- 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
Shared use path sign (image: jpennycook via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0)“Shared-use path” signs to be put up after pedestrian’s “resentment” towards cyclist using pavement led to manslaughter
Several changes are being planned for cycle paths in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, including putting up signs indicating “shared-use path” and updating the town's cycle maps, after a 77-year-old cyclist was killed by a pedestrian angered by her “presence” on the pavement.
Cambridgeshire County Council is seeking funding for the improvements on Walden Road, Castle Moat Road and Hartford Road, along the ring-road, including putting up more signs to indicate that the path is for shared use by pedestrians and cyclists alike.
Updated cycle maps would also be published on the council’s website. Printed versions of the maps would also be distributed locally to libraries, community centres and bike shops, reports Cambridgeshire Live.
The council also said there would be longer-term plans, including a review of the status of the whole ring road and links to the cycle network in Huntingdon through to the city centre.
Auriol Grey, aged 49, was sentenced to three years in prison, for aggressively confronting Celia Ward, a 77-year-old cyclist who was riding on the pavement, causing her to be killed after she fell into the path of an oncoming vehicle.
> Remove conflict between cyclists and pedestrians, urge campaigners in wake of manslaughter case
At the hearing at Peterborough Crown Court last month, there was some confusion as to whether the path was a pavement or a shared footpath and cycling route, with the Cambridgeshire Constabulary unable to “categorically” ascertain whether Mrs Ward had been cycling on a shared use path.
While the council said it had never been signed as shared use and did not appear on bike maps as a cycle route, the judge later concluded in his sentencing remarks that it was a shared facility. The judge also told her she was “territorial about the pavement" and “resented” the presence of the cyclist.
CCTV footage shared by the Constabulary showed Grey, who has cerebral palsy and is partially sighted, shouting at Mrs Ward, described by her widower as an “experienced and competent cyclist,” to “get off the f*ck*ng pavement.”
Grey left the scene before the arrival of the emergency services and went to a supermarket to do her shopping. She was arrested the next day, and claimed that Mrs Ward had been cycling “at high speed” and that she was “anxious I was going to get hit by it,” so “flinched out” with her left arm to protect herself.”
The case had drawn national attention after an article in the Spectator was published claiming that cyclists have “been given licence to ride on the pavement”. However, it was lambasted by cyclists as “ill-informed”, “barely-disguised hatred” and “using such a tragic offence to seed hatred against cyclists”.
One person on social media wrote: “Reading this article, it's hard to believe someone died as a result. What a terrible take and a disgusting piece.”
Cycling and disability rights campaign groups also reacted to the incident, urging for highways authorities to remove conflict between cyclists and pedestrians.
Camcycle, the cycling campaign group for Cambridgeshire and the UK’s largest cycling campaign group outside London, said that action was urgently needed in locations where there is “unnecessary conflict” between cyclists and pedestrians if Vision Zero targets are to be met.
It said after the sentencing: “It highlights a situation in which people walking and cycling were placed in unnecessary conflict next to a busy road of fast-moving motor vehicles. Cambridgeshire County Council has committed to reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads to zero by 2040, but reports published this week show that it is not currently on target to meet this goal.”
Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after completing his masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Cymru, and also likes to write about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.
Latest Comments
- eburtthebike 4 hours 57 min ago
Well, it is humanity's defining characteristic: better get used to it.
- hawkinspeter 5 hours 48 min ago
I would've thought that the alternative to weaving between pedestrians is riding into them. It sounds like a catch-all reason as they can simply...
- hawkinspeter 5 hours 56 min ago
They don't make them like they used to
- ktache 6 hours 31 min ago
Lovely paint job, and the concealed thru axle end is a nice touch, but that frame, and I'm not casting aspersions on anyone who will ride them...
- LongitudeLatitude 6 hours 46 min ago
Thanks for using my picture of chocolate in your opening picture. The original can be found here, chocolate! | LongitudeLatitude | Flickr.
- lesterama 7 hours 13 min ago
Fair comments. I'll put my hands up and say I got the wrong end of the stick with this one. ¡Feliz navidad! Here's a pic for the season of goodwill.
- Mike Holmes 7 hours 18 min ago
A trip down memory lane (or street) for me - Harry Quinn's bike shop was at the top of our Street and I used to spend time staring at the bikes and...
- Bigtwin 7 hours 33 min ago
Because people aren't buying those cars. They are effecively renting them on PCPs or via companies. The bike market doesn't work like that.
Add new comment
65 comments
Leaving aside the stupidly ageist part of your comment, if it were the case that she was not pushed but the pedestrian's behaviour startled Mrs Ward to the extent that that she fell into the road, that would still be manslaughter. However, the police, the CPS, the witness, the jury (presumably), the judge, the Court of Appeal and indeed the clear evidence of the video all agree that there was physical contact.
Is it equally not stupid to dismiss her age as a factor in this? It's not ageist to suggest that because of her age, she may have reacted in a different way to a teenager for example.
Why? I mean - yes - this article is pretty much copy-paste from other reporting so "lazy" in that sense. However I think they've tried to cover the topic from various angles and viewpoints and a modicum of context. And this is a cycling site. Just disagreeing with the reported opinions or "facts" from elsewhere doesn't make this one sloppy .
What would you improve?
I agree with Rendell on this one. I'm not aware of evidence that the cyclist didn't try to pass carefully.
Once again the real issue is (as the article notes others saying) councils and authorities needlessly creating conflict between people cycling and people walking by prioritising space for drivers and making inadequate provision for others. Quite often inadequate provision for people on foot alone - which they then sign (or not ...) and say "shared use".
However people have learned to tolerate cars passing at close distance at e.g. 30 mph but are worried by or can even become aggressive towards cyclists "in their space". Cycling has declined so much it is "rare" and very salient - and meanwhile there is very little space available that's not filled with motor vehicles.
As noted above - that is "like" but not the same as a car vs. cyclist case. Both parties were vulnerable here. Again we should always be considerate. But I'm not aware that a stranger cycling towards her could have assessed her learning disability and degree of visual impairment (and judged that this might have required even more caution) as they did so.
The first - absolutely, people should feel safe. That's why we should be campaigning for proper cycling infra - so people on foot, in wheelchairs, pushing children, with visual impairment etc. can proceed efficiently and conveniently in safety.
The second - in the end unless we start getting many more people out of cars we all lose out (even drivers). As always "too many cars" most affects those who can't drive or need to use taxis etc. I certainly agree that we need to go about this very carefully. So "shared use" should be almost last on the list. However simply saying "cyclists must stop if a pedestrian objects, even where they can pass safely" is definitely not going to help reduce car use.
Cycling on footpaths:
Advice is not Law.
Until the Law is changed to allow cycling on footpaths, it matters not one jot what the 'advice' is ... you can still get prosecuted.
Does anyone have a link on the NPCC website for this advice ... or would you just quote it by rote to an officer and immediately expect them to know it.
Is this advice also valid in other dominions of the UK? Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own Police Services, so is this advice universally applied?
https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/support-for-police-discretion-when-responding-to-people-cycling-on-the-pavement
But you're right, it's a discretion. Police Scotland appears to be a NPCC member, but not NI.
Cheers Quiff.
Reading through the comments on this thread, the advice is being banded about like it is set in stone ... and a cast iron guarantee.
It appears to be forgotten that Laws tump Advice.
But ... its not unique to us cyclists.
It's a little bit different in Scotland, as the law there is far more specific about not cycling on a footway. I think it also forbids cycling on a footpath.
In England, it's an old law about not driving a carriage on a footway by the side of a road. Doesn't mention bicycles at all (clearly wasn't aimed at bicycles at the time either). So cycling on a footpath away from the road is not illegal as it is in Scotland (unless there is a specific bylaw).
The law around cycling on footways is slightly more modern in Scotland, but as far as I can tell the English law is perfectly clear enough.
Away from footways though you've got it completely the wrong way - "footpaths" don't exist in Scotland anymore, with the Land Reform (Scotland) Act giving cyclists the right to access pretty much all paths away from roads.
Police officers have considerable discretion, so of course it matters.
It's little wonder that most people don't know or understand the laws around the use of footways, when even in articles discussing it, the use of language is grossly inaccurate:
"path was a pavement or a shared footpath and cycling route"
1. By path you mean footway. A footway is the correct generic name for paths/pavements/footpaths etc.
2. Legally, a pavement is any paved public highway/byway. The A1 is a pavement.
3. You can't share a footpath. By definition, a footpath is solely for the use of pedestrians.
4. You failed to explain that there is no legal requirement to sign post the usage of a footway. Most people erroneously believe that if there is no sign, then you can not cycle on it. This is not the case because the law states that there is no requirement to place any signs either to indicate that the footway is a footpath, a shared footway, a cycle path, a segregated footway or a BOAT.
If you don't correctly explain what the laws are, people can't understand the issue(s). There was no confusion about whether it was a shared footway. That was established, in law and registered at the council. There was ignorance by the attacker that it was a shared footway and ignorance that no signs are legally required to indicate that it is.
The rule of thumb is footways are next to a road, footpaths are not. Cycling on footways is a criminal issue, on footpaths it's a civil one. I think part of the legal issue with the Auriol Grey case was that there *was* a sign, but it was up the road, so the confusion was whether this footway was near enough to that sign to still count as shared one and the judge ruled it did.
Could you expand your point 4? I'm interested where you get that from. In practice though, it's a fair working assumption that if there is no shared use sign, you shouldn't cycle on it. [Edited to add that, of course, there is national police guidance that considerate pavement cycling should not be enforced against]
Also, not sure how you conclude this was a shared footway registered at the council, given that the council was unable to confirm.
Happy to be corrected, but I am pretty sure that is not correct (or is a US definition, not a UK one).
Given your post is entirely about the accuracy of language, it is remarkable how much you got wrong.
1) Given the legal status of the "path" in question is uncertain, it would be inappropriate to use a legally defined term such as footway. "Footway" is not a generic term - footway specifically applies to the portion of a highway, which also consists of a carriageway, over which there is right of way by foot only. "Shared footway" is a legal oxymoron - a footway is never shared; the legal term for a shared use path is a cycle track (this term applies whether or not there is also a right of way on foot).
2) To the best of my knowledge, the term "pavement" has no legal meaning - it is certainly not defined in any of the main pieces of legislation. (I did find an obscure and repealed piece of legislation relating to dog fouling, in which "pavement" was used to mean a footway).
3) If it's a footpath, then only pedestrians have a right of way. There is no legal prohibition against cyclists using footpaths - although doing so may be considered trespass (a civil tort) if done without the landowner's permission. But with the landowner's permission, it would be entirely possible to share a footpath.
The most relevant piece of legislation is the Highways Act 1980 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/contents) but see also the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
Hoo now .....
This case and the general yattering fest of cyclist vs pedestrian is yet another fine distraction from the basic issue, which is that motorised hooligans have effectively annexed the roads to themselves, crowing everyone else on to their parking pavements.
If Toryspiv wish (and they do) to employ the cyclist as a scapegoat, pariah and general witchlike entity for plebs to persecute, thereby gathering pleb-vote by the millions as economics and the predations of The New Model Aristocracy are forgotten in favour of policies to divide, conquer then punish the not-motoring ...... well .... they've once more succeeded.
Peds vs cyclists - see 'em cut each other up and thumbs down to any survivors! Bring in the new laws to severely curtail the evil nuisance of two wheels and two legs, cluttering up the raceways and parking spots! Let loose the vigilante-cars with feersum enjins, to squish any bluddy cyclo-peds who escape the new justice!!
You're veering into Iain M Banks territory now
...with just a hint of James Joyce
Glad I'm not the only one to struggle through that. (Easier than some of Irving Welsh's oevre though IIRC).
I think there's a balance here between providing off road facilities for cyclists who may not feel comfortable riding on the road, and signposting them correctly so pedestrians are aware there may be cyclists, and ensuring that cyclists who want to use the road aren't expected by drivers to use the shared cycle facilities.
On one hand you can be yelled at by pedestrians for using the shared path, and on the other you can be yelled at by drivers for not using it. Putting a sign up doesn't make the pavement fit for purpose as a cycle route.
I was on a shared path recently going across Hampstead Heath. I always cycle really slowly and give people space. Anyway, this bloke shouts after me - 'no cycling'. So I stopped, turned around and replied 'this is a shared path'. He thought about it for a second and replied 'yes, you are correct, I'm really sorry please accept my apologies etc. He was genuinely apologetic. Sometimes I think people just shoot their mouths off as soon as they see someone on a bike. It's as if they are programmed to do so by endless negative media reporting or something.
Some paths on Hampstead Heath are marked no cycling. He may just have forgotten which one he was on. But yes, shout first think later is prevalent.
I had the "resentment" attack a few weeks back on a shared use path near Epping Forest. At a slight pinch point where a lamppost was situated on the cycle side of the white line the person walking towards me informed me that he resented me squeezing the space as I passed, informing me that I should have moved onto the road. I had even slowed down and smiled as I passed and we were both clearly not in any remote danger of causing physical conflict.
When pointing this out he continued with on the resentment angle at which point I asked him if he just resented cyclists per se, at which juncture he glanced at my bike and said he had two of the same brand (relatively unlikely as my bike was custom built and not a mainstream brand).
Just quite weird and unnecessary but obviously his "resentment meter" was in the red that morning.
I cycle through Southampton common fairly often and it's the place where I've experienced more of this kind of incident than anywhere else. From being yelled at by dog walkers standing around having a chat while their dogs run around everywhere, to having to emergency stop because I noticed the long dog lead stretched across the path - one man aggressively asked why he shouldn't be using a long lead - to which I replied that if my bike got caught in it I would drag his dog along the path and strangle it until I could stop.
Then there are the large groups of walkers, generally found on a Sunday afternoon, who stretch across the entire path and refuse to give way, then shout at me for riding too close.
I always give plenty of notice of my presence by ringing my bell and always give a friendly wave and a thanks to people who acknowledge me.
I thought it was getting a bit autumnal today, but...
Argh! Stop with the "sign it better" already! Never mind this sad case (as others said likely signs irrelevant) as I've discovered even very clear signs and courtesy don't stop pedestrians hating on the few cyclists.
(This is the flip side of "bloody cyclists, on our roads, getting in our way then 'undertaking'.")
Cheap version of the Sir Humphrey "get stuffed" - let's declare we plan to have a review, in due course...
In the absence of proof of the definitive status of the pavement as either footway or shared path, any accusation that the cyclist was at fault for cycling there is likely not to be enforceable on appeal. Moreover, multiple government ministers across parties have reinforced the 'advice' to ACPO/NPCC is not to prosecute cyclists on the footway who are otherwise cycling considerately.
However, whether the path was a footway or a shared path is a red herring. It was not within the pedestrian's gift to enforce the matter to the extent that she put another person's life at risk for an unreasonably perceived fear.
Can anyone clear up the legal process of designating a footway as a shared use cycle track? Surely there is some legal process and subsequent record of any such designation? This reads like the council still don't actually know whether or not that section of path is shared use or not, but they are going to put up signs anyway and hope it helps.
Maybe when they did the legislation they didn't say "this footway" and "that footway" but said "the section coloured green" and then only included a greyscale copy of the map...
In terms of the legality, a highway authority (i.e. the council in this case) can turn any footpath/footway into shared use as they deem fit. Only if it crosses agricultural land is any sort of approval needed.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/38/data.html
So no 'traffic regulation' order or any sort required. I doubt there's a record kept like there is for public rights of way. When looking at our councils mapping toolset, shared use paths are just simply marked as adopted highway; the same as the road.
My understanding of the process, having enquired to my local council about this, is that there is a specific instrument that is used to declare this. Specifically, the local authority should apply an order under section 27 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. So there should be a clear bit of paperwork delineating this. Unless the wording, diagrams and general description on the paperwork wasn't exactly clear on where this shared use path began and ended.
Shared use path is a specific category of highway, like pavement, dual carriageway, bridlepath etc. It has legal meaning. Hence sections of the highway code that specifically refer to these shared use paths.
Pages