Be warned

[Mandy]

Mind you, the judiciary are often sadly lacking too, aren't they? Didn't a judge just grant bail to someone (a policeman) charged with attempted murder... who then went on and killed his mother-in-law, then himself? A very wise decision....not.

No, I think the best way is to use footpaths as and when required and if the law (which they sometimes say is an ass, do they not?) decides to prosecute, then make it cost as much as possible to get the £30 fine.

Sorry but I have to say well said Jimmy as I was appalled by this and have to agree.
I think this country is full of burocracy and silly outdated laws and far too much paper work that takes up valued police time.
Yes there are laws out there, but most supposedly law abiding citizens in any walk of life are probably not aware they are breaking any laws at all in particular.
I think maybe we should put this matter to rest, politics and all that, lol!!
Mandy :0)

 

[Jeremy]

What I think is being said here is that:

1) It's OK for responsible cyclists to break the law. They should be allowed to ride on pavements as they see fit, using their own judgement as to whether or not they are presenting a hazard to pedestrians. They should not be challenged for this breach of the law.

2) It's not OK for irresponsible cyclists to break the law by riding on pavements and potentially endangering pedestrians. The full power of the law should be used to act as a deterrent to such behaviour.

As I have already said, I think this law is very difficult to enforce fairly as it is presently worded and is consequently subject to widely differing interpretation. This is the hallmark of poor law. At the moment, if a police officer sees someone cycling on a roadside pavement, in the presence of pedestrians, we are asking him/her to make a judgement as to whether or not the breach of the law is such that a penalty should be given. Many police officers are ill-equipped to make such a judgement, all they will know is that the law is being broken and they may choose to react in a way that is innapropriate. Curiously, people normally expect police officers to act if they see a breach of the law, except, of course, if it is oneself that is in breach.............

By giving the police the power to issue on the spot fines for such offences, we are asking them to judge guilt or innocence (and the shades of grey in between that exist in many minor breaches of the law). They are not trained or competent to do this very well, hence the problems. The primary roles of a police officer are to uphold the law and keep the peace. Asking them to only uphold some of the law, some of the time, and for some of the people, depending on the individual circumstances, is not appropriate, in my view.

For as long as we have dodgy bits of law, we will have this problem. Usually the judiciary resolve this by the application of common sense, just go along to your local magistrates court and see how it works, it's surprising how often reality differs from the myths of popular reporting. Only the judiciary should have the freedom to make a judgement as to guilt or innocence, based on all the evidence presented to them and taking into account mitigating circumstances. A police officer technically doesn't have any freedom of judgement in this regard and should not be allowed to interpret dodgy law in a seemingly random manner.

This problem is with the way that the law is framed as much as anything else. It seems long overdue for revision for many reasons, not least of which is because it is based on a very old Act that no longer reflects the road conditions of today. It also doesn't take into consideration the plethora of mixed pedestrian/cycle paths that we now have, including many that technically fall within the remit of the original Act by being roadside pavements.

Jeremy

 

[Mandy]

Hi Jeremy

Well maybe it is high time that there was a shake up in this country and the judiciary should work more closely with the police and vice verca.
At the end of the day the police are the law and should take into account the judiciary and actually consider if the crime is worth the hassle, otherwise there is no pont at all.

I have niether the time nor would I want to pop along to my magistrates court to see how it all works as I really do not see the point?
Lets face it: would anyone? Unless they are studying law of course.

Whilst I do not work for the police or for the judiciary, I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent person with good judgement and use the pavements when I need to and not otherwise.

I do not drive a car, but find it irritating that police hide with there speed cameras and fortunes are spent on the road side one's. Whilst I agree especially as a cyclist that Britains cars need to cut there speed, I feel that the police force seem to concentrate more on this than far more important things on there agenda that need to be dealt with.

This thread started with cycling on the pavement and the downfalls if you got caught and now I feel like a criminal, lol! I will be sure to don my balaclava and try to outrun them if they can catch up with me on my new SE, lol!!!
Only kidding Jeremy, thank you for your insight as it is interesting.
Regards
Mandy

 

[Jeremy]

You're right, it is interesting, but the issue of the police and the judiciary is one that I feel strongly about.

The police are always on the side of the prosecution, they are the ones that gather prosecution evidence and make the case. The judiciary MUST remain independent from both the prosecution and the defence, otherwise there would be the potential for the presumption of guilt.

Lobbying for changes to bits of minor law like this is challenging. There is unlikely to be an appetite in Parliament to spend valuable debating and committee time on such changes, particularly as the pedestrian lobby is likely to be considerably more powerful than the cycling one. The most likely route for change is to demonstrate that the law is unworkable, by appealing fixed penalties. This would either cause the police to lose interest, or might just give enough of a push to have amendments made to this bit of law at the next revision.

My best advice to any responsible cyclist who finds themselves on the receiving end of a fixed penalty for pavement cycling would be to take the option to go to court. There is no real need for legal representation for something like this, as long as you know your argument thoroughly and think you can show that the penalty was inappropriate. The court usually bends over backwards to help and advise defendants, to make sure they have the best opportunity to present their case. Despite some of the stuff in the press, the process, at least in the magistrates court, is just about as fair as it can be. There is even a strong possibility that there may be one or two cyclists sitting on the bench.

Jeremy

 

[frank9755]

I think it is important to include the pedestrian's viewpoint in this debate, and the fact is, despite what the tabloids may say, cyclists are not a significant danger to pedestrians but cars are (even on the pavement, neve mind the road!). Legislation to improve the safety of the pedestrian by targeting cyclists is really missing the point.

Here are some useful stats from a CTC press release that I found in a couple of seconds' googling. I'll paste some as they are worth remembering!

Frank


Figures released by Transport for London yesterday, covering the years 2001-05, show that a pedestrian in London is over 100 times more likely to be injured in collision with a motor vehicle than a cycle.* During that period there has been no upward trend in the number of London pedestrians being injured in collision with cycles, despite a 72% increase in cycle use on London’s main roads.
*
The figures show that, in London during the period 2001-05:

• There were 101 times as many reported pedestrian injuries due to collisions with motor vehicles than with pedal cycles (there were 34,791 pedestrian injuries involving motor vehicles, compared with 331 involving cycles).
• Motor vehicles were involved in 126 times as many fatal and serious pedestrian injuries as cycles (there were 7,447 fatal and serious injuries involving motor vehicles compared with 59 involving cycles).
• 534 pedestrians were killed in collisions with motor vehicles, compared with just one killed in collision with a cycle.* That one fatal collision with a cycle occurred neither on a pavement nor a pedestrian crossing point.
• Even on the pavement, there were 2,197 reported pedestrian injuries arising from collisions with motor vehicles, including 17 fatalities.* These injuries outnumbered those involving cycles by a factor of 42 to 1.
• The total number of reported pedestrian injuries in London due to collisions with cyclists on pavements was just 65 in the year 2001, and 69 in 2005.* In the meantime, the figure went down, up and back down again, showing no clear overall trend.* This was despite a 72% increase in cycle use over the period.
• On average just under 18% of cyclists ran red lights, whereas over a third of motorists encroached into cyclists’ “Advance Stop Lines” (cycle boxes at traffic lights).

 

[flecc]

Truth be told, we all interpret the law as "guilty people are other people".
.