Pavement cycling police...

[Mr Pig]

I'm afraid it is one rule for them and another for us. I've seen them cycle on the pavement often. When I used to live on a one-way street I saw police cars and vans drive up it the wrong way three times, nearly hit a van once! Basically they just do what they like.

 

[gavintc]

I was sitting in an ASL on Argyle St next to Central Stn in Glasgow. Lights on red and alongside me arrived 2 teletubbies (v fat cops) on MTB. They paused for a few seconds and then decided to ride up onto the pavement and then cross on the pedestrian crossing - no embarassment or even a backward glance. They then attempted to join my lane from the pavement as my light turned green. I went under the tunnel, with them riding against a sea of commuters still on the pavement. This was at 5.15pm, so Central Stn area was pretty crowded. I was amazed at the nonchalant riding style.

 

[TimO]

I've seen a pair of Met Cycle Police officers just bimbling along on the pavement chatting, clearly not trying to get anywhere fast, on more than one occasion. I've also seen one casually cycle straight across a cross roads on a red light (admittedly with no motor traffic terribly near).

It doesn't strike me as showing a very good example.

Incidentally, I recall somewhere someone saying that the Met Police aren't supposed to use their bicycles as emergency vehicles, ie they can patrol on them, but not do the bicycle equivalent of hot pursuit (my terminology is probably wrong, but you get the idea). On the other hand, the City Police can.

 

[Vikeonabike]

I personally use foot paths for a number of different reasons. It can be quicker a-b than using roads. I can for instance get from my station to the centre of my patch upto 5 minutes quicker on the bike than I could in the car, even on blue lights. I will ride my bike slowly on the path to give me a better view of the srounding area. However, everything is risk assessed before, during and after the action taken. Is it hypocritical, yes sometimes. Can I account for my actions? Everytime, I like to think so.

You are supposed to account for your actions at the time, in the same way as a driver of any police vehicle would.
It doesn't excuse your misuse of the pavement & the uniform. If you are unable to give a satisfactory answer when questioned by a member of the public as to why you chose to cycle on the pavement.
Can the three-four inch height differrence really make that much difference, to justify using the pavement.

I don't believe I am misuing the pavement. And as for misuse of the uniform that statement really Pi55e5 me off.
As I stated, If I can justify my actions...yes. Does a 3-4 inch difference help, believe me it does. I'm 5'11 tall. Given that I may be stood on pedals with cranks horizontal, that gives me 6-8 inches hight differences. Quite an advantage when looking over a 6' fence.

Would a police motorcyclist be allowed to use the pavement?

Depends on the reason for being there. Down to risk assesment and justification again! Whilst patoling my local park on my off road bike I have to keep to a 10mph limit and have hazards on.

Incidentally, I recall somewhere someone saying that the Met Police aren't supposed to use their bicycles as emergency vehicles, ie they can patrol on them, but not do the bicycle equivalent of hot pursuit (my terminology is probably wrong, but you get the idea). On the other hand, the City Police can.

TimO
Some officers are trained to use Blues and Twos, however a bicycle chase is treated by most forces as a foot chase and therefroe allowed!

 

[summerdays]

Personally I find the police on bikes are much more approachable than those in cars. I can't think of any conversations I have just struck up with those in cars but loads with those on bikes. If they ride on the pavements with care and it helps them doing their job then fine by me. To be honest I can't say I have seen them on the paths in Bristol unless stationary.

 

[classic33]

I don't believe I am misuing the pavement. And as for misuse of the uniform that statement really Pi55e5 me off.
As I stated, If I can justify my actions...yes. Does a 3-4 inch difference help, believe me it does. I'm 5'11 tall. Given that I may be stood on pedals with cranks horizontal, that gives me 6-8 inches hight differences. Quite an advantage when looking over a 6' fence.



Depends on the reason for being there. Down to risk assesment and justification again!

See
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837
64

The 3-4 inch height difference is that between the road & pavement.
As regards abusing the uniform, if you are saying that because you are in uniform so you can do what you want whilst in it. That is abusing the uniform.

See also
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/12445/Cyclists-get-away-with-murder.4666530.jp

 

[Mr Pig]

Personally I find the police on bikes are much more approachable than those in cars.

I'll second that. Almost seem like real people! ;0)

 

[Crackle]

I have no objection at all to Police on bikes on the pavement, they have different reasons for being there than us and I totally support Vikeonabike's explanation.

 

[Mr Pig]

It doesn't bother me much either as they are pretty lax about other people cycling on the payment. Lots of people do it where I live and the police don't bother.

However I do feel it is a bad example and they should either stop doing it or change the law. If there is a collision then people are prosecuted for cycling on the pavement.

 

[Vikeonabike]

Classic, you're obviously not getting the point of this. I am in no way saying that because I am in uniform I can do what I want, actually being in uniform these days makes me feel a damn site more vunerable and more likely to prosecution if I do something that I cannot justify.

Back to cycling on the pavement, this is the reason why I have handed out only one ticket for cycling offences. This to an 18 year old who was cycling on the pavement, no handed texting at the time!


This is the first bit.

The object of Section 72 Highways Act 1835 was intended not to protect all footpaths, but only footpaths or causeways by the side of a road, and that this is still the case has been ruled in the high court. The legislation makes no exceptions for small wheeled or children's cycles, so even a child riding on a footway is breaking the law. However, if they are under the age of criminal responsibility they cannot, of course, face prosecution.

The next part that clears this up is:

And this is the important bit:

On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. At the time Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:
"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."


Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by 'Community Support Officers' and wardens.
(Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)
"CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.
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.

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

 

[thomas]

"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 the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.
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,

I'm sure cycling on the pavement does have benefits for the police force. However, a police cyclist should not be afraid to use the road and for all the benefits I still think that it's a bit hypocritical and sets the wrong example and gives the wrong impression to the public. Even if your actions are justified, they could easily be twisted and used against you.

I understand that, maybe in emergency, using the pavement to save 5 minutes could be a good thing. For generally going around, going around on the road shouldn't matter. I'd actual like more police cyclists on the road so that some drivers get more used to cyclists and learn a bit more respect for us. If walkers need to ask you something, there is no reason they cannot flash you down (no nudity ).

If I was cycling along and saw some police officers on the pavement I'd feel a little ticked off and would probably complain about it by posting a video of it on to 'tube. I'm not against pavement cycling, for some people it is the safest thing...like children and new cyclists. My experience is, most people who cycle on the pavement are a bit of a nuisance...even on shared paths they're all over the place.

 

[classic33]

Vikeonabike, ask yourself this question. If I wasn't wearing the uniform, Would I still cycle on the pavement for the simple purpose of getting from a to b? Getting from a to b, being slower if going by road.
If you cannot answer no to that then you are abusing the uniform. Simple.
If you answer yes, then I'd question whether you should be riding a bike, in uniform, in the first place. As it appears you have no desire to keep within the law which clearly states that it is illegal to cycle on the pavement. No grey areas, plain & simple, illegal.

 

[meic]

It would be nice to see some police cyclists around here, even cycling on the pavements.
It would be brilliant to see some cycling on the roads.
The fact that you see more police cycling on pavements than on roads is helping to re-inforce the view that that is where cyclists SHOULD be.

I never get ANY hassle from the local Police for cycling on the pavement. So it would not be fair to call them hypocrites on that point around here.

 

[Vikeonabike]

Vikeonabike, ask yourself this question. If I wasn't wearing the uniform, Would I still cycle on the pavement for the simple purpose of getting from a to b? Getting from a to b, being slower if going by road.
If you cannot answer no to that then you are abusing the uniform. Simple.
If you answer yes, then I'd question whether you should be riding a bike, in uniform, in the first place. As it appears you have no desire to keep within the law which clearly states that it is illegal to cycle on the pavement. No grey areas, plain & simple, illegal.

Classic, I do use the road. I am in no way advocating the sole use of a footpath for cycling. I use the quickest route a-b for all purposes. That includes the roads.
I cover an area of approximately 30 square miles, mainly housing estates, half of which is a pretty run down area. I have only two real choices. Walk or Ride. I cover three times the amount of area on a bike than I do walking. I can attend more jobs on a bike and can react much more quickly to emergencies. Now if that means I ride on a footpath then so be it. Ask the people of my patch what they would rather have, the Vike on a Bike or the Vike off a bike? Of course I could always drive a car!

As stated in my post above...there are in fact grey areas. If your biggest gripe and worry is Police Officers or PCSO's cycling on the pavement then you must live in a very nice place indeed!

 

[thomas]

As stated in my post above...there are in fact grey areas. If your biggest gripe and worry is Police Officers or PCSO's cycling on the pavement then you must live in a very nice place indeed!

Yeah, but it's a slippery slope...this month police officers are illegally cycling on the pavement...next month they're dealing illegal drugs to our kids.

WHEN WILL IT END??