Get Off the Pavement: The Law Cyclists Ignore and Pedestrians Pay For
shepwayvox
Guest contributor Alan has had enough of cyclists treating the pavement as an escape lane. He’s looked beyond the muttering and arm-waving to find out what the law actually says.
“It gets my goat.”
I’ll be walking along the pavement, minding my own business, when somebody on a bicycle suddenly slips past from behind. No warning, no room and sometimes at a fair old lick. I don’t leap sideways like a gazelle these days. I’m more of a startled wardrobe.
“It really annoys me.”
I find it inconsiderate, potentially dangerous and, whatever some riders may tell themselves, it’s not legal. So I’ve written to Shepway Vox to ask them to publish what I’ve found.
The clue’s in the word “pavement”
Rule 64 of the Highway Code contains just seven words: “You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.” When the Highway Code uses capital letters, it’s identifying a legal requirement, not offering a helpful lifestyle suggestion.
The underlying offence comes from section 72 of the Highways Act 1835. Yes, 1835—when Queen Victoria was still waiting for the top job and nobody was ordering their dinner on an electric bike. Bicycles were subsequently brought within the law’s definition of a “carriage”, and the Government confirmed again in April 2026 that pavement cycling remains an offence.
There is an exception where the route has been formally designated for pedestrians and cyclists to share. That should be shown by signs or markings. But a wide pavement isn’t automatically shared use, and neither is a pavement that happens to look inviting.
A bicycle doesn’t acquire diplomatic immunity because its rider rings a bell.
Even on a lawful shared-use route, the Highway Code says cyclists should allow pedestrians plenty of room and be prepared to slow down or stop. Particular care should be taken around children, older people and disabled people. Where the route is divided, cyclists must remain on their side because the pedestrian half is still a pavement.
Discretion isn’t permission
Police officers and Police Community Support Officers can issue a £50 fixed-penalty notice for pavement cycling. If it reaches court, the maximum fine shown in the Highway Code is £500. Whether an officer issues a warning, a notice or takes the matter further is left to professional judgement.
Campaigners point to long-standing guidance asking the police to distinguish between reckless pavement riding and a nervous cyclist proceeding carefully because they’re frightened of traffic. Cycling UK doesn’t condone unlawful pavement cycling, but says enforcement should be reasonable and proportionate.
I can understand somebody being nervous on a busy road. I wouldn’t fancy arguing with a lorry either. But police discretion doesn’t turn an offence into a right, and fear of traffic doesn’t entitle somebody to transfer that fear to pedestrians.
Even the Cycling Lawyer says don’t do it
Martin Porter KC, the barrister behind The Cycling Lawyer blog, has written sympathetically about why people take to the pavement. Poor infrastructure and hostile road conditions clearly play a part.
But Porter’s actual words were that cyclists “should not do so”. He also observed that, in a collision between a bicycle and a pedestrian, the pedestrian will often come off worse. That strikes me as the important bit.
Porter also discussed Kotula v EDF Energy, a civil compensation case in which a judge accepted that it was reasonable for a man to take his bicycle along a pavement rather than use a dangerous road. However, the court found that he was a lawful pedestrian when he fell. It wasn’t a criminal judgment handing every cyclist a pavement pass.
This isn’t about bashing every cyclist
For balance, cars cause vastly more harm to pedestrians. In 2025, however, 718 pedestrians were reported injured or killed in collisions involving pedal cycles, including two deaths. Those figures cover all roads and pavements, so they can’t honestly be presented as a pavement-cycling total. The Government admitted in April that it hadn’t produced a specific assessment of the danger caused by pavement cycling.
The absence of a national total doesn’t make the experience harmless. Blind people may not see a bicycle coming. Deaf people may not hear its bell. Somebody with limited mobility can’t necessarily hop aside like a startled rabbit. Under the Equality Act, councils and the police must properly consider how street design and public decisions affect disabled and older people.
Disabled cyclists matter too, and some use adapted cycles as mobility aids. But government guidance says those machines remain cycles and don’t automatically become legal on an ordinary pavement. The proper answer is accessible, separated infrastructure. Active Travel England says separating pedestrians and cyclists is a core design principle and mixed shared use should be avoided wherever possible.
“I’m not anti-cyclist. I’m anti-inconsiderate cyclist.”
The road may be unpleasant and the cycle provision may be rubbish. I accept all that. But the pavement isn’t an emergency annex to the carriageway.
If it isn’t marked for shared use, get off and walk.
Have a story that needs telling, or information you think may interest us? Please get in touch. All correspondence will be treated in the strictest confidence TheShepwayVoxTeam@proton.me
