Why police don't nick pavement cyclists

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

 

> 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.

 

X-No-Archive: yes

Johnny Klunk wrote:
>
> > 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?

A few years ago my Grandmother(90+ at the time) was knocked over by a pavement cyclist and this she
found very difficult to recover from.

> 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.

Its a 2 % increase the other 1 % being paid by the employer. For those earning 30 000 plus its moor
as certain thresh holds have been removed. A solution to a lot of the problems you describe come
from society as a hole and not just more police.

Peter

 

In news:[email protected], Peter Simons <[email protected]> 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".

 

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

 

"Ian D" <[email protected]> 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.

 

> 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

 

"Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> From yesterday's local rag:

One can sympathise with Plod. But aren't fixed penalty notices meant to eliminate all the paperwork.

'Your nicked sonny -- 20 quid.'

T

 

On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 13:16:38 +0000 (UTC),
Johnny Klunk <[email protected]:> 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/

 

On Sun, 6 Apr 2003 15:16:29 +0000 (UTC), "Ian D" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

Hi folks,

We have been taking our daughter cycling since she was old enough to sit in a child seat. Then there
was a bit of a lul when she was too big for a seat and too small to cycle on her own (no trailer
bikes at the time). She would then come with us again along the manby miles of towpath and trails we
have good access to (1/4 mile on road first). We then bought a Tandem so that we could go further
afield on-road with a bit more safety.

She's now back on a solo ('cheap' alloy hardtail MTB) and is now (at
12) stronger than the missus and she and I tend to go out and do a bit more offroad than we might
with Mum with us.

However, when 'on-road I'm very aware that my many years of cycling, moped, motorbike and car
experience give me the survival edge over her and we will use the pavement to 'avoid' a scanario
that might put my daughter at a higher risk? (narrow junction etc).

I have found that where we live (Herts) *most* of the vehicle drivers are pretty good when they see
her on the road and I will always 'thank' (thumbs up or small wave or nod) any motorist that 'hangs
back' to wait for more space before overtaking.

When on the towpaths we are secondary users and therefore MUST give way to walkers. Likewise, they
are obliged to 'keep their dogs on a lead' but often don't? When we aproach walkers from the rear we
ring the bell and slow down. We generally don't 'need' to ring when they are facing us but still do
'just in case they are doing that car driver 'eyes open but not looking' thing.

We have seen 3 reactions.

13) They will look round and continue walking in single file (or stop and stand back) and over to
one side giving us room to get past. (we all say 'thanks' as we slowly cycle past) We are often
praised for having a bell and using it as we cycle past them ;-)

14) They look round and carry on walking across the path till we get closer (forcing us to actually
stop) and then move over / stop whatever. (we thank them also)

15) They either don't hear us (often the case with children / older folk) and we end up following
them for a few secoonds till they 'discover' us trailing them .. and then they will sometimes
make a bit of a fuss, all move to different sides and mutter stuff about not warning them etc ..
;-) We still thank them .. ;-)

16) They hear us but simply take no notice in which case we just cycle over them with the Tandem
(ok, just in my dreams).

It's mostly down to timing and the use of the bell. My bell is of the single 'ting, ting' type and
is often not heard. My daughter has what sounds more like a fire bell and is heard at a greater
distance with a more positive effect. But, if she uses it too close it can startle some folk who
react accordingly.

On the Tandem a blast from the AirZound2 horn from about 1/4 mile away seems to do the trick!

A final observation is that like on the road there are amateur and pro pedestrian users and I can
generally spot each and therefore predict their actions. A couple of older folk walking briskly and
wearing 'walking' attire are the most predictable and will often 'hear' us and move over before we
need to use the bell.

At the other end of the spectrum a 'younger' family' consisting of Dad possibly helping a very young
child on a badly setup bike that is fed up / worn out, Mum pushing a double buggy of some sort,
often empty, a couple more kids oblivious of our approach and no warning or sheparding given to them
by their parents and a loose un-checked dog or two. When we stop to one side they just amble round
us slowly with no eye contact .. ?

All the best and ride safe ..

T i m

 

In message <[email protected]>, John Redman
<[email protected]> 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

 

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

"Johnny Klunk" <[email protected]:rem0ve-this:johnnyklunk.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> > 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.

 

"John Redman" <[email protected]> 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?

 

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

 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 09:31:32 +0100, Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]>, John Redman
><[email protected]> 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.

Hi Michael,

Shouldn't this all need to be kept in perpective?

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?

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?

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> ;-)

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))!

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.

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

 

Johnny Klunk <[email protected]:rem0ve-this:johnnyklunk.com> 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?

One ped is killed by a cyclist of any kind most years.

Clearly pavement cycling is a bad thing, but if (as Mr. Mason says) it cannot be dealt with quickly,
there must be better uses of the police's time.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:49:25 +0000 (UTC), "j-p.s" <[email protected]> wrote:

[T] Hi JP, thanks for the input .. it did make me chuckle .. ;-)

>On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 09:45:03 +0100, T i m scrawled: ) Thanks for the reply and your thoughts (that
>I fully accept). But, I ) am generally talking here about the little birs of pavement found in )
>rural areas that rarely see a pedestrian!
>
>Like those little-used red lights that people jump at 3am in the morning?

Was there supposed to be a comparison there JP? Equating jumping a red light (at whatever time
of the day) to using an obviously open and empty bit of rural pavement? I'm sure you have
'crossed' a red light as you will have deemed that it might be faulty? It's the same thing as
'jumping' the light in the eyes of the law but you have made a rational decision to proceed
based on the situation even though it is strictly against the law? Like riding on a bit of
empty pavement?

>Haven't we had this rationalization for illegal and antisocial behaviour before somewhere?

[V] Pass .. I'm trying to get out more these days ;-)
>
>These bits of pavement rarely see cyclists either. So imagine the bone-crunching hilarity if you
>bip round a blind corner,

[W] Assumption: I don't 'bip' and would never do it round a 'blind corner' ?

safe in the
>unusedness of the pavement,

[X] Assumption again .. I never 'assume' I'm safe, more the opposite infact?

and land on an OAP tottering in the opposite
>direction, similarly safe and also convinced by the fact that pavement cycling is strictly
>forbidden in both the HC and law.

[Y] But carried out in such places as some law abiding and considerate folk deem it would be prudent
to do so? (Risk my childs safety versus breaking the law for 5 yards, hmm, now let me think ..)
Don't get me wrong JP, I'm not trying to condone such action or suggest the rules should be
changed, I'm just being honest in saying I make my own choices and don't believe they put
'anyone' at risk because of how I impliment them?
>
>Just - get off and walk if you're on a pavement. It isn't hard and nobody thinks you're a wuss for
>doing it.

[Z] Irrelevant , there would be no one there to make such a jugement? Are you assuming again that we
all might even 'bother' what other folk think about what we wear and how 'wussy' we may look? I
have been riding motorcycles for 30 years and have *always* worn a full face helmet whilst doing
so (long before it was the law)? Along with protective gear, reflective stripes etc etc. Never
been 'cool' and enjoy living..

It's good for the soul, if not the
>soles.

[Z] Possibly .. ;-)
>
>) [T] Again, I take your plea but at the same time, and in a 'real ) world' of muggers, nutters,
>drunks, druggies and many car drivers ) driving withougt tax, insurance wearing safety belts and
>driving ) whilst on the phone
>
>Oh, in the name of the wee man.
>
> Dere Editor,
>
> Why oh why oh why was I caught by the police ridding my bike in an illegal manner? Dont the
> 'Boys in Blue' have something better to do?

[Z] I should think so ... ask them .. they will tell you they start their shift with an ever
lengthing list of calls to things deemed more important by most of society (like street robbery,
burgulary, rape, stabbings, gun crime etc). Caught riding in an 'illegal' manner .. I hope
descresion would come into it .. riding in a 'dangerous' manner . different story.

Ca'nt they chase after real villains e.g. the working class,
> rather than upper middle-class parents imprisoning their children in expensive guilded
> cages?

[Z] I think they chase villains from all classes don't they?
>
> Wen we are not plowing down cyclists in our enormous tank vehicles, with our blond-eyed
> Ueberkind peeping pensively out of the back windows, we are being vilified for our
> justifiable over-protectiveness. It has to stop.
>
> Yours angrily, J Broadarse Home Counties.
>
>J-P

[Z] Hmmm .. back into the sunshine for me ..

Cheers JP ..

T i m (or TS to you <g>)

 

In message <[email protected]>, T i m <[email protected]> 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

 

"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "John Redman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 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"?)

 

In message <[email protected]>, Rory <[email protected]> writes
>"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> "John Redman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > 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