Can my 11 year old cycle on the pavement?" and "Can I be done for cycling furiously?" and other legal questions answered.
Many cyclists are afraid of vehicular traffic so cycle on footways. While understandable at certain busy intersections and the like, it's still against the law.
Bicycles are, in law, carriages and should be on the highway not the footway.
However, it's confusing for cyclists and pedestrians because many local authorities allow cycle access to what look like footways. Pedestrians often don't know where they stand, literally.
Cycling on footways is bad PR for cycling but the greater offence of driving on footways is generally ignored by society. Pavement parking is a menace yet is rarely highlighted as such by the sort of newspapers who like to rant about 'Lycra louts' cycling on pavements. Ditto for driving and parking in cycle lanes .
Nevertheless, cycling on footpaths is prohibited by Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835. This is punishable by a fixed penalty notice of £30 under Section 51 and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Paul Kitson, partner at cycle-friendly solicitor Russell, Jones and Walker of London says: "There may also be offences committed in relation to 'walkways' (which is a footpath under a walkway agreement) under Section 35 of the Highways Act 1980. However, the conditions on which these can be ridden is dependent on local council bye-laws, which vary from council to council."
HOWARD PEEL ADDS:
It is important to note that most legislation relating to 'cycling on footpaths' actually relates to the riding of cycles on a 'footway set aside for the use of pedestrians' which runs alongside a road. For example, the 'fixed penalties' brought in a few years ago do NOT apply country footpaths where there is no road. Fixed penalty notices also cannot be applied to areas such as parks, shopping precincts etc. unless a byelaw has been passed making cycling such areas an offence, nor do they apply to anyone under 16. Many people (including police officers) seem to think that 'a footpath is a footpath' wherever it is and that the same laws apply. This is not the case.
The primary legislation which makes cycling on a footway an offence is section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act, this provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he "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 shall wilfully lead or drive any carriage of any description upon any such footpath or causeway."
Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888 extended the definition of "carriage" to include "bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines."
The object of Section 72 Highways Act 1835 was intended not to protect all footpaths, but only footpaths or causeways by the side of a road, and that this is still the case has been ruled in the high court. The legislation makes no exceptions for small wheeled or children's cycles, so even a child riding on a footway is breaking the law. However, if they are under the age of criminal responsibility they cannot, of course, face prosecution.
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. At the time 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."
Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by 'Community Support Officers' and wardens.
"CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.
I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)
While adults are not allowed to cycle on 'footpaths' (see definitions above), children up to the age of 16 cannot be prosecuted for doing so, see text above for clarification.
When using segregated cycle-paths ie signed footways shared with pedestrians, cyclists ought to keep to the side intended for cyclists.
Cyclists are not allowed to carry passengers unless their cycles have been built or adapted to carry passengers. Cyclists must not hold on to a moving vehicle or trailer; ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner; or ride when under the influence of drink or drugs.
The police can prosecute cyclists who ride dangerously, carelessly, ignore traffic signs or signals, cycle on the pavement or commit any other road traffic offence. These offences carry maximum fines between £500 and £2,500. Also, £30 fixed penalty notices can be issued for cycling on the pavement, by police and community wardens.
However, if the footway is wide, and you feel it would be safer - at, say a pinchpoint - to ride on a short stretch of pavement, you ought to do what is safe at that particular moment and place. Naturally, you would be in the wrong and an official could challenge you.
A bike shop has an ongoing campaign to encourage law-abiding cycling. The Stop at Red campaign is organised by Cycle Heaven of York.
There's information here about access restrictions in the countryside.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BIKES
The main law for bikes is currently BS6102, probably soon to be superseded by new CEN standards, but this is for retail use only ie bikes must meet those minimum standards at the point of sale.
Bikes ridden at night need front and rear lights, flashing or steady.
At night a bicycle must also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85).
At the point of sale (ie shops) bikes now have to come fitted with bells but there's no legal requirement for them to be fitted to bicycles no longer on shop display.
The Highway Code does not stipulate that bells must be used. It states: "Be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example by ringing your bell."
Another 'audible warning device' is the human voice: a polite 'excuse me' can often come across as a lot less aggressive than the apparently insistent tinkling of a bell. However, 'angry of Tunbridge Wells' type letters to newspapers continue to insist that cyclists - from church-hopping old maids to downhill mountain-bikers - ought to use bells, despite the fact their use often scares the bejesus out of pedestrians.
On the Continent, the use of bells is more widespread and pedestrians do not leap out of their skin when they hear a bicycle bell behind them. Perhaps, in time, the use of bicycle bells in the UK will once again mean cyclist approaching, please don't move to the side rather than oi, cyclist coming, get out of my way.
There's a lot more info on bike standards and legal requirements – for instance on lights – by Chris Juden of the CTC here.
HIGHWAY CODE
There are many 'do's' and 'don'ts' in The Highway Code. It's important to note that cyclists have rights and responsibilities - not just rights...
The 'must' rules in the Highway Code represent laws of the land and must be obeyed. Those rules which omit 'must' are advisable but not compulsory.
The Road Traffic Act 1988 says: "A failure on the part of a person to observe any provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person to criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings."
The CTC has a list of rights here.
Expert witness John Franklin, author of Cyclecraft, published by The Stationery Office, has three articles on cycling and the law here.
Journalist John Stuart Clark doesn't believe cyclists get a fair hearing from police. Read his contentious article.
CYCLING FURIOUSLY?
It's an in-joke in cycling that cyclists can't be booked for speeding but can be fined for "pedalling furiously." Many cyclists list being cited for "cycling furiously" as one of their life ambitions. Professor David S. Wall, Head of the University of Leeds Law School, a professor of criminal justice lists his hobby as: Cycling (Furiously)
As bicycles are, in law, classified as carriages, it's often been assumed that the old offence of "furiously driving a carriage" under section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, applies to cyclists.
However, these legal eagles say they have been unable to find a a reference to such a cycling offence in Blackstone's Criminal Practice or in Halsbury's Laws of England.
Which is odd, as Christopher McKenzie, an Australian barrister, pointed Bikeforall to these cases: Taylor v. Goodwin (1879) 4 QBD 228, a case where the Queen's Bench Division held, on appeal, that a cyclist was appropriately convicted by a magistrate for furious riding of a bicycle. The dicta of Justice Melor in the case has been cited and followed in a number of cases since: see, for example, Smith v. Kynnersley [1903] 1 KB 788 (cyclist not liable to pay bridge toll) and Corkery v. Carpenter [1951] I KB 102 (cyclist liable for offence where cycling drunk).
OBSTRUCTING MOTORISTS?
In August 2006, a new legal peril appeared. A district judge fined a cyclist for using a road in Telford when the cyclist could have used the less-direct, slower and dirtier cycle-path nearby.
The decision by the district judge doesn’t set an official precedent but may still be used by some as “proof” that cyclists must use cycle lanes, not roads, a prospect that has long been challenged by the CTC and other cycle campaign groups.
According to this advice issued by the Department of Transport, cyclists likely to be riding 18mph or faster should use roads not cycle-paths.
This particular case has been the subject of fierce debate on cycle forums, such as cyclingplus.co.uk and bikereader.com.
There's a specialist charity that champions the rights of cyclists in court cases: the Cyclists' Defence Fund . This body is always in need of expert help and funds. |
Help & FAQs
Search BCF
Members
Groups
Events Calendar
rating
rating