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

eurotrash wrote:

If it's that bad … get better at cycling, since realistically it's not that difficult to ride safely within the confines of the law.

This is true if you are experienced, fast, not carrying shopping, don't have a bad back, are very confident, are not towing a child, are happy to break into heavy sweat, able to accelerate to 20mph in under 100m, can hold a high speed up a hill, can look around you fully without any wobble to the bike, and are generally happy with the basic principle of being surrounded by vehicles that have at least 100 times as much kinetic energy as you, if not much more.

But for anyone else, that's utterly boneheaded "advice".

What next, women should just walk their most direct route home in the dead of night, no matter how dangerous that is, and if they feel scared they should "get better at running"?

Not everyone is a Mamil. Why should people have to ride like Cavendish just to get to work?

Chuck wrote:

crazy-legs wrote:

Why do people ride on the pavement?
cos the roads are dangerous

Why do cyclists jump red lights?
cos the junctions are badly designed

That might be why most people ride on the pavements but I strongly suspect the real reason most people jump reds is because they can't be ar$ed to wait.

Let's be honest some cyclists jump red lights to save the energy of slowing to a stop and then having to start off again. It is much easier to simply keep going if, and only if, it is safe to do so. No intelligent cyclist, given their own vulnerability is going to jump a red light if it is not completely safe to do so. For those that are particularly stupid and go through them when not safe then they cannot expect any sympathy if they get splatted.

CStar wrote:

For those that are particularly stupid and go through them when not safe then they cannot expect any sympathy if they get splatted.

If only things were that simple

A while ago there was a case involving a cyclist who was injured at a traffic light-controlled junction in a collision with a taxi. The cyclist had jumped a red light.

(You're banging the gavel here, right?)

The taxi, however, was speeding and thus may well have (a) arrived at the junction much more quickly than the cyclist may have expected in terms of an event horizon when jumping the light and (b) been less able to avoid a collision.

The case was complex, of course, because both parties had committed offences and were thus attributed blame; but it had to be decided what balance of responsibility was correct.

You may still say the cyclist is fully responsible and deserves no sympathy, of course, and that's a tenable view. But it's worth noting that once you start mixing other people's misdemeanours into the equation, a decision that seemed safe can quickly become unsafe. Obviously, it's one good reason to err on the side of caution; but nevertheless, few things are black and white.

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".

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.

jgmacca wrote:

In my mind there's always been a difference between cyclists and people who ride bikes. Cyclists are responsible and follow the highway code, whereas people who ride bikes pretty much think the rules don't apply to them.

Are you 5 years old or something?

Pjrob wrote:

Funny thing is the three safest countries to ride in, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, seem not to differentiate between a bike lane and a pedestrian walkway. All seem to share with apparently not too many accidents.

I've only cycled in two of those, the Netherlands and Sweden, but they DEFINITELY differentiate between a bike lane and a pedestrian walkway. In the Netherlands there are mandatory bike lanes where you're not allowed to ride on the road (as there are in Belgium) and they're clearly separated from the pedestrian walkways. Also, bike lanes are either one-way or usually have a clear line down the middle; you ride on the right side of the lane or you have cyclists riding straight towards you because you're in the wrong.

Again, as with many articles about "cyclists", no differentiation is made between an idiot riding a bike and the average mostly law-abiding road cyclist. To be honest, I wish the police spent more time stopping and fining the chavs who ride up and down the pavement on their terrible wrecks, or the dicks who think they're so much more important than anyone else that they can ignore red lights.

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

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.

marobertson wrote:

But this is where it gets interesting as the department of transport recommendation is that cyclist should be allowed in pedestrian area.

...

“Cyclists often need access to pedestrianised areas to reach their workplace, shops or other destinations. Studies by Transport Research Laboratory‚ have shown that
there are no real factors to justify excluding cyclists from pedestrianised areas ”

but nobody is stopping them from wheeling their bicycles and walking - along with the other walking pedestrians?

Or am I missing something?

didds

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.

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

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.

Bez. I was at a London Bike show where the Metropolitian Bike Squad had a stand. I asked them about cycling my 7 year son home. They informed me that it is perfectly alright to ride with your kids on the pavement providing you don't cause a nuisance or worse to other users of that space.

I agree the interesting point is that (i think 17 may have been a bit old) but the definitely said that up a certain age kids are not allowed to ride any vehicle even self propelled vehicles on the road.

The point was proven when the 4 coppers in there cars had to admit I was doing nothing wrong by cycling my son home from school one day. We were not causing a nuisance and we stop and were polite of other users of that space. They came back a day later saying they were doing to let it go after I pursued the issue with them

The problem here is I think that pavements are not understood, the law and cyclists and road users understanding of what is the law here (me included) has become a bit of an Urban myth in terms of what is allowed.

For instance a car can park on a pavement if there is no parking restriction ie yellow lines to indiocate otherwise. This means where there are no restrictions you can drive and cycle on the pavement. This is a fact. What stops pavements being driven on is the restrictions applied by the local councils. the yellow and red lines. That is why in shopping centre's there needs to be a specific detail on no cycling, skateboarding etc to indicate where you can and can't ride.

This is where the confusion lies in understand whether you can or cannot ride on pavements. It also means that people like colinth assumes all pavements can't be ridden on not true at all and this blanket belief the dictates all peoplke who ride on pavements are dickheads. As I said its the restrictions on the road also applied to the pavements.