A A A A
Cycling and the law
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 13th May 2008   #1
Velociodonor
 
Velocio's Avatar
Cycling and the law

Richmond Park and the 20mph limit... I asked a lawyer about this a while ago and in response to the 60 London Dynamo riders on a Saturday morning this was his view:
Quote:
Originally Posted by a lawyer
Just off the top of my head, as I don't have immediate access to an updated version of the Road Traffic Act 1988, I'd call your attention to section 29:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HMSO
If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence. In this section "road" includes a bridleway.
It's arguable that a group of 60 or more cyclists cycling together would be failing to have reasonable consideration for other persons using the road. If it were Scotland, you'd face a host of common law offences too, from breach of the peace to mobbing. I can't comment on what the English equivalents would be though. You could also have section 163(2) and (3): a person riding a cycle on a road must stop if required to do so by a constable in uniform, and commits an offence if he does not do so.

More interestingly, I thought there might be Park byelaws but it transpires that Richmond Park is a Royal Park and so it's regulated by secondary legislation instead, which is helpful as it means HMSO publishes the Regulations: The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997. They were amended in 2004 to reduce the speed limit in Richmond Park to 20 mph.

I call your attention to Regulation 3 (acts prohibited in the park), in particular:

  • Reg. 3(1) (intentionally or recklessly interfering with the safety, comfort or convenience of any person using a Park in accordance with these Regulations)
  • Reg. 3(9) (failing to comply with any direction for the regulation or control of... (a) horses or pedal cycles... given by a constable or by a notice exhibited by order of the Secretary of State)
  • Reg. 3(10) (using any pedal cycle... in any manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any person)
  • Reg. 3(16) (failing to comply with a reasonable direction given by a constable to leave a Park or any part thereof)


Regulation 3(9) is a constable's authority under the law to give directions for the regulation or control of pedal cycles. Compare this with regulation 3(16) which has to be a reasonable direction. Interestingly, the Regulations only give power to demand your name and address (reg. 5), so the police must presumably be intending to rely on sections 29 and 163 of the Road Traffic Act which allow arrest if you fail to supply that information, if I remember correctly.

On balance, I'd say the facts you described give rise to potential breaches of section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as well as the general regulation 3(1) and the more specific regulations 3(9) and (10) of the The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997, with potentially regulation 3(16) thrown in for good measure.

Breach of the RTA are punished under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988: Schedule 1 lays out the maxima, but the relevant ones are section 29 offences (level 1 i.e. 200) and section 163 offences (level 3 i.e. 1,000). I was struggling to find out how breaches of the Royal Parks Regulations were punished, but it's done under the Parks Regulation Act 1872 and the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926, section 2(1) of which provides that contravening the Regulations is an offence against the 1872 Act and is punishable by a level 1 (200) fine.

I thought they'd moved the fines levels up, but I can't see anything to show this. Anyway, have fun...! The 'just off the top of my head' bit is now wrong, as I had to log in to various things to pull up the pre-1987 legislation.
Basically you can be done for speeding in a Royal Park, and if you're stopped by a policeman it would be an offence to not do anything reasonable asked by him (i.e. slow down, or leave the park).

On consuming alcohol and cycling, I'd asserted that you couldn't be done as you weren't in charge of a motorised vehicle, but the correct answer was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by a lawyer
RTA 1988 s. 30(1) covers cycling while under the influence of drink or drugs. It provides that:

Quote:
A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence.
which is a rather less stringent test than motorists having to have less than a certain proportion of alcohol in blood. There's always still the general offences of dangerous cycling and careless and inconsiderate cycling (ss. 28 and 29) too. I've not been able to find any reported cases of prosecutions for cycling while under the influence, but the odds are that they wouldn't make it into the law reports anyway.
Which basically means you can drink providing you have retained control of your bicycle and aren't doing a murtle (as it's known).

Any other legal clarifications that we know to these kind of assumptions/questions?
  quote   reply
Old 13th May 2008   #2
finsbury pete
 
finsbury pete's Avatar
Now all we need is a bye law to stop those London Dynamo locusts from eating all the good cakes from the cafe at the top of Box Hill.
  quote   reply
Old 5th March 2009   #3
sofsof
fine

Hello,
is anybody know what could be the fine for "cycling without due care and attention" offence, in a Park path,if you are proved guilty? (section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988)
(no alcohol involved)
  quote   reply
Old 5th March 2009   #4
tricitybendix
royal park or non-royal park?
  quote   reply
Old 5th March 2009   #5
rusty
 
rusty's Avatar
I quite like the drinking laws for cycling. They're quite reasonable. As long as you're able to control the bike you're fine. I cycle home after a few pints regularly and it's good to know that it's legal. Riding drunk is always entertaining but not something I like to do if I can help it.
  quote   reply
Old 5th March 2009   #6
tynan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocio View Post
Any other legal clarifications that we know to these kind of assumptions/questions?
Yeah, the fine is 300 now (and not the 200 set in 1988) - the money (the fine) goes directly to the coffers of the Queen - plus you will need to pay the court costs if (when) you lose.

The royal family are, of course, cunts and should, in the nature of their remit, give the parks over to the tide of need of the day.
  quote   reply
Old 5th March 2009   #7
tynan
One other royal park thing . . . .

The Boardwalk in Regents is open to cyclists (as from August last year/08) until early 2010.

Little advertised, many won't know.
  quote   reply
Old 5th March 2009   #8
not4saledonor
 
not4sale's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tynan View Post
One other royal park thing . . . .

The Boardwalk in Regents is open to cyclists (as from August last year/08) until early 2010.

Little advertised, many won't know.
What happens at the end of early 2010 then ?
  quote   reply
Old 5th March 2009   #9
tynan
Quote:
Originally Posted by not4sale View Post
What happens at the end of early 2010 then ?

One of two things.

Either the Broadwalk is established as a permanent cycle route for the people of London or it reverts to an enormously wide and generally empty footpath where cyclists will be aggressively prosecuted by the police and legal system earning the owner of the park (the majestic and royal mammal known as the 'Queen') additional revenue for her family's pornographically luxurious and parasitical lifestyle.
  quote   reply
Old 6th March 2009   #10
papa44
 
papa44's Avatar
tynan. if i was loaded i'd hire you to write my biography.
  quote   reply
Old 6th March 2009   #11
hippy
 
hippy's Avatar
He's already writing* mine so you'll have to wait.


*collating my posts from various online fora, forai, forumski, foralumni
  quote   reply
Old 6th March 2009   #12
Festerban
 
Festerban's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tynan View Post
Yeah, the fine is 300 now (and not the 200 set in 1988) - the money (the fine) goes directly to the coffers of the Queen - plus you will need to pay the court costs if (when) you lose.

The royal family are, of course, cunts and should, in the nature of their remit, give the parks over to the tide of need of the day.
I have layed many a long and satisfying shit in RP, it cheers me to think that it is the queen's property, that is all
  quote   reply
Old 6th March 2009   #13
el squire
 
el squire's Avatar
Your a funny man Festerban.
  quote   reply
Old 6th March 2009   #14
grotley
could you commit an offence, say sppeding, but get off it if you explained that you are rich and famous and were in a hurry to get to the royal bogs to loiter with your trousers round your ankles whilst taking copious amounts of drugs. you could edge your bets even further if said 'trousers' were part of a nazi uniform.
worth a try?
  quote   reply
Old 6th March 2009   #15
villa-ru
 
villa-ru's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tynan View Post
One other royal park thing . . . .

The Boardwalk in Regents is open to cyclists (as from August last year/08) until early 2010.

Little advertised, many won't know.
Unless I'm turning into a mental, they only stopped that from being a cycle path last year? The sign they put up was so poorly visible (in the hedge) that the rozzers let me off a couple of times.
  quote   reply
Old 9th March 2009   #16
sofsof
fine

it was in a Royal Park
As the pedestrian got injured, if the court decided to give a Level 1 or 2 fine, could I have other fees (damage) that I have to pay to the "victim" (if he convicted the Court I was guilty of course!) (no alcohol involved her)
  quote   reply
Old 9th March 2009   #17
Clever Pun
 
Clever Pun's Avatar
I was under the impression there isn't a speed limit for cyclists unless it is specifically mentioned. a blanket 20mph is only motorised vehicles no?

I only thought that cyclists could get done for 'furious cycling' in regards to general speed limits
  quote   reply
Old 9th March 2009   #18
Oliver Schickdonor
 
Oliver Schick's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clever Pun View Post
I was under the impression there isn't a speed limit for cyclists unless it is specifically mentioned. a blanket 20mph is only motorised vehicles no?
Speed limits apply to 'mechanically propelled vehicles'. That refers to the power source, not the mechanism, so pedal cycles are excluded.

Quote:
I only thought that cyclists could get done for 'furious cycling' in regards to general speed limits
Not with regard to general speed limits. This page (which I'm sure has been posted in this thread before) explains (scroll quite far down):

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cy...nd_the_law.php

The offence is more with regard to how you comport yourself in traffic given.
  quote   reply
Old 26th March 2009   #19
mashton
 
mashton's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tynan View Post
One other royal park thing . . . .

The Boardwalk in Regents is open to cyclists (as from August last year/08) until early 2010.

Little advertised, many won't know.
BMMF has a funny story about dropping a cycle-copper on the boardwalk.

That is all.
  quote   reply
Old 26th March 2009   #20
charlie_lcc
 
charlie_lcc's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by fudge View Post
Does anyone know which part of the RTRA or RTA (or even Highway Code) refers to giving way / priority to pedestrians?

Specifically, is there anything that relates to giving way on a piece of road that has no crossing, and is not a turning?
Pedestrians have priority at zebra crossings, at light controlled crossings if they began crossing during a green phase and at road junctions when they are going in the direction of the major road.
If you hit or almost hit a pedestrian while cycling on a road you could be prosecuted for dangerous or reckless cycling, or manslaughter. Under common law pedestrians have the right to use the queen's highway except where there is a prohibition (Motorways, tunnels etc). It is always a good idea not to run into pedestrians, especially the deaf/blind ones who are texting while plugged into an ipod while crossing the road.

****
In the Royal Parks the 20mph speed limits apply to cyclists, soon they will have the power to issue fixed penalty notices, that means you are more likely to be done but you will have a lower fine and will not have to pay court costs.
  quote   reply
Old 26th March 2009   #21
PinkGottiMobbs
 
PinkGottiMobbs's Avatar
I read in the LCC magazine last night that traffic wardens will now be able to get the police to remove bikes looked up to street furnitre. Is this correct? Seeing as there are far more cyclists in London than provided places to look them up this seems a bit rediculous.
  quote   reply
Old 26th March 2009   #22
TheBrick(Tommy)
 
TheBrick(Tommy)'s Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by fudge View Post
Thanks for that. Am I right in thinking that there is not general requirement to give way, other than where specified?
If you cause an accident which you could have avoided i.e by giving way you are at fault.
  quote   reply
Old 26th March 2009   #23
charlie_lcc
 
charlie_lcc's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PinkGottiMobbs View Post
I read in the LCC magazine last night that traffic wardens will now be able to get the police to remove bikes looked up to street furnitre. Is this correct?
No, it's not going to happen. We had a great victory in the House of Lords committee. They threw out 20% of the whole bill thanks to the work of some volunteer legal experts. Story here:
http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1299
Picture shows Lucy's new Veloheld from Velorution.
  quote   reply
Old 26th March 2009   #24
PinkGottiMobbs
 
PinkGottiMobbs's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlie_lcc View Post
No, it's not going to happen. We had a great victory in the House of Lords committee. They threw out 20% of the whole bill thanks to the work of some volunteer legal experts. Story here:
http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1299
Picture shows Lucy's new Veloheld from Velorution.
Fantastic. Well done.
  quote   reply
Old 26th March 2009   #25
tynan
Quote:
Originally Posted by mashton View Post
BMMF has a funny story about dropping a cycle-copper on the boardwalk.

That is all.
We need to hear it.
  quote   reply
Old 17th October 2010   #26
TheBrick(Tommy)
 
TheBrick(Tommy)'s Avatar
Case law

Some interesting example in this case law thread, worth reading if just to see the points of vulnerability.

http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=39282.0
  quote   reply
Old 18th October 2010   #27
king
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlie_lcc View Post
Pedestrians have priority at zebra crossings, at light controlled crossings if they began crossing during a green phase and at road junctions when they are going in the direction of the major road.
If you hit or almost hit a pedestrian while cycling on a road you could be prosecuted for dangerous or reckless cycling, or manslaughter. Under common law pedestrians have the right to use the queen's highway except where there is a prohibition (Motorways, tunnels etc). It is always a good idea not to run into pedestrians, especially the deaf/blind ones who are texting while plugged into an ipod while crossing the road.

****
In the Royal Parks the 20mph speed limits apply to cyclists, soon they will have the power to issue fixed penalty notices, that means you are more likely to be done but you will have a lower fine and will not have to pay court costs.
Totally agree. I always stop at zebra crossing when I see someone crossing. But one morning, being a pedestrian myself, I got a mad woman shouting at me and telling me to say thank you to her because she stopped at the zebra crossing for me. What an idiot.
  quote   reply
Old 18th October 2010   #28
Yemble
 
Yemble's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBrick(Tommy) View Post
Some interesting example in this case law thread, worth reading if just to see the points of vulnerability.

http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=39282.0
Why does he raise "requirements for personal protection" twice? Helmets aren't mandatory. Otherwise a decent read.
  quote   reply
Old 16th September 2011   #30
Clever Pun
 
Clever Pun's Avatar
Great read, cheers for the link Hippy
  quote   reply
Old 16th September 2011   #31
hippy
 
hippy's Avatar
I haven't been reading much MT (sorry Bill) but this caught my eye. I'm glad there's justice in the world every now and then.
  quote   reply
Old 16th September 2011   #32
cake
 
cake's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by hippy View Post
Good article, I thoroughly enjoyed that.
  quote   reply
Old 16th September 2011   #33
Buffalo Billdonor
 
Buffalo Bill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by hippy View Post
I haven't been reading much MT (sorry Bill) but this caught my eye. I'm glad there's justice in the world every now and then.
:-) it's not compulsory! Glad everyone liked it, I heard the story and thought it should get a much wider airing.
  quote   reply
Old 16th September 2011   #34
Mrlemon
 
Mrlemon's Avatar
I especially liked the typo at the end.

Great article Billiam!
  quote   reply
Old 16th September 2011   #35
kirkov
I asked him what a bike sounds like. His answer was: “pedals”.

lol
  quote   reply
Old 16th September 2011   #36
Multi Groovesdonor
 
Multi Grooves's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrlemon View Post
I especially liked the typo at the end.

Great article Billiam!
sounds like he had pisti in his ear at that point!
  quote   reply
Old 21st September 2011   #37
Dazzling
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffalo Bill View Post
:-) it's not compulsory! Glad everyone liked it, I heard the story and thought it should get a much wider airing.
Keep up the good work Mr B, a class read..
  quote   reply
Old 4th June 2013   #38
sorethroatdonor
 
sorethroat's Avatar
Not sure what thread to put this in so I thought I'd try here.

On Thursday evening I turned left just before Chelsea Bridge and headed down the gentle slope East towards Vauxhall Bridge.
Just before I cycled under Grosvenor Bridge (in a blue cycle lane) a BMW smashed into my right hand side and sent me flying. Hospital visit, concussion, scratches, bruises and road rash all over but I am ok. Bike has two buckled wheels, cracked fork etc etc.
I have sent him a bill for these repairs ( 380) but he is disputing this saying it's not entirely his fault. This is what he says:

...However please bear in mind that all I was doing was turning round – and that the lorry on the other side of the road had waived me on. Under those circumstances there is no way I could have seen you coming down (at speed and without a helmet) in the bicycle lane.

He doesn't want to pay all of this. I've never been in this situation before. Should I now contact my solicitor?

Any help would be very much appreciated.
  quote   reply
Old 4th June 2013   #39
Aroogahdonor
 
Aroogah's Avatar
Yes. Lawyer up.
  quote   reply
Old 4th June 2013   #40
Sugoidonor
 
Sugoi's Avatar
what's not wearing a helmet got to do with anything?!
  quote   reply
Old 4th June 2013   #41
Wrongcog
 
Wrongcog's Avatar
And indeed heal up.
  quote   reply
Old 4th June 2013   #42
Sugoidonor
 
Sugoi's Avatar
rubbish excuse. he hit you! (n.b. I've no real legal knowledge!!!)
  quote   reply
Old 4th June 2013   #43
TW2donor
 
TW2's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by sorethroat View Post
Should I now contact my solicitor?
Yes.

It doesn't matter one jot that that he was waived on - Unless the truck driver was also a policeman executing a lawful command, that is.

Helpfully, however, he has pretty much admitted liability by what he has said.

Lawyer up. Why not claim for the fact that you were hospitalised too?
  quote   reply
Old 4th June 2013   #44
TW2donor
 
TW2's Avatar
And be prepared to sit back and wait for 18 months for this to resolve itself - But bear in mind that you are ok, and the worst is already happened.
  quote   reply
Old 4th June 2013   #45
Clever Pun
 
Clever Pun's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TW2 View Post
Yes.

It doesn't matter one jot that that he was waived on - Unless the truck driver was also a policeman executing a lawful command, that is.

Helpfully, however, he has pretty much admitted liability by what he has said.


Lawyer up. Why not claim for the fact that you were hospitalised too?
exactly that
  quote   reply
Old 4th June 2013   #46
sorethroatdonor
 
sorethroat's Avatar
That's what I thought, I am very glad he emailed that to me.
  quote   reply
Old 4th June 2013   #47
sorethroatdonor
 
sorethroat's Avatar
Thanks all, I'm going to be having a word with my solicitor tonight.
I think all he'll need to do is just put the willies up him and hopefully that will do that job.
  quote   reply
Old 4th June 2013   #48
Howarddonor
380 doesn't strike me as nearly enough.

Or are you suing him separately for your time spent in hospital etc?
  quote   reply
Old 4th June 2013   #49
hippy
 
hippy's Avatar
380 doesn't even cover the Zipp 808 FC you had on the bike, or the P2M crankset that are now destroyed beyond repair... nor the months of physical therapy you will need to get over your injuries.

Seriously though, you were in a bike lane and what was he doing? A u-turn? He's supposed to give way. Being waved through by someone doesn't count for shit.
  quote   reply
Old 4th June 2013   #50
s785donor
 
s785's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by sorethroat View Post
Not sure what thread to put this in so I thought I'd try here.

On Thursday evening I turned left just before Chelsea Bridge and headed down the gentle slope East towards Vauxhall Bridge.
Just before I cycled under Grosvenor Bridge (in a blue cycle lane) a BMW smashed into my right hand side and sent me flying. Hospital visit, concussion, scratches, bruises and road rash all over but I am ok. Bike has two buckled wheels, cracked fork etc etc.
I have sent him a bill for these repairs ( 380) but he is disputing this saying it's not entirely his fault. This is what he says:

...However please bear in mind that all I was doing was turning round and that the lorry on the other side of the road had waived me on. Under those circumstances there is no way I could have seen you coming down (at speed and without a helmet) in the bicycle lane.

He doesn't want to pay all of this. I've never been in this situation before. Should I now contact my solicitor?

Any help would be very much appreciated.
Absolutely, but (IANAL) he's pretty much incriminated himself if you are well represented:

"the lorry waved me on" - you are obliged to make manoeuvres when you can see and they are safe, not on the say-so of others - dangerous driving?

"there was no chance I could see" - he admits manoeuvring into your path without checking, nay, without a chance of checking, that it was safe

"helmet" - irrelephant. although now he brings it up you might as well claim for the concussion, emotional trauma, etc etc

If he can't make a turn without having adequate visibility of the road conditions, he ought to either wait until a safer location to do so, or go slow enough that he can stop if someone (i.e. you) is there.
  quote   reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.lfgss.com/thread5745.html


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bespoke Cycling Pistanator Bikes & Bits 27 5th June 2011 20:54
Help campaigning against a damaging proposed law! beesknees General 1 30th January 2008 09:09
Climbing and cycling Object Miscellaneous & Meaningless 12 13th January 2008 11:37
Would I be breaking the law? joe_b Bikes & Bits 16 22nd October 2007 12:55
Too much cycling jefefelipe General 3 1st August 2007 19:46

All times are GMT. The time now is 15:38.
Creative Commons License, BY-SA v2.0
no new posts