- 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
- 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
- Fergus_O'Hara 2 hours 55 min ago
I did, I just think he's full of s***
- i-am-furious 3 hours 12 min ago
Cycling is not a lawless act, because its totally lawful to kill a cyclist....
- mark1a 3 hours 32 min ago
Energy from the Severn - it's always baffled me why one of the highest tidal ranges in the world can't be harnessed for a clean, predictable and...
- David9694 4 hours 2 min ago
My cleaning go-to is old t-shirts. I've got mixed feelings about the fluff of microfibre towel; tea towels not so much as they don't have the bit...
- HLaB 4 hours 18 min ago
Inventive Journalism "Car Collides with wall", lazy journalism would have been 'Crashes' ...
- carefulrider 4 hours 21 min ago
Two points of clarification....
- Secret_squirrel 5 hours 34 min ago
Unlikely IMO. They've already pretty much run out of parliamentary time. Only statutory instrument stuff could get done now.
- Ianbb 5 hours 45 min ago
Good luck Dave. May well see you there. Hopefully the weather will be like it is this week!
- ktache 5 hours 47 min ago
Well done for Reading cyclists for being so welcoming.
- ymm 6 hours 7 min ago
Looking forward to seeing the frothing right wingers wading into this, along with Mark Harper of DfT fame with a suitably unhinged viewpoint...
Add new comment
46 comments
I think that Stumps is referring to the attitude of the person being spoken to with regards to the action that person carried out.
And, frankly, I'm all in favour of a-hole tax. The same ejits who gob off to a police officer are the same one's who are quite happy to intimidate you on the bus or penalty pass you on the road...!
No I am not talking utter shit, sorry. You are very vocal on this website and I am fine by that and I get you are probably passionate about cycling as much as I am, but its not the first time you spout police'y stuff and are so robust in your opinions you get tunnel vision. And then you start dropping insults, maybe out of frustration, I dunno. I can trade them with you but whats the point?
In the context of this article (which my post was aimed at) if a Police officer sees a cyclist riding on the pavement he should decide, using his discretion at that point in time whether the cycling seen warrants the issue of a ticket due to the circumstances - too fast round a corner, head down, arse up weaving in and out of pedestrians and acting dangerously.
That is when you decide whether the ticket gets issued and it totally fits in with the direction or guidance from Paul Boeteng. You then stop the individual and point out what he's done and tell him he will get a ticket. If he then becomes an idiot and verbal you can also deal with that. You have dealt with that impartially and without any personal bias at all, as law expects from its officers.
Your contribution is: "However if your bollshy or deny the offence you've committed then your likely to get a ticket or summons for whatever offence."
Which is simply wrong. The key word is Bollshy there. Your word not mine. So if you see a guy on a cycle riding on pavement and stop him having the initial intention just to advise him to slow down and were only going to give him a warning but he then gets "bollshy" with you you'd right out a ticket and issue it to him? Thats is what your post spelled out, to me at least. You are suggesting right there that if someone gets bollshy it changes how the police deal with an incident and a person? You have let it get personal because he might have insulted your mother and you have effectively issued a ticket because the cyclist was an asshole, not because he was riding dangerously on the pavement. Where is the ticky box on the ticket that says "Failed Attitude Test".
Most people, me included would say he deserved a ticket for being an ass, but you, doing what you do, have to behave differently and you know it. You cant apply that attitude test (although you obviously do) and thats why the police do often get bad press because of heavy handedness. And lets face you will know colleagues that just like picking on easy targets with easy process and write out tickets to people for *just* cycling on the pavement.
The attitude test is about well er, attitude? It has absolutely nothing to do with: "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."
Thats called investigating, isn't it? Totally different thing. I think you went off at a tangent and began talking about your job in general. I was focusing on the article and responding to your quite wrong opinions. In my opinion of course.
I wasn't going to share this but I will.... I was given a ticket for cycling on pavement once. Newly tar and chipped road surface, new bike, didn't want stone chips/tar on frame. 9.30pm, lights front and back. No pedestrians, rode slowly on pavement. Plod comes out of nowhere, frightens the life out of me and orders me onto the road, or walk the bike. I said, "Really? There's nobody about, its nearly 10 o'clock at night... seriously havent you got better things to do? Me calm composed and relaxed, no swearing. The response, "Right, I wasn't going to but you can have a ticket for being lippy."
Sounds like the basis of a police state there. Officers deciding what to do before a situation can be assessed.
I remember the polis been called out to deal with a situation involving a gobby individual in a coffee shop. The officers quizzed a few of us who were there and then immediately arrested the guy. Now, my initial thought was that they would have just told him to beat it. Like wise, I have seen situations diffused by just a few 'friendly' words. Sometimes that's all it takes.
Its quite possible for someone to cycle on the pavements because they think the road is too dangerous, and, at the same time, do so selfishly and inconsiderately. I reckon that's the case with most pavement cyclists I encounter.
Really, I'd just say If the road is genuinely too dangerous, get off and walk (and campaign for it to be made less dangerous).
Cycling on the pavement is in itself not a hazard, cycling on the pavement in an irresponsible way is a hazard and that's what the FPN is for - what is not being recognised is that it's possible to ride on the pavement and give way to pedestrians and generally not be a nuisance.
You're right. Cycling on the pavement is not necessarily a hazard. But it is an offence. Much like speeding in itself is not necessarily a hazard but is still an offence.
I think what some people are doing here is putting the cart before the horse. The rule is not that you CAN ride on pavements as long as you aren't causing a hazard. The rule is that you CAN NOT ride on pavements because it is an offence but that sometimes the police should use discretion and if you aren't causing a hazard should not necessarily fine you. You still committed the offence. The guidance is about dealing with it appropriately and with common sense.
As ever some people just can't get their heads round applying rules with common sense.
There is a general rule about not riding on pavements.
plus
There is guidance that on some occasions and in some circumstances pavement riding might be tolerated if it is considerate.
That seems a reasonable position to me.
The Police might be at fault in some or all of these cases maybe by not being aware of that exception and leeway. But when their senior officers task them to fine 50 cyclists each as a political stunt then a pavement rider is low hanging fruit.
Some of the comments on here are equally lacking common sense. The guidance is an exception to a general rule. You use that exception at your own risk.
There are several parts of my 15 mile commute where mixed use paths on the pavements alongside A roads and at busy junctions become just pavements again. So yes I do ride on the pavement. That helps me, helps motorists and since there is almost never anyone walking on that bit of pavement it isn't (in my opinion) inconsiderate.
If a pedestrian is using the pavement then I either get off the pavement or I stop and let them pass. That seems reasonable to me since technically I am the one that shouldn't be there. If you are taking advantage of a bit of leeway in the law then it is incumbent upon you to be like Ceasar's wife in so doing. If it comes down to you arguing the toss with a copper about whether you were being quite considerate enough then you probably were sailing too close to the wind. ie the onus is on you to demonstrate beyond doubt that you were considerate. It's not on them to prove you weren't being considerate.
It is much like the general idea that you have two weeks grace on your tax disc. But the fact is that failure to display is an offence and there is no point arguing that uou thought the police gave tou a bit of leeway most of the time.
ie the rule is the rule.
the guidance is just guidance.
I was with you up until here. For me this whole story is about this "operation" and dozens of similar ones across the country adopting a "zero tolerance" approach despite the guidance.
imho this is because it's easier for them to stand around stopping and ticketing pavement cyclists (whether they're a problem or not) than it is to tackle the real sources of danger.
Not 'just' guidance - it's how the rule is to be applied - ie there is some discretion (which the Police often show in other instances too, regardless of any existance of guidance).
The guidance was issued precisely because a FPN for pavement cycling was brought in, the two aren't separable:
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/minister-for-cycling-clarifies-pavement-cycli...
"When police and PCSOs were given the authority to issue Fixed Penalty Notices for pavement cycling in 1999 the Home Office minister Paul Boetang issued this guidance"
We need someone who received a FPN to challenge it in the courts, perhaps one of the cycling pressure groups or a legal firm who deal with cycling issues could assist.
The courts could then rule on the legality of issuing them and give better guidelines
The law should have been drafted such that it did not require guidance on how to use it.
It should have been written as "riding a bicyle on the pavement without due care and consideration for pedestrians".
In Bedford most bicycle users seem to use the pavement by default. Whether this is due to their putting bike is the same ‘toy’ type category as skate boards, that they haven’t got the nerve to ride on the road, they think it’s an act of civil disobedience that sticks two fingers up at ‘the oppressive authorities’ or their mummies doesn’t allow them to go on the road - I haven’t a clue but for whatever their reason it hardly does the cause of cycling any good.
When I read one of the comments on the newspaper site, someone obtained the actual stats for Operation Safeway in Kingston from the Met Police:
164 fixed penalty notices issued
60 FPNs to cyclists
104 to drivers
3 drivers procecuted
Of the 104 to drivers 45 were issued to drivers using mobile phones.
Also it is interesting that at the bottom of the newspaper article it mentions that for ignoring traffic signals; 45 fixed penalty notices for drivers and 5 for cyclists, I think that indicates who does the most “red light jumping” !
But it seems like a lot of journalists, the one writing the newspaper article used the old adage “why let the truth get in the way of a good story”, …. especially an anti-cyclist bias story.
In reply to what Vbvb says, up here in the North and the other “Kingston”; Kingston-upon-Hull to give Hull it’s posh title LOL … looking at the court section of my local newspaper on average for the past couple of months there has been one cyclist a week fined £200 (plus costs of £85) for “pavement cycling” by the Magistrates in the city. I’m not sure if the cyclists concerned rejected a FPN and took it to court or the police aren’t using FPNs and went straight away for prosecution in the courts.
Interesting to see the guidance wording asks whether you, the cyclist involved, feel fear - not whether "a reasonable person" would feel fear.
I wish someone would reject their FPN and test this in the courts. Might need some hefty cash as it'd need an appeal up a few rungs, I suppose.
Screw that. I avoid the pavement/sidewalk like the plague, but if someone is trundling along being a decent citizen then I'd rather the plod concentrated on the killing machines.
Mutual respect...... hmmm......
So i trust that EVERY* driver in Kingston has been pulled by the police for jumping red lights, speeding, dangerous driving, tailgating, illegal parking, mobile phones, drinking, smoking, etc etc etc.....
......
* there might be a couple who haven't broken some rule i guess!
Pages