goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
5T3R30TYP3 said:
Absolutely, brother. Or sister.
Pavement cycling - On the spot fines.
- Thread starter goldenecitrone
- Start date
Absolutely, brother. Or sister.
vince noir
maximum impact tagline
The only times I've come close to getting run down have had nothing to do with cars - it's been cyclists jumping red lights or riding on the pavement. Really, really pisses me off.
Not so far as I am aware - any use of a pedal cycle on a footway is an offence, regardless of age. It's just that discretion is usually applied in the case of kids (below early teens though, rather than 17, usually).Miscellaneous said:
They exist. There have been fixed penalty notices available for endorseable and non-endorseable offences for about 20 years.Major Tom said:
Sadly, because only speed kills, enforcement of red light offences (which really do kill!) has fallen into abeyance ...
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
A good parent will teach their kid to dismount and give pedestrians right of way. I'm sure no-one has a problem with kids razzing around on their bikes if they bear this courtesy in mind.
Pavement parking has been "decriminalised" and the police no longer have the power to deal with it in oridinary circumstances - it is a local authority offence.Alf Klein said:
Cycle offences haven't and so still are the police's problem (Don't ask me why - there is no logic to the whole decriminalisation thing, it's just piecemeal!).
It means I despair of simplistic, slogan-led campaigns which mean that attention gets taken away from other areas which, in reality, are equally, or even more, deserving.Major Tom said:what's that
detective-boy said:
I thought you were rolling your eyes at me.
Although I do have to ask - how else can we get the message across other than using slogans on ad-based campaigns?
I would say training - but as far as I know everyone driving a (legal) motor vehicle has received training and SHOULD know the rules. They still choose to break them.
I can;t help feeling that a sea change like the one that made drink-driving a taboo back in the 80s is needed - except I have no idea how to engineer such a thing.
But you're probably right.
I had a lorry turn right in front of me this morning without looking in his mirrors or indicating - and I nearly bought it then. He didn;t seem to care. I tend to feel that the law needs to reflect that people who drive have a serious responsiblity to do what the law says they should do - or they risk the lives of others. And we can;t uphold all this by policing. It needs to become enshrined in our culture - much like the Dutch.
I was told one of my local councilors that driving on the pavement is illegal and blocking the pavement is illegal but parking on it is not. How you can park on a pavement without driving on it is beyond me. They also told me that traffic wardens can only ticket cars on the pavement if there are double yellows adjacent. Any idea if any of that is correct?detective-boy said:
There is a time and a place for them, sure.Major Tom said:
My problem (at the moment) is that everything to do with safety on the roads appear to come second to speed enforcement which is (a) easy (cameras); (b) cheap (cameras); (c) raises lots of money (cameras - no discretion you see) ... but which does absolutely sweet fuck all about other equally (perhaps more) dangerous stuff like failing to comply with red lights (nearly wiped up again yesterday about 3 seconds (honestly, I know that is, like, ages!) into a green); failure to use mirrors; driving too close; using vehicles in dangerous condition (e.g. diesel spills); using mobile phones whilst driving .... And all based on the (misconceived) idea that [only] speed kills.
Driving on the pavement is a specific offence (s.72 Highways Act 1835). This includes crossing it to gain access to private property unless specific authority has been granted (dropped kerbs, etc). Parking on the pavement is a specific offence (usually under local by-laws, so I guess some councils may not have made any - dont know any though). Parking on the pavement when there are also yellow lines is a yellow line offence as well (ss5 and 8, Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984). Parking so as to causing unnecessary obstruction (on road or pavement) is a specific offence (Reg.103 Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regs. 1986 and s.137 Highways Act 1980). Parking in a dangerous position (on road or (probably) pavement) is a specific offence (s.22 Road Traffic Act 1988)Alf Klein said:
Health Warning: I think this is all right, but I used to be a detective not a traffpol, so roads policing advice is not my area of expertise!
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
Can you confirm that I may park in front of my neighbour's dropped kerb if they haven't managed to park on their property.detective-boy said:
(150 year old Terrace of houses with no driveways.)
.
Not quite sure what you mean. If you mean they have a dropped kerb, but no space to park a vehicle (i.e. there is nowhere to go) then I would say yes, because you are not obstructing anything and a dropped kerb does not determine ownership of that length of roadway for parking.gentlegreen said:
If you mean they do have a space to park a vehicle (e.g. a paved over garden or something) but they just haven't got in before you want to park, then I would say no, because I think you would be found to be causing unnecessary obstruction to a legitimate access route to private property if / when they wanted to enter. (the same would apply if they were already there and wanted to get out).
Loads of people down my road have paved front gardens (I'm expecting coach trips to see my trees soon) and dropped kerbs ... despite mostly having garages on rear access roads and some not actually having a car
. What is REALLY annoying is that some then don't use their paved garden ("makes the house look untidy don't you know"), or even park across their own dropped kerb ("a visitor may want to pop in") but park in one of the few street spaces left in front of "real" gardens like mine. And even worse, being the incompetent tossers in big 4x4's and people carriers they are, they manage to park so that they take up what could be two fucking spaces! 
david dissadent
New Member
1st law of cycling: stay alive. If the road is a bad one i.e. along a fast narrow road, then it has to be done.
Cycles are treated as third class citizens of the road. A lick of paint across some storm drains and your expected to be gratefull and dutifully bounce along the ruts.
Cycles are treated as third class citizens of the road. A lick of paint across some storm drains and your expected to be gratefull and dutifully bounce along the ruts.
pseudonarcissus
fluttering and dancing
david dissadent said:
what do you mean by that?
david dissadent
New Member
Hit that with a racer and your face will be mounting the floor.Major Tom said:
To be honest I am almost never ever on a pavement. Its pointless, thats why the new tory idea of cycle lanes on pavements is just King Car uber alles all over again.
I ride amoung the cars in urban cycling. And outside of town I pray and keep as close to the verge as I can.
Some basterd in a car overtook me this eavening then without signalling pulled a left turn before he had cleared me, I was close to my maker again. The f****r had the cheek to be offended at my cursing of him.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
I'm not sure I agree wit this. Firstly, has anybody actually said that only speed kills? I'm not aware that they have and it's certainly not, for instance, the sole basis for road sfety campaigns. Secondly, isn't the concentration on speed not just that it's really important, but that it's rather easier (as opposed to cheap, as such) to monitor than the other problems you mention? (I'd guess that cameras might be used to pick up people for driving too close, but mobiles - the use of which is really dangerous - are probably harder.)detective-boy said:
too truedavid dissadent said:
i've been harrassed off the road on occasion by van drivers and motorists where there are off-road/ on-pavement cycling lanes.
They are frankly unusable in most cases. There's a good picture in the latest London Cyclist that shows a cycle path that goes right past a bus stop - and of course there's a huge crowd of people standing on it waiting for a bus.
To some extent I think the idea of nice highly coloured cycle lanes is a scam operated between local authorities and road building companies. That coloured tarmac doesn't come cheap you know. And local authorities like it cos 1. they get to spend their budget quite easily and with little thought and 2. its a highly visible sign that they are apparently supporting green initiatives.
me too.
the sad fact is - every cyclist in the city - every day - ends up having exactly this sort of experience. It's a pity this sort of motorist isn;t shamed into better behaviour.
Since this thread has wandered onto cycle lanes - here's an example of a slightly useful one - although not terribly - but I used to use it. For the last year its been blocked by road diggers - and now they've fecked off leaving their rubbish in the bit of the road they obviously think isn't at all important. I'm gonna watch and see how long it takes before the council deals with. Since this is in Hackney - I think it may be years.
lighterthief
Well-Known Member
I see the point that you are making, but wouldn't it be a little more constructive to put in a friendly call to the council and alert them to the problem? I'm fairly sure they have a dedicated cycling officer too, who may be spurred into action if you email him/her the pic.Major Tom said:...I'm gonna watch and see how long it takes before the council deals with. Since this is in Hackney - I think it may be years.
No, they haven't. But it's the implication inherent in the almost single-minded approach to it as the answer to all road death problems.Donna Ferentes said:
And before anyone points it out, I know there have been campaigns about looking twice for bikes. But has there been any increase in enforcement? Has there fuck. Has anyone been prosecuted? I doubt very many, unless they have actually wiped a bike up. Unlike speed, where there has been, and continues to be, unrelenting prosecutions in their hundreds of thousands.
And yes, easy is another reason why speed is focussed on. It's part of why it's cheap. Just stick another camera up. Whereas the other stuff mostly needs trained traffic patrols, able to observe, apply discretion and, where necessary, report offenders.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
But as I say, cameras can do that job and can do it all the time. I mean personally I'd like to see somme serious action against mobile users, who are absolutely lethal, but can you think of any way to do that's remotely efficient as regards manpower and subsequent prosecutions? It'd be good if someone did, because apart from anything else, if the law on mobiles is not enforced it'll simply fall into disrepute.
northernhord
Active Member
Sometimes you gotta cycle on the pavement I know this is part of a long running arguement but some car drivers shouldnt be on the road, it was only last week I had a cab driver an inch away from whilst I was approaching a junction so I went on the pavement for safety, however sometimes if I am in a hurry then I'll use the pavement to escape the congestion I aint breathing in other peoples fumes in traffic jams and I aint wearing a mask either.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
If you have to get off the road, you can push the bike. There's not the slightest reason why pedestrians should have to put up with you cycling. You don't have the right to put them in that position.
northernhord
Active Member
Donna Ferentes said:
When I use the pavement I certainly wouldnt consider weaving in out of people walking on the pavement that would make me as bad as the car drivers that I avoid, if the pavements are clear though I am cycling on them.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Let's hope nobody suddenly steps out from behind a corner or behind a gate eh?northernhoard said:
Similar threads
