Open Letter to Mr Brown, Ex prime minister

spen666

farmer_giles wrote:

Evening folks,

interesting to see everbodys reply. i think that some of my comments may have been misunderstood: the reference to the 1500 bike. Anybody who knows the 'New Cross / Peckham area" in SE london is aware that its not the safest. I've been threatended once by some lad with his pitbull, (this was on the same road where I got off to cross over the road at the traffic lights) so I prefer to keep on my bike especially at night. So my point was that really that my bike means a lot to me, along with my well being. It could be 200 quids worth, but a more expensive toy / car is a magnet for trouble.....

i would sometime like to invite some of the posters on here... on a nice little bike ride around London, perhaps it will give you some idea of the reasons why some people try to avoid certain roads and areas. For myself to get back onto the road towards honor oak... se23.. i would have to gone back onto the main old kent road and cut accross 3 lanes...of traffic.. which is pretty nerveracking... however i didnt know the cycle path would be locked up? so unless you know every backstreet... you tend to pick the safest route.

regarding the fine.... yes I paid. The amount wasnt the issue. when i spoke with the copper. she asked me for my name and address, which i provided. But aftewards I said: how do you know I have given you the right name: eg she didnt radio to check my background.... wierd. usually if you are under arrest I believe you're details are checked on computer for other offences?? - but really did this require the resource of 6 police officers? did the 60+ year old woman carrying her shopping home, averaging 1mph (there is a sansburys oposite) really deserve to be fined... surely a ticking off - would have sufficed, but then again... i would rather a 60 year old woman was on the rather large pavement, away from the traffic... then having to pick her up from the road.

Question: if you are not suited to road riding, eg age, nervous cause of a previous accident... then does this mean you should sell your bike? and walk everywhere? I have no issues with people sharing space, as long as there is tollarance and 95% of the time, there are no issues. There are plenty of roads in Bristol where the pavement has been split into 2, again no problems and it encourages people into cycliing? Are we going to be continually fining people for occasianally using paths, if is deemed to be safer for both the person cycling and other vehicle users??

for 98% of my journey, its on road. I have no issues with riding on streets of london, even though its pretty dangerous due to some taxi driver, some pesdetrians walking out in the middle of the road, motorbikes and cars. But i respect everybody, and am not one of these persons that wants everybody to be fining eatchother... eg motorbikes in cycle lanes.. people walking out in the middle of the roads (can you imagine if the coppers had to arrest and fine every pedrestrian who didnt use a zebra crossing....)

there is obvosily a lot of media attention.... towards cyclists.. but I tend to find the ones that misbehave the most... tend to be on the racers doing 20 mph+. some of you on here have admitted on these forums to going through red lights (which I do not)... but at the same time I can fully understand why cycists do certain things... such as going through a light to turn left (as an example). I can also understand peoples frustration at cycling on certain paths being reckless, but this is a minority... perhaps what is needed is tollarance by everone, rather than jumping on a bandwagon.... every cyclist/driver/taxi driver... is an idiot etc.

Some of you have mentioned that I was on a rant... more frustrated at... was the action taken against those who were cycling that night, what did it really achieve? Not a lot, I guess.. apart from alientating a few people. what happened to a bit of common sense used by coppers (again they were under instruction by the council... 9 times out of 10, unless you are being a dangerous plonker, you are left alone.... I dont blame the coppers at all....

Again to claify there are differences between reckless riding and safe ridding (the cyclists that give us bad names tend to be the reckless ones) just because you have ridden on a path, does not mean you are reckless? - does it? reckless could be due to a number of things, eg not having a cycle bell , jumping red lights, one way streets, riding on the other side of the road (a favourite one in London city) and riding too fast(wether that be on a pavement or road), not paying due attention to others,,,

The incident the other night was purly for collecting taxes, Not once did I see a pedestrian on that small stretch. and there is a massive difference between cycling on a path (in a busy city centre during rush hour) and (in a quiet suberb late at night) (no matter how long the distance) , nor were any vehicles pulled over, or car speed cameras in action....the fact thats it right next to a main commuter bike path.. says it all.

perhaps some of the posters on here, need to have a think about why people sometimes ride on paths? before labeling us as idiots, I'd rather be an idiot that is alive than an idiot that is dead? one thing for sure that 60 year old woman... was not an idiot or a criminal...nor does she derserve to be tagged as one...

cheers Stu.

PS - look forward to smacking in the next rider ... who rams his / her bike into mine at the next traffic lights. I am joing by the way . I'll just report them to the police for criminal damage, reckless riding etc....or rather say hello and continue to be my polite self. . after all that is the law... and common sense doesnt apply anymore!

Perhaps the OP needs to think about why he IS a CRIMINAL.

Perhaps the OP should stop trying to defend his criminality and accept he is in the wrong

tailwindhome

<Perry Mason mode on>


Farmer Giles I put it to you that the reason you were riding on the pavement is that you couldn't have been bothered to get off and walk.

Not only could you not be bothered to walk, but you cover this up by fabricating a story, telling the ladies and gentlemen of the Bike Radar jury that you had to stay on your expensive bike out of fear for your own safety.

Well Farmer Giles I put it to you that this 15 metre stretch of footpath is without doubt the safest in England. Guarded as it is by 6 of Her Majesties finest policemen.

One police officer for every 8 feet of your journey


Isn't true

Isn't it all true


<Perry Mason mode off>

Big Red S

farmer_giles wrote:

Evening folks,

interesting to see everbodys reply. i think that some of my comments may have been misunderstood: the reference to the 1500 bike. Anybody who knows the 'New Cross / Peckham area" in SE london is aware that its not the safest. I've been threatended once by some lad with his pitbull, (this was on the same road where I got off to cross over the road at the traffic lights) so I prefer to keep on my bike especially at night. So my point was that really that my bike means a lot to me, along with my well being. It could be 200 quids worth, but a more expensive toy / car is a magnet for trouble.....

So you made a decision between walking and riding, knowing full well that you weren't allowed to ride and might be fined for it.

i would sometime like to invite some of the posters on here... on a nice little bike ride around London, perhaps it will give you some idea of the reasons why some people try to avoid certain roads and areas.

I do ride round London. And I avoide certain roads and areas, mostly ones where I might not want to walk a bike

regarding the fine.... yes I paid. The amount wasnt the issue. when i spoke with the copper. she asked me for my name and address, which i provided. But aftewards I said: how do you know I have given you the right name: eg she didnt radio to check my background.... wierd. usually if you are under arrest I believe you're details are checked on computer for other offences??

Were you under arrest or just being issued a penalty?

- but really did this require the resource of 6 police officers?

Presumably.
It's difficult to tell exactly where they were at the time, since you've both said that they were standing around waiting and that you thought someone might jump you on the 15m of pavement, but it's not uncommon for the reassuring-the-public operations to involve a disproportionate amount of officers.

did the 60+ year old woman carrying her shopping home, averaging 1mph (there is a sansburys oposite) really deserve to be fined... surely a ticking off - would have sufficed, but then again... i would rather a 60 year old woman was on the rather large pavement, away from the traffic... then having to pick her up from the road.

I don't know.
Given the average driving skill of some older people, I'd much rather she wasn't swerving all over the pavement.

Question: if you are not suited to road riding, eg age, nervous cause of a previous accident... then does this mean you should sell your bike? and walk everywhere?

No.
But most people on bikes as expensive as yours aren't 'not suited to road riding'.
In any case, there're usually quieter routes, and I think Southwark council to cycle training.

I have no issues with people sharing space, as long as there is tollarance and 95% of the time, there are no issues.

I've yet to see a pedestrian happy to be passed by a cyclist on the pavement.
If there are no issues with sharing space, why weren't you on the road?

There are plenty of roads in Bristol where the pavement has been split into 2, again no problems and it encourages people into cycliing?

Well, no, there's less likely to be problems with cyclists cycling on cycle paths than on footpaths.

Are we going to be continually fining people for occasianally using paths,

I do hope so

if is deemed to be safer for both the person cycling and other vehicle users??

By whom?
And what of the young people walking on the pavement?

people walking out in the middle of the roads (can you imagine if the coppers had to arrest and fine every pedrestrian who didnt use a zebra crossing....)

I imagine that if it was a law, and an enforced one at that, fewer people would cross the road where there is no crossing.

there is obvosily a lot of media attention.... towards cyclists.. but I tend to find the ones that misbehave the most... tend to be on the racers doing 20 mph+.

And the ones on the pavement.

I can also understand peoples frustration at cycling on certain paths being reckless, but this is a minority

There's quite a lot of people who dislike cyclists on the pavement

... perhaps what is needed is tollarance by everone, rather than jumping on a bandwagon.... every cyclist/driver/taxi driver... is an idiot etc.

Including yourself?
Tolerate the pedestrians wish to not be treated as slalom poles.

Some of you have mentioned that I was on a rant... more frustrated at... was the action taken against those who were cycling that night, what did it really achieve? Not a lot, I guess.. apart from alientating a few people.

Any rational person in your position would likely have come away less likely to ride on the pavement. That was the bulk of the point.

what happened to a bit of common sense used by coppers

What happened to a bit of common sense used by cyclists?
You broke the law, you got caught, you got fined. I don't see what there is to be so self-righteous about?

(again they were under instruction by the council...

Aside from the fact that they're employed to enforce the law.

Again to claify there are differences between reckless riding and safe ridding (the cyclists that give us bad names tend to be the reckless ones) just because you have ridden on a path, does not mean you are reckless? - does it?

Yes.
Unless you've consulted all the pedestrians you're going to pass (in advance) to make sure that they don't mind you riding down _their_ path.

The incident the other night was purly for collecting taxes,

Like I said above, it was likely in order to discourage you from riding on the pavement again. I imagine they must have presumed you were in possession of some common sense, though.

and there is a massive difference between cycling on a path (in a busy city centre during rush hour) and (in a quiet suberb late at night) (no matter how long the distance) , nor were any vehicles pulled over, or car speed cameras in action....the fact thats it right next to a main commuter bike path.. says it all.

I think you've misunderstood how parentheses work.
But, anyway, the fact it's right next to a main commuter bike park is even more reason for them to expect you not to be on it, surely?
Surely quiet suburbs aren't the places one expects to be mugged, or where the alternative route involves going straight across a 3-lane dual carriageway without any real form of crossing?

perhaps some of the posters on here, need to have a think about why people sometimes ride on paths? before labeling us as idiots, I'd rather be an idiot that is alive than an idiot that is dead? one thing for sure that 60 year old woman... was not an idiot or a criminal...nor does she derserve to be tagged as one...

She might well have greater reason than you for riding on the path. But that doesn't change the fact that neither of you were allowed to be there.
If you think the law is wrong, that's fine, challenge it. But don't just break it.

and common sense doesnt apply anymore!

Well, clearly not in your case, no.

cjw

farmer_giles wrote:

- but really did this require the resource of 6 police officers? did the 60+ year old woman carrying her shopping home, averaging 1mph (there is a sansburys oposite) really deserve to be fined... surely a ticking off - would have sufficed,

BigRed makes most of the points above. However, the point of an operation rather than a ticking off (which is what they normally do) is precisely to raise awareness and get the criminal cycling community talking. If they had ticked you off - you would have though nothing off it. With an operation and a fine, the issue has been raised to a sufficiently high level.

Often in these occasions the council / police also have a press campaign...

eg..

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/3799622.Police_fine_83_cyclists_with_no_lights/

http://cms.met.police.uk/met/boroughs/camden/04how_are_we_doing/news/over_500_cyclists_spoken_to_and_100_fines_issued_following_cycle_operation

On nineoccasions over the last six weeks, officers have issued 102 penalty fines for cycling through red lights, seven fines for cycling on the pavement and two for failing to stop for police. Officers, Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) and Camden Council Street Wardens have given words of advice to an additional 419 cyclists in relation to stopping at junctions and other highway code matters.

The six week trial operation has proved so successful that it will continue and will also be rolled out across other areas of the borough. Similar initiatives are planned for Camden Town, Kentish Town and possibly Hampstead.

Police have received positive feedback from members of the public for tackling the issue, in particular from one gentleman. An elderly Polish national approached a Special Constable who was conducting the operation in High Holborn on Wednesday 23rd July 2008.

He told the officer that he had been living in London for the last ten years and shaking his hand he said: "Sometimes I feel so unsafe crossing the road and even on the pavement because of this menace, you are doing a wonderful job and I just can’t thank you enough."

PC Mick Kerrison, Holborn and Covent Garden Safer Neighbourhoods Team, said: "The operation has been a huge success, resulting in hundreds of cyclists being spoken to about their behaviour. By conducting the operation we wanted to educate cyclists and advise them of their conduct, not only are they breaking the law, they are putting themselves and other road users and pedestrians at risk of injury."

Your main argument seems to be that riding on pavements - but not (in your words) recklessly is OK. It is NOT. Unless it is a specific cycle path, peds do not expect traffic on their pavement and will behave accordingly - with little attention and generally wandering, especially little kids. They do not appreciate any idiot cyclists sweving around them. The point as to whether the pavement was clear at the time is irrelevant... they have clearly been told to raise the profile in this area (so what if the individual bobbies don't agree - as you state - I'm sure they would all rather be out chasing Mister Big down for gun running, but they can't all do that and there are other laws to enforce for public safety as well).

Jen J

Big Red S, I salute you.