On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:04:16 +0100, Brian G <
[email protected]>
wrote:
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> If the wording or advice is wrong I'll change it, but you have not
>> convinced me yet. I will re-draft the first sentence to make it wider
>> than just the journey to school
>>
>> Pupils who have successfully completed Level 1 Bikeability will have
>> the skills necessary to make a journey by bicycle in a traffic free
>> environment, such as an accompanied journey to school using cycle
>> paths and pavements or to a local park. Please note that while
>> cycling on the footway is an offence under section 72 of the Highways
>> Act 1835, police and Home Office guidance states that the law should
>> not be applied to "responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to
>> use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to
>> other pavement users when doing so". Children who cycle on the
>> pavement must be taught that pedestrians have absolute priority and
>> that they must give way or stop for all pavement users.
>
>I still feel this doesn't make it clear that pavement cycling is an
>exceptional concession only for those young children who can't yet gain
>the skills necessary for safe road cycling and that the aim of the
>training scheme is to get them off the pavements and into their rightful
>place in the traffic stream as soon as practicable.
>
>"Traffic free environment" reads to me like "monster-free zone" or
>whatever and re-inforces the shudder factor in relation to road cycling.
> Again I accept that street cycling in London must seem from some
>perspectives to be deeply scary, but embracing the pavement as a get-out
> option is sending the wrong message. Admittedly the Home Office
>guidance is itself deeply unhelpful, but that doesn't mean that people
>with a brain need to follow it.
>
>Read your final sentence in isolation and ask yourself what relation
>that activity bears to cycling. To me it suggests little more than
>pushing a bike while keeping out of everybody's way.
As I see it I have three options.
1. Ignore the issue and not offer advice or suggest cycling to school
as a valid option for young children.
2. Suggest that the road is the only sensible place for cyclists, and
that young children can perfectly safely cycle on the road if
accompanied and followed by a parent. The most compelling argument
for this came from an 11 year old at a Transport for London
Conference. She was asked by a delegate if she thought that chcildren
should be allowed to cycle on the pavement. Her reply went something
like this, "If children have done the training they can cycle on the
road, if they haven't they can cycle on the road with their parents."
An argument against this is that there are many parents who now walk
their young children to school while their child rides their bike, and
encouraging this will encourage cycling to school independently once
they have the skills and experience to ride solo on the road.
3. Suggest that using the pavment is OK for children so long as
consideration is give to other pavement users. The law about pavement
cycling is close to 200 years old, and it is highly unlikely that at
the time of being written the idea of children cycling had been
considered, and the thought of 38 ton lorries on the road some 100
years away. In other words, the law, as it applies to young children,
is a nonsense. Indeed, many European countries ban young children
altogether from the road and insist they ride on the pavement.
"Some national legislations provide that cyclists can only ride on a
road after a certain age. In Switzerland, a cyclist must have at least
the legal age to go to school before he can ride on a road. In
Denmark, children under the age of 6 are not allowed to go by bicycle
unless they are escorted by a person who is 15 years old or older. In
Germany, children must be at least 8 years old with the same
provisions as in Denmark. In Poland, children over 10 years must have
passed a test to be allowed on a road"
http://tinyurl.com/3dm4fl from
http://euroris.swov.nl/knowledge/co...gulations_for_cyclists_and_their_vehicles.htm
Even DfT advice is that young children cycle on the pavement:
Q. Are children allowed to cycle on pavements?
A. Whilst there is no exemption to this law for children, the police
have always used common sense and discretion in exercising their
powers over children cycling on the pavement. Very young children
should not be expected to cycle on the road and we would not recommend
any child does so until they have received cycle training. Enforcement
of cycling on pavements is usually dealt with by a fixed penalty
notice, which cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16.
http://tinyurl.com/2nvkgz from
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/cycling/cyclingpolicyoverview?page=6
IMO it is overwhemlingly compelling that young children cycling on the
pavement is both morally *and* legally acceptable, even if technically
illegal - if that's not a contradiction. In other words, while a
parent could be proscecuted for allowing a young child to cycle on the
pavement, there is zero possibility of a conviction, or any conviction
being upheld on appeal.
This being the case, it comes down to the semantics of my advice to
parents which is clumsy.
Is this better?
==========
Pupils who have successfully completed Level 1 Bikeability will have
the skills necessary to make a journey by bicycle, such as the journey
to school or to a local park, they will not have the skills to cycle
unaccompanied on the road. Whilst cycling on the footway is an
offence under section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, police and Home
Office guidance states that the law should not be applied to
"responsible cyclists" who "show consideration to other pavement
users". Children who cycle on the pavement must be taught to give way
to pedestrians.
==========
With something similar for Level 2 who are not ready for busier roads,
and Level 3 who are discouraged from using the pavement.
)
