Cycling Forums › Forums › Regional Cycling Forums › UK and Europe › Why police don't nick pavement cyclists
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why police don't nick pavement cyclists  

post #1 of 34
Thread Starter 
From yesterday's local rag:

Mr Burgess has missed the point (Stop cycling, Letters, March 26). You wouldn't ridicule your
builder for not completing your garage if you'd refused to let him use bricks and mortar and he'd
got five others to build that day as well.

When I was a uniform policeman at the beginning of the 1980s, I dealt with 30 pavement cycling
youths in 90 minutes in total.

Anyone with a previous warning for anything went to court.

A good lesson to take into adulthood.

In 1984 the Police and Criminal Evidence Act arrived and dealing with one pavement cyclist now
became a saga spread over several meetings involving parents, solicitors and eating up several hours
of valuable time.

Add to that the explosion of crime due to heroin addiction and remember most crimes when merely
being recorded (never mind investigating) take a police officer off the street and inside to
record it.

If Mr Burgess genuinely wants positive change, he should write to those who control the rules and
tools affecting the police and that certainly is not the chief constable.

Mr Burgess will find getting any such changes much more difficult than making insinuations of
laziness against hard-working police officers.

Anyone can state the obvious but not many can provide workable alternatives.

Perhaps the time is right for a Royal Commission on policing so the public can decide what jobs they
want the police to deal with and what not.

All obviously in the time available.

G Harrison, Highfield Road, Beverley.

Original letter: I Have read, with a wry smile, all the letters over the years from readers
complaining against cycling on the pavement. Several years back I took up the challenge of trying
to have this stopped, but the chief constable did not even acknowledge my letter.

Cycling on the pavement is a crime. Spitting on the pavement is a crime, as is dropping litter,
parking on double yellow lines and hundreds of other acts, which are too numerous to mention, but
are anti-social and criminal.

Whose job is it to stop crime? Our invisible police force. Until we, the people, are allowed to
elect a chief constable and other officers, we have to make do with appointees.

To end with, I parody what was once a popular song: "Where have all the vicars gone?" Their job is
to be out there ministering to their flock.

I have never spoken to one outside a church and, as I do not attend church, I do not see a
clergyman. But then, they are also led by a bishop who, like the chief constable, is invisible.

P Burgess, St Frances Court, Hull.

--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W http://www.simonmason.karoo.net
post #2 of 34

Re: Why police don't nick pavement cyclists

> Mr Burgess has missed the point (Stop cycling, Letters, March 26). You wouldn't ridicule your
> builder for not completing your garage if you'd refused to let him use bricks and mortar and he'd
> got five others to build that day as well.

I think cycling on the pavement is a perceived danger, rather than an actual one. Does anyone know
the stats of people injured or killed by pavement cyclists each year? As I recall it's negligible,
especially when compared to deaths from people driving on the footpath. Where I am the police are
pretty overstretched already. To add to that they now need a few hundred officers each weekend at
the anti-war protests. So I don't see how they'd have the time to book footpath cyclists.

The 1% NI increase goes live this weekend I think. If they took another 1% and put it into more
police to deal with anti-social driving, bike theft and the like I'd support it in a second.
post #3 of 34

Re: Why police don't nick pavement cyclists

In news:3E902E68.6FB105EB@ntlworld.com, Peter Simons <peter_simons@ntlworld.com> typed:

> removed. A solution to a lot of the problems you describe come from society as a (w)hole and not
> just more police.

Well said.

In my youth (only about 15 years ago) we knew that you weren't *supposed* to cycle on the pavement;
a bobby would tell you this and that this was because of the danger of knocking over someones granny
[1]. And if you *did* cycle on the pavement, you would keep a look out for peds and let them pass,
rather than expect *them* to move out of your way as seems to be the case nowadays.

However since the 1980s Government (especially Local Authorities) has been putting across mixed
messages by the deployment of the shared use pavements.

I must say I am not sure whether some pavements in Reading are "fair game" or not, as the
signposting is quite unclear, and doesn't even seem to match up with the maps the unitary
authorities provide! Worse still, the balkanisation of Berkshire in 1998 has led to the
unitary authorities each adopting their *own* policy towards cycling facilities thus
furthering the confusion

Another knock on effect of the introduction of the PACE act and other police "reforms" was the
increased paperwork caused coppers to stop participating in schools cycling proficiency schemes;
which naturally would have adversely affected the standard of cycling amonst young people since
the 1980s.

It seems also that the confusion over shared use pavements has led even parents and "responsible"
kids (such as the Scouts and Cubs as a scoutmaster mentioned) to consider that cyclists are
*supposed* to be there; not to mention pressure from the road lobby, including increasingly
aggressive driving where "no one wants to share the road, be it with a motorist or a cyclist" - and
the aggressive riding of *some* people; all fall out from the "me! me! me! generation"

Perhaps what is needed is more publicity given to safe cycling in places like schools, libraries,
youth clubs and on sites visited by young people; and perhaps a return to the "bobby on the beat"
who themselves cycled and set a good example.

IMO there is also a case for the Police checking on *why* some youths cycle on the pavement, as
sometimes they are nicking handbags, laptops and other items from pedestrians and using the bikes as
a getaway vehicle.

Alex
[1] But not my Granny, she is in Kuala Lumpur. And although the roads are probably worse in those
areas, she has had 89 years of dodging cyclists (with improbable loads), motorcyclists, cars
driven on both sides of the road in all directions, running dogs, chickens, buffaloes, jungle
cats, etc. These days unfortunately there is more motor traffic and less livestock there, and
she is driven everywhere by my uncles - I suppose that is what is called "progress".
post #4 of 34

Re: Why police don't nick pavement cyclists

It's true that cyclists (statistically) don't kill pedestrians (and that motorists do kill both
cyclists and pedestrians). However I like the following corollary, which I may have originally
read on here:

Imagine that several times a week entirely at random, someone put a drawing pin on your chair. It
won't kill you and it won't cause serious injury but it will have an unpleasant and upsetting effect
on your life. Inconsiderate pavement cycling is like that.

When I cycle on the road I treat it as my domain and assert my right to be there. When I cycle on
the pavement I consider it kind of the pedestrians to share their space, keep my speed down to
theirs and always give them right of way.

Shared pedestrian/cycle paths are a recipe for disaster. Who has priority the cyclist? the
pedestrian? the pedestrian's dog? or the broken glass?

Shared bus/cycle lanes can be good but I sometimes wish there were shared car/juggernaut lanes just
for the edification of the non-cycling motorist.
:-)

my 0.032 euros ian
post #5 of 34

Re: Why police don't nick pavement cyclists

"Ian D" <deletethis.dnai@btopenworld.com.andthis> writes:

> It's true that cyclists (statistically) don't kill pedestrians (and that motorists do kill both
> cyclists and pedestrians).

Relatively recently someone hereabouts was quoting some statistics suggesting that per vehicle-mile
bikes kill about a quarter of the number of pedestrians as cars. Of course there are vastly more
car-miles, so in absolute terms, bikes kill very few pedestrians.

Another point is it that pavement cyclists simply make it less pleasant to walk on the pavements.
post #6 of 34

Re: Why police don't nick pavement cyclists

> A solution to a lot of the problems you describe come from society as a hole and not just
> more police.
>

Couldn't agree more but i'll keep off my "society is to blame" soapbox in this thread, other than to
say if people would drive less and drive safer the roads would be nice to cycle on and nobody would
cycle on the pavements anyway.

Cheers
post #7 of 34

Re: Why police don't nick pavement cyclists

On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 13:16:38 +0000 (UTC),
Johnny Klunk <johnnyklunk@:> wrote:
>
> I think cycling on the pavement is a perceived danger, rather than an actual one. Does anyone know
> the stats of people injured or killed by pavement cyclists each year? As I recall it's negligible,
> especially when compared to deaths from people driving on the footpath.
There is a letter in April/May Cycle.

2001 figures:

pedestrian injuries involving a cycle. 64 on the pavement, 148 on the road. 57 were serious (no
breakdown re pavement/road)

Car/pedestrian on pavement: 7 pedestrians killed, 77 seriously injured, 520 slightly injured.

(N.B. This is just cars, not motorvehicles)

Regards,

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/
post #8 of 34

Re: Why police don't nick pavement cyclists

In message <Byaka.112$1F4.26576@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>, John Redman
<johnredman@ntlworld.com> writes
>I am a local councillor and I once tackled our local beat bobby about cycling on our village
>pavements. He replied that the roads were too dangerous for children and he would advise his own to
>do the same. I must add that the area is all covered by 30mph restrictions.
>
>John R

Perhaps you should ask his superiors what they think of his views. Unless they have instructed him
to ignore pavement cycling he seems to not be doing his job.
--
Michael MacClancy
post #9 of 34

Re: Why police don't nick pavement cyclists

"John Redman" <johnredman@ntlworld.com> writes:

> I am a local councillor and I once tackled our local beat bobby about cycling on our village
> pavements. He replied that the roads were too dangerous for children and he would advise his own
> to do the same. I must add that the area is all covered by 30mph restrictions.

Then perhaps he should be nicking all the dangerous drivers that apparently frequent your village?
post #10 of 34

Re: Why police don't nick pavement cyclists

In message <dik29vcp7b3r39793251sv7349cln9ql2o@4ax.com>, T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> writes
>Hi Michael,
>
>Shouldn't this all need to be kept in perpective?

Yes, within the perspective that pavement cycling is illegal. Furthermore, if cyclists desert the
roads and take to the pavements drivers who injure cyclists will start using the excuse, "But s/he
should have been on the pavement" in the same way that insurance companies try to argue contributory
negligence when cyclists don't wear helmets. (See another thread.)

>
>Cycling on the pavement in the UK is illegal? Yes
>
>Are there many miles of rural pavement that are slightly remote from the main (and often fast,
>twisty and narrow) road that would offer a safer journey for most cyclists and completely abandoned
>by the pedestrians that are now all in cars?

Are there? There isn't much rural pavement anywhere near I live - on the edge of a rural area.

>
>But as far as 'illegal' activities go, and when taken in the above light, is pretty 'low profile'.
>The addition of a white stripe down the middle of the path and a picture of a cycle every 100 yards
>then not illegal at all? Same cycles, same pedestrians same 'risks' to both with or without the
>white line?

The difference is that the pedestrians know it's a shared use path.

>
>There are quite a few 'shared' footpaths around our town and although *we* stick to the
>'cycling' side the pedestrians do not stick to theirs? Why don't the police 'nick' them ?<devils
>advocate> ;-)

It would be interesting to hear what the legal position is on this one.

>
>All the best
>
>T i m
>
>
>p.s. Years ago I was 'done' for doing 63 mph, in a 70 limit (derestricted dual carrigeway)
> *because* the construstion of my vehicle (a Morris Minor Van) was deemed to be a 'Goods
> Vehicle'? I was therefore limited to 50 mph?
>
>I took my papers to the local Cop shop and they informed me that the traffic dept had 'got it
>wrong' and I wouldn't hear anyting ..
>
>So first offence, in a totally road legal vehicle, within the speed limit (of the road) on the dry,
>empty, sunny road and got an endoresment, a fine and had to pay court costs? (and I was polite to
>the officer and stopped quicky when requested etc (I had even seen them following me for some
>distance but was unaware I was doing anything wrong))!

So were you in the right or not? Did the traffic police make a mistake? Couldn't you be bothered /
couldn't you afford to fight your case?

>
>Did anyone (except the local Traffic dept) think the outcome was reasonable under the circumstances
>... nope?
>
>Did that change my feelings towards the Police in general .. Yep.

Why should it? They can make mistakes just like everyone else.

>
>Would I stop to help the Police at the scene of an accident as I used to ...

I would hope so. It's really the victim who needs helping, the police are only agents.
--
Michael MacClancy
post #11 of 34

Re: Why police don't nick pavement cyclists

In message <ab018408.0304070515.54c6402a@posting.google.com>, Rory <spacenetus@yahoo.com> writes
>"Tony W" <tonyREMOVE@chapmore.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<b6reaf$88abg$1@ID-161007.news.dfncis.de>...
>> "John Redman" <johnredman@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:Byaka.112$1F4.26576@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>> > I am a local councillor and I once tackled our local beat bobby about cycling on our village
>> > pavements. He replied that the roads were too dangerous for children and he would advise his
>> > own to do the same. I must add that the area is all covered by 30mph restrictions.
>>
>> Another victory of woolly minded intuition over reality
>
>What does he mean there? Cars at 30mph cannot endanger children? Even if the speed limit is obeyed
>(dream on...) half a ton of steel at 30mph will flatten even local councillors (why do I have an
>image of David Horton when I see "local councillor"?)

My interpretation is he means that the policeman is exaggerating the risk. Of course cars travelling
at 30mph can endanger children but the statistics demonstrate that the risk is very low. Certainly
not high enough to warrant a wholesale migration to the pavements.
--
Michael MacClancy
post #12 of 34

Re: Why police don't nick pavement cyclists

Quote:
Originally posted by Simon Mason
From yesterday's local rag:

<snip>
Cycling on the pavement is a crime. Spitting on the pavement is a crime, as is dropping litter, parking on double yellow lines and hundreds of other acts, which are too numerous to mention, but
are anti-social and criminal.
</snip>

<snip>
To end with, I parody what was once a popular song: "Where have all the vicars gone?" Their job is to be out there ministering to their flock.

I have never spoken to one outside a church and, as I do not attend church, I do not see a clergyman. But then, they are also led by a bishop who, like the chief constable, is invisible.
</snip>

So why isn't the letter-writer ranting about pavement-spitters, litter-louts, double-yellow-parkers and the perpetrators of the other acts too numerous to mention?

And what on earth is the business of vicars and invisible bishops about?

A sideline: when I was a kid there was a widely-held belief that you were allowed to ride on the pavement if your bike had small wheels - in those days small wheels meant a small bike ridden by a small child. Was this true? Is it still true? Does it mean that adults on BMXs and folders are immune from prosecution? What about scooters, and motorized scooters?

Chris Walker
post #13 of 34

Re: Why police don't nick pavement cyclists

In message <30739v4b91c9c02lhfcmdhg0obpd04i61f@4ax.com>, T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> writes
>On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 14:27:40 +0100, Michael MacClancy <news@macclancy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <dik29vcp7b3r39793251sv7349cln9ql2o@4ax.com>, T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> writes
>>>Hi Michael,
>>>
>>>Shouldn't this all need to be kept in perpective?
>>
>>Yes, within the perspective that pavement cycling is illegal.
>
>[T] Indeed ..
>
>>Furthermore, if cyclists desert the roads and take to the pavements drivers who injure cyclists
>>will start using the excuse, "But s/he should have been on the pavement" in the same way that
>>insurance companies try to argue contributory negligence when cyclists don't wear helmets. (See
>>another thread.)
>
>[T] I am for most of this argument refering to the use of the pavement, by my 12yr old daughter. My
> Wife and I stick to the roads.

Change the above to, "But the 12yr old girl should have been on the pavement, Officer."

>However, there are times when I will 'lead' my daughter through what I see as a dangerous
>intersection or a twisty fast country road by using the path for her safety and mine? If this set's
>a presidence so be it ... time for a cycle lane there maybe? Or, are you suggesting I put my
>daughter and possibly my Wife at risk by insisting they use the road where an unused path runs
>parallel?

What's the matter with pushing?

>>
>>>
>>>Cycling on the pavement in the UK is illegal? Yes
>>>
>>>Are there many miles of rural pavement that are slightly remote from the main (and often fast,
>>>twisty and narrow) road that would offer a safer journey for most cyclists and completely
>>>abandoned by the pedestrians that are now all in cars?
>>
>>Are there? There isn't much rural pavement anywhere near I live - on the edge of a rural area.
>
>[T] On the edge or rural is still surburban isn't it?

No, on the edge of rural means what it says. In front of me suburban, behind me rural. One mile from
where I am sitting is most definitely rural. There isn't a footpath anywhere to be seen.
>>
>>>
>>>But as far as 'illegal' activities go, and when taken in the above light, is pretty 'low
>>>profile'. The addition of a white stripe down the middle of the path and a picture of a cycle
>>>every 100 yards then not illegal at all? Same cycles, same pedestrians same 'risks' to both with
>>>or without the white line?
>>
>>The difference is that the pedestrians know it's a shared use path.
>
>[T] No more than most of them realise a 'shared path' is shared?

Well, anyone who can't understand the signs must be stupid.

>>
>>>
>>>There are quite a few 'shared' footpaths around our town and although *we* stick to the
>>>'cycling' side the pedestrians do not stick to theirs? Why don't the police 'nick' them ?<devils
>>>advocate> ;-)
>>
>>It would be interesting to hear what the legal position is on this one.
>
>[T] We always give peds 'right of way' .. however .. it would seem some are intent on commiting
> suicide not only in front of us but other road users as well. We have the same issue with cars
> <> motorbikes. Car drivers don't see us motorcyclists as we are seen as little risk to them, as
> peds do re cyclists?

I would have thought peds were more likely to be injured by cyclists than vice versa.

>>
>
>>>
>>>p.s. Years ago I was 'done' for doing 63 mph, in a 70 limit (derestricted dual carrigeway)
>>> *because* the construstion of my vehicle (a Morris Minor Van) was deemed to be a 'Goods
>>> Vehicle'? I was therefore limited to 50 mph?
>>>
>>>I took my papers to the local Cop shop and they informed me that the traffic dept had 'got it
>>>wrong' and I wouldn't hear anyting ..
>>>
>>>So first offence, in a totally road legal vehicle, within the speed limit (of the road) on the
>>>dry, empty, sunny road and got an endoresment, a fine and had to pay court costs? (and I was
>>>polite to the officer and stopped quicky when requested etc (I had even seen them following me
>>>for some distance but was unaware I was doing anything wrong))!
>>
>>So were you in the right or not?
>
>[T] No, a friend you was a Sargent at one of the training schools went into the lib to look up the
> 'rules'. After a long search he found a book that covered the suitable section and my vehicle
> *was* constructed as a goos vechile. Had I added a pair of side windows of two square feet
> behind the drivers position and had two rear windows of at least 100 sq inches (which the van
> had) it could of been seen as a 'multi purpose vehicle' 9aka Estate car) and I would not have
> been commiting an offence?
>
>Did the traffic police make a mistake?
>>Couldn't you be bothered / couldn't you afford to fight your case?
>>
>[T] No and therefore there was nothing to 'fight'. I plead guilty by letter (no point doing
> otherwise) but they still proseuted?

Well, the law might seem to be an ass sometimes but I'm sure there are good reasons for these rules.
If not, campaign to have them changed.

>>>
>>>Did anyone (except the local Traffic dept) think the outcome was reasonable under the
>>>circumstances ... nope?
>>>
>>>Did that change my feelings towards the Police in general .. Yep.
>>
>>Why should it? They can make mistakes just like everyone else.
>>
>[T] As above.
>>>
>>>Would I stop to help the Police at the scene of an accident as I used to ...
>>
>>I would hope so. It's really the victim who needs helping, the police are only agents.
>
>[T] Indeed, and the Police are paid by us to protect 'us' against folk who are trying to do
> otherwise? Not those minding their own buisness doing 63 in a 70 limit

............. in a vehicle not permitted to do this speed.......

>or taking the odd safety shortcut along a deserted footpath to protect their children?

................ riding on a footpath when you could push ......

>I wouldn't do the illegal thing if there was a workable alternative (we could all stay indoors or
>move to Milton Keynes with all it's cycleways I suppose?)
>
>There is a suggestion that things have to get worse before they can get better and that to some
>degree is where we are (in the UK) ... 'on our own' at the moment. The Police have insufficient
>funds and manpower do deal with the real damaging stuff, let alone get to deal with the trivial.
>
>Moreso, most of the Police Officers are parents and asked 'off record', would probably advise their
>children to do the same?

........ Perhaps, but that doesn't make it right.
>
>Recent survey re the use of (illegal) dark lenses as used on motorcycles in the UK. Most of the
>Police forces contacted suggested that they would NOT 'pull' a rider for that alone. If they were
>riding dangerously, ran a loud exhaust pipe, small number plate, riding with a dark visor at night
>etc then they would stop the biker. Even then, depending on their attitude and the seriousness of
>the bikers actions often let them off with a warning ..

One of the reasons people don't obey the law is that they know that they won't be penalised. I
suspect there's a spiralling effect at play here.

>
>And what would happen if my 12 yr old was stopped by the Police for just riding on an empty
>pavement?

It happened to me when I was about 12. I was cautioned and didn't do it again.

>There are loads of kids caught every day breaking into cars and houses and they are often just
>taken home?

I am sure plenty of youngsters enter the judicial process under these circumstances.

--
Michael MacClancy
post #14 of 34

Re: Why police don't nick pavement cyclists

In message <3df39vs8hbnnc15391tv6ua6it8qjgg8ob@4ax.com>, T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> writes
>>>[T] I am for most of this argument refering to the use of the pavement, by my 12yr old daughter.
>>> My Wife and I stick to the roads.
>>
>>Change the above to, "But the 12yr old girl should have been on the pavement, Officer."
>
>[T] So, there is a two mile run of narrow, fast, twisty country road with no side escape and a
> 'remote' path running parallel. You are telling me you would 'rather' take your chances on the
> road than 'make use' of an unused (by peds) path?

I probably would stay on the road. I used a cycle path on Saturday and regretted it because I got a
pinch flat almost immediately. At least the road surfaces are pretty free of debris.

>>
>>
>>>However, there are times when I will 'lead' my daughter through what I see as a dangerous
>>>intersection or a twisty fast country road by using the path for her safety and mine? If this
>>>set's a presidence so be it ... time for a cycle lane there maybe? Or, are you suggesting I put
>>>my daughter and possibly my Wife at risk by insisting they use the road where an unused path runs
>>>parallel?

Does your wife stay on the road or not? See your comment above.
>>
>>What's the matter with pushing?
>
>[T] Nothing .. it's just slower and apert from not being 'illegal' I can't see the point? Loads of
> folk do illegal things like smoking dope and it dosen't 'stop' them from doing it?

And I know lots of people who don't smoke dope because it's illegal. Is this a discussion about
cycling or dope smoking?

>
>>
>>>[T] No more than most of them realise a 'shared path' is shared?
>>
>>Well, anyone who can't understand the signs must be stupid.
>
>[T] Have you not followed the "Audible warning' thread .. do you actually cycle outside .. if so
> you 'must' of come across people who don't seem to be in charge of themselves, let alone their
> kids / dogs etc etc? It's the same folk who sit and smoke under a 'No Smoking' sign or park
> across my 'No Parking' gate ... yes .. there are stupid people out there ..
>

All perfectly good reasons to stay off pavements and cycle paths, even.

>>
>>Well, the law might seem to be an ass sometimes but I'm sure there are good reasons for these
>>rules. If not, campaign to have them changed.
>
>[T] And how do people often campaign about something .. they occupy it!

I don't understand. Occupying your car wouldn't have helped you much.

>>
>>>[T] Indeed, and the Police are paid by us to protect 'us' against folk who are trying to do
>>> otherwise? Not those minding their own buisness doing 63 in a 70 limit
>>
>>............. in a vehicle not permitted to do this speed.......
>
>[T] Indeed ...so you think the resultant was correct then ..

Yes.

>do you live in a black and white world?

No.

>>
>>>or taking the odd safety shortcut along a deserted footpath to protect their children?
>>
>>................ riding on a footpath when you could push ......
>
>[T] I might as well leave the bikes at home and just walk about? Do you find pushing a cycle
> (especially a loaded one) a fun experience, let alone a Tandem?

Riding a tandem on a pavement/footpath seems even more irresponsible.

>>
>
>>>Moreso, most of the Police Officers are parents and asked 'off record', would probably advise
>>>their children to do the same?
>>
>>........ Perhaps, but that doesn't make it right.
>

>[T] Do you always do what's 'right' especially when it's not safe?
>>>
>

In this case doing what's wrong might be unsafe for pedestrians. To answer your question - no.

>>>And what would happen if my 12 yr old was stopped by the Police for just riding on an empty
>>>pavement?
>>
>>It happened to me when I was about 12. I was cautioned and didn't do it again.
>>
>[T] A lesson learnt then .. I'm still waiting for mine (apart from my reckless 63 mph moment up a
> 70mph dual carrageway in my 1/2 ton 'commecial vehicle' ... and that was in 1978 ..)

Are you suggesting that you have to be found guilty of a felony before you learn a lesson?
>>
>>>There are loads of kids caught every day breaking into cars and houses and they are often just
>>>taken home?
>>
>>I am sure plenty of youngsters enter the judicial process under these circumstances.
>
>[T] The repeat offenders maybe ... do you not watch the telly ... progs showing estates being
> terrorised by gangs of 10-14 yr olds. They get caught, get taken to the Police station and are
> back home 2 hours later?

Yes, there do appear to be problems with the criminal justice system.

>
>"Excuse me Officer, I've just seen a family riding along the path on that road where the cyclist
>got killed by a lorry last week ... "

"Excuse me Officer, I've just seen a family riding along the path where that old lady got hurt by
that tandem last week .....?
>
>Riding on the pavement .. you are having a laugh!

Riding on the pavement .. you are having a laugh, aren't you?
>
>Ride safe ... (honestly ..)
>
>T i m ;-)
>

--
Michael MacClancy
post #15 of 34

Re: Why police don't nick pavement cyclists

T i m wrote:
> There are quite a few 'shared' footpaths around our town and although *we* stick to the
> 'cycling' side the pedestrians do not stick to theirs? Why don't the police 'nick' them ?<devils
> advocate> ;-)

Probably because there is no legal requirement for peds to stick to their side, while there is a
legal requirement for cyclists to stick to the cycling side.

> Would I stop to help the Police at the scene of an accident as I used to ...

Depends whether you want to be charged with failing to stop at the scene of an 'accident' ....

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: UK and Europe
This thread is locked  
Cycling Forums › Forums › Regional Cycling Forums › UK and Europe › Why police don't nick pavement cyclists