£30 spot fines - today, Old Market St, Bristol

Docsavage

John Law was out in force in Old Market St (Bristol) today handing out £30 fines to a number of cyclists caught riding on the pavement.
Before you rightous types start, what annoys me about this is that the road system in this particular street has been recently changed (adding a central 2 way bus lane & island) and has been made extremely dangerous for bikes.
The traffic narrows rapidly into two tight lanes with raised (high) concrete kerbs - no bike lane, no provision (or room) for cycles except near the junction where a cycle lane appears out of the kerb and takes you 10 feet to the traffic lights. (chocolate teapot road planning!!)

We wrote and objected to the plans during the process but nothing happened, now cyclists are taking the safest option by bypassing this stretch of street and going on the pavement (even the posties do it!) It just proves that the street layout is dangerous!
I also spoke to the police today and they suggested to me that they would support any bid to improve the safety of this stretch of road.

So why the post? As a cyclist in Bristol I'm heartily sick of playing second fiddle to all other road users, even with brand new road planning! yet the coppers are all too keen to persecute cyclists in this way. (ironically whilst I spoke to the police 2 cars did an illegal U turn and one lorry parked up on the pavement! - result? - nothing at all)

If there is safe provision, there is no excuse for going on the pavement. here it clearly isn't safe.

Grrrrrrrrrr

spen666

Docsavage wrote:

John Law was out in force in Old Market St (Bristol) today handing out £30 fines to a number of cyclists caught riding on the pavement.
Before you rightous types start, what annoys me about this is that the road system in this particular street has been recently changed (adding a central 2 way bus lane & island) and has been made extremely dangerous for bikes.
The traffic narrows rapidly into two tight lanes with raised (high) concrete kerbs - no bike lane, no provision (or room) for cycles except near the junction where a cycle lane appears out of the kerb and takes you 10 feet to the traffic lights. (chocolate teapot road planning!!)

We wrote and objected to the plans during the process but nothing happened, now cyclists are taking the safest option by bypassing this stretch of street and going on the pavement (even the posties do it!) It just proves that the street layout is dangerous!
I also spoke to the police today and they suggested to me that they would support any bid to improve the safety of this stretch of road.

So why the post? As a cyclist in Bristol I'm heartily sick of playing second fiddle to all other road users, even with brand new road planning! yet the coppers are all too keen to persecute cyclists in this way. (ironically whilst I spoke to the police 2 cars did an illegal U turn and one lorry parked up on the pavement! - result? - nothing at all)

If there is safe provision, there is no excuse for going on the pavement. here it clearly isn't safe.

Grrrrrrrrrr

No sympathy for anyone who gets fined for breaking the law.

Just because you don't like the law doesn't allow you to break the law

Campaign to change the legal position by all means. However until law is changed, then it is the law and you get punished if you get caught breaking the law

spen666

Docsavage wrote:

...

We wrote and objected to the plans during the process but nothing happened, now cyclists are taking the safest option by bypassing this stretch of street and going on the pavement (even the posties do it!) It just proves that the street layout is dangerous!
I also spoke to the police today and they suggested to me that they would support any bid to improve the safety of this stretch of road.

...

Nope, it just proves some cyclists break the law

dang65

spen666 wrote:

No sympathy for anyone who gets fined for breaking the law.

Just because you don't like the law doesn't allow you to break the law

Campaign to change the legal position by all means. However until law is changed, then it is the law and you get punished if you get caught breaking the law

Uh, I know you're in the profession and everything, but if "the law" forces people to put their lives in danger and there is a frankly harmless alternative then obeying the law doesn't come into it.

It's possible to get away with killing someone if it is in self-defence, so it should be equally possible to get away with riding a short way along a pavement... if it is in self-defence.

Like most people here, I don't make a habit of cycling on the pavement, but I've certainly taken emergency refuge on pavements in the past, rather than be splatted by an unaware driver, for example. I'm not sure how I'd react if I was then handed a £30 fine for doing so.

Juju_uk_68

No sympathy for anyone who gets fined for breaking the law.

Just because you don't like the law doesn't allow you to break the law

Campaign to change the legal position by all means. However until law is changed, then it is the law and you get punished if you get caught breaking the law

This is a tedious line put out by generally "law abiding" unthinking middle class Daily Heil readers generally.

A law has to be a just law, recognised by the community it serves. If a local council instituted a law forbidding ginger people from stepping on cracks in the pavement on thursdays, would you just clap you hands and say they had it comming to them?

Over the last several hundred years, law evolves, slowly at times, to meet the needs of the people it seeks to serve. If the law is unjust, or not respected by the majority of its citizens, then it is right to question the law. Particularly if that law was not made with any prior consultation by unelectted bodies or interested parties who have no mandate to make the law.

I support anyone breaking "the law" if by doing so, they have a right, just and proper cause to do so which would obtain to the majority, and bring about action and support for the law change.

Democracy is as much about respect as rights. We could vote to pass a law to ban gigners from stepping on cracks in the pavement, but it would not be democratic, as responsiblity is the balance and checksum of the freedom to vote.

In essence, due to the changes in the road layout ,the new scheme for road management has failed to take account of a sizeably minority and the body that passed same law is shunning itself of its responsiblity. Therefore it is an unjust law, and should be dis respected in every way.

I've got no sympathy for people who had "no sympathy" as this is precicely the mind set that allowed practicing homosexuals, jews, catholics and trades unionists to head on the trains east to the Polish camps. "Well, if they will go about practicing catholicism when they know they shouldn't...I've no sympathy".....

NorwegianBlue

I'm interested in the definition of riding on the pavement as "safe". Safe for who exactly? The cyclist or the pedestrians the cyclists are putting at risk. Cycling on the pavement is a very selfish form of safe riding, if you must take to the pavement then dismount. On the odd occasions that I take to the pavement, I'm thinking of one particularly hairy junction then I always dismount. It's safe, courteous to pedestrians and legal. What's that? It slows you down? Well boo, and indeed, hoo. That's usually the excuse used by car drivers for agressive/illegal driving isn't it?

I can see absolutely no excuse for riding on the pavement, unless of course it is specifically permitted.

benvickery

The Police would make a killing if they visited my area. I'm a bit of an oddity as I cycle on the road. Adults and children of all ages ride on the pavement at all speeds. I don't have a problem with kids riding on the pavement but I see more men and women on the pavement than on the road. The few people I do see on the road are mainly riding road bikes.

NorwegianBlue

I think the sort of pavement riding you are talking about, Benvickery, is usually carried out on the type of bikes costing £59.95 on the local market or "discount warehouse" (read "tat shop"). The people riding these bikes would probably be surprised to learn that it was illegal to ride on the pavement, indeed they would probably be surprised to learn that there are any laws at all applying to riding a bike!

SmellTheGlove

Pavement riders should expect
a: that many motorists will see their actions as further justification for the marginalisation of cyclists
b: to be increasingly unsafe on the roads when said motorists are amazed to find a human powered two-wheeler sharing the carriageway and are clueless as to how to respond
c: to be ridiculed as bedwetters and not only by me

I'd personally gladly pay £30 to see any pavement rider banned from ever using a bike anywhere ever again. Use the pavement by all means but dismount and above all stop bitching.

jazzanova

Being a fellow bristol cyclist, it's a little confusing. Half of our city encourages us to ride on the pavement making them for cycling & pedistrians (this totally shocks lots of friends who visit), then out of nowhere, when you continue of your ride, you get a fine. That does seem harsh. The cycle lanes are poor around the city & it's a little mean that we're forced to ride on the pavement where it suits the council due to no cycle lanes, yet getting the wrong pavement can cost you cash.

jazzanova

SmellTheGlove wrote:

Pavement riders should expect
a: that many motorists will see their actions as further justification for the marginalisation of cyclists
b: to be increasingly unsafe on the roads when said motorists are amazed to find a human powered two-wheeler sharing the carriageway and are clueless as to how to respond
c: to be ridiculed as bedwetters and not only by me

I'd personally gladly pay £30 to see any pavement rider banned from ever using a bike anywhere ever again. Use the pavement by all means but dismount and above all stop bitching.

i don't disagree, but in bristol the council have made most pavements pedistrian/ cycling mixed due to the fact that there are no cycle lanes!

redddraggon

I can't help but laugh sometimes, half of my commute is along quitish country roads with paths only on one side of the roads, swapping sides every now and again, I keep seeing this woman crossing the road to keep on the path. It's not even as though the road is busy and her journey would be far quicker to stay on the road.

If I'm walking down a path, I largely refuse to move out of the POBs way, if I can ride on the road so can they, and I guess I'm a bit arrogant like that.

spen666

dang65 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

No sympathy for anyone who gets fined for breaking the law.

Just because you don't like the law doesn't allow you to break the law

Campaign to change the legal position by all means. However until law is changed, then it is the law and you get punished if you get caught breaking the law

Uh, I know you're in the profession and everything, but if "the law" forces people to put their lives in danger and there is a frankly harmless alternative then obeying the law doesn't come into it.

It's possible to get away with killing someone if it is in self-defence, so it should be equally possible to get away with riding a short way along a pavement... if it is in self-defence.

Like most people here, I don't make a habit of cycling on the pavement, but I've certainly taken emergency refuge on pavements in the past, rather than be splatted by an unaware driver, for example. I'm not sure how I'd react if I was then handed a £30 fine for doing so.

It is possible to WALK safely with your bike on the pavement - so there is no need to ride on the pavement.

You talk about harmless- harmloess to who? Cartainly not the pedestrians who are afraid to use the pavement because of criminals riding bikes on it. You sound like the safespeed lot arguing they are safe driving at whatever speed they think safe

andrewc3142

Just because you don't like the law doesn't allow you to break the law

Campaign to change the legal position by all means. However until law is changed, then it is the law and you get punished if you get caught breaking the law

In general, there are many circumstances in which that argument doesn't, indeed shouldn't, apply.

The issue is not about a blind observance of all laws, idiotic or not, repressive or not, morally defensible or not.

Rather, the issue is riding a bike on the pavement in this situation. Since I don't know the stretch of road in question, I'll not express an opinion either way, although I will comment that whilst I never ride on the pavement (too slow apart from anything else) I do early in the morning ride through the precinct in the middle of Kingston, which is a no-cycling zone and therefore presumably much the same arguments apply.

graham_g

Interesting - I'm not all that familiar with the location so will have to make note when I'm next nearby. It's probably for the best that there's no cycle lane, I avoid most of them in Bristol except the ones that offer a distinct advantage (like the odd contraflow up one-way streets - like the one off Cheltenham Rd opposite kwik fit).

Anyone else in Bristol perplexed by the cycle lane thing on College Green? Within the space of about 50 yards it puts you in conflict with turning vehicles 3 times and then you have to give way to vehicles as you exit onto the carriageway (northbound). It's a difficult situation but surely something a bit more sensible could have been put in.

cee

At the end of the day, the law is the law.

We can choose to abide by it, or not and face the consequences. I don't really buy into the suiting the majority thing. As has been said, there are lots of examples where large sections of the community have been branded criminal for practising certain religions, sexual preferences, etc.

Lots of motorists choose to ignore the speed limit and use mobile phones whilst driving every day.
Lots of cyclists ignore redlight stop signals (and signs for that matter) every day.
Lots of teenagers drink alcohol (and lots of adults buy it for them) every day.

the list goes on. Whether I agree with a law or not, does not change the fact that the law stands, and if i choose to ignore it, and get caught doing so, I should be prepared to accept the consequences. Unlucky, but Tough sheepshoot.

flattythehurdler

spen666 wrote:

dang65 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

No sympathy for anyone who gets fined for breaking the law.

Just because you don't like the law doesn't allow you to break the law

Campaign to change the legal position by all means. However until law is changed, then it is the law and you get punished if you get caught breaking the law

Uh, I know you're in the profession and everything, but if "the law" forces people to put their lives in danger and there is a frankly harmless alternative then obeying the law doesn't come into it.

It's possible to get away with killing someone if it is in self-defence, so it should be equally possible to get away with riding a short way along a pavement... if it is in self-defence.

Like most people here, I don't make a habit of cycling on the pavement, but I've certainly taken emergency refuge on pavements in the past, rather than be splatted by an unaware driver, for example. I'm not sure how I'd react if I was then handed a £30 fine for doing so.

It is possible to WALK safely with your bike on the pavement - so there is no need to ride on the pavement.

You talk about harmless- harmloess to who? Cartainly not the pedestrians who are afraid to use the pavement because of criminals riding bikes on it. You sound like the safespeed lot arguing they are safe driving at whatever speed they think safe

Is it a criminal offence then? :shock:

dang65

spen666 wrote:

It is possible to WALK safely with your bike on the pavement - so there is no need to ride on the pavement.

You talk about harmless- harmless to who? Cartainly not the pedestrians who are afraid to use the pavement because of criminals riding bikes on it. You sound like the safespeed lot arguing they are safe driving at whatever speed they think safe

Well, the "harmless" (or not) issue is quite important in the case of £30 fixed penalites.

As noted on this Cycling and the Law web page:

On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. At the time Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at 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. 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."

Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by 'Community Support Officers' and wardens.

"CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are 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 road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

So, if MPs and the Home Office are saying that there is such a thing as "considerate cycling" on a pavement, then one would assume that this is also "harmless". In fact, the Bristol example in this thread is specifically covered by the statement, "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at 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."

Unless, of course, the police were only fining cyclists who came hurtling onto the pavement, scattering terrified pedestrians, and lashing out to all sides as they did so.

If I was in Bristol and had been issued one of those fines then I'd be refusing to pay it on those grounds.

Like I said before, I don't ride on pavements myself, but I think there is an element of hysteria against those that do, and the Home Office has acknowledged that. It's not the same as "SafeSpeed" at all (although I believe there is also some leeway given with exceeding the speed limit, but not much).

spen666

dang65 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

It is possible to WALK safely with your bike on the pavement - so there is no need to ride on the pavement.

You talk about harmless- harmless to who? Cartainly not the pedestrians who are afraid to use the pavement because of criminals riding bikes on it. You sound like the safespeed lot arguing they are safe driving at whatever speed they think safe

Well, the "harmless" (or not) issue is quite important in the case of £30 fixed penalites.

As noted on this Cycling and the Law web page:

On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. At the time Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at 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. 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."

Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by 'Community Support Officers' and wardens.

"CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are 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 road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

So, if MPs and the Home Office are saying that there is such a thing as "considerate cycling" on a pavement, then one would assume that this is also "harmless". In fact, the Bristol example in this thread is specifically covered by the statement, "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at 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."

Unless, of course, the police were only fining cyclists who came hurtling onto the pavement, scattering terrified pedestrians, and lashing out to all sides as they did so.

If I was in Bristol and had been issued one of those fines then I'd be refusing to pay it on those grounds.

Like I said before, I don't ride on pavements myself, but I think there is an element of hysteria against those that do, and the Home Office has acknowledged that. It's not the same as "SafeSpeed" at all (although I believe there is also some leeway given with exceeding the speed limit, but not much).

Dang- you are allowing yourself to be misled by politicians. What Paul Boateng says is NOT what the legislation says

flattythehurdler

Spen, answer the question. Is it, as you imply, a criminal offence?

secretsam

You got caught, you pay the fine, take the pain.

End of.

I don't even like the proper mixed bike and peds bits on pavements, won't use them.

Find an alternative route - and before you ask, I lived in Bristol for 19 years, so I know the area you're on about - it can be avoided.

spen666

flattythehurdler wrote:

Spen, answer the question. Is it, as you imply, a criminal offence?

Answer what question?

Is what a criminal offence?


I'm not sure what you are referring to- can you clarify what you are asking about?

dang65

spen666 wrote:

Dang- you are allowing yourself to be misled by politicians. What Paul Boateng says is NOT what the legislation says

I'm not disputing what the legislation says, as you well know. I am pointing out that there are Home Office guidlines for police officers which advise on how and when the legislation should be enforced and who it is aimed at.

There are many, many laws which require judgement and leeway before they are enforced - otherwise we wouldn't be able to move without being fined. The laws are there so that they can be enforced when they need to be, not so that they will always be enforced regardless of the situation.

Another example is the littering law. Everyone hates people that drop litter, right? But then you get people who are fined for chucking a Wotsit out of the car window when their child had dropped it on the floor. One Wotsit, which would be crushed into oblivion, or eaten by a passing animal within minutes.

Someone else was fined when their child dropped a wooden lolly stick in a park which was full of fallen twigs off trees anyway.

These people who seem to demand a Zero Tolerance approach to law breaking really need to chill out a bit and realise what laws are actually for.

iainment

spen666 wrote:

Docsavage wrote:

John Law was out in force in Old Market St (Bristol) today handing out £30 fines to a number of cyclists caught riding on the pavement.
Before you rightous types start, what annoys me about this is that the road system in this particular street has been recently changed (adding a central 2 way bus lane & island) and has been made extremely dangerous for bikes.
The traffic narrows rapidly into two tight lanes with raised (high) concrete kerbs - no bike lane, no provision (or room) for cycles except near the junction where a cycle lane appears out of the kerb and takes you 10 feet to the traffic lights. (chocolate teapot road planning!!)

We wrote and objected to the plans during the process but nothing happened, now cyclists are taking the safest option by bypassing this stretch of street and going on the pavement (even the posties do it!) It just proves that the street layout is dangerous!
I also spoke to the police today and they suggested to me that they would support any bid to improve the safety of this stretch of road.

So why the post? As a cyclist in Bristol I'm heartily sick of playing second fiddle to all other road users, even with brand new road planning! yet the coppers are all too keen to persecute cyclists in this way. (ironically whilst I spoke to the police 2 cars did an illegal U turn and one lorry parked up on the pavement! - result? - nothing at all)

If there is safe provision, there is no excuse for going on the pavement. here it clearly isn't safe.

Grrrrrrrrrr

No sympathy for anyone who gets fined for breaking the law.

Just because you don't like the law doesn't allow you to break the law

Campaign to change the legal position by all means. However until law is changed, then it is the law and you get punished if you get caught breaking the law

You are priceless aren't you.

:twisted:

Surf-Matt

I know where you mean and agree that it's dangerous.

I have to cycle a very short distance to and under a subway. The alternative is a completely lethal roundabout which I have nearly been knocked off on three times.

There is a Police station next to it yet the cops have never said a word.

Sometimes the law in just daft and yes, I break it to avoid dying but am very courteous to pedestrians, cycle slowly, and ding my bike bell to make sure people know I am there.

berkan

I also live in Bristol and even driving down this stretch of road you realise how dangerous it is for all road users. I am a keen cyclist and like to cycle fast on roads, whenever it is safe. It would be nice if just one motorised vehicle driver in Bristol showed the same consideration that most cyclists who mount pavements show to pedestrians. I have to say that I NEVER cycle on pavements but then I am foolishly un-afraid for my personal safety on the roads. I can however appreciate that some people don't have the same level of bravery/stupidity that I do. I would like to also question, when it is large motorised vehicles that cause traffic jams why should cyclists suffer being inconvenienced at the same time. This is only acceptable because we perceive cars as a fact of life.

The fact is that the council along with greedy First Bus 'FORCED' a bus lane in both directions down this historic street, a street that has already been bastardised to accomodate more traffic by being made 'one way' at the far end. I don't know if they have changed it now but the bus lane heading out of town acctually had no give way line at the end when they installed it meaning that both buses and cars had priority merging into one lane at 30 miles per hour! Surely this is dangerous yet the police would rather hand out fines to cyclists who feel forced to use the pavement as there is no other way around the stationary traffic in rush hour.

I believe and I am sure a lawyer or pedant will correct me if I'm wrong, that cycling on the pavement is now a 'public order offence'. Something dreamt up by our current government because 'laws' are not good enough any more? (Yes I do know it's still a law effectively but re-branded by by 'NEW' Labour) As I said earlier I never cycle on the pavement but I would have to ask the question: shouldn't cyclists be safely accomodated on Britain's roads before buses and cars and motorcycles? Are they not the most vulnerable road users? I have to concur with some other people's comments, if it is safe to use this road or any other then why do people cycle on the pavement? Surely making people feel safe on their cycles on the road would lead to more safe cycling and less cars. This solution seems very slow coming in this country but Amsterdam is a good example where giving priority to cycles, even over pedestrians has massively increased the use of bikes by making people feel safer.

iainment

berkan wrote:

I also live in Bristol and even driving down this stretch of road you realise how dangerous it is for all road users. I am a keen cyclist and like to cycle fast on roads, whenever it is safe. It would be nice if just one motorised vehicle driver in Bristol showed the same consideration that most cyclists who mount pavements show to pedestrians. I have to say that I NEVER cycle on pavements but then I am foolishly un-afraid for my personal safety on the roads. I can however appreciate that some people don't have the same level of bravery/stupidity that I do. I would like to also question, when it is large motorised vehicles that cause traffic jams why should cyclists suffer being inconvenienced at the same time. This is only acceptable because we perceive cars as a fact of life.

The fact is that the council along with greedy First Bus 'FORCED' a bus lane in both directions down this historic street, a street that has already been bastardised to accomodate more traffic by being made 'one way' at the far end. I don't know if they have changed it now but the bus lane heading out of town acctually had no give way line at the end when they installed it meaning that both buses and cars had priority merging into one lane at 30 miles per hour! Surely this is dangerous yet the police would rather hand out fines to cyclists who feel forced to use the pavement as there is no other way around the stationary traffic in rush hour.

I believe and I am sure a lawyer or pedant will correct me if I'm wrong, that cycling on the pavement is now a 'public order offence'. Something dreamt up by our current government because 'laws' are not good enough any more? (Yes I do know it's still a law effectively but re-branded by by 'NEW' Labour) As I said earlier I never cycle on the pavement but I would have to ask the question: shouldn't cyclists be safely accomodated on Britain's roads before buses and cars and motorcycles? Are they not the most vulnerable road users? I have to concur with some other people's comments, if it is safe to use this road or any other then why do people cycle on the pavement? Surely making people feel safe on their cycles on the road would lead to more safe cycling and less cars. This solution seems very slow coming in this country but Amsterdam is a good example where giving priority to cycles, even over pedestrians has massively increased the use of bikes by making people feel safer.

spen666 will oblige as he is both. Although we only have his word for the lawyer bit.

Surf-Matt

Cars are going to be priced off the roads soon anyway.
Oil reserves are MUCH lower than previously thought, fuel will double then triple and our roads will become a haven for cyclists again.

Sounds daft but it's not.

cntl

>>Just because you don't like the law doesn't allow you to break the law

Hahah, this one made me laugh

If everybody thought like you, slavery would still be an accepted practice, women would have no right to vote, and the like.

You have to disregard the laws that do not make sense. It not like the the Laws of the Universe, innit.

When I read posts like this, I am always reminded of Rosa Parks who refused to obey The Law and a bus driver's order to give up her seat to make room for a white passenger.

NorwegianBlue

Cycling on the pavement has always been an offence, or at least for as long as I can remember. It certainly was when I took my cycling proficiency test back in nineteen-seventy-never-mind, the change in legislation in 1999 was not to make it an offence, but to allow the police to issue on the spot fines. Before that date the only way you could be prosecuted for the offence would have been through the court system, which would have been a ridiculous waste of resources.

None of the pro pavement riding arguments posted so far in this thread have managed to convince me that it would not have been better to push the bike along the pavemen,t or indeed through the subway. Can somebody explain to me why they should not dismount and push their bike when riding on the footway or other pedestrian only area? I simply can not see any justification other than speed.

andrewc3142

A few posts here remind me of the people in the queue for the 8 items or less checkout who count how many objects others have in their basket and demand that those with 9 go to the appropriate checkout.