Didn't know cyclists could be fined for speeding!

[Bicycler]

Okay TC, so what do you see as the way forward?
Abolition of PCSOs? Expansion of their role to include other offences which can be enforced in preference to pavement cycling? Guidance to only issue tickets where pavement cycling is dangerous?

Revolution?

[thirdcrank]

There's a difference between an ideal way and what's feasible. The police service has been changed from an organisation which was, in theory at least, based on deterrent patrolling into an investigative body, with a section largely intended to give an impression of effectiveness AKA window dressing. I'll suggest that well-reported crackdowns are an example of this. That bit's even known as response and reassurance. Restricting what I'm saying to so-called roads policing, this means that there is a decreasing level of patrol enforcement which has partially been replaced by automated camera enforcement, especially speed cameras. OTOH, when somebody dies in a crash, or they are so seriously injured that it looks to be heading that way, then a detailed investigation into the cause takes place. Much of the increase in investigation is directed towards things which historically received less attention such as domestic violence. I don't think we are likely to see any reversal of these trends, especially in a time of cuts.

I'd suggest that one way forward would be to transfer responsibility for enforcing what I'll term traffic management offences to highway authorities. They are equally short of cash, of course, so the answer would be to allow them to keep the money raised from the penalties. This seems to have worked OK with yellow line parking enforcement. This would include removing the relevant offences from the court system. One problem with current traffic enforcement is that it doesn't matter what schemes a highway authority introduces if the police don't enforce them. I think that highway authorities would be much more enthusiastic about camera enforcement of traffic lights than the police are, since this would be one way of getting traffic moving more freely (stricter enforcement = shorter intergreen phases when nothing is moving except offenders.)

Finally, I'm sure I've posted before that somehow restricting enforcement of pavement cycling only to cases where pedestrians are endangered or inconvenienced is nonsense: the appropriate charges are dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling and should be dealt with accordingly.

[Mistik-ka]

Finally, I'm sure I've posted before that somehow restricting enforcement of pavement cycling only to cases where pedestrians are endangered or inconvenienced is nonsense: the appropriate charges are dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling and should be dealt with accordingly.

We don't have a 'smiley', shouting "Here, here!" or "Bravo!", but if we did I would be the first to click on it. (Common sense has become such a rare commodity )

[Bicycler]

Finally, I'm sure I've posted before that somehow restricting enforcement of pavement cycling only to cases where pedestrians are endangered or inconvenienced is nonsense: the appropriate charges are dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling and should be dealt with accordingly.

We don't have a 'smiley', shouting "Here, here!" or "Bravo!", but if we did I would be the first to click on it. (Common sense has become such a rare commodity )

Well fair enough but you'd be taking enforcement out of the hands of the PCSOs again. It would also be swapping a fairly open and shut (ie. was he cycling on the pavement?) offence for the kind of arguable stuff that we complain leads to motorists continually being let off the hook (ie. did he create a danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property, and would that have been obvious to a competent and careful cyclist?). I'd really prefer petty nuisance pavement cycling to be easy to reprimand by way of an on the spot fine rather than prohibitively difficult to deal with.

I quite like the idea of leaving much traffic enforcement to councils but it does strike me that a disproportionate clampdown on misbehaving cyclists could be the kind of popular action some councillors would relish

[pwa]

Any discussion about bad or dangerous cycling is bound to be a delicate matter on this forum because it is easy to sound like you think cyclists are the main problem on the roads (or footpaths). I suspect none of us think that.

I don't like the idea of cyclists being given the green light to ride on all pavements, so long as they ride carefully. If all cyclists were socially responsible, considerate people this would be worth considering. But, as we know, there are also antisocial, selfish people on bikes. And to allow them to judge for themselves whether or not to ride on the pavement is creating a policing nightmare. We already complain that the police are not doing all that they should. By replacing a ban with "under some circumstances" would only make policing of pavement use more complex, to the point of being impractical. A simple ban is straightforward.

[Bicycler]

Any discussion about bad or dangerous cycling is bound to be a delicate matter on this forum because it is easy to sound like you think cyclists are the main problem on the roads (or footpaths). I suspect none of us think that.

Indeed, and I don't think misbehaving cyclists should be a priority but, like you, I don't think that removes the need for the police to be able to deal with them where they are encountered.

3 examples: Most days I am passed on the pavement alongside a busy road by two early high school age schoolgirls on bikes. They don't get much above walking pace and they cause nobody any harm. I could see no point in these responsible girls being reprimanded.

A few years ago my elbow was clipped (painfully) on a pavement by a passing cyclist who was travelling reasonably slowly but had not announced his presence and just tried to squeeze past me. If I had moved to the right he could have run straight into my back or I could have knocked him into the road. If a police officer (or PCSO) had seen this I would have expected him to be given a fine for pavement cycling. I would not have expected him to be summoned to the Magistrates Court to answer a charge of inconsiderate cycling.

A few decades ago a cyclist descending a hill at a high speed ran straight into the back of me on an unlit path (not a pavement). He had no lights and was somehow managing to wheel a second bike by his side despite the relatively high speed. He was obviously distracted and blinded enough not to see me. I was knocked to the ground and badly bruised and needed stitches for a gash in my side. At the time I wrote it off as an odd accident. I would like to think that if a police officer saw something like that now or somebody was more seriously injured that the cyclist would be prosecuted. That is where the Offences Against the Person 'wanton or furious driving' offence is still relevant.

[gaz]

A few years ago my elbow was clipped (painfully) on a pavement by a passing cyclist who was travelling reasonably slowly but had not announced his presence and just tried to squeeze past me. If I had moved to the right he could have run straight into my back or I could have knocked him into the road. If a police officer (or PCSO) had seen this I would have expected him to be given a fine for pavement cycling. I would not have expected him to be summoned to the Magistrates Court to answer a charge of inconsiderate cycling.

Yet if the above had happened on a shared use path there would be no option to issue a FPN. It's either inconsiderate cycling, furious cycling or nothing more than some words of advice.

[Bicycler]

A valid point.

I think that I can justify my differing attitude there. Where cycles are legitimate users of a road, path, trail etc. it is only right that the police should be required to supply evidence of how a particular cyclist's use of that path was inappropriate. This requires a certain amount of evidence which might mean that, regrettably, some cyclists who reasonably ought to be prosecuted may not be.

Cyclists are not legitimate users of a pavement. It is by definition a "footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers". When encountering a nuisance pavement cyclist there is no reason for the police to have to collect the substantial amount of evidence to support an inconsiderate cycling prosecution. The cyclist was cycling somewhere he ought not to have been. I fully believe that the police should use discretion in applying the law and that it is not in the public interest to fine people who are causing no harm and pose no risk but I also believe that removing the prohibition of pavement cycling would lead to police being effectively powerless to deal with the many minor but anti-social acts of pavement cycling we see so frequently in our towns.

[AlaninWales]

Cyclists are not legitimate users of a pavement. It is by definition a "footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers".

Except of course where there is a little blue sign saying it is shared: Not as pedantic as it appears perhaps. IMO this is where (and why) the rot started, because once cyclists were placed on the pavement (often unsuitably) there became less of a divide than when I started cycling (only very small children rode on the pavement). Both adult cyclists and drivers now often expect the pavement to be where cyclists should ride. There is no clear distinction (no measurable difference at all in fact) between the quality/safety of pavements where we are entitled ('supposed') to ride and those where it is forbidden. Frequently they are the same pavement separated by small un-intuitive signs (or none at all).
Where the legal distinction between shared paths and pedestrian only pavements makes no safety sense, people will ignore the distinction.

[Bicycler]

Yep, I agree with that. Certainly the trend of converting normal pavement footpaths to pavement cycle tracks by means of only blue signs and a bit of paint undermines the idea that it is unsafe for cyclists to use otherwise identical pavements which are not so marked. It does make rigid enforcement of the pavement cycling laws seem little more than pedantry. Enforced with discretion though I think the law can be useful for dealing with genuine nuisance cycling.

[AlaninWales]

I thought you'd agree - most cyclists who bother thinking about it will, however it is a point that needs to be regularly made whenever pavement cycling (especially enforcement) comes up (and also when 'making cycle paths mandatory for cyclists' is raised), as it is an often overlooked distinction (e.g. by the officer who threatened to confiscate a seven-year-old's bike): The law as it stands on pavement cycling not only makes no sense in safety terms, but it's whole basis is undermined by highways design (a bit like on-road cycle lanes and ASLs in that sense).

[Vorpal]

Any discussion about bad or dangerous cycling is bound to be a delicate matter on this forum because it is easy to sound like you think cyclists are the main problem on the roads (or footpaths). I suspect none of us think that.

I don't like the idea of cyclists being given the green light to ride on all pavements, so long as they ride carefully. If all cyclists were socially responsible, considerate people this would be worth considering. But, as we know, there are also antisocial, selfish people on bikes. And to allow them to judge for themselves whether or not to ride on the pavement is creating a policing nightmare. We already complain that the police are not doing all that they should. By replacing a ban with "under some circumstances" would only make policing of pavement use more complex, to the point of being impractical. A simple ban is straightforward.

I can see both sides of this. A cyclist going at an excessive speed can badly injure, or even kill someone in a crash. and there are and always will be people who act in an antisocial manner.

However, as it stands now, the law is, at best, awkward. Cyclists are allowed to use pavements when they are signed as shared use. There are places where cyclists habitually use pavements becuase the roads are intimidating, or even demonstrably unsafe. No one expect a 4 year old to cycle in the road, yet where do you draw the line?

If we revert to a complete ban, many council will lose significant parts of their 'cycle network'. If we allow cycling where blue signs permit it, we have the problems outlines by others on this thread. It can be hard to distinguish places where it's okay from those where it isn't

If we don't allow discretion on the part of the police (or even PCSOs), it becomes reasonable to confiscate a 4-year-old's bicycle.

On the other hand, it is legal to cycle on the pavements in most of Scandinavia (except Denmark), and it doesn't seem to cause a problem.

Banning everyone from doing something because a few people are antisocial is not necessarily the best way to solve a problem.

[[XAP]Bob]

Particularly because those people will still do it, and won't have a "good" example to follow

[Mistik-ka]

Banning everyone from doing something because a few people are antisocial is not necessarily the best way to solve a problem.

I dunno — it would get all those motor vehicles off the roads and leave room for cyclists.

[RickH]

No one expect a 4 year old to cycle in the road, yet where do you draw the line?

The easiest one is the age where they can be held liable for breaking the law.

it becomes reasonable to confiscate a 4-year-old's bicycle.

It is never reasonable to confiscate a 4 year old's bike. In fact is is never reasonable, or legal for that matter to randomly confiscate someone's property. To quote from a different context - press photographers (one of my friends was, until fairly recently, a semi-pro freelance photojournalist).

However, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) police have no right to confiscate cameras, film or memory cards from an individual unless they have first convinced a judge that the evidence is required in connection with a “serious arrestable offence” or that it would be admissible in court.

(Statewatch PDF)

Police officers do not have the authority to ... confiscate cameras or film, and such conduct could result in criminal, civil or disciplinary action.

(quoting Nottinghamshire Police: Guidelines for Police and Media at Incidents - p7 in this Levenson Enquiry Submission PDF).

If it isn't legal to confiscate a press photographer's camera (without having convinced a judge of the importance to do so - I'd like to see that one tried ) how can it be any more legal to confiscate a 4 year old's bike (unless it acceptable just because they are smaller & weaker!)

Rick.