westminster bike "police"

number9

"The behaviour of the one-in-ten uninsured drivers in London is the reason some cyclists use the pavements."

Yep, a cyclist has no idea whether a driver is insured or not, it's the driver's BEHAVIOUR that makes the cyclist think it might be better to get the hell out of the way.

The figures show that uninsured cars are involved in more accidents. The drivers are often involved in other criminal activities as well, ANPR roadblocks have recovered £8 million in cash from criminals in uninsured cars.

number9

Debra Rolfe of the CTC again, from the Grauniad:

Cyclists are too frequently accused to causing great harm to others, when in reality we cause very little.

Of course traffic laws apply to all road users, and they should be enforced for all road users. Better enforcement of traffic laws for both cyclists and motorists would lead to more amenable roads for all.

But if you want roads that are actually safer for all, the facts show that cracking down on cyclists simply will not achieve that aim.

The vast majority of anti-social cycling is caused by the fear of traffic and/or ignorance.

Cycle training can do a great deal to help cyclists feel safe and confident. Cycletracks painted on the pavement confuse many people about where they should be cycling and where they shouldn?t, and a far better solution would be to create streets that are more pleasant so that more people would feel safer cycling - and walking.

DonDaddyD

OldSkoolKona wrote:

Dondaddyd wrote:

The resources to chase (keep in mind the uninsured car is driving so you would need a police car and two police officers per car) and stop the uninsured driver are completely different to additional support officers employed to stop pavement cyclists.

But not necessarily the budgets.

Any confirmation that this initiative would come directly out of the police budget and the sub budget that would go on sending out a police car to hunt uninsured drivers?

DonDaddyD

OldSkoolKona wrote:

Dondaddyd wrote:

The resources to chase (keep in mind the uninsured car is driving so you would need a police car and two police officers per car) and stop the uninsured driver are completely different to additional support officers employed to stop pavement cyclists.

But not necessarily the budgets.

Any confirmation that this initiative would come directly out of the police budget and the sub budget that would go on sending out a police car to hunt uninsured drivers?

number9

John Crozier of the Home Office, a letter dated 23/02/04 (Ref T5080/4) with reference to the use of FPN's by Community Support Officers's stated:

"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."

So that was the intention of the Home Office.

So we see 'zero' tolerance clampdowns' by legions of 'Community Support Officers' and council employees, fining cyclists £30 for riding on a footway regardless of how considerate thay are of peds, whilst the public highway remains a largely unpoliced free-for-all.

Pitching at aunt sallys.

spen666

number9 wrote:

....

So that was the intention of the Home Office.

So we see 'zero' tolerance clampdowns' by legions of 'Community Support Officers' and council employees, fining cyclists £30 for riding on a footway regardless of how considerate thay are of peds, whilst the public highway remains a largely unpoliced free-for-all.

Pitching at aunt sallys.

As I said at the time of the introduction of FPN's it is 100% irrelevant what the HO intwend. They cannot change the law by such statements.

The law is clear, riding on the pavement is illegal.

If the HO really meant what it said, they would have changed the law accordingly.

The reality is that it was the usual government deceit to bring in something claiming it is for one thing, and after its introduced, using it for the full range of the legislation


This is not just cycling but many different pieces of legislation covering many things

Clever Pun

Number9 will you just leave it alone now please it's bordering on spam now imo, you're just posting more and more data regardless of how the thread has progressed and it's seems reiterating the same diatribe from differing sources which frankly is getting more than tedious

Aunt Sally

number9

The law is clear, riding on the pavement is illegal.

Remind me, can FPNs be issued to children under 16?

Pavement cycling is not always illegal.

Many cyclists who ride on the pavement do so because they are afraid to ride on the road, something the government itself has acknowledged.

In a letter to cycling MP Ben Bradshaw Home Office Minister Paul Boateng wrote

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is 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 pavement users."


"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."


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 00076.html

Last time I went out on the Critical Mass ride in London (where the police accompany on their pedal bikes), I saw a guy on a recumbent get given a ticket for riding on the pavement. The incident was ridiculous – and, in my opinion, certainly not in the spirit of the guidance. The cyclist involved hopped up on to the pavement for five seconds, peeling off from the front of the pack at some traffic lights, to rejoin further back. There were no pedestrians anywhere nearby – we were in the middle of an empty Gray's Inn Road at about 7.30pm on a Friday night – and the fine seemed to serve no purpose other than to give the police an opportunity to show that they were in control of the crowd.

My guess is that if you were to challenge such a penalty in court, the judge would side with the cyclist. But who's going to bother for the sake of £30?

naive

Greg66 wrote:

Hmm. Why do some cyclists ride on the pavement?

How about, mass ignorance of rules?
Under 16's are allowed, and probably encouraged, to ride on the pavement.
On my regular commute (nowhere near London), I have, on two separate occasions on the same road, had something along the lines of "Get off the fsking road, there's a mother-loving cyclepath" shouted at me (while keeping up with the flow of traffic). The cycle-path in question is narrow, uneven pavement, with several bus-stops along the way and numerous old ladies to knock down and terrorise, which just happens to have some blue lollipops set up along it--incidentally reducing the width.
(aside: slightly further along my commute, there is the best cycle-path in the country; it is on the left hand side of the road marked by a dashed white line and a picture of a bicycle. It is luxuriously over 4 feet wide, which means there is plenty of space for cars to park in it!)

So the behaviour of the council, and the motorist, and the memories of youth and lack of any further road-cycling training or education might all encourage the cyclist to think that riding the pavement is a good idea. Education of all would seem to be a good approach to solving this, and sensationalist comments by councillors are probably unhelpful.

Of course another reason why a cyclist rides on the pavement might be that that particular cyclist is arrogant, antisocial, rebellious, or whatever, and in that case, education on good cycling practice will probably not help, but it is important to distinguish between the willful and the ignorant wherever possible. I wonder whether those in Westminster will be using their discretion?

Slightly--but not excessively given the form--off topic:

I have no idea why some cyclists ride at night with no lights.

Crazy idea to make cycling on the road a little less intimidating to the nervous--introduce an "overtaking cyclists line". This would be an interrupted, possibly coloured line an appropriate distance from the left-hand side of the carriage way. It would indicate to the driver (or rider) of an overtaking vehicle the minimum amount that it should pull-out to overtake a cyclist. It would be codified in the highway code.

Please note, all of the above is intended in a constructive manner.

realALBERTAN

what's the fine in the UK for an uninsured vehicle/driver? here it varies by province Alberta is $2875- for the first offence,


can't pay? A warrant of commital is then issued and you become a guest of the "crown" for 30 days... first time, second time 45 days, third 60 days ... the fine amounts go up at the judges discretion.

I've seen a judge demand payment "forthwith" and the offender is taken into custody at court. The way the Traffic Safety Act is worded it is a reverse onus situation as the accused has to prove they had a valid policy on the day in question. I only see it being dropped in plea bargains. Drunk drivers usually do more time or pay more fines for no insurance (at least where I was posted) than the actual impaired charge. There is nothing like picking up a guy on his 8th, 9th or 10th impaired charge.

Mithras

number9 wrote:

The vast majority of anti-social cycling is caused by the fear of traffic and/or ignorance.

Actually the vast majority of anti social cycling is caused by anti social people! Doesn't matter if they are on the road or the pavement.

prj45

naive wrote:

Under 16's are allowed, and probably encouraged, to ride on the pavement.

No they are not, it's always illegal to ride on a footpath. Police are advised that an under 16 would never be prosecuted for riding on the pavement though, so no point in arresting them.

spen666

number9 wrote:

The law is clear, riding on the pavement is illegal.

Remind me, can FPNs be issued to children under 16?

Whether FPNs can be issued to under 16s is irrelevant as a FPN is only one possible disposal.

you are confusing a particular method of disposal as being theo nly meethod.

The primary way of dealing with an offence is to issue a summons. The FPN is an alternative at the discretion of thepolice/ enforcement officer.

For examply if you are suggesting that because the police can't issue a FPNto an U16 for pavement cycling then it is not an offence to cycle on the pavement for an u16. Consider this. a FPN cannot be issued where the issuing officer is not satisfied as to the address or identity of the person. So on that basis if you cycle with no id on you, then you are ok to cycle on the pavement as the officer cannot issue you a FPN.

as I said earlier if a FPN cannot be issued,the officer can always arrest and deal with matter by summons ( and can do so even without arresting person)

Pavement cycling is not always illegal.

It is ALWAYS illegal. Whether it is enforced is different to whether it is illegal

Many cyclists who ride on the pavement do so because they are afraid to ride on the road, something the government itself has acknowledged.

In a letter to cycling MP Ben Bradshaw Home Office Minister Paul Boateng wrote

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is 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 pavement users."


"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."

As I have told you repeatedly the letter from Paul boateng is simply that, a letter. It does not change the law, it cannot change the law. If the HO want to allow pavement cycling they need to change the law via an Actof Parliament

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 00076.html

Last time I went out on the Critical Mass ride in London (where the police accompany on their pedal bikes), I saw a guy on a recumbent get given a ticket for riding on the pavement. The incident was ridiculous – and, in my opinion, certainly not in the spirit of the guidance.

riding on the pavement was contrary to the law and the officer was legally correct.

Are you now objecting to police catching criminals?

The cyclist involved hopped up on to the pavement for five seconds, peeling off from the front of the pack at some traffic lights, to rejoin further back. There were no pedestrians anywhere nearby – we were in the middle of an empty Gray's Inn Road at about 7.30pm on a Friday night – and the fine seemed to serve no purpose other than to give the police an opportunity to show that they were in control of the crowd.

My guess is that if you were to challenge such a penalty in court, the judge would side with the cyclist. But who's going to bother for the sake of £30?

Why don't you try to get a FPN for riding on the pavement and chalenge it in court. I think you will find instead of paying £30 you end up with no change out of £500 after paying afine, court costs and the victim surcharge. The judge would have no grounds to find for the cyclist. The law was broken.

It is a simple law to unsderstand.

!It is illegal to ride on the pavement"

spen666

Wanting "sensible" cycliststo be able to ride on the pavement is one thing. Campaign forthat if its what you want

however, it is completely untrue to suggest that cycling on the pavement is legal now in any circumstances, whether for a child, for a few inches or for fear of traffic.

Don't distort the current legal position and encourage false beliefs in the wording of the law.

Clever Pun

spen666 wrote:

Wanting "sensible" cycliststo be able to ride on the pavement is one thing. Campaign forthat if its what you want

however, it is completely untrue to suggest that cycling on the pavement is legal now in any circumstances, whether for a child, for a few inches or for fear of traffic.

Don't distort the current legal position and encourage false beliefs in the wording of the law.

He wont read it you know he'll just post another spurious link and some anecdotal 'evidence'

number9

Cycling on the pavement is not always illegal:

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycli ... he_law.php

it is completely untrue to suggest that cycling on the pavement is legal now in any circumstances, whether for a child, for a few inches or for fear of traffic.

Remember how I said you can be relied upon to misrepresent what's been said and post straw men ad nauseum?

Thanks for not letting me down.

cjcp

Resources would be better used to ensure that delivery vans/trucks do not stop on the double yellows on the road leading up to Westminster Bridge during rush hour, blocking traffic and causing a jam.

naive

prj45 wrote:

naive wrote:

Under 16's are allowed, and probably encouraged, to ride on the pavement.

No they are not, it's always illegal to ride on a footpath. Police are advised that an under 16 would never be prosecuted for riding on the pavement though, so no point in arresting them.

Ah, having since read up on the highways act, my mistake, I think I had some confusion with this law, and that governing the sale of bicycles with reflectors and the exceptions for children's toys.

However, I think that my point about combined pavements and cycle-paths and the need for education still stands.

Pedantic point follows:

prj45 wrote:

it's always illegal to ride on a footpath.

As I said, I read up on the highways act, and it is illegal to ride on a footpath or causeway by the side any road, made or set apart for the use or accomodation of foot-passengers. It is not necessarily illegal to ride on any other footpath or in a park, or even a shopping precinct, although local councils can prohibit it.
Told you it was pedantic.

number9

Many local authorities allow cycle access to what look like footpaths. Pedestrians often don't know where they stand, literally.

spen666

number9 wrote:

Many local authorities allow cycle access to what look like footpaths. Pedestrians often don't know where they stand, literally.

Pedestrians do know exactly where they stand.

There are no restrictions of pedestrians using footpaths

spen666

number9 wrote:

Cycling on the pavement is not always illegal:

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycli ... he_law.php

it is completely untrue to suggest that cycling on the pavement is legal now in any circumstances, whether for a child, for a few inches or for fear of traffic.

Remember how I said you can be relied upon to misrepresent what's been said and post straw men ad nauseum?

Thanks for not letting me down.

Erm

forgive me, but my understanding is that bike for all is not the legislative authority.


However, you clearly are unable to read the link you quote which clearly states


The law is clear

A Footpath means a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, not being a footway [Section 329(1) Highways Act 1980].

oh and here is the legislation

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/ ... 00066_en_1

number9

The 'fixed penalties' brought in a few years ago do NOT apply to country footpaths where there is no road.

Fixed penalty notices also cannot be applied to areas such as parks, shopping precincts etc. unless a byelaw has been passed making cycling such areas an offence, nor do they apply to anyone under 16.

Many people (including police officers) seem to think that 'a footpath is a footpath' wherever it is and that the same laws apply. This is not the case.

Besides, the enforcers have no powers of detention so I suspect they'll get a cheery wave from the cyclist and a suggestion to go forth and multiply!

As long as this confusion exists, even in the minds of self-proclaimed "experts" then the move is daft. I doubt much will change.

spen666

number9 wrote:

....

Besides, the enforcers have no powers of detention so I suspect they'll get a cheery wave from the cyclist and a suggestion to go forth and multiply!
....

That is a debatable point actually.

In the past, you were right as non police could only arrest where an arrestable offence had occurred.

Now the distinction between arrestable and non arrestable offence has abolished.I am not aware of any authority YET as to how this affects the citizen's arrest pwer that used to only apply to arrestable offences. All offences for the police are now arrestable for police.

This legislation ie re FPNs may result in a case that decides the position

Anyone able to point me to a recent case on this point that I have missed?

Clever Pun

number9 wrote:

Cycling on the pavement is not always illegal:

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycli ... he_law.php

it is completely untrue to suggest that cycling on the pavement is legal now in any circumstances, whether for a child, for a few inches or for fear of traffic.

Remember how I said you can be relied upon to misrepresent what's been said and post straw men ad nauseum?

Thanks for not letting me down.

yet, your link also details

CAN CHILDREN CYCLE ON PAVEMENTS?

According to the Department for Transport (DfT), the maximum fine for cycling on the pavement from the courts is £500. However it is more usually enforced by way of the Fixed Penalty Notice procedure (FPN) which carries a £30 fine if pleading guilty. However, there is a view that the FPN can only be issued to those over 16.

"The DfT view, from discussions with Home Office, is that the law applies to all but the police can show discretion to younger children cycling on the pavement for whom cycling on the road would not be a safe option."

The age of criminal responsibility is 10 so, technically, only children below this age can cycle on pavements without fear of redress.

While adults are not allowed to cycle on 'footways' (see definition above), children up to the age of 16 cannot be prosecuted for doing so, see text above for clarification.

When using segregated cycle-paths ie signed footways shared with pedestrians, cyclists ought to keep to the side intended for cyclists.

saying if someone cycles on the pavement and they're of an age to be done they will

number9

There's a steady revenue stream right there!


It's Bexley, not Westminster, but any plastic plod handing out tickets there would get short shrift.

Clever Pun

number9 wrote:

There's a steady revenue stream right there!


It's Bexley, not Westminster, but any plastic plod handing out tickets there would get short shrift.

that has no bearing on the argument whatsoever.. that's just an example of why the road is to be used and an example of bad planning

Matathon

I agree with number 9 in that for many the fear of riding on roads where no cyclepath / lane is available makes them ride on pavement. Even though I understand it can be frustrating for pedestrians, there can often be reasons behind it.
For example speaking from my own experience, when I myself was a wee young lad I got knocked off my bike by a car at a junction that did not see me coming and it made me very wary about going on the road again for a very long time. We never had many cycle paths in this country then.
Young kids are especially vunerable to these cycle accidents. I found this snippet here http://theaccidentclaim.com/Accident-Road.html regarding BMX casualties (young children) which struck a cord with me as it was my fav bike that I had as a youngster. It mentions that, "Accident and emergency departments say that more children are injured on BMX cycles than other bicycles. Many more people suffer fractures on BMX machines such as fractured skull, minor hed injuries, fractured and broken arms, fractured noses, broken ribs, broken elbows, concussion, blackout, bruises and tooth injuries. Many injuries are so serious that hospital admission is necessary.And this one..
According to the http://www.dft.gov.uk/ (Department Of Transport), the major contributory factor to road accidents is when a driver of a motor vehicle fails to look properly. “The bike came out from nowhere” or “I didn’t see him coming” are popular comments made by drivers when a motor vehicle knocks someone off their bike. That's what that car driver said to me when knocking me off my bike as a youngster all those years ago.
Cycling on the pavement is not right, but eqaully if you have been involved in a bike accident with a car, not only does it hurt but it hurts phycologically also. Far too many drivers fail to see not only cycles but motorbikes also.

Jay dubbleU

Clever Pun wrote:

number9 wrote:

Cycling on the pavement is not always illegal:

CAN CHILDREN CYCLE ON PAVEMENTS?

According to the Department for Transport (DfT), the maximum fine for cycling on the pavement from the courts is £500. However it is more usually enforced by way of the Fixed Penalty Notice procedure (FPN) which carries a £30 fine if pleading guilty. However, there is a view that the FPN can only be issued to those over 16.

"The DfT view, from discussions with Home Office, is that the law applies to all but the police can show discretion to younger children cycling on the pavement for whom cycling on the road would not be a safe option."

The age of criminal responsibility is 10 so, technically, only children below this age can cycle on pavements without fear of redress.

While adults are not allowed to cycle on 'footways' (see definition above), children up to the age of 16 cannot be prosecuted for doing so, see text above for clarification.

When using segregated cycle-paths ie signed footways shared with pedestrians, cyclists ought to keep to the side intended for cyclists.

Does this mean that pedestrians ought to keep to the side intended for pedestrians ?

Eau Rouge

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

number9 wrote:

Cycling on the pavement is not always illegal:

CAN CHILDREN CYCLE ON PAVEMENTS?

According to the Department for Transport (DfT), the maximum fine for cycling on the pavement from the courts is £500. However it is more usually enforced by way of the Fixed Penalty Notice procedure (FPN) which carries a £30 fine if pleading guilty. However, there is a view that the FPN can only be issued to those over 16.

"The DfT view, from discussions with Home Office, is that the law applies to all but the police can show discretion to younger children cycling on the pavement for whom cycling on the road would not be a safe option."

The age of criminal responsibility is 10 so, technically, only children below this age can cycle on pavements without fear of redress.

While adults are not allowed to cycle on 'footways' (see definition above), children up to the age of 16 cannot be prosecuted for doing so, see text above for clarification.

When using segregated cycle-paths ie signed footways shared with pedestrians, cyclists ought to keep to the side intended for cyclists.

Does this mean that pedestrians ought to keep to the side intended for pedestrians ?

As I understand it (and Spen will be along to correct me ) no, it's doesn't mean that pedestrians have to keep to the other side. Peds are given almost free reign to wander where they want, even on the road. It becomes hard to write a sensible law that works on country lanes and in cities and shared-use paths without going down the jay-walking line that isn't ever going to be policeable.

spen666

Eau Rouge wrote:

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

number9 wrote:

Cycling on the pavement is not always illegal:

CAN CHILDREN CYCLE ON PAVEMENTS?

According to the Department for Transport (DfT), the maximum fine for cycling on the pavement from the courts is £500. However it is more usually enforced by way of the Fixed Penalty Notice procedure (FPN) which carries a £30 fine if pleading guilty. However, there is a view that the FPN can only be issued to those over 16.

"The DfT view, from discussions with Home Office, is that the law applies to all but the police can show discretion to younger children cycling on the pavement for whom cycling on the road would not be a safe option."

The age of criminal responsibility is 10 so, technically, only children below this age can cycle on pavements without fear of redress.

While adults are not allowed to cycle on 'footways' (see definition above), children up to the age of 16 cannot be prosecuted for doing so, see text above for clarification.

When using segregated cycle-paths ie signed footways shared with pedestrians, cyclists ought to keep to the side intended for cyclists.

Does this mean that pedestrians ought to keep to the side intended for pedestrians ?

As I understand it (and Spen will be along to correct me ) no, it's doesn't mean that pedestrians have to keep to the other side. Peds are given almost free reign to wander where they want, even on the road. It becomes hard to write a sensible law that works on country lanes and in cities and shared-use paths without going down the jay-walking line that isn't ever going to be policeable.

Carry on Mr Rouge