"Marc Brett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:spokes said:while he was where he didn't ought to be. cycle on footpaths, you don't
have
a leg to stand on. metaphorically only, if you're lucky. end of.
Do stop top-posting. It's a pain in the neck for others, even if it's
convenient for you.
Anyway, the legislation was never meant to be as inflexible as you seem
to paint it.
Home Office Minister Paul Boateng:
"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."
Home Office Advice:
"CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as
police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the
chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat
officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The
Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to
enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly
on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.
"I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the
pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who
sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic,
and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief
officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a
considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone
under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home
Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004) "
The CTC's position on the pavement cycling FPNs is that it is a
demonisation of a minority group, where cyclists are caught in a pincer
action between the Law on the pavement and the health hazard of the
road, especially if the Law does not recognise the difference between
responsible and irresponsible riding.
Sorry to be inconvenient. Is this better?
"I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the
pavements."
Such as adults riding on the footpaths to avoid - by their own admission -
not 'the health hazard of the road' but simply inconvenience to them, fast
enough and carelessly enough that they fail to avoid a car and require
hospitalisation when they come off. This is not the 'flexibility' they're
talking about. And to pretend otherwise is to muddy the issue.
It's really really simple. If you do things like this, you take the
consequences. I'm sure we all, for example, overtake lines of stationary
traffic on the inside. But we do it really carefully, not least because we
know that if we come a cropper because someone opens a door without looking,
it's our fault. Yes, maybe they should have looked. But they are under no
obligation to. Because overtaking on the inside is illegal, period. And if
you do it, you do it at your own risk. And if it all goes pear-shaped, you
put your hands up and take the consequences. What you don't do is go bawling
off to your peers like a big girls blouse.
