Taunton cycle safety operation sees police stop 24 cyclists and three motorists

spen wrote:

Legally a pavement set out for pedestrians parallel to a carriageway is a footway, covered by the 1835 act, while a footpath is a path laid out for pedestrians away from a road.  Riding a bike on a footpath is trespass against the land owner, a civil not a criminal offence.

 

You'd think the police could at least describe the offence correctly, the difference is important.

To be honest, I wouldn't expect most police to have a particularly detailed understanding of the law, as otherwise they'd probably be lawyers (assuming they have no soul).

What I would expect is that the police should prioritise the more dangerous crimes in an effort to increase the public's safety rather than picking on pavement cycling which is far more a symptom of danger rather than the cause of it (senile old Lords' opinions excepted).

HawkinsPeter wrote:

spen wrote:

Legally a pavement set out for pedestrians parallel to a carriageway is a footway, covered by the 1835 act, while a footpath is a path laid out for pedestrians away from a road.  Riding a bike on a footpath is trespass against the land owner, a civil not a criminal offence.

You'd think the police could at least describe the offence correctly, the difference is important.

To be honest, I wouldn't expect most police to have a particularly detailed understanding of the law, as otherwise they'd probably be lawyers

Oh, yes. 

I have actually stood in front of a duty sergeant back in the day, and listened to him tell me 'your client is being charged with..' and then he has cited a completely non-existent offence.  And when I have replied that indeed, there is no such offence, the response was, 'Well, that's what he's being charged with'.  

Loads of stories like that.  Maybe I'll write a book.  

There are decent, hardworking coppers out there.  I know, because I have met some.

But they are in a tiny ... infinitesimally tiny minority.  

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

There are decent, hardworking coppers out there.  I know, because I have met some.

But they are in a tiny ... infinitesimally tiny minority.  

So, basically the only decent hardworking police are the ones who've been chosen to be on 24 hours on police custody? That's kind of depressing...

spen wrote:

Legally a pavement set out for pedestrians parallel to a carriageway is a footway, covered by the 1835 act, while a footpath is a path laid out for pedestrians away from a road.  Riding a bike on a footpath is trespass against the land owner, a civil not a criminal offence.

 

You'd think the police could at least describe the offence correctly, the difference is important.

It is an important difference, because if you're knocked off your bike by a person on foot, whilst on a pavement, there's a good chance you'll land on the road.  Whereas if you are knocked off your bike on a footpath that isn't directly adjacent to a road, you won't end up on the road.

I don't understand how so many people believe that the prohibition against cycling on the pavement is only there to protect people on foot and not to also protect people on bicycles - the former would only be true if a bicycle somehow offered a person extra protection.

I have a problem with people who routinely cycle on the pavement because:

 a. They are encouraging the motorists that believe they should not share the road with people on bicycles.

 b. They themselves probably hold the above belief, when driving.

 c. They endanger me by propagating this belief.

 d. They endanger themselves and people on foot, by cycling on a path that has not been designed for cycling and where pedestrians rightfully might not expect to find a someone riding a bicycle.

So with this in mind, I have no objection to a cycle safety campaign that has mostly fined people who were using a bicycle.

jh27 wrote:

So with this in mind, I have no objection to a cycle safety campaign that has mostly fined people who were using a bicycle.

However, I do object to a cycle safety campaign that merely targets cyclists and doesn't actually address the elephant in the road - cars.

jh27 wrote:

spen wrote:

Legally a pavement set out for pedestrians parallel to a carriageway is a footway, covered by the 1835 act, while a footpath is a path laid out for pedestrians away from a road.  Riding a bike on a footpath is trespass against the land owner, a civil not a criminal offence.

 

You'd think the police could at least describe the offence correctly, the difference is important.

 

It is an important difference, because if you're knocked off your bike by a person on foot, whilst on a pavement, there's a good chance you'll land on the road.  Whereas if you are knocked off your bike on a footpath that isn't directly adjacent to a road, you won't end up on the road.

I don't understand how so many people believe that the prohibition against cycling on the pavement is only there to protect people on foot and not to also protect people on bicycles - the former would only be true if a bicycle somehow offered a person extra protection.

I have a problem with people who routinely cycle on the pavement because:

 a. They are encouraging the motorists that believe they should not share the road with people on bicycles.

 b. They themselves probably hold the above belief, when driving.

 c. They endanger me by propagating this belief.

 d. They endanger themselves and people on foot, by cycling on a path that has not been designed for cycling and where pedestrians rightfully might not expect to find a someone riding a bicycle.

 

So with this in mind, I have no objection to a cycle safety campaign that has mostly fined people who were using a bicycle.

(a) is bollocks.  The only people responsible for motorists' entitled and occasionally lethal attitude are motorists.  I'm not having this blame-shifting!

(b) might be true, though the majority of pavement cyclists seem to me to be too young and/or broke to have a car yet.

(c) and (d), true up to a point.  Especially for elderly people, but it depends on how fast they are going.  You get the occasional pavement cyclist clad in head-to-foot high-viz apologetically wobbling along at 4mph.  I don't feel endangered by them.

But mainly - what Hawkinspeter said.

Sriracha wrote:

I'm genuinely fascinated by all the responses pointing out bad/dangerous driving by motorists. It's inexcusable. Neither is it any justification for others of any stripe to likewise ride/drive on pavements, jump lights, etc. The (genuine) anecdote I gave about a cyclist using the pavement simply out of convenience was as a counterpoint to the suggestion that cyclists use the pavement only out of fear of the roads. But then I am beset by posts about cars jumping the lights etc. Inexcusable. And? Defending one's own behaviour by pointing at the misbehaviour of others is bizarre.

No, it really isn't.  Not when the question is, with limited resources, which bad behaviour should the authorities be devoting time to addressing?  The one that kills large numbers of people, or the one that doesn't?

Sriracha wrote:

I'm genuinely fascinated by all the responses pointing out bad/dangerous driving by motorists. It's inexcusable. Neither is it any justification for others of any stripe to likewise ride/drive on pavements, jump lights, etc. The (genuine) anecdote I gave about a cyclist using the pavement simply out of convenience was as a counterpoint to the suggestion that cyclists use the pavement only out of fear of the roads. But then I am beset by posts about cars jumping the lights etc. Inexcusable. And? Defending one's own behaviour by pointing at the misbehaviour of others is bizarre.

Again, laws based on a total misunderstanding of the actual threat of harm to pedestrians by people on bikes as I've said so an unjustified non fact based law. Red light jumping is yet another 'motor' law. Tell me how many people have been killed by red light jumping cyclists, ever?

If you'd bother to look around you'd see that places that removed light controls, there was far more harmony all round, still, cycles present such a ridiculously low level of threat that it's less than pedestrians, we on bikes have a far greater understanding and awarenes of our vulnerability, even the drunk ones, the ones on their phones whilst rolling a fag (I've seen this up in Hull) manage to get home without harming anyone seriously bar very, very rare exceptions (And hence why it makes headlines when it does), again, far less harm than those on foot who contribute massive carnage both night and day, to themselves in single person incidents as well as the carnage to others around them!

We already have some countries were cyclists can proceed on red, isn't it about time we looked at these matters in depth, use some logic and facts and get out of the 19th/early 20th C, afterall the calls for updating cycling punishments took a mere few months to come about after one incident

Sriracha wrote:

I'm genuinely fascinated by all the responses pointing out bad/dangerous driving by motorists. It's inexcusable. Neither is it any justification for others of any stripe to likewise ride/drive on pavements, jump lights, etc. The (genuine) anecdote I gave about a cyclist using the pavement simply out of convenience was as a counterpoint to the suggestion that cyclists use the pavement only out of fear of the roads. But then I am beset by posts about cars jumping the lights etc. Inexcusable. And? Defending one's own behaviour by pointing at the misbehaviour of others is bizarre.

“Defending one's own behaviour by pointing at the misbehaviour of others is bizarre”

yet that’s precisely what you’ve done with your (genuine) anecdote.

I’m genuinely fascinated by your posts to this forum.

Actually, no I’m not. I just scatter the word ‘genuine’ around when I’m trolling because it makes people believe that I’m a wide-eyed innocent whose naive, childlike and genuine curiosity somehow shines the light of reason on their monstrous hypocrisy and they will thank me for it, sell their bikes and buy a white Audi instead. 

HarrogateSpa wrote:

I believe part of the reason police always end up targeting people on bikes, in this sort of campaign, is that they are easier to stop, and they don't block the road when you do stop them.

I'm certain that's what it is.  All 'professions' are strongly motivated by box-ticking.  They mostly want the lowest-effort way to tick off their 'targets', get paid, and feel they are 'doing something'.  Unfortunately that seems to be human nature.  It seems quite rare for anyone to be motivated by any kind of bigger picture or agenda.

burtthebike wrote:

While we all realise that cycling on the footpath is an offence,  perhaps the authorities should be looking at why people do it, rather than just blaming them without understanding the reasons.  I'm sure that if cyclists felt safe on the road, they'd be on it, so making it so would solve the problem.  Just booking the cyclists will just suppress cycling, increase traffic, make the road even more dangerous, more pollution, more obesity etc.

What plans does Taunton have to address the problem, other than prosecuting people responding to the situation of perceived danger?

Driving to work on Friday traffic was predictably at a standstill approaching a red light. The road narrowed, making it all but impossible for a cyclist to pass up the inside. But no problem, he simply scooted onto the pavement to continue his progress unimpeded. This was a quite unremarkable occurence, for we are somewhat innured to cyclists using the pavement out of simple convenience. Maybe the situation in Taunton was different.

Sriracha wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

While we all realise that cycling on the footpath is an offence,  perhaps the authorities should be looking at why people do it, rather than just blaming them without understanding the reasons.  I'm sure that if cyclists felt safe on the road, they'd be on it, so making it so would solve the problem.  Just booking the cyclists will just suppress cycling, increase traffic, make the road even more dangerous, more pollution, more obesity etc.

What plans does Taunton have to address the problem, other than prosecuting people responding to the situation of perceived danger?

Driving to work on Friday traffic was predictably at a standstill approaching a red light. The road narrowed, making it all but impossible for a cyclist to pass up the inside. But no problem, he simply scooted onto the pavement to continue his progress unimpeded. This was a quite unremarkable occurence, for we are somewhat innured to cyclists using the pavement out of simple convenience. Maybe the situation in Taunton was different.

"traffic was predictably at a standstill approaching a red light".  

Nice that you can predict that. Lucky you. On my bicycle commute you can't. There are three or four junctions where i can predict with near certainty that at at least one every day a motor vehicle coming from the side road will jump the lights as I'm starting to go through on green because they don't want to wait for another sequence of the lights.

On Tuesday at one major box junction junction I was halfway across when a driver, who had seen me and made eye contact, deliberately set off on red, turning right across me about 30cm in front of me, and waved at me as he passed.

Sriracha wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

While we all realise that cycling on the footpath is an offence,  perhaps the authorities should be looking at why people do it, rather than just blaming them without understanding the reasons.  I'm sure that if cyclists felt safe on the road, they'd be on it, so making it so would solve the problem.  Just booking the cyclists will just suppress cycling, increase traffic, make the road even more dangerous, more pollution, more obesity etc.

What plans does Taunton have to address the problem, other than prosecuting people responding to the situation of perceived danger?

Driving to work on Friday traffic was predictably at a standstill approaching a red light. The road narrowed, making it all but impossible for a cyclist to pass up the inside. But no problem, he simply scooted onto the pavement to continue his progress unimpeded. This was a quite unremarkable occurence, for we are somewhat innured to cyclists using the pavement out of simple convenience. Maybe the situation in Taunton was different.

I've seen cars do that too.

And jump amber lights.

And reds too.

Cross ASLs illegally.

Park on pavements.

Park in cycle lanes.

Sit on pedestrain crossings in heavy traffic.

Not use indicators.

Not turn on fog lamps.

Not turn them off.

Speed.

Tailgate.

Use mobile phones.

And no one bats an eyelid at these either.

Sriracha wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

While we all realise that cycling on the footpath is an offence,  perhaps the authorities should be looking at why people do it, rather than just blaming them without understanding the reasons.  I'm sure that if cyclists felt safe on the road, they'd be on it, so making it so would solve the problem.  Just booking the cyclists will just suppress cycling, increase traffic, make the road even more dangerous, more pollution, more obesity etc.

What plans does Taunton have to address the problem, other than prosecuting people responding to the situation of perceived danger?

Driving to work on Friday traffic was predictably at a standstill approaching a red light. The road narrowed, making it all but impossible for a cyclist to pass up the inside. But no problem, he simply scooted onto the pavement to continue his progress unimpeded. This was a quite unremarkable occurence, for we are somewhat innured to cyclists using the pavement out of simple convenience. Maybe the situation in Taunton was different.

We should be, like some other countries looking at 'cyclists' as pedestrians on wheels. Even with the so called mayhem , cyclists kicking out, cyclists doing all srts of extreme actions and millions of 'near misses' that pedestrians seem to encounter with those on bike, strangely (well  not) the figures of fewer than 40 serious injuries in the last stats involving a ped and a person on a bike (can't remember if that was total or at fault number) and averaging 0.6 deaths per annum suggests that the threat is massively less than people think AND massively less than the threat pedestrians pose to themselves and society as a whole.

It's interesting that apparently some of the cyclists said it was quicker to use the 'pavement', so that would mean they either couldn't filter/filter safely, it was even a consideration to ride on the road in virtually standstill motor traffic.

Some police have pulled over and prosecuted people on bikes for pparently obstruction of the highway and not pulling over when slow moving to allow faster moving traffic through. So, surely in this scenario plod should be forcing the motorists who are obstructing people on bikes from making progress to pull off the road so that faster moving traffic can get past ... afterall they're the 'middle of the fucking road' ... what's good for the goose and all that!

it's about time we changed these motor based rules and also base them on the actual threat of harm to society, currently that's not enough for motorists and too much for people on bikes yet the gov have brought in more laws and plod are forever acting discriminatory and against their sworn oaths.

Sriracha wrote:

 Driving to work on Friday traffic was predictably at a standstill approaching a red light. The road narrowed, making it all but impossible for a cyclist to pass up the inside. But no problem, he simply scooted onto the pavement to continue his progress unimpeded. This was a quite unremarkable occurence, for we are somewhat innured to cyclists using the pavement out of simple convenience. Maybe the situation in Taunton was different.

If all those motorists hadn't been using over-sized forms of transport and blocking the road, the problem wouldn't have arisen, of course.

It's the motorists creating the conflict between cyclists and pedestrians, by using more than their fair-share of the road-space.

The other week I had a minor grumpy-interaction with a fellow pedestrian, when we had trouble passing each other on the pavement.  I thought he was being unreasonably impatient and rude, but I couldn't be bothered making a fuss about it because the actual cause of the problem was the council allowing cars to be parked on the pavement, leaving barely any room for pedestrians to pass each other.

The problem is almost always the presence of cars, which are inefficient in their use of space.