Deterrent sentencing for pavement cycling?

[Flinders]

re pavement parking.
We asked the local police here for advice about it, as the road is narrow and there is not enough off road parking for all the houses.
The police said that on a road like ours (narrow, solely residential) they would rather have cars half on the pavement (leaving enough space for pushchairs and wheelchairs) than completely in the road, where they would be blocking things like oil delivery lorries (we have oil heating here as there is no gas).
As a cyclist, I'd also rather they were partly on the pavement as it would be difficult to avoid the door zone otherwise.

In another part of town, however, on a through road, cars park across a cycle lane and the pavement as well when there are plenty of unused marked parking spaces for cars. Now that I don't like.

[thirdcrank]

I hadn't realised that the defendant in this case is a CTC councillor.

[mike_dowler]

It seems to me that there is a real risk that this case could backfire, in that (as many on here are calling for) it might result ultimately in deregulation of pavement cycling. This would do nothing to improve the image of cyclists in the eyes of the general public, and would reduce any incentive to create good infrastructure.

Cycling on the pavement is a genuine problem. We want more traffic enforcement, not less. Absolutely we should not be encouraging road users who dislike rules to simply flout them.

[Bicycler]

It isn't going to lead to de-regulation, the law isn't going to get changed. The absolute best that could happen would be if it created enough publicity and police forces decided to exercise more discretion when enforcing minor infringements of this law.

We all agree about better road policing but, given current resource levels, should this really be a priority? Why don't we try to challenge the dangerous driving which makes people feel that they need to ride on pavements rather than the people who are trying to make the best of a bad job. If the cycling is genuinely reckless then fair enough. Where it's trivial or not causing any harm it seems both pointless and disproportionate. If it's all about finding work for PCSOs I'd rather they were tasked with cars blocking pavements

[pete75]

It's all very well saying the Police should concentrate their resources on non trivial matters but usually when a law enforcement officer sees a law being broken right under his nose he will take action.

The case is in a magistrates court a place where a legal precedent cannot be set so even if this individual is successful it will have no effect on any other cases.
It's unlikely to succeed if the prosecution show the Youtube video in court. It clearly shows Mr. Gregory flouting the law and other cyclists managing to stay within it in the same circumstances.
The other cyclists in the video who were travelling at the same speed as Mr. Gregory were using the road. The number of people shown cycling on the road means the defence that the road is too dangerous for cycling hence a need to use the pavement would surely fail. A claim that the so called farcilities are impossible to use in a legal manner would also surely fail because of a number of cyclists seen to do so in the video.

It seems a bizarre waste of time and effort to save Kristian Gregory 50 quid. If he hadn't made sarcastic remarks about riding through the telephone box and started going on about talking to his friend at the council he'd have got a warning and no fixed penalty ticket.

[RickH]

It seems to me that there is a real risk that this case could backfire, in that (as many on here are calling for) it might result ultimately in deregulation of pavement cycling. This would do nothing to improve the image of cyclists in the eyes of the general public, and would reduce any incentive to create good infrastructure.

Cycling on the pavement is a genuine problem. We want more traffic enforcement, not less. Absolutely we should not be encouraging road users who dislike rules to simply flout them.

If UKIP have a say in it then we will be consigned to the pavement, judging by a picturre of one of their flyers posted by Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign on their Facebook page today

As much as I applaud cycling as a form of exercise and past-time the already congested roads cannot cope with both bus lanes AND cyclists.

Cyclists should go back to the pavements yet give priority to pedestrians.

!!!

Rick.

[beardy]

I suppose somebody could try and explain how much more congested the roads would be if the cyclists were in cars instead of on bikes.
Or point out that cyclists were never on the pavements in the first place but that would probably get no more comprehension than when he is saying other types of people should "go back", he gets the reply "what to Bolton?"

[TonyR]

Cycling on the pavement is a genuine problem.

A peculiarly British problem. In Europe and Japan people cycle on pavements and there isn't a problem

[Pete Owens]

As a supporter of the CDF I consider taking on this case is an abuse of its remit. The CDF was set up following the Daniel Cadden case to support law-abiding cyclists in cases where significant principle was at stake - not to act as a "Mr Loophole" for scof-law pavement cyclists. Had he simply put his hands up, apologised and promised not to do it again then it would just have been a warning. However he chose to argue (however politely) and the ticket became inevitable.

Now, it would be different if the cycle path had ended ambiguously and simply merged into a footway with no signage and the PCSOs were standing somewhere beyond the end; that would amount to entrapment (I think there was a case in Cambridge not so long ago). However, this is a clear case of wilfully crossing the white line to overtake a slower cyclist.

Some have mentionned the phone box as an excuse, but if you watch the video you will see he hardly deviated from his course at that point and rejoined the cycle path on the correct side of the wite line. The offence was commited later - at a point where the cycle path was clear and the footway was obstructed by sign posts.

Some have mentionned the rubbish design of the farcility, but fortunately use of such rubbish is still not compulsory so if he had a legal means of not riding on the farcility.

Some have suggested it is a poor use of police time - but that is not a defence. Whether or not you think they could have spent their time more productively, that is what they were doing and they caught him bang to rights. The same argument could be used by any petty criminal caught shoplifting asking to be let off because the police should have been targeting violent criminals.

[TonyR]

I would make a counter case for the CDF to get invovled. One of the roles of the CDF as I see it is to take on those cases where points of principle can be established. So the Daneil Cadden case - do cyclists have to use a cycle path if one is provided? - and Darren Coombes - are cyclist contributory negligent for not wearing a helmet.

One of the much discussed but unresolved legal issues is the one of pavement cycling. The law says its illegal but we also have the Home Office and Ministerial guidance that the police should not issue FPNs for considerate pavement cycling. I've seen better cases where this could have been tested - for example where cyclists were prosecuted for continuing on an empty pavement when the cycle path on it ended - but this isn't a bad case for trying to resolve that law-guidance uncertaintly we all know about and sometimes face. Even if it doesn't set a legal precedent because its not in a high enough Court, like the Daniel Cadden case, the legal issues will be exercised and it should be influential on the future use or not of FPNs for responsible pavement use.

[gaz]

As a supporter of the CDF I consider taking on this case is an abuse of its remit. The CDF was set up following the Daniel Cadden case to support law-abiding cyclists in cases where significant principle was at stake - not to act as a "Mr Loophole" for scof-law pavement cyclists.

CDF was set up some months before the Daniel Cadden case. What it was set up to do is defined in its charitable objects.

A) TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC BY ENCOURAGING AND FACILITATING SAFE CYCLING.
B) TO ADVANCE THE EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CYCLING AND THE LAW.
C) TO FURTHER THE SOUND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW RELATING TO CYCLING.
D) TO PROMOTE, ASSIST, UNDERTAKE AND COMMISSION RESEARCH INTO THE LAW, PRACTICE, AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN CONNECTION WITH CYCLING AND TO DISSEMINATE THE USEFUL RESULTS OF SUCH RESEARCH.

That doesn't include acting as "Mr Loophole" but with this particular case I'd support TonyR's comments.

[thirdcrank]

AFAIK, there has been no published advice to the police from the govt about this. Blunkett extended the fixed penalty system to include this offence and enforcing this by the issue of tickets is one of the few powers of his creation: the PCSO. (Why don't we call them "Daves"? ) That seems to me like a pretty clear statement of intent.

There was some waffle from Paul Boateng, which was subsequently embroidered and that embroidery was so often repeated as to create an urban myth about non-existant guidance to the police. Also AFAIK, the last time anybody asked a minister about this (Robert Goodwill MP?) he repeated PB's comments verbatim and suggested anybody who was interested should approach the head honcho at the ACPO Sir Hugh Orde.

The situation is in a mess: this archaic legislation is being enforced by poorly-trained people (desperate to impress at a time of redundancies with few other ways of showing their commitment) all against a background of a collapse in road traffic policing and with some pavements being amateurishly converted into shoddy farcilities by highwaymen whose only interest is to get cyclists off the carriageway no matter what.

[reohn2]

AFAIK, there has been no published advice to the police from the govt about this. Blunkett extended the fixed penalty system to include this offence and enforcing this by the issue of tickets is one of the few powers of his creation: the PCSO. (Why don't we call them "Daves"? ) That seems to me like a pretty clear statement of intent.

There was some waffle from Paul Boateng, which was subsequently embroidered and that embroidery was so often repeated as to create an urban myth about non-existant guidance to the police. Also AFAIK, the last time anybody asked a minister about this (Robert Goodwill MP?) he repeated PB's comments verbatim and suggested anybody who was interested should approach the head honcho at the ACPO Sir Hugh Orde.

The situation is in a mess: this archaic legislation is being enforced by poorly-trained people (desperate to impress at a time of redundancies with few other ways of showing their commitment) all against a background of a collapse in road traffic policing and with some pavements being amateurishly converted into shoddy farcilities by highwaymen whose only interest is to get cyclists off the carriageway no matter what.

Spot on!
A mess is what is,and a stupid mess at that.

[661-Pete]

If UKIP have a say in it then we will be consigned to the pavement, judging by a picturre of one of their flyers posted by Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign on their Facebook page today

Also here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... -says.html
I heard on the Today programme this morning, that Mr Porridge has disowned him. Seems to me, he's spending more time denying his own candidates than he is putting forward any sort of 'policy' of their own. Well, he needn't bother, I know exactly where his pusillanimous little rabble of reptiles are going. The only consolation is that the Kippers are on the slide in the polls, and hopefully won't win a single seat in May.

[jezer]

If UKIP have a say in it then we will be consigned to the pavement, judging by a picturre of one of their flyers posted by Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign on their Facebook page today

Also here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... -says.html
I heard on the Today programme this morning, that Mr Porridge has disowned him. Seems to me, he's spending more time denying his own candidates than he is putting forward any sort of 'policy' of their own. Well, he needn't bother, I know exactly where his pusillanimous little rabble of reptiles are going. The only consolation is that the Kippers are on the slide in the polls, and hopefully won't win a single seat in May.

Absolutely, this bunch of nutters should be confined to history in May