Anybody get ticketed in Peckham this morning?

shinybits

TFL and the coppers were out in force this morning along Rye Lane in Peckham this morning, nicking cyclists for riding on the pavement. It's absolutely ridiculous - if they actually finished the roadworks that they started about 6 months ago, then we could all ride on the road again, rather than battle with the pedestrians.

Anybody get done? I was lucky enough to spot them and hop off.

asprilla

Have they dug up the whole road?

Cafewanda

Why not walk the bike on the pavement? What am I missing?

zanes

Cafewanda wrote:

Why not walk the bike on the pavement? What am I missing?

The cyclists who think they can do anything because "so and so does <insert illegal activity here>" so their transgressions don't matter.

cougie

Sounds fair enough to me. Why should pedestrians have to put up with cyclists on their pavement ?

glauciaregina9

Aaaaarrrrggghh... this is exactly the sort of behaviour that gives cyclists a bad reputation !!!!

Sorry, no sympathy from me


I don't understand what the beef is here.

Are the motorists driving their cars along the pavement to avoid the same roadworks?
Of course they're not.


Roadworks or not, it is illegal to cycle on the pavement.

End of.

And you haven't got a leg to stand on if you get caught.

Aidy

The entire road on Chadwell Street (It's gotten worse than the Streetview image, entire thing blocked - 8 foot high fence) has been blocked for some sort of work, and has been for a long time.

I often see people hopping onto the pavement to get around it, and I no doubt would myself if I was going that way. As it's "only" a route for cyclists, there doesn't appear to be any great priority to actually do anything.

georgee

Nope, get a ticket, it's your own fault.

I did get one on Sunday though, 89 in a 60. fair cop I was wrong to do even though up an overtaking lane on a good A road with good visability.

lost_in_thought

cougie wrote:

Sounds fair enough to me.

+1

Sounds like there's a problem in the area with cyclists using the pavement, good on the police for doing something about it.

lost_in_thought

Aidy wrote:

The entire road on Chadwell Street (It's gotten worse than the Streetview image, entire thing blocked - 8 foot high fence) has been blocked for some sort of work, and has been for a long time.

I often see people hopping onto the pavement to get around it, and I no doubt would myself if I was going that way. As it's "only" a route for cyclists, there doesn't appear to be any great priority to actually do anything.

Fair play if you're walking on the pavement. If I know about such things (and remember!) I tend to just take detours.

garryc

No sympathy.

Riding on the pavement is only for kids whose mummy has told them not to ride in the road.

WesternWay

glauciaregina9 wrote:

Roadworks or not, it is illegal to cycle on the pavement.

End of.

+1. No sympathy here

spen666

georgee wrote:

Nope, get a ticket, it's your own fault.

I did get one on Sunday though, 89 in a 60. fair cop I was wrong to do even though up an overtaking lane on a good A road with good visability.

Lucky to get a ticket and not a summons at that much over the limit. The courts are usually considering a ban ( key word considering) at 25+ mph over speed limit.

lost_in_thought

spen666 wrote:

georgee wrote:

Nope, get a ticket, it's your own fault.

I did get one on Sunday though, 89 in a 60. fair cop I was wrong to do even though up an overtaking lane on a good A road with good visability.

Lucky to get a ticket and not a summons at that much over the limit. The courts are usually considering a ban ( key word considering) at 25+ mph over speed limit.

Really? I didn't know that, always thought it was more than double the speed limit or over 100mph that got you a ban.... although that may be an automatic ban... as in they'll always ban you. Not as in they'll ban you from driving an automatic.

Aidy

lost_in_thought wrote:

Fair play if you're walking on the pavement. If I know about such things (and remember!) I tend to just take detours.

Yeah, that's a good point - I do tend to just reroute if things are blocked off.

notsoblue

Aidy wrote:

The entire road on Chadwell Street (It's gotten worse than the Streetview image, entire thing blocked - 8 foot high fence) has been blocked for some sort of work, and has been for a long time.

I often see people hopping onto the pavement to get around it, and I no doubt would myself if I was going that way. As it's "only" a route for cyclists, there doesn't appear to be any great priority to actually do anything.

Worse situation on my commute in with the Tottenham Court end of Oxford St being blocked entirely for Eastbound traffic. I've seen cyclists ride down the narrowed one-way section, and others mount the pavement and cycle or push their bike to the junction. I just go for a detour up at Goodge Street, passed the British Museum and then back down again. Its irritating that its an extra couple of minutes, but at least I don't have to deal with a busy pavement during rush hour (and I won't get ticketed :P)

Mickey Eye

I was rather shocked to discover that it is actually legal to ride on the pavement in Norway. There are actual rules but It all seems rather bizarre to me.

shinybits

Wow - I am impressed at how righteous you lot are. Where are you every morning, as all I see are people riding the pavements!

Trouble is, it's a major cycle route, and joins up with a park route at the other end along the old Surrey canal. Rerouting would send you all round the houses on the one way system. The road has been dug up for months. At first cyclists were walking it, and as the months went on, they just started riding on the pavement. It's a pretty wide pavement, and quiet at that time of the morning (8.30ish) so as long as you give way to the odd pedestrian (which I do) and don't scream through at 20mph then there's no problem.

WesternWay

shinybits wrote:

Wow - I am impressed at how righteous you lot are. Where are you every morning, as all I see are people riding the pavements!.

This is the problem. I reckon that those of us that don't go on pavements or go through red lights are the minority.

Headhuunter

shinybits wrote:

Wow - I am impressed at how righteous you lot are. Where are you every morning, as all I see are people riding the pavements!

Trouble is, it's a major cycle route, and joins up with a park route at the other end along the old Surrey canal. Rerouting would send you all round the houses on the one way system. The road has been dug up for months. At first cyclists were walking it, and as the months went on, they just started riding on the pavement. It's a pretty wide pavement, and quiet at that time of the morning (8.30ish) so as long as you give way to the odd pedestrian (which I do) and don't scream through at 20mph then there's no problem.

I don't necessarily agree that we have the right to hop onto the pavement and I'm not familiar with these particular roadworks but I find it ridiculous that apparently a major cycle route is cut off for another route in a park and there is no provision made for cyclists other than forcing them along a one way system deisgned for motorists. If the pavement is wide enough why can't they set up some kind of temporary barriered cycle track? Typical local authority short sightedness when it come to cycling facilities. When roadworks are set up, motorists are always helpfully diverted, how about cyclists? If motorists were treated this way we'd soon hear them screaming, shouting and whingeing about it.

jonny_trousers

shinybits wrote:

Wow - I am impressed at how righteous you lot are. Where are you every morning, as all I see are people riding the pavements!

Trouble is, it's a major cycle route, and joins up with a park route at the other end along the old Surrey canal. Rerouting would send you all round the houses on the one way system. The road has been dug up for months. At first cyclists were walking it, and as the months went on, they just started riding on the pavement. It's a pretty wide pavement, and quiet at that time of the morning (8.30ish) so as long as you give way to the odd pedestrian (which I do) and don't scream through at 20mph then there's no problem.

Yeah, there can be an overwhelming sense of virtuosity here at times, but I'm sure you agree that, as a rule, cyclists riding on pavements are a nuisance. The problem is it is so hard to describe the severity of an illegal act while cycling in words so it gives people the chance to tell you that you deserve it.

It must be annoying as hell for you and if you are a considerate, safe cyclist then I feel for you, but I guess that breaking the law (no matter how lightly) and hoping to get away with it is just a risk we can either choose to take or to avoid.

lost_in_thought

The feeling in here is very much that if you break the rules you're giving cyclists a bad name, and if people see you it reinforces the negative stereotypes of cyclists that abound in the media and elsewhere.

You're also adding weight to the arguments of the pillocks who say that 'because cyclists all <insert illegal act here> they have no right to be angry when we <insert illegal act here>.

This is a Bad Thing.

tgotb

Headhuunter wrote:

When roadworks are set up, motorists are always helpfully diverted, how about cyclists? If motorists were treated this way we'd soon hear them screaming, shouting and whingeing about it.

Not so. What about Battersea Bridge? Closed to drivers, no signposted diversion. Cyclists are allowed to walk their bikes over the bridge, I haven't heard any drivers complaining they're not allowed to walk their car over the bridge. Even in the case of these roadworks, it sounds as though cyclists can just walk their bikes along the pavement, which isn't an option for cars. Unless you've accidentally superglued your a*se to the saddle, why do you need a diversion?

Seriously though: Why, whenever anyone does anything which inconveniences cyclists, do so many people think it's a conspiracy? Maybe the council is being inconsiderate, maybe it's being incompetent, but picking on cyclists? I doubt it...

glauciaregina9

shinybits wrote:

It's a pretty wide pavement, and quiet at that time of the morning (8.30ish) so as long as you give way to the odd pedestrian (which I do) and don't scream through at 20mph then there's no problem.

No problem ????!!

There's no justifying illegal behaviour.

By your logic it would be perfectly acceptable to drive my car down the pavement, seeing as it's apparently nice and wide, as long as I was polite to pedestrians...

Good grief. No wonder there's so much anti-cyclist feeling in our cities. You can't go around ignoring the law just when it suits you.

hisoka

lost_in_thought wrote:

The feeling in here is very much that if you break the rules you're giving cyclists a bad name, and if people see you it reinforces the negative stereotypes of cyclists that abound in the media and elsewhere.

You're also adding weight to the arguments of the pillocks who say that 'because cyclists all <insert illegal act here> they have no right to be angry when we <insert illegal act here>.

This is a Bad Thing.

Here, here. I agree.

asprilla

Must admit, I have been annoyed by the recent road works in kingston during which pedestrians were diverted by signs to use the cycle crossings. Very annoying, and as a result I would jaycycle.

I'm not an angel, but if I get caught then I accept it.

glauciaregina9

lost_in_thought wrote:

The feeling in here is very much that if you break the rules you're giving cyclists a bad name, and if people see you it reinforces the negative stereotypes of cyclists that abound in the media and elsewhere.

You're also adding weight to the arguments of the pillocks who say that 'because cyclists all <insert illegal act here> they have no right to be angry when we <insert illegal act here>.

This is a Bad Thing.

Absolutely.

georgee

Copper said 30mph over the limit is the magic figure to get you a court appearance, so I was bloody lucky to miss it by 1mph.

Two police cars and a police bike on a sunny afternoon with people returning from the coast. Any car in the overtaking lane would have been doing 75 minimum to get past traffic, like shooting fish in a barrel for the police on that road.

jonginge

lost_in_thought wrote:

The feeling in here is very much that if you break the rules you're giving cyclists a bad name, and if people see you it reinforces the negative stereotypes of cyclists that abound in the media and elsewhere.

You're also adding weight to the arguments of the pillocks who say that 'because cyclists all <insert illegal act here> they have no right to be angry when we <insert illegal act here>.

This is a Bad Thing.

^
This always reminds of an incident at Bank. I'm waiting at the red ped lights on the Queen Victoria street exit when another cyclist sweeps by fairly close to two pedestrians on the crossing. One remarks to the other "Bluddy cyclists. They all run red lights" (or words to that effect). That's despite me sat behind the SL waiting for the green...

MonkeyMonster

lost_in_thought wrote:

The feeling in here is very much that if you break the rules you're giving cyclists a bad name, and if people see you it reinforces the negative stereotypes of cyclists that abound in the media and elsewhere.

You're also adding weight to the arguments of the pillocks who say that 'because cyclists all <insert illegal act here> they have no right to be angry when we <insert illegal act here>.

This is a Bad Thing.

+1 brilliantly put LiT.

Headhuunter

TGOTB wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

When roadworks are set up, motorists are always helpfully diverted, how about cyclists? If motorists were treated this way we'd soon hear them screaming, shouting and whingeing about it.

Not so. What about Battersea Bridge? Closed to drivers, no signposted diversion. Cyclists are allowed to walk their bikes over the bridge, I haven't heard any drivers complaining they're not allowed to walk their car over the bridge. Even in the case of these roadworks, it sounds as though cyclists can just walk their bikes along the pavement, which isn't an option for cars. Unless you've accidentally superglued your a*se to the saddle, why do you need a diversion?

Seriously though: Why, whenever anyone does anything which inconveniences cyclists, do so many people think it's a conspiracy? Maybe the council is being inconsiderate, maybe it's being incompetent, but picking on cyclists? I doubt it...

I don't want to walk my bloody bike! I could walk it anywhere on the pavement, it's not a bloody dog! How about a proper barricaded cycle lane diversion? It sounds like there's space and that there are hardly any peds there anyway. Drivers are able to drive their cars around a diversion, why are cyclists expected to walk their bikes? Good luck to drivers trying to "walk" their cars across Battersea Bridge as suggested!

I didn't say it was a conspiracy, I just said it's typical short sightedness and lack of "joined up" thinking (to use a Blairism). On the one hand government is trying to encourage cycling and on the other local authorities provide scrappy bits of green in the gutter as "cycle lanes" and fail to provide diversions for the not inconsiderable number of cyclists now in London when road works are implemented and run over time. And not only this they actually waste police time fining cyclists who get on their bikes on the pavement because no facility has been provided!