Cycling on paths: is message getting through?
Post categories: Cycling
| 12:52 UK time, Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Latest figures show fewer cyclists are riding on pavements or going through red lights
These figures include the Met and City of London Police. There is quite a breakdown on the graphs that shows you the peaks and troughs of offences that I've attached here.
Julia also analysed the data and came up with the following:
"There was a massive spike in fines (Fixed Penalty Notices) given out to cyclists using pavements this year in February and March.1593 penalties were given to cyclists for riding on the pavement at the start of this year (Jan - Mar 2010) compared to 943 in the same period last year. An increase of 70%.
Since then - the middle of this year (May - Jun 10) there's seen a massive decrease in these fines for cycling on the pavement (only 378) compared to the same period last year (1147).
The figures also show that overall fines given out to cyclists are increasing. In 2007 there were 5089 fines given out compared to 6724 in 2009.
And the most common offence (by a long way) is for cycling on the pavement. In 2009 1971 tickets were issued.
The next is for "contravening automatic traffic signals" (i.e. running a red light). In 2009 550 tickets were given out.
In 2010 so far (up til June) there were nearly 4 times as many penalties given out to cyclists for cycling on the pavement compared to running a red light.
Also, Westminster Borough has the most fines issued each year for the past four years. However, Hackney Borough is rising up the list. It is currently second, whereas in past years it has been Southwark or Kensington and Chelsea. (Indicates increasing numbers of cyclists in Hackney?)"
So what does it show? Does the dip in fines for cycling on the pavement show the message is getting through? It's obviously still an issue though with it being the largest offence by far for cyclists.
These figures also show that the "clampdown" had actually been going on for some time.
And guess how many cyclists got done for cycling with no lights? Just 22 in a whole year.
UPDATE 01/12/10
I've spoken to Julia again about these figures. Her take on it is the drop in tickets in April-June is probably due to reduced enforcement.
Was there a big push at the start of the year and then the bike cops relaxed?
Or have I suggested cyclists changed their habits ?? Unlikely ...?
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~54~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I spend at least two hours every day, walking to and from my children's school and other destinations in the London Borough of Hounslow, and it's rare that I see more cyclists on the road than on the pavement. Every day, I am forced to avoid cyclists on the footpaths, often alongside roads which have green cycle lanes painted on them.
Yesterday, for instance, I was out just as it was getting dark, before 5pm, and I saw at least 6 cyclists on the pavements during a 15-minute walk. Needless to say, none of them had lights.
I have also observed PCSOs cycling on the footpaths - what sort of message does that give to the public?
I don't think a cyclist has ever bothered to stop at a red light when I have been crossing the road at a Pelican crossing on the way to/from school with my children. Evidently, it's too much trouble to slow down when approaching a crossing and it's accpetable merely to veer around, at high speed, pedestrians who are crossing when the green man is illuminated.
Complain about this comment
The February and March spike is probably due to the focus on cycling offences in Central London at that time. It seems to me that although the police acknowledge that cycling on pavements is illegal they don't see it as a priority. It seldom results in serious injuries, after all.
On a recent dark night one rode into me, his attention being on texting on his phone!
It needs to be appreciated that cycling on pavements is not just a safety issue. It is an enormous nuisance to pedestrians, and it infringes their rights. It is a form of bullying which is too often officially tolerated.
Complain about this comment
If people use the excuse "Oh but it's scary/dangerous on the road" then may I please point out that TfL offer FREE cycle lessons, of which I have now completed two. They're one-to-one, and REALLY helpful. I had NO confidence on the road, and now I would be (if it wasn't snowing...!) more than confident to go out and cycle on the road!
No excuse, sorry!
Complain about this comment
I am dismayed at the decline in the number of cyclists breaking the law.But I am particularly annoyed that cyclists do not need any insurance to ride on our roads, therefore should there be an accident involving a motorist and a cyclist, resulting in damage to the car, the motorist has to claim through his own insurance thus jeopardising his no claims bonus. Now that there is a push for more people to cycle rather than use their car the government should act now to introduce legislation to enforce cyclists to take out at least third party insurance,
Complain about this comment
Sod it, if it's clear jump the red light, it's one of the few advantages of being a cyclist in London. BTW, the 'cycle police' are a joke. More than happy to fine people for trivial offences but completely lacking when it comes to preventing bike theft - go back and sit in your big silver troop carriers.
Complain about this comment
Yes David, great idea, so now people will be priced out of riding a bike. How about people taking out third party insurance incase they step on your toes? Infact lets all stay inside and never leave the house incase I accidently make eye contact with someone.
Why not charge road tax too? Or have an MOT? Are you really that much of an imbecile? The Daily Mail is that way >>>>>>>
Complain about this comment
David and extraforte;
Third party insurance for cyclists is not expensive, membership of the London Cycling Campaign or the CTC costs between £30-£40 per year for adults, with significantly reduced concessions rates, and provides third party insurance.
That said I do not think requiring cyclists to have insurance is sensible. Cyclists cannot cause the levels of damage that drivers can without a motor vehicle being involved.
I would argue that some of the assumptions of the article are incorrect. The number of FPNs is not indicative of the rate of offending, only of the number of FPNs. The quote does not take into account the rate of offending (offences per cyclist), number of cyclists on the road or number breaking the law at any one time.
This really needs a well designed observational study over a reasonable length of time (eg. 1 week, 7am-7pm) looking at a particular place and assessing all cyclists, not just those who actively break the law, but those who obey it as well.
P.S. and cyclists do pay road tax, what drivers pay is vehicle excise duty, which varies with g/km CO2 and mpg.
Complain about this comment
As for an observational study of cyclist's behaviour, there is more than enough fixed CCTV cameras on our roads without needing anyone standing in the rain or snow to do it either. However, a "temptation" rating to cycle on footpaths and jump red lights would also be needed as a control to compare more fairly easy, empty suburban lanes (reaction: "c'mon, man, there's no reason to go on the pavement - there's hardly any cars!) with big, horrible roundabouts and one-way system junctions (reaction: "hmmm, maybe it is a touch scary with lorries and cement mixers all 'round you").
Complain about this comment
If we are going to fine cyclists for cycling on the pavement then can we also please impose fixed penalties for:
* Motorists who think cycle lanes are just another form of parking bay,
* Pedestrians who walk in cycle lanes, and pedestrians who step out in the road in front of a cyclist then huff when the cyclist rings their bell or shouts in frustration.
I can confirm slor's comment about roundabouts - they are very hostile environments for cyclists.
Complain about this comment
Isn't the real problem that we don't have proper facilities for cyclists in Britain. In Holland and several other European countries they have proper cycle lanes which separate cyclists from motor traffic, thereby making cyclists feel safe so that they don't feel the need to cycle on pavements. In the UK, on the other hand, we appear to think that painting parts of roads green or blue makes some sort of difference to cyclists and stops motor traffic from colliding with us - a notion which is self-evidently daft. In fact, of course, cyclists are about as vulnerable as pedestrians; so, arguably, pavements are where they should ride. I understand, of course, that bad, aggressive cyclists intimidate or endanger pedestrians - and I'm not trying to excuse that - but that doesn't mean that the rest of us (and I like to think that we are the majority) should automatically be cast out amongst traffic where we are and feel very exposed and in danger. The grim truth is that many cyclists die each year because they have to ride on the roads alongside motor traffic.
If we really want to encouarge cycling in this country - which is, ultimately, good for health, traffic congestion and the environment - we are going to have to provide a real balance between motor traffic, pedestrians and cyclists. Until that happens we shouldn't be surprised if cyclists use pavements.
As for insurance, any cyclist who doesn't buy third party insurance is a fool dicing with potential bankruptcy. As someone has already written here, it's pretty cheap and it easily pays for itself even if you only collide with a car once every few years.
Complain about this comment
I cycle every day, and have done for 20 years. I don't jump red lights or cycle on the pavement. I find it offensive that I get tarred with the same brush. What is even more offensive is the attack on cyclists by the rest of the population. Vehicle drivers expect us to give way for them on the roads, Pedestrians expect us to give way for them when they walk on cycle paths. Councils fail to implement proper cycle lanes. Either they share the pavement and expect people to cycle at a snails pace with 5 times the number of stop lines than the road or they end up in the road with no laws to prevent other road users using the same. It is no wonder that in some eyes that some cyclists need to take the matter into their own hands.
Complain about this comment
Up to about this March, the City police were implementing a priority, set by a neighbourhood liaison meeting, to target cyclists running lights or riding on pavements etc. Around March they were persuaded that this was a biased view, and that they should be targetting traffic offences generally - how about for example targetting the absolutely routine infringement of ASLs (cycle boxes at lights) by motorbikes and other vehicles, or those relatively few cycle lanes which are specifically cycle-only (solid white lined)?
The result - 72 FPNs since then of which 63 were issued to - you guessed it - CYCLISTS! I have no scientific data on the subject, but my anecdotal experience suggests that in the City of London cyclists made up about 15-20% of "vehicles" in rush hour when I ride, and accounted for fewer infringements (mainly red light running) than motor vehicles (infringing ASLs, speeding, infringing cycle lanes, light jumping etc), so why is the balance so skewed?
Complain about this comment
If only some councils didn't encourage cycling on the pavement by painting lines on them...
http://grimnorth.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/crap-cycling-woodford-new-road/
See what I mean? How confusing is that...
Complain about this comment
I think both side should be responsible, foot walker and cycle user, but still major role can be performed by local council. I go to my office situated near Heathrow on car last year and i have to take the services of http://www.drivefly.co.uk to park my car with them, but its going to be really expensive now and now i decide,im going to use cycle or Bus for my office, isn't really bad situation of us.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS