This has left Deputy Ross Le Brun, who asked formal written questions on the issue, hopping mad.
The Environment & Infrastructure Committee said it had considered the Highway Code in updating traffic laws most recently in 2019, but legislation surrounding the circumstances where a vehicle is permitted to mount a footpath has been in place since at least 1929, when it was decided that a vehicle or horse could use the pavement to pass another vehicle.
‘Much of Guernsey’s road and transport infrastructure has evolved over many decades and was designed and implemented under a range of historical standards, policies and operational requirements that applied at the time. The road network therefore contains features that reflect earlier approaches to traffic management, safety, accessibility and highway design,’ the committee said.
‘The ability to mount a footpath in certain circumstances is considered reasonable because, in many cases, Guernsey’s roads are not physically wide enough for two vehicles to pass each other without one of the drivers having to mount the footpath.
‘The law stipulates that when the footpath is used for the passing of another vehicle or animal, it must be done with due care and regard for the safety of pedestrians and other road users.’
Deputy Le Brun asked E&I for confirmation after an article he wrote for the Guernsey Press elicited significant public feedback.
‘Many shared examples of being forced off pavements, squeezing into gateways, or feeling unsafe while walking,’ he said.
‘What struck me most was how many people had simply accepted this as normal.’
He said he considered the answers from E&I were ‘astonishing’.
‘The committee has effectively admitted that while Guernsey allows vehicles onto space reserved for pedestrians, no formal risk assessment was carried out before the policy was adopted; no monitoring has been undertaken to measure its impact on pedestrian safety; no evaluation has been carried out to determine whether it is actually working; and no research has been undertaken into whether comparable jurisdictions allow motorists to do the same.’
He said he ‘struggled’ to understand how E&I could conclude that the current arrangements were appropriate for the island.
‘What shocked me most was the complete lack of clear parameters around pavement driving. The answer essentially comes back to drivers exercising “due care”.
‘When you put all of that together, what you have is a policy that allows vehicles into pedestrian space without clearly defining speed, distance, circumstances or limits. And we’re told that’s acceptable.’
‘We just have to trust everything will work out fine.
‘That isn’t a road safety strategy. That’s hoping for the best.
‘These answers reveal something much bigger than pavement driving. They reveal a mindset that appears to have accepted that keeping two-way traffic moving is more important than adapting our roads to protect the most vulnerable. We’ve simply allowed pedestrians to carry the risk.’
E&I said that it accepted that the island’s ‘constrained’ road network presented challenges to all and required all road users to be considerate.
It said it was always looking to make improvements.
‘But all measures require pragmatism and proportionality and consideration of impact on the wider area.’
The committee admitted that it ‘fairly regularly’ received correspondence from road users complaining about inappropriate driving on the footpath. It added, however, that it did expect pedestrians on the footpath to be given priority above other traffic.
It said that the current legislation and guidance was appropriate for the island.
‘While undoubtedly targeted improvements can be made to the road network, there remains a responsibility on all road users to travel around the island considerately and respecting legislation that is in place for the safety of all road users.’