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

[Tom Crispin]

On Fri, 09 May 2008 08:28:30 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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?

Yes. It is perfectly legal to cycle on a pavement which is not by the
side of a road, provided cycling on that pavement is not specifically
prohibited by a bylaw.

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 08:28:30 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> 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?
>
> Yes. It is perfectly legal to cycle on a pavement which is not by the
> side of a road, provided cycling on that pavement is not specifically
> prohibited by a bylaw.

So we're not talking of a footway there, but what might more accurately
be described as a footpath?

 

[Peter Grange]

On Wed, 7 May 2008 23:16:03 +0100, "vernon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"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.
>
Broadly I agree.
However, does anyone know for sure what the sign for the end of a
shared ped/cyclist path is? On the pavement alongside Heatherwood
Roundabout in Ascot there are some signs indicating a shared
ped/cyclist pavement (no white lines to separate, just a shared area).
One can cycle quite happily right down the pavement of Ascot High St
without meeting anything looking like an "End" sign, or any paint on
the pavement. How does one know when the shared area stops?

Pete

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 10/05/2008 00:20, Peter Grange said,
> How does one know when the shared area stops?

Try your local council to see if they have a map showing the cycle
facilities in the area. I have one of these shared paths (the A371
towards Banwell) that I use. Eventually it dawned on me that I hadn't
seen any blue signs for a while, so perhaps I ought not to be on it any
more. Having since found out from a council issued map where the cycle
facility ends (it actually crosses the main road for no apparent
reason), I made a point of looking for "End" signs next time I went
along it. I wonder where I would stand if I was prosecuted for riding
on what has become a footpath without any indication of where the
footpath starts and the cyclepath ends?

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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

David Damerell <[email protected]> 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?

Do you have evidence to suggest that the police are prioritising this?
It could be argued that your question is rather similar to "Shouldn't
they be out catching proper criminals?"

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Peter Grange]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:13:59 +0100, Paul Boyd <[email protected]>
wrote:


>I made a point of looking for "End" signs next time I went
>along it. I wonder where I would stand if I was prosecuted for riding
>on what has become a footpath without any indication of where the
>footpath starts and the cyclepath ends?

That was my point exactly. If there is a blue sign where one gets on
to the pavement, and nothing to say the shared facility stops, can one
be prosecuted? I guess I could find out pretty quickly swerving around
the Great and Good parading their hats on the pavement outside Ascot
Racecourse next month. Except, like many residents, I won't be here.
Cycling in France I'll be.

Pete

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Ekul Namsob <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell <[email protected]> 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?
>Do you have evidence to suggest that the police are prioritising this?

I don't believe I asserted that either way.

What I'm saying is that I disagree that there should be more prosecutions
of people riding their bikes on footpaths, at least as long as we have the
enormously more serious problem of dangerous driving for traffic police to
attend to.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Friday, May.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Quoting Ekul Namsob <[email protected]>:
> >David Damerell <[email protected]> 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?
> >Do you have evidence to suggest that the police are prioritising this?
>
> I don't believe I asserted that either way.

I was careful not to claim that you had.

> What I'm saying is that I disagree that there should be more prosecutions
> of people riding their bikes on footpaths, at least as long as we have the
> enormously more serious problem of dangerous driving for traffic police to
> attend to.

I would agree with you. Sadly, the dangerous drivers could insist that
there should not be more prosecutions of dangerous drivers while the
enormously more serious problems of muggings, rapes and murders by
pedestrians exist.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Ekul Namsob <[email protected]>:
>I would agree with you. Sadly, the dangerous drivers could insist that
>there should not be more prosecutions of dangerous drivers while the
>enormously more serious problems of muggings, rapes and murders by
>pedestrians exist.

Those are not more serious problems. Dangerous drivers kill people.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Sunday, May - a weekend.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Quoting Ekul Namsob <[email protected]>:
> >I would agree with you. Sadly, the dangerous drivers could insist that
> >there should not be more prosecutions of dangerous drivers while the
> >enormously more serious problems of muggings, rapes and murders by
> >pedestrians exist.
>
> Those are not more serious problems. Dangerous drivers kill people.

Last I checked, a greater proportion of murderers had killed people than
had dangerous drivers.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Ekul Namsob <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Quoting Ekul Namsob <[email protected]>:
>>>I would agree with you. Sadly, the dangerous drivers could insist that
>>>there should not be more prosecutions of dangerous drivers while the
>>>enormously more serious problems of muggings, rapes and murders by
>>>pedestrians exist.
>>Those are not more serious problems. Dangerous drivers kill people.
>Last I checked, a greater proportion of murderers had killed people than
>had dangerous drivers.

That's a silly way of counting it up, though; a more sensible thing to say
would be that drivers kill about 4-5 times as many people as murder and
manslaughter together (at least in the strange world we live in where
manslaughter isn't manslaughter if you use a car...)
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Chedday, May.

 

[JNugent]

David Damerell wrote:

> Quoting Ekul Namsob <[email protected]>:
>> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Quoting Ekul Namsob <[email protected]>:

>>>> I would agree with you. Sadly, the dangerous drivers could insist that
>>>> there should not be more prosecutions of dangerous drivers while the
>>>> enormously more serious problems of muggings, rapes and murders by
>>>> pedestrians exist.

>>> Those are not more serious problems. Dangerous drivers kill people.

>> Last I checked, a greater proportion of murderers had killed people than
>> had dangerous drivers.

> That's a silly way of counting it up, though; a more sensible thing to say
> would be that drivers kill about 4-5 times as many people as murder and
> manslaughter together (at least in the strange world we live in where
> manslaughter isn't manslaughter if you use a car...

....or if the death is caused by lack of cleaning in a hospital).

 

[Ekul Namsob]

David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Quoting Ekul Namsob <[email protected]>:
> >David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Quoting Ekul Namsob <[email protected]>:
> >>>I would agree with you. Sadly, the dangerous drivers could insist that
> >>>there should not be more prosecutions of dangerous drivers while the
> >>>enormously more serious problems of muggings, rapes and murders by
> >>>pedestrians exist.
> >>Those are not more serious problems. Dangerous drivers kill people.
> >Last I checked, a greater proportion of murderers had killed people than
> >had dangerous drivers.
>
> That's a silly way of counting it up, though; a more sensible thing to say
> would be that drivers kill about 4-5 times as many people as murder and
> manslaughter together (at least in the strange world we live in where
> manslaughter isn't manslaughter if you use a car...)

In case you hadn't noticed, I consider the whole argument that coppers
should not go after one sort of miscreant because other miscreants exist
to be a red herring. If people believe they will get into trouble for
breaking even 'minor' laws, they may well be less likely to break the
more serious laws.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Ekul Namsob <[email protected]>:
>to be a red herring. If people believe they will get into trouble for
>breaking even 'minor' laws, they may well be less likely to break the
>more serious laws.

Yes, I'm sure lots of potential murderers are deterred by being told off
for littering because... no, wait.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is Stilday, May - a weekend.

 

[Daniel Barlow]

David Damerell <[email protected]> writes:

> Quoting Ekul Namsob <[email protected]>:
>>to be a red herring. If people believe they will get into trouble for
>>breaking even 'minor' laws, they may well be less likely to break the
>>more serious laws.
>
> Yes, I'm sure lots of potential murderers are deterred by being told off
> for littering because... no, wait.

No, he has a point. I for one have often planned armed bank robberies
with violence, only to be put off by the prospect of having the
getaway car ticketed for parking on a single yellow outside the
building.

Of course, now that parking offences are decriminalised this need be a
problem no longer. But now I need stockings for a mask, I'd be too
embarrassed to buy them in case people I know see me, and I don't want
to get caught shoplifting.


-dan

 

[JNugent]

David Damerell wrote:

> Quoting Ekul Namsob <[email protected]>:

>> to be a red herring. If people believe they will get into trouble for
>> breaking even 'minor' laws, they may well be less likely to break the
>> more serious laws.

> Yes, I'm sure lots of potential murderers are deterred by being told off
> for littering because... no, wait.

"Zero Tolerance" is actually a respected policy for crime prevention, as
illustrated by the New York Giuliani experience.

Even if it didn't work to prevent later "serious" crime (the sort the
police prefer dealing with - they don't really like dealing with
lower-level anti-social behaviour), it's still worthwhile on a quality
of life basis.

As a retired police officer of my acquaintance says, the Krays started
off smashing windows and street-lamps, before progressing to screwing
gas meters. Life with fewer broken windows and streetlamps, as well as
intact gas-meters, is still better.