Another letter

Missed this one

Title "Police should get their priorities right" (re:fining pavement cyclists) size 28 kB 56k
download 6 secs.

http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zpaper2.htm

 

"Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Missed this one
>
> Title "Police should get their priorities right" (re:fining pavement cyclists) size 28 kB 56k
> download 6 secs.
>
> http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zpaper2.htm

Well done Plod. Nail the bastards who cycle on pavements. They are a menace.

T

 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:08:09 -0000, Simon Mason scrawled: )
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zpaper2.htm

"I was caught doing something illegal, that I knew was illegal, and I'm very angry about it.
Shouldn't the police be out chasing real criminals
i.e. not middle class and respectable like myself?"

It's like a letter to Martian.fm . I'm just glad for the doberman that he was caught before he ran
it (or its owner) over.

J-P
--
there are doors that lock and doors that don't

 

sounds just like a cager having been done for speeding

panda

"Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Missed this one
>
> Title "Police should get their priorities right" (re:fining pavement cyclists) size 28 kB 56k
> download 6 secs.
>
> http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zpaper2.htm

 

Simon Mason <[email protected]> wrote:
> Missed this one
>
> Title "Police should get their priorities right" (re:fining pavement cyclists) size 28 kB 56k
> download 6 secs.
>
> http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zpaper2.htm

Its not at all clear that it was a legal fine (apart from it seeming to be £10 more than the £20
spot fine). The offence of cycling on pavements is from The Highways Act 1835 Section 72 and applies
to "any footpath or causeway alongside the road". If its not alongside a road its arguably not an
offence under that Act. There may be a Traffic Regulation Order that makes it an offence in that
particular place but TRO offences are not covered by Fixed Penalty Notices.

It also seems to go directly against assurances given at the time of enactment by the then Home
Office Minister Paul Boteng who is on record as saying "'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 when doing so. Chief police officers,
who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and
young people, are afraid to cycle in the road... sensitivity and careful use of police discretion
is required"

Just my £0.02

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them
their job."

Samuel Goldwyn

 

I email West Yorkshire Police when this new law came in and I received a message to the effect
of 'if you aren't bothering anyone don't worry' Sounds like the Humberside Conts need to make
some quota up

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Simon Mason <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Missed this one
> >
> > Title "Police should get their priorities right" (re:fining pavement cyclists) size 28 kB 56k
> > download 6 secs.
> >
> > http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zpaper2.htm
>
> Its not at all clear that it was a legal fine (apart from it seeming to be £10 more than the £20
> spot fine). The offence of cycling on pavements is from The Highways Act 1835 Section 72 and
> applies to "any footpath or causeway alongside the road". If its not alongside a road its arguably
not
> an offence under that Act. There may be a Traffic Regulation Order that makes it an offence in
> that particular place but TRO offences are not covered by Fixed Penalty Notices.
>
> It also seems to go directly against assurances given at the time of enactment by the then Home
> Office Minister Paul Boteng who is on record as saying "'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 when doing so. Chief police
> officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge
that
> many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle in the road...
> sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is
required"
>
> Just my £0.02
>
> Tony
>
> --
> http://www.raven-family.com
>
> "I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them
> their job."
>
> Samuel Goldwyn

 

"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Missed this one
> >
> > Title "Police should get their priorities right" (re:fining pavement cyclists) size 28 kB 56k
> > download 6 secs.
> >
> > http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zpaper2.htm
>
>
> Well done Plod. Nail the bastards who cycle on pavements. They are a menace.

Damn right! I know hundreds of people killed an injured by them.

 

In article <[email protected]>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of "j-p.s" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "I was caught doing something illegal, that I knew was illegal, and I'm very angry about it.
> Shouldn't the police be out chasing real criminals
> i.e. not middle class and respectable like myself?"

Precisely. £30 seem a proportionate punishment for a minor offence.

> It's like a letter to Martian.fm . I'm just glad for the doberman that he was caught before he ran
> it (or its owner) over.

I thought the tone of the letter was that he and the dog+owner were perfectly happy to live and let
live. As is usual on sparsely-used paths in the absence of attitude problems.

--
Wear your paunch with pride!

 

"Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Well done Plod. Nail the bastards who cycle on pavements. They are a menace.
>
> Damn right! I know hundreds of people killed an injured by them.

You exaggerate. However, pavement cyclists do cause annoyance -- especially to older people who are
perhaps not as agile as they once were -- and the occasional injury.

Cyclists have a perfectly good part of the highway to use -- the road. It is no more than an
affectation to ride on the pavement. You are no safer, you are slower but you are causing an
annoyance to the rightful users of that space.

£0 quid seems about right for a fine -- but I believe the maximum is nearer 1000.

T

 

"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> £0 quid seems about right for a fine -- but I believe the maximum is
nearer
> 1000.

Whoops -- 30 quid

 

"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > Well done Plod. Nail the bastards who cycle on pavements. They are a menace.
> >
> > Damn right! I know hundreds of people killed an injured by them.
>
> You exaggerate. However, pavement cyclists do cause annoyance --
especially
> to older people

Who just seem to enjoy being annoyed by trivial things.

I was in London the other week and there was a bloke waving his walking stick at a cyclist. God, if
he's given the bloke enough space to wave a walking stick he;s got enough space to walk.

 

"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > Well done Plod. Nail the bastards who cycle on pavements. They are a menace.
> >
> > Damn right! I know hundreds of people killed an injured by them.
>
> You exaggerate. However, pavement cyclists do cause annoyance --
especially
> to older people who are perhaps not as agile as they once were -- and the occasional injury.
>
> Cyclists have a perfectly good part of the highway to use -- the road. It is no more than an
> affectation to ride on the pavement. You are no safer, you are slower but you are causing an
> annoyance to the rightful users of that space.
>

This isn't true there are many instance where it is both much safer and quicker to ride on
the pavement.

I'm not saying I support rushing past the coffin dodgers from behind. I'm not saying I don't
understand that pavement cycling can introduce extra danger when crossing roads. You may disagree
with Councils misguidedly trying to force cyclists onto pavements with shared use paths. But many,
many cyclists do use pavements very safely and responsibly.

You cannot make sweeping statement such as *it is no safer to ride on pavements* this is a gross
generalisation based on the skimpiest statistics, flying in the face of common sense, worthy of Paul
Smith. Many times (not all, or even most, but many) you are much safer on the pavement. The trick is
to understand when, where and why.

 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:48:49 -0000 someone who may be "Tony Raven" <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>It also seems to go directly against assurances given at the time of enactment by the then Home
>Office Minister Paul Boteng

You believe what party politicians say?

You believe what party politicians who work in the Home Office say??

Note that they are currently talking about extending these fines to children of 12.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

 

David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> You believe what party politicians who work in the Home Office say??
>
> Note that they are currently talking about extending these fines to children of 12.

And then they'll wonder why children don't cycle anymore. Then there will be hand-wringing
conferences about the growing problem of childhood obesity. There will be pointless initiatives
like the recent one where children were all to be given maps of their area in order that they can
getout more.

Anything rather than tacking traffic growth, speed, or providing decent cycle facilities.

Toby

 

On 10 Mar 2003 23:23:33 GMT, Frank scrawled: ) This isn't true there are many instance where it is
both much safer and ) quicker to ride on the pavement.

Technically you are correct. However, the majority of pavement riding I see (and despite what The
Damerell would inevitably say I see a lot in Oxford) is for convenience, especially to avoid red
lights. Pavement riders in Oxford seem to swarm and weave.

I doubt if most of the riders really know the true safety issues. One was stopped while close to
running into a friend at night on an unlit pavement. He defended his pavement cycling by saying "I
didn't want to ride on the [well-lit and nigh-empty] road as I didn't have any lights." I understand
the dubiousness of anecdotal evidence, but on the other hand, given you say:

) You cannot make sweeping statement such as *it is no safer to ride on ) pavements* this is a gross
generalisation based on the skimpiest statistics,

then I don't know how you can say earlier:

) But many, many cyclists do use pavements very safely and responsibly.

Do you have access to more concrete statistics?

J-P
--
there are doors that lock and doors that don't

 

"W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> I was in London the other week and there was a bloke waving his walking stick at a cyclist.

He might find he gets better results by inserting his stick into the front wheel rather than just
waving it. Accidentally, while trying to avoid the hooligan of course.

--
Dave...

 

"Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> You cannot make sweeping statement such as *it is no safer to ride on pavements* this is a gross
> generalisation based on the skimpiest statistics, flying in the face of common sense, worthy of
> Paul Smith. Many times (not all, or even most, but many) you are much safer on the pavement. The
> trick is to understand when, where and why.

Justifying illegal and anti-social behaviour by reference to superior skill and experience. That's
not reminiscent of Paul Smith, is it?

--
Dave...

 

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Simon Mason <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Missed this one
> >
> > Title "Police should get their priorities right" (re:fining pavement cyclists) size 28 kB 56k
> > download 6 secs.
> >
> > http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zpaper2.htm
>
> Its not at all clear that it was a legal fine (apart from it seeming to be £10 more than the £20
> spot fine). The offence of cycling on pavements is from The Highways Act 1835 Section 72 and
> applies to "any footpath or causeway alongside the road". If its not alongside a road its arguably
not
> an offence under that Act. There may be a Traffic Regulation Order that makes it an offence in
> that particular place but TRO offences are not covered by Fixed Penalty Notices.
>
> It also seems to go directly against assurances given at the time of enactment by the then Home
> Office Minister Paul Boteng who is on record as saying "'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 when doing so. Chief police
> officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge
that
> many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle in the road...
> sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is
required"
>
> Just my £0.02
>

One thing puzzles me and that is I can't think of the area where he was fined. Although I commute
past the same spot myself, I don't know what "small public space" he is referring to. I shall go
out today and photograph it if I can find it.
--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

 

"Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> This isn't true there are many instance where it is both much safer and quicker to ride on the
> pavement.

I am sure there are. However, I understand statistics suggest a shared use pavement path is at least
twice as dangerous as the road so I doubt that illegal pavement cycling is safer.

It can only be faster if you are using the pavement to avoid long road diversions. I can
happily travel at 15 mph on the road. Such a speed would be difficult and certainly
irresponsible on a pavement.

> I'm not saying I support rushing past the coffin dodgers from behind.

Now, I am not that old -- though I have, fairly recently, had the experience of nursing a very frail
and terminally ill relative so perhaps have gained a bit more of an understanding of the needs and
the fears of the elderly. Somehow, this sentance says it all. You clearly have a lack of concern for
or any undersanding of 'coffin dodgers'.

> I'm not saying I don't understand that pavement cycling can introduce extra danger when crossing
> roads. You may disagree with Councils misguidedly trying to force cyclists onto pavements with
> shared use paths. But many, many cyclists do use pavements very safely and responsibly.

Sorry, this is oxymoron. Pavements are for pedestrians. It cannot be responsible to be where you are
specificly excluded by law. You will be defending cager's calls to abolish speed limits next.

> You cannot make sweeping statement such as *it is no safer to ride on pavements* this is a gross
> generalisation based on the skimpiest
statistics,

Not true.

> flying in the face of common sense,

in the face of uninformed intuition perhaps.

> worthy of Paul Smith. Many times (not all, or even most, but many) you are much safer on the
> pavement.

Yes. When walking.

> The trick is to understand when, where and why.

No trick. Never, nowhere and because it is inconsiderate to pedestrians and illegal.

T

 

"j-p.s" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 10 Mar 2003 23:23:33 GMT, Frank scrawled:
>
> ) You cannot make sweeping statement such as *it is no safer to ride on ) pavements* this is a
> gross generalisation based on the skimpiest
statistics,
>
> then I don't know how you can say earlier:
>
> ) But many, many cyclists do use pavements very safely and responsibly.
>
> Do you have access to more concrete statistics?
>

No, I'm not going to get into a statistical argument, however I do believe pedestrians, on the
pavement, are far more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a car (or Bus as happened
yesterday in the town where I went to college) than by a pavement cyclist.

The reason I can say many, many is because it is vague as opposed to absolute and because personal
experience of watching cyclists on the pavement tells me it is true. I personally have seen many,
many cyclists ;o). I did take the trouble to explicitly qualify my usage of the word many in the
next sentence.

>>
>>Many times (not all, or even most, but many) you are much safer on the pavement.
>>

Interpreting reports,particularly containing statistical data, is very difficult and open to abuse,
so it is essential that people are careful about the language they use, otherwise it will lead them
and others to draw wrong conclusions.