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

I had one experience recently, and one a few years ago, which make me despair over the attitude towards cycling "safety" and the law in the UK.

Last week I rode with my 3 year old (on his bike) down some narrow lanes in France. One time it was fairly busy with cars, all trying to get in or out of parking spaces and squeeze past each other. Every single one of them gave us plenty of room and I didn't ever feel he was any danger. The behaviour of the car drivers was absolutely one of sharing the road with cyclists, they waited, gave space, and were appreciative if you gave them space. Doing something similar in the UK would have given me kittens. Riding on my own the only cars that didn't give me more-than-adequate room were Belgians... but I suspect as a nation of drivers (particularly when outside their own borders) they are beyond help.

A good few years ago I was in Berlin for SSWC. Over a week we rode around the city a lot, and a lot of that riding was actually on pavements amongst pedestrians. No one had an accident, no one minded that they were shoulder to shoulder with a bike, we didn't get arrested, everyone was happy. If I'd done that through London on a busy Summer day the outcome would have been very different.

Enforcing these laws against cyclists without any real assessment of the risks and benefits does absolutely nothing to help road safety. IMO.

Though it's interesting that a lot of cyclists' responses to this news have been along the lines of "haven't the police got proper criminals to catch" etc.

As per the linked blog above, I think doing this stuff is fine as long as it's (a) proportionate and (b) explained as addressing pedestrians' perceived issues (which are often valid, take note) rather than as improving safety. Because the evidence suggests that they worsen safety.

Once the police dress it up as a safety thing, they really should be able to defend it with real data and they also have to understand that it instantly raises the issue of proportionality when compared to the massively greater risk of motoring offences.

Link again, which covers it: http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/the-bolton-price-compariso...

What Bez said + about 1,000,000.

It's dead easy to stop a cyclist. They're not going that fast and, when stopped, they don't cause any congestion. Chances are they're breaking some kind of law, knowingly or otherwise - I mean, do you have amber pedal reflectors or wheel reflectors? Or maybe you've exceeded the stop line a bit.

So it's dead easy to pull you over and fine you.

Much more difficult with cars. Stopping them invariably causes a traffic jam behind, there's much more paperwork and it's hard work for the average police officer.

So they go after the easy option. Good headlines (tackling the scourge of the lycra lout). If you go after motorists the headline is always "haven't the police got better things to do than fine the hard-up, honest, down-to-earth, taxpaying motorist for petty infringements?"

“Our main objective is to see the number of killed and seriously injured on our roads continue to fall and to ensure the roads are safe for everyone.” How does tackling cyclists achieve their stated objective? The answer is it doesn't. This is just the shouty ill informed public who moan on about lycra-louts to the PCC who then takes action in order to get votes. People should not be prosecuted or impeded in any way just for politically motivated nonsense.

If they introduced this in the West Midlands they'd have to fine all the 'cycling' PSOs and police officers - they cycle through all the no-cycling zones with complete impunity, what an example to set!

Cruel but fair!

Just one point on the 'money making exercise'. It probably costs more to issue and administer these fines than they collect in fines.

I have no problem with them as available tools for law enforcement (in fact, I would imagine they work rather well) but I'm not sure that they will ever turn a profit on them.

Can we have some fines handed out to pedestrians aimlessly walking into the road whilst on their mobile phone or listening to music through their headphones!!!!

They are also a DANGER to others

Who the hell designed that Dicing With Death poster?!!

I just don't understand why people in the UK accept this rubbish, anyone who doesn't see the 'political correctness' argument must be already brainwashed into believing the spinning suits who churn out the same 'it's for your own good' poop.

WAKE UP and watch what's left of your freedom disappear into the state bank account, or just shut up & let the rest of us live a life worth living whilst you read the highway code as a bedtime treat.

Quote:

If it's that bad then don't cycle that route. Or get better at cycling, since realistically it's not that difficult to ride safely within the confines of the law.

Heard it all now.

Not sure how fining cyclists or anyone really for breaking the law is "political correctness gone mad".

And on another note, if you find roads dangerous to ride on, or junctions "badly designed", that's not a legitimate reason to break the law by riding on the pavement or jumping red lights. If it's that bad then don't cycle that route. Or get better at cycling, since realistically it's not that difficult to ride safely within the confines of the law.

Funny thing is the three safest countries to ride in, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, seem not to differentiate between a bike lane and a pedestrian walkway. All seem to share with apparently not too many accidents.
I must admit though that they have no problem getting off and walking through city squares, etc when there are alot of people about.

The worrying figure is 90 per cent of cyclists have no training whatsoever.”

Yeah, they just figured out how to ride a bike unaided? Or don't friends and family count for the police? OK, it's not the best training but it's still training.

Also, blue and white signs (comment above) are informative. No cycling signs are red, white and black.

Your man Alan Mulraney doesn't seem like the sharpest tool in the box does he? How is this "political correctness?"

Lacking in perspective? Yes. But politically correct? Not quite.

The highway code makes it very clear... you're not allowed to ride on pavements, and must must obey traffic signals I.e. stop at red lights, even if the way ahead is clear. It's not rocket sience is it?

Generally cyclists obey these rules of the road, "people who ride bikes" have a tendancy not to. They need some education, for some of them paying a £50 fine a few times is probably the only type of "training" they are bright enough to understand.

Anyone using the road should be aware of the highway code, including pedestrians!

Ignorance is not a justified defense in my opinion! So pay up, shut up, and stay off the pavements, and when required STOP AT RED LIGHTS! Then you can complain about careles motorists with a clear consience! !

Used to work in Sale, down the road from sunny Bolton, and the number of people on bikes* in the pedestrianised shopping area was scary. Blue signs indicating no cycling were scattered all over the place, and still they were swerving round old age pensioners and parents with small children.

Didn't say anything at the time, I'm older and a bit more militant now. So really don't have a problem with Manc Plod coming down on them like a ton of bricks (even then they were offered the alternative of a cycling safety course, something I'd expect to pay for).

* sticks in the craw to call them cyclists.

A quick google shows the cyclists weren't cycling "on the pavement" as such but across a large pedestrian municipal square.

So basically Plod has targeted the easiest spot in which to nab as many cyclists as possible taking a short-cut.

Contrast that with their sterling efforts in catching a paltry 3 mobile phone drivers.

I hope they didn't work too hard as they've achieved sod all.

Lets see the complaining guilty party is pretty much my age, I grew up knowing bikes belong on the road and not pavement as did everyone else I know. It only seems the last 10 or 15 years so many people seem to think it is OK to ride on the pavement to the extent I've seen what can only be described as pavement rage from some of them when pedestrians dare to impede their progress! Just like the red light jumpers another bunch of idiots giving us all a bad name!

Owen rodgers re the correct safety equipment - it does now state in rule 59 of the highway code what cyclist should wear- it is advisory as apposed to mandatory but I think this is where they are coming from

The other interesting quote is that 90% of cyclists don’t have training- currently the law doesn’t require them to – now there is an argument, which I agree with, that cycling training should be taught in school as part of wider road safety education but it does seem wrong to target a group for not having training when it isn’t legally required and fining them -I mean what percentage of pedestrians have had training ??? Will the police be targeting them?

Firstly can I say if cyclist are riding in a manner which endangers pedestrians in a shared space they deserve to be fined.
However I am a little confused reading this story as from a cyclist point of view in some pedestrianized zones – cycling is allowed and in others it isn’t so it can be confusing. In fact in this pdf from cycling England it names the areas where it is allowed and parts of Bolton are named ( I don’t know Bolton so have no idea if the area mentioned in the pdf is the one in this article)
http://www.ciltuk.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/The%20Hub/infrastructure/Cy...

Even if they are not from reading the article it seems to be normal behaviour to ride on this pedestrianized area – The question I have is it clearly signed that cycling isn’t allowed if yes then fair cop. Also fair cop if cycling to fast or you are behaving aggressively to other users.
But this is where it gets interesting as the department of transport recommendation is that cyclist should be allowed in pedestrian area.

http://www.ukroads.org/webfiles/LTN%202-04%20Adjacent%20and%20Shared%20U...

The link above takes you to the pdf and the details are in section 8.2. – but section 8.2.1 states:-

“Cyclists often need access to pedestrianised areas to reach their workplace, shops or other destinations. Studies by Transport Research Laboratory‚ have shown that
there are no real factors to justify excluding cyclists from pedestrianised areas ”

With this in mind if people are cycling safely across the zone it does appear pedantic at best to fine the cyclists if their only offence is cycling in a pedestrian zone.

I am also interested in the councillor’s quote about taking action after numerous complaints against cyclist – Our village has made numerous complaints about speeding motorists but while both the council and the police tell us that they agree they state they have no resource to take action. One rule….?

Quote:

Stuff like this misses the point that anti-social driving is main reason for people ride on pavement. Tackle the cause, not the symptom.

This ^^.

Why do people ride on the pavement?
cos the roads are dangerous

Why do cyclists jump red lights?
cos the junctions are badly designed

Sort out the dangerous driving, the rest falls into place. Or have the police not learnt their lesson from London - fining cyclists for riding along a bus-only lane, cyclists go the long (and dangerous) way round to avoid it, one dies under the wheels of a tipper truck.