That's a new one!

burt said:

A new urban myth about cycling that I hadn't encountered
before, and I thought I'd heard them all.

Just avoided being run over by a yoof on a bike on the
pavement. Upon pointing out that this was in fact
pavement, not cyclepath, the reply was "you don't know the
law. This bike's wheels are less than 26inches diameter,
so it's legal to ride it on the pavement."

I attempted to disabuse the yoof of his error, pointing
out that wheel diameter was irrelevant, but received the
same reply "you don't know the law."

My suggestion that we repair to the nearest police station
to check this out, as long as he had sufficient funds to
pay the fine for riding on the pavement, were not met with
complete support on his behalf.
--
cheers

Rich

I seem to recall that his assertion is based on fact, but
less than convinced that 26" (no, I'm /not/ going to express
that in S.I., for those also reading the "Glum" thread!) is
the cut-off point.

There certainly was a time when a cycle with a wheel
diameter of 18" or less could be ridden on the footpath, the
idea being to allow children to ride on the path whilst
keeping adults on the road ...

** Phil.

burt said:

I attempted to disabuse the yoof of his error, pointing
out that wheel diameter was irrelevant, but received the
same reply "you don't know th=

e

Quoted message said:

law."

I had heard similar /many/ moons ago (70s, perhaps early
80s), but all I =

can find with a quick Google is

"Legislation on pavement cycling

Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 provides that a person
shall be=20 guilty of an offence if he : "shall wilfully
ride upon any footpath or=20 causeway by the side of any
road made or set apart for the use or=20 accommodation of
foot-passengers or shall wilfully lead or drive any=20
carriage of any description upon any such footpath or
causeway ".=20 Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888
extends the definition of=20 "carriage" to include
"bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other=20 similar
machines".

Note: The object of Section 72 Highways Act 1835 was
intended not to=20 protect all footpaths, but only
footpaths or causeways by the side of a=20 road.

On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow
a =A320 fixe= d=20 penalty notice (FPN) to be served on
anyone who is cycling on the=20 pavement. The new regulation
clears up an anomaly where only some police =

forces could issue FPNs because pavement cycling was defined
as an=20 offence under a local by-law. Offenders will not
face on-the-spot fines; =

they will have 28 days to pay."

and

"The CTC has produced an excellent briefing paper on the
changes in law=20 enforcement which took place at the start
of August, allowing police to=20 issue =A320 Fixed Penalty
Notices (FPNs) to cyclists riding illegally on =

pavements.

It states that:

* It is not clear whether all pavements are covered. The
Highways=20
Act 1835, Section 72, created the offence of cycling on
the pavement. It =

specifies that the offence applies to 'any footpath or
causeway by the=20 side of the road.' It is not applicable
within pedestrianised areas:=20 those cycling within such
areas may be guilty of contravening a Traffic=20 Regulation
Order, but they have not offended the 1835 Act and
therefore=20 cannot be issued with an FPN.
* Police cannot issue FPNs to anyone under the age of
16.
* It is not an 'an the spot' fine. The notice can be
issued=20 immediately by a police officer, but
payment must be made by post within =

a specified period.
* Anyone issued with an FPN must respond within
the specified=20 period. Failure to do so
removes the right to dispute the notice, and=20
the fine will increase.

The Home Office Minister at the time of the changes, Paul
Boateng, told=20 Ben Bradshaw, MP, Chair of the All Party
Parliamentary Cycle Group:

'The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at
responsible=20 cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use
the pavement out of fear of=20 the traffic, and who show
consideration to other pavement users when=20 doing so.
Chief police officers, who are responsible for
enforcement,=20 acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly
children and young people,=20 are afraid to cycle in the
road... sensitivity and careful use of police =

discretion is required'. "

But perhaps more to the point is telling said yoof that it's
more=20 dangerous to cycle on the pavement. He may disagree,
in which case=20 prove the point by shooting him and burning
the body...

Pete. --=20 Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382
660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44
1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net
[email hidden] dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Philip TAYLOR PC87S/O-XP said:

I seem to recall that his assertion is based on fact, but
less than convinced that 26" (no, I'm /not/ going to
express that in S.I., for those also reading the "Glum"
thread!) is the cut-off point.

There certainly was a time when a cycle with a wheel
diameter of 18" or less could be ridden on the footpath,
the idea being to allow children to ride on the path
whilst keeping adults on the road ...

P.S. :

"Children on small-wheel bikes (diameter 18" or less) are
expected to stay on the pavement while learning. Bikes with
only a front brake are not legal on the road. The law has
never taken account of small wheel bikes for adults. BMX
bikes are street-legal and are for use on or off roads but
off-road does not mean on-footway. In British law they count
as adult bikes for use on the road." [*]
--------
[*] netbloke.co.uknewsletters97Open ↗
98/iscy1298.htm

Philip TAYLOR PC87S/O-XP said:

"Children on small-wheel bikes (diameter 18" or less) are
expected to stay on the pavement while learning. Bikes
with only a front brake are not legal on the road.

Wrong on the latter count, each cycle must have at least two
independent braking systems, which includes, in the case of
a fixed gear bike or Ordinary, the pedals.

Quoted message said:

The law has never taken account of small wheel bikes for
adults. BMX bikes are street-legal and are for use on or
off roads but off-road does not mean on-footway. In
British law they count as adult bikes for use on the
road." [*]

My good friend Dr. Bob tells me that cycling on the pavement
is never legal, but that the usual age of criminal
responsibility applies, so that the law does not apply to
children. How true this is I do not know.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

"Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Philip TAYLOR PC87S/O-XP said:

I seem to recall that his assertion is based on fact,
but less than convinced that 26" (no, I'm /not/ going to
express that in S.I., for those also reading the "Glum"
thread!) is the cut-off point.

There certainly was a time when a cycle with a wheel
diameter of 18" or less could be ridden on the footpath,
the idea being to allow children to ride on the path
whilst keeping adults on the road ...

P.S. :

"Children on small-wheel bikes (diameter 18" or less) are
expected to stay on the pavement while learning. Bikes
with only a front brake are not legal on the road. The law
has never taken account of small wheel bikes for adults.
BMX bikes are street-legal and are for use on or off roads
but off-road does not mean on-footway. In British law they
count as adult bikes for use on the road." [*]
--------
[*] netbloke.co.uknewsletters97Open ↗
98/iscy1298.htm

interesting, but not exactly a definitive legal statement.

Just zis Guy said:

Philip TAYLOR [PC87S/O-XP] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Children on small-wheel bikes (diameter 18" or less) are
expected to stay on the pavement while learning. Bikes
with only a front brake are not legal on the road.

I didn't, actually : I cited

netbloke.co.uknewsletters97Open ↗
98/iscy1298.htm

Quoted message said:

Wrong on the latter count, each cycle must have at least
two independent braking systems, which includes, in the
case of a fixed gear bike or Ordinary, the pedals.

In which case the bike surely does /not/ have "only a front
brake"; it has a (conventional) front brake, and a rear
brak{e|ing systen} actuated by the pedals ...

** Phil.

Philip TAYLOR PC87S/O-XP said:

Quoted message said:

Wrong on the latter count, each cycle must have at least
two independent braking systems, which includes, in the
case of a fixed gear bike or Ordinary, the pedals.

Quoted message said:

In which case the bike surely does /not/ have "only a
front brake"; it has a (conventional) front brake, and a
rear brak{e|ing systen} actuated by the pedals ...

Which is actually my point, that it is not "brake" but
"braking system", and a minimum of two is specified but
there is no restriction as to which wheel(s) they should act
upon, as far as I know. A tadpole trike with two front
brakes and no rear brake is also legal. I believe a delivery
trike with a hub brake and a rim brake on the front wheel is
also legal.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Quoted message said:

The Home Office Minister at the time of the changes, Paul Boateng, told
Ben Bradshaw, MP, Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Cycle Group:

'The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at
[blah blah blah]

So why didn't the twit make sure it was drafted to exclude
these then? Still, at least it means I can cycle on the
pavement with impunity, 'cos plod will remember Paul
telling them so.

Peter Clinch said:

But perhaps more to the point is telling said yoof that
it's more dangerous to cycle on the pavement. He may
disagree, in which case prove the point by shooting him and
burning the body...

That would be a fairly conclusive proof for a single case,
but how would you extend it to general cases?

Peter Clinch said:

I had heard similar /many/ moons ago (70s, perhaps early
80s), but all I can find with a quick Google is

When this came up on rec.sport.unicycling recently,
someone mentioned that it was covered by European
legislation. To quote:

"I just had a quick look for this one and it seems it is
mentioned European safety regulations. Bikes with certain
size wheels and certain saddle heights are exempt from some
safety and perfomance requirements. It also says that it
does not apply to bicycle designed for 'stunting'

"These ones came up but I haven't read them through : EN71,
EN14764, EN14765."

I haven't actually managed to find said legislation
myself, though I've been meaning to search more thoroughly
at some point.

Quoted message said:

On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to
allow a £20 fixed penalty notice (FPN) to be served on
anyone who is cycling on the pavement. The new regulation
clears up an anomaly where only some police forces could
issue FPNs because pavement cycling was defined as an
offence under a local by-law. Offenders will not face on-the-
spot fines; they will have 28 days to pay."

The new legislation [1] didn't actually define pavement
cycling as an offence (AIUI it was already an offence
punishable by a fine under the 1835 HA). What the new
legislation did was to specifically make pavement cycling an
offence under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which
effectively redefined the fine. I don't know what the fine
available in 1835 was, but a fine of sixpence probably
wouldn't have much affect these days :-)

[1] <url:http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1999/199-
91851.htm>

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my
reply address)
<url:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/> "He who
dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Philip TAYLOR PC87S/O-XP said:

"Children on small-wheel bikes (diameter 18" or less) are
expected to stay on the pavement while learning. Bikes
with only a front brake are not legal on the road. The law
has never taken account of small wheel bikes for adults.
BMX bikes are street-legal and are for use on or off roads
but off-road does not mean on-footway. In British law they
count as adult bikes for use on the road." [*]

Wasn't there something else about bikes smaller than a
certain size being allowed to not have light fittings, but
all large bikes must at least have the fittings, or even
perhaps the lights, even in the day. They don't have to be
turned on in the day, just ready to be used.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot
com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street, _/
_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.

Peter Clinch said:

Note: 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.

Thats interesting, as we have a set of cycle routes in
Harrogate which enter a park area (one bit of The Stray),
but then the signage stops. I can tell that the cycle routes
go into the area, but not the paths that are available once
there. Does this mean that all of the paths are cycleable,
being as they are not by the side of the road?

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot
com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street, _/
_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.

Al C-F said:

That would be a fairly conclusive proof for a single case,
but how would you extend it to general cases?

Look at the numbers. I don't have specific references but I
imagine Guy or Tony may have some to hand. It really is
considerably more dangerous cycling on pavements in a
general case, probably as other people using them (including
cars backing out of driveways as well as peds) don't
/expect/ bikes to be there, so don't assume they will be
when doing whatever it is they do. The roads, OTOH, are
governed by rules according to which vehicles operate, and
the operators can and do expect the other vehicles to be
conforming to most of them (driving on the left, right of
way rules, no sudden movements being some of the salient
ones). Roads are, for the most part, a far more predictable
environment than pavements for a road vehicle to be
operating in.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Richard Corfield said:

Wasn't there something else about bikes smaller than a
certain size being allowed to not have light fittings, but
all large bikes must at least have the fittings, or even
perhaps the lights, even in the day.

Not wot I wot of. I haven't seen more than a handful of
bikes with light brackets on sale.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Al C-F said:

Quoted message said:

But perhaps more to the point is telling said yoof that
it's more dangerous to cycle on the pavement. He may
disagree, in which case prove the point by shooting him
and burning the body...

Quoted message said:

That would be a fairly conclusive proof for a single case,
but how would you extend it to general cases?

You can't easily reconcile the differences between the
general and the specific on matters like this, and I say
that as one who gets shouted at at least once per week to
get on the psychlepath (actually a relatively narrow
pavement with a white line painted on it). The woman who
shouted at me on Tuesday actually had to exceed the speed
limit in order to do so - I was doing just shy of 30mph at
the time. That's the bugger of pavement psychlepaths:
shouted at for riding on the pavement in one place, shouted
at for not doing so in another, and we have no say in which
place is which.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!