Cyclists have blasted Stoke Newington Police after its social media account posted a photograph of an officer issuing a fine to a woman with a child seat on her bike for riding on the pavement, as part of its operation to tackle “cycling related anti-social behaviour”.
Stoke Newington Policing Team wrote: “Local officers currently conducting an operation on Stoke Newington High Street N16 targeting E-Scooter/ cycling related Anti-Social Behaviour, a Ward priority for Local residents.”
This has led to people questioning the use of the image in context with anti-social behaviour. Twitter user ChrisC wrote: “Was this the best "nab" you could photograph to show you tackling anti social behaviour? A young woman riding on the pavement, presumably because she thinks the roads are unsafe there.”
Another user @mattwardman questioned: “I wonder what antisocial behaviour the young mum on the bike was displaying. Cycling at 25 mph on the pavement?”, while Andy Waterman said: “Cracking down on the menace of mums with child seats on their bikes - that's definitely the demographic I think of when I think of antisocial e-biking/scootering. Jokers.”
> Why do cyclists ride on the pavement? New study explores why
According to the National Police Chief’s Council, cyclists can ride on the pavement as long as they are doing it responsibly. The re-issued guidance from 2014, first originally introduced in 1999, says: “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users.
“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.”
> Transport minister: Responsible cyclists CAN ride on the pavement
The reissue of the guidance came after Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill’s reiteration in January 2014 that the official line from the Department for Transport (DfT) is that cyclists may ride on the pavements, provided they do so considerately, and that police officers need to exercise discretion.
Stop Killing Cyclists, cycling campaign group, hailed the minister’s clarification as its first major success and said: “Fining vulnerable cyclists for cycling responsibly on the pavement at extremely dangerous junctions like Vauxhall Cross, is a bedroom tax on two-wheels as there is no safe alternative for them to cycle on.”
> Local papers take aim at pavement cyclists as fines drop and pedestrian casualties rise - we take a closer look at the numbers
After the recent incident with Stoke Newington Police, cyclists and other members of the public have also raised questions about the police’s actions towards dealing with drivers speeding on roads and breaking other rules, and being callous to realising why cyclists feel the need to ride on pavements instead of the roads.
A few people even brought up the incident from Wimbledon where a driver crashed their Land Rover into a school building, claiming the life of an eight-year-old girl, with another eight-year-old and parent in critical care, and at least six more children and one adult injured.
The Met Police confirmed yesterday that the driver of the vehicle, a woman aged in her 40s, has been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.
road.cc has contacted the Met Police for comment.
Add new comment
84 comments
Sheer, unadulterated racism. Black people are all the same community, their children are feral, they won't take any responsibility, they won't do anything to fit in whilst white folks do their best to help them. Disgraceful.
Oh, the ultimate slur, I'm a racist! If all else fails and you have no argument, glibly accuse someone of racism. Oh dear, pull the other one. That's how you try to shut the debatedown. I'll be respectful at all times, but I'll have an opinion. You just proved that really, you don't?
If you're too deluded to see that all the markers to these awful crimes are very specific, then cheap jibes are what you will use.
All the cultural tropes imported from the US, which couldn't be more inappropriate. Fedz, caps and the rest of it. Babyfather culture, legions of fatherless boys with no decent role models, and it becomes a downward spiral.
There's been deprived council estates in London for a hundred years, and crime too of course, gangs like the Krays and the Richardson's, but we've never had all this, to this extent? Wholesale violence, every week, by so many?
So anyway Rendel, what about all the deprived white kids on estates (often exactly the same ones), who face exactly the same challenges, proportionally far less of them are stabbing each other. Any ideas on that? Or do you have your head do far up your fundament you can't see?
One of your complaints was about something like this? Looks like there are *some* people at least who've identifed an issue and are "doing something themselves"...
Of course per my comment about Wiggo it's not race-specific - though can differ between different "communities" or subcultures or groups.
Identifying an issue is one thing but the next question is "and why does this happen?"
And you're avoiding this how? Seriously, if you think people of only one skin colour are involved with gangs and knives, you are badly mistaken. Haven't you been paying any attention at all? You might want to read about Stephen Lawrence - murdered by a gang with knives. Look into the prior and subsequent behaviour of those murderers and tell me that gangs and knives are not also a white problem.
Respectfully asks me what I'm up to? Have you got unicorns prancing about in your back garden?
Oooh, did you just gaslight me? Whatever that means.
I've met people like you in real life. They start a conversation by saying '' I'm not racist but'', and then continue to confirm that they are, in fact, racist.
You might note I never said that.
So you carry on being a deluded fool, thinking that endless sympathy for those who complain the most is always justified. Are you still at school or what?
Ok answer me this: if the ratio of knife deaths on a deprived London council estate is 20 black to one white, where the mix is 50:50, what does that tell you?
Or do you think the BBC only report on black deaths?
The trouble with people like you is that with your deluded denial, you merely assist in the hideous downward spiral, where no one is prepared to speak out or take responsibility, yet happy to complain about 'the establishment'.
I've said what I needed to say.
You've said zilch apart from calling me racist when I said something you don't like hearing. I think you might need to grow up a bit.
You're not mad at me are you?
Now I understand why JSO protest in the road, so much less likely to attract Police attention.
If the roads were fully policed there would be far fewer cyclist to be policed on the pavement. Two birds, one stone.
Back in 1999 the then Home Secretary Paul Boeteng stated:
"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".
Just shows that words mean nothing in our car obsessed world.
It says that in the article.
Edit: your context has changed now you've added the last sentence.
Yeah, but clearly the Met doesn't believe in that guidance so it's worth repeating it
Facepalm.
Getting policing, social media and public relations all wrong in one neat post.
I can't count the number of times that I've been injured by mums on bikes on pavements
Oh - I see what you did there
can we fine people for walkign across the road with headphones on - far more likely to cause an accident
Why? Going to fine deaf people too?
Pages