Bristol councillor calls on new police commissioner to crack down on pavement cycling

stumps wrote:

It's the councillor and the police commissioner who is stiring this thing up, not the Police.

Unfortunately we all get tarred with the s****y end of the stick though.

I work in what is quite a quiet area compared to some and still would not have time to sit and target cyclists on pavements even if i wanted to.

To be honest its a 2 bit councillor who is trying to get his name in lights so he can get re-elected by showing he is "listening" to his constituents and trying to do something about it.

This is pretty much it - the need to 'be seen to be doing something'. This and the Cambridge thing really only serves to highlight the impotence and pointlessness of the police commissioners. Hopefully the electorate will pick up on the fact that we're paying these political plants £75k p.a. and they can do little more than tell cyclists off for riding on the pavement.

The irritating thing is, there are commonly-broken laws that really could do with a bit of a crackdown, most of all drivers using their phone. Even picking up cyclists who aren't using lights at night would be more useful from a public-good point of view (I mean, if you really have to be doing *something* against the hated two-wheeled hooligans arrogantly travelling in an economical, efficient, healthy and socially responsibly fashion).

stumps wrote:

To be honest its a 2 bit councillor who is trying to get his name in lights so he can get re-elected by showing he is "listening" to his constituents and trying to do something about it.

Same goes for the "crackdowns" on pavement cycling in Shrewsbury over the last few years. Councillor gets ear bent by a pensioner at LJC meeting. Gets the police to issue a press release. Box ticked. Yet I see relatively few cyclists riding on the pavement but plenty of illegally parked/waiting cars, taxis and vans.

Some of the shared paths are poorly signed/marked, like the pavement along Smithfield Road that is now a shared facility. You can cycle on these pavements and a select few others, but not all.

Of course, if the roads were nicer places to ride we wouldn't need these crappy 'facilities'. But while Shropshire Council is enslaved to the I-want-to-drive-and-park-my-car-everywhere-for-free-Now! lobby nothing will change.

therevokid wrote:

why not pick on a "target" they can get results for
instead or lunatic drivers, rapists, muggers, thieves,
scooters, skateboards ..... gggrrrrrrrrrrrr

Could not have said it better.

northstar wrote:

Perhaps if these people were more forthcoming in providing segregated paths for the pavement cyclists to use, they wouldn't feel the need too, or is that too easy?

The main effect of that would be increased abuse of cyclists who choose the road instead of the rubbish that often passes as segregated paths - like this one from Bristol http://bristolcars.blogspot.com/2010/08/coronation-road-cycle-path.html

ubercurmudgeon wrote:

.... Pavement cycling is wrong, but ranks somewhere between inconsiderate parking and not scooping your dog's poop, in terms of what should the police should be prioritising.

That's about it.

ubercurmudgeon wrote:

If only the government had sold the police commissionaires as official anti-cycling posts, they probably would have got much higher turnouts on election night, from all the Clarkson wannabes. Pavement cycling is wrong, but ranks somewhere between inconsiderate parking and not scooping your dog's poop, in terms of what should the police should be prioritising.

Exactly - and dangerous driving is far more of a risk to life and limb, as the DfT's accident statistics show. Dangerous cycling does exist for sure, but the numbers of victims are significantly lower as the data reveals. The police really need to get a reality check in this instance. Since resources are short, there are far more important priorities.