- 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
- Tubeless valves
- 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
- msackman 3 min 9 sec ago
Difficult to be sure from the photos, but could you confirm / correct me: it looks to me like the spokes are held into the hubs by tension alone. I...
- stonojnr 3 min 50 sec ago
Just ask Look Mum No Hands how that worked out for them.
- Backladder 9 min 49 sec ago
I particularly like the driving instructor admitting that he isn't doing his job properly
- ravenbait 11 min 48 sec ago
Loads of cycling content on mastodon. Just need to follow the BikeTooter hashtag. I'm on Bluesky as well. Do not miss xitter one bit.
- Beatnik69 14 min 47 sec ago
I quite like some of these and already have a few. I like the cactus holder and the build-your-own bike. Maybe even the cushion. I have a bicycle...
- stonojnr 41 min 7 sec ago
So close to a hole in one and they didnt find a short cut https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2pg1qyqd0o
- james-o 1 hour 20 min ago
"some smoky black accents and fading on the arms and the bottom of the jersey." Reminds me of an oil-stained bird
- chrisonabike 2 hours 13 min ago
Did you go out the back of the wardrobe you found them in perhaps? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion,_the_Witch_and_the_Wardrobe
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 37 min ago
Indeed, I didn't say it was compulsory to enter into a no win no fee agreement; it's perfectly possible to instruct a lawyer at an agreed fee rate...
Add new comment
46 comments
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.
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.
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.
Exactly, the problem has always been dickheads, the choice of conveyance is irrelevant.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
First-post here as was googling about the legality of FPN and this thread came up. So here's my contribution, mainly in response to someone above who asked if it ill be taken to court as I'm planning to do so.
I got stopped by 2 polite PCSOs under the operation Safeway before Christmas, just to the east of Elephant & Castle roundabout. There's a cut through past E&C overground that lets you avoid both of the roundabouts if you're coming from the south heading east, as I do on my commute. The cycle path has been suspended for a couple of years on the south side of the New Kent Road due to the housing estate re-development. This is annoying as there's about 30m of pavement (wide ish, but narrows past a bus stop) from the cut-through to the ped. crossing where you can safely cross the 4 lane highway to continue heading east to Tower Bridge road. I used to take the cycle path on this, and until it's reinstated I slowly and considerately cycle along the pavement when it's not busy. If I miss-time it and 7 buses deposit their innards there I walk.
The PCSOs who stopped me (few other pavement users, me cycling considerately) handed out FPN as a matter of course in a polite manner, and neither they nor I realised that there was any discretion involved. It seemed fundamentally unjust that a £50 fine without any discussion was handed out from on high, so I started looking into the law. Its only since I've done so that I've come across the 1999 Paul Boateng letter which re-inforces my point, and now Minister Goodwill's guidance, and ACPOs subsequent press release.
I've written to the Traffic department initially pointing out my case under the law, and asking for any proceedings to be dropped to avoid wasting time and money to which I received a reply saying they will be giving my case consideration. Since then I've received two official and somewhat bullying letters informing me that due to non-payment of fine a whole list of things might happen to me, including bailiffs etc. and I will be receive a court summons. So it seems like I'll be getting some time in front of the magistrates as a potential test-case. So any advice most welcome!
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.
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.
"Haven't you got something better to do/criminals to catch/I pay your wages/I am a lawyer/I know xyz". All of them guaranteed to ensure the full force of the law is brought to bear.
When the police & criminal evidence act was brought in it was colloquially renamed "the ways & means act", ie we have the ways and means of nailing you....
You or I might not like someone's authority but they have it and not behaving appropriately is only going to bring about an unhappy ending.
Critchio, i accept i may have gone off at a tangent for which i apologise, it must be my age, but i repeat that discretion plays a massive part in our job, you can call it whatever you want, but it wont change.
There are always some bad apples in every basket and i'm sure there are some over zealous cops, which is a shame, because in the end we are here to help not hinder.
No hard feelings mate
I cycle through Kingston every working day and I spotted the PC's pulling cyclists over. They were stationed at the beginning of the main shopping street which is wholly pedestrianised and if you cycle down it you can avoid the Kingston inner ring road and it's multi lane race track (This is where the Chinese Medicine guy took out a few pedestrians last year - Too many bike people was his catch phrase). There is a cycle track but it's not great.
I cycle along a pedestrianised street (Castle street) where cycling is permitted, it looks very like the street where they were pulling people over and I suspect a number of those who were caught were just confused.
Kingston isn't Amsterdam by a long stretch but compared with some of the other SW London boroughs they don't do too bad a job
As someone who knows Kingston very well, it’s worth noting the state of cycling in the town. To get from one side of the town centre to the other, you are faced with an extremely unpleasant 3-lane one-way system and also a very busy pedestrian area. Getting around these obstacles is not impossible: There are cycle lanes that take you around these, but they run on the pavements and in some places just end without warning. They are very poorly signposted and in the area around the station and back of the Bentall centre, they are shared paths.
There is also the riverside tow-path, where technically you could ride a horse (but you wouldn’t). As a cyclist, it must be tempting to ride here, and it is legal, but you’d look like a cretin pushing through all the pedestrians.
So long story short is that it is not surprising that people end up on pavements in Kingston. Cycling provision is there, but it’s very poorly marked and takes illogical routes through town and against the flow of traffic.
Ok, at the risk of being shouted at by my fellow cyclist brethren, (and not really the best location/thread to highlight either) can I just say that a lot of the stories that are published with regards to Police v's Cyclist v's Motorists etc etc probably do not involve most of the people who read this website or would not actually call themselves cyclists. Maybe its just me? I commute, train and race on the road and I feel a lot of the them v's us stories are based on Non-Regular cyclists fueling the media. Granted some/a lot of drivers do not pay due care and attention to the road and in a big metal case have little of no regard /understanding of the bike but equally, I am embarrassed to see a high number of cyclist who don't do themselves any favors. Lack of Self awareness on both parties is the biggest culprit for incidents and generally its the 'person riding the bike' who suffers the most.
How many people on this forum would even consider riding their bike on the path anyway?? unless you are in an extremely high volume traffic area and you are given absolutely no choice. It is probably a lot of the 'individuals who ride a bike' on the path that give the 'Cyclists' a bad rap with the drivers and police in the first place. Not trying to drive a tier system within the cycling community but there should be a 'Self Awareness' safety video that looks at situation from both a drivers, cyclist and pedestrian perspective. This would help a bit of mutual respect amongst all.
I am the first one to complain when a driver risks my life (like last night) on the phone pulling out of a junction in the rain not giving me enough room because I am travelling at 24mph plus down a hill. But unless we educate them but equally educate bike riders to the pedestrian, these stories will just keep going on and on and on.
Let do something about it instead of whining all the time.
Am I the only one who finds it odd that sometimes it is perfectly legal to cycle on the pavement - i.e. when painted white lines and symbols appear, and when these painted marks cease, cycling on the same pavement becomes an illegal act? Who determines this, and how are they qualified to do so? It is also odd that cycle lanes painted on roads are not usually located where they would be most useful - they cease before pinch points, junctions and other 'difficult' places. I often think 'What am I supposed to do now' when I see the words 'End' painted on the road. .....
Sorry but someone has to make a decision as to what is a footway only and what is a mixed use path. Whatever their reasonings, they have the authority to decide this. I would expect in most cases that a very narrow footway that has a high volume of pedestrians using it would be deemed inappropriate for mixed use. At the other end of the scale a very wide fottway with few pedestrians using it would be ideal as a mixed use path. In between it's a judgement on width and pedestrian use. Someone has to make the call and it's the local highways department. Likewise someone also decides where a 50mph speed limit on the same road becomes a 30mph one and then where exactly it becomes a 50mph one again.
It's not confusing. Just accept that a decision has been made. Someone had to make it. They did their best to make a good decision. We could all double guess every decision about every line on a road and in the end someone would still have to decide. Just abide by them. That's all you have to do.
The fact is though that it often _is_ confusing. What makes it confusing is not the mere fact that in some places cycling is allowed and in some it isn't, its that its so often very badly signposted. For example, there are 'shared use' paths that never officially end, they just sort of fade away as the signs identifying them become more-and-more infrequent and eventually stop entirely without ever explicitly telling you the shared-use path has ended. You are just left to sort of figure it out for yourself.
Or you'll follow a marked official cycle route, it will take you round a corner and suddenly deposit you on a pavement that you then realise isn't itself marked as shared use (I think in fact in this case you were supposed to turn off the path before that point, but there's no sign there to tell you that and not even a dropped kerb to enable you to do it).
The poor signposting seems almost designed to trick people into ending up on non-shared-use pavements (obviously in reality its just sloppiness). It also means pedestrians often don't realise when a path is shared use.
There are also weird bits where a shared-use bit of pavement tries to lure you off the road for about 20 yards before telling you to get straight back on to the road again - why? What's the point of these things?
So I prefer to just not bother with them.
Discretion is a major tool thats used by officers. If you are upfront and accept you did wrong but point out the reasons why then the vast majority of cops will either bollock you or issue a letter of caution which is a simple letter saying you stopped because of XYZ and were spoken to about it. Or if you have a genuine reason for it then nothing further will come of it.
Its not a fine, caution or court summons.
However if your bollshy or deny the offence you've committed then your likely to get a ticket or summons for whatever offence.
Can i just add letters of caution are for minor offences only which cycling on a pavement is.
And this is why the Police have a bad rep. What Stumps is describing is the attitude test. Which is archaic and should be beaten out of every officer.
When you go to a job like this as a police officer you should already have made up your mind how you are going to deal with it. In this case if the cycling is not considerate and perhaps likely to endanger others that is when you decide to issue a ticket or not. Not after an attitude test. You make your decision prior to engaging the person.
Only then can you say you have acted impartially, without malice or ill will. Remember your affirmation? The attitude test is cave man stuf. And please spare me the, "well in the real world" crap.
Sorry but your talking complete and utter shit. You can never make your mind up about whats going to happen before you get there, thats so so wrong. Until you speak to people about whats happened and get all the facts you cant make a decision. Its you thats archaic and completely out of touch and i would go as far as saying your a complete muppet if you think thats how we should deal with jobs, no wonder the Police get so much grief with idiots like you about.
I'm with Stumps on this. An "attitude test" as you call it is perfectly appropriate as is listening to what people have to say and establishing the facts.
Commiting offence "A" but being genuinely sorry or having a good reason for it, or at least trying to explain why you committed it in a reasonable way and being prepared to take the consequences of your actions is one attitude.
Commiting offence "A" but being obstructive, obfuscating, lying, hiding or making up facts, attempting to run off, providing false details. generally not taking any responsinbility for your actions is another.
These two attitudes are not equivalent.
There is nothing so unfair as the equal treatment of unequals.
One would hope a police officer would carries out their duty with reference to the perceived offence rather than be swayed by ones attitude to them?
PS Resorting to abuse and vulgarity in ones posts does show a lack of control and certain mentality!
Pages