Can i cycle on the pavement uk

The road that runs outside my place of work is national speed limit, and the road surface is appalling. Cracks, potholes, and blocked drains.

Despite repeated complaints to the local authority. And the police said that lately these people using disabled scooters are more of a menace than cyclists. My experience is that the norm for cyclists on pavements is that they are not considerate! Of course I agree that dedicated cycle lanes are a good idea, but how to fund them?

VED has been removed for zero emission vehicles, but the original road fund tax was designed to fund the original road infrastructure. So who should pay for dedicated cycle ways, surely cyclists should make some contribution? Between and some people were killed or seriously injured by cyclists. Should they be required by law to hold third party insurance? The HSE would condemn anybody riding a cycle, or any other vehicle, in a pedestrian area that is what a pavement is. Does he not realize that this practice is intimidating and downright dangerous for pedestrians.

Cycling on the pavement is an offense and should be treated as such. Anyone frightened of riding on the road should not ride at all and should not be given the leaway to put others in danger. According to the DfT Statistics Bulletin RAS in the total amount of children years killed and injured for the whole of the UK was pedestrians 6, 20 killed and cyclists 2, 13 killed. Does this mean that everyone can now ignore the Highway Code providing that they do so in a considerate manner?

There will always be some who ride through red lights or talk on their phones, the same with drivers or pedestrians who do not pay attention to what is happening around them. It in no way supplants these definite rules or relieves anyone from the necessity of strictly observing them. Page 4 of the current HC also refers to behaviour. Remember we all share the road and no-one is just one road user type!

Cycling on the footpath remains an offence if the rider is over the age of 10yrs. I do not believe that has changed. Best to dismount when using pavements. Vic Marks might be advised that road tax has not been abolished, but simply changed its official title to Vehicle Excise Duty. It was introduced in and remains with us — and some high emission vehicles can be used on the roads free of such tax — steam powered amongst them, mowing machines and vehicles made before 1st January also.

This is a very difficult one — on the one hand, what of those parents that allow toddlers and infants to cycle on pavements — are they to cycle on the road as well? On the back of that, you only have to visit the Broadmead area of Bristol to see some cyclists riding irresponsibly at speed on pavements where people are walking and yes, many on their mobile phones.

The last paragraph is incorrect. There is an alternative to cycling on the pavement which is an offence under Town Police Clauses Act and other enforceable legislation. That alleviates the need for any change in the law and is far less dangerous to all users of the highway. It also shows other road users an appropriate and mature attitude towards other road users and obedience of the law. The laws re cycling stand unless they are changed by government and should be enforced by the police.

Cyclists at this moment in time appear to change between road and pavement with impunity and with little regard to any consequences or laws.

The main concern for cyclists on pavements is hitting pedestrians , which is all too easy when they are busy and people are sharing a few feet. In , bicycles were classified as carriages, meaning that they were then stopped from being ridden on footpaths or roads designed for pedestrians. This could leave cyclists in a legal grey area. However, the legal interpretation is generally that pavements are considered pedestrian footpaths, meaning that cyclists should not ride on the pavement.

Similarly, e-scooters are not allowed to be ridden on pavements in the UK. In , the government made cycling on the pavement a fixed penalty offence. Sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.

In , cycling minister Robert Goodwill said that police officers should use their discretion when it comes to prosecuting cyclists on the pavement. If a cyclist is seen to be considerate of other road users while on the pavement, police officers will typically avoid fining them in most cases, instead choosing to point out the dangers of cycling on the pavement — to them and pedestrians.

Reasons for cycling on the pavement vary, but in the majority of cases it comes down to road traffic. If there is a high volume of cars on the road, some cyclists might feel intimidated and choose to travel on the pavement instead. I appreciate that there are many conscientious cyclists, but it's not those guys who are the problem.

Jonathan Morris, from Hatfield, said he feels more at risk from cyclists than cars and would not like to see the police dropping fines.

But Dan Jestico, who cycles with his two young children, disagrees. It would be ludicrous for us to ride on the road. Emma Richardson, from Nottingham, says it is all a matter of context. Just use common sense. A spokeswoman for the National Police Chiefs' Council said enforcing the fines is "a local issue" and the decision would depend on each force area and "challenges they face locally".

But Sustrans, an organisation promoting sustainable transport, urged police forces to follow the lead of officers in Camden. If we are to encourage cycling as an efficient and healthier way to get around our towns and cities whilst reducing cycling on pavements we need to better understand the concerns and needs of people and provide adequate cycle provision for them.

Living Streets, a campaign group for pedestrians, wants better enforcement of the law, not less. Dr Rachel Lee, policy and research coordinator for Living Streets, says: "We know most cyclists prefer to use the road, but a small minority continue to ride their bicycles on the pavement for reasons of convenience or safety.

Cyclists must So, ignoring for a moment HC advisory 'should' and 'should not' rules, what are the absolute must do legal requirements? It's no defence to say that it was past sunset but not yet dark, the legal lighting obligations for cyclists are determined by sunset and sunrise times, not the 'hours of darkness', which start 30 minutes after the former, end 30 minutes before the latter, and dictate when motorists must switch from sidelights to headlights.

Cycling UK's guide to cycle lighting regulations explains the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations in detail, but in summary you need a white light at the front and a red light at the rear, visible from the front and rear respectively and fixed to your bike. A light obscured by a saddlebag isn't legal and neither is a torch on your head, though there's nothing to stop you using a head-torch as an optional or additional light.

The regulations also now allow flashing lights, provided they flash between 60 and times per minute. Optional or additional lights do not need to comply with the minimum lighting requirements, although you can't have a red light at the front of your bike or a white light at the rear, so red white and blue flashing lights, as suggested to us a couple of weeks ago, are not an option. Unlike with other vehicles, lights are not a legal requirement for cyclists during the daytime when there is seriously reduced visibility, although we wouldn't recommend cycling through dense fog without lighting up.

Reflectors: As with lights, the legal requirements for reflectors only apply between sunset and sunrise, and include a red rear reflector and four amber pedal reflectors, one at the front and rear of each pedal. Common sense might suggest that replacing an amber pedal reflector with a reflective heel strip or ankle band might suffice, but unfortunately neither meets the legal requirements which pertain strictly to pedals, an annoying problem for those who use certain makes of clipless pedals not designed with reflectors in mind, and an area of legislation in need of review.

Apart from saying that a brake which operates directly on a pneumatic tyre is not efficient, the regulations are unhelpful as to what is or is not efficient, nor do they define how the brakes must operate. It is clear that a fixed wheel counts as a braking system operating on that wheel, so a fixed wheel bike with a front brake is legal assuming both brakes are efficient! There are various exceptions for tricycles, quadricycles, non-standard bikes and electric assist pedal cycles as summarised in this Cycling UK construction and use article.

It's worth remembering that the legislation and regulations in Northern Ireland are slightly different, so for example it is actually a legal requirement to have a bell on your bike in Northern Ireland and in the Isle of Man, but not elsewhere in the UK. Cyclists must not Moving on to the legal prohibitions, what are things cyclists must not do? There's no breath test for this and no blood alcohol or other legal limits. The key question is simply whether you are under the influence to the extent that you're incapable of having proper control of your bike.

Whilst it is true that you can't have your driving licence endorsed with penalty points because of an offence committed on a bicycle, it's often overlooked that the court does have a general power under the Power of Criminal Courts Sentencing Act to disqualify anyone from driving, without imposing penalty points, for any offence, including a cycling offence. The test for these offences replicates that for careless and dangerous driving, so careless is a standard below that of a competent and careful cyclist, and dangerous is far below that standard and it must also be obviously dangerous to a competent and careful cyclist.

It's the 'reasonable consideration for other road users' point which occasionally causes difficulty, with some police officers interpreting this incorrectly as a requirement for cyclists to move over to allow cars to overtake, forgetting that cyclists often assume the primary position to discourage unsafe overtaking. Cause injury by cycling furiously two year max imprisonment.

This goes back to legislation from which applies to drivers of vehicles or carriages who cause bodily harm to anyone by wanton or furious driving. Cycles are legally carriages , so this is the offence which hits the headlines every couple of years following serious injury or fatal collisions between cyclists and pedestrians though note that Cycle furiously no injury caused. You can't be prosecuted for speeding whilst cycling as speeding offences are specific to motor vehicles, although there are exceptions where local byelaws apply such as the Royal Parks.

Where there is an advanced stop line ASL cyclists can of course position themselves ahead of the motorised traffic but behind the ASL, though crossing the ASL on red is still an offence. It's also an offence to ride through an amber light, unless you are so close to the stop line that to stop might cause a collision, although if the traffic lights aren't working all road users are permitted to treat the situation as they would an unmarked junction, and "proceed with great care".

There is however a difference between vehicular control traffic lights and light controlled crossings shared by pedestrians and cyclists such as Toucans , where the lights are there to advise when it's safe to cross but aren't a legal command not to cross.

Pavement cycling: Firstly, the legislation doesn't refer to pavements , and neither does it refer to cyclists. That's important because there are tracks and shared use paths where cycling is not illegal. It's an offence to drive a carriage on "any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers", essentially a footway next to the highway different but equivalent legislation applies in Scotland. The law also applies to children, but as those under ten are below the age of criminal responsibility they can't be prosecuted watch out in Scotland however, where criminal responsibility starts at eight , though the Scottish Government has announced plans to increase this to twelve.

Being too young to prosecute unfortunately didn't stop a policeman in Lincolnshire threatening to confiscate a four year-old's bike after he spotted her cycling along the pavement in Fortunately, when FPNs were introduced for pavement cycling in , Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued guidance saying 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". The Home Office guidance was re-affirmed in by the then Cycling Minister Robert Goodwill, who agreed that the police should use discretion in enforcing the law and recommended that the matter be taken up with the Association of Chief Police Officers ACPO.