'SPEEDING' Pavement Cyclists, Red Light Jumpers, PEDESTRIAN Zone CYCLISTS

by CronicRSI   November 24, 2009  

No, I don't really want to talk about cyclists but about endangered pedestrians. What I laughingly refer to as 'the law?' should have been issuing £30 on-the-spot-fines (FPNs) for cycling offenses from August 1999 (after they had so often expressed complaints for ignoring the offense that taking offenders to court was too time-consuming). Letters from my local police, the office of the North Yorkshire Chief Constable, the Home Office and a particularly high ranking female Police Officer have all expressed, in one way or another, that such fines for what can be fatal offenses are not appropriate. I would like the subject to be brought up, as with 'Drivers In The dock.' as a subject of a program. Perhaps with the title "POLICE FORCES AND COUNCILS IN THE DOCK". Why councils? Well my local police say that safety on our PEDESTRIAN Zone is the responsibility of the council and the council says it is the responsibilty of the police. The fact is that the only time the police or local councils threaten to invoke FPNs is when a pedestrian is killed or maimed. Anybody who doubts that should try typing Pavement Cyclists. killled, etc. in a search engine The Law? seem to otherwise wish to hide the fact that the FPNs were introduced so the only real innocents in this respect are pedestrians. Too dangerous on the roads? Nobody forces them to ride a bi, do they?

9 user comments

Oldest firstNewest firstBest rated

Anyone who tries "typing Pavement Cyclists. killled, etc. in a search engine" is likely to get a lot of pages of ill-considered and pointless ranting from time-rich and fact-poor idiots such as yourself. they won't find many instances of cyclists killing pedestrians. cause there aren't many.

cactuscat's picture

posted by cactuscat [305 posts]
24th November 2009 - 17:37


Hello CronicRSI, good to have your opinions raised but cactuscat does kind of shoot you down there, there arent many incidents of this nature at all.

not all carbon is the same.

Jon Burrage's picture

posted by Jon Burrage [1081 posts]
24th November 2009 - 17:45

1 Like

Nobody forces them to ride a bi, do they?

I don't know what you've been told about my sexuality but it's all lies.

Barry Fry-up's picture

posted by Barry Fry-up [189 posts]
24th November 2009 - 17:48

1 Like

The fact is that the only time the police or local councils threaten to invoke FPNs is when a pedestrian is killed or maimed

that's a 'fact' is it?




Barry Fry-up's picture

posted by Barry Fry-up [189 posts]
24th November 2009 - 17:56

1 Like

Don't feed the Troll.

demoff's picture

posted by demoff [344 posts]
24th November 2009 - 19:07


What worries me is all the skateboarders, no brakes you see. I think they should all be made to use skateboards in heavy traffic, then they'll understand.

Now if we could make heavy lorries drive at night only and restrict the speed of all vehicular traffic to 10mph and warn everyone that a vehicle was coming by having someone with a bicycle riding in front holding a red flag then perhaps the roads would be a lot safer and cyclists would be gainfully employed rather than clulttering up the pavements.

Perhaps we should introduce new laws that drunk/drugged pedestrians should be required to sit still until they sober up, rather than wandering into the road or changing direction without looking less they cause an accident that might otherwise endanger other passersby. Oh, we do already? Someone had better ring the Daily Mail.

Too dangerous on the pavement? No-one forces them to walk up and down looking for someone else to blame for their clearly blameless existence.


posted by OldRidgeback [2466 posts]
25th November 2009 - 9:53


I think we should ban the use of a mobile phone whilst walking and especially whilst crossing the road as it is clearly a distraction from the process of walking and not getting run over.

ctznsmith's picture

posted by ctznsmith [102 posts]
25th November 2009 - 11:25


Good point, we should ban ipods for pedestrians as well. This is clearly a hazard.

I expect incident data would show that walking and talking into a cellphone has a higher risk of accidents than walking whilst under the influence of alcohol. Would it be possible to set aside safe areas for cell phone users to talk beside pavments so that they could talk whilst not interfering with pedestrian traffic flow? Cell phone users walking and talking and being involved in accidents would of course be subject to fines and bans on the use of their legs for up to 12 months, in parity with action taken against vehcile users.

Daily Mail readers would of course be subject to maximum fines due to their greater awareness of the risks following the campaigning nature of the paper on such issues.


posted by OldRidgeback [2466 posts]
25th November 2009 - 14:58


A quick look at the facts offers an indication of the real dangers.








The recent debate on London Cyclist raised the growing distaste at cyclists riding on pavements and going through red lights. So could this increase in deaths be attributed to so called anti-social cycling? Recent statistics have shown that only 5% of accidents involved a cyclist passing a red light.


posted by OldRidgeback [2466 posts]
26th November 2009 - 11:17