Cyclist fined for 'avoiding phone box' on shared path pleads not guilty

seems to be a policy driven revenue generator to me - the council person is likely to have been given a target quantity of tickets to issue that day - so until that target is met any sense of discretion goes out the window - the law is not subjective and so I fear he will see it argued in court that he was on the pedestrian side of the path - I wonder however how many pedestrians are ticketed for walking on the cycling side of shared paths - personally I never ever cycle on paths shared or otherwise as at least things are cleared and less ambiguous on the road - but I wish this cyclist luck and agree totally that the sense for humanity has been lost when no prosecution was brought for the Regent St death - a clear indication of the value given to cyclists and a very sad day for that mans family - very very sad indeed...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/family-release-hospital-photograph...

This is just one reason why I choose to ride on the road rather than a mixed-use path. They're not fit for purpose, a stupid half-solution to a problem that can only be solved by proper design and investment.

Ha! Why didn't he use the phone box to phone a friend?

He should have just ridden off. Bit of a pillock really but no he shouldn't have been issued an FPN. Just the Met trying to raise some cash.

I would rather the legal fund was used to prosecute the regent street driver, than defend a guy who talked himself into a fixed penalty notice.

Quote:

I don't make an issue of it, just pass with care but still get shouts of 'where's your bell'.

I've had that one a couple of times recently. Has it been stirred up by the Daily Mail? I find that if I use my bell to warn pedestrians of my approach, they often jump out of their skins, so I use a quiet word + lots of patience instead. It's not always appreciated.

seems a bit of a pointless argument to me, could he have moved back after the phone box - definitely he had plenty of time to do so had he chosen to. Is there any reason to take him to court - I doubt it is worth the time of effort or cost but that's life. My main concern about the whole thing was that the pcso made him go and stand blocking the cycle lane to talk to him. What a muppet.

The clue is in the sign, 'Shared'.
I live close to a popular out of town shopping area where there are a number of shared paths, clearly defined by white line and colour, where do pedestrians prefer to walk? Yep, on the 'green carpet', often in a line across completely unaware of cyclists. I don't make an issue of it, just pass with care but still get shouts of 'where's your bell'.

'In the same way that someone who rolls slowly to a stop but whose front wheel goes a centimetre over the stop line has run a red light. Technically illegal, but in no way worth doing anything about.'

Not worth doing anything about...you and I would both hope. However if someone did want to do something about it, you'd agree that it was 'technically illegal'?

So the question isn't 'is it right or wrong', it's 'is it worth bothering about'. And I'd agree entirely with you on that question - it seems daft to use time and resource to follow this one up - but I don't make these decisions.

But, in this case there *is* something being done about it, and it *is* illegal.

Good on him for taking it on. Looks like technically he was wrong but the lawmaker that brought in the fixed penalties for pavement cycling always said it should be used with discretion. There was no discretion used here!

More to the point how ghastly is that cycle path!? looks really nasty cycling along with the wall right next to you - so bad that the guy in front passes the oncoming cyclist on the wrong side to avoid it. Plenty of real estate to be shared out so it doesn't really need to be so narrow as to be unusable (apart from by wandering phone boxes)

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Yes, there are more important things to worry about, but he was in the wrong.

Whatever happened to this?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jan/20/police-cycl...

The comparison to the Michael Mason case is sickening. It really highlights the Met's priorities to road safety.

I hope this gets thrown out of Court - the CPS are shown up to be the fools that we all know they are.

What a waste of everyones time. Yes he could have gone back into the lane, but honestly who really cares...

I think you'll find that's Bromley Magistrates Court.

Just watched the video. What a jobs worth moron! No way would I have even paid that idiot the time of day. Just ride off.

Send him up north to Manchester, he can have a job ticketing motorists who park in cycle lanes everywhere. Oh...that's right.....they don't give a S**t about that!

The system will fight tooth and nail against anyone trying to disagree. That's why the CPS will *never* drop this and will possibly appeal an acquittal.

It does take guts to fight the system like this, but good luck.

Go for it and good luck.