Hideous idea; no.

Nonsense.

An excuse for lazy coppers or power hungry plastic plod (PCSOs) to get some easy pickings that's all. I disagree entirely with the insistence that in all circumstances cyclists should join the general traffic flow and compete with the yummy mummies in their 4x4's, the couriers chasing their delivery schedules and HGV drivers with their overloaded beasts. It's an unfair contest should the inevitable happen and one comes into contact with the other.

Cycling like a maniac is different but there's already laws in place for that sort of cycling. There's no excuse for any more unnecessary or avoidable cycle deaths on the road.

Cycle law

Can't see what's wrong with the idea. Could be extended to many other anti social deviances as well. Such as littering, minor shop lifting, road offences etc.etc. Give the enforcers mobile card payment machines. Incentivise them and hey presto, safer, cleaner streets and a nice income stream. We keep banging on about law and order; this is a good opportunity to get some.

Trouble is the law can be an *** and those who enforce the laws can be as$holes. Quite a number of people have been prosecuted for 'littering' after throwing apple cores from their cars.

Incentivise them you say... Instant payment enforcement you say... Making sure that laws are adhered to etc etc.

That sounds far more draconian than current parking enforcement procedures locally and god knows there's enough complaints that it's a 'nice little earner' and the streets are patrolled by jackbooted WBC Stormtroopers. In what way would the Cycle Gestapo differ from parking wardens who are also enforcing traffic laws?

Agreed. I don't want to live in a world of petty Judge Dredds. It would also be the thin end of the wedge: the privitisation of policing.

So its two fingers to those who complain about people parking in front of their homes, or cyclists zipping along narrow pavements, or drivers who don't concentrate on what they are doing, is it? Presumably these 'jackbooted stormtroopers' are the same ones being complained about for not keeping the streets clear as you drive around. What are they supposed to do?

.....except that's not what you said. With an incentive run enforcement scheme you'll get tickets and fines being issued to cyclists trundling along wide open pavements with not a pedestrian in sight as well, not just those 'zipping along narrow pavements'.

It's about finding the right balance on what is the appropriate level to commence enforcement. Otherwise you end up with this sort of thing:


EDIT: (link not working)

BBC link

Quite right. What's wrong with that? The law is the law even when no one is looking! Some old gent. riding sedately along an empty pavement is quite OK...until some old bird, partially sighted, comes out of her hedge bordered garden gate...bang. It happened to a neighbour who took a year to get back to normal(ish). So, where is your balance?

We also keep hearing about how idle and non discriminatory the enforcers of the rules are today. Oooh I got a parking ticket because I couldn't be arsed to read the signs, or I was only 10 minutes over etc. etc. And then the 'you never see a Warden round here and some xxx has parked outside my house'. So, the best way to stop all this frustration is to lift the game and make no exceptions.

We English can't cope with Roman law, yet another reason for us to exit Europe!

This link works.
BBC link
It demonstrates that if you rigidly apply the law to the precise letter in every circumstance you can end up looking a foolish automaton.

I imagine this copper has been the butt of endless jokes in the workplace since this overzealous application of his interpretation of traffic law.

And of course that must be true and entirely accurate as its on BBC website ;-)

Just one silly, and we don't even know all the facts! That's the same sort of story we hear time and again 'other way round'. Like the myriad 'I was only eat'in a nana and they booked me'....then in next page, we see a clip of some dame eating a bowl of hot porridge whilst driving. Still, I suppose the families of the bereaved where some clown has written off innocent loved ones because they were texting or looking at porn whilst driving, might get a little comfort from the fact that the 'stormtroopers' infringed the drivers liberties and looked up their phone records. Me? I wonder if such unnecessary incidents could have been avoided if these offenders had had their collars felt earlier in their lives. Yes, I'm sure the Police do see the BBC as a joke.

I don't believe in draconian measures based on anecdotal evidence. Politicians (and others) do it all the time: "Just the other day I was speaking to a..." So effin what. Does that prove the case? Of course not.

I believe we should have as few laws and punitive measures as possible while maintaining reasonable order. On-the-spot fines I see as an insidious measure to to keep the plebs in check by the well off.

If cycling is a menace, lets see the evidence. Lets see the casualty figures, etc. In my view, 10 people getting bruised by a reckless cyclist is not justification to fine all people £100.00 for riding on the pavement.

Very true, but not a week goes by without some complaint about reckless cycling, or reckless parking or wittering about people parking in front of others houses etc.etc. etc. Not only here, but all over the media. We wander about and notice a growing sea of litter and filth in our streets.

....and we then complain that nothing is done.

Well, now here is something which might have a chance of satisfying the complaints. What other evidence is needed? People are being injured, disadvantaged and having their quality of life ruined.

I really can't see this as a class thing, more to do with better behaviour. Why should we have to suffer; simply because a few very selfish people think they are above the law.

Draconian it might seem, but even with the relaxed attitudes we have today, some see the enforcement services as 'storm troopers' 'plastic Policemen' 'green meanies' etc.

So, the choice seems to be stark, continue our 'stuff you and everyone else' society or clean up our act. Frankly, we don't seem able to do the latter on our own; hence that continued stream of complaint.

In for a penny then..... time to crack down on the spitters and become a nation of swallowers...


Chewing gum of course (what else?). The blight of every town centre and seemingly nothing is done about it. Singapore has the right idea but do we actually have a law to tackle this sticky menace?
(We've kind of drifted away from the whole 'racing on public roads' theme in case you haven't noticed)



...and let's not get started on the deliberate dog mess nastiness. Greenham Common is becoming a dig turd paradise for dog owners who don't want to have the bother of bending down and picking up their hound's faecal deposits.

Couldn't agree more. Anti social behaviour should be treated holistically, irresponsible cycling is but one manifestation. Both the disgusting things you mention are others. Gobbling gum is despicable too, because it doesn't recycle. Any more than the thick cretins who pick up dog poo, then hang it in local bushes. Frankly, I'd rather keep company with a few properly marshalled racing cyclists than people who litter the streets in the way you rightly mentioned.

Fortunatly the council spent a fortune on Gum resistant paving so you won't see any in Newbury Town Centre

Change the feckin law then.

Change the feckin law then.
Like it or not it is ILLEGAL to ride a bicycle on the pavement. (Unless marked as a cycle lane.)
Chaos at the moment.
For example, Should I stop for a cyclist crossing a zebra crossing, or should the cyclist be on the road stopping for pedestrians? Is it a road vehicle or a pavement vehicle?
If a cyclist on the road meets a cyclist crossing a zebra crossing who gives way, the road vehicle or the pavement vehicle?????
I know it's been done many times before but couldn't resist this again. Made me laugh out loud so many times.

It is already illegal to ride on the pavement and that works by keeping most traffic off the path. However, I don't agree in any increase in punitive measures to maintain that law.

I don't see chaos and I see changing the law as an unnecessary expense.

It has to be clear in the eyes of the law.
If riding a bicycle on the pavement is safe and socially acceptable then the law must be changed.

It is obvious that this and other laws are generally speaking unenforced - and, therefore, almost pointless. The Irish law is an example of a change that could be made - but a poor one that relies on the judgement of the enforcers as to what is 'dangerous'. Any situation like that leads to confusion and a lot of court expense over whether the accused was being 'dangerous'. A speed limit would be another idea - but still pretty much unenforceable.

Until a better replacement comes along at least the current law means that someone riding dangerously in the eyes of the police can be prosecuted, with little burden of proof because the offence is much easier to prove 'riding on the pavement'. In effect we already have a better version of the Irish law - turn a blind eye to safe cycling on pavements (the socially acceptable bit) but not the dangerous.