Bl**dy pavement riding RLJ's...

[jcb]

You (perhaps wilfully) misunderstand.

I'm not saying you SHOULD do that as a motorist/pedestrian. I'm not saying you SHOULD RLJ/pavement ride as a cyclist. I'm saying you have lost the moral right as a cyclist to expect reasonable and legal behaviour from other people once you break the law.

PS - 'I disagree' would have sufficed. 6000 posts doesn't entitle you to be boorish and rude IMHO.

 

[Trevrev]

It's been a pleasure people........Great fun !!!
Same again tomorrow........I haven't laughed this much since my wife said she loved me......!!!

 

[MacB]

It's been a pleasure people........Great fun !!!
Same again tomorrow........I haven't laughed this much since my wife said she loved me......!!!

Yep your contribution has been greaty appreciated.

Has anyone considered why people RLJ and pavement cyle, I'd put forward that it's generally due to impatience. Something we happily complain about with regard to motorists.

 

[thomas]

Has anyone considered why people RLJ and pavement cyle, I'd put forward that it's generally due to impatience. Something we happily complain about with regard to motorists.

I didn't see one pavement cyclist today who did it out of impatience. It is because the roads are very busy and off putting, yet they still want to cycle where they are going!

To stop people cycling on the pavement, make the roads safer! Simple.

 

[summerdays]

How can it be a grey area? It's in the HC in black & white - you MUST NOT ride on the pavement.

It is I agree with the following provision:

At the time home office minister Paul Boateng said:
Quote:
"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

In all honesty reading this thread has shocked me because I can't believe that some people lack the basic skills or confidence to ride on the road. Go and take some lessons or get the bus/take the car.

I have to admit that when I returned to cycling about 3 years ago I cycled on the pavement on any road I didn't feel confident on - until I could get to another back street. But I cycled at walking pace and with consideration for pedestrians (that is I gave way to them) but usually where there weren't pedestrians using the path not in busy pedestrian areas. So I do recognise that there are some people out there who lack the confidence to cycle on busy roads. If you live in a city the roads can look very intimidating to a new cyclist. Hence why new cyclists usually call for more off road cycle routes.

OK, just don't moan on here when you get a £30 FPN.

Only if under 10

You can't get a FPN if you are under 16.

In discussions I have had with various policemen they have generally said they are unlikely to fine you if you are cycling with care and consideration at a slow pace. However if you are cycling at speed on the pavements they will certainly stop you and if over 16 may fine you.

I have to admit to cycling on one alleyway regularly but I get off if I meet a pedestrian in the alleyway even though it actually makes me wider to pass. Often pedestrians will wait at one end until you get through rather than try to pass a cyclist and bike - so if you ride the bike you get through fractionally faster. (The alleyway is actually marked as a cycling route on the council's cycling map).

 

[ed_o_brain]

Reg/Greg,

I'm not sure what the problem is? I think the sentence handed down is appropriate. And I think driving is dangerous and anything that prevents 'generally irresponsible' individuals from doing so is a good thing.

I would be concerned, if in the case of an RLJ cyclist, they were handed a driving ban when the offence is a first offence and there are no aggravating circumstances, as this is in complete disparity with how a motoring offence would be treated. A driver would be awarded penalty points for such an offence, as oppose to a ban.

But that has not happened yet. I don't see any reason for cyclists to be on their guard... yet.

Maybe it is something for the cyclists defence fund to be made aware of, so that in the event POCCA is used inappropriately they are already in-part prepared.

 

[addictfreak]

Summer I was refering to the age of criminal responsibility which is 10.

 

[addictfreak]

Fixed penalty notices can actually be given to anyone over 10:

Penalty notices

Fixed penalty notices and penalty notices for disorder are both one-off fines issued for anti-social behaviour.
Fixed penalty notices

Fixed penalty notices generally deal with environmental offences such as litter, graffiti and dog fouling, and can be issued by local authority officers and police community support officers.
These notices can be issued to anyone over 10 years old.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/anti-social-behaviour/penalties/penalty-notices/

 

[Dan B]

Right, once we've all stopped waving our willies (or lack of them) around (in cycling shorts or other), it strikes me there is common ground:

- Any object moving at walking pedestrian speed with the width and visibility of a pedestrian, along a surface designated for pedestrians, would be generally socially acceptable outside of the cycling community notwithstanding what the HC says. It may frustrate some cyclists (including me) as an 'image' problem about cycling, and you may get an FPN. Your choice. You are, at that speed, only as likely to kill someone accidentally as a pedestrian. Question would be, if that's the case why not walk (or walk your bike over the bit you need to traverse if it's short - that's generally what I do).
- If you are moving with the speed and intent of a road-going object, you should be on the road. To ride in such a fashion on the pavement is unacceptable, because it poses an increased risk of injury/death to others as well as yourself.

Good god, a sense of proportion. And in one so new to the forum, too. +1 that man

 

[summerdays]

Fixed penalty notices can actually be given to anyone over 10:

Penalty notices

Fixed penalty notices and penalty notices for disorder are both one-off fines issued for anti-social behaviour.
Fixed penalty notices

Fixed penalty notices generally deal with environmental offences such as litter, graffiti and dog fouling, and can be issued by local authority officers and police community support officers.
These notices can be issued to anyone over 10 years old.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/anti-social-behaviour/penalties/penalty-notices/

Now I was definitely under the impression that a young person under the age of 16 couldn't be given a FPN for cycling on the pavement.

Is there anyone on here who can clarify this?

 

[summerdays]

OK I've been off surfing and found on this page the following

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

CAN CHILDREN CYCLE ON PAVEMENTS?
According to the Department for Transport (DfT), the maximum fine for cycling on the pavement from the courts is £500. However it is more usually enforced by way of the Fixed Penalty Notice procedure (FPN) which carries a £30 fine if pleading guilty. However, there is a view that the FPN can only be issued to those over 16.

"The DfT view, from discussions with Home Office, is that the law applies to all but the police can show discretion to younger children cycling on the pavement for whom cycling on the road would not be a safe option."

The age of criminal responsibility is 10 so, technically, only children below this age can cycle on pavements without fear of redress.

While adults are not allowed to cycle on 'footways' (see definition above), children up to the age of 16 cannot be prosecuted for doing so, see text above for clarification.

When using segregated cycle-paths ie signed footways shared with pedestrians, cyclists ought to keep to the side intended for cyclists.

 

[hackbike 666]

You're wasting your breath. I expect we'll now be treated to someone telling us how that doesn't count, because when they break the law it's alwys very carefully and only when there's no one around, and anyway it's safer for them....

This applies to RLJing as well but when im out there I don't see it being done "responsibly" or for consideration of anyone else.

I could ride on the pavement in Japan though which I found weird and was slightly uncomfortable with but to use the olde saying "I did it very carefully".

 

[skwerl]

Well Addictfreak, I think we're the only honest ones on here.
And yes i am a self-gratification artist.........Most men are !!! I'm being honest again.......This honesty thing is letting me down.
Trustysteed, welcome to naughty boys corner.

Not sure I see the point of asking people for 'honest answers' if you're just going to discount them as lies.

 

[Trevrev]

Not sure I see the point of asking people for 'honest answers' if you're just going to discount them as lies.

This was yesterdays fun !!!

 

[MacB]

I didn't see one pavement cyclist today who did it out of impatience. It is because the roads are very busy and off putting, yet they still want to cycle where they are going!

To stop people cycling on the pavement, make the roads safer! Simple.

do you not see any level of contradiction in your first sentence?