Schools & cycling on pavements?

[mrgumby]

i hate it when people start ranting at strangers. often they seem to be letting off steam about an unrelated issue, they are best left well alone. having said that, i do feel sympathy for this old guy, maybe living alone and generally not being very happy.

i think you should cycle with your son on and off the pavement, using common sense, taking into account his safety and the safety of other pedestrians. easy

I drove my son this morning cos my knee is playing up, but usually he rides in on his blue mini burner from 1985!

 

[KermitGKona88]

Unfortunately John as per most things in the world at the moment it seems like we all get branded by our lunatic fringes

 

[Neil]

I think you have to apply a certain degree of pragmatism. Is there anything wrong in a young child cycling on the pavement, at a reasonable speed, and not presenting a true risk to any pedestrians?

No.

And I suspect they're not likely to (nor you as the responsible parent) receive any sanction for doing so.

Is it possible somebody may complain - well you've already seen that. Some people will complain about anything, whether it affects them, or otherwise, and whether it presents a risk to pedestrians, or otherwise - simply because some people feel it's their place to weigh in with their "moral" viewpoint.

As to you riding sometimes on the pavement, sometimes on the road - personally, I see nothing wrong with that. I've also either walked or cycled alongside when my son has been cycling on the pavement, and the pace is hardly threatening. As a generalism, I often find people cycling on pavements to be a hazard - but that tends to be cyclists of reasonably full grown nature, cycling at a pace they really should be on the road with. A parent going at a bimbling pace, whilst looking after their kid? Realistically, what's the harm - so long as we're all being careful and considerate around pedestrians. After all, some cycle paths are shared occupancy with pedestrians.

Could you potentially get a FPN for it? Well I suppose so - but then you could also get a FPN for driving at 31 mph in a 30 limit.

There's always the chance of somebody being needlessly pedantic, or somebody sticking their oar in, even when there's somebody behaving reasonably and with consideration, merely because they don't like the idea.

Most importantly, are you setting a good example to your son? I'd say yes.

Blatting around at working speed on the pavements is a different thing. Making sure he's safe, whilst still being considerate of pedestrians is in my mind, a good thing - perhaps what you'd like to think he'd do if he has a son.

 

[ellillowladex]

@ellillowladex - interesting to hear, have you had any feedback from the school on this over the years? When he is old enough will indeed be on the road, but as mentioned elsewhere he is not. Further the section where the incident occurred although nominally a 30 is used by many as a 40, big wide road (with quite wide paths too).

Never had any feedback as such, and nothing ever mentioned in the weekly newsletters!
The school is an Infants one side and Junior the other - both have modern bike storage facilities for the children, which are always full on both sites, yet you very rarely (if at all) see any of the children riding on road.
In the 6 years (to date) of taking my children and their cycling friends to school, I have yet to see an officer, of any kind - in or around the school area asking the little tikes to dismount or use the road.

 

[pigman]

see here John ....

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -pavements

make of it what you will

 

[Anthony]

I’m constantly surprised that so few people are aware of the Home Office guidance to Chief Police Officers concerning cycling on pavements. [Unfortunately many police officers are also unaware of it, which doesn't help.]

Basically, cycling on pavements is illegal, as a bike is defined as a vehicle, so the crime is essentially the same as driving a car along a pavement. However very few prosecutions were ever mounted, but when the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 came about, it became possible for police officers to hand out on the spot £60 fines (fixed penalty notices) with no red tape, so there was the potential for thousands of FPNs to be handed out to little old ladies cycling on the pavement owing to fear of traffic.

To prevent this, the Home Office issued guidance to Chief Police Officers that FPNs were to be issued only when the cycling was considered dangerous or inconsiderate to other users. The guidance specifically said that it was not the intention of the Act that police would penalise reasonable use of the pavement by those nervous of traffic conditions.

Note that the opinion of the police officer is final – if he/she thinks you are riding dangerously or inconsiderately, you can’t appeal it even if he/she is wrong. Normally however, if the police officer has been properly instructed, you shouldn’t have any difficulty if you take good care of the safety of all pedestrians. If a police officer issues a ticket in ignorance of the Home Office Guidance, it may be worthwhile appealing it to the ticket office, mentioning the guidance, as they may be better informed.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that FPNs apply only to those aged 16 or over, so there should be no problem at all for an adult rider cycling on the road alongside their under-16 child cycling on the pavement, again provided that pedestrian safety is paramount.

As so few cyclists are aware of all this it’s probably only to be expected that crazy old men waiting at bus stops aren’t aware of it either. But still, it probably made his day to have something to moan about.

[edit - posted before I saw the Guardian link, which hopefully will help spread the word. Although I hadn't seen it myself, even though I read the Guardian!]

 

[Neil]

I’m constantly surprised that so few people are aware of the Home Office guidance to Chief Police Officers concerning cycling on pavements. [Unfortunately many police officers are also unaware of it, which doesn't help.]

Basically, cycling on pavements is illegal, as a bike is defined as a vehicle, so the crime is essentially the same as driving a car along a pavement. However very few prosecutions were ever mounted, but when the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 came about, it became possible for police officers to hand out on the spot £60 fines (fixed penalty notices) with no red tape, so there was the potential for thousands of FPNs to be handed out to little old ladies cycling on the pavement owing to fear of traffic.

To prevent this, the Home Office issued guidance to Chief Police Officers that FPNs were to be issued only when the cycling was considered dangerous or inconsiderate to other users. The guidance specifically said that it was not the intention of the Act that police would penalise reasonable use of the pavement by those nervous of traffic conditions.

Note that the opinion of the police officer is final – if he/she thinks you are riding dangerously or inconsiderately, you can’t appeal it even if he/she is wrong. Normally however, if the police officer has been properly instructed, you shouldn’t have any difficulty if you take good care of the safety of all pedestrians. If a police officer issues a ticket in ignorance of the Home Office Guidance, it may well be worthwhile appealing it to the ticket office, mentioning the guidance, as they may be better informed.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that FPNs apply only to those aged 16 or over, so there should be no problem at all for an adult rider cycling on the road alongside their under-16 child cycling on the pavement, again provided that pedestrian safety is paramount.

As so few cyclists are aware of all this it’s probably only to be expected that crazy old men waiting at bus stops aren’t aware of it either. But still, it probably made his day to have something to moan about.

It's also worth noting that FPNs are typically a convenience thing for all involved - certainly for RTA fixed penalties, you can refuse the FPN and have your day in court at the magistrates to plea your case.

Of course, there is a downside to that - you may lose, it may cost a fair amount more if you lose. But all the same, if you have a reasonable argument it may be worthwhile - everybody is entitled to due process in law.

 

[xerxes]

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-5 ... w-59-to-71

The law says no. However, I see plenty of people doing it and it seems that the police where I live generally turn a blind eye to it.

Near my parents house there is a path that runs for a hundred yards or so between two main roads and under a railway line. The path is split, half for pedestrians, half for cyclists, although pedestrians never pay any attention to it, so you have to just ride on the side they're not on. At the ends of the path/cycle lane I generally slow to a crawl and ride across the pavement and back onto the road, however the other day a chap waiting at the end of the path to cross the road warned me that his friend was fined £30.00 for not dismounting at the end of the cycle lane and walking across the pavement. It would seem that if they want to, the police can fine you if you're unlucky enough to get a jobsworth in a bad mood, even if you're riding at a walking pace and being considerate and careful. :?

Also, my front door opens onto a pavement along the side of a main road, usually with cars parked along it, so when coming from the west, rather than stop in the middle of the road then crossing a lane to get to my front door between parked cars, I turn right at a junction 100 yards back and ride slowly, at a walking pace, along the pavement to my front door. So far, nobody has ever complained.

The main complaint I hear from pedestrians is on a shared path along the sea front is for not having a bell. But, I've found a bell to be counter productive, I generally ride up slowly behind people and say "excuse me", whereas with a bell they just panic and are more likely to step into your path than out of it. And why is it, no matter how wide a path is, two pedestrians can fill it? :roll:

And, can whoever manufactures those extendible dog leads, please make the lead a light, bright colour so that it shows up when you have the owner on one side of the path and the dog on the other with ten foot of nylon chord stretched between them. :x

 

[Anthony]

It's also worth noting that FPNs are typically a convenience thing for all involved - certainly for RTA fixed penalties, you can refuse the FPN and have your day in court at the magistrates to plea your case.

Of course, there is a downside to that - you may lose, it may cost a fair amount more if you lose. But all the same, if you have a reasonable argument it may be worthwhile - everybody is entitled to due process in law.

As I say, if the FPN was issued for dangerous or inconsiderate cycling, there is no point appealing it. The whole purpose of the 2003 Act was that the police officer's view should be final, as previously they didn't bother to prosecute anti-social behaviour, owing to the time it took to assemble evidence and mount a prosecution.

I would be interested though to hear the outcome of any case where there was no suggestion of dangerous or inconsiderate cycling and the substance of the appeal was that the police had failed to follow Home Office Guidance. I haven't heard of such a case, and I don't know whether the guidance is actually binding on police forces. It seems unjust though if a citizen has read the guidance, but is then fined for doing something which the government has said is ok.

 

[john]

@Neil, Anthony & pigman - thanks for the feedback.

It would seem to me given the existing guidance that even if there were police on the scene (know what I mean?) there would have been no grounds for issuing a FPN given there were no pedestrians on the footway.

Did return via the same bus stop and further brief words were exchanged as I rode past, in the end it was left with the old boy saying something along the lines of "come on then or are you chicken". Suppose the old Daily Mail reader will feel better, must be a real buzz shouting at 5 year olds. Wonder if the same old man will be down the local parks of an evening stopping the youths drinking can and smashing up and vandalising the play equipment, doubt it.