- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Metropolitan Police.jpgMetropolitan Police fines pavement cyclists - but were they right to do so?
Police in a London borough have fined more than 50 people for cycling on the pavement – despite a government minister saying last month that officers needed to use their discretion and that riders were allowed to take to the footway, commonly referred to as pavement, provided they do so considerately.
Officers in Kingston-upon-Thames issued 54 fixed penalty notices to cyclists for the offence as part of the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Safeway, launched at the end of November, reports the Kingston Guardian.
But as we reported on road.cc last month, minister for cycling Robert Goodwill confirmed in a letter to Donnachadh McCarthy of the pressure group Stop Killing Cyclists that Home Office guidance issued in 1999 regarding giving fixed penalty notices to cyclists riding on the footway was still valid.
Mr McCarthy had written to the minister in part to express concern about the targeting of cyclists riding on pavements under Operation Safeway, including at Vauxhall Cross.
The 1999 guidance was given by then Home Office minister Paul Boateng, who said: “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.”
In his letter, Mr Goodwill told Mr McCarthy: “Thank you for bringing the issue of cycling on the pavement around dangerous junctions such as Vauxhall Cross to my attention.
“I agree that the police should be using discretion in enforcing this law and would support Paul Boateng’s original guidance. You may wish to write to Sir Hugh Orde, President of the Association of Chief police Officers, to bring this matter to his attention too."
The Kingston Guardian does not say exactly when the 54 fixed penalty notices were given to the cyclists, and it’s possible some or all of them were issued before Mr Goodwill’s reiteration of the original 1999 guidance filtered down to local level, assuming that has happened.
It’s also possible that not all of the cyclists fined would have been riding in a manner deemed “considerate” at the time, although some would say that is a subjective matter for the officer involved.
However, comments made to the Kingston Guardian by a spokesman for local police suggest that at least some of the cyclists fined were riding on the footway due to fears of the road being dangerous – exactly the circumstances Mr Boateng described in his 1999 guidance.
The spokesman said: “We are aware that some cyclists use pavements in particular areas because they believe this to be safer, however, cycling on the pavements can pose a threat to pedestrians and also to cyclists if they are subsequently re-entering a busy road at a point not designated for this.
“Issuing fixed penalty notices for this offence has been part of an overall programme to encourage mutual respect and consideration among different road user groups through law enforcement,” he added.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Geordiepeddeler 1 hour 21 min ago
Cycling infrastructure does not force drivers to break the law, drivers are the reason they break the law, no one else.
- chrisonabike 1 hour 33 min ago
Ah but taking pictures of things to defy the man (avoid a fine) is righteous. Taking pictures of people to grass on them to the cops (perhaps...
- ktache 3 hours 23 min ago
But getting paid for it is the very definition of professional....
- ktache 3 hours 32 min ago
Never had a Shimano QR fail on me. They just work. And the top end ones look good too....
- Backladder 4 hours 18 min ago
If you're only looking at the guy in front of you then you're going to crash whatever brakes you have, you need to look beyond them to anticipate...
- jaysa 4 hours 43 min ago
As a woman, this works great for me! My chain broke once, and a kind guy stopped with a chain breaker and sorted it all out for me. We stopped at a...
- andystow 5 hours 35 min ago
Same. I also have gone through a bunch of their tyres, and only the extralight disappointed (torn sidewall) but the standards are fantastic....
- chrisonabike 7 hours 32 min ago
Indeed - but it's no more inconsistent than our current road design - very often UK high streets are "for shopping" and also a busy through route....
- mike the bike 9 hours 3 min ago
If you ask the world's leading economic commentators how many people have been rescued from abject poverty by capitalism the average answer would...
Add new comment
46 comments
sceats, good luck mate it sounds like you have a good case. Unfortunately the letters come from a civilian dept and they are a standard letter sent out to all and sundry but i agree they are somewhat bullying in their explanations.
it's not helped when their boss sets them each a target of 10 tickets for riding on the pavement a month...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/nov/28/police-tick...
I was fined, I don't think it was at all fair, the policewoman clearly didn't give a rats arse about whether I was cycling considerately. It very much seemed to me that she had been tasked with fining cyclists and that was what she was doing. (City of London Police).
Yeah, this is the thing. I don't share some people's faith in the unprejudiced, consistent objectivity of the average police officer. "Discretion" means "arbitrary and down to chance at best and prejudice at worst".
Even the emphasis on "attitude" that has been mentioned here is, while probably unavoidable, potentially subjective and dependent on (for example) whether the cop and the person they are interacting with are in some sense from similar cultures or social groups and what previous experiences each has had.
I encounter annoying and rude pavement cyclists all the time. Nothing whatsoever is done about them. Yet I'm quite sure that if I ever risk riding on a deserted wide pavement then I'll be the one who gets fined. Because that's how my luck tends to work! And then I'll forever be denied the moral highground in moaning about pavement cylists!
And that in turn will make me resentful towards the police, which is a mental place I don't want to be in.
I agree that discretionary enforcement of tickets is wholly unsatisfactory and have posted elsewhere about being ticketed contrary to Boateng's guidance at the time by a PCSO doing his quota.
My point is that your attitude can make what is discretionary wholly non discretionary
As for those contesting it, I can only recommend that you write to Mr Goodwill before your hearing. Whatever guff you get back, take it along to your hearing as evidence of a right thinking person trying to resolve a confusing issue. If going before a magistrate, dress smart, behave deferentially, express confusion and be charm personified. You might possibly then get a fair hearing. If this isn't feasible, pay the fine and move on with your life.
How hard would it be to write a law that can be easily and fairly enforced in a all situations. Plus you really shouldn't ride on the sidewalk cyclists don't need another enemy in walkers too
Quite hard. First you would have to envisage all situations and describe them precisely. width of path, sight lines, direction of travel, speed of cyclist, proximity of pedestrian, relative sizes, ages and comptencies of all concerned. ad infinitum.
I have a better idea. Why don't we have a general rule about not cycling on pavements but allow a bit of discretion on enforcement if the cyclist is being very sensible about it and has a decent reason to use the footway.
Sort of common sense like!
Bollocks, pedestrians and cyclists get on fine in plenty of European countries, even more so in Japan, and what about the fact that there doesn't seem to be any particular rule regarding sharded use paths... actually I take that back, the rule is "these cyclists are getting in motor-vehicles way, lets put them on the pavement".
How things look when people aren't rabidly anti-cyclist:
youtube
Exactly, the problem has always been dickheads, the choice of conveyance is irrelevant.
I don't know if this is a point but actually in some instance it is not illegal to cycle on pavements. If the road by which the pavement goes has no restrictions like yellow or red lines or anything like then there is no restrictions on the pavement.
Cars can even park on the pavement if they don't totally obstruct it. So cycling on these pavements is legal, provided if it is done a responsible, considerate way and does not affect other users of the pavement.
So if you cycle considerately on legal parts of the pavement, I reckon if you ride the same way where there are restrictions on the road, then there is a greater argument for discression as cycle on pavements is not a blanket ban.
So a brief update on the PFN for cycling next to a obstructed cycle path. Had my time in front of the magistrates in Bromley Mag. Court last month and defended myself. They found that whilst the law is clear that I shouldn’t have been on a pavement on a bicycle, I shouldn’t have been issued a FPN and the case was dismissed. I got to cross-examine the PCSO issuing the ticket who maintained under oath he hadn't been issued a target which I have to accept. A stupid amount of public money has been wasted to get to this common sense position, which is regretful, however I feel vindicated. Thanks for all the advice and support.
I see lots of cycle cops/PCSOs cycling on the pavement where i live and it is not like the roads are busy! They don't even cycle in a straight line and ride to abreast.
Not one for cycling on the pavement, but i can understand why some do. Either fine everyone that cycles on a pavement (like to see them catch the blighters round here) or fine no one.
It's akin to arresting every other burglar.
No it's not at all, cycling on the pavement is the norm in some countries, that is not the case for burglary.
And you missed the memo - the one from the Home Secretary at the time the law was written allowing FPNs saying that cyclists cycling considerately in order to protect their safety are not the target of the law and shouldn't be fined. Message endorsed again by another home secretary recently.
I see cyclists cycle on the pavement in front of my house more often than I see them on the road and I don't blame them, nearly every car is speeding and they rarely give cyclists enough room.
If you don't want cyclists on the pavements then you need to educate the driving population better.
Did they say why you shouldn't have been issued with an FPN?
Not in as many words. A bit of a fudge really; the two magistrates said the law was clear about not cycling on the pavement, however discretion should have been exercised and no costs would be awarded, that was the end of it. So didn't have to pay the FPN and a bit of a draw without admitting police and CPS liability for prosecuting the case. All utterly barmy and a massive wast of money.
that was my defence, that the legislation was intended to deal with inconsiderate cyclists, and me cycling next to an obstructed cycle path when I'd written to the council to get it reinstated, at <4mph with no one there, as the PCSO evidence stated, was not inconsiderate.
Pages