Kingston upon Thames - pedestrianised area

[[email protected]]

A walking cyclist helpfully told me, today, as I cycled through for
the umteenth time that there is a £500 fine for cycling.

Is a valid defence that I am not cycling to the detriment of
pedestrians but with consideration?

What is special about Kingston's pedestrianised area that is different
to a footpath?

Can I plead that my bike is my in-line zimmer frame?

--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC.

 

[Jim Ley]

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:46:21 GMT, [email protected]m wrote:

>A walking cyclist helpfully told me, today, as I cycled through for
>the umteenth time that there is a £500 fine for cycling.
>
>Is a valid defence that I am not cycling to the detriment of
>pedestrians but with consideration?
>
>What is special about Kingston's pedestrianised area that is different
>to a footpath?
>
>Can I plead that my bike is my in-line zimmer frame?

Just get off, or cycle round, it's not as if it's far to go between
any points that are accessible through the middle by going round the
outside.

Jim.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]m says...
> A walking cyclist helpfully told me, today, as I cycled through for
> the umteenth time that there is a £500 fine for cycling.
>
> Is a valid defence that I am not cycling to the detriment of
> pedestrians but with consideration?
>
> What is special about Kingston's pedestrianised area that is different
> to a footpath?

Covered by specific bylaws?
>
> Can I plead that my bike is my in-line zimmer frame?
>
I've tried that - I pointed out that I was cycling at a slow walking
pace, that on my bike I take less room than when I'm walking beside it,
that my dodgy leg was giving me particular problems that day so it was a
disabled aid ... bloody officious plastic plods, the real ones are more
discriminating.

 

[Roger Merriman]

<[email protected]> wrote:

> A walking cyclist helpfully told me, today, as I cycled through for
> the umteenth time that there is a £500 fine for cycling.
>
> Is a valid defence that I am not cycling to the detriment of
> pedestrians but with consideration?
>
> What is special about Kingston's pedestrianised area that is different
> to a footpath?
>
> Can I plead that my bike is my in-line zimmer frame?

to be honest those areas are so busy normally i wouldn't say riding a
bike though was okay.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Jim Ley wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:46:21 GMT, [email protected]m wrote:
>>A walking cyclist helpfully told me, today, as I cycled through for
>>the umteenth time that there is a £500 fine for cycling.
>>What is special about Kingston's pedestrianised area that is different
>>to a footpath?
>
> Just get off, or cycle round, it's not as if it's far to go between
> any points that are accessible through the middle by going round the
> outside.

The annoying thing about Kingston cntre is that there appears to be a
cycle route through, but halfway through it disappears (or turns down
an un-noticed side street?) Anyway, you find yourself in a peds only
area with no legal way to cycle but back. This is annoying and not
conducive to respecting the rules.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

 

[elyob]

On 4 Feb, 23:46, [email protected] wrote:
> A walking cyclist helpfully told me, today, as I cycled through for
> the umteenth time that there is a £500 fine for cycling.
>
> Is a valid defence that I am not cycling to the detriment of
> pedestrians but with consideration?
>
> What is special about Kingston's pedestrianised area that is different
> to a footpath?
>
> Can I plead that my bike is my in-line zimmer frame?
>

You can plead what you like and the other cyclist can bleat as much as
they like.

At the end of the day the police and council don't enforce the law and
you're giving law abiding cyclists a bad name.

 

[elyob]

On 5 Feb, 09:40, Colin McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jim Ley wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:46:21 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
> >>A walking cyclist helpfully told me, today, as I cycled through for
> >>the umteenth time that there is a £500 fine for cycling.
> >>What is special about Kingston's pedestrianised area that is different
> >>to a footpath?
>
> > Just get off, or cycle round, it's not as if it's far to go between
> > any points that are accessible through the middle by going round the
> > outside.
>
> The annoying thing about Kingston cntre is that there appears to be a
> cycle route through, but halfway through it disappears (or turns down
> an un-noticed side street?) Anyway, you find yourself in a peds only
> area with no legal way to cycle but back. This is annoying and not
> conducive to respecting the rules.
>
> Colin McKenzie

Really, which bit is that then? The only real ped & cycle bit is to
the west of the market square, past Borders & Woolworths.

The stupid bit about Kingston is that the police park a big ruddy van
in the middle on the busiest days and securicor vans come and go as
they please.

 

[Jim Ley]

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:40:24 +0000, Colin McKenzie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Jim Ley wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:46:21 GMT, [email protected]m wrote:
>>>A walking cyclist helpfully told me, today, as I cycled through for
>>>the umteenth time that there is a £500 fine for cycling.
>>>What is special about Kingston's pedestrianised area that is different
>>>to a footpath?
>>
>> Just get off, or cycle round, it's not as if it's far to go between
>> any points that are accessible through the middle by going round the
>> outside.
>
>The annoying thing about Kingston cntre is that there appears to be a
>cycle route through, but halfway through it disappears (or turns down
>an un-noticed side street?)

There's a cycle road along the old london road (past the telephone
boxes) which then also takes you across the road, you can then leave
the road, and go on a path into castle road, but that is very much
away from the central pedestrian area, and the path clearly goes in
that direction.

I don't know of any entries at the other end that look at all like
cycle paths, so I don't really get the confusion.

Jim.

 

[bornfree]

On 4 Feb, 23:46, [email protected] wrote:
> A walking cyclist helpfully told me, today, as I cycled through for
> the umteenth time that there is a £500 fine for cycling.
>
> Is a valid defence that I am not cycling to the detriment of
> pedestrians but with consideration?

No

> What is special about Kingston's pedestrianised area that is different
> to a footpath?

Cycling on a pavement is illegal too. Is it a paved area?

> Can I plead that my bike is my in-line zimmer frame?
>

No but you could try to look young and plead you are 16.

 

[Paul - xxx]

[email protected]m wrote:

> Is a valid defence that I am not cycling to the detriment of
> pedestrians but with consideration?

No. Why should it be?

> What is special about Kingston's pedestrianised area that is
> different to a footpath?

Local By-laws? Footpaths are also illegal to cycle on.

> Can I plead that my bike is my in-line zimmer frame?

No, that's taking the ****, which I guess is the point you're trying to
make. Just 'cos the law seems wrong doesn't make it any less of a law.

--
Paul - ***

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch'
'98 Suzuki DR 200 Djebel 'Small but perfectly formed'
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough'

 

[David Martin]

On Feb 5, 1:36 pm, bornfree <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4 Feb, 23:46, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > A walking cyclist helpfully told me, today, as I cycled through for
> > the umteenth time that there is a £500 fine for cycling.
>
> > Is a valid defence that I am not cycling to the detriment of
> > pedestrians but with consideration?
>
> No
>
> > What is special about Kingston's pedestrianised area that is different
> > to a footpath?
>
> Cycling on a pavement is illegal too. Is it a paved area?

Cycling on a pavement as a * part of the highway adjacent to a
carriageway set aside for pedestrians* is illegal. That is explicitly
not the case in the old clarence street as there is no road there, but
local bylaws may apply.

It may also be not legal to cycle on a footpath. That doesn't mean it
is illegal.

..d

 

[Mike Sales]

"Paul - wrote...
> [email protected]m wrote:
>
>> Can I plead that my bike is my in-line zimmer frame?
>
> No, that's taking the ****, which I guess is the point you're trying to
> make. Just 'cos the law seems wrong doesn't make it any less of a law.
>
> --
He may well not be taking the ****. I have walked painfully through
pedestrian areas when cycling would have been pain free. I can cycle when I
can't walk at all. How about those high tech hand cycles for those who can't
pedal? Obviously Tanni Grey thingies wheelchair is fine. Hard cases make bad
law of course, but bikes can greatly extend mobility for the disabled.

Mike Sales

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Jim Ley wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:40:24 +0000, Colin McKenzie
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>The annoying thing about Kingston cntre is that there appears to be a
>>cycle route through, but halfway through it disappears (or turns down
>>an un-noticed side street?)

> There's a cycle road along the old london road (past the telephone
> boxes) which then also takes you across the road, you can then leave
> the road, and go on a path into castle road, but that is very much
> away from the central pedestrian area, and the path clearly goes in
> that direction.
>
> I don't know of any entries at the other end that look at all like
> cycle paths, so I don't really get the confusion.

I went in somewhere near the station and tried to go straight (for
Surbiton), if that helps. It was a few years ago.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.