Transport minister: Responsible cyclists CAN ride on the pavement

unsliced wrote:

Oh great, so more complications, caveats and subjective opinions in dispensing law.

It's just moving the furniture - HGVs and fast traffic force the cyclists on to the pavement, but where do the pedestrians go?

Letting 'considerate' bikes cycle on the pavement is just a cop-out. I don't want to cycle on the pavement. I want for my 3 year old child and by 85 year old grandmother to be able to walk safely on the pavement without having to worry that some cyclist's view of considerate falls well short of common sense.

Make the road safe for those that should be there - and keep the pavements safe for those with nowhere else to go.

If it's an empty pavement at a busy junction, where is the risk to pedestrians? I don't want to see my aged parents or my children endangered by some Strava nutter on the pavement either. But then I also want my children to be able to ride on the pavement without some plastic policeman popping up and telling them to ride on the road.

"and when i explained that there was absolutely no one else for me to endanger he told me I could contest it in court. So that folks is how discretion works."

...don't for one minute think that the court will rubber stamp the decision of the PCSO or even a Police Officer
My partner is a Legal Advisor in the Mags courts...her advice is
1. it is very likely the matter will simply be dropped, and you won't have to pay the fine...the courts are currently dropping anything they can to save money
2. do not for one second think that the opinion of the Police is held in good regard by the Courts. They are very very sceptical about their evidence and dismissive of their interpretation of the law..and that's the polite version

so for pavement riding, always appeal, never pay up on the spot.

arfa wrote:

The one time I picked up an FPN was 6am crossing millennium bridge (because Southwark bridge was closed) and decided to freewheel after crossing the hump of the bridge as no one was about and it was chucking it down with rain. I got lept on by a plastic copper and when i explained that there was absolutely no one else for me to endanger he told me I could contest it in court. So that folks is how discretion works.
All I can say is that this pronouncement is more garbled and mixed messages from the powers that be who could not be less interested.

There's a specific No Cycling sign on that bridge. Similarly I wouldn't expect this 'guidance' to apply to sections of pavement where there are No Cycling signs.

I know the Millennium Bridge well - I certainly would consider cycling over it to be antisocial especially when it's busy. Appreciate you were doing it at 6am but I'm not surprised that you were pulled up.

'Plastic Copper' seems a bit unfair. Public servant doing their job.

There's a specific No Cycling sign on that bridge. Similarly I wouldn't expect this 'guidance' to apply to sections of pavement where there are No Cycling signs.

I know the Millennium Bridge well - I certainly would consider cycling over it to be antisocial especially when it's busy. Appreciate you were doing it at 6am but I'm not surprised that you were pulled up.

'Plastic Copper' seems a bit unfair. Public servant doing their job.[/quote]

If you want the specifics, I didn't "mount" the bike and only freewheeled on one pedal on the last downhill bit as there was no one there due to very heavy rain (until he jumped out from behind the phone box he was hiding/sheltering behind). I now realise that this constitutes cycling (on the one time I crossed the bridge due to Southwark being shut & blackfriars a death trap at the time). I agree that cycling amongst pedestrians is a no no, but combine heavy rain and the time of day and you will get the picture.
Plastic copper is fair I am afraid, as he was only trying to hit his quota of proof of exercising the extremely limited powers entrusted to him, even if it meant ignoring home office guidelines which I highlighted to him at the time, hence the wholly unsatisfactory "guidance" in place at the moment.

arfa wrote:

There's a specific No Cycling sign on that bridge. Similarly I wouldn't expect this 'guidance' to apply to sections of pavement where there are No Cycling signs.

I know the Millennium Bridge well - I certainly would consider cycling over it to be antisocial especially when it's busy. Appreciate you were doing it at 6am but I'm not surprised that you were pulled up.

'Plastic Copper' seems a bit unfair. Public servant doing their job.

If you want the specifics, I didn't "mount" the bike and only freewheeled on one pedal on the last downhill bit as there was no one there due to very heavy rain (until he jumped out from behind the phone box he was hiding/sheltering behind). I now realise that this constitutes cycling (on the one time I crossed the bridge due to Southwark being shut & blackfriars a death trap at the time). I agree that cycling amongst pedestrians is a no no, but combine heavy rain and the time of day and you will get the picture.
Plastic copper is fair I am afraid, as he was only trying to hit his quota of proof of exercising the extremely limited powers entrusted to him, even if it meant ignoring home office guidelines which I highlighted to him at the time, hence the wholly unsatisfactory "guidance" in place at the moment.[/quote]

I cycled to my secondary school back in 70s. We weren't allowed to cycle on the small service road inside the gates but had to walk our bikes from the gate to the bike sheds. I once pulled this same defence. I stood on the pedal and because the roads was slightly downhill just freewheeled to the bike sheds. I got caught and argued that I wasn't actually riding the bike. The headmaster was very patient with me. "Were either of your feet on the ground?" he asked. Obviously they weren't so after me answering they weren't he asked "Were you floating along unsupported in mid air?" "No I wasn't Sir" I replied. he looked theatrically puzzled then asked. "So if neither of your feet was on the ground, and you weren't floating along in mid air, what was keeping you of the ground?" "Well the bike Sir" says I. "So you were moving along supported by a bicycle but not actually riding a bicycle were you?" "That's right Sir" I replied. "Well that seems entirely in order then..." he said "..but please give me 1000 words under the title: How to move along supported by a bicycle without actually riding it by tomorrow... and then re-write it every time you move along the school road supported by a bicycle whether you are riding it or not -- That will be all."

arfa wrote:

The one time I picked up an FPN was 6am crossing millennium bridge (because Southwark bridge was closed) and decided to freewheel after crossing the hump of the bridge as no one was about and it was chucking it down with rain. I got lept on by a plastic copper and when i explained that there was absolutely no one else for me to endanger he told me I could contest it in court. So that folks is how discretion works.
All I can say is that this pronouncement is more garbled and mixed messages from the powers that be who could not be less interested.

There's a specific No Cycling sign on that bridge. Similarly I wouldn't expect this 'guidance' to apply to sections of pavement where there are No Cycling signs.

I know the Millennium Bridge well - I certainly would consider cycling over it to be antisocial especially when it's busy. Appreciate you were doing it at 6am but I'm not surprised that you were pulled up.

'Plastic Copper' seems a bit unfair. Public servant doing their job.

Cantab wrote:

I can just see the conversation with the police officer now...

PO: Excuse me sir, you shouldn't be writing on the pavement, I'll have to issue you with a FPN.

Me: I'm dreadfully sorry officer, I am just avoiding that junction and I'm riding very responsibly.

PO: Nonetheless riding on the pavement is illegal so I'll have to serve you with a FPN.

Me: Actually officer, the DfT minister Mr Boateng issued advice in 1999, reiterated in 2004, and again by Minister Mr Goodwill this year that if done safely and with good reason then cycling on the pavement shouldn't be punished with a FPN.

PO: That's nice. Now if you'll just give me your details...

You don't have to accept the FPN. You can insist on having your day in court where the ministerial guidance can be presented as evidence.

Absolutely agree. If you think you were riding responsibly and had good reason to avoid riding in the road then don't accept the FPN. Accepting an FPN is pleading guilty to the offence and agreeing not to contest it or waste time in return for a minimal penalty.

If you want to take the day off to go to court feel free. The policeman will submit his report. You give your evidence. If the Magistrate agrees with you then no fine. If he/she agrees with the copper who was there at the time that you had no reasonable cause or were not being responsible you'll get a bigger fine and have to pay some costs.

So the question you have to ask yourself is "Do you feel lucky.... Well do you?"

I'd rather pay the FPN and be done with it than take a day's holiday to watch a magistrate decide whether to make career waves by backing a point making pavement riding cyclist rather than a copper and have to pay extra for the experience.

£40 is what the HMRC reckon is the cost of 88 miles of motoring (45p per mile). Smile at the officer. Acknowledge he is just doing his job. Tell him how much you admire the police. Cycle on.

oozaveared wrote:

Absolutely agree. If you think you were riding responsibly and had good reason to avoid riding in the road then don't accept the FPN. Accepting an FPN is pleading guilty to the offence and agreeing not to contest it or waste time in return for a minimal penalty.

If you want to take the day off to go to court feel free. The policeman will submit his report. You give your evidence. If the Magistrate agrees with you then no fine. If he/she agrees with the copper who was there at the time that you had no reasonable cause or were not being responsible you'll get a bigger fine and have to pay some costs.

So the question you have to ask yourself is "Do you feel lucky.... Well do you?"

I'd rather pay the FPN and be done with it than take a day's holiday to watch a magistrate decide whether to make career waves by backing a point making pavement riding cyclist rather than a copper and have to pay extra for the experience.

£40 is what the HMRC reckon is the cost of 88 miles of motoring (45p per mile). Smile at the officer. Acknowledge he is just doing his job. Tell him how much you admire the police. Cycle on.

I disagree. To me that's a lot of money. And it would also be a source of huge annoyance (I've been stopped and searched by the police several times as a pedestrian, even as it is, I have to really work at not showing my irritation - I'm not exactly anti-police but I have plenty of reasons to see they are just variable and as flawed as every other human being).

Concequently I'd rather take my chances on the road, or get off and walk. And so I'd rather see some of the rapscallions who menace me on the pavement get at least a ticking off.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

Absolutely agree. If you think you were riding responsibly and had good reason to avoid riding in the road then don't accept the FPN. Accepting an FPN is pleading guilty to the offence and agreeing not to contest it or waste time in return for a minimal penalty.

If you want to take the day off to go to court feel free. The policeman will submit his report. You give your evidence. If the Magistrate agrees with you then no fine. If he/she agrees with the copper who was there at the time that you had no reasonable cause or were not being responsible you'll get a bigger fine and have to pay some costs.

So the question you have to ask yourself is "Do you feel lucky.... Well do you?"

I'd rather pay the FPN and be done with it than take a day's holiday to watch a magistrate decide whether to make career waves by backing a point making pavement riding cyclist rather than a copper and have to pay extra for the experience.

£40 is what the HMRC reckon is the cost of 88 miles of motoring (45p per mile). Smile at the officer. Acknowledge he is just doing his job. Tell him how much you admire the police. Cycle on.

I disagree. To me that's a lot of money. And it would also be a source of huge annoyance (I've been stopped and searched by the police several times as a pedestrian, even as it is, I have to really work at not showing my irritation - I'm not exactly anti-police but I have plenty of reasons to see they are just variable and as flawed as every other human being).

Concequently I'd rather take my chances on the road, or get off and walk. And so I'd rather see some of the rapscallions who menace me on the pavement get at least a ticking off.

Why do you get stopped by the Police so often? I've been stopped twice and I'm 53. The first time was in 1979. I'd just bought a car and was driving it home sans tax disc. I was pulled over, asked why. Showed him the documents I had for the sale. Fair enough and I was on my way with a producer for the Tax Disc. Second time was in 1995 in St James' Park. It was a weekday morning I'd gotten off the train at Waterloo and was making my way to Manchester Square (just behind Selfridges) via Westminster Bridge, across St James's Park onto The Mall and up over Piccadilly heading north. No-one around when a copper (Royal Parks Police) steps out from behind a bush. I mentioned that no-one was around and he told me he was around. He took my name and address and nothing ever came of it. Mind you I rode around St James's Park not through it after that. I've been riding on the roads (and sometimes the pavements) since 1971 and driving (for 15 years as an international rep so 40K a year all over Europe) and never been stopped.

So what is it that you're doing to get this much attention from plod then?

So how come you

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

Absolutely agree. If you think you were riding responsibly and had good reason to avoid riding in the road then don't accept the FPN. Accepting an FPN is pleading guilty to the offence and agreeing not to contest it or waste time in return for a minimal penalty.

If you want to take the day off to go to court feel free. The policeman will submit his report. You give your evidence. If the Magistrate agrees with you then no fine. If he/she agrees with the copper who was there at the time that you had no reasonable cause or were not being responsible you'll get a bigger fine and have to pay some costs.

So the question you have to ask yourself is "Do you feel lucky.... Well do you?"

I'd rather pay the FPN and be done with it than take a day's holiday to watch a magistrate decide whether to make career waves by backing a point making pavement riding cyclist rather than a copper and have to pay extra for the experience.

£40 is what the HMRC reckon is the cost of 88 miles of motoring (45p per mile). Smile at the officer. Acknowledge he is just doing his job. Tell him how much you admire the police. Cycle on.

I disagree. To me that's a lot of money. And it would also be a source of huge annoyance (I've been stopped and searched by the police several times as a pedestrian, even as it is, I have to really work at not showing my irritation - I'm not exactly anti-police but I have plenty of reasons to see they are just variable and as flawed as every other human being).

Concequently I'd rather take my chances on the road, or get off and walk. And so I'd rather see some of the rapscallions who menace me on the pavement get at least a ticking off.

Why do you get stopped by the Police so often? I've been stopped twice and I'm 52. The first time was in 1979. I'd just bought my first car and was driving it home sans tax disc. I was pulled over, asked why no disc. Showed him the documents I had for the sale. Fair enough and I was on my way with a producer for the Tax Disc. Second time was in 1995 in St James' Park. It was a weekday morning I'd gotten off the train at Waterloo and was making my way to Manchester Square (just behind Selfridges) via Westminster Bridge, across St James's Park onto The Mall and up over Piccadilly heading north. No-one around when a copper (Royal Parks Police) steps out from behind a bush. I mentioned that no-one was around and he told just said "I'm around". He took my name and address and nothing ever came of it. Mind you I rode around St James's Park not through it after that. I've been riding on the roads (and sometimes the pavements) since 1971 and driving since 1978 (for 15 years as an international rep so 40K a year all over Europe) and never been stopped except that once.

I am genuinely intrigued as to what it is you're doing to get this much attention from plod?

ooz: At a guess he's guilty of being a young male in London and you're not. That likely explains the difference. Potentially there could also be an issue of him having a skin colour more likely to attract the polices' attention than yours (not that they're racist or anything, oh no).

Paul. Oh Ok it's that is it? Mind you I have encountered people who'd been pinged driving in France on holiday claiming that the French police were out to get British motorists and just ticketed all British cars as a matter of principle. They'd been there once and got a ticket so it must be true. I used to get off the Hovercraft and then latterly the Eurotunnel in Calais headed for various countries at least 15 times a year for 15 years. And since then camping and skiing one or the other pretty much every year. I've driven hundreds of thousands of miles just in France alone. Never had a ticket or even been stopped. So I'm always a bit suspicious of claims that people are stopped for what they "are" rather than what they "do" or how they behave. But if you say that's what it is then it must be that?

oozaveared wrote:

...... driving in France on holiday claiming that the French police were out to get British motorists and just ticketed all British cars as a matter of principle. They'd been there once and got a ticket so it must be true.

I've been driving in France over thirty years and have only been stopped once; and that was for a routine papers check when I was driving a locally registered car. I haven't seen an anti-British bias.

Username wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

...... driving in France on holiday claiming that the French police were out to get British motorists and just ticketed all British cars as a matter of principle. They'd been there once and got a ticket so it must be true.

I've been driving in France over thirty years and have only been stopped once; and that was for a routine papers check when I was driving a locally registered car. I haven't seen an anti-British bias.

I've been driving in France very frequently for 15 years. I've only ever been stopped once, and fined for doing 93mph on the autoroute near Boulogne. I maintain to this day that their radar equipment was faulty.

Because I was cruising at 120.

mikeprytherch wrote:

I am against this notion completely, just yesterday I was hit by an idiot cyclist outside Kings Cross, yes you could say he wasn't riding responsibly but what does that mean ? maybe it was me who wasn't walking responsibly, perhaps it was my fault because I was listening to some music, but then again I could argue that bikes are silent so what difference does it make, he also didn't have a bell on his bike anyway to tell me he was coming past... perhaps... perhaps... perhaps.

If you were listening to music, how can you tell if the bike was silent?

Cycling along a busy pavement is silly. But so is fining cyclists for riding along empty pavements, especially at dangerous junctions.

get real.