Cycling UK Forum

Mick F wrote:+1

Mick F with respect cycling where you are able to is far far different to cycling along the New Kent Road London In fact it should be compulsory to cycle on the path there as there is so much traffic.

Bicycler wrote:Doesn't something have to reach the Queen's Bench Division before it sets a binding precedent? What wider benefit to the cycling community can be gained from the decision of a magistrate? ...

That's right and it's a point I've made so many times before, I thought I'd risk being boring if I trotted it out again. (There is a post from me somewhere on that subject with a picture of the Queen visitng her Bench Division. ) This is part of the reason I think that care has to be taken in choosing which cases to publicise.

... And, yes, he clearly acted illegally. The objection seems to be that the CPS should not have prosecuted because it was not in the public interest. I can agree with this stance, but is there any opportunity to appeal that or is it solely at the discretion of the CPS. In short I would like to know what the CDF hope to achieve and why they picked such an apparently open and shut case to defend.

I'm not convinced that the "public interest" thing is any sort of exact science. Although this is an old law, its inclusion in the fixed penalty scheme is very recent and shows that the elected government considered the offence to be still relevant. The CPS must face a particularly delicate balancing act when the recipient of a fixed penalty ticket elects to go to court. The evidence test comes first, of course, and then it's the public interest. While an oppressive prosecution isn't in the public interest, the defendant is hardly the best judge of what's oppressive. OTOH, if the defendant or their supporters try to whip up interest in the case, then there must be a feeling that the prosecution is in the public interest. It's certainly not in the public interest if people think that creating a bit of fuss will inevitably lead to a case being dropped.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to some of the "have you nothing better to do with your time?" posts, PCSO's have limited powers and enforcing this bit of the law is one of them. There isn't much else they can do with their time and the situation is not of their making. It was introduced because the then Home Secretary was under pressure to "do something" about pavement cycling. Part of the lack of enforcement of road traffic law is precisely because the police found something better to do with their time. eg When it became clear that the CPS wasn't going to prosecute due care cases resulting from crashes, the prosecution files were no longer completed.

I'll suggest that anybody who thinks that there's no public pressure for action over pavement cycling deludes themselves.

thirdcrank wrote:I'll suggest that anybody who thinks that there's no public pressure for action over pavement cycling deludes themselves.

I don't think that at all. I'm absolutely convinced there's a fair amount of public pressure.
OTOH when I'm forced to move into the road to pass a vehicle that's parked on the pavement I remind myself that the law is fundamentally broken - after all, how can it not be when it's OK to ignore something that is very obviously a danger and yet come down hard on somewhat trivial offences - offences that wouldn't happen if the bigger stuff was actually dealt with.

I'm also reminded of the guy I collared who'd parked his car fully on the pavement - a pavement exactly wide enough for his car who said "I can't park it in the road, this is a blind bend". A fact I'm sure anyone trying to pass his car will fully appreciate.

hondated wrote:

Mick F wrote:+1

Mick F with respect cycling where you are able to is far far different to cycling along the New Kent Road London In fact it should be compulsory to cycle on the path there as there is so much traffic.

I've never cycled in London (yet), but I have cycled in other major cities.

I don't agree with you about "compulsory".

Removed double post

Obviously there is a difference between cycle tracks where cycling is allowed (as Mr Gregory was riding on originally) and footpaths/pavements/footways where it is not (as mr Gregory deviated on to). In defending the existence of a general pavement cycling prohibition I was not suggesting that people should not be allowed to use designated cycle tracks. Though, I agree with Mick in rejecting any attempt at making use of these facilities compulsory.

(By the way, if we are discussing London, then pavement parking is actually illegal: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1974/24/section/15)

Mick F wrote:

hondated wrote:

Mick F wrote:+1

Mick F with respect cycling where you are able to is far far different to cycling along the New Kent Road London In fact it should be compulsory to cycle on the path there as there is so much traffic.

I've never cycled in London (yet), but I have cycled in other major cities.

I don't agree with you about "compulsory".

Fair point well made

I wonder what the TRO order for the pavement in question says ... and how it copes with the solid white line (and therefore the segregation) being discontinuous.

AlaninWales wrote:I wonder what the TRO order for the pavement in question says ... and how it copes with the solid white line (and therefore the segregation) being discontinuous.

Is a TRO needed to create a cycle track?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/65

We did have a thread a while ago about the powers of a highway authority to fiddle with pavements to create cycle farcilities and it's a complicated subject. I don't think it's relevant here because if the CTC media release is accurate ( ) the summons is for the Highways Act 1835 offence which doesn't need a TRO, just a footpath alongside a road (ie a footway.)

.

The ticket seems to be the result of ?PCSOs? standing on the pavement tasked with specifically looking for a minor cycling infringement. I cannot see anything dangerous in the cyclist's action. Did a ticket have to be issued for cutting the corner? It seems a "jobsworth" case. Was this on a day when police were out in force trying to make road users' behaviour better for cyclists' safety? If so I suspect it maybe an attempt to show even handedness.

ummm this is in my local neck of the woods...I almost never use cycle paths next to roads in this area because theyre usually useless or have a pcso at the end of them looking for criminality....
No need to get me started on police ineptitude in the new cross/new kent rd area....
My solution is to avoid known "pc plod harassing cyclist" places and take the backroad.
Maybe someone should start a pc plod loitering places website ala the ones tin can drivers have for traffic cameras?
So that cyclists can plan plod free journeys...

fluffybunnyuk wrote:ummm this is in my local neck of the woods...I almost never use cycle paths next to roads in this area because theyre usually useless or have a pcso at the end of them looking for criminality....
No need to get me started on police ineptitude in the new cross/new kent rd area....
My solution is to avoid known "pc plod harassing cyclist" places and take the backroad.
Maybe someone should start a pc plod loitering places website ala the ones tin can drivers have for traffic cameras?
So that cyclists can plan plod free journeys...

Well said. You definitely know that there are bigger issues in your area that need to be addressed.

Just seen this thread - what a crazy case - whatever the outcome it's a waste of time and money.

I've cycled in this area and cyclists are stuck between a rock (aka a clearly rubbish cycle path) and a hard place (aka a really quite intimidating road, with lots of fast traffic). To hear that PCSO's are being specifically deployed to patrol this is gobsmacking - I'd like to see the stats for bicycle/pedestrian accidents resulting in injury for this path.