Cycling UK Forum

Psamathe wrote:I've been trying to think as to why the CDF are taking this case and why the CPS are pursuing this case - as it all seemed a bit daft from both sides.

I suspect the CDF may be taking the case to try and make the point that badly designed cycle facilities effectively encourage cyclists to "break the law" and can create dangers. That the Police are being stupid in issuing a ticket for such an "offence" (maybe they should have stopped any of the many texting drivers that undoubtedly passed them whilst this incident was taking place).

I suspect the CPS might be pursuing the case as there is a reasonable prospect for a successful prosecution. Were they to go for "not in public interest" (which they probably should), this could be interpreted as a statement that the Police should not be stopping people for such offences (which might be interpreted as their making law). But that is the only possible reason I can think why the CPS is pursuing the case - weak justification but all I could think of.

From what I've seen (only here and through links) and as others have said, the person would appear to be guilty and I suspect they will be found guilty in court. However, what will be interesting will be the penalty they are given. But maybe there are mitigating circumstances (I'm no expert and am certainly not aware of all relevant facts).

Ian

Agreed

I hope the CDF has a clear plan for defending this case, which is hardly apparent from the CTC's media release. I hope, for example, that an experienced lawyer has picked which case to defend, rather than being stuck with a case somebody thought would catch the headlines.

The CDF can hardly defend every cyclist who wants to plead not guilty. One hope must surely be to influence future enforcement decisions. The most effective way to do this in court, rather than by other means of campaigning, is to win a ruling which creates a binding precedent. This can only be on a narrowly-defined question of the law. I see no obvious sign of that here.

Let's remember that the rider is charged with wilfully (which I take to mean intentionally) driving a carriage (which includes riding a pedal cycle) on a footpath alongside a road (which in modern usage means a footway.)

The "wilfully" bit may be the key. Let's remember that this is an 1835 "loophole" intended to separate cases where people driving livestock or carriages deliberately used the nice new pavements, from those occasions when a horse bolted or a sheep strayed etc. It's a defence which must also be open to a cyclist faced with genuinely confusing signs who is genuinely confused. I'd suggest that the proper procedure for a regular user of a farcility they know to be badly signed/ designed / constructed is a complaint to the highway authority before the question of enforcement arises. Whether or not that will be a ha'porth of good is another matter. A properly advised bench of magistrates could only consider whether the defendant's driving of the carriage was wilful on that occasion. Doing something deliberately to prove a point, no matter how valid the point, must surely be wilful.

This case is yet to be heard so I've tried to avoid direct comment on it.

snibgo wrote:In my view, the best outcome would be if the CPS dropped the case as "not in the public interest". Failing that, I hope the defence wheel out the big guns to say this cycle path cannot be cycled on, safely and legally at the same time.

Roads are not designed in such a way that motorists can't safely drive on one side. We don't design roads like that, nor do we put plastic policemen on guard to prosecute motorists who are daft enough to use such roads.

Exactly!
And what is good for one section of road user is good for all road users.

snibgo wrote: .............. I hope the defence wheel out the big guns to say this cycle path cannot be cycled on, safely and legally at the same time.

I hope they say that too, but the answer is blindingly obvious to me ......... don't use it.

If you don't use it, you must not break the law instead. If the cycle path is unsuitable for your use, don't use it, but don't use the pedestrian footway.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=65162

That's an earlier thread in which a rider who received a ticket for riding on a pavement at a point where it wasn't clear that the shared-use farcility had ended and reverted to being a normal pavement. The ticket was eventually knocked when he got the local police supervision to inspect the location. There's a footnote from me at the end of the thread about the meaning of "wilful" which I'd forgotten till I saw it just now.

Doesn't something have to reach the Queen's Bench Division before it sets a binding precedent? What wider benefit to the cycling community can be gained from the decision of a magistrate?

And, yes, he clearly acted illegally. The objection seems to be that the CPS should not have prosecuted because it was not in the public interest. I can agree with this stance, but is there any opportunity to appeal that or is it solely at the discretion of the CPS. In short I would like to know what the CDF hope to achieve and why they picked such an apparently open and shut case to defend.

Well I have just read this thread and watched the video and I am now feeling very angry.whatever the rights and wrongs of it that PCSO would be better employed catching real criminals.
The cyclst could not have been politer when stopped and in my mind gave a reasonable response to being stopped.
It might be an idea for the PCSO to position himself on a roundabout junction and stop those vehicle drivers who are clearly hell bent on maiming cyclists.
Its about time we as cyclist grouped together and protested about this antiquated law of cycling on the pavement because as it is our children and grandchildren aren't allowed to do it and I certainly don't want my grandchildren risking their lives on our dangerous roads until they have reached the age of responsibility.
I just hope that a campaign group such as save the streets supports this cyclist and organises a public demonstration outside the court house when he attends.

The law serves a purpose and ultimately that is to discourage vehicles from endangering pedestrians by using the paths specifically constructed for the safety and exclusive use of pedestrians. Yes, the enforcement in this case was a tad daft; yes, there are far more important road safety issues which ought to be prioritised and, yes, the law's wording is antiquated but the law itself is necessary.

If children were being prosecuted then I would find that objectionable but it doesn't appear that they are. In any case I would question the (usually non-cyclists') received wisdom that children are safer riding on the pavements on the majority of roads. Certainly cyclists as a whole are generally safer on the roads. Bikeability seems to suggest that child cyclists of a reasonably young age can acquire the skills to cycle safely on local roads. I would have thought that logically it is much better to gradually introduce children to cycling on the road from an early age than teaching them to ride solely on pavements until they reach adulthood and then expecting them to suddenly change this ingrained behaviour.

+1

How many drivers have been prosecuted for driving and parking on pavements I wonder?

Precious few, it's the accepted norm. As long as they have their flashing 'park anywhere' lights on

It's debateable whether it would be illegal to drive onto the pavement to park. We routinely travel across pavements for access so it is clearly not to be read as a universal prohibition of any access to the pavement. Assuming driving onto the kerb to park is technically illegal, we could also ask how many cyclists are prosecuted when they push their cycles along pavements and/or leave them chained up on it?
It is fairly clear to me that this law exists to prevent danger and nuisance to pedestrians from vehicles travelling along the pavement, not merely accessing or crossing it. Obviously obstructing a highway is a separate offence and I think that is the correct one to be routinely applied to inconsiderately parked cars. If somebody were to drive onto the pavement dangerously in order to park, again, that is a separate and more specific offence

A white line isn't good enought to separate pedestrians from cyclists on shared paths, pedestrians will stray onto the cycle part, yet it appears a cyclists straying onto the pedestrian part may be dealt with completely rigidly:---- so IMO such separating lines are pointless and should therefore simply not be allowed on shared paths: a shared path is just that, shared. The white line is a con. And often such 2 way paths are so narrow, the inner cyclist should probably need move onto the pedestrian so that the outer (nearer road) approaching cyclist can move in to have a safe gap from road traffic: but now they may be sent to court no matter if the path section was devoid of pedestrians.

Hi There, Judging by comment such as "It's debatable whether it is unlawful to drive on to the pavement to park", it would appear that we need a simple publication which states just what exactly the dangerous motor-vehicle user might be prosecuted for when it comes to pavement abuse?
One incident springs to mind about pavement abuse, I was walking to my duty spot as School Crossing Patrol. It was a dual carriageway with 40mph signage, very few breaks in the central reservation, but with domestic properties on both sides. So when I had a driver in a TOTR Merc driving straight at me I wasn't surprised in the least! So as it was I stood my ground, if the woman wanted to drive through a tree, well so be it!
The driver was doing this stupid action to avoid having to make a small detour, made worse by the fact that it was also unlawful to reverse out from the property onto the road! So the eejit reversed onto the pavement to drive along it to go down a side road?
Police action when I reported it? SFA! I never back down in such circumstances, why should I?
TTFN MM

merseymouth wrote:Hi There, Judging by comment such as "It's debatable whether it is unlawful to drive on to the pavement to park", it would appear that we need a simple publication which states just what exactly the dangerous motor-vehicle user might be prosecuted for when it comes to pavement abuse?

Depends on the 'abuse'. The list is endless; driving on a footpath (as we are discussing), inconsiderate, careless and dangerous driving, obstructing the highway, leaving vehicles in dangerous positions, construction and use offences, wanton and furious carriage driving ...