Cyclist fined for riding on M65 near Blackburn

mikepridmorewood wrote:

Obviously can't condone breaking the law by riding on a motorway but always struggle with the comments about how dangerous it is. How is riding down the hard shoulder in a separated lane any less safe than sharing a lane on a dual carriageway that has the same traffic doing the same speed in the same lane? It's perfectly legal but more dangerous by several levels of magnitude!

This +a billion.

The law is very clear, bicycles cannot be ridden on motorways, therefore they shouldn't be.

Why the hell is it legal to cycle on dual carriageways (they are basically two lane motorways with no hard shoulder!).

wellsprop wrote:

mikepridmorewood wrote:

Obviously can't condone breaking the law by riding on a motorway but always struggle with the comments about how dangerous it is. How is riding down the hard shoulder in a separated lane any less safe than sharing a lane on a dual carriageway that has the same traffic doing the same speed in the same lane? It's perfectly legal but more dangerous by several levels of magnitude!

This +a billion.

The law is very clear, bicycles cannot be ridden on motorways, therefore they shouldn't be.

Why the hell is it legal to cycle on dual carriageways (they are basically two lane motorways with no hard shoulder!).

Be careful what you wish for!

wellsprop wrote:

Why the hell is it legal to cycle on dual carriageways (they are basically two lane motorways with no hard shoulder!).

Shhh, that would properly mess up my commute....

mikepridmorewood wrote:

Obviously can't condone breaking the law by riding on a motorway but always struggle with the comments about how dangerous it is. How is riding down the hard shoulder in a separated lane any less safe than sharing a lane on a dualcarriageway that has the same traffic doing the same speed in the same lane? It's perfectly legal but more dangerous by several levels of magnitude!

Near me is the A3 going SW from near central London and down into surrey past Guildford. Once in surrey it changes from 50mph/two lanes through suburban areas to 3 lanes with more open space/farmland surrounding, and national speed limit.

It's a motorway in all but name..helpfully (!) there are signs on the sliproads/on/off it's junction with the M25 showing how cyclists should negotiate them (tho' I can't help feel it'd actually be safer to drop down below to the roundabout, given that the section between the off/on slips are just two lanes.

Very occasionally you'll see cyclists on there, I'm in two minds as the whether it's a great idea. And there is a cycle path, but only in parts. Great planning, eh ? Interestingly the A3 wiped out that section of the Portmouth Road route between Cobham and Ripley that was part a well-used cycle route in the late 1800s/early 1900s.

Valbrona wrote:

Memo to Plod: If you are going to stop someone riding a bike along a motorway it makes so much more sense to fine them ... and it makes the exercise more cost effective. But you people have to be  singing from the same hymn sheet - anyone and everyone caught doing this in the UK should be fined.

Memo to Valbrona: if you are going to comment on a story, best read it first. He was fined.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

Memo to Plod: If you are going to stop someone riding a bike along a motorway it makes so much more sense to fine them ... and it makes the exercise more cost effective. But you people have to be  singing from the same hymn sheet - anyone and everyone caught doing this in the UK should be fined.

Memo to Valbrona: if you are going to comment on a story, best read it first. He was fined.

Have you been living in a hole?

That is precisely my point. There have been a not inconsiderable number of similar incidents over the past few years where  similar transgressions have gone unpunished.

If the Police are going to spend taxpayers money on stopping these law braeking cyclists, it makes sense to fine them.

Valbrona wrote:

Memo to Plod: If you are going to stop someone riding a bike along a motorway it makes so much more sense to fine them ... and it makes the exercise more cost effective. But you people have to be  singing from the same hymn sheet - anyone and everyone caught doing this in the UK should be fined.

What about plod deliberately choosing which laws to enforce and as per this incident is bias in the extreme. they fail to uphold their sworn oaths to be fair and just in upholding the law, people on bikes are literally being fobbed off/had incidents down played which in essence is perverting the course of justice. And yet you want the same action for all those that are proven to cause no harm by their action (riding on the hard shoulder)

So, are you going to send a memo to plod re their inaction and failure to uphold the law for instances where death, serious injury and harm happen or are you happy that they just apply the law as and when they please, if no memo why not?

hypocritical double standards by the police is it not and by you if you agree with their stance.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

Memo to Plod: If you are going to stop someone riding a bike along a motorway it makes so much more sense to fine them ... and it makes the exercise more cost effective. But you people have to be  singing from the same hymn sheet - anyone and everyone caught doing this in the UK should be fined.

What about plod deliberately choosing which laws to enforce and as per this incident is bias in the extreme. they fail to uphold their sworn oaths to be fair and just in upholding the law, people on bikes are literally being fobbed off/had incidents down played which in essence is perverting the course of justice. And yet you want the same action for all those that are proven to cause no harm by their action (riding on the hard shoulder)

So, are you going to send a memo to plod re their inaction and failure to uphold the law for instances where death, serious injury and harm happen or are you happy that they just apply the law as and when they please, if no memo why not?

hypocritical double standards by the police is it not and by you if you agree with their stance.

Two wrongs never make a right, do they?

I am all for the police catching every law breaker and handing out appropriate punishments.

But hey, if you vote for the mainstream parties ... this is what you get, ie. a State that is not much interested in catching law breakers until they do something serious.

Valbrona wrote:

But hey, if you vote for the mainstream parties ... this is what you get, ie. a State that is not much interested in catching law breakers until they do something serious.

Oooh, don't just leave that hanging there, you little tease... What revolutionary approach to crime and justice is in the offing? What might the alternative be - do tell.

Is it the BNP's ultimate goal of eugenics? Is the Monster Raving Looney Party working on thought crime brainchips? Or are Plaid Cymru about to pilot a Minority Report-style solution to FutureCrime in Swansea?

Valbrona wrote:

But you people have to be  singing from the same hymn sheet - anyone and everyone caught doing this in the UK should be fined.

You're not a fan of discretion then?

Personally I'd fine someone who was knowingly doing it and breaking the law and help someone who accidentally went down slip road and got themselves in trouble. I think most decent coppers would do the same.

PaulBox wrote:

You're not a fan of discretion then?

Personally I'd fine someone who was knowingly doing it and breaking the law and help someone who accidentally went down slip road and got themselves in trouble. I think most decent coppers would do the same.

Absolutely. The law is often a blunt instrument, and needs to be administered with discretion. In this case, the story gives no hint that the cyclist did not intend to be on the hard shoulder, so a fine was perhaps inevitable. The headline suggests he was taking a short cut.

Comments have covered whether the cyclist was justified in taking such a short cut.

1) Was it more dangerous than the alternatives? A wide hard shoulder is probably a fairly safe place, but any motor vehicle getting into trouble and needing to use it may be travelling very fast and not in full control, e.g. if a tyre blows out. A collision would be likely to be fatal for the cyclist. But the alternative may actually bring cyclists into closer proximity to fast traffic, so it is relative. On my old commute I used to ride a length of dual carriageway where I was much closer to vehicles up to 70mph, but it was a straight road with good sightlines and I felt safer than going through the middle of Wilmslow with its many junctions, entrances, potholes, uneven manhole covers, parked cars and generally 'busy' environment. I have been doored in Wilmslow. Collisions were more likely, but would occur at a slower speed. You have to weigh the risks and it is often like comparing apples and oranges. At any rate, that dual carriageway was probably more dangerous than a hard shoulder EXCEPT at slip roads. You wouldn't want to cross a two-lane motorway slip road on a bike during a busy time.

2) Might he cause a danger to others? It seems the greatest danger is that drivers permit themselves to be distracted.

3) Have the planners correctly anticipated desired cycle routes and provided them? If there is no suitable alternative, does the rider really have any option? OK, so he has broken the law, but fining him for soing something he is compelled to do is unfair when the real blame lies elsewhere. On one occasion in Germany I used a Schnellstraße (one step down from an Autobahn, where cyclists are not permitted) because the alternatives was dreadful cycle paths, cobbled side streets and so on and I had 60km to do and - literally - a train to catch. The alternative wasn't viable.

Finally, people often end up taking unsuitable routes out of sheer frustration and poor signposting. Many times in an unfamiliar area I have ended up at a motorway or similar when following signposts that gave no indication that the route they were signing was unsuitable for cyclists.

So many incidents like these have at their root an environment that has been built with no consideration for cyclists, and fining us for being forced into 'creative' workarounds is manifestly unfair.