheriff's posse at the SOAS, apparently to issue tickets to cyclists who avoid the road.

It's some years since I worked in motor insurance, but doesn't really have much to do with not finding fault. Quite the reverse; if Insurer A pays for damage to their insured's vehicle under a comprehensive policy, they will still seek to establish fault. This is for a number of reasons.

1) if it's the other party's fault they will seek to recover their costs from the other insurer, unless a knock for knock agreement is in place. On confirming one would normally state "we assume that given the circumstances you will not be contesting liability" or "we confirm that given the circumstances we will not be contesting liability". If the other side saw things differently then fault would still have to be established.
2) even if a knock for knock agreement is in place, they will still seek to establish fault because if the other driver is to blame they will not be reducing their insured's No Claims discount.
3) they may well provide legal expenses cover for uninsured losses; assisting their insured under this clause to pursue a claim for uninsured losses against the third party will require establishing fault.

Knock for knock agreements do not have much, if any, impact on establishing fault. They're purely an administrative saving - it's silly arguing and agreeing recompense for one accident whilst in the next office someone's demanding payment of the same sort of amount for a different accident. It all balances out in the end.

[thirdcrank]

My own reference to "knock for knock" was that for me it represents an acceptance of falling driving standards which can be measured by the rate of attrition for street furniture and the amount of debris such as bit of broken car lights and even chunks of bumper which increasingly litter our roads. Exchange names and addresses and orf you jolly well go, unless one of the vehicles is a pedal cycle, in which case the rider may be KSI. Only a momentary lapse of concentration on the part of the driver, etc. , so it's no longer considered appropriate that they should be punished. Similarly, some guidelines published in the late 1970's suggested that if a single vehicle was involved in a crash (ie the driver lost control of their vehicle) if no other vehicle was involved and if the driver was seriously injured, then there was generally no reason to start proceedings. The bit in italics was largely ignored, so, in no time at all, spectacular single vehicle crashes with potentially devastating consequences were going unreported.

[Vorpal]

But they are such a small minority of accidents, overall, that the problems with the system are all but insignificant; except, of course, for those directly affected.

Pedestrians and cyclists together accounted for 21% of all casualties in 2010, and 34% of KSI. (Car occupants account for 40% of KSI.)

When a pedestrian is injured, it is more likely (than for motorists) to be serious. Pedestrians account for 12% of all casualties, but 23% of KSI.

I didn't use the word 'casualties' on purpose. I did a little searching on the internet and didn't find many statistics; I might get more with some more time spent on it. Anyway, I was thinking in terms of the civil responsibilities; who pays compensation.

What I did find, indicates that in 2006 (the only year for which I found complete set of information), the DfT showed 189,000 reported RTAs*. The insurance industry showed 262,800**. There were certainly some number of accidents reported to neither the police nor insurance companies, but I will ignore those for the purposes of this discussion. In 2006, according to the DfT, 821 pedestrians and cyclists died in RTAs. Even using the reported RTAs, that is a tiny minority of accidents. When I have a few minutes, I'll look up the injuries, as well (I seem to have lost my Road Casualties Online password).

It's some years since I worked in motor insurance, but doesn't really have much to do with not finding fault. Quite the reverse; if Insurer A pays for damage to their insured's vehicle under a comprehensive policy, they will still seek to establish fault. This is for a number of reasons.

I guess my wording wasn't very good. I was thinking of fault in criminal rather than civil terms.

*http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/excel/173025/221412/221549/summarytables.xls
**http://www.car-accident-claim.com/car-accident/car-accident-statistics.htm

[snibgo]

Ah, okay, yes, (reported) casualties and accidents (that give rise to insurance claims) are different things. And fatals (of any type of road user) is a very small proportion of all accidents.

If it helps, the 2006 reported casualties were:

Pedestrians
.. Killed 675
.. KSI 7,051
.. All severities 30,982
Pedal cyclists
.. Killed 146
.. KSI 2,442
.. All severities 16,196
All road users
.. Killed 3,172
.. KSI 31,845
.. All severities 258,404

(From DfT RRCGB2010, 30010.xls)