Cyclists DO have the right of way on UK pavements, it seems

[Bangkok Barry]

Not directly Thai related, except that it involves the often-seen riding a bike on the pavement/sidewalk. In the UK a woman has been jailed for protesting exactly that, which led to the death of the cyclist. Interesting to us 'sufferers' here.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436?at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_origin=BBC_News&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_format=link&at_link_id=A4A40CA0-B902-11ED-B634-78643AE5AB7B&at_link_type=web_link&at_medium=social&at_ptr_name=facebook_page&at_campaign_type=owned

[Bluespunk]

The cyclist had the right to use the path in this situation because of the nature of the road it ran alongside.

 

"the pavement was 2.4 metres wide where the accident happened, and it was a “shared path on the ring road”.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/02/pedestrian-jailed-manslaughter-cyclist-fall-car-huntingdon

[proton]

5 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The cyclist had the right to use the path in this situation because of the nature of the road it ran alongside.

 

"the pavement was 2.4 metres wide where the accident happened, and it was a “shared path on the ring road”.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/02/pedestrian-jailed-manslaughter-cyclist-fall-car-huntingdon

No such thing as a shared path unless indicated, cyclists should be on the road and not the pavement, they are a pest. When they have killed pedestrians I cannot remember any getting a prison sentence. If they are too scared to ride on a road they should walk. Hopefully this injustice will be over turned on appeal, at worst it was an accident.

[Bluespunk]

9 minutes ago, proton said:

No such thing as a shared path unless indicated, cyclists should be on the road and not the pavement, they are a pest. When they have killed pedestrians I cannot remember any getting a prison sentence. If they are too scared to ride on a road they should walk. Hopefully this injustice will be over turned on appeal, at worst it was an accident.

The pathway was a shared one as the article makes clear.

 

Please post proof to back up your implication that this was not indicated for this particular pathway.

[proton]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

The pathway was a shared one as the article makes clear.

 

Please post proof to back up tour implication that this was not indicated for this particular pathway.

Please post proof they changed the law, if not indicated as a shared path there is no right for a cyclist to be on a pavement.

[Bluespunk]

Just now, proton said:

Please post proof they changed the law, if not indicated as a shared path there is no right for a cyclist to be on a pavement.

From the OP linked article

 ''in his sentencing remarks Judge Sean Enright said it was a shared cycleway''

 

Your turn...

[metisdead]

Moving to the UK & Europe Topics and Events forum. 

[MartinL]

This place can be easily found in Google Earth - search "Huntingdon Sainsbury's".

 

Incident date 2020, GE dated 9/21.

 

From the OP's link, " ...  police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway

Cambridgeshire County Council subsequently reiterated that ,,, ".

 

If neither police nor local authority - who authorise these traffic arrangements - can definitely say it's shared, then it's likely it wasn't shared, whatever the judge said. I don't see how the judge can say it WAS shared when neither police nor council can confirm.

 

No markings on the pathway, no signage indicating a shared cycleway, either in the immediate vicinity or for some distance in either direction on that side of the road - although that might have changed as a result of this case. On the opposite side, in both directions, there IS a sign indicating shared use but that doesn't apply here.

 

This report says the pedestrian, Auriol Grey, has cerebral palsy and is partially sighted and she can be seen in the video to be awkward on her feet. Doesn't she have the right to use the pathway without being threatened by cyclists?

 

Maybe Mrs. Ward wasn't riding aggressively but many cyclists do on pavements and perhaps Ms. Grey had learnt to 'strike first' when approached by a cyclist on the pathway to avoid problems for herself.

 

Still a tragic case but the death of the cyclist doesn't warrant a 3 year sentence for the pedestrian.

 

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

I'm not sure that the status of the pavement has much to do with the manslaughter charges, although I will defer to those with legal training or experience.

 

Even if the cyclist was on a pedestrian-only pavement, I don't think that would excuse deliberate actions by a pedestrian that result in the death, however unintentional, of the cyclist. 

[KhaoNiaw]

1 hour ago, MartinL said:

This report says the pedestrian, Auriol Grey, has cerebral palsy and is partially sighted and she can be seen in the video to be awkward on her feet. Doesn't she have the right to use the pathway without being threatened by cyclists?

 

Maybe Mrs. Ward wasn't riding aggressively but many cyclists do on pavements and perhaps Ms. Grey had learnt to 'strike first' when approached by a cyclist on the pathway to avoid problems for herself.

 

Still a tragic case but the death of the cyclist doesn't warrant a 3 year sentence for the pedestrian.

 

Or you could say that Ms. Grey was the one who acted aggressively and used expletives towards a 77-year old woman, who maybe wasn't riding aggressively. I didn't hear the evidence presented to say which side seems to have been the case here. But the court and judge heard the evidence and made a ruling based on that. 

[proton]

1 hour ago, MartinL said:

This place can be easily found in Google Earth - search "Huntingdon Sainsbury's".

 

Incident date 2020, GE dated 9/21.

 

From the OP's link, " ...  police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway

Cambridgeshire County Council subsequently reiterated that ,,, ".

 

If neither police nor local authority - who authorise these traffic arrangements - can definitely say it's shared, then it's likely it wasn't shared, whatever the judge said. I don't see how the judge can say it WAS shared when neither police nor council can confirm.

 

No markings on the pathway, no signage indicating a shared cycleway, either in the immediate vicinity or for some distance in either direction on that side of the road - although that might have changed as a result of this case. On the opposite side, in both directions, there IS a sign indicating shared use but that doesn't apply here.

 

This report says the pedestrian, Auriol Grey, has cerebral palsy and is partially sighted and she can be seen in the video to be awkward on her feet. Doesn't she have the right to use the pathway without being threatened by cyclists?

 

Maybe Mrs. Ward wasn't riding aggressively but many cyclists do on pavements and perhaps Ms. Grey had learnt to 'strike first' when approached by a cyclist on the pathway to avoid problems for herself.

 

Still a tragic case but the death of the cyclist doesn't warrant a 3 year sentence for the pedestrian.

 

Traffic act 1865 states bikes should not be on the pavement, never been repealed so that should be that. Is seems like the rider was headed directly at the pedestrian, as many do to intimidate them. Law says no, needs to be over turned and not left to opinion and confusion about if it is shared or not. The Barristers view:

 

 

[proton]

8 minutes ago, KhaoNiaw said:

Or you could say that Ms. Grey was the one who acted aggressively and used expletives towards a 77-year old woman, who maybe wasn't riding aggressively. I didn't hear the evidence presented to say which side seems to have been the case here. But the court and judge heard the evidence and made a ruling based on that. 

She was headed directly at her, how is that not riding aggressively?

[KhaoNiaw]

49 minutes ago, proton said:

She was headed directly at her, how is that not riding aggressively?

No idea. I couldn't really see from the video how aggressively the 77-year old was riding. I was repeating what the poster I replied to said. Certainly the 49-year old behaved aggressively. All the evidence went before a court and a judgement was made. I'd imagine sentence will be reduced on appeal anyway and could even be overturned if a higher court takes a different view of the evidence. 

[Chomper Higgot]

15 hours ago, proton said:

No such thing as a shared path unless indicated, cyclists should be on the road and not the pavement, they are a pest. When they have killed pedestrians I cannot remember any getting a prison sentence. If they are too scared to ride on a road they should walk. Hopefully this injustice will be over turned on appeal, at worst it was an accident.

It’s not an injustice.

 

Even if the cyclist had no right to be on the path, the pedestrian had absolutely no right to cause her death.

 

Perhaps an examination of what’s behind her and your antagonism towards cyclists is in order.

 

 

[OJAS]

19 hours ago, MartinL said:

This place can be easily found in Google Earth - search "Huntingdon Sainsbury's".

 

Incident date 2020, GE dated 9/21.

 

From the OP's link, " ...  police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway

Cambridgeshire County Council subsequently reiterated that ,,, ".

 

If neither police nor local authority - who authorise these traffic arrangements - can definitely say it's shared, then it's likely it wasn't shared, whatever the judge said. I don't see how the judge can say it WAS shared when neither police nor council can confirm.

 

No markings on the pathway, no signage indicating a shared cycleway, either in the immediate vicinity or for some distance in either direction on that side of the road - although that might have changed as a result of this case. On the opposite side, in both directions, there IS a sign indicating shared use but that doesn't apply here.

 

This report says the pedestrian, Auriol Grey, has cerebral palsy and is partially sighted and she can be seen in the video to be awkward on her feet. Doesn't she have the right to use the pathway without being threatened by cyclists?

 

Maybe Mrs. Ward wasn't riding aggressively but many cyclists do on pavements and perhaps Ms. Grey had learnt to 'strike first' when approached by a cyclist on the pathway to avoid problems for herself.

 

Still a tragic case but the death of the cyclist doesn't warrant a 3 year sentence for the pedestrian.

 

There is a hard core of cyclists back in the UK who consider themselves completely above the law with what they feel is their God-given right to ride wherever they like and in whatever manner they choose, be this, for example, riding on pavements or jumping red lights. And whenever this attitude brings them into conflict with other road users, it is always the other road user (vehicle driver or pedestrian) who invariably finds themselves on the wrong side of the law, with the cyclist receiving a gentle rap over the knuckles if even that.

[steve187]

22 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

the pavement was 2.4 metres wide where the accident happened, and it was a “shared path on the ring road”.

the article does not say its a shared path, in fact it posted ''The trial was told that police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway.'' and '' Cambridgeshire County Council subsequently reiterated that and said it would review the location, but in his sentencing remarks Judge Sean Enright said it was a shared cycleway.'' so the judge stated it was a shared path, but against what the police and the council have stated, that must be grounds for an appeal, either the council have made it a shared path or not, signs etc should show one way or another.

[Bluespunk]

44 minutes ago, steve187 said:

the article does not say its a shared path, in fact it posted ''The trial was told that police could not "categorically" state whether the pavement was a shared cycleway.'' and '' Cambridgeshire County Council subsequently reiterated that and said it would review the location, but in his sentencing remarks Judge Sean Enright said it was a shared cycleway.'' so the judge stated it was a shared path, but against what the police and the council have stated, that must be grounds for an appeal, either the council have made it a shared path or not, signs etc should show one way or another.

And there you have it

 

“in his sentencing remarks Judge Sean Enright said it was a shared cycleway.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436?at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_origin=BBC_News&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_format=link&at_link_id=A4A40CA0-B902-11ED-B634-78643AE5AB7B&at_link_type=web_link&at_medium=social&at_ptr_name=facebook_page&at_campaign_type=owned

 

[asf6]

Here is a link to the location (Google Street View) if you'd like to see it.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3317918,-0.1797298,3a,25.2y,89.27h,82.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suHZsevnqLEn9luv7Wk_KbQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[asf6]

And interestingly, if you watch the video in this BBC report, as the reporter is making her report from the exact same location as the woman was killed, a cyclist whizzes past her in the opposite direction, and he is travelling quite fast, certainly faster than the old woman who was killed. Skip to 30s into the video. 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436

[steve187]

so not a shared path and a one way street, i think shw will win the appeal

[MartinL]

17 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

And there you have it

 

“in his sentencing remarks Judge Sean Enright said it was a shared cycleway.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64824436?at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_origin=BBC_News&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_format=link&at_link_id=A4A40CA0-B902-11ED-B634-78643AE5AB7B&at_link_type=web_link&at_medium=social&at_ptr_name=facebook_page&at_campaign_type=owned

 

The judge doesn't have the power to make that decision. It's a local authority responsibility. The local authority confirmed at trial that they are unsure of the situation in that vicinity. But no markings or signs there on that side of the road - there are a number of signs on the opposite side.

 

Having no signs on the side of the road where the incident occurred while they ARE present on the opposite side suggests that one side is a shared path while the other side is not.

[Bluespunk]

42 minutes ago, MartinL said:

The judge doesn't have the power to make that decision. It's a local authority responsibility. The local authority confirmed at trial that they are unsure of the situation in that vicinity. But no markings or signs there on that side of the road - there are a number of signs on the opposite side.

 

Having no signs on the side of the road where the incident occurred while they ARE present on the opposite side suggests that one side is a shared path while the other side is not.

Nonetheless the judge ruled it was a shared path. 

[MartinL]

59 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Nonetheless the judge ruled it was a shared path. 

Nonetheless the judge mistakenly ruled it was a shared path.

Corrected it for you.

Also, that 'ruling' was on a matter that's outside of his powers therefore invalid.

[Bluespunk]

13 minutes ago, MartinL said:

Nonetheless the judge mistakenly ruled it was a shared path.

Corrected it for you.

Also, that 'ruling' was on a matter that's outside of his powers therefore invalid.

No need to correct anything as my original statement was correct. 

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Nonetheless the judge ruled it was a shared path. 

Since the council could not locate or supply any legal documents to support the fact of a shared path, it is difficult to understand how the judge arrived at this conclusion.

[Bluespunk]

Just now, cleopatra2 said:

Since the council could not locate or supply any legal documents to support the fact of a shared path, it is difficult to understand how the judge arrived at this conclusion.

Yet they did.

[Deserted]

If he chooses to cycle on the path, he deserves everything he gets. Serves him right for showing a total lack of respect for pedestrians.