Cyclist fined for 'avoiding phone box' on shared use crowd funds his appeal

A last minute and sensible decision not to prosecute Kristian has been made.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/20150204-pointless-prosecution-helmet-cam-cyc...

The cycle path is ridiculously narrow next to a brick wall.
There are no cycle path markings past the phone box, nor one to say end of cycle path.
There Is no sign anywhere denoting a shared path.
He went off the cycle path to overtake - not to avoid the phone box.
He should get his facts correct.
He was cycling responsibly so should not have been fined - as per ACPO guidelines “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists ... who show consideration to other pavement users."
Other cyclists went straight past the no cycling sign, and also over the pedestrian crossing.
I can't see where cycles are supposed to go on reaching this sign.
The crossing appears to be a Pelican, not a Toucan crossing.
They weren't proper police officers (PCSOs?) - what would have happened if he had not given his details and just cycled away? (But see www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117572... )

So pedestrians have to cross the cycle lane to get to the 'phone box? Someone call the cops

So are the police going to fine pedestrians that stray into the cycling lane? don't you just love hobby coppers that arnt good enough to to be real plodders.

I agree it is a badly placed phone box, and coming out to avoid that is inevitable. But it seems to me he was fined for overtaking another cyclist by using the pavement. I believe the police have been told to use discretion in this area - if you are on the pavement but going walking pace as i do when i go on the pavement then you are likely to be ok (I know he wouldnt then have been able to take over the other cyclist of course!).
I also think that he might have just got a warning if he had played it better. Ironically, whilst being booked, the official pulled him back into the bike lane, blocking it, and causing yet another cyclist to have to swerve around them and go onto the pavement...but nobody stopped him. Maybe it was his slow speed that allowed him the free pass, like I say.
A touģh one though. Crap lane and I do sympathise and hope he gets off. Just seems that as cyclists we are expected to be whiter than white when compared to motorists.

commutingbybicycle.com

He was right to be upset, but sadly rather naive as to the lack of common sense or commercial greed of many people.

Fixed Penalty Notices maybe legal , but are not common law, so are effectively null and void if you are careful not to accept a commercial contract which can be used against you... assuming the contract was valid...

If the land is public land and you do not accept contract, then where the lines are is mere guidance and not compulsory, provided you had not hurt a living human being or their property through negligence.

Sighting a cycle path with a existing phone box blocking most of it is blatant negligence by the people who planned the cycle path, so sue them...

Sue the owner of the telephone box for leaving a hazardous obstruction on a cycle path.

Sue the Peace Officers for obstruction and harassment for avoiding injury or property damage caused by the phone box obstruction. If you are ordered to do something, specify a very steep price for fulfilling the order; after-all nothing is free!

etc..

some points

1) he goes round the phone box then re-enters the lane, then moves out to pass another cyclist. so it is not the phone box that pushed him out. Although it is appalling design, I particularly like the way the phone box is in a shady spot, so you don't see it until late.

2) he seems not to understand the signs, the cyclepath sign clearly shows bikes on the left and pedestrians on the right not shared use, also he points at a no cycling sign as evidence of shared use. Really? a bike in a red circle means shared use?

3) why not use the bus lane like the 3 other cyclists who pass him early on?

4) he talks himself into a ticket here. Once he has claimed it is shared path and the police tell him "no, cyclists only over there" he could apologise for his error, promise not to do it again and (most likely) get on with his day, but he decides he would rather argue with someone in a position of authority who is clearly in a mood to be petty. why?

That's a cycle path......JESUS H CHRIST whuch fuck wit moron came up with that. 3 foot wide against a brick wall. Words fail to describe the utter contempt feel for the twats that thinks that path is in anyway reasonable.

That is a bad joke of a cycle path. Are there no legal rules for what constitutes a meaningful cycle path? Random bits of white lines that don't join up surely don't qualify?

Agree with LauraQ, if they aren't prepared to make any sort of effort to make a proper path, then they need to just make the whole stretch shared use.

Stupidity at it's best. It would be better if they spent their time fining idiotic drivers trying to kill us.

I use that exact stretch almost daily - the cycle path is narrow, up against a brick wall, and usually covered in piles of leaves hiding puncture-causing surprises (as I discovered to my cost). The rest of the pavement is wide and open, and it is easy to cycle considerately without causing problems for pedestrians. This stretch should be a fully shared pavement if the powers that be don't understand the use of discretion.

I got a FPN at exactly the same spot, took it to court, argued my case in front of the magistrates, got off and was told it should never have got this far. Police and CPS in utter misuse of public money shocker...
http://road.cc/content/news/111908-metropolitan-police-fines-pavement-cy...

F*ckwittery at it's finest.