Fined £805 for riding on the pavement!

[Pale Rider]

And they really reamed him on the court costs, browse http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/16064809.SCALES_OF_JUSTICE___latest_round_up_of_court_convictions/
Costs are almost always £85
Eg
SAM MORGAN, 29, of Lime Kiln, Wantage, admitted driving at 101mph on the M4 in Berkshire, a 70mph limit zone, on May 4. Fined £500, victim surcharge £50 and costs £85. Six penalty points.

RUTH ELIZABETH BOWERS, 44, of Mill Lane, Marston, was convicted of speeding at 94mph in a 70mph zone on the A34, Chieveley, on June 14. Fined £440, £44 victim surcharge and £85 court costs. Five penalty points.

The high costs are due to the case being prepared for trial which it had to be because he pleaded not guilty.

In that respect he has been treated no differently to any other defendant who pleads not guilty and is convicted after a trial.

The case was heard in his absence, but the prosecution still has to call its evidence.

There's no challenge to that evidence, so the magistrates are all but obliged to accept it.

Had he pleaded guilty, the costs would have been the standard £85, plus a reduced fine (for pleading guilty) and victim surcharge.

 

[jefmcg]

Had he pleaded guilty, the costs would have been the standard £85, plus a reduced fine (for pleading guilty) and victim surcharge.

£85 seems to be standard irrespective of plea, if you turn up.

Assuming "convicted" as opposed to "admitted" means they contested the charge.

 

[Slick]

If he had turned up he might have used the defence that he used the path as the road was too dangerous. I believe the law does allow that as long as he's considerate to other path users.

I think you are right but my understanding was the cyclist must give way to pedestrians. Not sure where I read that though.

 

[dodgy]

I think you are right but my understanding was the cyclist must give way to pedestrians. Not sure where I read that though.

Which is what I said

 

[Dan B]

I often feel the need to use a footway...on my feet. In the extremely rare event I'm unhappy on the road for some reason and revert to the footway I do so on my plates. After all, we'd only moan if peds started blithely wandering about on the road.

If I moaned about it every time I saw a pedestrian on the carriageway, my commute to work would be one long litany of complaint. It's the public highway. Common law right of passage and repassage is not contingent on being inside a tin box

 

[Slick]

Which is what I said

I won't argue.

Do you know where it actually says it though?

 

[Slick]

If I moaned about it every time I saw a pedestrian on the carriageway, my commute to work would be one long litany of complaint. It's the public highway. Common law right of passage and repassage is not contingent on being inside a tin box

Especially if you tried to cycle home after watching a game of football.

 

[Dan B]

I won't argue.

Do you know where it actually says it though?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...oads-are-dangerous-minister-tells-police.html

 

[HLaB]

If he had turned up he might have used the defence that he used the path as the road was too dangerous. I believe the law does allow that as long as he's considerate to other path users.

I thought it was common sense guidance from some police forces rather than the law ?

 

[Slick]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...oads-are-dangerous-minister-tells-police.html

Yeah, that looks pretty much what I've read earlier and if I have read it right, it's illegal but no charges should be brought and giving way to pedestrians has nothing to do with it?

 

[Dave7]

There's a stretch of about 300 yards on my 15 mile commute that I take the pavement as well.

Personally I don't feel the need to ride on pavements on my routes as I cycle regularly and feel safe. However I do regularly see others doing it and so long as they don't act recklessly I honestly sympathise with them.........with the traffic we get I imagine it can be intimidating for some.

 

[Dan B]

Yeah, that looks pretty much what I've read earlier and if I have read it right, it's illegal but no charges should be brought and giving way to pedestrians has nothing to do with it?

"show consideration to other pavement users" could be construed as "give way to". Certainly it's what I do

 

[Pale Rider]

£85 seems to be standard irrespective of plea, if you turn up.

Assuming "convicted" as opposed to "admitted" means they contested the charge.

The £85 is the standard fee for a defendant pleading guilty.

Costs after a trial are routinely in the hundreds, although it will depend to a degree on the complexity of the trial.

The majority of cases dealt with by magistrates do not go to trial which is partly why you will see lots of £85 awards in a rough sample of cases.

Awarding of costs is also discretionary.

In this case, it appears the bench ordered the full costs.

Had the defendant been present and represented, but still convicted, his lawyer might have argued for a reduction in costs due to his client's limited means - if that was true.

 

[Slick]

Personally I don't feel the need to ride on pavements on my routes as I cycle regularly and feel safe. However I do regularly see others doing it and so long as they don't act recklessly I honestly sympathise with them.........with the traffic we get I imagine it can be intimidating for some.

On my route I use at the moment I only feel the need on the return journey. It's reasonably quiet at 6.30 am which is good as it's a fast stretch of dual carriageway and I have to get to the outside lane to turn right, which can be done but you have to keep your wits about you. On the way home, the traffic is murder and I have seen one or two cyclists brave it but they are staying on the inside to go straight on whereas I have again got to get to the outside to turn right. For me, the easiest solution is to mount the pavement and use the pedestrian crossing to get me to the other side.

The only other time I've done it is trying to get on the cycle path on the Erskine bridge. I think anyone who has done this from Erskine to Bowling will agree, the short run on the pavement is the preferred choice.

 

[Dave7]

On my route I use at the moment I only feel the need on the return journey. It's reasonably quiet at 6.30 am which is good as it's a fast stretch of dual carriageway and I have to get to the outside lane to turn right, which can be done but you have to keep your wits about you. On the way home, the traffic is murder and I have seen one or two cyclists brave it but they are staying on the inside to go straight on whereas I have again got to get to the outside to turn right. For me, the easiest solution is to mount the pavement and use the pedestrian crossing to get me to the other side.

The only other time I've done it is trying to get on the cycle path on the Erskine bridge. I think anyone who has done this from Erskine to Bowling will agree, the short run on the pavement is the preferred choice.

I understand your dilemma. On one of my routes I go along a very busy stretch of road that goes over a hill then has a short section which splits into 2 lanes going to a large roundabout. I need the right hand lane but that can be scary. A young lady cyclist was killed there a few years ago