"Politcal correctness gone mad" - £50 fines issued to anti-social cyclists in Bolton

A story all about how they managed to fine only 3 motorists (I see that many in the ASL every 30 seconds) and snared 40 cyclists? A smiling police chap, not a single care or complicated thought troubling him, and down the right hand column it's story after story about car drivers killing cyclists.

They're blaming the victims, picking on the outsider groups and we pay them their big money salaries for this patronising idiocy!

How did they manage to stop and fine the cyclists? Stopping a moving bike could create a H&S problem.

Let me get this clear. The road traffic stats are improving because they are fining people riding bikes on pavements? I just don't get the correlation there...

Its not "Politcal correctness gone mad" its "Health & Safety gone mad"
Thank you

The Riding on Pavements is a tricky one. I personally prefer riding on the roads.

I have ridden all my life, I run a bike shop and I was once an Art Director for a National cycle magazine. I have no objections to people cycle where ever provided they cause no trouble to any other road user.

I reckon that Danny Macskill if we arn't allowed to ride on pavements he should in loads of trouble. Check this DVD out brilliant riding and skills.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeKBfsA9awk

Bikes are not cars, they can have access to spaces cars and motorbikes can't. So why not express your bike skills on pavements and non road areas providing you are responsible and don't trouble other users of these areas.

What about scooters, skateboarders and other self propeller vehicles etc where do they fit in to this debate.

Didds
Fundamentally I think we agree.

As I have made clear in my post any cyclist who is cycling aggressively or endangering pedestrians deserves to be fined. And as you point out if the safest thing to do is to get off and push then that is what a cyclist should do. As advised by the department of transport in the link in my post

“When pedestrian density increases cyclists behave accordingly by slowing down, dismounting, or taking avoiding action as required.”

However as I also point out the department of transport states there are “no real factors to justify excluding cyclists from pedestrianised areas” In other words they think it is safe for cyclist to cycle in a shared area with pedestrians. This is reflected in the highway code where there is no legal statute banning cyclists from cycling in pedestrianised areas( only on pavements). The local authority may choice as is their right to create a local bye law- again as I point out against the department of transports advice –

But I disagree with this campaign if people are being fined just for cycling in a pedestrianized areas even if they are cycling responsibly and they are committing no other offense- This in my mind sets a precedent for all shared space with pedestrians and could see responsible cyclists excluded from shared paths such as sustran routes. There is no evidence presented in the article that anyone has been hurt in this square by a cyclist. We have an increasingly obese nation and should be encouraging people out of cars onto bikes by providing safe spaces to cycle which may be shared.

Sorry Ciaran but you're not correct on a couple of points.

It is illegal for anyone, regardless of age to cycle on the pavement. The Police not pursuing something doesn't make it legal (surely we've learnt that as cyclists over the last few years)

The law states pavement at the side of the road, which is why councils put up signs in other areas, shopping centres, pedestrianised zones etc

You cannot commit a criminal offence under the age of 10, which is why kids are de facto allowed to cycle on the pavement. If you cycle with him, you're breaking the law, fact. Whether a Police officer turns a blind eye is irrelevant to what is actually legal or not.

Parking on the pavement is not necessarily legal if there are no yellow lines. If the local council has not put any restrictions in place you can still be prosecuted for parking on the pavement if the police consider that you are causing an obstruction.

All people who ride on a pavement by the side of the road might not be dickheads, but they are breaking the law.

Lets face it there is a simple way of avoiding the £50 ticket. Read the Highway Code and understand it then act on it.

This applies too drivers, motorcyclists, horse riders and dare I say it cyclists too.

Well said, we're in danger of being very hypocritical. Happy to use the law to defend ourselves but then some want to break it and say "what harm is it doing". Leaves us wide open to drivers saying the same

It's not Actium, it's hypocrisy. We can't shout the law and highway code at drivers and then ignore it ourselves. No cyclist is going to argue with your broader point about the overall benefit of cycling v driving, but if we are going to say "it's OK to ignore the rules because..." then I'll find you an equal number of drivers who think they've got an equally valid reason to break the law, and it's just becomes a pointless argument between the two groups.

Far better that we stick to the rules, and put pressure on drivers to do the same because if they did, we wouldn't need / want to use the pavement at all

I am not in favour of cycling on pavements or breaking the rules of the road, but these police "crackdowns" lack any sense of perspective. There's carnage on the roads, but lets pick on the cyclists who are pootling along on a pedestranised area. Breaking the law? - Yes, but not contributing to the safety issues that the police seem to claim they are addressing. I think a sense of perspective is definately what is missing so we will have to continue to disagree I'm afraid.

Actium, they've spent a lot more time on driver specific crackdowns over the last couple of months than cycling.

"A series of initiatives undertaken last week by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) included tackling illegal and stolen caravans, dangerous driving and uninsured vehicles, and ensuring drivers are not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or distracted by mobile phones."

One day on cyclists, the rest on drivers. Seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me

I like to point out that the email says "Bradford" and the article "Bolton". Which are, err, 40 odd miles apart!

The thing that rubs me the wrong way about these sort of crackdowns is that there is an absolutle lack of clarity re. where you can and cannot cycle in most towns. In the town where I live there are many areas where cyclists are encouraged onto the pavement to use shared use lanes or segregated lanes. The town park has a shared use path running right through it but also has a by-law stating that cycling is prohibited (as it is in the park where our skatepark is located). Signage is often poor and infrastructure poorly thought out making it difficult to re-join the main caridgway when shared paths etc. end. Most people just carry on along the pavement which is understandable when faced with the prospect of merging into three lanes of traffic. It's totaly confusing, particually for the uninitiated. One way systems that send you half way round town also encourage bad behaviour.

It's also worth noting that, due to the lack of thought in applying a lot of cycle restrictions, it can often be more considerate to cycle in pedestrianised areas rather than walk your bike. For instance there is a long and narrow allyway by my house where cycling is forbidden. If I walk though with my bike nobody can pass in the opposite direction and they have to wait for me to arrive at the other end. If I hop on and cycle they still can't pass but I'm out of their way much more quickly. I could stubonly obey the rules and keep them waiting I suppose.

I'm not advocating law-breaking and as confident road riders its easy to think that its all good to mix it with whatever other traffic is about on any sort of road but its not that simple for all cyclists. Sometimes the choices are a)cycle on the pavement or b) get in the car. Try sticking a child seat on your bike and strapping a cargo trailer on the back full of shopping and then ride back from the shops with another child on thier own bike without breaking the rules or constantly dismounting/re-mounting (this is not my personal situation, just an example). This sort of jouney should be the norm, not a logistical nightmare that sends you rushing for your car keys.

I'm rambling a bit here but my point is that we are set up to fail unless we are highly confident, competent and reasonaly fit. More needs to be done to encourage cycling and my view is that this sort of thing doesn't help, unless clyclits are truly making a nusciece of themselves.

im Battle, Greater Manchester’s deputy police and crime commissioner, said: “It’s really important that we improve road craft for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.

I wonder if any pedestrians got fined in all of this, they are not as innocent as they would like to be seen

Back to the article :
It mentions "That specific operation was billed as being aimed at reducing the number of collisions involving cyclists".
Further on it talks about 46 deaths from ROAD TRAFFIC COLLISIONS compared to 59 in the same period last year.
Nowhere does it mention how many were caused by cyclists, and more specifically, how many involved cyclist on pedestrian.
Clouding the issue with selective (and irrelevant) statistics comes to mind.

So 80% of commuting cyclists have a driving licence. And yet 90% of cyclists have "no training whatsoever"? Summat's wrong somewhere.

OK, we're over-focusing on one very specific set of circumstances.

Walking for that stretch would add about ten minutes to each direction. Bit of a pain but let's skip over it for now. I'd have to push a bike, towing another bike, laden with panniers of shopping, whilst keeping adequate control over a 4-year-old that I can at least grab him if he does something stupid. The pavement's not really wide enough for two people side by side, let alone the bike as well, and pushing that lot with one hand isn't doable. Walking isn't viable.

So yes, it's cycle on the pavement, cycle on the road, or drive. I've chosen all three at different times. I don't cycle on that bit of road any more when I'm with the boy: the junction with the shared path is on a blind bend and I've seen two overturned vehicle on that road (despite it being a 30mph limit).

So, as I say, what you're saying makes sense; but what you're saying is drive. (Or walk 6km with a 4-year-old and a load of shopping - no thanks.) Drive. Only ever drive. Everywhere. Most people in our town must only ever drive.

I dunno. I'd just like a town where I can go shopping on a bike without fearing for my son's safety. A few hundred yards on the pavement doesn't seem a big deal.

You know what, too? I get to say hello and be super-courteous to other people on the pavement. We often have a joke and a smile. It's people interacting, moving slowly, without the walls of steel and glass. I get to fight the perception that cyclists are inconsiderate wankers. I can turn pavement cycling into a PR exercise.

I don't think shared space works for mass transit, but - hell - I'd much rather live in a place where people on foot and people on bikes mingle and interact somehow, than one where people walk from their front door to their car and close themselves off and move around in total isolation.

If there's a shared use path to town, apart from the half mile from your house to the path, why cycle on the pavement at all ? Walk the half mile and cycle the rest, not sure what your problem with walking half a mile is.

You seem to be saying it's cycle on the pavement or I drive, personally I never cycle on the pavement, very rarely drive and seem to get around just fine.

I cycle on the road, if I take my kids with me and I don't want them to cycle on a dangerous road we walk.If I have a big load to carry we drive. Simple really

I'll remove dickhead because I dont want this to sound personal (although people who ride fast on the pavement are absolutely dickheads)

You can't claim that it's OK to break the law because it's convenient. You've said it's only half a mile to town after the shared use path so why not lock the bike up and walk ? Saying nobody is inconvienced makes as much sense as drivers who say they should be allowed to drive at 100mph at night because there's nobody else around.

There are more ways to reduce pollution etc than just cycling, walk, public transport etc. Saying it's bike all the way or nothing is akin to drivers who claim the same thing about their cars.

Cycle when it's safe and legal, do something else when its not

If you ride your bike in a pedestrianised zone you're a di ckhead and deserve to be fined. If you feel unsafe riding on the roads because of drivers breaking the law, the answer isn't to break the law yourself.

We're all over drivers for being idiots and endangering cyclists, and quite right too, but cyclists endangering pedestrians by riding like idiots is no better.