Have you ever been fined or stopped for pavement cycling?

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 02:42:20 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Howard
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Sound like she is the sort of CSO who enjoys abusing their powers. The
>Home Office certainly didn't intend Fixed Penalty Notices for
>'pavement cycling' to be used in such a way.

What they claim to have intended and pieces of paper produced by
party politicians are irrelevant. What actually matters is what they
put into the law.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[JNugent]

Howard wrote:

> bornfree wrote:

>> I was approached the other day by an community support officer after I
>> had just gotten off my bike from cycling a short stretch on the
>> pavement. She told me if she had caught me I would have been fined. I
>> certainly will be more careful from now on.

> Sound like she is the sort of CSO who enjoys abusing their powers. The
> Home Office certainly didn't intend Fixed Penalty Notices for
> 'pavement cycling' to be used in such a way.

That is irrelevant. The "Home Office" does not operate the law. That is
the job of the local police force.

The idea that footway cyclists should see Boateng's inadvised (because
so unclear and confused) remarks as a Get Out Of Jail Free Card is
laughable.

> When FPN's were introduced Home Office Minister Paul Boeteng issued a
> letter stating that:

> '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.'

> This guidance has been reiterated by John Crozier of the Home Office
> who in a letter dated 23/02/04 (Ref T5080/4) with reference to the use
> of FPN's by Community Support Officers's Stated:

> '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.'

That does not fetter the discretion of the officer in enforcing the law
and protecting the (pedestrian) public. The measures provided by
Parliament (not by the minister in person as though he were some sort of
tribune of the people) are available to the police to use as they see
fit in the circumstances of the case.

And in any case, what's to say that the PCSO didn't judge that the
offender *was* being inconsiderate and irresponsible? The PCSO certainly
used discretion in dealing with the incident. What's wrong with a
friendly warning?

 

[JNugent]

David Hansen wrote:

> Howard <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> Sound like she is the sort of CSO who enjoys abusing their powers. The
>> Home Office certainly didn't intend Fixed Penalty Notices for
>> 'pavement cycling' to be used in such a way.

> What they claim to have intended and pieces of paper produced by
> party politicians are irrelevant. What actually matters is what they
> put into the law.

Exactly.

No minister ever gets called into court to explain what they intended or
didn't intend. The courts simply follow judicial interpretation of what
was enacted.

 

[Mark T]

JNugent writtificated

> No minister ever gets called into court to explain what they intended or
> didn't intend. The courts simply follow judicial interpretation of what
> was enacted.

Do you think that when interpreting the laws, the judiciary take into
account the intentions of the people that passed them? <--- rhetorical
question.

 

[Howard]

On Feb 9, 1:17 pm, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> The "Home Office" does not operate the law. That is
> the job of the local police force.
>

You mean like it is the job of the police to enforce the legal speed
limit? And yet the police have taken it on themselves to refuse to
enforce the law of the land on this matter unless a driver is going at
least 10% and another 2 Mph over the actual legal limit! (Nothing to
do with speedometer accuracy either as by law an error must give an
over-read of the true speed).

Most laws are enforced by reference to a set of guidelines which
detail how the wording of the law should be interpreted, such as those
which define what actually constitutes 'dangerous' driving. Why
should the way an offence such as 'pavement cycling' is enforced be
any different? This is especially so given that the 'danger' posed to
pedestrians is actually very small, with only 60 or so 'pavement
cyclist' injury collisions being recorded each year across the whole
of the UK (including minor injuries) and fatalities running at a rate
of around 1 every 5 years. In reality pedestrians on a footway are
vastly more at risk from motor vehicle users with over 40 pedestrians
being killed every year when walking along a footway as a consequences
of being hit by a motor vehicle and another 3,500 or so injured!

 

[JNugent]

Mark T wrote:

> JNugent writtificated

>> No minister ever gets called into court to explain what they intended or
>> didn't intend. The courts simply follow judicial interpretation of what
>> was enacted.

> Do you think that when interpreting the laws, the judiciary take into
> account the intentions of the people that passed them? <--- rhetorical
> question.

The courts certainly try to make Parliament's intentions work (by, for
instance, rejecting defences or challenges that would effectively
undermine the whole purpose of an Act). It is Parliament's intentions
that are relevant, not those of pundits, whether elected or not.

 

[JNugent]

Howard wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>> The "Home Office" does not operate the law. That is
>> the job of the local police force.

> You mean like it is the job of the police to enforce the legal speed
> limit? And yet the police have taken it on themselves to refuse to
> enforce the law of the land on this matter unless a driver is going at
> least 10% and another 2 Mph over the actual legal limit! (Nothing to
> do with speedometer accuracy either as by law an error must give an
> over-read of the true speed).

> Most laws are enforced by reference to a set of guidelines which
> detail how the wording of the law should be interpreted, such as those
> which define what actually constitutes 'dangerous' driving. Why
> should the way an offence such as 'pavement cycling' is enforced be
> any different?

That's easy. It's because it isn't a question of degree, measurement or
judgment (subject to the perceptions of fallible humans), as are the
other matters you mention above.

You don't need a speed gun or any other piece of scientifically
calibrated equipment to work out whether someone is cycling or driving
along the footway (or the wrong way along a one-way street, or after
dark without lights on); just the Mk I Eyeball.

> This is especially so given that the 'danger' posed to
> pedestrians is actually very small, with only 60 or so 'pavement
> cyclist' injury collisions being recorded each year across the whole
> of the UK (including minor injuries) and fatalities running at a rate
> of around 1 every 5 years.

Yes... people keep saying this. The killed and injured pedestrians
(there'll be plenty more unrecorded injuries, of course) just don't seem
to matter, do they?

> In reality pedestrians on a footway are
> vastly more at risk from motor vehicle users with over 40 pedestrians
> being killed every year when walking along a footway as a consequences
> of being hit by a motor vehicle and another 3,500 or so injured!

Not relevant. There are also laws against driving motor vehicles along
footways. Please let's not make another Groundhog Day out of that train
of thought.

 

[Mark T]

JNugent writtificated

> It is Parliament's intentions
> that are relevant, not those of pundits, whether elected or not.

Well you could relegate the Home Office Minister, commenting on his own
department's legislation, to the position of mere pundit. There is some
later clarification too:

"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)"

I presume The Home Office has issued proper guidance notes, rather than
communicating entirely through Mr. Peel.

The quote above was taken from
<www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php>

 

[JNugent]

Mark T wrote:

> JNugent writtificated

>> It is Parliament's intentions
>> that are relevant, not those of pundits, whether elected or not.

> Well you could relegate the Home Office Minister, commenting on his own
> department's legislation, to the position of mere pundit. There is some
> later clarification too:

> "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)"

I presume you know that this does not mean that person under the age of
16 (or, for that matter, anyone over the age of 16) cannot be prosecuted
for the offence? All that is at issue is dealing with the offence by way
of a FPN. I would assume that mot law-breakers would prefer the
fixed-penalty system to a day at the local Mags (if they're guilty).

> I presume The Home Office has issued proper guidance notes, rather than
> communicating entirely through Mr. Peel.

"Guidance" is... er... guidance. It is not an instruction and it is not
binding.

The police officer mentioned in the OP was acting correctly.