PAVEMENTS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS – 12
An open letter to Ealing’s Council Leader Councillor Julian Bell published in the Ealing Gazette Friday 21 March 2014GOING DUTCH [is last resort for town - editor]Ealing Council’s plan to create a ‘mini-Holland’ for cyclists in the Borough (Gazette 14 March) may conjure up visions of cyclists freely sharing the pavements with pedestrians.I would like to remind the plan’s author, Councillor Julian Bell, that shared use of footpaths is very much a last resort for town planners according to the Department for Transport guidance “LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists”. This document says among other things; “It is important to recognise that pedestrians and cyclists are not homogeneous groups and their needs vary considerably”; “Where the need for cyclists to use existing footways or footpaths has been identified …….. their right to be there must be established by changing the legal status of the footway or footpath to that of a cycle track.”; “Where the facility is an adjacent use one - the remainder is a footway or footpath”; “It is illegal for a cyclist to ride on the pedestrian side, but the cycle track will normally retain a right of way for people on foot.” “No impression should be given that it is acceptable to cycle on the pedestrian side.” “This may need to be reinforced by local publicity and enforcement action.” Perhaps the first thing Councillor Bell should do is spend a small amount of the considerable funds allocated for improving cycling facilities in the Borough on a poster campaign emphasising the illegality of pavement cycling under Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 and the penalties for doing so under the 1999 amendment to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (SI 1999/1851), no mention of which appears in any of the Council’s propaganda or training literature encouraging the greater use of cycles.Tony Purton – by e-mailThe following draft paper to the Greater London Assembly sets out this proposition in the simplest terms. If Ealing Council really wants to ‘lead’ in encouraging more cycling in the Borough it should set an example to other London Boroughs by actively discourage pavement cycling, and act before it is pushed! A DRAFT PAPER TO THE GREATER LONDON ASSEMBLY PROPOSING A PUBLIC AWARENESS POSTER CAMPAIGN BY LONDON’S LOCAL AUTHORITIES ‘PAVEMENT CYCLING IS ILLEGAL’TO HELP THE POLICE ENFORCE SECTION 72 OF THE 1835 HIGHWAYS ACT AS INTENDED BY THE CREATION OF FIXED PENALTY POWERS UNDER THE ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACT 1988 – SI 1999/1851 THE PROPOSALTo increase public awareness of the illegal (criminal) nature of pavement cycling by widely displaying small (75MM/3INCH) universally understandable self-adhesive labels on street lamp posts based on the ISO 3864-1 prohibition sign [a red circle with a red diagonal line through it running from top left to bottom right on a white background, surrounding a black pictogram of a cycle; similar to the common NO SMOKING sign] see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_symbol .Such a measure would ensure that no-one could be in any doubt about the law. POSSIBLE INFORMATIVE SIGN WORDINGRiding on the footpath is illegalSection 72 Highways Act 1835 – Highway Code Rule 64 Riding on the footpath is illegalFixed penalty £50 – Fine £500Fixed penalty £50 – Fine £500Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 – SI 1999/1851You MUST NOT cycle on the pavementHighway Code Rule 64POLICE FOLLOW-UPOnce the police are able to take for granted that anyone cycling on the pavement is doing so deliberately (willingly) in defiance of the law, they can deploy the full range of sanctions at their disposal to deal with serial offenders:1. A ‘verbal’ warning with advice that the offender should take a ‘Bikeability’ course2. A ‘formal’ (written/recorded?) warning with advice that the offender should take a ‘Bikeability’ course 3. A £50 fixed penalty notice, waived if the offender presents proof of having taken a ‘Bikeability’ course within the 28 day appeal period4. Prosecution and £500 fine with a court order that the offender MUST take a ‘Bikeability’ course before cycling on the road again5. Apply the Fixed Penalty system to children below the age of 16 but above the age of criminal responsibility (10 years of age at present)6. Pedestrians should be encouraged to remonstrate with pavement cyclists and report incidents of pavement cycling to their local community police team – with photographic evidence if possible.THE EFFECT - Hopefully the result would be that in time pavement cycling will attract the same social stigma as smoking in public places, a criminal offence under the Health Act 2006, and become as self-policing as the ‘SmokeFree’ laws; the enforcement of which is the responsibility of managers of ‘smokefree’ premises through compulsory signage and ‘verbal’ warnings to customers under the supervision of local authority enforcement officers, such as environmental health officers, trading standards or local community support officers – if physical violence is threatened by a person smoking, managers should seek assistance from the police. See http://www.health-safety-signs.uk.com/smoking-legislation-help.shtml FUNDING – In London, the Mayor’s Policing and Crime Office could allocate just 1% of the promised £100M funding to local authorities for road cycling safety measures to be devoted to such a publicity campaign. Further funds could be made available from the surplus income on the ‘Parking Fund’ of many London boroughs which is ring-fenced to be spent only on transport-related projects including funding London’s ‘Freedom Passes’.VALUE FOR MONEY – If pavement cycling is popularly discouraged as an anti-social as well as an illegal activity and becomes self-policing, the cost and effort of policing the offence would be greatly reduced.PAVEMENT CYCLING IS A SEPARATE ISSUE FROM ROAD CYCLING SAFETY – Pavement cycling is illegal and should not be allowed under any circumstances. Safety for cyclists on the roads is a separate objective in its own right. As Home Office minister Paul Boateng said in the last paragraph of his guidelines letter of 9 July 1999 “I note your particular concerns about other offences which pose a threat to cyclists and I am very willing to discuss and consider those problems with you. But I do not see that issue as affecting the case for having a fixed penalty offence for cycling on the pavement” [see PAVEMENTS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS – 6 on Page 6 or 7]=======================OFFICIAL REFERENCESHighway Code Rule 64 – You MUST NOT cycle on the pavementSection 72 Highways Act 1835 - Offence Wording: “On (date) at (town) wilfully rode a pedal cycle upon a footpath or causeway by the side of a road, namely (location), made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers”Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - Statutory Instruments 1999 No. 1851: The Fixed Penalty Offences Order 1999 - Section 3 2(b) ‘cycling on the footway contrary to section 72 of the Highways Act 1835’ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1851/madeLTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists: http://www.ukroads.org/webfiles/LTN%202- 04%20Adjacent%20and%20Shared%20Use%20Facilities%20for%20Pedestrians%20and%20Cyclists.pdf
Tony Purton ● 4601d41 Comments ● 4582d