- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- 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
- Tubeless valves
- 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
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Cyclist on Teddington Lock, West London (credit: Daniel Lynch)Police vow to clamp down on “anti-social cycling” after arresting man for riding bike on pavement and failing to stop
Police officers have promised residents that they will “firmly” deal with anti-social behaviour by people on bikes, after arresting a man for cycling on a footpath, failing to stop, and assault with intent to resist arrest.
The news of the cyclist’s arrest comes after several residents in Teddington, an affluent west London suburb in the borough of Richmond upon Thames, complained about so-called anti-social behaviour and incidents involving cycling at last week’s meeting of the Hampton Wick and South Teddington Ward Police Liaison Group.
At the meeting, members of Teddington Ward Neighbourhood Police said that they were continuing to hand out fines and Fixed Penalty Notices to cyclists riding on the pavement, an offence which can also be dealt with through warnings or prosecutions.
In a statement following the complaints made at the Police Liaison Group meeting, the neighbourhood police team said: “You could not have been clearer. You want us to firmly police antisocial behaviour associated with cycling.
“A few days ago, we arrested a man for failing to stop for police, cycling on a footway, and assault with intent to resist arrest.”
Responding to the police’s statement on social media, one Teddington resident said: “More of the same please. Too many middle-class, middle-aged people around here think it’s their right to cycle on the pavement.”
No cycling (copyright Simon MacMichael) (credit: road.cc)> Why do cyclists ride on the pavement? New study explores why
At last week’s meeting, the team also revealed that it had recently made three prosecutions for the “misuse of electric bikes and scooters”, stating that it is “targeting and seizing” such vehicles when they are being “operated illegally”. However, the force admitted that this targeted campaign against e-bike and e-scooter misuse is “time consuming”.
But despite this apparent crackdown on anti-social cycling by the local police, one Teddington councillor, Richard Baker, said he will arrange a further meeting with residents to discuss the issue of, as some locals have dubbed it, “cyclists continuing to cause problems for residents”.
Teddington’s local police force, of course, isn’t the first to declare that it is cracking down on pavement cycling in recent years.
In July 2023, police in Lancashire announced that they were targeting cyclists riding on the footpath while road closures were in place, after the local authority claimed the pavement-using cyclists were “causing risk to public safety” by riding at “breakneck speed”.
Lancashire Police and Preston City Council launch campaign urging cyclists to dismount on pavement (Preston City Council) (credit: road.cc)Preston’s Riverside was closed a few months before to enable the construction of new flood defences, as part of the city council’s Flood Risk Management scheme. According to Lancashire Police, during the period the road was closed there were “several reports” of cyclists riding on pavements and failing to follow the Guild Wheel diversion route.
Preston City Council has also claimed that “the ongoing failure to follow the diversions is causing risk to public safety after many reports of people being injured or near misses” involving cyclists and pedestrians.
And just a week earlier, Stoke Newington Police came in for criticism after the force’s social media account posted a photograph of an officer issuing a fine to a woman with a child seat on her bike for riding on the pavement, as part of its operation to tackle “cycling related anti-social behaviour”.
Police fining young mother cycling on pavement for anti-social behaviour (Stoke Newington Policing Team) (credit: road.cc)Last May, we reported that “rogue” wardens employed as external contractors by Colchester Council were accused of “lying in wait” to catch cyclists riding on the pavement, after two riders were fined £100 for briefly mounting a footpath to avoid navigating a notoriously busy roundabout and its “thick and fast motor traffic”.
Those penalties, described by one of the cyclists involved as “unjustified” and “a bit farcical”, formed part of a long-running controversy in Colchester surrounding the implementation of its Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) on cycling.
Ostensibly designed to prevent anti-social, nuisance, and dangerous behaviour, the order led to cyclists in the city believing that they were being unfairly targeted by third-party wardens “running amok”, ultimately leading to the council putting a temporary halt to its penalty system.
These “cowboy” wardens were also accused of discouraging people from cycling in the city, by mistakenly fining cyclists £100 for riding their bikes in areas where cycling is permitted, threatening them with a £1,000 penalty if they appealed the fine, and telling one elderly female cyclist that she wasn’t allowed to use a city centre road because she doesn’t pay “road tax”.
As we have reported on road.cc on a regular basis, PSPOs banning cycling in pedestrian areas, and giving council officers the power to fine people riding bikes, have been the subject of intense scrutiny in recent years.
Despite their apparent aim to deter anti-social or nuisance behaviour in town and city centres, several local authorities who have implemented the measures have been criticised for instead imposing sometimes hefty fines on people riding their bikes safely in pedestrian zones.
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- Secret_squirrel 14 min 15 sec ago
And yet women as stastically far more likely to be abused whilst driving.... kinda undermines your argument no...?
- quiff 14 min 24 sec ago
It's not even just that - even the Met (quoted above) reported it as "junction of Newington Butts and Walworth Rd"! Perhaps struggling to...
- OnYerBike 19 min 4 sec ago
Is that normal for that spot? Pretty sure sand (and/or other sand-like substances) is commonly used to soak up spilled diesel, so if a load of sand...
- Tom_77 51 min 46 sec ago
My initial thought is "no way is that legal", but I'm not sure what law would ban it. Offences against the Person Act 1861makes it illegal to...
- quiff 1 hour 33 min ago
Holy thread resurrection Batman!
- mdavidford 1 hour 42 min ago
They really don't, though. They might say they do, but in reality the amount of money involved is a rounding error in the tax budget, and not worth...
- Surreyrider 1 hour 46 min ago
Don't worry, in the not too distant future the Telegraph won't have any readers. Latest calculations suggest they only have 170,000 readers (they...
- Hirsute 3 hours 45 sec ago
He does it to make a point. As I remember from his videos he is rarely not in control of the situation. Although as it's all on shitter these days,...
- mdavidford 3 hours 6 min ago
But if it's a bridleway or a permissive path they're within their rights to be.
- Secret_squirrel 3 hours 48 min ago
This is my favourite rant - but I really dont see the point of windproof cycling clobber that isn't properly waterproof - especially for the UK. ...
Add new comment
31 comments
Oh dear even your staff & copy checkers can't even use the right terminology
For the past 61 years I've ALWAYS cycled & driven motor vehicles on pavements, completely legally - they're called carriageways as clearly defined for past 190 years by Highways Act 1835
I also cycle on FootPATHS also legally, but not FootWAYS, which have been exclusively for foot traffic for those 190 years
Offences per Section 72 HA 1835 have a level 3 tariff with a maximum fine of £1000
Imagining this spoken in the voice of Peter Cook's E.L.Wisty ("No I didn't know I'm the most boring man you've ever met, that really is most interesting..."). Every English speaker, at least those who speak English English, know what is meant by "pavement" in this context, including the compilers of the Oxford English Dictionary, whose first entry for the word is "A paved path for pedestrians at the side of and a little higher than a road", so I think we can cope with the fact that the writers didn't use the exact terminology of the 1835 Act (why aren't you castigating them for saying "cycling" as well, after all the term didn't appear until 1868 so really they should be saying a man was stopped for using "a carriage of any sort" on the footway, shouldn't they?).
P.S. Just to out-nerd you, in the 1835 Act it says "the Word "Highways" shall be understood to mean all Roads, Bridges (not being County Bridges), Carriageways, Cartways, Horseways, Bridleways, Footways, Causeways, Churchways, and Pavements" so carriageways and pavements are not the same thing under the Act, they all come under the umbrella term "Highway".
If you want to be really pedantic you should always poit out that a bicyle wasn't classified as a carriage until 1879, Taylor V Goodwin: QBD
"The question is, whether a bicycle is a carriage within the meaning of the Act. I think the word ‘carriage’ is large enough to include a machine such as a bicycle which carries the person who gets upon it, and I think that such person may be said to ‘drive’ it. He guides as well as propels it, and may be said to drive it as an engine driver is said to drive an engine." which is also, proably, why red lights apply although the legislation only referes to drivers
I've no problem if they want to tackle actual anti-social cycling (along with much more dangeous anti-social driving), but there is nothing anti-social about cycling at an appropriate speed on an empty or near empty pavement where you can give pedestrians plenty of space.
It is easier to enforce a ban on any cycling on pavements, as it removes subjectivity and easier to prove that it has actually happened. In that respect, I don't mind there being a technical ban on cycling on pavements, but it would be helpful if the police were prepared to make a statement that they wouldn't enforce it unless it's causing a problem. Ideally with a bit of public direction from someone in government.
We sort of have that already: when pavement cycling was made an FPN offence in 1999 the then Home Office minister Paul Boateng published this caveat:
The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users.
Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road. Sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.
This guidance was reaffirmed in 2014 and as far as I know still holds good. The problem is that 99% police officers don't seem to know about it, let alone members of the public, so I agree that a widely publicised guidance would be helpful.
There are lots of rules that are 'not in the public interest' to prosecute. The one that happens regularly is drivers crossing a solid white line to pass a cyclist doing more than 10mph. Let's be honest if it's safe and if they give 1.5m I'm more than happy for them to pass me. The issue becames about picking on rule breaking cyclists without noticing (or being aware) of rule breathing drivers.
Of course we know that particular rule is very flexible - in some places drivers crossing solid white lines and failing to collide with cyclists and indeed oncoming motorists only through emergency action by others is deemed a "Nobody hurt, no property damage, nothing to see here". Road.cc readers can supply examples...
The issue becomes about picking on rule breaking cyclists while deliberately ignoring rule breaking drivers
This is one of the unpleasant features of UK policing- they choose to enforce the law on people they don't like, and ignore the law when the offender is somebody they do like (usually drivers, especially drivers of large expensive vehicles without MOT etc)
The problem is that 99% police officers don't seem to know about it, let alone members of the public, so I agree that a widely publicised guidance would be helpful
Yes, I would love Lancashire's Chief Constable to officially declare 'we're not interested in MOT and red light offences' so don't worry all you drivers' instead of it just being a secret Lancashire Constabulary policy
The Teddington Police Force must be extremely efficient to have stopped all the dangerous motorists behaviour in the borough that they can now put effort into the significantly less dangerous anti social cycling behaviour.
“More of the same please. Too many middle-class, middle-aged people around here think it’s their right to cycle on the pavement.”
Given the relative risk to pedestrians from bicycles and cars, I sincerely hope that the police will be enforcing the law about driving on the pavement.*
*Sorry, I forgot: drivers are angels.
But when all the work is done for them and it's a driver :
This is the response I got recently for a report of driving on the pavement AND a cycle lane with solid white line.
Gloucestershire
FFS
Total lie. Every cyclist knows it's almost impossible to cycle on UK pavements because they are blocked by parked vehicles.
Policing in Britain loves a minority focus. Vowing to deal with an anti-social group causing 0.01% of assault and serious injury from dangerous behaviour should really shift the motornormative needle.
I suggest the police also focus on young men who wear trousers half way down their backside, for visual assault.
So the police aren't interested when cyclists suffer violent attacks but will go after someone cycling on the pavement.
Maybe the police should try to understand why some cycle on pavements rather than kneejerk reactions.
Is there any actual research into the demographic makeup of people who pavement cycle? I'm sure that the middle-aged and middle-class on their expensive bikes usually prefer the road and it's teenagers who ride on the pavements
I understand that anti social behavior needs to be tackled. However in a week where the Police in London have said they're unable to tackle criminals with machetes and hammers stealing property in the park costing thousands because it happens a little early for them. It's good to hear the will have resources for this.
AFAIK in shared use areas, pedestrians have priority and cyclists should give way. Cyclists should reduce speed, shouldn't weave past pedestrians, be prepared to stop, should leave sufficient space when passing.
Often they don't do any of that...
On the other side, I cycle in places with designated cycling routes I often have to cycle off them to avoid dogs on stretchy leads, 'zombies', and couples using them as a romantic footpath. This despite the fact there's a designated walking path barely a metre away...
I believe dogs are generally supposed to be "under control" in public. That is often ... arguable (e.g. I don't believe that shouting "but he doesn't like bicycles" or "he's very friendly" counts. And the extendable leads can be an *additional* hazard as well as limiting the "control").
Note that pavement driving and parking (endemic) is often not seen as a problem (or at least not one that can be addressed / not one that needs more work)...
But on shared use areas - they are generally a way of trying to get something for nothing, IMHO (and set a very low ceiling on possible growth of active travel).
They done because it allows LAs to do "something" without things that will cause enormous fights like taking space from driving / parking. (Although they then get complaints from pedestrians).
Indeed where I am in Edinburgh some of the existing "shared use" active travel space is now being seen as a place to reclaim from active travel to put tram lines - to avoid "disruptive" works (e.g. digging up part or all of a road)!
I say this even though I benefit (a lot) from some local ones which are mostly "good enough".
Extendable dog leads should be outlawed.
They are dangerous for everyone even the stupid dog walkers who use them.
I'd partly agree, having just avoided hitting one in the dark in Battersea Park last week with owner on one side of what used to be the main road through the park and the dog on the other...but given how utterly unable some owners seem to be to control their dogs when off the lead maybe sometimes the lesser of two evils?
I've never had a problem with a dog off lead. You could argue that dogs allowed to go off lead are the more sensible ones, and I've been lucky, but you can argue that's in part because those who rely on extendable leads do so because they are too lazy to train their dog well enough to be trusted off lead. When off lead, those dogs know that they are responsble for where they go and are more alert to their surroundings, and in my experience are more than capable of keeping out of the way of all other path users.
Many dog owners that use extendable leads do remain alert, but inevitably it's those that zone out that create a disproportionate impact, and it's a sizeable group who seem to think they have fulfilled all of their responsibilities by simply holding the other end of the lead (as they stare into their phone).
I've had mixed experiences. A few people clearly see the rules as "don't let your dog off a lead where they can be run over by cars". But traffic-free shared-use spaces can get treated like parks.
Once dogs are in play mode - especially with other dogs - their peripheral awareness seems to vanish and they can run in front of you or even into you.
You could say "it's a training issue" / "owners fault" and that would be true, but only in the same way as it is with drivers. Statistically a certain percentage of either won't do their job properly. It's then "how many incidents/crashes are tolerable?"
I can only remember being attacked by a dog once (got lucky - that might be too much for some). Through careful riding I've never hit any. Over the course of a lifetime perhaps that's a great score?
I wish there were sufficient space for cycling that it wasn't a choice of "conflict with drivers or conflict with dog walkers (and pedestrians in general) on 'shared space' paths". Other places have shown that's not "pie in the sky"...
Whilst I don't doubt your experience, it's not mine; dogs off the lead are a huge problem in central London parks, with many owners seemingly happy to let their dogs run free completely out of sight or control. It's a fairly regular occurrence – at least once a fortnight – to have to come to a complete stop when riding through a park due to a dog or dogs running free across the roads, and when I look for the owner to remonstrate they are nowhere to be found. As someone who grew up with dogs and would have one now if we had a big enough garden, I'm absolutely confounded by people who let their dogs go out of sight and/or recall distance, not because I think they should care about me and my safety (though it will be nice if they did) but because I can't understand why you would risk your dog getting hurt. 100kg of me plus bike crashing into a 10kg dog isn't going to end well for me but it's really, really not going to end well for the dog. Always managed to avoid them so far, being a dog lover I would be devastated if I caused serious injury or worse to a dog, it confounds me why any owner wouldn't be more careful to avoid it.
I'm not doubting yours, or that off-lead dogs can be a problem. It's more that my experience is that of those dogs I come across, the off-lead dogs are better behaved and easier to avoid than the ones on extendable leads. It's not just that off lead dogs stay out of my way, it's mainly that there isn't a barely visible thin rope between them and their owner that neither the dog nor the owner is in proper control of.
I have often slowed down for odd-lead dogs just as I do for pedestrians, but that doesn't bother me. But I have had to come to a complete stop, sometimes an emergency stop, for extendable leads. Shortish leads aren't much better if the owners aren't paying attention, and haven't worked out that if their dog likes to sniff along one side of the path, that's the side they should walk on too.
Whilst you might be correct about the level of training it only applies IF the owners are paying attention. I was nearly taken out by an extremely friendly dog who probably just wanted to say hello. I was coming up behind the owner who was deep in conversation with friends. Having great training will only work if you're actually paying attention to your dog and your surroundings.
It's not just cyclists... here's a BBC article with a wildlife trust reminding people to keep their dogs under control where asked to in the countryside else "What larks, Pip" will become a question, with the answer "None round here any more".
Pedestrians should still allow cyclists to pass though.
I usually avoid shared use paths because they're more hassle than they're worth.
They shouldn't actively prevent them from passing, but the highway code is clear, in shared spaces pedestrians have priority, and it's up to the cyclists to avoid the pedestrians, not the other way round.
Wouldn't argue about shared spaces though, they're usually harder work than the road...
I am not a fan of shared use spaces. Just last week I happened to be on one near me. A jogger, who was actually walking, was drifting from right to left into my line. I gave a quick "cycle back" which they obviously ignored because they had ear pods in. I obviously slowed right down but, honestly, I'll stick to the road in future.
Pages