50% increase in cyclists prosecuted for cycling on footpaths 2002-2006



M

Martin Dann

Guest
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-05-06a.47.3&s="highway+code"#g47.5

> Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for cycling on a pavement, England and Wales 2002-06(l)(2)
> Year Proceeded against
> 2002 94
> 2003 95
> 2004 118
> 2005 143
> 2006 145


Plus an increase in FPNs from 665 to 821 between 1999 and 2000[1].

Yet the same government has been proclaiming a massive increase in the
amount of white paint put on footpaths to *encourage* cycling on them.

[1] IMHO the FPN data is meaningless without date from more years.
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Wed, 07 May 2008 21:10:08 GMT, Martin Dann
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>> 2002 94
>> 2003 95
>> 2004 118
>> 2005 143
>> 2006 145


/me sets up safepavement.org and proves[1] that prosecuting pavement
cyclist is responsible for one third of all fatalities (c) Cadbury's
Fruit & Nutcase plc, t/a Paul Smith

[1] By working back from the answer via some numbers that my stats
teacher might recognise as having been involved in some other
statistic somewhere at some point, which is of course the approved
method for robust statistical inference.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
V

vernon

Guest
"Martin Dann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-05-06a.47.3&s="highway+code"#g47.5
>
>> Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for cycling
>> on a pavement, England and Wales 2002-06(l)(2)
>> Year Proceeded against
>> 2002 94
>> 2003 95
>> 2004 118
>> 2005 143
>> 2006 145

>
> Plus an increase in FPNs from 665 to 821 between 1999 and 2000[1].
>
> Yet the same government has been proclaiming a massive increase in the
> amount of white paint put on footpaths to *encourage* cycling on them.
>
> [1] IMHO the FPN data is meaningless without date from more years.


There's not enough prosecutions of people riding their bikes on footpaths.
Bikes belong on the road.
 
M

Mark T

Guest
Martin Dann writtificated

>> Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for
>> cycling on a pavement, England and Wales 2002-06(l)(2) Year


>> 2006 145


> Plus an increase in FPNs from 665 to 821 between 1999 and 2000


Yay. I'm slightly surprised at so many going to the magistrates court.
Are those 145 idiots that thought the police had got the law wrong, cheeky
buggers that hadn't paid the fine or can you get sent straight to to the
magistrate?
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Mark T wrote:

> Martin Dann writtificated


>>> Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for
>>> cycling on a pavement, England and Wales 2002-06(l)(2) Year


>>> 2006 145


>> Plus an increase in FPNs from 665 to 821 between 1999 and 2000


> Yay. I'm slightly surprised at so many going to the magistrates court.
> Are those 145 idiots that thought the police had got the law wrong, cheeky
> buggers that hadn't paid the fine or can you get sent straight to to the
> magistrate?


The offence can go straight to court, and as we all know, 145 is
remarkably low, given the frequency of that particular practice.

Remember that TV a few months ago about the CoL Police enforcing the
laws (red lights, one-way streets, footway cycling)? At a guess, I would
think we were shown only the most "entertaining" cases - but a couple of
them were highly indignant at having been stopped. There was one
bike-courier mouthing off at the police for having had the effrontery to
challange his behaviour, then he started on the camera crew before being
arrested for offensive behaviour. Offhand, I can't remember whether he
had ignored a light or cycled on the footway just before being stopped,
but I would think that his case is likely to be one of the sort that
goes straight to court. He didn't appear to be in any mood to accept and
pay a fixed penalty.
 
C

calum

Guest
On May 7, 10:10 pm, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-05-06a.47.3&s="highway....
>
> > Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for cycling on a pavement, England and Wales 2002-06(l)(2)
> > Year       Proceeded against
> > 2002       94
> > 2003       95
> > 2004       118
> > 2005       143
> > 2006       145

>
> Plus an increase in FPNs from 665 to 821 between 1999 and 2000[1].



Long overdue.

Calum
 
D

David Damerell

Guest
Quoting vernon <[email protected]>:
>There's not enough prosecutions of people riding their bikes on footpaths.
>Bikes belong on the road.


They do, but should the police really prioritise this over the large
supply of clowns flinging two-ton metal boxes over the country at Warp
Nine?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Second Monday, May.
 
M

Mark T

Guest
David Damerell writtificated

>>There's not enough prosecutions of people riding their bikes on
>>footpaths. Bikes belong on the road.

>
> They do, but should the police really prioritise this over the large
> supply of clowns flinging two-ton metal boxes over the country at Warp
> Nine?


No, but then again they wouldn't have to.
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Wed, 07 May 2008 21:10:08 GMT, Martin Dann <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-05-06a.47.3&s="highway+code"#g47.5
>
>> Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for cycling on a pavement, England and Wales 2002-06(l)(2)
>> Year Proceeded against
>> 2002 94
>> 2003 95
>> 2004 118
>> 2005 143
>> 2006 145

>
>Plus an increase in FPNs from 665 to 821 between 1999 and 2000[1].
>
>Yet the same government has been proclaiming a massive increase in the
>amount of white paint put on footpaths to *encourage* cycling on them.
>
>[1] IMHO the FPN data is meaningless without date from more years.


Of those 145, how many were innocent? Without knowing that is it as
meaningless as reports that a fish was seen in Sozhou (pronounced
sue-joe) Creek through Shanghai. Without knowing if the fish was
alive or dead it is useless as evidence that the Creek is less
polluted.
 
M

Mark McNeill

Guest
Response to Tom Crispin
> >http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-05-06a.47.3&s="highway+code"#g47.5
> >
> >> Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for cycling on a pavement, England and Wales 2002-06(l)(2)
> >> Year Proceeded against
> >> 2002 94
> >> 2003 95
> >> 2004 118
> >> 2005 143
> >> 2006 145

> >
> >Plus an increase in FPNs from 665 to 821 between 1999 and 2000[1].
> >
> >Yet the same government has been proclaiming a massive increase in the
> >amount of white paint put on footpaths to *encourage* cycling on them.
> >
> >[1] IMHO the FPN data is meaningless without date from more years.

>
> Of those 145, how many were innocent? Without knowing that is it as
> meaningless as reports that a fish was seen in Sozhou (pronounced
> sue-joe) Creek through Shanghai. Without knowing if the fish was
> alive or dead it is useless as evidence that the Creek is less
> polluted.



It would also be useful to know how cycling levels have changed over
that period. Offences could well rise by more than cycling levels: I
suppose it's likely that new cyclists are more liable to ride on
pavements.



--
Mark, UK
"The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant
and the most rascally individuals of mankind."
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Wed, 07 May 2008 21:10:08 GMT, Martin Dann <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-05-06a.47.3&s="highway+code"#g47.5
>>
>>> Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for cycling on a pavement, England and Wales 2002-06(l)(2)
>>> Year Proceeded against
>>> 2002 94
>>> 2003 95
>>> 2004 118
>>> 2005 143
>>> 2006 145

>> Plus an increase in FPNs from 665 to 821 between 1999 and 2000[1].
>>
>> Yet the same government has been proclaiming a massive increase in the
>> amount of white paint put on footpaths to *encourage* cycling on them.
>>
>> [1] IMHO the FPN data is meaningless without date from more years.

>
> Of those 145, how many were innocent? Without knowing that is it as
> meaningless as reports that a fish was seen in Sozhou (pronounced
> sue-joe) Creek through Shanghai. Without knowing if the fish was
> alive or dead it is useless as evidence that the Creek is less
> polluted.


At a guess, it's likely that precisely zero were innocent. It's hard to
conceive of a police officer pulling up a cyclist for cycling on the
footway if the cyclist was cycling along the carriageway (personal
grudges excepted).

Of course, some may have been "innocent" in the sense that the
prosecution paperwork wasn't served in time, or not enough copies in
triplicate were sent to some local official, or something.

But "innocent" in the sense of not having illegally cycled on the footway?

Nil is the most probable number.
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Thu, 08 May 2008 19:50:10 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 May 2008 21:10:08 GMT, Martin Dann <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-05-06a.47.3&s="highway+code"#g47.5
>>>
>>>> Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for cycling on a pavement, England and Wales 2002-06(l)(2)
>>>> Year Proceeded against
>>>> 2002 94
>>>> 2003 95
>>>> 2004 118
>>>> 2005 143
>>>> 2006 145
>>> Plus an increase in FPNs from 665 to 821 between 1999 and 2000[1].
>>>
>>> Yet the same government has been proclaiming a massive increase in the
>>> amount of white paint put on footpaths to *encourage* cycling on them.
>>>
>>> [1] IMHO the FPN data is meaningless without date from more years.

>>
>> Of those 145, how many were innocent? Without knowing that is it as
>> meaningless as reports that a fish was seen in Sozhou (pronounced
>> sue-joe) Creek through Shanghai. Without knowing if the fish was
>> alive or dead it is useless as evidence that the Creek is less
>> polluted.

>
>At a guess, it's likely that precisely zero were innocent. It's hard to
>conceive of a police officer pulling up a cyclist for cycling on the
>footway if the cyclist was cycling along the carriageway (personal
>grudges excepted).
>
>Of course, some may have been "innocent" in the sense that the
>prosecution paperwork wasn't served in time, or not enough copies in
>triplicate were sent to some local official, or something.
>
>But "innocent" in the sense of not having illegally cycled on the footway?
>
>Nil is the most probable number.


I have twice been prosecuted for drunk in charge of a bicycle. I have
twice been found innocent of that offence.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:


>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-05-06a.47.3&s="highway+code"#g47.5


>>>>> Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for cycling on a pavement, England and Wales 2002-06(l)(2)
>>>>> Year Proceeded against
>>>>> 2002 94
>>>>> 2003 95
>>>>> 2004 118
>>>>> 2005 143
>>>>> 2006 145
>>>> Plus an increase in FPNs from 665 to 821 between 1999 and 2000[1].


>>>> Yet the same government has been proclaiming a massive increase in the
>>>> amount of white paint put on footpaths to *encourage* cycling on them.


>>>> [1] IMHO the FPN data is meaningless without date from more years.
>>> Of those 145, how many were innocent? Without knowing that is it as
>>> meaningless as reports that a fish was seen in Sozhou (pronounced
>>> sue-joe) Creek through Shanghai. Without knowing if the fish was
>>> alive or dead it is useless as evidence that the Creek is less
>>> polluted.


>> At a guess, it's likely that precisely zero were innocent. It's hard to
>> conceive of a police officer pulling up a cyclist for cycling on the
>> footway if the cyclist was cycling along the carriageway (personal
>> grudges excepted).
>> Of course, some may have been "innocent" in the sense that the
>> prosecution paperwork wasn't served in time, or not enough copies in
>> triplicate were sent to some local official, or something.
>> But "innocent" in the sense of not having illegally cycled on the footway?
>> Nil is the most probable number.


> I have twice been prosecuted for drunk in charge of a bicycle. I have
> twice been found innocent of that offence.


Different sort of evidence required - similar results used to be
obtained by motor-vehicle-drivers before 1967.

You can't be visually confirmed to be drunk. How "drunk" you are (in the
absence of a rule about blood alcohol and a way of enforced measurement)
is a matter of subjective opinion.

On the other hand, you can very easily be visually confirmed to be
cycling, riding or driving along a footway. It's a bit like smashing a
window: " I saw the defendant, your Worships. He picked up a half-brick
and threw it at the jeweller's window".

But anyway, shame on you - most of us have never given the police cause
to suspect that we might be drunk in charge of anything.

And why twice? That sounds like bad luck - or perhaps like very good
luck, given the outcome(s).

Mind you, I once got breathalysed at dead of night in Aldershot, of all
places (apparently because I didn't know the area and was driving
hesitantly, looking for and at road signs). Of course, the test was
negative and there was no question of it progressing to a prosecution. :)
 
M

Martin

Guest
David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting vernon <[email protected]>:
>> There's not enough prosecutions of people riding their bikes on footpaths.
>> Bikes belong on the road.

>
> They do, but should the police really prioritise this over the large
> supply of clowns flinging two-ton metal boxes over the country at Warp
> Nine?


I think Idiots Onna Bike cycling on a footpath should be prosecuted,
however I think that with current government policy to encourage
pavement cycling, someone cycling responsibly should not be prosecuted.

I do not, however cycle on footpaths. (I do use a shared use at the
moment though).
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Thu, 08 May 2008 21:49:39 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>> Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-05-06a.47.3&s="highway+code"#g47.5

>
>>>>>> Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for cycling on a pavement, England and Wales 2002-06(l)(2)
>>>>>> Year Proceeded against
>>>>>> 2002 94
>>>>>> 2003 95
>>>>>> 2004 118
>>>>>> 2005 143
>>>>>> 2006 145
>>>>> Plus an increase in FPNs from 665 to 821 between 1999 and 2000[1].

>
>>>>> Yet the same government has been proclaiming a massive increase in the
>>>>> amount of white paint put on footpaths to *encourage* cycling on them.

>
>>>>> [1] IMHO the FPN data is meaningless without date from more years.
>>>> Of those 145, how many were innocent? Without knowing that is it as
>>>> meaningless as reports that a fish was seen in Sozhou (pronounced
>>>> sue-joe) Creek through Shanghai. Without knowing if the fish was
>>>> alive or dead it is useless as evidence that the Creek is less
>>>> polluted.

>
>>> At a guess, it's likely that precisely zero were innocent. It's hard to
>>> conceive of a police officer pulling up a cyclist for cycling on the
>>> footway if the cyclist was cycling along the carriageway (personal
>>> grudges excepted).
>>> Of course, some may have been "innocent" in the sense that the
>>> prosecution paperwork wasn't served in time, or not enough copies in
>>> triplicate were sent to some local official, or something.
>>> But "innocent" in the sense of not having illegally cycled on the footway?
>>> Nil is the most probable number.

>
>> I have twice been prosecuted for drunk in charge of a bicycle. I have
>> twice been found innocent of that offence.

>
>Different sort of evidence required - similar results used to be
>obtained by motor-vehicle-drivers before 1967.
>
>You can't be visually confirmed to be drunk. How "drunk" you are (in the
>absence of a rule about blood alcohol and a way of enforced measurement)
>is a matter of subjective opinion.
>
>On the other hand, you can very easily be visually confirmed to be
>cycling, riding or driving along a footway. It's a bit like smashing a
>window: " I saw the defendant, your Worships. He picked up a half-brick
>and threw it at the jeweller's window".
>
>But anyway, shame on you - most of us have never given the police cause
>to suspect that we might be drunk in charge of anything.
>
>And why twice? That sounds like bad luck - or perhaps like very good
>luck, given the outcome(s).
>
>Mind you, I once got breathalysed at dead of night in Aldershot, of all
>places (apparently because I didn't know the area and was driving
>hesitantly, looking for and at road signs). Of course, the test was
>negative and there was no question of it progressing to a prosecution. :)


I've heard of a motorcyclist was found innocent of driving on a
footway.

He was siting on his bike, rolling it down a footway between back
gardens with its engine off but his feet off the ground, when spotted
by a policeman.

He was found innocent of any wrong doing.

The footway was not shared use.
 
P

Paul Boyd

Guest
Mark McNeill said the following on 08/05/2008 18:13:

> It would also be useful to know how cycling levels have changed over
> that period. Offences could well rise by more than cycling levels: I
> suppose it's likely that new cyclists are more liable to ride on
> pavements.


I was quite pleased the other day to see a bloke on a bike followed by a
couple of sproglets on bikes, all in a line on the main road, instead of
on the pavement as seems more normal. At least these kids will actually
learn that the roads are the right place to be, and will learn that
traffic isn't that dangerous when you've learnt how to ride in it.
There wasn't a bit of cotton wool in sight :)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 21:49:39 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>> Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-05-06a.47.3&s="highway+code"#g47.5
>>>>>>> Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for cycling on a pavement, England and Wales 2002-06(l)(2)
>>>>>>> Year Proceeded against
>>>>>>> 2002 94
>>>>>>> 2003 95
>>>>>>> 2004 118
>>>>>>> 2005 143
>>>>>>> 2006 145
>>>>>> Plus an increase in FPNs from 665 to 821 between 1999 and 2000[1].
>>>>>> Yet the same government has been proclaiming a massive increase in the
>>>>>> amount of white paint put on footpaths to *encourage* cycling on them.
>>>>>> [1] IMHO the FPN data is meaningless without date from more years.
>>>>> Of those 145, how many were innocent? Without knowing that is it as
>>>>> meaningless as reports that a fish was seen in Sozhou (pronounced
>>>>> sue-joe) Creek through Shanghai. Without knowing if the fish was
>>>>> alive or dead it is useless as evidence that the Creek is less
>>>>> polluted.
>>>> At a guess, it's likely that precisely zero were innocent. It's hard to
>>>> conceive of a police officer pulling up a cyclist for cycling on the
>>>> footway if the cyclist was cycling along the carriageway (personal
>>>> grudges excepted).
>>>> Of course, some may have been "innocent" in the sense that the
>>>> prosecution paperwork wasn't served in time, or not enough copies in
>>>> triplicate were sent to some local official, or something.
>>>> But "innocent" in the sense of not having illegally cycled on the footway?
>>>> Nil is the most probable number.
>>> I have twice been prosecuted for drunk in charge of a bicycle. I have
>>> twice been found innocent of that offence.

>> Different sort of evidence required - similar results used to be
>> obtained by motor-vehicle-drivers before 1967.
>>
>> You can't be visually confirmed to be drunk. How "drunk" you are (in the
>> absence of a rule about blood alcohol and a way of enforced measurement)
>> is a matter of subjective opinion.
>>
>> On the other hand, you can very easily be visually confirmed to be
>> cycling, riding or driving along a footway. It's a bit like smashing a
>> window: " I saw the defendant, your Worships. He picked up a half-brick
>> and threw it at the jeweller's window".
>>
>> But anyway, shame on you - most of us have never given the police cause
>> to suspect that we might be drunk in charge of anything.
>>
>> And why twice? That sounds like bad luck - or perhaps like very good
>> luck, given the outcome(s).
>>
>> Mind you, I once got breathalysed at dead of night in Aldershot, of all
>> places (apparently because I didn't know the area and was driving
>> hesitantly, looking for and at road signs). Of course, the test was
>> negative and there was no question of it progressing to a prosecution. :)

>
> I've heard of a motorcyclist was found innocent of driving on a
> footway.
>
> He was siting on his bike, rolling it down a footway between back
> gardens with its engine off but his feet off the ground, when spotted
> by a policeman.
>
> He was found innocent of any wrong doing.
>
> The footway was not shared use.


Does the case have any implications for cycling? Was the same law being
applied?
 
A

A.C.P.Crawshaw

Guest
vernon wrote:
>
> There's not enough prosecutions of people riding their bikes on footpaths.
> Bikes belong on the road.


And not enough prosecutions of motorists driving on the pavement. Round here they do it
with impunity, then wander off leaving their vehicles obstructing the passage of
pedestrians.

Alan
 
M

Mark

Guest
On Thu, 08 May 2008 23:18:38 +0100, Martin <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>David Damerell wrote:
>> Quoting vernon <[email protected]>:
>>> There's not enough prosecutions of people riding their bikes on footpaths.
>>> Bikes belong on the road.

>>
>> They do, but should the police really prioritise this over the large
>> supply of clowns flinging two-ton metal boxes over the country at Warp
>> Nine?

>
>I think Idiots Onna Bike cycling on a footpath should be prosecuted,
>however I think that with current government policy to encourage
>pavement cycling, someone cycling responsibly should not be prosecuted.


Since many pavements have been "turned" into cycle paths with some
magic white paint some people may easily mistake an ordinary pavement
for such a cycle path.

>I do not, however cycle on footpaths. (I do use a shared use at the
>moment though).


Only very occasionally do I use a shared use path. I find the
anti-cycle barriers, debris, dogs and all the other hazards make it
inconvenient.


--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org
 
R

Roger Merriman

Guest
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> Mark T wrote:
>
> > Martin Dann writtificated

>
> >>> Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates' courts for
> >>> cycling on a pavement, England and Wales 2002-06(l)(2) Year

>
> >>> 2006 145

>
> >> Plus an increase in FPNs from 665 to 821 between 1999 and 2000

>
> > Yay. I'm slightly surprised at so many going to the magistrates court.
> > Are those 145 idiots that thought the police had got the law wrong, cheeky
> > buggers that hadn't paid the fine or can you get sent straight to to the
> > magistrate?

>
> The offence can go straight to court, and as we all know, 145 is
> remarkably low, given the frequency of that particular practice.
>
> Remember that TV a few months ago about the CoL Police enforcing the
> laws (red lights, one-way streets, footway cycling)? At a guess, I would
> think we were shown only the most "entertaining" cases - but a couple of
> them were highly indignant at having been stopped. There was one
> bike-courier mouthing off at the police for having had the effrontery to
> challange his behaviour, then he started on the camera crew before being
> arrested for offensive behaviour. Offhand, I can't remember whether he
> had ignored a light or cycled on the footway just before being stopped,
> but I would think that his case is likely to be one of the sort that
> goes straight to court. He didn't appear to be in any mood to accept and
> pay a fixed penalty.


red light jumping, when the bike police where in plain sight. very much
a own goal in more than one ways, at least that is what it seems anyhow.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com