Forum Topics

PAVEMENTS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS – 8

The transcript of BBC Radio 4 PM’s interview with Tony Armstrong Chief Executive of Living Streets and Roger Geffen of the National Cyclist Touring Charity (CTC) on 17th January 17.30:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03pmkb3  31.56 mins - 37.20 minsPresenter: Eddie MairMAIR:  The UK’s minister for cycling wants cyclists to use the pavements. Well, to be precise, Robert Goodwill says cyclists should not be fined for mounting the pavement if they are escaping a dangerous section of road. In an e-mail to a cycling campaigner the minister said that discretion should be exercised QUOTE “When a cyclist is using the pavement alongside a dangerous section of road by the speed of the traffic.” He said enforcement was up to the police but he reiterated guidance from 1999 when fixed penalties for cycling on pavements were introduced. It states that the goal was not to penalise responsible cyclists. Robert Goodwill said “Cyclists must be mindful not to put pedestrians at risk.”Tony Armstrong Chief Executive of the Living Streets a charity that represents pedestrians. Roger Geffen Policy Director of the cycling charity CTCEDDIE MAIR: Tony Armstrong, what do you think of what the cycling minister has said?TONY ARMSTRONG: Well we’re disappointed in this. We were opposed to the original guidance when it came out because we don’t believe there is a happy compromise were a cyclist can responsibly cycle on the pavement. Many pedestrians value that safe haven status the pavements give them, particularly older people and people with disabilities. So saying that because we have failed to make the roads safe for cyclists we should create another problem by creating intimidation for pedestrians, we think that is not the right solution.EDDIE MAIR: Have you ever cycled?TONY ARMSTRONG: I cycle every day. I cycle in London every day and I know exactly how unsafe and fearful it can be.EDDIE MAIR: Have you ever felt on a stretch of road where you feel in danger that if you could just get on the pavement for a moment that would be a good thing?TONY ARMSTRONG: Yeah absolutely. And what we’re saying is that if someone is in immediate danger of being in a collision or in immediate threat then get on the pavement. All the pedestrians that are on that pavement would absolutely be fine with that. We are not talking about where people are in immediate danger. The problem is when lots of people feel nervous, and who’s to define what a dangerous road is, because if you feel nervous and if you feel fearful about cycling then you just think ‘Oh, the minister has put this guidance out – I’ll just cycle on the pavements’; and many people are already using the pavements because they don’t feel particularly safe on our streets. Cycling has increased hugely since the original guidance came out and it‘s not an adequate solution if you want to make our streets more sustainable and safer for those more vulnerable people, both pedestrians and cyclists.EDDIE MAIR: Roger Geffen what do you think of what the minister said?ROGER GEFFEN: Firstly let me agree with one point Tony just made which is that the main solution should be to create safe conditions for       people of all ages and backgrounds to be able to cycle safely and law abidingly on the roads. People should not feel they have to make the choice between what is safe and what is legal. On the other hand I do think that the guidance does make sense. I think anyone would accept that there is a distinction to be made between cycling in a way that endangers or intimidates pedestrians, in which case they should feel the full force of the law, and where people are actually cycling on the pavement to avoid danger and are not causing it. At that point I think one would accept that it is not police priority to be enforcing the law. What we do believe though is in that situation one of the options available to the police should be to send the cyclist on a cycle training course. We send drivers who’ve offended on driver training and speed awareness courses. Surely it is even more justified to do that for cyclists, given that is effectively a punishment that not only fits the crime but fixes it too, by giving cyclists the confidence and skills to ride safely and correctly and according to the law on the roads.EDDIE MAIR: Tony Armstrong?TONY ARMSTRONG: There are sanctions that are reasonable as Roger said, but it doesn’t solve the central point. We are saying there is no reasonable behaviour that doesn’t intimidate pedestrians. You can’t behave in a way that respects pedestrians even if you are feeling respectful and try to do your best to avoid cycling on the pavement.EDDIE MAIR: I’m looking at a tweet from Paul ……. to this programme ……….. he says that this works fine in Japan where people cycle on the pavement. Is that true?ROGER GEFFEN: That is correct. It is not a solution we would advocate. I do think that Tony has an entirely fair point that cyclists and pedestrians should not be put in conflict because we can’t work out how to create fair conditions whereby people are given their own space on the road. That is the right answer, along with lower speed limits; 20mph should be the norm in urban streets. We should be creating safe conditions so that people are not faced with the choice between what is safe and what is legal. I would agree with Tony on that. I do think though that there are some situations where you have got a busy main road and an empty pavement where if you were to then take enforcement action against that cyclist, particularly if you were talking about a pensioner in the situation, then I do think it would be reasonable for the police to exercise some discretion and I think on that basis we would agree with the minister’s position.EDDIE MAIR: Thank you both.  Tony Armstrong from Living Streets and Roger Geffen from CTC.===================================================================FOOTNOTE: Extracts from Community Forum Code of Conduct“Avoid disruptive activity online, such as persistent off-topic comments and postings or statements that incite others to ……………… participate in illegal activities. “This is not a chat-site.

Tony Purton ● 4660d4 Comments ● 4659d

PAVEMENTS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS – 5

To many pedestrians last Friday’s newspaper headlines “Minister: Let cyclists ride on pavement” will be seen as a body blow to pedestrian safety. For cycling groups it will undoubtedly be hailed as a ‘freedom charter to ride on the pavements’. There is, however, more to it than that..DfT minister Robert Goodwill was responding to complaints from cycling campaigners that during their recent ‘Operation Safeway’ blitz on road safety in London, the police have been ‘over-zealous’ in issuing fines every time cyclists were spotted riding on the pavement. All Robert Goodwill has done is to reiterate the guidance issued by Labour Home Office minister Paul Boateng in 1999 when pavement cycling was made a fixed penalty offence after concerns were expressed that the police were turning a blind eye to those cycling on the footpath - prosecutions in the ten years 1984 to 1994 had declined significantly. “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.” At least Robert Goodwill acknowledges that pavement cycling is illegal. That is a great leap forward from 2009 when the DfT’s top civil servant Robert Devereux told the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee during a hearing on ‘Improving road safety for pedestrians and cyclists in Great Britain’ that he thought pavement cycling was legal - until he checked with his support staff sitting next to him and had to admit he was wrong! See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmpubacc/665/9061004.htm Q42 - Q47 49th Report 2008–09.FOR THE FULL TEXT OF PAUL BOATENG’S 1999 GUIDANCE SEE: PAVEMENTS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS - 6

Tony Purton ● 4661d3 Comments ● 4660d

PAVEMENTS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS - 4

I am grateful to Ben Owen, Al Stuart, Paul James and Nigel Brooks for their continued intemperate comments on my purely factual posts about the illegality of pavement cycling PAVEMENTS ARE FOR PEDESTRIANS - 3. Each time they whinge about the unfairness of life as seen from the saddle of a bicycle they bring the topic back up to the top of the list, increasing the readership of my original posts and exposing their own intolerant attitude to us pedestrian PLEBS!.THERE ARE NO LAWS ABOUT PEDESTRIAN BEHAVIOUR because walking is a fundamental means of human movement carried out at unthreatening speeds. It is the speed of mechanically assisted human movement which creates danger, is confined to the roads, and is controlled by the traffic laws. EVEN ‘JAYWALKING’ IS NOT ILLEGAL IN THIS COUNTRY! See these extracts from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking“The United Kingdom does not formally describe priority regulations for drivers and pedestrians at road junctions or other locations, except with respect to marked Zebra, Pelican, and Puffin crossings, where motorists are required to give way to pedestrians under defined conditions. Elsewhere, the Highway Code relies on the pedestrian making their own judgement on whether it is safe to cross based on the Green Cross Code. If the pedestrian's judgement was correct then no evasive re-action should be required by any drivers, but drivers [including cyclists] are expected to avoid hazards and are examined on their ability to do so during the Hazard Perception Test.” “The term "jaywalking" is rarely used, and there is no law preventing jaywalking as such. In England, Wales and Scotland it is legal to cross all roads except motorways (where pedestrians and slow vehicles are not permitted), and roads with the "No Pedestrians" sign displayed. The Highway Code contains additional rules for crossing a road safely, but these are recommendations and not legally enforceable, although as with other advisory parts of the Highway Code compliance or otherwise can be used to establish liability in civil law proceedings such as insurance claims.” “When crossing a road, pedestrians are advised to wait until it is safe to cross. Vehicles have priority when crossing a road, although, if a pedestrian is crossing the road across a side street where a car is about to turn, vehicles should give way to the pedestrian. This is demonstrated in the Highway Code [Rule 170].] In UK schools children are taught to cross roads safely through the Green Cross Code. British children are taught to "Stop, Look, Listen and Think" before crossing a road, as demonstrated in the Arrive Alive campaign.”“Zebra crossings are points where pedestrians can cross with the right of way. Traffic [including bicycles!] should [MUST Highway Code Rule 195] stop at such points for pedestrians.” AND THIS IS WHAT THE HIGHWAY CODE SAYS TO VEHICLE DRIVERS/RIDERS [INCLUDING CYCLISTS!] about ‘Road users requiring extra care’ 205 There is a risk of pedestrians, especially children, stepping unexpectedly into the road. You should drive with the safety of children in mind at a speed suitable for the conditions.206 Drive carefully and slowly when• in crowded shopping streets, Home Zones and Quiet Lanes (see Rule 218) or residential areas • driving past bus and tram stops; pedestrians may emerge suddenly into the road • passing parked vehicles, especially ice cream vans; children are more interested in ice cream than traffic and may run into the road unexpectedly • needing to cross a pavement or cycle track; for example, to reach or leave a driveway. Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement • reversing into a side road; look all around the vehicle and give way to any pedestrians who may be crossing the road • turning at road junctions; give way to pedestrians who are already crossing the road into which you are turning • the pavement is closed due to street repairs and pedestrians are directed to use the road • approaching pedestrians on narrow rural roads without a footway or footpath. Always slow down and be prepared to stop if necessary, giving them plenty of room as you drive past. 207 Particularly vulnerable pedestrians. These include:• children and older pedestrians who may not be able to judge your speed and could step into the road in front of you. At 40 mph (64 km/h) your vehicle will probably kill any pedestrians it hits. At 20 mph (32 km/h) there is only a 1 in 20 chance of the pedestrian being killed. So kill your speed • older pedestrians who may need more time to cross the road. Be patient and allow them to cross in their own time. Do not hurry them by revving your engine or edging forward • people with disabilities. People with hearing impairments may not be aware of your vehicle approaching. Those with walking difficulties require more time • blind or partially sighted people, who may be carrying a white cane using a guide dog. They may not be able to see you approaching • deafblind people who may be carrying a white cane with a red band or using a dog with a red and white harness. They may not see or hear instructions or signals.208 Near schools. Drive slowly and be particularly aware of young cyclists and pedestrians. In some places, there may be a flashing amber signal below the ‘School’ warning sign which tells you that there may be children crossing the road ahead. Drive very slowly until you are clear of the area.209 Drive carefully and slowly when passing a stationary bus showing a ‘School Bus’ sign (download ‘Vehicle markings’ (PDF, 537KB)) as children may be getting on or off.210 You MUST stop when a school crossing patrol shows a ‘Stop for children’ sign (download ‘Signals by authorised persons’ (PDF, 123KB) and ‘Traffic signs’ (PDF, 486KB)).Law RTRA sect 28

Tony Purton ● 4666d20 Comments ● 4662d