Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

"Politcal correctness gone mad" - £50 fines issued to anti-social cyclists in Bolton

Two-day operation last week part of wider campaign aimed at improving safety among all road users

Nearly 40 cyclists were issued £50 on-the-spot fines in Bolton last week as part of a police operation designed to encourage all road users to share the roads safely. One of those fined, who seemed unaware of the law he'd been consistently breaking over the years, described it as “political correctness gone mad.”

A series of initiatives undertaken last week by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) included tackling illegal and stolen caravans, dangerous driving and uninsured vehicles, and ensuring drivers are not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or distracted by mobile phones.

They also carried out ‘Operation Grimaldi’ in Bolton town centre, targeting cyclists riding on pavements or in pedestrian zones such as Victoria Square.

That specific operation was billed as being aimed at reducing the number of collisions involving cyclists, as well as reminding them about the laws applying to riding bicycles, with 38 cyclists issued with fixed penalty notices – 27 on Friday, and a further 11 on Sunday, according to The Bolton News.

Riders caught breaking the law were given the option of avoiding the fine by attending a 45-minute cycle safety awareness course at Bolton Central Fire Station, with 13 attending a session on Friday, the newspaper adds.

Attendees were shown CCTV film with examples of dangerous riding, given advice on how to ride safely, and provided with a hi-viz jacket.

Officers taking part in that operation stopped and fined three motorists for illegally using mobile phones at the wheel. Each was fined £100 in accordance with the new fixed penalty rules introduced last week.

Each will also have their driving licence endorsed with three penalty points – something that is likely to result in them have to pay increased insurance premiums.

Ahead of Operation Grimaldi, Inspector Andy Sidebotham of Bolton Central Police Station, explained: “There’s a lot of people getting into cycling but they might not have had any training or been on a bike for years.

“It’s about challenging the behaviour. Most cyclists are really considerate but a small number are unaware of the law. And some don’t pay any attention to the law – they are the ones who will be targeted.”

Jim Battle, Greater Manchester’s deputy police and crime commissioner, said: “It’s really important that we improve road craft for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. The worrying figure is 90 per cent of cyclists have no training whatsoever.”

Transport for Greater Manchester committee member Councillor David Chadwick added: “We at Bolton Council are always getting complaints about cyclists. I am a strong believer of education, it is the same for people in two wheels as it is for those on four.

“It might come as a shock to some of the people that they are being taken to task.”

One of the cyclists fined in Victoria Square on Friday was 45-year-old Alan Mulraney, who complained: “It’s political correctness gone mad, I’ve been riding my bike for 30 to 35 years and nothing like this has ever happened.

“I must have gone through the square countless times. A policeman came up to me and said you’re not allowed to ride your bike here, that’ll be a £50 fine. I’d never heard of this scheme I must admit and I thought it was wrong that they didn’t warn me at all.”

Following the end of the operation, traffic PCSO Gareth Walker was quoted by The Bolton News as saying: “We are pleased that we have enforced the road safety message for cyclists that don’t necessarily know what they are doing is wrong.

“It’s their choice whether they go to the road safety presentation or pay the fixed penalty notice.

“At the road safety presentation, there have been people upset that the fine was £50, but they did have the choice to listen to the presentation and try to change their cycling habits and get the ticket cancelled.”

According to GMP, there were a total 46 deaths in its area as a result of road traffic collisions in the 11 months from June 2012 to May 2013, compared to 59 in the same period in the previous year, a statistic they say is down to ongoing clampdowns on illegal road behaviour.

Since March last year, those have been co-ordinated under the umbrella of Operation Dice, and speaking about last week’s initiatives, Inspector Matt Bailey-Smith said: ““This week is about highlighting the dangers of using the roads illegally and irresponsibly.

“We want to educate drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists about checking their speed, making sure seat belts are always worn, ensuring drivers are not under the influence of alcohol or drugs and they are not distracted by mobile phones or other electrical equipment.

He added: “We will be out this week clamping down on uninsured drivers, who are a risk to themselves and other road users, illegal or stolen caravans, plants and trailers being used on our motorway network and we will also be talking to and educating cyclists about riding safely, not running red lights and wearing the correct safety equipment.

“Our main objective is to see the number of killed and seriously injured on our roads continue to fall and to ensure the roads are safe for everyone.”

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.

Add new comment

73 comments

Avatar
harrybav | 10 years ago
0 likes

A story all about how they managed to fine only 3 motorists (I see that many in the ASL every 30 seconds) and snared 40 cyclists? A smiling police chap, not a single care or complicated thought troubling him, and down the right hand column it's story after story about car drivers killing cyclists.

They're blaming the victims, picking on the outsider groups and we pay them their big money salaries for this patronising idiocy!

Avatar
andy_ark | 10 years ago
0 likes

How did they manage to stop and fine the cyclists? Stopping a moving bike could create a H&S problem.

Avatar
paulrbarnard | 10 years ago
0 likes

Let me get this clear. The road traffic stats are improving because they are fining people riding bikes on pavements? I just don't get the correlation there...

Avatar
Wookie | 10 years ago
0 likes

Its not "Politcal correctness gone mad" its "Health & Safety gone mad"
Thank you

Avatar
Ciaran Patrick | 10 years ago
0 likes

The Riding on Pavements is a tricky one. I personally prefer riding on the roads.

I have ridden all my life, I run a bike shop and I was once an Art Director for a National cycle magazine. I have no objections to people cycle where ever provided they cause no trouble to any other road user.

I reckon that Danny Macskill if we arn't allowed to ride on pavements he should in loads of trouble. Check this DVD out brilliant riding and skills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeKBfsA9awk

Bikes are not cars, they can have access to spaces cars and motorbikes can't. So why not express your bike skills on pavements and non road areas providing you are responsible and don't trouble other users of these areas.

What about scooters, skateboarders and other self propeller vehicles etc where do they fit in to this debate.

Avatar
marobertson | 10 years ago
0 likes

Didds
Fundamentally I think we agree.

As I have made clear in my post any cyclist who is cycling aggressively or endangering pedestrians deserves to be fined. And as you point out if the safest thing to do is to get off and push then that is what a cyclist should do. As advised by the department of transport in the link in my post

“When pedestrian density increases cyclists behave accordingly by slowing down, dismounting, or taking avoiding action as required.”

However as I also point out the department of transport states there are “no real factors to justify excluding cyclists from pedestrianised areas” In other words they think it is safe for cyclist to cycle in a shared area with pedestrians. This is reflected in the highway code where there is no legal statute banning cyclists from cycling in pedestrianised areas( only on pavements). The local authority may choice as is their right to create a local bye law- again as I point out against the department of transports advice –

But I disagree with this campaign if people are being fined just for cycling in a pedestrianized areas even if they are cycling responsibly and they are committing no other offense- This in my mind sets a precedent for all shared space with pedestrians and could see responsible cyclists excluded from shared paths such as sustran routes. There is no evidence presented in the article that anyone has been hurt in this square by a cyclist. We have an increasingly obese nation and should be encouraging people out of cars onto bikes by providing safe spaces to cycle which may be shared.

Avatar
colinth | 10 years ago
0 likes

Sorry Ciaran but you're not correct on a couple of points.

It is illegal for anyone, regardless of age to cycle on the pavement. The Police not pursuing something doesn't make it legal (surely we've learnt that as cyclists over the last few years)

The law states pavement at the side of the road, which is why councils put up signs in other areas, shopping centres, pedestrianised zones etc

You cannot commit a criminal offence under the age of 10, which is why kids are de facto allowed to cycle on the pavement. If you cycle with him, you're breaking the law, fact. Whether a Police officer turns a blind eye is irrelevant to what is actually legal or not.

Parking on the pavement is not necessarily legal if there are no yellow lines. If the local council has not put any restrictions in place you can still be prosecuted for parking on the pavement if the police consider that you are causing an obstruction.

All people who ride on a pavement by the side of the road might not be dickheads, but they are breaking the law.

Avatar
freespirit1 | 10 years ago
0 likes

Lets face it there is a simple way of avoiding the £50 ticket. Read the Highway Code and understand it then act on it.

This applies too drivers, motorcyclists, horse riders and dare I say it cyclists too.

Avatar
colinth | 10 years ago
0 likes

Well said, we're in danger of being very hypocritical. Happy to use the law to defend ourselves but then some want to break it and say "what harm is it doing". Leaves us wide open to drivers saying the same

Avatar
colinth | 10 years ago
0 likes

It's not Actium, it's hypocrisy. We can't shout the law and highway code at drivers and then ignore it ourselves. No cyclist is going to argue with your broader point about the overall benefit of cycling v driving, but if we are going to say "it's OK to ignore the rules because..." then I'll find you an equal number of drivers who think they've got an equally valid reason to break the law, and it's just becomes a pointless argument between the two groups.

Far better that we stick to the rules, and put pressure on drivers to do the same because if they did, we wouldn't need / want to use the pavement at all

Avatar
Actium | 10 years ago
0 likes

I am not in favour of cycling on pavements or breaking the rules of the road, but these police "crackdowns" lack any sense of perspective. There's carnage on the roads, but lets pick on the cyclists who are pootling along on a pedestranised area. Breaking the law? - Yes, but not contributing to the safety issues that the police seem to claim they are addressing. I think a sense of perspective is definately what is missing so we will have to continue to disagree I'm afraid.

Avatar
colinth | 10 years ago
0 likes

Actium, they've spent a lot more time on driver specific crackdowns over the last couple of months than cycling.

"A series of initiatives undertaken last week by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) included tackling illegal and stolen caravans, dangerous driving and uninsured vehicles, and ensuring drivers are not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or distracted by mobile phones."

One day on cyclists, the rest on drivers. Seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me

Avatar
Yorkshie Whippet | 10 years ago
0 likes

I like to point out that the email says "Bradford" and the article "Bolton". Which are, err, 40 odd miles apart!

Avatar
Matt eaton | 10 years ago
0 likes

The thing that rubs me the wrong way about these sort of crackdowns is that there is an absolutle lack of clarity re. where you can and cannot cycle in most towns. In the town where I live there are many areas where cyclists are encouraged onto the pavement to use shared use lanes or segregated lanes. The town park has a shared use path running right through it but also has a by-law stating that cycling is prohibited (as it is in the park where our skatepark is located). Signage is often poor and infrastructure poorly thought out making it difficult to re-join the main caridgway when shared paths etc. end. Most people just carry on along the pavement which is understandable when faced with the prospect of merging into three lanes of traffic. It's totaly confusing, particually for the uninitiated. One way systems that send you half way round town also encourage bad behaviour.

It's also worth noting that, due to the lack of thought in applying a lot of cycle restrictions, it can often be more considerate to cycle in pedestrianised areas rather than walk your bike. For instance there is a long and narrow allyway by my house where cycling is forbidden. If I walk though with my bike nobody can pass in the opposite direction and they have to wait for me to arrive at the other end. If I hop on and cycle they still can't pass but I'm out of their way much more quickly. I could stubonly obey the rules and keep them waiting I suppose.

I'm not advocating law-breaking and as confident road riders its easy to think that its all good to mix it with whatever other traffic is about on any sort of road but its not that simple for all cyclists. Sometimes the choices are a)cycle on the pavement or b) get in the car. Try sticking a child seat on your bike and strapping a cargo trailer on the back full of shopping and then ride back from the shops with another child on thier own bike without breaking the rules or constantly dismounting/re-mounting (this is not my personal situation, just an example). This sort of jouney should be the norm, not a logistical nightmare that sends you rushing for your car keys.

I'm rambling a bit here but my point is that we are set up to fail unless we are highly confident, competent and reasonaly fit. More needs to be done to encourage cycling and my view is that this sort of thing doesn't help, unless clyclits are truly making a nusciece of themselves.

Avatar
Ciaran Patrick | 10 years ago
0 likes

im Battle, Greater Manchester’s deputy police and crime commissioner, said: “It’s really important that we improve road craft for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.

I wonder if any pedestrians got fined in all of this, they are not as innocent as they would like to be seen

Avatar
Wookie replied to freespirit1 | 10 years ago
0 likes
freespirit1 wrote:

Lets face it there is a simple way of avoiding the £50 ticket. Read the Highway Code and understand it then act on it.

This applies too drivers, motorcyclists, horse riders and dare I say it cyclists too.

+1

Avatar
Actium replied to colinth | 10 years ago
0 likes
colinth wrote:

Well said, we're in danger of being very hypocritical. Happy to use the law to defend ourselves but then some want to break it and say "what harm is it doing". Leaves us wide open to drivers saying the same

I guess the answer to the drivers would be "2000+ innocent people being slaughtered on the roads through blunt trauma alone every year".
Where as those nasty cylists saving more lives than they take what with their fitness and slimmness and lack of pollution and stuff.

My point being that it isn't hypocracy it's perspective.

Avatar
cisgil23 | 10 years ago
0 likes

Back to the article :
It mentions "That specific operation was billed as being aimed at reducing the number of collisions involving cyclists".
Further on it talks about 46 deaths from ROAD TRAFFIC COLLISIONS compared to 59 in the same period last year.
Nowhere does it mention how many were caused by cyclists, and more specifically, how many involved cyclist on pedestrian.
Clouding the issue with selective (and irrelevant) statistics comes to mind.

Avatar
Bikebikebike | 10 years ago
0 likes

So 80% of commuting cyclists have a driving licence. And yet 90% of cyclists have "no training whatsoever"? Summat's wrong somewhere.

Avatar
CycCoSi replied to Bikebikebike | 10 years ago
0 likes
Bikebikebike wrote:

So 80% of commuting cyclists have a driving licence. And yet 90% of cyclists have "no training whatsoever"? Summat's wrong somewhere.

+1

Avatar
Bez | 10 years ago
0 likes

OK, we're over-focusing on one very specific set of circumstances.

Walking for that stretch would add about ten minutes to each direction. Bit of a pain but let's skip over it for now. I'd have to push a bike, towing another bike, laden with panniers of shopping, whilst keeping adequate control over a 4-year-old that I can at least grab him if he does something stupid. The pavement's not really wide enough for two people side by side, let alone the bike as well, and pushing that lot with one hand isn't doable. Walking isn't viable.

So yes, it's cycle on the pavement, cycle on the road, or drive. I've chosen all three at different times. I don't cycle on that bit of road any more when I'm with the boy: the junction with the shared path is on a blind bend and I've seen two overturned vehicle on that road (despite it being a 30mph limit).

So, as I say, what you're saying makes sense; but what you're saying is drive. (Or walk 6km with a 4-year-old and a load of shopping - no thanks.) Drive. Only ever drive. Everywhere. Most people in our town must only ever drive.

I dunno. I'd just like a town where I can go shopping on a bike without fearing for my son's safety. A few hundred yards on the pavement doesn't seem a big deal.

You know what, too? I get to say hello and be super-courteous to other people on the pavement. We often have a joke and a smile. It's people interacting, moving slowly, without the walls of steel and glass. I get to fight the perception that cyclists are inconsiderate wankers. I can turn pavement cycling into a PR exercise.

I don't think shared space works for mass transit, but - hell - I'd much rather live in a place where people on foot and people on bikes mingle and interact somehow, than one where people walk from their front door to their car and close themselves off and move around in total isolation.

Avatar
colinth | 10 years ago
0 likes

If there's a shared use path to town, apart from the half mile from your house to the path, why cycle on the pavement at all ? Walk the half mile and cycle the rest, not sure what your problem with walking half a mile is.

You seem to be saying it's cycle on the pavement or I drive, personally I never cycle on the pavement, very rarely drive and seem to get around just fine.

I cycle on the road, if I take my kids with me and I don't want them to cycle on a dangerous road we walk.If I have a big load to carry we drive. Simple really

Avatar
colinth | 10 years ago
0 likes

I'll remove dickhead because I dont want this to sound personal (although people who ride fast on the pavement are absolutely dickheads)

You can't claim that it's OK to break the law because it's convenient. You've said it's only half a mile to town after the shared use path so why not lock the bike up and walk ? Saying nobody is inconvienced makes as much sense as drivers who say they should be allowed to drive at 100mph at night because there's nobody else around.

There are more ways to reduce pollution etc than just cycling, walk, public transport etc. Saying it's bike all the way or nothing is akin to drivers who claim the same thing about their cars.

Cycle when it's safe and legal, do something else when its not

Avatar
Bez replied to colinth | 10 years ago
0 likes
colinth wrote:

You can't claim that it's OK to break the law because it's convenient.

And I didn't. I claimed that it was far more acceptable to me than the risks I perceive in riding on the road. The argument I was specifically making was relating to safety, not convenience.

colinth wrote:

You've said it's only half a mile to town after the shared use path so why not lock the bike up and walk ?

Again, I didn't. The bit where I have to choose between road and pavement is at my end, not the far end.

colinth wrote:

Saying nobody is inconvienced makes as much sense as drivers who say they should be allowed to drive at 100mph at night because there's nobody else around.

No, it's like saying that nobody is inconvenienced by drivers driving around at jogging pace and coming to a complete stop when there is a pedestrian in front of them. Your analogy would broadly relate to me riding at top speed through the shopping mall at 3am, which isn't what I'm talking about at all.

colinth wrote:

There are more ways to reduce pollution etc than just cycling, walk, public transport etc. Saying it's bike all the way or nothing is akin to drivers who claim the same thing about their cars.

Ok, how do I get into town and get some shopping home whilst reducing pollution compared to my car, without cycling, walking or (and this one isn't an option in my case) using public transport? What do I do, trampoline? Dig a tunnel? It's not "bike or nothing", I drive and walk as well, but that's not really the point.

colinth wrote:

Cycle when it's safe and legal, do something else when its not

Well, sure, but that leaves us all driving cars 3km into town, queuing up for car parks, and all that jazz. If you're happy to live in towns and villages overrun by circling traffic and parked cars and if you're happy with people being obese because they're spending their time sitting in a box waiting for a parking space instead of exercising and if you're happy to bring up kids with them thinking that the only way to get anywhere is a car then that's fine; but personally I'm not happy with any of that and, although I do drive into town sometimes, I'd quite like to do a bit to get my boy out doing some exercise and seeing the world through something other than an electric window and a booster seat.

If we all just give in because the roads are dangerous and the pavements are illegal and the cycle paths aren't joined up and mostly aren't even safe anyway then we all end up in cars, all the time. We go nowhere. No-one builds more cycle facilities because there aren't any more cyclists, we just build more roads. Our town centres full up with car parks, our roads become car parks, our pavements become car parks, our shops move to motorway junctions, our homes are divided from those of our neighbours by a game of real-world Frogger, our air becomes carcinogenic, all bit by bit because we say you can't cycle anywhere unless you can ride as fast as a car and indicate like a car and walk away from a crash like the driver of a car.

You can't say "cycle only when it's safe and legal" and expect anyone to ever cycle in this country, because much of the time legal is not safe and safe is not legal.

Screw that. I'm taking my boy on the pavement. I'm giving way to absolutely everyone doing it, but I'm doing it.

Avatar
a.jumper replied to colinth | 10 years ago
0 likes
colinth wrote:

You can't claim that it's OK to break the law because it's convenient. You've said it's only half a mile to town after the shared use path so why not lock the bike up and walk ? Saying nobody is inconvienced makes as much sense as drivers who say they should be allowed to drive at 100mph at night because there's nobody else around.

Actually, I think it's more like drivers who say they should be allowed to drive right up to car parking spaces and not have to obey those pesky "DRIVERS ALIGHT" signs.

Oh yeah. That's exactly what happens, isn't it? So why is it reasonable to expect people on bicycles to suffer the humiliation of pushing their vehicles the last bit to their destinations, while things get made so easy for the great car?

We need a step change: open almost all one way streets to contraflow cycling, allow access to any pedestrian zone with bicycle parking (including those in Bolton) and generally make cycling at least as easy as driving for the user.

I particularly like the picture in the Bolton News article showing several trucks just up the road past the No Cycling sign. But hey, what did we expect from Bolton? Bolton Town Hall is on Le Mans Crescent, after all.

Avatar
Ciaran Patrick replied to colinth | 10 years ago
0 likes
colinth wrote:

I'll remove dickhead because I dont want this to sound personal (although people who ride fast on the pavement are absolutely dickheads)

You can't claim that it's OK to break the law because it's convenient. You've said it's only half a mile to town after the shared use path so why not lock the bike up and walk ? Saying nobody is inconvienced makes as much sense as drivers who say they should be allowed to drive at 100mph at night because there's nobody else around.

There are more ways to reduce pollution etc than just cycling, walk, public transport etc. Saying it's bike all the way or nothing is akin to drivers who claim the same thing about their cars.

Cycle when it's safe and legal, do something else when its not

Tha is the most narrow minded attitude I have ever heard. My Mother is German and from experince generally all road users get on and tolerate each other.

Calling us dickheads for taking on sons and daughters home by bike why should Bev and myself not ride with our children. She's not bothering anyone, neither am I. Maybe we should just say to the 4 year old just sit there everything else is too dangerous. Rubbish. I do not want to see my child laid out on a slab because you think that is what the law wants to see. I will use my common sense and make decisions whats best for me and not annoying other road users in the process

The bottom line are we affecting other users of the space we ride in. What about pedestrians who walk in the road rather than walk on the pavement and cause a nuisance. I believe this is called Jay walking, but is tolerated. Why do they do this. I also like watching Danny Macskill doing all those urban tracks and stunts on his bike, this is done mainly on non road areas. He has never hurt or been trouble to anyone on these surfaces. Some pavements you can ride on some you can't.

Why this draconian problems with pavements. If however you ride like an idiot any where you should be pulled up and sorted out.

Avatar
colinth | 10 years ago
0 likes

If you ride your bike in a pedestrianised zone you're a di ckhead and deserve to be fined. If you feel unsafe riding on the roads because of drivers breaking the law, the answer isn't to break the law yourself.

We're all over drivers for being idiots and endangering cyclists, and quite right too, but cyclists endangering pedestrians by riding like idiots is no better.

Avatar
Bez replied to colinth | 10 years ago
0 likes
colinth wrote:

If you ride your bike in a pedestrianised zone you're a di ckhead and deserve to be fined. If you feel unsafe riding on the roads because of drivers breaking the law, the answer isn't to break the law yourself.

So if I want to go for a bike ride with my 4-year-old, what do I do? I mean, he loves going to the shops in town on the bike, it's good for us, it avoids adding to the holding pattern of cars circling the car park, it reduces noise and pollution, it avoids a whole heap of bad things that my car would otherwise be contributing to.

Fortunately we have a shared path for much of the way (which is far from ideal but is at least free of motor vehicles) but for the half-mile or so that I can't use it, does keeping him out of the way of cars whilst I plod along at a leisurely pace make me a dickhead? I'm breaking the law, yes, but if I break that law in that way then no-one is even inconvenienced; whereas if drivers broke certain laws in certain ways my son might have a car on his head. I'm a dickhead? Really?

Don't equate technically breaking the law with "riding like idiots" or "endangering pedestrians".

Avatar
Ciaran Patrick replied to Bez | 10 years ago
0 likes

Reply to Bez
Here's something that will cheer you. According to the Met Bike squad you can ride with your son or daughter on the pavement as no one under 17 can legally ride or drive any vehicle on the road.

This came in handy when 2 panda hove in to view screetching to a stop 4 coppers got out and informed I was breaking the law by taking my 7 year old son home by bike. I informed them after a heated discussion and off they went.

Only to come back next day saying they weren't going to prosecute me this time. Interesting hey.

What gets me is the cars are never told of for driving on pavements as they park - the law is used on too much of a one sided basis.

Avatar
Bez replied to Ciaran Patrick | 10 years ago
0 likes
Ciaran Patrick wrote:

According to the Met Bike squad you can ride with your son or daughter on the pavement as no one under 17 can legally ride or drive any vehicle on the road.

Sorry, is that:

a) a Met officer said to you that under-17s can't ride on the road, and you disagree, or
b) you're saying that under-17s can't ride on the road?

If the latter, got a reference? I don't believe it  1

Pages

Latest Comments