Cambridge cyclist receives criminal record for cycling on the pavement

Cambridge signage is woefully inadequate. Leaving a 20 zone in the town centre there is a sign that marks the end of that zone. There is nothing to warn you that you have subsequently entered a 20 limit. With normal street lighting and no zone 'furniture' it is easy to imagine that you are in a 30 limit and it is only when they have been pointed out that the (smaller than usual and poorly sited) repeaters are evident. Repeaters are not enough, and if you have to search for them then you're not looking for pedestrians who have meandered onto the road, are you? Driving around Portsmouth there is absolutely no doubt about the speed limit/zone, there are signs painted on the roads and huge signs at the entrance to each zone/limit.
My guess is Cambridge want to A. Save money at road users expense. B. Don't want to litter their streets with ugly signage. At road users expense. C. Both of the above.
I hope they'll be censured/made to do something about it, but I bet they won't be required to compensate all those who've unwittingly fallen foul of their rubbish signage.
Shame on Cambridge Council.

Seems to me he has good grounds for an appeal. Peterborough is plagued with shared use cycle paths and they are really badly signposted. In some cases you're already on the wrong path before you realise and there is no road to ride on alongside. Good to see the City Councillor backing him too.

Considering the pressure that is growing for a Go Dutch type system you think simple things like making the transport infrastructure easy to understand would take some sort of priority but alas no...

On a secondary note, Due to unclear signage, pedestrians tend to wander all over "shared space" cycle lanes and when cyclists wizz past get pissed off. My route for instance has a shared space cycle lane on the A23 by a bus shelter and roundabout that are so laughable and have no way of making it clear to joe public there might be bikes coming. Spot the bike lane http://goo.gl/maps/xRlnZ

Thirdly- How may pedestrians get done for J - walking a year i wonder?

Sounds like some legal advice would have been useful. As comes free with CTC or LCC membership. Probably to members of BC too.
The 3rd party insurance is handy too.

Putting aside the rights and wrongs of Cambridgeshire plod persecuting cyclists (don't you have any burglaries or robberies to solve? you might well ask) and the atrocious conditions which apparently have earned Cambridge the title of "UK's top cycling town" (er, what?)it does appear to me that the defendant here made a grave error of judgement in contesting the FPN.

If you look at google streetview - perhaps not a definitive guide but all we have - you can see that there is a shared use path on Milton Rd both sides of the Arbury Road junction, in each case set on the right hand side of the road as it approaches Arbury Rd. There is a clear "End" plate on both paths at that junction. Arbury Rd itself, and Union Lane opposite, appear to have no cycle paths at all.

If this chap decided to challenge the case he would have been a lot safer to engage a good solicitor - perhaps one of those who seem successful at getting footballers off speeding charges on the basis of technicalities about signage - rather than attempt to defend himself. That of course would have cost a lot of money. Coughing up the £30 FPN would have been much wiser, even if it does stick in the craw.

I wonder whether his case is strong enough, in relation to defective signage, to get assistance from the CTC defence fund? Remember Daniel Cadden, convicted of inconsiderate cycling for riding on a road insead of a glass-strewn cycle path, whose conviction was overturned on appeal?

Good to see. More of the same would be great.

This kind of thing is why I avoid shared use paths as much as possible.
They have a tendancy to end with little or no warning, or have a gap wher you are not sure if you are allowed to cycle or not.

I hope the guy who decided to go to court weighed up the potential consequences

I don't live in Cambridge but i know i've seen plenty of disappearing shared use paths elsewhere and not sure if this is correct:
“Shared use footpaths are clearly marked and our advice to cyclists would be that unless the footpath is clearly signed as such they should not use it as a cycleway.”

a comparable situation would be a driver going to court because the move from a 40mph to 30mph zone not well signed - need a very good lawyer - default is lights/built up = 30 - default pavements = no cycling

big issue is that police are under pressure from local politicians to sort pavement cycling because of complaining pedestrians - what pedestrians and cyclists need is more room - but no politicians will push to reduce road space for cars and operations like this just
i'm sure would have been more cost effective to hand out cycleroute maps and help people plan journey better

no justification for riding on a pavement, he was in the wrong and got caught, fair dos.. what I find odd is that he went to court instead of just pleading guilty, that in itself suggests he thought he could argue a case to be outside the law - sound a bit of a knob, which is perhaps an explanation as to why he was riding on the pavement in the first place

Just thought I'd correct a few legal misconceptions.

He does not get a criminal record. That is nonsense. Riding on the pavement is a non-recordable offence. It will not appear on a list of convictions.

As stated, a victim surcharge is paid in all cases where there is a fine. It goes towards supporting victims of crime generally rather than the victim of the specific case. In fact victim surcharges are now imposed whatever the sentence.

There was no reason for the case to cost taxpayers thousands of pounds. He could have paid the fixed penalty notice!

The period during which a criminal conviction has to be declared to a potential employer has now been drastically reduced. In the case of a fine it is now 12 months from the date of conviction but as stated above this is not a criminal conviction.

if the chap goes for a new job and the employers read that he was charged for riding a bicycle on the pavement it would have to be a strange company that thought the criminal charge was a risk to their business. GBH, drink driving? yes. Cycling on a pavement? No.

From the link above the signage is definitely confusing. If the path has stopped it should be marked End, some indication that it does not continue or that cyclists should join the road. One for Crap cycle paths?

Finally, a quick pervy pan by 90d shows a great scene, cyclist stopped at red light and white van ready to terrorise the cyclist... action!
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Arbury+Road,+Cambridge&hl=en&ll=52.2260...

All that tax payers money spent to charge someone £45, a loss of 2-3 grand. I dont support riding on the pavement but come on, what a joke?

It is a stupid ruling if you ask me. Far more serious offences get ignored every day.

Good old Cambs Police cocking it up again. That piece of road is perfectly wide enough for pedestrians and cyclists. Cars even illegally park there if you want to be technical about it. Did they receive tickets?

The case is more about not losing face in court, not about whether its in the public interest. Another stupid prosecution. Paint a white line and stick a cycle symbol on it. Bad cyclist can still be prosecuted - wherever they ride lawfully.

Cambs Police would probably try to stick cyclists on if they dismounted and ran with their bikes to the other side of the lights before getting back onto their bike in the road. A perfectly lawful move but would somehow still piss people off...

Rule number 1 when riding on the pavement:

If the police try to stop you, ride away real fast.

While I believe we should all adhere to the law of the land, on this occasion I believe the law to be an Ass. Talk about making a mountain from a mole hill! This man was made out to be a criminal where there was no criminal intent. The law is certainly an asshole.

I rode that recently. I didn't notice there was any shared use pavement. I was on the road. It was pretty horrible. I guess some of the motorists were trying to bully me off the road then, if there was shared use nearby.

Aren't you allowed to use the footpath if you fear for your life, anyway? But it seems that wasn't the defence used here.

Finally, if they're catching that many, even in Cambridge, it sounds like the signs are probably duff.

By the way, about motorists - I used to keep meeting them in the bus/disabled/taxi-only stretch in Weston-super-Mare. Never heard of anyone prosecuted for that. Not surprised, as the signs weren't great.

Nothing gets deleted. Basically if you are convicted for any offence it stays on the system and can be produced as previous convictions.

Cautions are slightly different for time periods but will stay on a record once created.

Points on your licence are removed, depending on the offence after time however if you are convicted at court for a motoring offence this record will remain but the points will be removed so it looks like you have a clean licence.

Doesn't the offence get deleted after 5 years? Always wonder about this though in the digital age where records seem to be kept on everything for years.

Firstly cycling on a pavement is not a crime, assault, theft, damage are crimes but this is not so i dont understand the victim surcharge for this.

Secondly the Police issue hundreds of thousands of tickets a year for motoring offences including phone use.

Finally are we, as cyclists, above the law ? No, so stop complaining when one of us is nabbed for doing something wrong regardless of how minor it is.