Caredig i Natur and Cycling on the Pavement
November 17th, 2011 by Stephen
The Caredig i Nature blog wrote:
In a piece in the local newspaper a councillor, Paul James, claimed that ‘Inconsiderate cyclists [are] putting lives in danger’ (Cambrian News, 20 Dec, p4). The basis for the article was the claim that cyclists are zooming along one particular pavement which has railings on one side and houses on the other, and pedestrians coming out of their houses are in danger. Whilst we don’t support cyclists zooming along pavements and failing to pay due care and attention to other people around, the other side needs stating.
They go on to make a case that cyclists are at risk from motorists and seem therefore to suggest that riding on a pavement is okay as long as the cyclist pays attention and does not zoom along. Nevertheless cycling on pavements, except where they are designated cycle routes, is against the law and for good reason.
The pavement in question is extremely narrow with front doors opening out onto an area that would definitely put pedestrians at risk from cyclists. But it is not just that site at which such risks are felt by pedestrians.
Consider also the bridge over the railway at Plascrug avenue. Cyclists are asked to dismount at this bridge which is designated for pedestrian use only. Sadly many people ignore this instruction on a daily basis, despite the fact that collisions are not uncommon, and many pedestrians have been hurt in the past.
I captured this image of one of the more regular offenders. I should note that when he saw me filming him, he slowed right down. The following day someone complained he hurtled off the ramp of the bridge despite the presence of many school children:
Table of contents for Caredig i Natur
- Caredig i Natur, Angharedig i Blant
- Caredig i Natur (CIN): Who Controls the Past Controls the Future
- Caredig i Natur (CIN) Angharedig i Bobl
- Cycle Paths – Caredig i Natur’s Confusion
- Is Public Transport Best? Caredig i Natur (CIN) Gets it Wrong
- Whingy Bloggers and Selective Evidence (Caredig i Natur)
- Caredig i Natur and Cycling on the Pavement
- Caredig i Natur and Confirmation Bias
- Caredig i Natur and Dishonest Reporting
Cycling on the pavement is only against the law if the pavement is alongside a carriageway and forms part of the same highway, or a specific byelaw has been passed banning it in that location.
In the latter case it wouldn’t be enforceable unless the correct signs had been erected (diagram 951, ref. Traffic Signs Manual Ch3 s5.26)
Maybe you should do a little research before unjustly accusing people of breaking the law.
Of course the key point here is “forms part of the same highway”. As you note, country footpaths are not included in this law because they do not form a part of a public highway. However, a footbridge adjoining a highway, taking pedestrian traffic over a railway line to join another highway is much less clear cut than you suppose. In fact my advice is that whether cycling is illegal on the footbridge will depend on whether it has been adopted by the local council as a footpath or causeway.
The intention of the law is not to criminalise riding on public rights of way where they are not part of the highway network (unless the cycling is prohibited by specific byelaw). It is simply not the case that all footbridges, by dint of being “alongside a carriageway” are therefore not considered to be part of the pedestrian only footway.
However, as there is some ambiguity here (particularly over the status of that particular bridge), I have modified my article to more appropriate language.
The presence of the very clear “cyclist dismount” signs on that route, btw, will ensure that a cyclist involved in a collision on that bridge (as happens all too often) will not have a suitable defence against a civil claim for damages (unless a pedestrian was being particularly and deliberately reckless)
I note, in passing, that Caredig i Natur’s blog continues to publish comments from people under the misapprehension that the shared use path in Plascrug avenue is for cyclists only. They refuse to publish the comments from people who have pointed out (following some simple research) that this is wrong. I trust you will now help them see the error of their ways and encourage them to post up all comments and not just the ones that reinforce their incorrect information.
Is Phil Lee saying that cyclists should be allowed to cycle over the bridge and treat the pedestrians like skittles? Unbelievable.
I think he was just objecting to my saying that the man in the question had broken the law by cycling on the bridge, as that would be for a court of law to decide. On the other hand, I saw that same cyclist cycling on the eastern pavement of Plascrug avenue today (the non cycle route one. i.e. pedestrian only pavement on which cycling is unequivocally illegal), so there is really not much doubt on the issue.