50% increase in cyclists prosecuted for cycling on footpaths 2002-2006

Paul Boyd

Mark McNeill said the following on 08/05/2008 18:13:

> It would also be useful to know how cycling levels have changed over
> that period. Offences could well rise by more than cycling levels: I
> suppose it's likely that new cyclists are more liable to ride on
> pavements.

I was quite pleased the other day to see a bloke on a bike followed by a
couple of sproglets on bikes, all in a line on the main road, instead of
on the pavement as seems more normal. At least these kids will actually
learn that the roads are the right place to be, and will learn that
traffic isn't that dangerous when you've learnt how to ride in it.
There wasn't a bit of cotton wool in sight :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

JNugent

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 21:49:39 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>> Martin Dann <martin.dann@virgin.net> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans...y+code%22#g47.5
>>>>>>> Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for cycling on a pavement, England and Wales 2002-06(l)(2)
>>>>>>> Year Proceeded against
>>>>>>> 2002 94
>>>>>>> 2003 95
>>>>>>> 2004 118
>>>>>>> 2005 143
>>>>>>> 2006 145
>>>>>> Plus an increase in FPNs from 665 to 821 between 1999 and 2000[1].
>>>>>> Yet the same government has been proclaiming a massive increase in the
>>>>>> amount of white paint put on footpaths to *encourage* cycling on them.
>>>>>> [1] IMHO the FPN data is meaningless without date from more years.
>>>>> Of those 145, how many were innocent? Without knowing that is it as
>>>>> meaningless as reports that a fish was seen in Sozhou (pronounced
>>>>> sue-joe) Creek through Shanghai. Without knowing if the fish was
>>>>> alive or dead it is useless as evidence that the Creek is less
>>>>> polluted.
>>>> At a guess, it's likely that precisely zero were innocent. It's hard to
>>>> conceive of a police officer pulling up a cyclist for cycling on the
>>>> footway if the cyclist was cycling along the carriageway (personal
>>>> grudges excepted).
>>>> Of course, some may have been "innocent" in the sense that the
>>>> prosecution paperwork wasn't served in time, or not enough copies in
>>>> triplicate were sent to some local official, or something.
>>>> But "innocent" in the sense of not having illegally cycled on the footway?
>>>> Nil is the most probable number.
>>> I have twice been prosecuted for drunk in charge of a bicycle. I have
>>> twice been found innocent of that offence.
>> Different sort of evidence required - similar results used to be
>> obtained by motor-vehicle-drivers before 1967.
>>
>> You can't be visually confirmed to be drunk. How "drunk" you are (in the
>> absence of a rule about blood alcohol and a way of enforced measurement)
>> is a matter of subjective opinion.
>>
>> On the other hand, you can very easily be visually confirmed to be
>> cycling, riding or driving along a footway. It's a bit like smashing a
>> window: " I saw the defendant, your Worships. He picked up a half-brick
>> and threw it at the jeweller's window".
>>
>> But anyway, shame on you - most of us have never given the police cause
>> to suspect that we might be drunk in charge of anything.
>>
>> And why twice? That sounds like bad luck - or perhaps like very good
>> luck, given the outcome(s).
>>
>> Mind you, I once got breathalysed at dead of night in Aldershot, of all
>> places (apparently because I didn't know the area and was driving
>> hesitantly, looking for and at road signs). Of course, the test was
>> negative and there was no question of it progressing to a prosecution. :-)
>
> I've heard of a motorcyclist was found innocent of driving on a
> footway.
>
> He was siting on his bike, rolling it down a footway between back
> gardens with its engine off but his feet off the ground, when spotted
> by a policeman.
>
> He was found innocent of any wrong doing.
>
> The footway was not shared use.

Does the case have any implications for cycling? Was the same law being
applied?

A.C.P.Crawshaw

vernon wrote:
>
> There's not enough prosecutions of people riding their bikes on footpaths.
> Bikes belong on the road.

And not enough prosecutions of motorists driving on the pavement. Round here they do it
with impunity, then wander off leaving their vehicles obstructing the passage of
pedestrians.

Alan

Mark

On Thu, 08 May 2008 23:18:38 +0100, Martin <martin.dann@virgin.net>
wrote:

>
>David Damerell wrote:
>> Quoting vernon <publicity_shy@privacy.net>:
>>> There's not enough prosecutions of people riding their bikes on footpaths.
>>> Bikes belong on the road.
>>
>> They do, but should the police really prioritise this over the large
>> supply of clowns flinging two-ton metal boxes over the country at Warp
>> Nine?
>
>I think Idiots Onna Bike cycling on a footpath should be prosecuted,
>however I think that with current government policy to encourage
>pavement cycling, someone cycling responsibly should not be prosecuted.

Since many pavements have been "turned" into cycle paths with some
magic white paint some people may easily mistake an ordinary pavement
for such a cycle path.

>I do not, however cycle on footpaths. (I do use a shared use at the
>moment though).

Only very occasionally do I use a shared use path. I find the
anti-cycle barriers, debris, dogs and all the other hazards make it
inconvenient.


--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Roger Merriman

JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

> Mark T wrote:
>
> > Martin Dann writtificated
>
> >>> Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for
> >>> cycling on a pavement, England and Wales 2002-06(l)(2) Year
>
> >>> 2006 145
>
> >> Plus an increase in FPNs from 665 to 821 between 1999 and 2000
>
> > Yay. I'm slightly surprised at so many going to the magistrates court.
> > Are those 145 idiots that thought the police had got the law wrong, cheeky
> > buggers that hadn't paid the fine or can you get sent straight to to the
> > magistrate?
>
> The offence can go straight to court, and as we all know, 145 is
> remarkably low, given the frequency of that particular practice.
>
> Remember that TV a few months ago about the CoL Police enforcing the
> laws (red lights, one-way streets, footway cycling)? At a guess, I would
> think we were shown only the most "entertaining" cases - but a couple of
> them were highly indignant at having been stopped. There was one
> bike-courier mouthing off at the police for having had the effrontery to
> challange his behaviour, then he started on the camera crew before being
> arrested for offensive behaviour. Offhand, I can't remember whether he
> had ignored a light or cycled on the footway just before being stopped,
> but I would think that his case is likely to be one of the sort that
> goes straight to court. He didn't appear to be in any mood to accept and
> pay a fixed penalty.

red light jumping, when the bike police where in plain sight. very much
a own goal in more than one ways, at least that is what it seems anyhow.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Tom Crispin

On Fri, 09 May 2008 08:28:30 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

>> I've heard of a motorcyclist was found innocent of driving on a
>> footway.
>>
>> He was siting on his bike, rolling it down a footway between back
>> gardens with its engine off but his feet off the ground, when spotted
>> by a policeman.
>>
>> He was found innocent of any wrong doing.
>>
>> The footway was not shared use.
>
>Does the case have any implications for cycling? Was the same law being
>applied?

Yes. It is perfectly legal to cycle on a pavement which is not by the
side of a road, provided cycling on that pavement is not specifically
prohibited by a bylaw.

JNugent

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 08:28:30 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
>>> I've heard of a motorcyclist was found innocent of driving on a
>>> footway.
>>>
>>> He was siting on his bike, rolling it down a footway between back
>>> gardens with its engine off but his feet off the ground, when spotted
>>> by a policeman.
>>>
>>> He was found innocent of any wrong doing.
>>>
>>> The footway was not shared use.
>> Does the case have any implications for cycling? Was the same law being
>> applied?
>
> Yes. It is perfectly legal to cycle on a pavement which is not by the
> side of a road, provided cycling on that pavement is not specifically
> prohibited by a bylaw.

So we're not talking of a footway there, but what might more accurately
be described as a footpath?

Peter Grange

On Wed, 7 May 2008 23:16:03 +0100, "vernon"
<publicity_shy@privacy.net> wrote:

>
>"Martin Dann" <martin.dann@virgin.net> wrote in message
>news:QUoUj.8945$b4.6958@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans...y+code%22#g47.5
>>
>>> Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for cycling
>>> on a pavement, England and Wales 2002-06(l)(2)
>>> Year Proceeded against
>>> 2002 94
>>> 2003 95
>>> 2004 118
>>> 2005 143
>>> 2006 145
>>
>> Plus an increase in FPNs from 665 to 821 between 1999 and 2000[1].
>>
>> Yet the same government has been proclaiming a massive increase in the
>> amount of white paint put on footpaths to *encourage* cycling on them.
>>
>> [1] IMHO the FPN data is meaningless without date from more years.
>
>There's not enough prosecutions of people riding their bikes on footpaths.
>Bikes belong on the road.
>
Broadly I agree.
However, does anyone know for sure what the sign for the end of a
shared ped/cyclist path is? On the pavement alongside Heatherwood
Roundabout in Ascot there are some signs indicating a shared
ped/cyclist pavement (no white lines to separate, just a shared area).
One can cycle quite happily right down the pavement of Ascot High St
without meeting anything looking like an "End" sign, or any paint on
the pavement. How does one know when the shared area stops?

Pete

Paul Boyd

On 10/05/2008 00:20, Peter Grange said,
> How does one know when the shared area stops?

Try your local council to see if they have a map showing the cycle
facilities in the area. I have one of these shared paths (the A371
towards Banwell) that I use. Eventually it dawned on me that I hadn't
seen any blue signs for a while, so perhaps I ought not to be on it any
more. Having since found out from a council issued map where the cycle
facility ends (it actually crosses the main road for no apparent
reason), I made a point of looking for "End" signs next time I went
along it. I wonder where I would stand if I was prosecuted for riding
on what has become a footpath without any indication of where the
footpath starts and the cyclepath ends?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Ekul Namsob

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> Quoting vernon <publicity_shy@privacy.net>:
> >There's not enough prosecutions of people riding their bikes on footpaths.
> >Bikes belong on the road.
>
> They do, but should the police really prioritise this over the large
> supply of clowns flinging two-ton metal boxes over the country at Warp
> Nine?

Do you have evidence to suggest that the police are prioritising this?
It could be argued that your question is rather similar to "Shouldn't
they be out catching proper criminals?"

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Peter Grange

On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:13:59 +0100, Paul Boyd <usenet@abcd.invalid>
wrote:


>I made a point of looking for "End" signs next time I went
>along it. I wonder where I would stand if I was prosecuted for riding
>on what has become a footpath without any indication of where the
>footpath starts and the cyclepath ends?

That was my point exactly. If there is a blue sign where one gets on
to the pavement, and nothing to say the shared facility stops, can one
be prosecuted? I guess I could find out pretty quickly swerving around
the Great and Good parading their hats on the pavement outside Ascot
Racecourse next month. Except, like many residents, I won't be here.
Cycling in France I'll be.

Pete

David Damerell

Quoting Ekul Namsob <notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com>:
>David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>Quoting vernon <publicity_shy@privacy.net>:
>>>There's not enough prosecutions of people riding their bikes on footpaths.
>>>Bikes belong on the road.
>>They do, but should the police really prioritise this over the large
>>supply of clowns flinging two-ton metal boxes over the country at Warp
>>Nine?
>Do you have evidence to suggest that the police are prioritising this?

I don't believe I asserted that either way.

What I'm saying is that I disagree that there should be more prosecutions
of people riding their bikes on footpaths, at least as long as we have the
enormously more serious problem of dangerous driving for traffic police to
attend to.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Friday, May.

Ekul Namsob

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> Quoting Ekul Namsob <notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com>:
> >David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >>Quoting vernon <publicity_shy@privacy.net>:
> >>>There's not enough prosecutions of people riding their bikes on footpaths.
> >>>Bikes belong on the road.
> >>They do, but should the police really prioritise this over the large
> >>supply of clowns flinging two-ton metal boxes over the country at Warp
> >>Nine?
> >Do you have evidence to suggest that the police are prioritising this?
>
> I don't believe I asserted that either way.

I was careful not to claim that you had.

> What I'm saying is that I disagree that there should be more prosecutions
> of people riding their bikes on footpaths, at least as long as we have the
> enormously more serious problem of dangerous driving for traffic police to
> attend to.

I would agree with you. Sadly, the dangerous drivers could insist that
there should not be more prosecutions of dangerous drivers while the
enormously more serious problems of muggings, rapes and murders by
pedestrians exist.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

David Damerell

Quoting Ekul Namsob <notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com>:
>I would agree with you. Sadly, the dangerous drivers could insist that
>there should not be more prosecutions of dangerous drivers while the
>enormously more serious problems of muggings, rapes and murders by
>pedestrians exist.

Those are not more serious problems. Dangerous drivers kill people.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Sunday, May - a weekend.