Cyclist hit and run

[Cyclone]

I wish they had actually just changed the law. Telling people to break the law is a pretty stupid thing for government to do when they have the power to just change it.

 

Perhaps they thought that it was such a trivial issue that it wasn't worth changing.

[alchemist]

I wish they had actually just changed the law. Telling people to break the law is a pretty stupid thing for government to do when they have the power to just change it.

 

Perhaps they thought that it was such a trivial issue that it wasn't worth changing.

 

Or more seriously, was it merely a "political statement" to try and grab some of the green cyclist vote?

[Cyclone]

It doesn't seem so;

 

When police and PCSOs were given the authority to issue Fixed Penalty Notices for pavement cycling in 1999 the Home Office minister Paul Boetang issued this guidance:

 

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of 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 on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

 

and

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10577958/Let-cyclists-go-on-pavements-if-roads-are-dangerous-minister-tells-police.html

 

Let cyclists go on pavements if roads are dangerous, minister tells police

Police are urged not to fine cyclists for using the pavement to escape dangerous junctions after complaints about heavy-handedness

 

The advice has been given twice to the police by MPs responsible for cycling and/or transport that they should not be fining cyclists who are using pavements safely.

 

Mr Goodwill reiterated guidance from 1999, when fixed penalties for cycling on pavements were first introduced, which states that the goal is not to penalise “responsible cyclists”.

 

---------- Post added 22-05-2015 at 09:55 ----------

 

This seems quite clear

“Enforcement is a matter for the Police but we endorse their approach of showing discretion in instances where a cyclist is using the pavement alongside a dangerous section of road out of fear of the traffic, but is being mindful to not put pedestrians at risk.”

Obviously the cyclist in the video who hit the toddler was NOT being mindful and should be fined.

[Eater Sundae]

It doesn't seem so;

 

 

 

and

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10577958/Let-cyclists-go-on-pavements-if-roads-are-dangerous-minister-tells-police.html

 

 

 

The advice has been given twice to the police by MPs responsible for cycling and/or transport that they should not be fining cyclists who are using pavements safely.

 

 

---------- Post added 22-05-2015 at 09:55 ----------

 

This seems quite clear

 

Obviously the cyclist in the video who hit the toddler was NOT being mindful and should be fined.

 

It does seem a bit wooly to give the police guidance in this way, yet not actually change the law.

 

But I agree that in this sort of case the police can fall back on the law as it stands, and they should.

[alchresearch]

Two home secretaries have told cyclists to use the pavement when it's safer to do so.

 

And then the police are warning 4 year olds for riding on the path. Its madness.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-31805312

[Cyclone]

Agreed.

 

They should simply change the law, make it clear what is and is not acceptable and then the police will know exactly where everyone stands (and cycles).

[alchemist]

Agreed.

 

They should simply change the law, make it clear what is and is not acceptable and then the police will know exactly where everyone stands (and cycles).

 

And until then you will always get people quite rightly pointing out that it is breaking the law, whether or not a couple of MP's think otherwise is acadmeic and TBH not relevant. The law is the law surely, or is there really one law for cyclists and another for everyone else?

[Cyclone]

How is it academic when they've specifically and officially instructed the police not to prosecute cyclists who are using the pavement safely? That sounds like the opposite of academic, it has a very real world effect and tells cyclists that they are free to use the pavement so long as they do so safely.

 

I'll mention again, how do people get their cars onto drives? If the law was to be strictly enforced you'd not be able to cross the pavement to reach your drive or garage...

[Eater Sundae]

How is it academic when they've specifically and officially instructed the police not to prosecute cyclists who are using the pavement safely? That sounds like the opposite of academic, it has a very real world effect and tells cyclists that they are free to use the pavement so long as they do so safely.

 

I think the problem is that such an "instruction" has no position in law. If the policeman decides to act on someone cycling on the pavement, then no amount of "the Home Secretary says I can" will change that. Any prosecution would stand, as a point of law. As such, it is a totally unsatisfactory situation.

[Cyclone]

The home secretary is in charge of the police... If he's telling them not to charge people for something then you'd hope they'd be doing as they've been told...