Police cancel fines given to London cyclists for riding bikes in area where cycling isn't banned

We have exactly the same problem in Peterborough. Part of "Long Causeway" (that's the street name, we must lead the world in exotic street names - we even have a Beckingham!) has now been paved over but there are no signs saying not to cycle (There are still signs on Bridge Street which at one time was on the Millenium Green Wheel - of course there's no practical way round and the times of the restriction are bizarre 09:00-18:00 Mon-Fri some people can go to work down it but not ride home!)

Then add to the mix all the pavements where cyclists are allowed to share. It's a mess!

Cambridge is my mother's home town. She tells me that bicycle vs pedestrian was always a friendly affair until the rise of the car in the mid 1950's. I'm not sure what people want of us; we're not welcome on road or pavement yet it's still the best urban transport ever invented.

I don't really see the problem between cyclists and pedestrians. I've cycled through and around the centre of Cambridge for many, many years. In the first years I did it you could cycle through, then for a long time you couldn't and you had to go through a very dangerous road with buses coming the other way and you had to go up on the pavement to avoid being run over by one. Now, it's ok to cycle through again. In over 25 years of doing this I haven't hit a pedestrian in spite of the number of pedestrians who have nearly stepped out in front of me, and, to be honest, I am probably going to come off worse than they are in such a collision. I am also not aware of any fewer people going to Cambridge city centre now than when you couldn't cycle through it. In fact I can see no change whatsoever. Many pavements in the city and surrounding villages are shared and I'm not aware of any massive problems from this, although personally I prefer to cycle on the road, but if the surface is better sometimes I choose the pavement where it is safer, due to narrow roads, and allowed.

Nowadays, I sometimes take a detour to try and keep up my weekly total to a hundred or more and to avoid both pedestrians and other cyclists but in spite of the potential conflict there are very few real incidents of any great danger to both parties. The real dangers in the centre of Cambridge are buses and taxis and narrow roads.

Thank you ETS, for explaining the only acronym that is not explained. How reassuring to know my local authority is keeping London's university quarter safe.

SNT means Safer Neighbourhood Team, basically the Police and others who are responsible for keeping an area, such as a town centre or suburb, safe.

What is "the local SNT team"? I think we should be told!

So it's obviously cheaper and easier to ticket anti-
social tearaways on bicycles than try to do something
about anti-social drivers !!!!

Still ... well done the CTC and kudos to the "old bill"
for fessing up

"although instances of pedestrians being killed or seriously injured in a collision with a cyclist are rare."

I don't think anyone thinks that fear of serious injury or death is the reason why cyclists and pedestrains should be separated. There is a fundamental conflict between walkers and cyclists, especially where the walker is very young, frail, partially sighted or hearing impaired. Personally I dislile cycling through pedestrian areas - and I dislike walking in cycling-enabled areas even more.

It's good to see the ticket problem solved so quickly - well done to the CTC for that.

Yet another example of the cycling public being more aware of the law than the police.

If I was a policeman, I'd be very embarassed.