City Of London Police - more baffling prioritising.

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:

In article ,
says...

This is ridiculous and I think it is a symptom of the police taking
the easy option to "up" their statistics and look as if they are
doing something useful.


No, its evidence that the system is institutionally anti-cyclist. You
get a £300 fine in London for killing a cyclist with your truck while
rummaging through your paperwork (the Emma Foa case) while according
to yesterday's Evening Standard, they are planning to introduce a
£100 spot fine for cycling on the pavement in London, an activity
that kills one person every four years in the whole of the UK.


And, as far as I can tell, no fines for driving your vehicle onto the
pavement (typically used to park, sometimes used to squeeze past other
vehicles, and no doubt other cases).

Do cyclists ever get fined for parking on the "pavement"?

Or are the fines mentioned here imposed for cycling along the footway
in normal progress rather than cycling along the carriageway?

IOW, isn't this apples and oranges?

JNugent wrote:
Nigel Cliffe wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:

In article ,
lid says...

This is ridiculous and I think it is a symptom of the police taking
the easy option to "up" their statistics and look as if they are
doing something useful.


No, its evidence that the system is institutionally anti-cyclist. You
get a £300 fine in London for killing a cyclist with your truck while
rummaging through your paperwork (the Emma Foa case) while according
to yesterday's Evening Standard, they are planning to introduce a
£100 spot fine for cycling on the pavement in London, an activity
that kills one person every four years in the whole of the UK.


And, as far as I can tell, no fines for driving your vehicle onto the
pavement (typically used to park, sometimes used to squeeze past other
vehicles, and no doubt other cases).

Do cyclists ever get fined for parking on the "pavement"?

But parking in the street is an offence AIUI - obstructing the highway.

Nick wrote:
JNugent wrote:

Nigel Cliffe wrote:

Tony Raven wrote:

In article ,
lid says...

This is ridiculous and I think it is a symptom of the police taking
the easy option to "up" their statistics and look as if they are
doing something useful.


No, its evidence that the system is institutionally anti-cyclist. You
get a £300 fine in London for killing a cyclist with your truck while
rummaging through your paperwork (the Emma Foa case) while according
to yesterday's Evening Standard, they are planning to introduce a
£100 spot fine for cycling on the pavement in London, an activity
that kills one person every four years in the whole of the UK.

And, as far as I can tell, no fines for driving your vehicle onto the
pavement (typically used to park, sometimes used to squeeze past
other vehicles, and no doubt other cases).

Do cyclists ever get fined for parking on the "pavement"?

But parking in the street is an offence AIUI - obstructing the highway.

I assumed the PP had considered that. I had certainly assumed that he
knows that crossing a footway to get to an off street parking space is
obviously fully legal (for a motor vehicle or a bicycle), whether in
the City of London or out in the suburbs.

In Central London, it is still fairly common to see bikes chained to
railings or other fixtures, effectively parked on the pavement.
Anecdotally, I'd say it's not as common as it once was (say, twenty
years ago), but you still see it. Some buildings now display signs
asking cyclists not to chain their bikes to railings, etc.

I don't detect any sense within these current complaint that any of
that is being addressed by the CoLP. AIUI, they are cracking down (to
an extent) on moving offences by cyclists. That being so, it isn't
relevant to point out that motor vehicles are not being fined for
parking on the pavement (if that's what the PP actually meant - he
might not have meant it that way - he might have been referring to
pavement crossings).

Nick writes:

JNugent wrote:
Nigel Cliffe wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:

In article ,
lid says...

This is ridiculous and I think it is a symptom of the police taking
the easy option to "up" their statistics and look as if they are
doing something useful.


No, its evidence that the system is institutionally anti-cyclist. You
get a £300 fine in London for killing a cyclist with your truck while
rummaging through your paperwork (the Emma Foa case) while according
to yesterday's Evening Standard, they are planning to introduce a
£100 spot fine for cycling on the pavement in London, an activity
that kills one person every four years in the whole of the UK.


And, as far as I can tell, no fines for driving your vehicle onto
the pavement (typically used to park, sometimes used to squeeze
past other vehicles, and no doubt other cases).

Do cyclists ever get fined for parking on the "pavement"?

But parking in the street is an offence AIUI - obstructing the highway.

Well - the pavement is also (normally) part of the Highway, so in
theory obstructing the pavement with a bike could be an instance of
this. But in either case you've only committed an offence if you
really are obstructing...

Note that in London (not elsewhere in the country) it is a specific
offence to park a car on the pavement.

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:58:25 +0100, "Nigel Cliffe"
wrote:

Tony Raven wrote:
In article ,
lid says...
This is ridiculous and I think it is a symptom of the police taking
the easy option to "up" their statistics and look as if they are
doing something useful.


No, its evidence that the system is institutionally anti-cyclist. You
get a £300 fine in London for killing a cyclist with your truck while
rummaging through your paperwork (the Emma Foa case) while according
to yesterday's Evening Standard, they are planning to introduce a
£100 spot fine for cycling on the pavement in London, an activity
that kills one person every four years in the whole of the UK.

And, as far as I can tell, no fines for driving your vehicle onto the
pavement (typically used to park, sometimes used to squeeze past other
vehicles, and no doubt other cases).

The injuries from damaged pavements are both numerous and severe. The
fact that motor vehicles do most of the damage seems to be completely
overlooked:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/147195.stm

"One estimate suggests you are 10 times more likely to end up in
hospital from a pavement fall than from being hit by a vehicle. And in
many cases the injuries are as severe as those suffered in road
crashes."


I wonder if anyone has similarly reliable numbers on the injuries caused
by the far more visible (but I would expect far less dangerous) crime of
pavement cycling?

In ,
Paul Rudin tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Note that in London (not elsewhere in the country) it is a specific
offence to park a car on the pavement.


Except, of course, in the bits of London where it isn't...

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
Like Kant, it is my wish to create my own individual
epistemology. But I also wish to find out what is for pudding.

JNugent wrote:
Nigel Cliffe wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:

In article ,
lid says...

This is ridiculous and I think it is a symptom of the police taking
the easy option to "up" their statistics and look as if they are
doing something useful.


No, its evidence that the system is institutionally anti-cyclist. You
get a £300 fine in London for killing a cyclist with your truck
while rummaging through your paperwork (the Emma Foa case) while
according to yesterday's Evening Standard, they are planning to
introduce a £100 spot fine for cycling on the pavement in London,
an activity that kills one person every four years in the whole of
the UK.


And, as far as I can tell, no fines for driving your vehicle onto the
pavement (typically used to park, sometimes used to squeeze past
other vehicles, and no doubt other cases).

Do cyclists ever get fined for parking on the "pavement"?

Or are the fines mentioned here imposed for cycling along the footway
in normal progress rather than cycling along the carriageway?

OK, delete the parking bit (though I think its a serious problem). Also, I
fully recognise that crossing the pavement is often legal, to gain access to
premises, etc..

However, driving up the kerb, along the pavement for a few yards, before
dropping back onto the road isn't legal. Yet its commonplace in the narrow
streets of the City (at least it seems to be from my occaisional walks
through there from train station to office). The vehicle committing this
offence would appear to be identical to a cyclist using the pavement to gain
access to another bit of "cyclist legal" route.



IOW, isn't this apples and oranges?

Nope.



- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

On Oct 18, 8:58 am, "Nigel Cliffe" wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:
In article ,
says...
This is ridiculous and I think it is a symptom of the police taking
the easy option to "up" their statistics and look as if they are
doing something useful.

No, its evidence that the system is institutionally anti-cyclist. You
get a £300 fine in London for killing a cyclist with your truck while
rummaging through your paperwork (the Emma Foa case) while according
to yesterday's Evening Standard, they are planning to introduce a
£100 spot fine for cycling on the pavement in London, an activity
that kills one person every four years in the whole of the UK.

And, as far as I can tell, no fines for driving your vehicle onto the
pavement (typically used to park, sometimes used to squeeze past other
vehicles, and no doubt other cases).

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster athttp://www.2mm.org.uk/

and what about "squeezing past" on the pavement on a bicycle,
something I frequently do on Finchley Road to get past a blockage,
particularly on the approach to traffic lights to get a front
position. Sometimes I also cross to the opposite carriageway to
achieve that.

By the way I work not that far from Holborn Circus and Ludgate Circus.
I don't recall police checking vehicles near Ludgate Circus when I was
around there but did have a run in with a traffic cop who was
overruling the lights when I was trying to cross and was not allowing
me to pass, until I lost my patience and dismounted and ran across the
junction then re-mounted, as well as unleashing a few words, at which
point the male cop on the other side asked if I wanted to be arrested
and I replied "you have to catch me first" as I rode off towards
Blackfriars (and he was on foot).

I did see a few police on bicycles at Holborn Circus a few days ago. I
wasn't on my bike at the time as this was lunch-time, and I think he
was issuing tickets. Actually Holborn Circus is a junction where it
generally makes little sense not to obey the signals, unlike the
junction a little further West with Grays Inn Road, for which the
cyclists route up to the left-turn is often blocked, in addition to
the fact that cyclists will often continue ahead westbound on Holborn
when the light is red for them because traffic is only merging from
the right and it is therefore usually safe to do so.

For those who do not know Holborn Circus it is a junction with 6 roads
and 3 different phases, one for each opposite pair. Of these roads,
Holborn / Holborn Viaduct is the most major of the roads on the
junction. Although New Fetter Lane is technically the A4 it is not
really a big road, and that is opposite Charterhouse Street which
takes you towards Smithfields. The other roads are Hatton Garden and
St Andrews Street.

Earl Purple wrote:
By the way I work not that far from Holborn Circus and Ludgate Circus.
I don't recall police checking vehicles near Ludgate Circus when I was
around there but did have a run in with a traffic cop who was
overruling the lights when I was trying to cross and was not allowing
me to pass, until I lost my patience and dismounted and ran across the
junction then re-mounted, as well as unleashing a few words, at which
point the male cop on the other side asked if I wanted to be arrested
and I replied "you have to catch me first" as I rode off towards
Blackfriars (and he was on foot).

FWIW (and from memory, I haven't reread the act to check this before
posting), failing to comply with directions of a police officer given in
the course of directing traffic (I forget the exact wording but it's
along those lines) is pretty much the only thing you can be done for as
a pedestrian.

Well, that and holding onto a moving vehicle for the purpose of being
drawn, but you'd need to be a pretty fast runner to even _think_ that
was a good idea.


-dan

wrote:
Earl Purple wrote:
By the way I work not that far from Holborn Circus and Ludgate Circus.
I don't recall police checking vehicles near Ludgate Circus when I was
around there but did have a run in with a traffic cop who was
overruling the lights when I was trying to cross and was not allowing
me to pass, until I lost my patience and dismounted and ran across the
junction then re-mounted, as well as unleashing a few words, at which
point the male cop on the other side asked if I wanted to be arrested
and I replied "you have to catch me first" as I rode off towards
Blackfriars (and he was on foot).

FWIW (and from memory, I haven't reread the act to check this before
posting), failing to comply with directions of a police officer given in
the course of directing traffic (I forget the exact wording but it's
along those lines) is pretty much the only thing you can be done for as
a pedestrian.



I would suggest that at the very least the Terrorism Act has changed that.