homeCYCLING AND THE LAW
"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 footpaths. While understandable at certain busy intersections and the like, it's very much against the law. If a certain stretch of road is deemed too dangerous to cycle on, choose an alternative route or walk your bike on the dangerous stetch. If you ride on the footpath or footway, you could cop a fine and you'll certainly antagonise pedestrians.
Bicycles are, in law, carriages (as a consequence of the Taylor v Goodwin judgment in 1879) and should be on the highway not footpaths.
However, despite what was said above, it's confusing for cyclists and pedestrians because many local authorities allow cycle access to what look like footpaths. Pedestrians often don't know where they stand, literally.
Cycling on footpaths is bad PR for cycling but it's got to be said that the greater offence of driving on footpaths 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.
Cycling on footways (a pavement at the side of a carriageway) is prohibited by Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, amended by Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888. This is punishable by a fixed penalty notice of £30 under Section 51 and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Cyclists have no right to cycle on a footpath away from the road but only commit an offence where local by-laws or traffic regulation orders create such an offence.Paul Kitson, partner at cyclist-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 to 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)
According to the Department for Transport, a Cycle Track means a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way, that is to say, a right of way on pedal cycles (other than pedal cycles which are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1972) with or without a right of way on foot [Section 329(1) Highways Act 1980]. The words in brackets were inserted by section 1 of the Cycle Tracks Act 1984. Cycle tracks may be created through conversion of a footway or footpath or newly constructed.
A Footpath means a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, not being a footway [Section 329(1) Highways Act 1980].
A Footway means a way comprised in a highway, which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public has a right of way on foot only [Section 329(1) Highways Act 1980].
Because Cycle Tracks are often signed poorly, it can be difficult to know where one starts and then stops. For instance, how far does the remit of a traffic sign extend? Howard Peel says: "I would suggest that the extent ultimately depends on the wording of the Traffic Regulation Order which brought the cycle path into existence.
"It could happen that someone might start to ride on shared-use footway/cycle path after seeing an approved 'Cycle path' sign, assuming that they could continue to ride on the path until they saw a sign declaring it was no longer a cycle path, but as this sign was missing inadvertently continue onto a section of footway not included in the original TRO. In such a case they could very probably avoid prosecution for cycling on the footway if they highlighted the absence of the required sign.
"Then again, as a cycle path is supposed to be equipped with repeater signs as well the police might argue that once someone was riding on section of footway with no cycle path repeater signs, they should assume it was no longer a cycle path and use the road instead!"
While adults are not allowed to cycle on 'footways' (see definition 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.
Don't fall for the piffle that you have to carry a bicycle when on a footway or pedestrian crossing. Anyone pushing a bicycle is a "foot-passenger" (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441) and is not "riding" it (Selby). In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ said: "In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a 'foot passenger'. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand."
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, see below.
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 WHILE DRUNKCycling is intoxicating, it gives a natural high but it's also a very sociable activity and those who partake in the weekend 'pub run' will attest that cycling is easier after the odd drink or two.
A social tipple, imbibed in moderation - the proverbial swift half - will not lead to a massive impairment in your ability to ride home but, despite alcohol's pain reducing effect, it impairs athletic performance so too much booze is bad for biking.
The Licensing Act 1872 makes it an offence to be drunk in charge of a bicycle (or any other vehicle or carriage, or cattle) on a highway or in a public place but this old law also forbids any public drunkenness - even in a pub - so is clearly never enforced.
In law a bicycle is defined as a carriage for use on the highway but cyclists are not in charge of 'mechanically propelled' vehicles so, in law, do not have to adhere to exactly the same 'drink drive' rules as motorists.
Section 30 Road Traffic Act 1988 says: "It is an offence for a person to ride a cycle on a road or other public place when unfit to ride through drink or drugs - that is to say - is under the influence of a drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle.
In Scotland a PC may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence under this section. There is no obligation for a cyclist to submit to a blood or urine alcohol test.
'Road' in the above bit of legislation includes a bridleway so don't think you can get blotto at a country pub and ride home 'off road' without risk.
And here's the rub. If you ride drunk you risk endangering yourself and possibly others by your actions. Would you ride home blindfolded? Beer-googles and bicycles do not mix. And, as stated above, cycling 'dangerously' can be fined by up to £2500.
You cannot get endorsements on your UK driving licence for a 'drink cycling' offence. Some US States have such a law so be careful when searching on this topic via Google.
The UK Highway Code - a useful but not a definitive source for UK legislation on motoring and cycling offences - says the penalty point system is "intended to deter drivers from following unsafe driving practices...The accumulation of penalty points acts as a warning to drivers that they risk disqualification if further offences are committed."
Note the word 'drivers.'
CYCLING AND DRIVING LICENCE PENALTY POINTS
In law, cyclists propel vehicles on the highway and so have to adhere to the same rules as motorists. However, the fines and penalties for offences are different. Cyclists DO NOT qualify for three penalty points for failing to comply with a red light. Offending cyclists, when caught, are given a non-endorsable fixed penalty ticket for £30. There are no offences that carry penalty points for cyclists.
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)
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).
Although a legal eagle searching Blackstones will not find a specific offence of "furious cycling", cyclists can nonetheless be convicted for "wanton and furious driving".
The wording of S35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (c. 58), s. 1(2)) is as follows:
“35. Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.”
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 didn’t set an official precedent but could still have been 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. As widely expected, the Telford decision was overturned (in February 2007).
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.
