Today, tomorrow and monday.

A classic on the pavement shortcut – locals have made complaints and the police need to show they are enforcing.

I am a bad person and have learnt from my punishment.

The officer was very embarrassed about the whole thing

You're joking?

You rode on the pavement? How frightful. According to Peter Hitchins, this puts you in the same, on the menace-to-society league table, as Fred West. You're lucky you only got a ticket 🙂

Peter Hitchins (Mail on Sunday Columnist) is a t.w.a.t.
Always has been, always will be. He represents a middle England that doesn't exist anymore.
Columnist without portfolio.

And don't get me started on Nigel Havers.

You're joking?

Nope! Offence code 508

What a waste of time.

Police were doing that in York when I was at college back in 1986…

It's a job innit.

they do it every now and again on upper street and rosebery ave. they are not only easy to spot, in their bright yellow coats, but if you don't notice them til it's too late, you can just dummy past them and make your escape! 😀

Just tell 'em you're someone else
One of the Tory buffoons maybe – Cameron or Johnson should do it

Noted, thanks. Have to say, I do rather take the point on that particular pavement. Isn't it always a sort of Bugaboo and Tarquin slalom?

**** em all, I risk fines riding on the pavement instead of risking London traffic running me over.

£30 or death, you decide

And anyway, how often does a law-abiding 35 year old get the chance to leg it from coppers. It's like I'm 10 years old and nicking conkers all over again 😀

a sort of Bugaboo and Tarquin slalom?

A Winter Olympic sport for the everyman?

And anyway, how often does a law-abiding 35 year old get the chance to leg it from coppers. It's like I'm 10 years old and nicking conkers all over again

exactly! the first time i did it i was convinced i'd get chased home. 😆

you soon become hardened to a life of crime. 🙂

To be fair, that particular bit of pavement isn't ideal for cycling down (and I am far from goody-goody-two-shoes about pavements, traffic lights etc). It is quite steep downhill, narrow and well used by pedestrians.

That said, I would much sooner have the police doing some proper policing.

Why are people cycling on the pavement in the first place?

I've seen an old lady whacked by a cyclist as he rode past who shouted a brief 'sorry' over his shoulder & then carried on his merry way. She was sent flying.
You could seriously injure someone by crashing into them – break someones arm/wrist/bruised knees etc.

If you ride on the pavement & get caught, then tough.

There will have probably been a 'neighbourhood' meeting where people can bring up their particular issues. If enough people had mentioned cyclists being an issue in that area, then the police have to take action.

I would much sooner have the police doing some proper policing

People do get injured and killed by people riding on pavements.

So does this mean we all condone cycling on the pavement?

I would much sooner have the police doing some proper policing.

Dealing with crime IS proper policing.

"Responding to community concerns" I bet.

Richmond Hill is not exactly a major crime hotspot either. I suspect pavement cycling is pretty much as bad as it gets most years. 🙂

People do get injured and killed by people riding on pavements.

But if we don't regularly ride on pavements then we'll be bad at it, and hit more people when we do, so in order to not hit and kill pedestrians we need to ride on pavements as much as possible to get really good at it.

You know it makes sense

It appears so GeeTee

Good.
Richmond drivers are bad enough as it is and anything that gives them the self righteous excuse to carve up cyclists on the road is to be encouraged.
Anyway there's a much better route down into Richmond via Mount Ararat Road and The Vineyard.

I drove through London to Tooting on Saturday and Sunday, and I have to say after that experience I could easily find myself joining the anti-cycling lobby. Frankly the majority that I saw deserved everything that they got.

The short list of stupidity
1) Jumping lights, and I don't mean going early, I mean riding straight through without pausing.
2) Riding up the nearside of vehicles obviously turning left
3) Riding up the offside of vehicles obviously turning right
4) Riding the wrong way along one way streets
5) Riding with earphones in and totally oblivious to what was going on around them.
6) Riding on pavements with no regard for pedestrians

Thats without really thinking about it, and on a weekend to boot, Christ knows what its like in the rush hour Monday to Friday.

Sorry people, but I go along with the Policing as described.

I'm not defending other road users attitude and ignorance towards cyclists, but as the saying goes two wrongs etc…

why not be a new labour liar (mandleson blair brown fatprescot), you'll be untouchable and above any law. It may have seemed to the policeman that you cycling on the pavement, but in actual fact you were sat down turning the pedals of power in an attempt bring equality to all cyclists.

I drove through London to Tooting on Saturday and Sunday, and I have to say after that experience I could easily find myself joining the anti-cycling lobby. Frankly the majority that I saw deserved everything that they got.

The short list of stupidity
……………………………………..

Was this stupidity down to being a cyclist or being a Londoner ?

Whilst we're on the subject of law-breaking cyclists, why isn't lycra outlawed?

Using the example above, maybe the old lady simply jumped out of the way from what she thought was a superhero coming at her on a bike? 😯

and how far do the police take this……..

if your a 3 year old with stabilisers, is that allowed??
What about a 6 year old on his first non stabiliser bike…. does he have to bike on the road?
Surely a 10 year old must bike on the road, but if he gets caught on the pavement does he get a fine?
Where does common sense stop and the law start?

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php

(Mr MC posting)

the Big Thing in policing is neighbourhood policing. Local beat team officers meet members of the community, and the community set the local policing priorities.

I was a cycle-team officer on the blackbird leys estate in oxford a few years ago. the number one local priority was drug dealing in the streets. Brilliant; I got to sneak about the estate in plain clothes, jump on drug dealers skulking down alleyways, and raid their houses, put them in prison and deport them. The best 2 years of my career.

A consultation on blackbird leys last year had anti-social behaviour and littering, yes littering as the highest priority. So the entire neighbourhood team went onto the estate to pick up litter. An effective use of police officers? Possibly not. What the local taxpayers who pay their wages think is important? Apparently so.

Eek, find myself agreeing with G!

Went from Wimbledon to E7 through town and saw all the things in the list several times over, enough near misses and one accident to give me a nervous twitch each time I stopped at the lights.

Now I realise that I got flamed the last time I bitched about jumping red lights, but come on fellas, if you want other road users to treat you with any respect, stick to the rules – it will be a start!

Did chuckle at one cycle courier battling with a white van, not sure he had a grasp of the relative density of the human body and steel, or how mass effects momentum, he seemed determined to lean into the van and push it off the road.

"Responding to community concerns" I bet.

Not sure if you're in favor of this or not, but isn't that a large part of what "proper policing" is? It's not that unreasonable if you look at it from a non-cyclists point of view. Although I'm not sure that many people at all get killed by people riding on the pavements.

Anyhoo, sounds like it's pretty easy to avoid…

Ricjmond Hill is a narrow, steep residential road (albeit with an enormously famous view to one side) which is relatively lightly trafficed with a high ageing population. There is no need to cycle on the pavement here, in fact to do so you must be a moron as it is so obviously not right.

and how far do the police take this……..

if your a 3 year old with stabilisers, is that allowed??
What about a 6 year old on his first non stabiliser bike…. does he have to bike on the road?
Surely a 10 year old must bike on the road, but if he gets caught on the pavement does he get a fine?
Where does common sense stop and the law start?

None of those can be given tickets.

i saw two people hurtling down some really long stairs in edinburgh near the national museum and nearly ran over a homeless person's dog. thankfully i was only on foot, but i still felt pretty embarressed. idiots…

rogerthecat – Member
Eek, find myself agreeing with G!

If you don't mind me saying so that should be on the "You know you're getting older when" …. thread

Look on the bright side though, its a bit like anal intercourse…. it'll hurt you at first, but once you get used to the idea then its not so bad ……..
<ahem> …… apparently 😯

I recall that the law prohibiting bikes on pavements excludes those with a saddle below a certain height.

It would be a wheeze to get a bike with a low saddle, get a ticket and then appeal all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights.

This makes it legal to ride a recumbent, or some BMXs on the pavement.

Like it or not, it's an offence. If you get caught, don't moan about the punishment. Same goes for speeding, theft and murder IMHO.

(I know the Police have other things we may consider more important to be getting on with, but if you had been hit by a bike on a pavement, you may have a different view of their priorities!)

Like it or not, it's an offence. If you get caught, don't moan about the punishment.

I got the ticket and I agree – just posted a warning for others.

excludes those with a saddle below a certain height.

What about bikes with no saddles? Like some trials bikes for instance…