Why is nothing done about driving on the pavement, when cyclists get fined for cycling on the pavement.

Highway Code rule 145

You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34

How many main roads, side roads are littered with cars parked and driving on the pavements. Too many to count. These prevent the disabled, mothers with pushchairs, children and families safely using the footpaths.

Does putting on the car hazzard lights give them some sort of protection against prosecution.

When are the police going to fine drivers for driving on the pavement as well as the few cyclists who happen to cycle on the pavement because the roads are unsafe.

I see far more cars driving and parking on the pavements than cyclists every day of the week.

Replies

A road near me (Chetwynd Road NW5) is ridiculously narrow, meaning the parking bays are something stupid like 4 foot wide. This is so that you can still (just about) fit two cars down it and thus have it a two way road. 

This forces resident permit holders to park on the pavement - there just isn't enough road to park on.

It's completely insane and many of the cars parked there have been "sided" and scraped by other viehicles passing too near. What a nightmare to live and park in that street.

It's awful and I often wonder how long it would take to just designate it part of a gyratory and then everyone would be happier.

 

  • By phufbl at 10:11am 20 Jan 2014

The root problem is that there are too many cars and they have to be parked somewhere. We need to find ways to reduce the number of cars.

I also often find it amusing that people think it is OK to make ludicrous manoevres if they have their hazard lights on

  • By Michelo at 01:03am 21 Jan 2014

Apparently there are now around 27m cars in the UK! This is the problem, and the more spaces made for them the more people fill them up and the more 'demand' for parking. We need to say enough is enough...

  • By dickyr at 01:04pm 25 Jan 2014

I do like the emphasis of the original point: people do like to go on about cycling on pavements when it is done perfectly safely the world over whereas they condone cars and lorries doing the very same thing as long as they have 50% of their wheels on the main carriageway at the same time. Anybody parking with two wheels on the kerb must have committed this offence but if there are no parking restrictions they do so with impunity.

As will all these issues, it would help if I knew where there was a definitive list of people killed/seriously injured by different types of cycling behaviour. Anecdotally I have never seen a pedestrian injured by a bike on a pavement but have heard lots of things about 'nearly being kiled' etc.

I would also like to know how many cyclists have caused the death of or serously injured another by going though a red light compared to the number of cyclists killed by traffic immediately after a red light has turned to green.

  • By paul at 10:06pm 09 Feb 2014

Our local police report included equal numbers of drivers fined for driving in a cycle lane as cyclists for cycling on the footway. (OK one of each isn't wonderful statistics). Way to go.

It is galling, the anti cycling hype about cyclists on pavements, etc. Would it help if the LCC, etc, sent the media who stoop to these depths the dft stats on the number of people hit/injured/killed by Motor Vehicles on the Pavement? I seem to remember the CTC had a story on it with the dft stats from a foi request to TfL. Is it allowable to post it on their public website comments  pages? Is emailing them en masse, like the 'Grid' campaign, allowable?

It appears that putting on your hazard lights gives you the magical ability to park where you like, for as long as you like. Here in Bristol (cycling city), there is a shared-use off road cyclepath which is used as a free car park by lazy drivers.

 

Here it is:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGiFMgvFKkw

I'll bet some of these drivers complain about cyclists on pavements.Galling or what?. I'll bet there are the same things going on in London.

It always amazes me that councils spend loads of our money in making pavements disabled friendly with droped kerbs for wheelchairs at junctions etc.  Then, after spending all this money they then let cars park all over them.  What a waste.

  • By emishi at 07:02pm 05 Apr 2014

"A road near me (Chetwynd Road NW5) is ridiculously narrow, meaning the parking bays are something stupid like 4 foot wide....It's completely insane".

This residential Camden road was never supposed to become the awful rat run it now is and so features as a Highgate ward Ask with 'restricted access to through motor traffic'.

The general point about cars parking and driving on the footway is really a council issue. I have complained to the police before and they have said 'unless they actually see the vehicle being driven, they cannot do anything as the vehicle could have been pushed' (!!)

This example of the outlandish behaviour exhibited by so many car-users and wilfully ignored by the authorities really does need some action.     

  • By Gardda at 02:18pm 07 Apr 2014

The French way of doing things is the best one. Bicycles are not vehicles when they are not on the road, whether they are in use as such or not. If no cycling is allowed then it has to be stated with notices to the effect.

Regulations for road and pavement use have been developed over several generations now, so probably a private member's bill would be required to make such an intrinsic change to the meaning of the law.

The law is best honored in the breach in these islands, and police monitoring is wise to it. If you are no nuisance to pedestrians while using the pavement with your bicycle, then you may go ahead. If you are, beware!

They are PUSH bikes. Get off and do some amidst the pedestrians from time to time! Use the pedestrian crossings to give your pushe-D bike more safety at a junction.  Your bike is precious. SO ARE YOU!

Ride carefully! gar

  • By Gardda at 02:26pm 07 Apr 2014

I am also glad to see the Highway Code being quoted.

However it would be better to quote DfT (Department for Transport) Regulations on all these matters, if you want to effect changes in the law.

I haven't looked at push bike regs for a while but there is 1 (one) solitary and conscientious person/ civil service, at the Department who looks after them as a full time job.

I shall endeavor to re-establish a connection with ALL the relevant regs for you to go over at leisure. The high way code is not everything, but does its best to state what the effect of Reg changes are to the proper use of the highway by all concerned.

From what I recall the Highway code is not law as such, merely a code.

  • By Gardda at 02:46pm 07 Apr 2014

"Not only would such a regulation blur the distinction between what is/is not a bicycle, but also presents considerable risks for road safety"

 

I extract this remark from, admittedly, an electric bicycle campaigner, but the contrast is important.

it is NOT what a bicycle IS or is NOT, but who the user is, and how the bicycle is being used, which determines whether it is a vehicle or not. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nothing whatso ever to do with "WHAT A BICYCLE IS OR IS NOT"

That is a fundamental difference in the interpretation of the law which is crucial,and yet unobserved by cycle campaigners.

The same difference applies to an electric bike. Whether it is your heart, or a battery which runs the bike, is no concern of the regulations.

 

 

Post a reply

Sign in to post a reply.