'£100 fines for Lycra louts who cycle on pavement'

[mikeinworthing]

Stinks of troll breath in here.

Certainly does.

Profile is a bit odd.

Biography:
I'm disabled, and in pain a lot. So, please forgive me if I come across as a total cunt - sorry!
Location:
Unhealthily close to home
Interests:
Trying not to be a total cunt
Occupation:
Agitator

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

Stinks of troll breath in here.

I don't think so. If you check out the 'parking blues thread' I think he's for real.

 

[Urbanblues]

Certainly does.

Profile is a bit odd.

I feel as though I'm being stalked. Are you a stalker MIW?

Dear or dear; trying to wind me up? You are a muppet, aren't you?

 

[Urbanblues]

Profile is a bit odd.

Christ, does your saddness know no limits? If you dig around a bit deeper, you might find something really salacious.

You twat!

 

[Urbanblues]

Stinks of troll breath in here.

Wanker

 

[mikeinworthing]

And he's off again.

 

[Urbanblues]

And he's off again.

Another polished post by the Worthing wanker!

 

[scifisam]

If it takes £100 fines to stop reckless cycling on pavements; then, so be it. Cyclists have the option to dismount from their machines if the roads are too dangerous. Indeed, since the roads in London (that's the place I'm interested in) are so dangerous; and, evidently not fit to cycle on; why are more and more people risking their lives?

The key word there is reckless. I'd love to see larger fines for reckless cycling - includin reckless cycling on roads. But some pavements are fine to cycle on, like in the areas Drain Bamage mentions.

I very rarely cycle on the pavement myself, and, if I do, it's to get past a bit of traffic where the vehicles are packed in so tight that there's no room for me to pass anywhere and I'm in real danger of getting squished between two vehicles.

If I push the bike, that'll a long time to my journey, so if there's no-one on the pavement (as frequently happens), then why should I not ride on it? What reason is there for me not to ride on it?

If I were ever caught and given a fine of this size, I'd rather go to court over it. My income is low enough that a fine of that size would be disproportionate. I'd end up, at most, having to pay £3pw. It's a bollocks law supported only by wankers.

And yes, we can do all the things that you suggested in your post to OU - but we can also protest against a new law which has no purpose other than making money. If it encourages people to cycle on roads even when the road is unsafe and the pavement is safe (for pedestrians as well as cyclists), then it could lead to more deaths and injuries. Oh, what a great law that is.

 

[Urbanblues]

And yes, we can do all the things that you suggested in your post to OU - but we can also protest against a new law which has no purpose other than making money. If it encourages people to cycle on roads even when the road is unsafe and the pavement is safe (for pedestrians as well as cyclists), then it could lead to more deaths and injuries. Oh, what a great law that is.

scifisam, if I may bring your attention to the following:

“…cycling on footpaths is prohibited by Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835. This is punishable by a fixed penalty notice of £30 under Section 51 and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.”​

As you can see, laws prohibiting cycling on pavements are not recent; and, even the punishment goes back 20 years. Cyclists have had over 170 years to get these laws changed.

 

[scifisam]

scifisam, if I may bring your attention to the following:

“…cycling on footpaths is prohibited by Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835. This is punishable by a fixed penalty notice of £30 under Section 51 and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.”​

As you can see, laws prohibiting cycling on pavements are not recent; and, even the punishment goes back 20 years. Cyclists have had over 170 years to get these laws changed.

The increase in the penalty is a new thing. That's why you started the thread. The apparent increase in enforcing the penalty is also new.

The law isn't as simple as you imply, however. Apparently, Home Office advice is this:

"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."

(Quoted Taken from 'Bikes For All,' which probably counts as biased, but I've only quoted an official statement by the Home office, so, unless the site is making it up, it doesn't really matter what the source is.)

So that's probably good news for any cyclist who does get this fine and wasn't cycling recklessly.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

It hink that there should be a consiquence for cycling on a pavement where you clearly have caused an accident by doing so or have injured a pedestrain. this law's a good thing. It won't stop it but it will allow redress in some small part for the poor sods who are regularlly abused by cyclists who are less than reasonable about the responsiblity for their actions.

 

[George & Bill]

To be administered by traffic wardens? Are they serious?

Not only eminently reasonable but highly unproblematic in practice! Maybe we should also give lollipop ladies speed-guns and get them to go running after cars that are exceeding the limit! That would definitely work and certainly not be a completely moronic idea!!