Cycling on the pavement is not always a crime

Cycling on a sidewalk. Are more widespread shared pavements? Photography: Bernadette Lou/Rex features

This year Erin Gill wrote on the notice of fixed penalty received when she returns to ignite in a stretch of pavement in London to avoid a one-way system. The comments of the article were largely unsympathetic - many readers felt she should have obeyed the law, he dismounted and walked. She was criticized by, among other things, "normalize" cycling on the pavement - for infringing an obvious principle that pedestrians and cyclists should be kept separate.

In legal terms, the argument that is never supposed to mix pedestrians and cyclists is not entirely true. Roads 1835 prohibited to circulate on a path that is "on the side of a road" and "set apart" using only pedestrians. If he is caught by a police officer or an officer of community support riding on a pedestrian pavement on a road, it can be given a fixed penalty of 30 pounds, or processed and a fine of up to 500 pounds (unless someone is injured, in which case might apply other crimes).

But through paths that are not on the road there is no general prohibition in cycling. The pavement basic cycling offence and the type of penalty fixed Erin Gill received, does not apply to routes that are "on the road" - for example in streets or parks.

That's not to say that he is always allowed circulating on the roads of the road. On the other hand, if allowed cycling likely that depends on local considerations. In some cases may be local statutes prohibit cycling - is a good idea of care particularly in parks and pedestrian areas. There are also legal rules other than the common and a select group of parks of London. But where there is a local specific prohibition, it is quite likely that there is a sign indicating you can not move it. If there is no sign, it is not a guarantee that cycling is allowed, but could help persuade a police officer not to apply an order (for example) do not know.

When there is no specific prohibition, cyclists still not necessarily in the clear-cycling can pass (which is a civil wrong so you can be sued, not a crime). This is worth taking into account especially in routes crossing land private in the field. But if it is not violating the horseback ride along a route normally determined it will reflect the historical usage of the path - not any principle of separation of cyclists and pedestrians.

Thus the spaces of the road, there is no general rule to cyclists and pedestrians always must be independent. And on the sidewalks on roads, the separation is not configured in stone - local authorities have the power to create paths of "sharing", where cyclists and pedestrians share pavement space. These routes (or, if split routes, parties which allows cycling) are no longer set aside for pedestrians, so it no longer applies the violation of the law of roads. There are some examples highlighted along the A4 in London, Bristol and places in the middle.

Shared use paths are in the lower part of the Department for transport (DfT) hierarchy of provision - local authorities create cycling infrastructure is advised to consider the "last" shared use of routes. The counter-terrorism Committee has found that users express hostility towards them. And yet it is not entirely clear why share pavement space has a bad reputation. Injuries have been reported collisions between pedestrians and cyclists are low. A study of the DfT in 1993 found that there was no "real to justify factors excluding pedestrian cyclists", and should at least have some parallels with shared use paths. Counter-Terrorism Committee study also found that the shared use of routes increased rates of cycling, that makes sense - provide an opportunity for people who have miedas of cycle roads to travel by bicycle. Its use is not mandatory for cyclists, for those who want to stay on the road need not fear them.

DfT orientation is right to say that mixture of cyclists and pedestrians on the sidewalks not always be appropriate, especially where there are high numbers of pedestrians - who can discard shared use pavements in most urban centres. But where pedestrian numbers are shared use paths, under perhaps deserves a place higher in the hierarchy of the DfT. use more widespread it could, as suggested by the evidence of the counter-terrorism Committee, strengthen cycling.

What do you think? Are more widespread shared pavements?

? Jorren Knibbe is a lawyer and writes about law in United Kingdom cycle cycling rules. This article is purely informational and is not intended to be legal advice.

View the original article here