Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Crime & Legal
Infrastructure
Transport
Cyclists fined for not dismounting at Tower BridgeTower Bridge (licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 on Flickr by Davide D'Amico).jpg

Cyclists fined for not dismounting at Tower Bridge

Carriageway of iconic structure closed for repairs - though cyclists can push their bikes along the walkway
by Simon_MacMichael
Thu, Oct 06, 2016 18:36
38

Officers from City of London Police have reportedly been fining cyclists riding on the walkway at Tower Bridge, where the carriageway is currently closed to allow urgent maintenance and repairs to the 122-year-old structure and its road surface to be carried out.

Cyclists are allowed to push their bikes along the bridge’s pavements while the works, which will last until the end of the year, are carried out, but they are not allowed to ride across.

Following complaints that some people were riding bikes on the footway, the Evening Standard reports that City of London police were today issuing fixed penalty notices to cyclists who had not dismounted.

Transport for London (TfL) says it will station eight Road and Transport Enforcement Officers on the bridge – two of them at each end – while the works are ongoing, with a spokesman saying that “cyclists will not be able to get past on their bikes without being stopped.”

Information on TfL’s website about the bridge’s closure from Saturday 1 October to 30 December includes details of alternative routes for cyclists.

Tower Bridge alternative routes for cyclists.png

Those heading southbound across the river are advised to use London Bridge, while those riding in the opposite direction should use Southwark Bridge. Signs are in place on Tower Bridge itself telling cyclists to dismount.

Motor vehicles are banned from the bridge altogether, with diversions in place for the routes that cross it, and a higher than usual volume of pedestrians is anticipated during the period of the works – although it will be closed to people on foot, too, for three weekends from 26 November to 11 December.

Unmesh Desai, Labour London Assembly Member for City and East, told the Standard: “It’s really important that TfL and the Corporation challenge the minority of cyclists who are not dismounting whilst crossing the pedestrian walkway on Tower Bridge.

“I personally witnessed several cyclists weaving in and out between vulnerable pedestrians on the bridge yesterday evening and feel that there is a high risk of a serious accident unless enforcement action is taken,” he added.

Tower Bridge
City of London Police
TFL
London Cycling Campaign
Simon MacMichael

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.

Add new comment

38 comments

Avatar
bikebot replied to kil0ran | 8 years ago
5 likes
kil0ran wrote:

What constitutes riding? Wondering if you'd get away dabbing along standing on the non-drive side pedal. Bit of a tongue-in-cheek question, doubt that its defined anywhere...

Yes, it's cycling. Defined through case law. No one cares in the real world (Tower Bridge is currently operating outside the real world, in a strange space time bubble of anti-cycling schlock).

Avatar
Jitensha Oni replied to bikebot | 8 years ago
6 likes
bikebot wrote:

Yes, it's cycling. Defined through case law. No one cares in the real world (Tower Bridge is currently operating outside the real world, in a strange space time bubble of anti-cycling schlock).

Meanwhile, (as you have documented) out  in the wilds of mini-Holland Kingston-upon-Thames no-one is fining the hundreds of drivers going though the experimental no entry and no motor vehicles signs on Surbiton Crescent. One law for the 4-wheeled…

Avatar
bikebot replied to Jitensha Oni | 8 years ago
0 likes
Jitensha Oni wrote:
bikebot wrote:

Yes, it's cycling. Defined through case law. No one cares in the real world (Tower Bridge is currently operating outside the real world, in a strange space time bubble of anti-cycling schlock).

Meanwhile, (as you have documented) out  in the wilds of mini-Holland Kingston-upon-Thames no-one is fining the hundreds of drivers going though the experimental no entry and no motor vehicles signs on Surbiton Crescent. One law for the 4-wheeled…

For anyone curious, (road is closed except to buses and taxis)

https://twitter.com/bicyclebot/status/783223346683080705

 

Avatar
burtthebike replied to bikebot | 8 years ago
0 likes
bikebot wrote:
kil0ran wrote:

What constitutes riding? Wondering if you'd get away dabbing along standing on the non-drive side pedal. Bit of a tongue-in-cheek question, doubt that its defined anywhere...

Yes, it's cycling. Defined through case law. No one cares in the real world (Tower Bridge is currently operating outside the real world, in a strange space time bubble of anti-cycling schlock).

My understanding is that it is not illegal, as it is "scooting" not riding.  Would a skateboarder be stopped and fined?  It's the same thing.

Avatar
bikebot replied to burtthebike | 8 years ago
1 like
burtthebike wrote:
bikebot wrote:
kil0ran wrote:

What constitutes riding? Wondering if you'd get away dabbing along standing on the non-drive side pedal. Bit of a tongue-in-cheek question, doubt that its defined anywhere...

Yes, it's cycling. Defined through case law. No one cares in the real world (Tower Bridge is currently operating outside the real world, in a strange space time bubble of anti-cycling schlock).

My understanding is that it is not illegal, as it is "scooting" not riding.  Would a skateboarder be stopped and fined?  It's the same thing.

It's the vehicle. Case law, ie this was established in court. For once I don't think it is Crank v Brooks, and I'm not going to go digging to find it. 

For much the same reason, you can't push a motorcycle through a road filtered for bicycles.

Real world, no one cares. It takes exceptional circumstance to ever create the need to resolve these questions in court.

Edit: I lied (to myself) about the not digging. DPP v Selby.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to bikebot | 8 years ago
1 like
kil0ran wrote:

What constitutes riding? Wondering if you'd get away dabbing along standing on the non-drive side pedal. Bit of a tongue-in-cheek question, doubt that its defined anywhere...

Yes, it's cycling. Defined through case law. No one cares in the real world (Tower Bridge is currently operating outside the real world, in a strange space time bubble of anti-cycling schlock).

[/quote]

My understanding is that it is not illegal, as it is "scooting" not riding.  Would a skateboarder be stopped and fined?  It's the same thing.

[/quote]

It's the vehicle. Case law, ie this was established in court. For once I don't think it is Crank v Brooks, and I'm not going to go digging to find it. 

For much the same reason, you can't push a motorcycle through a road filtered for bicycles.

Real world, no one cares. It takes exceptional circumstance to ever create the need to resolve these questions in court.

Edit: I lied (to myself) about the not digging. DPP v Selby.

[/quote]

Thanks for the info, but the case you quote doesn't really establish that.  From London Cyclist:

"freewheeling or standing on one pedal still counts as riding. (DPP v Selby [1994] RTR 157, 162; Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441, 442-3)”

The judgement stated:

"In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a ‘foot passenger’. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a ‘foot passenger’. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand. I regard it as unarguable the finding that she was not a foot passenger "

Which isn't quite the same as saying that she was riding, a subtle point I agree, but important.  Would a skateboarder or scooter rider be accused of riding?  Not being a "foot passenger" is not the same thing as riding a bicycle.  Needs another case to prove the point.

Avatar
psling replied to burtthebike | 8 years ago
4 likes

Are people really in so much of a hurry or so lazy that they can't show just a bit of respect and walk across the damn bridge? Really? Never mind legal niceties and loopholes, just bloody walk for a little way!

And free up the police to clamp down on more important things like motoring offences...

Avatar
bikebot replied to burtthebike | 8 years ago
1 like
burtthebike wrote:

Thanks for the info, but the case you quote doesn't really establish that.  From London Cyclist:

"freewheeling or standing on one pedal still counts as riding. (DPP v Selby [1994] RTR 157, 162; Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441, 442-3)”

The judgement stated:

"In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a ‘foot passenger’. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a ‘foot passenger’. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand. I regard it as unarguable the finding that she was not a foot passenger "

Which isn't quite the same as saying that she was riding, a subtle point I agree, but important.  Would a skateboarder or scooter rider be accused of riding?  Not being a "foot passenger" is not the same thing as riding a bicycle.  Needs another case to prove the point.

 

"If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a ‘foot passenger’."

That was the ruling, not a 'foot passenger'. Someone with a bicycle who is not a foot passenger is a...?  I wouldn't recommend the skateboard defense in court. As before, it's the vehicle, however you're propelling it, which is why a motorcyclist can't push their bike through a cycle filter.  

It's Brook v Crank which is the oddity, which establishes an exception when a cyclist is considered a foot passenger even though they are propelling a bicycle (by pushing it).  The second case confirms that they are no longer a foot passenger if they have one foot on a pedal, nullifying the exception in the first case.

 

Pages

Latest Comments