Cyclists using a pavement to avoid what has been described as a “very dangerous” junction on the A4 in west London are being fined by private enforcement officers working on behalf of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), after the council designated the area a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) zone without visible signage from the neighbouring borough or any public announcement to non-residents.
The incident was first highlighted in a Reddit post earlier this month, in which a cyclist described being issued a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) after crossing from Hammersmith into Earl’s Court via the pavement beside the A4, a route they and other riders reportedly use to avoid one of the few crossing points over the railway line, where several cycling fatalities have occurred in recent years.
“Problem is that there is a rail line in between Hammersmith and Kensington and Chelsea, so this A4 highway is one of the few ways to get across it without a significant detour (onto roads also famed for high cycling fatality rates, I should add),” wrote the cyclist.
“Most cyclists here elect to follow the home office advice of making a short journey on the pavement next to the highway before continuing onto the smaller roads on the Kensington side.
“To counteract this, Kensington and Chelsea council have declared Earl’s Court a “public order zone” to prevent cycling on the pavement across this dangerous highway and has outsourced the enforcement of this order to a private company, Kingdom.
“This public order zone was never announced to non-residents, and there is no sign indicating it on the Hammersmith side. Today, the company had set up some kind of mass profit operation by stopping all the cyclists coming across that bridge.”
The rider, who contacted both the enforcement officer and the council, claimed they were told by the Kingdom employee that they were “wasting her time” and should take it up with RBKC directly. When they reached a council official, they said she was sympathetic, acknowledged the danger in the area, and encouraged them to write to local MPs asking them to “choose between £100 and my life.”
“Isn’t this just ludicrous?” the cyclist asked.
The Reddit post has since attracted widespread concern from other cyclists, including one who called the area “really, really horrible” to ride through. Others described Kensington and Chelsea as being “actively hostile” to any transport mode other than private cars, accusing the council of making clear it “won’t do anything more for cyclists because they want them gone.”

According to RBKC’s official PSPO documentation, which came into force in April 2024 and is set to last until April 2027, riding a bike or scooter on the pavement is banned within the restricted area, which includes the junction where the enforcement is taking place. Cyclists are permitted to push their bikes on foot.
RBKC confirmed the order can be enforced with a £100 fine or prosecution, with a maximum penalty of £1,000. The council has delegated enforcement to Kingdom Local Authority Support, a private contractor that also issues fines for littering, drinking alcohol in restricted areas, and loitering, and has partnerships with several other boroughs and councils.
While the order was formally consulted on, and a map of the affected zone was published on the council website, the cyclist argued that the lack of signage and the punitive approach taken by private enforcement staff make the enforcement unfair, particularly for non-residents.
One commenter on Reddit questioned the legality of Kingdom staff demanding personal details from cyclists, asking: “What powers do they actually have to stop an individual?” The cyclist replied: “By standing in the way and pretending to be law enforcement (badges, et cetera).”

A Kensington and Chelsea Council spokesperson told road.cc: “We prioritise the safety and well-being of our residents and visitors, and the PSPO’s restriction on cycling on pavements helps to protect everyone, especially vulnerable pedestrians who have no alternative place to walk.
“More than 90 per cent of people who responded to our consultation backed the Earl’s Court PSPO and we would politely ask cyclists to respect pedestrians by following the Highway Code.”
Concerns about Kingdom’s enforcement tactics have surfaced elsewhere in the borough. In one recent case, a person was fined £300 for placing an empty drinks carton into what he believed to be a commerical recycling bag. He said the Kingdom officer told him she would have let him off if he had claimed to be a tourist, and refused to note any mitigating details.
RBKC also announced earlier this year that it was stepping up enforcement, with fines for low-level offences such as littering increasing from £150 to £300 and new Kingdom officers brought in to assist council staff.
The use of PSPOs — powers originally intended to tackle anti-social behaviour — to fine cyclists has drawn criticism from campaigners across the UK. In Grimsby, North East Lincolnshire Council’s controversial cycling ban in the town centre led to hundreds of Fixed Penalty Notices being issued, with almost 1,500 fines handed out in a six-month period last year alone.

Enforcement has been delegated to private officers from Waste Investigations Support and Enforcement (WISE), who have faced accusations of aggressively targeting ordinary cyclists while failing to deter actual nuisance behaviour.
One cyclist, Richard Cameron, was ordered to pay over £1,200 in April after being found guilty in court of breaching the PSPO on four occasions. Another local rider, 31-year-old Viktorija Kosareva, was fined over £500 on the same day for a separate alleged breach of the order.
Despite insisting that the PSPO “isn’t simply a way to make money,” North East Lincolnshire councillor Ron Shepherd, who introduced a recorded loudspeaker message warning against cycling in the town centre, has been repeatedly accused of harbouring an anti-cycling bias and misapplying anti-social behaviour laws, with some campaigners claiming his enforcement regime is more about discouraging cycling than tackling genuine issues.
Attempts by campaigners from other towns to engage with Shepherd over adopting a less punitive approach, such as Colchester’s “behaviour not location” model, have reportedly been ignored.
In Colchester, the use of privately contracted wardens from the company WISE sparked criticism after enforcement officers were described as “rogue” wardens “lying in wait” for cyclists making minor infractions, including briefly riding on pavements to avoid dangerous roads.
The Colchester Cycling Campaign reported a surge in Fixed Penalty Notices issued exclusively by WISE officers, prompting the campaign to adopt a policy of non-cooperation with the council. One cyclist fined in Colchester asked: “They say cycling is good for health and the environment, but then make life as hard as possible for us — is this supposed to encourage people?”

> “Why pick on a lone female cyclist?” Cyclist slapped with £100 fine – for riding on a cycle path
Nationally, enforcement of PSPOs has come under fire from cycling organisations, including Cycling UK, which argues that local authorities are using the powers to criminalise cycling and discourage active travel, all while failing to address the kind of genuine anti-social behaviour PSPOs were meant to target. Critics say the orders have increasingly been used as a blunt tool to regulate public space, with disproportionate impacts on responsible cyclists.
Concerns about overzealous enforcement have been compounded by councils employing private contractors on a commission basis — a system campaigners say incentivises officers to hand out as many fines as possible.
Those fears intensified earlier this year when the Labour government introduced its proposed Crime and Policing Bill. Among the changes is a clause that would increase the maximum on-the-spot fine for breaching a PSPO from £100 to £500 — a move campaigners have condemned as disproportionate and likely to further empower aggressive enforcement.
The Manifesto Club, which campaigns against what it calls the “hyper-regulation of public space,” described the plan as “a noxious cocktail of over-broad laws that are being enforced by private enforcement companies on commission,” warning that the increase will do nothing to tackle crime but will instead fuel a boom in the private enforcement industry.
“They are being enforced by companies who are incentivised to issue as many fines as possible,” the group added. “This gesture will be cheap for the Home Office but will cost society dear.”
Kensington and Chelsea’s own cycling policies have long been a flashpoint in London’s active travel debate. In 2020, the council faced criticism for removing a protected cycle lane on Kensington High Street after just seven weeks, despite protests and support from both then Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan.
A High Court case brought by campaigners failed, but RBKC has since been accused of ignoring its own consultation data and “manipulating evidence” to justify the decision. Earlier this year, the borough introduced painted advisory cycle lanes, allowing motor vehicles to enter them when clear, on Fulham Road and Kensington High Street, prompting renewed criticism from the London Cycling Campaign.
“A dotted line in paint is nowhere near adequate to keep people cycling safe,” a spokesperson said, citing the borough’s “terrible rate of cycling casualties” — the worst in inner London.




















58 thoughts on “Cyclists fined for riding on pavement beside “very dangerous” road into London, as rider claims they are being made to “choose between £100 and my life””
Quote:
Aren’t they legally obliged to put some sort of notices up? It’d be like fining motorists for speeding when there were no signs up informing them of the local speed limit (and we know that would never happen).
brooksby wrote:
Statutory Instrument 2014 No. 2591
Publication of a notice of discharge of a public spaces protection order
3.—
(1) In relation to a public spaces protection order that a local authority has discharged, that local authority must—
(a) publish a notice on its website identifying the order which has been discharged and the date on which it ceases to have effect; and
(b) cause to be erected on or adjacent to the public place to which the order relates, a notice (or notices)—
(i) identifying the order which has been discharged; and
(ii) the date on which it ceases to have effect.
(2) The notice (or notices) mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must be positioned in a manner that the local authority considers sufficient to draw it to the attention of any member of the public using that place.
So if they have failed to do
So if they have failed to do 1(b) and 2 are the fines legal, and can they be challenged?
Probably but you’d have to
Probably but you’d have to write to them expressing that challenge and be willing to risk an escalation to the magistrates court and you’d probably best get/check legal represenation – its deliberately designed so paying the fine is the path of least resistance.
Not RBKC but this is a guide.
https://www.basildon.gov.uk/article/9337/How-to-make-a-representation-in-relation-to-a-PSPO-fixed-penalty-notice
Quote:
I have never been to RBKC, have never ridden a bike in that there London, but I know just from reading the interweb that RKBC appear to be “actively hostile” to any transport mode other than private cars…
RBKC – making Sadiq Khan look
RBKC – making Sadiq Khan look like Anne Hidalgo. Heck, making Grimsby Councillors look forward-thinking…
I believe they’ve more than once been an impediment to plans to make cycle routes across London, even when the miracle of getting several other boroughs to work together was achieved.
They’re not the only ones to be a barrier, but they appear pretty consistent…
RBKC? Which of course is the
RBKC? Which of course is the initialism of “Royal Borough of Killing Children”
the little onion wrote:
Grenfell Tower is in RBKC.
the little onion wrote:
Rabid Bicyclist Killing Cretins*
*The original version of the last word was slightly shorter but still began with C and had an N and a T in it.
Modern Britain – any excuse
Modern Britain – any excuse for someone to make a load of money by spreading misery.
IMPORTANT NOTICE
IMPORTANT NOTICE
The original guidance on this, as issued by Paul Boateng as minister in 1999, and confirmed by several ministers – under Labour, Conservative, and Coalition governments – is that it is not in the public interest to prosecute cyclists using the pavement for their own safety, and where they are cycling considerately.
To quote the original:
“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.”
So – if anyone attempts to fine you for cycling considerately whilst avoiding danger, then tell them to get stuffed and refer to the Boatent 1999 guidance!
Does “guidance” override
Does “guidance” override anything e.g. including local orders?
I don’t know. I’d guess the answer is “no, won’t help”. Unless you’re just being challenged by a non-official AND you’re certain they have no authority – in which case politely bid them good day.
Is it even any use when trying to politely explain to police not versed in road law (hardly unheard of)? After your bad experience (in other police matters) I’d be even more careful in any dealings I had with the law (e.g. getting some legal arse-covering as quickly as possible)…
Not helpful or relevant
Not helpful or relevant unfortunately.
Riding on the pavement generally and breaching a PSPO specifically are two different things.
Remember these groups act as
Remember these groups act as if they have police powers most let the power go straight their heads I urge all riders when confronted with these idiots in a non protected space area to challenge their powers to the fullest capability in public annoyance, as they frequently try it on with people outside of their given boundaries usually with threats of getting the police involved and in this day in age you can’t trust the police as far as you throw them.
Born_peddling wrote:
As has been said on this site many many times before, it really isn’t as simple as that. Simply going on your merry way and ignoring them can actually – in some circumstances – get you in serious legal trouble.
Agreed. Strictly, Born
Agreed. Strictly, Born-peddling says “I urge all riders when confronted with these idiots in a non protected space area to challenge their powers” but I feel that misses the point slightly – how are you supposed to know the boundaries of their jurisdiction if signage is unclear / without engaging with them.
True story: about 20 years
True story: about 20 years ago I was chatting with a road safety officer from the London Borough of Barnet who told me they deliberately do not install any cycle infrastructure or traffic calming as they wanted to discourage cycling as it meant their KSI figures, for vulnerable road users, were very low. Which is one way of doing it, I s’pose. Since then, Barnet has 1 cycle lane (or 2 as it is on the other side of the A1000 for a bit) Not bad for a borough of over 350K residents
This genuinely oesn’t
This genuinely doesn’t surprise me.
Here in West Yorkshire, I have also heard – on extremely good authority – that the missing sections in some bits of cycling infrastructure in Bradford correspond perfectly to the points where the councillors want to park their cars when they visit family members.
Surprised they were so open
Surprised they were so open about it. But maybe not … the UK has (at least implicitly) being pursuing a policy of “improved road safety through removing all vulnerable road users from the roads” for my lifetime and before. Partly by simply failing to provide for them (not infrequently there’s not even any specific pedestrian provision). Or by providing for their safety in a way that is entirely inconvenient – as the capacity for motor vehicle and convenience for drivers must not be infringed (there are a whole series of targets and metrics)!
But in fact separating motor traffic and vulnerable road users * for safety (and indeed a more pleasant experience for all) is entirely sensible! The con lies in the “move the pedestrians, cyclists, mobility vehicle users, horsists etc. out of the way and provide or retain the direct path for motor traffic” part.
* The more granular / reasoned and pragmatic formulation of better systems might be e.g. provide separate spaces for traffic which is widely differing in momentum / other important characteristics. Often phrased as “homogeneity (of mass, speed and direction of road users)”. So e.g. motor vehicles also need separation where they’re travelling fast in different directions or one stream may be at a very different speed). See “sustainable safety” yet again…
That’s exactly what I was
That’s exactly what I was told when I lived in Belfast.
A Kensington and Chelsea
A Kensington and Chelsea Council spokesperson told road.cc: “We prioritise the safety and well-being of our residents and visitors…….
And cyclists can just foxtrot oscar, we literally couldn’t care less about their safety and well-being. Don’t they have a responsibility to ensure the safety of everyone?
The junction in question has
The junction in question has 9 lanes. Can see why you’d want to get off the road – albeit I would dismount (appreciate not all can).
On the signage, if it exists, it may well be pretty low key. Still below from a RBKC video showing what the signage would look like.
Is that the “don’t put
Is that the “don’t put cyclists on shelves” symbol?
“Loitering in groups of two or more” – they’re going to start moving families on?
chrisonabike wrote:
I think it’s “no trials in this area” isn’t it?
chrisonabike wrote:
I wondered about that.
(It’s like going back to middle Covid measures – group of six or more not allowed, unless its a Wednesday, or unless Boris changed his mind, and if you have a group of three and a group of four that’s fine but don’t get too close to each other otherwise you’ll have to eject two people. Or something.)
I like how the “No begging”
I like how the “No begging” graphic is illustrated with someone handing over a sheaf of paper money.
But then, it is the RBKC, isn’t it…?
Small change, my boy…
Small change, my boy…
Or does it illustrate idlers (and/or even worse, Johnny Foreigner) snatching from the pay packets of hard-working citizens?
quiff wrote:
A shoulder check to calm the nerves..
Why is the picture at the top
Why is the picture at the top of the article at Bank of England/station when it is not relevant to the area in question?
So from the description I
So from the description I think the location is here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ATzVoCLbvN15uUHV7
This is a terrible road for cycling on, but there is no need for three motor traffic lanes. The inside lane should be a segregated cycle lane and the problem would be solved. It’s a red route road so owned by TfL, but I’m guessing RBKC would try and block any cycle lane.
It’s a pavement, you can’t
It’s a pavement, you can’t ride the pavement.
It’s in the highway code.
Why do you people manipulate lawbto justify your actions. Your in the wrong.
Car driver runs a red light because there’s an ambulance behind him and in the process causes harm to a pedestrian or cyclist, shall we let him go because it was unintentional and meant no harm.
The law says you can’t run a red light.
The law is there for all to obey.
You cyclists are arses. I get heckled for stopping at red lights as a cyclist.
Italianoxx wrote:
In general, I’m with you and don’t often cycle on the pavement. But, as others have pointed out, successive governments have issued guidance that cyclists should not be penalised for careful and considerate use of the pavement.
Italianoxx wrote:
Those after-amber-gambling drivers are a terror, aren’t they 😉
Have you tried not wearing a helmet, hi-vis or lycra and wearing a big sign saying “person on a bike, not a cyclist”?
In the UK cyclists are either *in the way of* (or “undertaking”) motorists, or “shouldn’t be cycling on the footpath” (which had very often been legalised by the council changing it to mixed use but not making it bigger).
Until there are some dramatic infrastructure / law changes (and ultimately a lot more people cycling sometimes) you’ll always be in the wrong and a “cyclist”, regardless of what any other idiots are doing, not that they help…
chrisonabike wrote:
No. Even after such changes, you’ll still be a cyclist and ipso facto, wrong.
eburtthebike wrote:
No. Even after such changes, you’ll still be a cyclist and ipso facto, wrong.
— chrisonabikeIn the UK, alas probably won’t change in my lifetime. And in general it’s a question whether we can ever roll back the dominance of motoring enough for cycling to become a perfectly normal transport mode. (Because while we favour motoring there will never be enough space for other modes, and many people will always default to driving for anything further than a few hundred metres).
However in general these people don’t appear to be “cyclists and wrong”. Nor these ones, nor – I think – these…
Italianoxx wrote:
Some pavement you can. More properly, it is a footway you must not ride on. Even “pedestrianised” areas are not exclusive of cyclists unless TRO/bylaws and signage say so (many only restrict motorised traffic).
Of more relevance, it is in s72 of The Highway Act 1835 (which, while stating “…footpath…”, is actually referring to what is subsequently defined as “footway”; footpath is something else and – a matter of debate – is not well-defined as an offence)
You may have missed the reference to Paul Boateng. In 1999, legislation was passed to allow FPNs to be issued to cyclists for riding on the footway. In the immediate aftermath of that, Paul Boateng, then-Labour Home Office MoS for That Sort of Thing, issued guidance on how the legislation was to be implemented. He stated that (to paraphrase) cyclists who were otherwise riding considerately should not be penalised for riding on the footway because of fear of traffic. In 2014, then-Conservative Under-SoS for Transport Robert Goodwill reinforced the guidance.
So, senior ministers from opposing parties have “manipulated” the law for which they are responsible. Cyclists here are just reiterating the reasonable expectation of relying on that guidance as users of the road in question.
No, you’re in the wrong.
Irrelevant, but no. The law is clear and public guidance from police and ambulance services supports it.
Also not relevant here. However, not driving a motor vehicle on the footway is also a requirement. It may interest you to know that, outside London and Sctoland, footway parking is rife. Every single driver has committed an offence to do so (and does so in removing their vehicles from the footway), and a good many commit obsutrction or other parking offences in the process, too. Very few of them are penalised for it.
The law is there for all to obey.
So you’re a cyclist too [citation needed], therefore you tar yourself with the same brush.
Meanwhile every year, more people are killed by drivers of motor vehicles just on footways and pedestrian-only space than are killed by cyclists anywhere. So let’s have some perspective, as well as en[vy]forcement.
Cyclists breaking certain
Cyclists breaking certain rules in some places are no doubt highly visible e.g. London around “ignoring lights” and “cycling where they shouldn’t” (likely because cyclists in any numbers are something of a UK novelty).
Intuitively one might reasonably assume that cyclists would be less likely to follow laws, because:
– impunity – “they don’t have number plates” / “the police won’t / can’t touch them”
– differences in training / competence – they’re not “tested and licenced”
– cycling is seen as a more “casual” activity (or a leisure / “unserious” one) and we intuit that people won’t take it seriously
– “cyclists” being an out-group – they’re antisocial (yoof / crims / “MAMILS” with attitude)
Curiously though – some studies seem to suggest they’re not worse than other road users.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/cyclists-comply-traffic-laws-more-drivers
I dont believe the intention
I dont believe the intention of the Boateng intervention was ever as an automatic get out of jail free card you could cite and just ride on pavements at your free will.
It simply meant you wouldn’t always get an FPN if you did. But if the police/FPN issuers have decided yes we will issue FPNs for it in this place because they can, i dont think there’s any wiggle room on it, until someone brings a case and cites a 26 year old bit of former ministers guidance as a defence.
stonojnr wrote:
That’s correct; the offence remains. And I don’t think Boateng’s input amounts to a defence.
But he was clearly setting out a framework of common sense: that FPNs should be used with a reasonable assessment of the context of the offence.
If the process is held up to scrutiny, it is unlikely to hold the enforcement campaign to be over zealous, not to render individual penalty notices to be invalid.
There are lots of offences which do not meet the public interest test and are not progressed. FPNs are not a criminal conviction; they are a fast-track process to avoid that sort of thing. If you ignore it &/or opt for your day in court, the court is likely to take a dim view of that failure to take it on the chin at the first opportunity if the offence is proved. The unintended[?] consequence is that, when we give the first stage decision to a person in a less qualified role with a narrow range of enforcement duties and who is possibly financially incentivised to favour enforcement rather than discretion, we are going to end up with less discretion over the public interest. That is reinforced when the impetus for that stems from a political decision (as in the case of PSPOs).
I don’t know the section of road in question but, as described, I would suggest it is precisely the sort of context about which Boateng and Goodwill extol circumspect discretion in the absence of exacerbating factors.
It’s in the highway code.
It’s in the highway code.
Why do you people manipulate law to justify your actions. You’re in the wrong.
Car driver runs a red light because there’s an ambulance behind him..
What a dimwit troll! – although Lancashire is undoubtedly the place for him, because here the police invariably ignore RLJ by motorists:
https://upride.cc/incident/kn13aus_knausmotorhome_doubleredlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/pe18ojj_insignia_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/a15tjv_bmwm4_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/de56ztv_discovery_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/k7ddy_audia4_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/fd67nej_bmw420_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/ye10aju_mini_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/t90jdt_audiwithcaravan_rljatspeed/
etc. etc- none of them followed by an ambulance
Italianoxx wrote:
Like the laws on 20 mph speed limits which 80% of drivers disobey, or the laws on 30 mph speed limits which 50% of drivers disobey, or the law that requires you have a valid licence to drive a car which 800,000 UK drivers disobey, or the law that requires you have insurance for your car, which one in six UK drivers admit they have broken at some point, or the law that requires that a car has an MOT with 5,200,000 cars on UK roads without MOT…
Yeah but cyclists on the pavement…
…or the law which doesn’t
…or the law which doesn’t allow you to drive on the footway except for emergencies / access (and the latter only if there’s a dropped kerb IIRC) (e.g. noted in HC rule 145). And which is ignored by most it seems.
But of course that’s completely administratively decriminalised in most places and still scarcely enforced in almost all…
Probably not at the moment,
Probably not at the moment, the summer tends to add to cycling numbers, but let’s say in the winter, there will be more driving whist distracted by the addicts on their phones than there will be cyclists on the road.
The law is there for all to
The law is there for all to obey- not according to DVLA and the police it isn’t, not when the offenders are drivers
PO64 AUR: no VED for ten years, passenger not wearing seatbelt, no front plate, rear plate deliberately obscured. Report immediately closed by Lancashire Constabulary with no action and no explanation. Lilian Greenwood, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Future of Roads for a year and writing to my MP (representing DVLA, DfT) on the subject of vehicles in Lancashire going without VED, MOT for many years, dated 26.6.25:
I am sorry to hear of the concern that this issue is continuing to cause your constituent.
Officials at the DVLA operate a comprehensive package of measures to tackle vehicle excise duty (VED) evasion. These range from reminder letters, penalties and court prosecutions, through to the use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, wheelclamping and the removal of untaxed vehicles. The DVLA aims to make VED easy to pay but hard to avoid, regularly reviewing and refining processes to encourage compliance and deliver a robust enforcement regime.
The DVLA is always grateful for information it receives from the public that assists in its drive to target untaxed vehicles. The DVLA sends this information to its national wheel clamping contractor, NSL Services Ltd (NSL), to enable them to take enforcement action where appropriate during their next visit to the area. However, NSL covers the whole of the UK and it must manage its resources in the most efficient and effective way.
Due to strict data protection legislation, the DVLA is unable to comment on whether any enforcement action has or can be taken.
My letter to my MP included the case of BF64 TGE, which is still driving around every day and parked nightly outside the owner’s house where I first reported it to DVLA in May 22 untroubled by ‘DVLA’s ‘robust enforcement regime’
Italianoxx wrote:
And of all the things that never happened, this never happened the most.
GMBasix wrote:
And of all the things that never happened, this never happened the most.— Italianoxx
Not necessarily – they may be heckling themself.
“…rider claims they are
“…rider claims they are being made to “choose between £100 and my life…“
Not true. Get off and push if you don’t like other road users.
Not sure why anyone would
Not sure why anyone would give their name to private enforcement puppets
brooksby wrote:
Jaijai wrote:
Because, as noted many times before around here, refusing to do so is a criminal offence for which you can be fined up to £1000 for “obstructing an authorised officer”; in addition you will not get an FPN for the original offence and so will face court for it where the penalties will be much higher. You may think you can just ride away without consequences but chances are they will have a bodycam so your image will have been recorded and there may well be police in the area whom they can contact to arrest you as you ride away. Up to you if you want to risk it but it may not be the consequence-free action you believe.
Is it really to hard to get
Is it really to hard to get off your bike and push it? There is a third choice if you use your imagination and drop your sense of entitlement.
carefulrider wrote:
If it’s the spot I believe it to be, it’s a good 600 metres, which is a fair old distance to push, especially for people for whom a bicycle is a mobility aid. Would it be too [note spelling] much to ask that the council use their imagination and find a solution, e.g. there are pavements both sides of the dual carriageway on that flyover, one could be for cyclists and one for pedestrians. A number of cyclists have been killed and seriously injured using the road, I don’t see anything in the report about any pedestrians being injured by cyclists using the pavement? Perhaps it’s time (some) pedestrians dropped their sense of entitlement and accepted that sometimes they have to share off-road space with others. I’d be more than happy for enforcement officers to ticket reckless, dangerous and selfish riders in that location, but there’s really no good reason sensible riders shouldn’t be allowed carefully to use the pavement.
Of course motorists should be
Of course motorists should be required to hire a flag man to proceed them on foot in any stretch of road where there have been infractions of the speed limit.by other motorists.
A lot of the roads have
A lot of the roads have parked cars blocking both sides of the road in London, where cyclists normally ride, so it’s cycling on the pavement or in the middle of the road.
This is a council that be
This is a council that be responsible for an appalling disaster leaving many dead and yet carry out enforcement actions for incredibly minor offences.
Looking at the THINK Map,
Looking at the THINK Map, this is all the pedestrian casualities involving a cyclist for 2013 – 2023.
And this is all the cyclist
And this is all the cyclist casualties.
Bet the first map would show
Bet the first map would show nothing if you turned it to “pedestrians killed by cyclists”, a few dots for “pedestrians killed” (by motor vehicles) and – I would guess – even more dots for “cyclist killed”…
An example of this kind of visualisation (they’ve an animation further down) here:
https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2017/09/09/just-one-year/