I was fined by the police (well PCSO) this morning

brixtonbiker66

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."

carry a copy of this!

cee

Greg66 wrote:

rml380z wrote:

You're allowed to cross a footway to reach a property, aren't you?
At least, you are in a car.
Isn't that what the OP was doing (but on a bike, obviously)?

Only if there is a dropped kerb, IIRC.

Yes. The planning application for the dropped kerb includes implicit permission to then cross the footway.

Planning applications to install a dropped kerb are often rejected.

Butterd2

Medders wrote:

Hens teeth?

Maybe I just have a naively optimistic view of human nature but I like to think that if a woman walked into a shop having just been mugged most people would still try to help.

rich_e

hatbeard wrote:

I was sitting in the asl at the lights between poultry and cheapside this morning with a cab beside me (in the asl) when a cso crosses the road completely ignoring the ped crossing 2 metres away and walks through the front of the traffic queue, as he passes to cut round behind me I turn and look at the cab and then at the asl box underneath it as if to say 'are you not going to say something' and the cso just glares at me then gives my bike a thorough going over with his eyes as if he's looking for an infraction before walking off. he didn't bat an eyelid at the cab.
:roll:

You think that's bad?

Two mornings ago I was approaching a junction at King's Cross when a Police Car which I'd earlier passed comes by and stops at the crossing, half way into the ASL. As I pulled in front of it I gave them a stare and a gesture as to where they were, but they didn't seem to notice.... goes to show how poorly enforced it is when Officers don't even abide by it.

hatbeard

Butterd2 wrote:

Medders wrote:

Hens teeth?

Maybe I just have a naively optimistic view of human nature but I like to think that if a woman walked into a shop having just been mugged most people would still try to help.

nah I wouldn't bother most of the good stuff will have already gone you might be lucky to get a phone or a travelcard at best.

oh wait, no I see what you mean *ahem*

yes public spirit and whatnot!

DonDaddyD

In certain areas there is a clear need for more police pressence (usually in areas where police are referred to as "Feds" and followed by the words "dust").

Personally I think PCSOs should be deployed in deep darkest Outer London, you know the suburbs and the Estates (soon to become super/sink hole Estates as soon as the housing benefits cuts start to bite). Places where actual communities develop and people are willing to defend those communities, identified through post codes, with knives, guns, dogs and the common currency is a 'tag name', sex (if your female) and drugs. (I paint a bleak picture I know)

Handing out £30 fines to a cyclist inches from work because he decided to roll across the pavement, is hardly the same as stopping a teenager bombing down the highstreet on a BMX while followed by his Pit Bull (without a lead) that he is taking out for a walk.

They're needed just not where they seem to be.

Red Rider

georgee wrote:

any thoughts on what action I can take to appeal it

Not a lot you can argue. The only defence would be that you weren't riding "wilfully" or that the footpath wasn't beside a road.

In Scotland there appears to be a specific defence to cycling (or indeed propelling a horse) on a footpath as long as you are going across the footpath. As opposed, presumably, to going along it. No similar provision in England.

cjcp

OT, but a Met Police motorcyclist pulled over an RLJer just before Parlt Square tonight.

He'd already jumped a red by Embankment tube, then did the same at the lights at Westminster Br. (where you turn right to PS). He didn't see the MP bike behind him, just before the ASL box. He jumped, crossed the junction and the blue lights came on behind me. Good God I laughed. :twisted:

ebt

rjsterry wrote:

My experience (with the exception of my run in with the taxi the other night) is that members of the public suddenly avoid eye contact if someone looks like they could do with help as they don't want top get involved.

Speaking as one of the 60 Million joe public, my experience to date has been the police are utterly ineffective at dealing with anti social yobs, despite being given names etc. However they warn you that *any* intervention yourself is likely to lead to your being prosecuted.

Clearly the law is not the side of joe average.

getonyourbike

what is a PSCO? sorry if I'm being stupid. They do seem pretty pointless lol

W1

I'm not sure we can really ask for double standards. Wouldn't we want enforcement of cycle lanes and ASLs from (for example) mopeds, even if it is just a couple of metres? And if so, it's a bit rich to complain about enforcement of riding on pavements, even if it is only a short distance?

spen666

At the end of the day, the fact is you CHOSE to break the law. You were unlucky and got caught for breaking the law.

Next time, if you want to avoid a fine, try not breaking the law?

A waste of police time? - The police including PCSOs are there to uphold the law. They don't make the laws. The waste of police time could be said to be by you in committing such stupid offences

spen666

brixtonbiker66 wrote:

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."

carry a copy of this!

Home office guidance is just that- it neither increases nor decreases the legislation

the legislation makes it an offence to ride on the pavement. Paul Boateng does not have the power to change the law- only Parliament can do that. One may ask why Labour introduced legislation saying one thing and then purport to undermine it. Why not introduce legislation in the terms of Boateng's statement if that is what they intended?

Ron Stuart

Home office guidance is just that- it neither increases nor decreases the legislation

the legislation makes it an offence to ride on the pavement. Paul Boateng does not have the power to change the law- only Parliament can do that. One may ask why Labour introduced legislation saying one thing and then purport to undermine it. Why not introduce legislation in the terms of Boateng's statement if that is what they intended?[/quote]

spen, you never fail to disappoint.

TuckerUK

hatbeard wrote:

Butterd2 wrote:

Medders wrote:

Hens teeth?

Maybe I just have a naively optimistic view of human nature but I like to think that if a woman walked into a shop having just been mugged most people would still try to help.

nah I wouldn't bother most of the good stuff will have already gone you might be lucky to get a phone or a travelcard at best.

!

PMSL

TuckerUK

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally I think PCSOs should be deployed in deep darkest Outer London, you know the suburbs and the Estates (soon to become super/sink hole Estates as soon as the housing benefits cuts start to bite). Places where actual communities develop and people are willing to defend those communities, identified through post codes, with knives, guns, dogs and the common currency is a 'tag name', sex (if your female) and drugs. (I paint a bleak picture I know)

Handing out £30 fines to a cyclist inches from work because he decided to roll across the pavement, is hardly the same as stopping a teenager bombing down the highstreet on a BMX while followed by his Pit Bull (without a lead) that he is taking out for a walk.

They're needed just not where they seem to be.

Well, you can hardly fine unemployed wastes of space on benefits bringing up four children. On the other hand decent working people who occasional make a mistake can usually afford to pay fines, and prosecuting them has the double benefit of letting them know the Police are doing a great job of Policing the country.

Economics..beats justice every time.

georgee

I think the appeal is a bit of a non starter and I am happy to admit I got a fine for doing wrong, i'm normally one of the first to whine about the police doing sweet FA about cyclist's traffic offences. What really riles me is seeing them all day yesterday loitering in doorways trying to collar cyclists next to the bike stands off oxford street while the world and his dog RLJ less than 60m away.

Last night I had drinks with a mate who had his bike stolen a few weeks ago, he found it on gum tree and arranged to meet the guys to buy it back, the police refused to get involved so he had to meet them on his own and then do a runner with it. Makes me have even less faith them.

snailracer

spen666 wrote:

brixtonbiker66 wrote:

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."

carry a copy of this!

Home office guidance is just that- it neither increases nor decreases the legislation

the legislation makes it an offence to ride on the pavement. Paul Boateng does not have the power to change the law- only Parliament can do that. One may ask why Labour introduced legislation saying one thing and then purport to undermine it. Why not introduce legislation in the terms of Boateng's statement if that is what they intended?

Because IMO whether a pavement cyclist was riding "dangerously" or without “consideration” is usually better left to the discretion of the officer on the scene who witnessed it, not a court.

spen666

Ron Stuart wrote:

Home office guidance is just that- it neither increases nor decreases the legislation

the legislation makes it an offence to ride on the pavement. Paul Boateng does not have the power to change the law- only Parliament can do that. One may ask why Labour introduced legislation saying one thing and then purport to undermine it. Why not introduce legislation in the terms of Boateng's statement if that is what they intended?

spen, you never fail to disappoint.

Glad to be of service.

Whether you like it or not, the statement I made is a correct one on the legal position.

Rather than sarcasm, why not direct your mind to why governments introduce legislation saying one thing, but say t is something different- ie mislead the public

spen666

snailracer wrote:

spen666 wrote:

brixtonbiker66 wrote:

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."

carry a copy of this!

Home office guidance is just that- it neither increases nor decreases the legislation

the legislation makes it an offence to ride on the pavement. Paul Boateng does not have the power to change the law- only Parliament can do that. One may ask why Labour introduced legislation saying one thing and then purport to undermine it. Why not introduce legislation in the terms of Boateng's statement if that is what they intended?

Because IMO whether a pavement cyclist was riding "dangerously" or without “consideration” is usually better left to the discretion of the officer on the scene who witnessed it, not a court.

I'm not sure what your reply has to do with what I posted.

However, your post has a rather sinister suggestion. The court/ tribunal must be the unltimate arbitrator as is still the case here as you can refuse to accept a FPN and have a court hearing

To do otherwise is appointing one person, the witness as judge jury and executioner. That is simply contrary to the rules of natural justice

Ron Stuart

Glad to be of service.

Whether you like it or not, the statement I made is a correct one on the legal position.

Rather than sarcasm, why not direct your mind to why governments introduce legislation saying one thing, but say t is something different- ie mislead the public[/quote]


Not sarcasm sunshine, just a growing distaste.

snailracer

spen666 wrote:

…I'm not sure what your reply has to do with what I posted…

I looked at my post again and I don’t think I strayed off topic.

spen666 wrote:

However, your post has a rather sinister suggestion. The court/ tribunal must be the ultimate arbitrator as is still the case here as you can refuse to accept a FPN and have a court hearing..

But I agree with that, I did not say otherwise. You were suggesting a change in the law. I said justice is served by a combination of the present law AND present discretion in enforcement i.e. the status quo.

spen666 wrote:

To do otherwise is appointing one person, the witness as judge jury and executioner. That is simply contrary to the rules of natural justice.

Too bad, that is what FPNs try to do. If someone doesn’t like that, they can go to court – a safeguard I didn’t propose removing.

snailracer

Ron Stuart wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Glad to be of service.

Whether you like it or not, the statement I made is a correct one on the legal position.

Rather than sarcasm, why not direct your mind to why governments introduce legislation saying one thing, but say t is something different- ie mislead the public

Not sarcasm sunshine, just a growing distaste.

Calm down, now, children.

Ron Stuart

snailracer wrote:

Ron Stuart wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Glad to be of service.

Whether you like it or not, the statement I made is a correct one on the legal position.

Rather than sarcasm, why not direct your mind to why governments introduce legislation saying one thing, but say t is something different- ie mislead the public

Not sarcasm sunshine, just a growing distaste.

Calm down, now, children.

Very, very, chilled snailracer but you probably don't realise the guys got form :!: although that probably doesn't come as a surprise either

Headhuunter

hatbeard wrote:

I was sitting in the asl at the lights between poultry and cheapside this morning with a cab beside me (in the asl) when a cso crosses the road completely ignoring the ped crossing 2 metres away and walks through the front of the traffic queue, as he passes to cut round behind me I turn and look at the cab and then at the asl box underneath it as if to say 'are you not going to say something' and the cso just glares at me then gives my bike a thorough going over with his eyes as if he's looking for an infraction before walking off. he didn't bat an eyelid at the cab.
:roll:

I was in a similar situation last night. In the City (it's always The City), as usual a cab was planted firmly in the ASL at the head of a junction so as usual I cycled ahead of the cab and sat in front of it. Nearby a City policeman was waiting to cross and he purposely came over to me for "RLJ-ing" even though I was stopped and was waiting at the red. He told me I had to get into the green bike box/ASL. I pointed out that it was blocked and asked him why he was not speaking to the cabbie behind who, according to the law, had also RLJ-ed, he simply said well it doesn't help for you to RLJ too....

Actually it does. The whole point of an ASL is to get cyclists ahead of traffic, if I'm sitting in the traffic in the ASL then there's no point of using it at all...

snailracer

Headhuunter wrote:

I was in a similar situation last night. In the City (it's always The City), as usual a cab was planted firmly in the ASL at the head of a junction so as usual I cycled ahead of the cab and sat in front of it. Nearby a City policeman was waiting to cross and he purposely came over to me for "RLJ-ing" even though I was stopped and was waiting at the red. He told me I had to get into the green bike box/ASL. I pointed out that it was blocked and asked him why he was not speaking to the cabbie behind who, according to the law, had also RLJ-ed, he simply said well it doesn't help for you to RLJ too....

Actually it does. The whole point of an ASL is to get cyclists ahead of traffic, if I'm sitting in the traffic in the ASL then there's no point of using it at all...

That cop would probably have told a stabbing victim to stop littering the pavement with blood.

Headhuunter

snailracer wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I was in a similar situation last night. In the City (it's always The City), as usual a cab was planted firmly in the ASL at the head of a junction so as usual I cycled ahead of the cab and sat in front of it. Nearby a City policeman was waiting to cross and he purposely came over to me for "RLJ-ing" even though I was stopped and was waiting at the red. He told me I had to get into the green bike box/ASL. I pointed out that it was blocked and asked him why he was not speaking to the cabbie behind who, according to the law, had also RLJ-ed, he simply said well it doesn't help for you to RLJ too....

Actually it does. The whole point of an ASL is to get cyclists ahead of traffic, if I'm sitting in the traffic in the ASL then there's no point of using it at all...

That cop would probably have told a stabbing victim to stop littering the pavement with blood.

This is the 2nd time it's happened though. Last time it was a cop on a bike. I was ahead of the ASL simply because the ASL was blocked with cars and mopeds etc as usual. I was waiting at the red and the cop passed through the ASL (blocked with motorists who had, in the eyes of the law, RLJed themselves) and honed in on me and told me to move back into the Green box which he assured me was safer. What is so inherently safe about a bit of green tarmac? It's only safe if you actually enforce it as space for cyclists rather than focusing in on cyclists passing through it to get ahead of traffic! It continues to be my policy to pass traffic in ASLs if they're blocked and sit in front of them....