Cycling on the pavement

Anthony Cox said:

Today I was walking up a one way street pushing my Dawes Galaxy on the
pavement on the way to have a coffee (the nature of the one-way system
meant it was quicker than cycling along the roads).

Imagine my surprise to see a Policeman cycling on his Kona mountain
bike, weaving in between people. He could have cycled on the road,
given he was going the right way down the one-way street.

Are they immune from FPN for cycling on the pavement?

No, they are not. I suggest you complain to the Chief Constable or
their complaints and discipline department or preferably both.

Sniper8052

Anthony Cox vaguely muttered something like ...

Quoted message said:

Imagine my surprise to see a Policeman cycling on his Kona mountain
bike, weaving in between people. He could have cycled on the road,
given he was going the right way down the one-way street.

Oh for a 'handy-cam' .. 😉

Quoted message said:

Are they immune from FPN for cycling on the pavement?

No. Complaints do have an effect, even if it's not immediately apparent.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules !!!
"A [censored] is a [censored], no matter what mode of transport they're using."

Anthony Cox <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Imagine my surprise to see a Policeman cycling on his Kona mountain
bike, weaving in between people. He could have cycled on the road,
given he was going the right way down the one-way street.

Are they immune from FPN for cycling on the pavement?

Yes, unless there are two of them.

--
Dave...

Anthony Cox said:

Today I was walking up a one way street pushing my Dawes Galaxy on the
pavement on the way to have a coffee (the nature of the one-way system
meant it was quicker than cycling along the roads).

Imagine my surprise to see a Policeman cycling on his Kona mountain
bike, weaving in between people. He could have cycled on the road,
given he was going the right way down the one-way street.

Are they immune from FPN for cycling on the pavement?

I routinely see police cars breaking road traffic laws - things like
parking, driving on the pavement, bus lane or mandatory cycle lane
violations - it's hardly surprising that police on bikes also commit
offences.

Anthony Cox popped their head over the parapet saw what was going on
and said

Quoted message said:

Are they immune from FPN for cycling on the pavement?

No but realisticaly if you were a
policeman would you "nick" your workmate ?
Same idea with "squad" cars going through red lights etc
they are not allowed to do it (ICBW)but it would be a
very unpopular policeman that "nicked" them.

--
yours S

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

soup said:

No but realisticaly if you were a
policeman would you "nick" your workmate ?
Same idea with "squad" cars going through red lights etc
they are not allowed to do it (ICBW)but it would be a
very unpopular policeman that "nicked" them.

I vaguely remember a fuss being made about 20 years ago when a policeman
started nicking his colleagues for speeding. ISTR hearing that he was
rather unpopular.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Anthony Cox said:

Today I was walking up a one way street pushing my Dawes Galaxy on the
pavement on the way to have a coffee (the nature of the one-way system
meant it was quicker than cycling along the roads).

Imagine my surprise to see a Policeman cycling on his Kona mountain
bike, weaving in between people. He could have cycled on the road,
given he was going the right way down the one-way street.

Are they immune from FPN for cycling on the pavement?

Did you ask him why he was riding on the pavement?
Did you ask him where he was going?

You have absolutely no idea whether or not there was a reason, yet have
decided that he was wrong, you're right and you should have a whinge.

At least there WAS a policeman.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:54:43 -0000 someone who may be "dwb"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Did you ask him why he was riding on the pavement?
Did you ask him where he was going?

All immaterial. According to the law down south there are no excuses
for riding on the pavement. None at all.

If you think this is a stupid law then please ask Mr Blunkett to
change it. His bunch introduced it.

Quoted message said:

You have absolutely no idea whether or not there was a reason, yet have
decided that he was wrong, you're right and you should have a whinge.

Incorrect. The original poster made no comment on the rightness or
wrongness of the bod's activity. Rather he commented on the
illegality of the bod's actions.

Quoted message said:

At least there WAS a policeman.

One not setting a good example by breaking the law.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:18:42 +0000,

David Hansen said:

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:54:43 -0000 someone who may be "dwb"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Did you ask him why he was riding on the pavement?
Did you ask him where he was going?

All immaterial. According to the law down south there are no excuses
for riding on the pavement. None at all.

If you think this is a stupid law then please ask Mr Blunkett to
change it. His bunch introduced it.

Really? They may have introduced the FPN but riding on the pavement
has been illegal for a long time hasn't it?

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

On 24 Nov 2004 16:23:14 GMT someone who may be Andy Leighton
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you think this is a stupid law then please ask Mr Blunkett to
change it. His bunch introduced it.

Really?

Really.

Quoted message said:

They may have introduced the FPN

That is what we were discussing.

Quoted message said:

but riding on the pavement
has been illegal for a long time hasn't it?

A very long time indeed. At least 100 years, probably more like 120.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Andy Leighton said:

Quoted message said:

They may have introduced the FPN

and David Hansen responded:

Quoted message said:

That is what we were discussing.

Ahem. To quote your earlier post, David:
"All immaterial. According to the law down south there are no excuses
for riding on the pavement. None at all.

"If you think this is a stupid law then please ask Mr Blunkett to
change it. His bunch introduced it."

I, too, read that as you claiming that the current government had made
riding on the pavement illegal.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

In message <[email hidden]>, dwb
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Did you ask him why he was riding on the pavement?
Did you ask him where he was going?

I thought of stopping him to ask if I could cycle on the pavement.

He appeared to be in no rush, and if he had been he could have gone
faster on the road which was empty.

Quoted message said:

You have absolutely no idea whether or not there was a reason, yet have
decided that he was wrong, you're right and you should have a whinge.

Not at all. Do you need an anger management course?

Quoted message said:

At least there WAS a policeman.

Lots of them in Birmingham. One of the shopping centres donated 6 Kona
mountain bikes to them.

I think it's a good idea.

--
Anthony

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:41:03 +0000 someone who may be Danny Colyer
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Andy Leighton said:

Quoted message said:

They may have introduced the FPN

and David Hansen responded:

Quoted message said:

That is what we were discussing.

Ahem. To quote your earlier post, David:
"All immaterial. According to the law down south there are no excuses
for riding on the pavement. None at all.

"If you think this is a stupid law then please ask Mr Blunkett to
change it. His bunch introduced it."

I, too, read that as you claiming that the current government had made
riding on the pavement illegal.

That is not what I said.

What I did say was that the Labour bunch introduced the Fixed
Penalty stuff, which is the thing which provides no excuses for
riding on the pavement.

That is different to the earlier legislation, where there is scope
to argue one's case.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

That is not what I said.

Yes you did. It was a verbatim quote. IYMTS you didn't mean that, which
is something different.

Quoted message said:

What I did say was that the Labour bunch introduced the Fixed
Penalty stuff, which is the thing which provides no excuses for
riding on the pavement.

I thought the FPN did nothing to alter the criminality of the behaviour,
just to impliment an immediate prosecution without a court to validate
it.

Jon

David Hansen said:

What I did say was that the Labour bunch introduced the Fixed
Penalty stuff, which is the thing which provides no excuses for
riding on the pavement.
That is different to the earlier legislation, where there is scope
to argue one's case.

Really? You have the text to hand? I don't recall any ambiguity in
the previous legislation, but ICBW.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

David Hansen said:

Quoted message said:

What I did say was that the Labour bunch introduced the Fixed
Penalty stuff, which is the thing which provides no excuses for
riding on the pavement.
That is different to the earlier legislation, where there is scope
to argue one's case.

and Guy responded:

Quoted message said:

Really? You have the text to hand? I don't recall any ambiguity in
the previous legislation, but ICBW.

I haven't seen the previous legislation, but I've seen the legislation
for the FPN:
<url:http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1999/19991851.htm>

The legislation didn't actually define pavement cycling as an
offence (AIUI it was already an offence punishable by a fine under the
1835 HA). What the new legislation did was to specifically make
pavement cycling an offence under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988,
which effectively redefined the fine. I don't know what the fine
available in 1835 was, bit it appears that there probably was one.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Anthony Cox said:

Imagine my surprise to see a Policeman cycling on his Kona mountain
bike, weaving in between people. He could have cycled on the road,
given he was going the right way down the one-way street.

Are they immune from FPN for cycling on the pavement?

He's allowed to, so long as he's giving a backie ride
to the Chief Constable...