- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Pedestrian zone cyclist.JPGMP calls for “three strikes and you’re out” rule for pavement cyclists
A Conservative MP says that anti-social cyclists who ride on the pavement should be subject to a “three strikes and you’re out” regime after which they are fined the value of their bike – and have it impounded if they don’t cough up. As one of the people who helps decide the country’s laws, though, he perhaps should have boned up on the legal situation first.
Stewart Jackson, who has represented Peterborough since 2005, acknowledges in his Westminster Life column for local newspaper Peterbrough Today that it's “a pretty cycle friendly city, with its many miles of cycle routes, commitment to sustainable transport, as recognised by Central Government and aspirations to be the Environment Capital of the UK. So far, so good. What’s not to like?”
Quite a lot, it turns out.
“Well,” he continues, “the slightly superior and arrogant attitude of some hard core cyclists, who really don’t believe that basic roadcraft rules and conventions and the Highway Code really applies to them.”
Mr Jackson says his eyes were opened to the strength of feeling about people who ride on the pavement at a local Police and Community Neighbourhood Panel where he found people “were seriously irritated, annoyed, crazy, mad” about them.
He goes on: “People say, ‘it’s Eastern Europeans who don’t understand the rules of the road....’ but it isn’t. Young men and women, older men and women, students, council workers, parents with kids....yes, they all ride on the pavement at speed and really couldn’t give a monkey’s what you think about it or about your safety and security as a pedestrian and the fact that you might have babies and toddlers with you.”
The MP adds that the police “don’t seem that bothered either, despite the fact that a criminal offence is being committed and the law is seemingly being flouted with immunity.”
While cycling on the footway is illegal under Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, amended by Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888, the situation of enforcement is less cut and dried than the politician seems to believe, as a look at Bike Hub’s excellent Cycling and the Law article reveals.
Earlier this year, transport minister Robert Goodwill said in a letter to Donnachadh McCarthy of the campaign group Stop Killing Cyclist that Home Office guidance first issued in 1999 by former Home Office minister Paul Boateng which told police to use their discretion was still valid.
The latter had written to senior police officers to say: “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.”
Following Mr Goodwill’s reiteration of that guidance this year, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) repeated its support of the Mr Boateng’s 1999 letter, saying: “We welcome the re-issued guidance from the Minister for Cycling in respect of cycling on the pavement and have re-circulated this to all local forces.”
Back in Peterborough, Mr Jackson acknowledges that “of course there are some diligent, law abiding and respectful cyclists and I absolve them of my ire and collective opprobrium.
“But what about the “couldn’t give a damn” crew, who whizz round the corner on your street risking life and limb (yours, not their’s),” he asks.
Here’s his novel solution:“Well, how about three strikes and you’re out? Caught three times cycling on the pavement, they would have their cycles confiscated and unless they paid the full value of the cycle, it would be either destroyed or given to a charity. We’d soon have pavements for pedestrians and a little more mutual respect.”
He concludes: “Over to you Peterborough City Council. A bye law needs updating...”
Except it doesn’t. The fixed penalty notice for riding on the pavement, currently £30, is set out in Section 51 and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 – and since that comes down to the Secretary of State; perhaps Mr Jackson needs to have a word with one of his Parliamentary colleagues instead?
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- ktache 4 hours 6 min ago
The people at Hexlox have asked me to tell others about their black Friday deals, but I don't quite know what the offer is yet. But saving anything...
- Freddy56 4 hours 16 min ago
Would love to know if anyone else thinks the army green winter jackets are actually better than black to hide the cyclist profile in low light?
- momove 4 hours 24 min ago
You two are going to have to help out the undereducated here!...
- VIPcyclist 4 hours 49 min ago
Whilst I was reading this I was thinking : sounds familiar, yep, that's right . Then I read the bit about being referred for a fitness to drive and...
- Dnnnnnn 5 hours 2 min ago
I'm unclear how simply considering the views of people who travel through an area is voting for rat-runs. No need to explain though.
- David9694 6 hours 1 min ago
When you don't know for sure what the whinge would be if this work was postponed to January, but you know there would be one:...
- biking59boomer 6 hours 42 min ago
Sadly the cyclist hate in this country seems to have worsened of late. Dangerous motoring combined with anti-cycling officialdom in some places is...
- Cyclo1964 9 hours 14 min ago
Brilliant 🤣
Add new comment
52 comments
Whilst I don't see pavement cycling as a big issue I would like to see greater clarity on the rules.
As it stands we're told that we shouldn't be on the pavement as a rule, but it might be OK if the roads are too scary and that the police should exercise discression. This approach is based totally on subjectivity, let's have some simple and transparent rules that we can all follow.
I've said it before but I maintain that the increased prevelance of shared use 'pavements' and pavement cycle lanes has confused this issue by reinforcing the idea that bikes should not be on the road.
must be missing something, this looks fine to me. unless you want a good whinge about ’why just us’?
I see where you're coming from but the idea of having to pay the value of your bike as a fine is ridiculous. If there's going to be a fine it should be the same for everyone.
I'm all for better enforcement of the rules, but on the other hand it's not even clear what the rules are.
Exactly, they'd never go as far as proposing the same for a driver of a car/van/lorry/bus.
It's a minor infringement and should be on a level of fine with minor motoring offences.
I've sent it on to my local MP, also a conservative to see what he thinks. I was thinking about sending on to the PM office and suggest that it's used for the next conservative poster campaign.
"Vote Conservative, we really couldn't give a toss about your tedious views on any subject."
It's what I'd always suspected but it's nice to have it confirmed.
I sent an e-mail to this mp regarding his idea and got a brilliant reply last night. Now, I admit my views on his theft of public money might have been strong, but I still think his reply was great, give it was from his official e-mail account.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "JACKSON, Stewart"
Date: 20 September 2014 23:31:08 BST
To:
Subject: Re: Cycling
Unless you're a constituent, I really couldn't give a toss about your tedious views on any subject.
Yours
Stewart Jackson
MP for Peterborough
Telephone: 0207 219 5046
Email: stewart.jackson.mp [at] parliament.uk
Write: House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
Website: www.stewartjackson.org.uk
Twitter: @SJacksonMP
A strong and independent voice for Peterborough
On 20 Sep 2014, at 16:42, wrote:
Hello Mr Jackson.
Your recent comments regarding cycling have been widely reported in the cycling media, I'm sure that was part of your aim. I would like to say as a keen cyclist that I would totally support your idea of "3 strikes" and your out, if you were to extend this to motor vehicles who in brake the rules also. Motor vehicles as I'm sure you know kill and seriously injury in excess of 2500 people year, cyclist don't cause anywhere near those kind of problems. This would go a long to improving people's safety on the roads and make it more likely that cyclist would feel safe there too and less likely to be on the pavement.
But, I'm sure you would never suggest the same for motorist as that would hit the core Tory voter.
All that being said, I had a brief google of your name before sending you this e-mail, and I was shock and disgusted to see the article below. You appear to be just another nasty Tory on the take from the hard working tax payers of this country. You are a far bigger problem to this country than any pavement cyclist will ever be.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/expenses-watchdog-takes-ac...
Shame on you.
"Unless you're a constituent, I really couldn't give a toss about your tedious views on any subject."
That nicely sums up the average MPs attitude to all voters
Speechless, at the rudeness and arrogance of even a conservative MP.
I would for the hell of it lodge an official complaint to the party about the reply.
I NEVER cycle on the pavement - the bleddy cars get in the bleddy way!!!!!
When perambulating as a pedestrian I always carry a cheap umbrella; legislation and the pursuit of enforcement can never be as effective a deterrent as the salutary and immediately humbling result provided by the judicious and timely conjunction of spokes and gamp. I do, however, accept that the resultant collateral damage to innocent bystanders may not be entirely congruent with the public-spirited nature of the intervention.
Disclaimer: Although prepared, I have never implemented this course of action nor, indeed, found occasion to do so.
Did he really say: “Over to you Peterborough City Council. A bye law needs updating...”
Because the word is "by-law", with or without the hyphen.
I can forgive that in the average punter or sign-writer but an MP who deals with this sort of thing a little more frequently really should know better.
The pavement is a good place to start cycling, whether you're a child or an adult.
If you're against cycling on the pavement then you're effectively against cycling.
I cycle on the roads now, I spent years cycling considerately on the pavement, if that option wasn't available then I wouldn't be a cyclist.
So why do many cyclists ride on pavements?
1) they simply ride how and where they like, at times this attitude may not be in line with good social harmony.
2) they've been scared off the roads by poor traffic planning and the attitude of British drivers and ride where they feel safe.
3) they're kids, let them.
And, 'MP in daft attention-grabbing idea shocker' ..
Don't quite see what all the fuss is about - three strikes is a brilliant idea when applied to MPs and their expenses.
You get an indication of the calibre of Jackson MP from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/expenses-watchdog-takes-ac...
MP Jackson wants this 3 strikes for cyclist, I'm happy for that only when he gets it through to ALL forms of transport no matter what its used for! bus driver flouts the law 3x, bus confiscated til firm pays for it to get back. same for ALL car drivers whether its parking on pavement, in ASL, RLJ or speeding . 3x & you loose your car, doesnt matter you need it or not.
So Mr high & mighty MP Jackson, are you happy to loose your car when you flout the law 3x no matter how insignificant you think it is?
This would be more acceptable... IF the roads were safe and reasonable places to ride a bicycle. For many people they most certainly are not!
Even experienced cyclists avoid routes based on perceived risk or previous incidents; many people would like to ride but are too scared to ride in traffic:
"Half of Britons say local roads too dangerous for cycling in BBC poll"
http://road.cc/content/news/122068-half-britons-say-local-roads-too-dang...
I don't know even one driver who would say this about driving to work, school or the shops. It is a crime that this is perpetuated (and reinforced by dreadful driver behaviour) every day all over the country.
Swivel-eyed - strike one!
Brain-dead - strike two!
Fuck-wit - you'rrre out!!
While I too dislike cars parking on the pavement it isn't illegal, except in London. Locally our police will only take action if a car on the pavement is causing an obstruction, i.e. Pedestrians or mobility scooter cannot pass it safely, but in reality they don't even take action then.
I do like the three strikes idea for road users though, it sounds like a good idea for a new campaign! The brain dead Tory might not have realised it but he has started a movement that will radically improve road safety.
That depends on the road markings. You can't for example drive over double yellow lines and park on the pavement. Unless of course you switch on you hazard lights which makes it fine to park anywhere it seems.
no you're right its not illegal to park on the pavement, but it is illegal to drive onto the pavement, to have got there, so unless youve used some kind of tow truck/drone to drop you in place, youve driven on the pavement.
but as people say we already have a 4 strike rule for road users, it doesnt seem to make a heckuva lot of difference if we cant even ban road users above 12pts.
At the risk of incurring your wrath. I believe he is speaking specifically about Bridge Street in Peterborough. If is he I 100% agree with him.
This is a pedestrianised shopping street which is very busy. Some people who aren't cyclists as we would define the word, whizz down there at high speed on a Saturday afternoon tutting at the likes of me with a push chair trying to get in the shops.
Peterborough has some splendid roads and cycle ways. This link into the city centre is a gap in that quality routing.
In my S. Cambridgeshire village the only cyclists regularly using the roads are lycra-clad roadies like myself. Just about everyone else, from kids on their way to school to pensioners out shopping, rides on the pavement. Why? Because they're too scared of the cars, vans and lorries racing around to use the roads.
If they want to fine cyclists for riding on the pavement, they should do the same for cars that park on pavements, because you have to drive on them to park on them.
Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, amended by Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888.
This applies to the fact that there are road restrictions yellow lines etc. If there are no road markings then you can ride on the pavement. In fact you can even drive a car on the pavement as long as you don't put at risk other road users.
Source Metropolitan Bike squad and Local police once they had gened up on it all. They didn't like me cycling my 5 year old son home on the pavement by bike.
The bottom line is that all road users need to feel comfortable and if cyclist on pavement causes anxiety or problems then they should move to the road. I personally I don't like cycling on the pavement as it too complicated but you do get people riding skateboards, roller skate's and the like on pavements. Are these people meant to ride on the road as well. Technically there is no difference between a longboard and bike Both are man made vehicles propelled by human leg power. Just a thought.
You know on Drunkcyclist when they post a picture of a cyclist's arse it's always prettier than that.
I feel this would be draconian and unfair. I also feel that if an MP has fiddled their expenses over three consecutive years, then they should be sacked. Three strikes and all that.
I think his morals are a little lacking -
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority had launched legal action to recover £54,000 from Stewart Jackson, who claimed taxpayer cash to pay mortgage interest on a property in his constituency.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/01/expenses-mp_n_4881417.html
Perhaps we can adopt a three strikes and your out approach for ridiculous MP's.
Only problem as I see it ... There will be very few left!
Maybe not such a problem after all..
Meh, same old shit.
MP hasn't had his name in the paper for a while.
MP wants to look "pro-active" and "caring for the constituency"
MP comes up with easy soundbite to generate a few column inches and some free publicity.
Usual thing - pick on an easy target so you just pick the most relevant one out of things like:
littering, public transport, local health service, local amenities, cycling
Mould your pro-active "be seen to be doing something" approach accordingly to tell your constituents that you're representing them at the highest level and please can they all vote for you again.
Minor things like facts and legal frameworks don't really come into it although it helps if you can trot out some "focus group" that you've attended as that shows that you've listened to your valued constituents and their bigoted nimby-ism.
To be fair I think Motorists are being held to a similar rule, i.e. injure or kill 3 cyclists and you're out.
“Well,” he continues, “the slightly superior and arrogant attitude of some hard core car drivers, who really don’t believe that basic roadcraft rules and conventions and the Highway Code really applies to them.”
Just amended what he meant to say
Pages