Jeremy Vine films motorist driving down Hyde Park cycle path

* Half a crown, i.e. 2/6, two shillings and sixpence (12.5p). I told you it was a long time ago. 

Joy! Another Old Knacker. I feel like Robinson Crusoe coming across Man Friday's footprint in the sand.

Howabout driving without due care & attention perhaps...they didnt prosecute because they cant be bothered more like, than there isnt a law they could use.

Part of what annoys me most about the Derbyshire lot fining people for going on a walk with a takeaway coffee, insta £200 fine, but how many drivers have been given more than a warning letter for risking cyclists lives by the manner of their driving, how many insta £200 fines do they hand out for that stuff, answer none because its treated as just one of those things that happens.

Lazy corrupt anti-cylist cops explains their lack of care towards vulnerable group's road safety, despite it being their public duty, that is unless it's one of their own at risk, and then they expect public sympathises.

lukei1 wrote:

Spotted someone doing this the other day as well, must happen often. Reported it to the Met and they didn't prosecute, is there not a specific law against this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZwHX6nzsLI

Have you just not heard from the Met? Because they're taking a fair bit longer than usual to respond at the moment, I got an email last week saying they'd sent an NIP on the back of one of my submissions over three weeks after the event.

Alternatively, they may not have jurisdiction over that road: roads in the Royal Parks are not public highways but and come under the purview of the Royal Parks and their dedicated police force. 

More police patrols by bike might help. Then maybe they'll realise how dangerous some of these drivers are, and actually appreciate that it's a lot of work to cut and post dashcam footage to them - just for the driver to get a warning.

Any chance of providing the court case reference? Just something to quote in case I get in trouble for this in future, particularly when cycling with nervous/inexperienced riders?

 By the way, if anyone tells you that you must use the cycle lane, the court case that establishes that cyclists don't have to is R. v. Daniel Cadden, 2007. Court case was courtesy of the Cyclist Defense Fund.

the little onion wrote:

Any chance of providing the court case reference? Just something to quote in case I get in trouble for this in future, particularly when cycling with nervous/inexperienced riders?

Or maybe get off your bike and push it when you need to use the pavement? Then you won't risk going to court

Don't trade others' safety for your convenience.

"(Or maybe get off your bike and push it when you need to use the pavement? Then you won't risk going to court
Don't trade others' safety for your convenience.)"

Or perhaps we should order you not to order others.
Let's see how brave you are at ordering motorists NOT to drive on pavements, nor park on them, nor drive on bus lanes or cycle lanes or in parks or in streets where children play.
Post your video showing how brave you are aswel ordering these reckless motorists to get out of their cars and push them.

pedestrian-pete wrote:

the little onion wrote:

Any chance of providing the court case reference? Just something to quote in case I get in trouble for this in future, particularly when cycling with nervous/inexperienced riders?

Or maybe get off your bike and push it when you need to use the pavement? Then you won't risk going to court

Don't trade others' safety for your convenience.

 

Pedestrian pete
Or perhaps we should order you not to order others.
Let's see how brave you are at ordering motorists NOT to drive on pavements, nor park on them, nor drive on bus lanes or cycle lanes or in parks or in streets where children play.
Post your video showing how brave you are aswel ordering these reckless motorists to get out of their cars and push them.

Who is 'we'?
The equivalent of posting that comment on a cycling website is to post the same on a car user website.

Projectcyclingfitness wrote:

pedestrian-pete wrote:

the little onion wrote:

Any chance of providing the court case reference? Just something to quote in case I get in trouble for this in future, particularly when cycling with nervous/inexperienced riders?

Or maybe get off your bike and push it when you need to use the pavement? Then you won't risk going to court

Don't trade others' safety for your convenience.

 

Pedestrian pete Or perhaps we should order you not to order others. Let's see how brave you are at ordering motorists NOT to drive on pavements, nor park on them, nor drive on bus lanes or cycle lanes or in parks or in streets where children play. Post your video showing how brave you are aswel ordering these reckless motorists to get out of their cars and push them.

Ridiculous whataboutery that has nothing to do with the issue mentioned. Are you saying that it's OK for us as cyclists to ignore the law because motorists do? It appears so, in which case you're being ridiculous. If a rider is too "nervous/inexperienced" to ride on the road then they can walk their bike on the pavement until they reach a place they feel they are safe. It's not OK for adults to decide they can break the law on cycling on the pavement when they feel like it.

Rendel Harris wrote:

It's not OK for adults to decide they can break the law on cycling on the pavement when they feel like it.

But there is officially sanctioned room for discretion assuming the cyclist breaking the law on cycling on the footway is doing so with good reason and in a responsible manner.
https://road.cc/content/news/108119-transport-minister-responsible-cycli...

Sriracha wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

It's not OK for adults to decide they can break the law on cycling on the pavement when they feel like it.

But there is officially sanctioned room for discretion assuming the cyclist breaking the law on cycling on the footway is doing so with good reason and in a responsible manner. https://road.cc/content/news/108119-transport-minister-responsible-cycli...

Point taken but I don't think those two points are mutually exclusive. Unless the footpath is virtually empty of pedestrians and the cyclist rides at walking pace (in which case why not just walk?) I can't see it being responsible. Thinking of my 8-mile commute through London, I can't think of any section that a novice might regard as dangerous that can't be skipped over onto safer roads or cycle paths with more than fifty yards' walk. For the sake of preventing the ill will pavement cycling engenders (rightly or wrongly) why not just walk?

Rendel Harris wrote:

[.. the cyclist rides at walking pace (in which case why not just walk?) I.

cyclist pushing a bike is wider than a cyclist riding a bike, and also pedals bashing shins while pushing a bike is annoying.

Riding slowly on the pavement as per the original description should not put anyone at risk.

Meanwhile we face complaints for riding at 20mph on a road, instead of using the shared path which is no different to a standard pavement 

wycombewheeler wrote:

cyclist pushing a bike is wider than a cyclist riding a bike, and also pedals bashing shins while pushing a bike is annoying.

Riding slowly on the pavement as per the original description should not put anyone at risk.

Cyclists who are too nervous/inexperienced to brave the road would tend to be the ones who wobble about at low speed, wouldn't they? And anyone who can't co-ordinate themselves to push a bike along without clobbering their shins probably isn't ready for riding a bike anywhere!

10 kph is considered safe for mobility scooters to use footpaths, which is running pace not walking pace, so why would it be irresponsible for cyclists to ride at 10 kph, given that a bicycle is half the width and much lighter than a mobility scooter, so less likely to injure a pedestrian.

grOg wrote:

10 kph is considered safe for mobility scooters to use footpaths, which is running pace not walking pace, so why would it be irresponsible for cyclists to ride at 10 kph, given that a bicycle is half the width and much lighter than a mobility scooter, so less likely to injure a pedestrian.

That is not the case. Mobility scooters are only permitted to drive at 4mph (6kph), fast walking pace, on footpaths. You can buy faster scooters (Class 3, top speed 8mph) for use on the road but they have, by law, to be switched to a 4mph setting when taken onto a footpath.

Render Harris wrote:

You can buy faster scooters (Class 3, top speed 8mph) for use on the road but they have, by law, to be switched to a 4mph setting when taken onto a footpath.

Oh? I thought that in the UK any electric scooter bought privately was not legal for use on public roads or footpaths, in fact not legal anywhere other than private property.

Sriracha wrote:

Render Harris wrote:

You can buy faster scooters (Class 3, top speed 8mph) for use on the road but they have, by law, to be switched to a 4mph setting when taken onto a footpath.

Oh? I thought that in the UK any electric scooter bought privately was not legal for use on public roads or footpaths, in fact not legal anywhere other than private property.

We're talking about mobility scooters, the ride-on sit-down ones used by the elderly and disabled, not the two-wheeled ones that have become so popular recently, which are indeed illegal everywhere unless part of an approved rental scheme.

pedestrian-pete wrote:

the little onion wrote:

Any chance of providing the court case reference? Just something to quote in case I get in trouble for this in future, particularly when cycling with nervous/inexperienced riders?

Or maybe get off your bike and push it when you need to use the pavement? Then you won't risk going to court

Don't trade others' safety for your convenience.

 

I know the law treats walking alongside a bike differently from being on a bike, but it's the speed that matters. Walking alongside a bike actually takes more of the path up than being on the bike and going slowly. That's a bigger issue at the moment due to social distancing. Though in an ideal world a cyclist would have decent infrastructure and not need to leave the road constantly to avoid parked cars, potholes, etc.

Jenova20 wrote:

Walking alongside a bike actually takes more of the path up than being on the bike and going slowly. That's a bigger issue at the moment due to social distancing.

Not sure I follow your logic. To observe 2m social distancing everybody needs a 1m radius exclusion zone around them. Your bike can quite easily trundle beside you within that 1m radius without conflict. If anything, it discourages others getting too close.

It is both really, depending on the locale it can either be used to impose a barrier, or depending on the path, other objects and the ability of someone to wait, it can push people closer together where the space the bike is taking is reducing the ability to move out the way and give yourself space.

Sriracha wrote:

Jenova20 wrote:

Walking alongside a bike actually takes more of the path up than being on the bike and going slowly. That's a bigger issue at the moment due to social distancing.

Not sure I follow your logic. To observe 2m social distancing everybody needs a 1m radius exclusion zone around them. Your bike can quite easily trundle beside you within that 1m radius without conflict. If anything, it discourages others getting too close.

Not sure which country you're referring to mate, but in the UK pavement sizes vary wildly from town to town - anything from half a metre to a few metres wide in some places.

Sure, but if social distancing is your concern then we are talking about 2m. The bike is only an issue if you are trying to crowd people closer than 2m. So in normal times walking your bike along a crowded pavement I can see that it gets in the way. But currently with everybody supposed to maintain a 2m clearance from everybody else there is ample room for the bike alongside in that empty space, mate.

Sriracha wrote:

Sure, but if social distancing is your concern then we are talking about 2m. The bike is only an issue if you are trying to crowd people closer than 2m. So in normal times walking your bike along a crowded pavement I can see that it gets in the way. But currently with everybody supposed to maintain a 2m clearance from everybody else there is ample room for the bike alongside in that empty space, mate.

There's practically nowhere near me, except the high street, where pavements are a metre wide. Walk alongside a bike and you've blocked the pavement. A one size fits all approach won't work, that's why the police are being asked to use discretion.

I was replying to your point that the space taken up by walking (as opposed to being astride) your bike was a "bigger issue at the moment due to social distancing".

How? You're saying that the bicycle being beside you gets in the way of keeping people away from you?

Sriracha wrote:

I was replying to your point that the space taken up by walking (as opposed to being astride) your bike was a "bigger issue at the moment due to social distancing". How? You're saying that the bicycle being beside you gets in the way of keeping people away from you?

No, i was saying that having the bike beside me would force people, or me, into the road, just to walk down the street. If i wanted to keep people away on generous sized pavement then the bike would act as a good barrier.