Safe Speed Forums

Target pavement cyclists, say MPs

MPs were told only a small number of cyclists were irresponsible

The government should do more to target "irresponsible behaviour" by cyclists - particularly when they break traffic laws, a committee of MPs has said.

There was some confusion about road laws, including the fact that it is illegal to cycle on pavements, the Public Accounts Committee said.

It was responding to a National Audit Office report on road safety.

The Department for Transport said it could devise new rules but had to be satisfied police could enforce them.

In its response to the committee, the department said enforcing cycling offences "was typically not high on the agenda of most police forces due to competing demands on their time".

It also pointed out anti-social cyclists represent only a small number of total cyclists.

Others 'feel unsafe'

The committee's report was a response to a wide ranging NAO report on road safety published in May which suggested Britain was still behind other countries in tackling road safety for child pedestrians.

It said pedestrians and cyclists were particularly vulnerable - largely because they had little physical protection from crashes. In 2007 more than 30,000 pedestrians and 16,000 cyclists were injured, while 646 and 136 respectively were killed on Britain's roads.

MPs pointed out that there was a "perception that anti-social behaviour of some cyclists increases their risks and makes other road users feel unsafe".


The only time I have been knocked down in my life was by a cyclist going like a bat out of hell outside the House of Commons
David Curry MP

The committee urges the government to "devise education, training and publicity measures to target such anti-social behaviour, particularly when it breaks traffic laws".

While deaths and injuries of cyclists had fallen overall since the mid 1990s, they had risen by 11% since 2004, the committee said.

During the committee's hearings two MPs raised concerns about "anti-social behaviour" of some cyclists and the fact there was some confusion among the public and the police about legal requirements on them.

'Not trivial'

Committee member and Tory MP David Curry said some were "irresponsible and arrogant road users" and said many people believed they took no notice of red lights and believed traffic cones were "not for them".

"The only time I have been knocked down in my life was by a cyclist going like a bat out of hell outside the House of Commons," he said.

"We seem to regard cyclists as living in some sort of superior moral category when they actually do not have any."

Labour member Geraldine Smith added that sometimes irresponsible cycling was "dismissed as something trivial" but it was a common complaint at meetings in her constituency.

She said one constituent had been seriously injured and there appeared to be "very little" the police could do, adding: "A police superintendent was at this forum with me and he said that it was legal to cycle on pavements."

Richard Devereux, the top civil servant at the Department for Transport, confirmed it was illegal to cycle on pavements but said it was wrong to assume that all cyclists were dangerous.

"There are, without doubt, some elements of the cycling community who are in that position and there are equally, I imagine, rather more people who are far more dangerous drivers as well," he said.

I see nothing wrong with going after people cycling or driving dangerously, however spitefully prosecuting an outdated law against a majority of safe users just to spite an irresponsible minority of irresponsible people is counter-productive.

You won't be surprised that I agree with Toltec. And it isn't just about safety. One A road which I often travel is relatively narrow and a single cyclist in fron of a commercil vehicle can cause a considerable tailback of traffic. Alongside this road is a rarely frequented footpath. By cycing on there I not only protect my own safety but ensure the free flow of motor vehicles on the road. But of course I wathc carefully for pedestrians and yield to them

So is the answer to attempt looking at rules that might allow for some cycling on pavements or pathways ....

It has to be said that much of the resentment against cyclists stems from the intensive, heavy-handed enforcement of traffic laws to which motorists have been subjected over the past two decades, while cyclists seem to get away with all kinds of things scot-free.

"If we have to suffer all this crap, you should have to as well."

Which number do you think will be higher?

while cyclists seem to get away with all kinds of things scot-free.

Ah right, and people driving cars don't.

This has got to be irony, right?

Stand at any road junction for an hour and count the number of drivers running the red light, on the phone, speeding, tailgating, using the wrong lane, failing to signal, blocking the junction, blocking the pedestrian crossing etc etc.

Also count the number of cyclists violating the law.

Which number do you think will be higher?

Do you want to tell us the relative detection and prosecution rates, for the rates of the offences?