Metropolitan Police fines pavement cyclists - but were they right to do so?

Binky wrote:

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.

kie7077 wrote:

Binky wrote:

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.

jarredscycling wrote:

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!

jarredscycling wrote:

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

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

kie7077 wrote:

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.

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.

I shouldn’t have been issued a FPN and the case was dismissed.

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.

youngoldbloke wrote:

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.

oozaveared wrote:

youngoldbloke wrote:

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.

stumps wrote:

.... However if your bollshy or deny the offence you've committed then your likely to get a ticket or summons for whatever offence.

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.

Critchio wrote:

stumps wrote:

.... However if your bollshy or deny the offence you've committed then your likely to get a ticket or summons for whatever offence.

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.

stumps wrote:

Critchio wrote:

stumps wrote:

.... However if your bollshy or deny the offence you've committed then your likely to get a ticket or summons for whatever offence.

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.

stumps wrote:

Critchio wrote:

stumps wrote:

.... However if your bollshy or deny the offence you've committed then your likely to get a ticket or summons for whatever offence.

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.

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!