Pavement cycling police...

[punkypossum]

The ones in Preston don't seem to ride on the pavement, however the last time I saw 2 coppers on a bike, they were going down a busy one way street the wrong way. Also, it was 10 o'clock at night, i.e. pitch dark...One had a front light that was about as bright as a match, but no back light. The other one had an even dimmer back light, but no front light. And then they keep going on about cracking down on cyclists without lights!

 

[Vikeonabike]

The ones in Preston don't seem to ride on the pavement, however the last time I saw 2 coppers on a bike, they were going down a busy one way street the wrong way. Also, it was 10 o'clock at night, i.e. pitch dark...One had a front light that was about as bright as a match, but no back light. The other one had an even dimmer back light, but no front light. And then they keep going on about cracking down on cyclists without lights!

Now, there is no excuse for that and I would encourage a letter or phone call to the local station.

 

[classic33]

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!

You failed to answer the points raised. Instead you chose to try & work your way round them. You yourself said "It can be quicker a-b than using roads." Now does that only apply when in uniform or all the time.
The question asked was,and still is

"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."

You haven't answered the question. Bearing in mind it has been illegal to cycle on the pavements since 1835. Yet as an officer of the law you choose to ignore that law. How then can you pull someone else up for what you are doing, breaking the law?

As for police using the pavement for cycling on, simply doing so because its quicker for you means not a lot. All most people would see is another cycle on the pavement.

Talking to an officer of An Garda Síochána, I was told it, pavement cycling, counts as a discipline offence.

 

[Dan B]

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.

I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I can see the same law (Highways Act 1835, s72) makes it illegal to push a pram on the pavement, and probably disallows the use of wheeled luggage (shopping trolleys, suitcases, etc) as well. If I've read the statute right, then the only thing that stops people being prosecuted for these heinous offences is the "grey area" you say doesn't exist.

 

[Vikeonabike]

Classic,
If I was not in uniform, then the answer your looking for is No I would not ride on the pavement. If I am out with my 7&9 year old boys, they ride on the pavement I ride alongside them, where I feel it is safer tan being on the road. If I am commuting to work, I ride on the road. Why would I ride on the pavement when I a will be faster on the road (I don't use the cycle path next to the Road either). If I am in uniform and I can justify the use of the pavement then I WILL ride on the pavement, the cycle path, a foot path, dual use path, down a set of stairs (whilst making risk assessments as I go). If I could ride on water I'd do that too. As I said, using a foot path to get from a-b can be faster. I will do this if I can "JUSTIFY" it. If I'm riding to the local donut shop for my break then I obviously could not JUSTIFY using the footpath, if however I am riding to the Donut shop because someone is holding knife to the owners throat, because I'd just bought the last of his favourite donuts, then I could JUSTIFY using the pavement.
As has been pointed out in my previous post, although it is an offence to cycle on a footpath, guidelines have been given to where and when they should be adhered too.
Therefore, if I can JUSTIFY being on the pavement whilst riding my bicycle I am NOT abusing my uniform!

BTW officers from my own force have been fined for riding on the pavement where they could not justify being on the pavement!

 

[thomas]

if however I am riding to the Donut shop because someone is holding knife to the owners throat, because I'd just bought the last of his favourite donuts, then I could JUSTIFY using the pavement.

If you were on the way to an emergency, how would people know? Do you have lights/sirens/etc?

 

[Vikeonabike]

If you were on the way to an emergency, how would people know? Do you have lights/sirens/etc?

No lights or sirens, however unless I'm late for my tea break I would not be moving very quickly, generally!

 

[classic33]

Classic,
If I was not in uniform, then the answer your looking for is No I would not ride on the pavement. If I am out with my 7&9 year old boys, they ride on the pavement I ride alongside them, where I feel it is safer tan being on the road. If I am commuting to work, I ride on the road. Why would I ride on the pavement when I a will be faster on the road (I don't use the cycle path next to the Road either). If I am in uniform and I can justify the use of the pavement then I WILL ride on the pavement, the cycle path, a foot path, dual use path, down a set of stairs (whilst making risk assessments as I go). If I could ride on water I'd do that too. As I said, using a foot path to get from a-b can be faster. I will do this if I can "JUSTIFY" it. If I'm riding to the local donut shop for my break then I obviously could not JUSTIFY using the footpath, if however I am riding to the Donut shop because someone is holding knife to the owners throat, because I'd just bought the last of his favourite donuts, then I could JUSTIFY using the pavement.
As has been pointed out in my previous post, although it is an offence to cycle on a footpath, guidelines have been given to where and when they should be adhered too.
Therefore, if I can JUSTIFY being on the pavement whilst riding my bicycle I am NOT abusing my uniform!

BTW officers from my own force have been fined for riding on the pavement where they could not justify being on the pavement!

I was after either yes or no, not just no. You seemed to want to avoid having to give a direct answer.

By the way, a fine is a long way down from a discipline offence, which stays on your record.

I have seen more police cycling on the pavements than I have paramedics. Also a number of police officers who will not ride on the road, on duty, because they don't feel safe on them. The roads that is.

 

[ejls2]

Frankly, it would be a lot more straight-forward if the Home Office guidance was codified into an SI allowing police officers and paramedics to cycle on the pavement where it was safe to do so and was of benefit to their duties. It should however be an exception rather than the norm (i.e. using the road where it is just as quick/quicker/safer which will be in the majority of cases).

The obvious downside of this is the negative example it sets to other cyclists and drivers. However, it appears that the advantages of doing so outweigh the disadvantages. If a police officer can patrol a larger area, visibly and more effectively (including passing through high crime areas away from roads) by cycling on the pavement in a safe and considerate manner then it seems like a good thing to me.

It is a double standard but then I'm not allowed to carry a taser, drive under blue lights or do many, many other things that the police can either!

What do you reckon Viking? I'm not generally in favour of broad powers limited by guidance so my view may be slightly blinkered but it seems like a solution where everyone would know where they stood a bit better.

 

[Vikeonabike]

Frankly, it would be a lot more straight-forward if the Home Office guidance was codified into an SI allowing police officers and paramedics to cycle on the pavement where it was safe to do so and was of benefit to their duties. It should however be an exception rather than the norm (i.e. using the road where it is just as quick/quicker/safer which will be in the majority of cases).

The obvious downside of this is the negative example it sets to other cyclists and drivers. However, it appears that the advantages of doing so outweigh the disadvantages. If a police officer can patrol a larger area, visibly and more effectively (including passing through high crime areas away from roads) by cycling on the pavement in a safe and considerate manner then it seems like a good thing to me.

It is a double standard but then I'm not allowed to carry a taser, drive under blue lights or do many, many other things that the police can either!

What do you reckon Viking? I'm not generally in favour of broad powers limited by guidance so my view may be slightly blinkered but it seems like a solution where everyone would know where they stood a bit better.

+1

 

[HLaB]

OT. Yesterday I had the bike on the pavement and calmly walked by a police car stuck in traffic. It came round the corner eventually and immediately stopped by me (folk nearly went in to the back of them). After a while they realised that I was pushing the bike (had been for the last 2 miles as it had a blown rim) either that I wasn't a suspicious character after all.

 

[goo_mason]

OT. Yesterday I had the bike on the pavement and calmly walked by a police car stuck in traffic. It came round the corner eventually and immediately stopped by me (folk nearly went in to the back of them). After a while they realised that I was pushing the bike (had been for the last 2 miles as it had a blown rim) either that I wasn't a suspicious character after all.

They were obviously thinking that you were a ned who'd nicked £11,000 of bikes from a shed in Leith this week

 

[HLaB]

They were obviously thinking that you were a ned who'd nicked £11,000 of bikes from a shed in Leith this week

Ouch that's a sore one for him and if the Police can confuse my £300 hybrid with a £4,500 litespeed, I don't think he's got much chance of getting them back .

 

[col]

Yesterday, on my way into town.

Saw a less than strange sight, a police officer on a bicycle. On the pavement, coming round a corner, into a crowd of pedestrians.


Worse, it was at a junction with an advanced stop line.
>_<

I almost, almost beeped him. But thought better of it, and rationalised that he probably had a "good" reason for being there.


But still, I wonder how many people saw and thought "oh, that's where bikes are supposed to be"

Some might think its good to see/unusual/ more police ect. As far as Im concerned they can go anywhere they like, they are there to help us, and Im sure he was not flying blindly along and nearly ploughing into them.
The police go faster than the speed limit, does this mean some would think they should be able to too? Double standards? No just some people with a higher attitude than they should have. The only time a police car or bike should be in trouble is when they do these things to get home so as not to miss their favourite tv show, but on duty? No do whatever you need, its your job.

 

[thomas]

The police go faster than the speed limit, does this mean some would think they should be able to too? Double standards?

Only in emergencies though!!