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

hoathy

andrewc3142 wrote:

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.

how can you compare doing something illegal with doing that!
riding on the pavement is stupid, if you want to be on the pavement for your safety, get off and push. If you can't live with that, then ride on the damn road.

NorwegianBlue

andrewc3142 wrote:

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.

What!? How on earth does your mind work? In what way is taking 9 items through the 8 items or less checkout dangerous?

andrewc3142

Oh dear :roll:

FAT_ROB

[/quote]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?

Sod debating other laws get this implimented immediatly.

prj45

NorwegianBlue wrote:

I'm interested in the definition of riding on the pavement as "safe".

Spot on, what with lamposts, pedestrians, litter bins, wobbly paving slabs other cyclists weaving around peds I bet it's one of the unsafest places to be whilst on a cycle despite what 'common sense' might say.

If you need to get off the road because you don't like it bloody well get off the bike and walk it!

prj45

Juju_uk_68 wrote:

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.

Speeding drivers?

cntl

prj45 wrote:

Juju_uk_68 wrote:

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.

Speeding drivers?

Not that I advocate cycling on pavements, but your analogy(?) is misguided. While speeding is generally a manifestation of selfishness (I want to get quickly to my destination and don't give a *** about others), quite a few of the folk who mount pavements near dangerous roads genuinely fear for their lives.

Cycling in UK is ridiculously dangerous, cyclists account for 1% of road traffic but account for 28% road accidents (all reported, including minor) and around 13% of serious accidents (permanent injury or death).

NorwegianBlue

cntl wrote:

Not that I advocate cycling on pavements, but your analogy(?) is misguided. While speeding is generally a manifestation of selfishness (I want to get quickly to my destination and don't give a *** about others), quite a few of the folk who mount pavements near dangerous roads genuinely fear for their lives.

Cycling in UK is ridiculously dangerous, cyclists account for 1% of road traffic but account for 28% road accidents (all reported, including minor) and around 13% of serious accidents (permanent injury or death).

I do not dispute that when one is fearful of traffic one should take to the pavement, but on foot. The only criteria for riding rather than walking on a pavement are selfish, they are exactly those you quote for a speeding driver "I want to get quickly to my destination and don't give a *** about others".

Oh, and unless they've changed the criteria recently, "serious accidents" are officially those where hospital treatment was required, not those involving permanent injury or death. I've been involved in a few RTA's over the years, and when the police have attended they have always recommended that I attend A&E as a precaution. As soon as I take that advice the accident becomes a serious one under the official statistics. Now as far as I can tell any cyclist, motorcyclist or ped involved in an RTA attended by PC Plod is advised to attend casualty, so this would skew official figures.

Why would I be so concerned about this skewing of the figures? Well back in the eighties when my two wheels were powered by internal combustion there were movements by Marsham Street to impose draconian regulations on motorcycling. Their criteria for doing so was that official statistics showed that motorcyclists were far more likely to suffer serious injury in an accident. There definition of serious injury was, of course, one involving hospital attendance. If plod were advising all motorcyclists involved in an RTA to attend A&E then guess what. Almost all plod attended motorcycle RTA's would be classified as serious. Now fast forward to the noughties and anti motorcycle feeling seems to have ebbed, only to be replaced with anti bicycle feeling. Bandy figures like that around and you are playing into the hands of those who want to legislate against us.

Mithras

Just for a change I might stay our of this argument, I'll end up giving myself a £30 ticket!
:oops:

Docsavage

SecretSam wrote:

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.

I didn't get the fine, a colleague did.
What alternate route? since our office is half way up this particular street you either come down Old Market (with the bottleneck) or up the other side (with the bottleneck)

meanwhile

cntl wrote:

>>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.

Actually, slavery was ended in the British Empire by a completely legal campaign. And the major role of illegality re slavery in the US was the rebellion of the Confederate States.

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.

If you're seriously unable to understand the difference between the huge evil of racism and a policeman who doesn't want you riding on the pavement where you'll scare OAPs (and I've seen some almost have heart attacks in the wake of inconsiderate cyclists who were too chicken to ride on the road, but thought nothing of whisking past grannies at 15mph) then get a morality transplant. And a self importance reduction operation while you're at it. Civil disobedience is for issues like ethnic cleansing - it's not a charter for everyone to disobey every law they dislike.

meanwhile

Docsavage wrote:

..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!!)

This sounds awful. But there is a relatively safe way to ride it, unless I've misunderstood. Wait for a gap in the traffic, pull out, and take the whole lane. Yes, you'll slow down the traffic flow. No, it's not your problem.

Taking the whole lane feels scary, but it's often the safest thing to do. (With the caveats that you be riding with decent lights at night - meaning a good rear strobe - and wear bright noticeable colours always, especially on the upper body.) Take a look at http://bicyclesafe.com/ and google "Effective Cycling"

NikB

Surf-Matt wrote:

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.

Oil reserves aren't remotely low. There is plenty of oil left though it will get harder to get at. The current problem is a lack of refining capacity - specifically diesel refining capacity. There are 2 new large refineries- 1 in India that are due to come online soon which should help. The other reason oil has become so pricey is that it's being invested in as a commodity driving the price further up.

Some of the people's comments in this thread are half the reason this government has got us over a barrel. They say jump we say how high. Surely a person on a bike can judge whether or not it is safe to cycle on a pavement briefly to avoid some traffic. If there are no pedestrians about why should it even be an issue? I don't think it would even warrant getting off the bike to walk if there's no one there - that issue doesn't appear to have even been raised.

Docsavage

meanwhile wrote:

Docsavage wrote:

..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!!)

This sounds awful. But there is a relatively safe way to ride it, unless I've misunderstood. Wait for a gap in the traffic, pull out, and take the whole lane. Yes, you'll slow down the traffic flow. No, it's not your problem.

Taking the whole lane feels scary, but it's often the safest thing to do. (With the caveats that you be riding with decent lights at night - meaning a good rear strobe - and wear bright noticeable colours always, especially on the upper body.) Take a look at http://bicyclesafe.com/ and google "Effective Cycling"

I do agree, thats the way I ride. Don't be cowed into submission, if you feel threatened take up the room you need.
However, the motorist who nudged me from my bike recently didn't agree, he seemed to think that because I was 'in his way' he need not stop or worry about pushing me off. and there's the rub, it hurts when you get knocked off, too many drivers are immune to the consequences of their aggressive and dangerous driving. My ribs are testament to the price you can easily pay for trying to remain secure on your bike.

SmellTheGlove

NikB wrote:

Surely a person on a bike can judge whether or not it is safe to cycle on a pavement briefly to avoid some traffic. If there are no pedestrians about why should it even be an issue? I don't think it would even warrant getting off the bike to walk if there's no one there - that issue doesn't appear to have even been raised.

Another unraised issue is the number of motorists who find the road a scary place - should we accommodate them in their vehicles on the pavements too?

Pavements are for pedestrians, end of story. If pavement riders crave further victimhood so that they can bleat about their downtrodden condition, let them cycle anywhere but the streets in their infantile way.

Marginalisation of cyclists is what many motorists, car manufacturers and politicians clearly want - I say, don't play into their hand.

meanwhile

Docsavage wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

Docsavage wrote:

..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!!)

This sounds awful. But there is a relatively safe way to ride it, unless I've misunderstood. Wait for a gap in the traffic, pull out, and take the whole lane. Yes, you'll slow down the traffic flow. No, it's not your problem.

Taking the whole lane feels scary, but it's often the safest thing to do. (With the caveats that you be riding with decent lights at night - meaning a good rear strobe - and wear bright noticeable colours always, especially on the upper body.) Take a look at http://bicyclesafe.com/ and google "Effective Cycling"

I do agree, thats the way I ride. Don't be cowed into submission, if you feel threatened take up the room you need.
However, the motorist who nudged me from my bike recently didn't agree, he seemed to think that because I was 'in his way' he need not stop or worry about pushing me off.

Then he's a dangerous nutter. Did you report him? (I know; you might have felt it wasn't worth it. Fair enough.)

There really isn't an ideal solution here, but I think ridden correctly your bottleneck isn't especially dangerous - I'd worry more about any high speed road where I'd be pushed into riding close to parked cars, with the risk of getting doored.

Otoh:

NikB wrote:
Surely a person on a bike can judge whether or not it is safe to cycle on a pavement briefly to avoid some traffic.

Honestly, no. You certainly could ("If there are no pedestrians about why should it even be an issue? I don't think it would even warrant getting off the bike to walk if there's no one there - that issue doesn't appear to have even been raised" - very restrained) but you're not most people, let alone the One Per Cent Of Dangerous Idiots who cause most of the problems. I remember a moron on a bike passing me at a distance of about two inches on the pavement once - doing a full speed descent of a long hill, so he was moving at well over 20mph. Bikes sharing the pavement with pedestrians would work in a perfect world, but in a perfect world no one would want to ride off the road.

NikB

Sure a minority would be irresponsible and that's what the fine should be for but the majority shouldn't be punished for using a bit of common sense.

dang65

meanwhile wrote:

This sounds awful. But there is a relatively safe way to ride it, unless I've misunderstood. Wait for a gap in the traffic, pull out, and take the whole lane. Yes, you'll slow down the traffic flow. No, it's not your problem.

Doesn't that describe what this guy was doing though? He got pulled over by the cops and told off.

NikB

SmellTheGlove wrote:

NikB wrote:

Surely a person on a bike can judge whether or not it is safe to cycle on a pavement briefly to avoid some traffic. If there are no pedestrians about why should it even be an issue? I don't think it would even warrant getting off the bike to walk if there's no one there - that issue doesn't appear to have even been raised.

Another unraised issue is the number of motorists who find the road a scary place - should we accommodate them in their vehicles on the pavements too?

Pavements are for pedestrians, end of story. If pavement riders crave further victimhood so that they can bleat about their downtrodden condition, let them cycle anywhere but the streets in their infantile way.

Marginalisation of cyclists is what many motorists, car manufacturers and politicians clearly want - I say, don't play into their hand.

Where is the comparison between a small 2 wheeled man powered 10kg lump of steel vs a 1.5 tonne car? Please at least apply some logic to the argument. We're talking about riding a small stretch of pavement and if there are no pedestrians present then what is the problem? If there are then get off and walk - I don't understand the need for this jobsworth like attitude.

NorwegianBlue

NikB wrote:

Oil reserves aren't remotely low. There is plenty of oil left though it will get harder to get at. The current problem is a lack of refining capacity - specifically diesel refining capacity. There are 2 new large refineries- 1 in India that are due to come online soon which should help. The other reason oil has become so pricey is that it's being invested in as a commodity driving the price further up.

That's a popular theory at the moment, but there's little evidence that there's much speculation going on in the oil market. The only way for speculation to work is to hoard oil and there's no evidence that this is happening. Indeed who has the capacity? The only speculation that really occurs is short term, that is to say speculating on the difference in price between the day a tanker is loaded and the day it docks.

Prices are mostly driven by that economic classic of supply and demand. Opec could probably drive prices down a little by releasing more oil onto the market (as Gordon Brown recently suggested), but that would be risky. There is no shortage so increasing supply could lead to a glut, which could lead to a price crash, which could lead to market crashes around the world. Or it might not. Alternatively bringing prices down, and creating a glut could well lead to speculation. Curently supply and demand are well balanced so oil flows through the system pretty quickly. Too much oil in the system would mean that oil would need to be stored for longer periods, which could lead to people speculating on future prices and lead to the scenario you suggest.

We suffer more than most countries because of the high rate of duty on fuel. Brown needs people to keep using fossil fuels to balance the books, as fuel usage seems to be falling he can't give people what they want and cut duty. Don't forget this is the man who continued the "fuel price escalator" for years after the EU required it in order to increase revenue while trying to blame the EU and the previous government. He can no longer blame the Tories or the EU for the rate of duty, New Labour have been in power too long for that. So he needs to find a new fall guy. He's tried to blame speculators but that didn't really wash, for the reasons given above. So now he's trying to blame OPEC, he did it before a safe audience - a Google conference. He daren't do it before economists because they would have rubbished his theory.

Sadly he could cut fuel duty by a resonable chunk, but he's so desparate for money. The increase in the pre-duty price of fuel means that the revenue from VAT on fuel has increased. As a result he could cut duty and maintain the same level of revenue from fuel that he enjoyed a year ago, indeed doing so may increase sales so he could probably cut it a little more without losing out. However the balance of his accounts is so poor at the moment and he is so convinced that he is always right (the disease of the succesful chancellor) that he will do nothing other than try to find another scapegoat.

</RANT>

NikB

It would seems there's a lot of different opinions as to what's going on out there. According to what I read last week the Americans have plenty of oil stored at the moment (enough to 2012).
As for supply and demand - if it was well balanced then prices wouldn't be rising. There was a meeting last week between some of the head honchos at the likes of Shell, BP etc and they agreed that the oil per barrel price should be between $35 and £90 well below the current $135. OPEC has said it would consider increasing output by 200,000 barrels per day but what difference would that make if there's nowhere to refine it.

NorwegianBlue

NikB wrote:

Where is the comparison between a small 2 wheeled man powered 10kg lump of steel vs a 1.5 tonne car? Please at least apply some logic to the argument. We're talking about riding a small stretch of pavement and if there are no pedestrians present then what is the problem? If there are then get off and walk - I don't understand the need for this jobsworth like attitude.

There is no suggestion that there were no pedestrians around. Presumably on such a busy street there were a lot of peds around. For a start there were police officers on that pavement. Quite apart from anything else, exactly how thick skinned do you have to be to commit an offence under the nose of a policeman and then complain when you get nicked?

And I don't buy the argument that it's safe if there are no peds around. What do you do if somebody steps out of a door onto the footway and into your path? Crosses the street from the other side and emerges from the traffic? Alights from a vehicle? It's not their responsibility to look out for you, you are breaking the law after all. You hit a small child or a frail OAP at even relatively low speed an you could do them a serious injury.

Even if you lack the imagination to foresee the potential outcome of you actions on others, consider the possible financial impact on yourself. If you injure somebody you could well be sued. What would be your defence? "They shouldn't have to pay out, I was too scared to ride on the road and too selfish to walk." Or how about "They'd have been much more badly injured if it was a 1.5 tonne car." I'm sure a court would be really sympathetic. And even if you have insurance would it pay out if you were riding on the footway? I believe broken bones generally run into the thousands of pounds compensation these days, and of course there would legal costs to pay.

Worse yet consider the impact of such a case on cycling as a whole. The press would have a field day.

All things considered cycling on the pavement is definitely a selfish pastime.

NikB

Seems like it's getting blown out of proportion to me. Without knowing exactly what the area of pavement was the argument is somewhat pointless. However regarding your comments regarding crossing the road, getting out of cars etc don't seem well thought out to me. Are you telling me the legal ramifications would be any different if you hit them ont the road compared to the pavement? Surely what is needed is some common sense, I fail to see the need for this to have gone so far.

NorwegianBlue

NikB wrote:

It would seems there's a lot of different opinions as to what's going on out there. According to what I read last week the Americans have plenty of oil stored at the moment (enough to 2012).
As for supply and demand - if it was well balanced then prices wouldn't be rising. There was a meeting last week between some of the head honchos at the likes of Shell, BP etc and they agreed that the oil per barrel price should be between $35 and £90 well below the current $135. OPEC has said it would consider increasing output by 200,000 barrels per day but what difference would that make if there's nowhere to refine it.

If the US had unrefined reserves stored to last four years then that would follow that the they are currently using oil bought at 2004 prices so the price at the pump in the US would not be tracking the price at the pump in the rest of the world. And it is. Also the US has similar politcal problems with fuel pricing to our own, if anything they are worse. If they had reserves like that, they could control pump prices locally and quell the political unrest on the subject.

I read the four years reserves (indeed in some reports it made a ridiculous 12 years!) story as an attempt to head of scaremongering over an impending shortage rather than the truth.

If supply and demand were not balanced there would be a shortage and there isn't. OPEC do not set the price of oil, they can control it to some extent by controlling supply, but in the end like any commodities market the selling price is what the buyers want to bid. The like of BP and Shell are unhappy about the high price of oil because it is bad for their image. They however represent a large chunk of the buyers on the market and as such have some control over the price themselves. If they have the reserves of crude that have been suggested by some then they could control the price at source by ceasing or reducing any procurement and relying on reserves this would force the price down.

Similarly the big fuel retailers could significantly reduce the price at the pump by reducing their ever escalating profit margins, but they don't want to. So for similar reasons to Mr Brown they try to make OPEC out to be the bad guys.

In a similar vein, the fuel companies are the only people who are likely to have any real capacity for storage, so if any significant market speculation is going on it must be the large fuel companies who are doing it. In which case they could simply stop speculating and lower the price. If they are speculating on the price the last thing they want to happen is for OPEC to increase supply as that would blow their speculation right out of the water.

Unless of course they are playing a very long game that would rely on a price crash to work, which I doubt as it's an incredibly risky strategy. Wait for the price to crash then buy as much as you can at the bottom of the market and sell once the price increases. Sounds good, but what if OPEC simply shut up shop and refuse to sell to you when the price crashes? Thus creating a shortage and thus forcing the price back up?

NorwegianBlue

NikB wrote:

Seems like it's getting blown out of proportion to me. Without knowing exactly what the area of pavement was the argument is somewhat pointless. However regarding your comments regarding crossing the road, getting out of cars etc don't seem well thought out to me. Are you telling me the legal ramifications would be any different if you hit them ont the road compared to the pavement? Surely what is needed is some common sense, I fail to see the need for this to have gone so far.

If a ped steps into the road and you hit them, then to claim any compensation from you they would have to prove you were in some way in the wrong. If you are cycling on the pavement then you are in the wrong, plain and simple. An easy case for Injury Lawyers 4U.

Clever Pun

Why has no one mentioned that with Cops hanging around people still cycled on the pavements (regardless of right or wrong) if you're that fu<king stupid you get fined.

Break the law in front of a copper and get caught... wow

dang65

Clever Pun wrote:

Why has no one mentioned that with Cops hanging around people still cycled on the pavements (regardless of right or wrong) if you're that fu<king stupid you get fined.

Break the law in front of a copper and get caught... wow

Maybe they'd read the Home Office Guidelines and didn't expect to be stopped.

Clever Pun

dang65 wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Why has no one mentioned that with Cops hanging around people still cycled on the pavements (regardless of right or wrong) if you're that fu<king stupid you get fined.

Break the law in front of a copper and get caught... wow

Maybe they'd read the Home Office Guidelines and didn't expect to be stopped.

And ignored the press about the police giving on the spot fines previously in zero tolerance days... highly unlikely

dang65

"zero tolerance days"? :shock:

Is that how the Law works now?

flattythehurdler

spen666 wrote:

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?

Didn't think so. You really need to get your legal facts straight before spouting off on bike fora.