Cyclists caught on camera flouting the law (From Basingstoke Gazette)
When news happens, text BAZ and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Cyclists caught on camera flouting the law
9:27am Thursday 20th September 2012 in Local By Emily Roberts, Chief Reporter
Cyclists caught on camera flouting the law
THEY are risking a fine of hundreds of pounds – but it seems that many people are willing to flout the law when it comes to riding a bike in Basingstoke’s Top of The Town area.
The Gazette went along to monitor what was happening after we were alerted by concerned pedestrians.
The area is solely for pedestrians, and signs inform bike riders that they are not allowed to cycle or they could face a £500 fine. The Gazette spent an hour in Market Place to see just how many people ignored the signs.
Here are the first of The Gazette's pictures showing cyclists riding in a pedestrian area.
See our picture gallery for more http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/photographs/cyclists_top_of_the_town/
*See Thursday's Gazette to find out what some of the cyclists had to say.
Comments(54)
erbert
says...
11:05am Thu 20 Sep 12
The best way would be to enforce the fines, they're not much use, if you're only ever threats that never get enforced.
66Mike
says...
12:26pm Thu 20 Sep 12
Emily Roberts
says...
12:34pm Thu 20 Sep 12
This story was covered in response to comments from members of the public regarding the problem of cyclists riding on pavements, particularly at Top of The Town.
Quimbo
says...
12:52pm Thu 20 Sep 12
kronik
says...
1:06pm Thu 20 Sep 12
As there are pretty much no cycle paths, i make my own.
I dont get off my bike and push it through underpaths, and noone has ever complained. I dont stop for cars when crossing roads either.
As for the Gazette photographing people it town on their bikes - they are well sad. this isnt news. get a life and get a bike. Do you cycle to work Emily?
ps well said Quimbo haha
Best_Name_Ever
says...
1:17pm Thu 20 Sep 12
kronik
says...
1:51pm Thu 20 Sep 12
nothingchanges
says...
2:12pm Thu 20 Sep 12
I'd be furious if the Gazette had taken photos of me and used them to accuse me of something on a public forum without consulting me first. Especially something as ridiculous as this!
Perhaps a balanced article could put the question of WHY cyclists cycle through their town to borough councillors who can explain why there are no cross town cycle ways (or other round town routes) yet they invested tens of thousands in ridiculous cycle lane "features" on Old Kempshott Lane.
Until a viable solution to this 'problem' is provided stop picking on a handful of people to try to be sensationalist.
Folkestone Saint
says...
2:18pm Thu 20 Sep 12
keepontriking
says...
2:47pm Thu 20 Sep 12
Regarding the FPN which these cyclists risk being issued with, in 1999 the Home Secretary made this statement:
“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.”
So, what dangers have been caused? How many collisions? How many injuries?
Then think on this...
Look at how Basingstoke has been planned as a car-centric town by our Councillors and planners. How can a cyclist do a simple SAFE journey from somewhere like BCoT to the Civic Offices?
Work it out.
I don't condone them cycling there, but would not the campaigning for safe cycle routes be a more positive use of the paper's journalistic skills?
AndrewRH
says...
3:00pm Thu 20 Sep 12
For balance, I am looking forward to photos in next week's Gazette of people who drive their cars whilst on the phone, parking on pavements, cutting off other road users, ...
Yes, the law must be respected!
erbert
says...
3:06pm Thu 20 Sep 12
Folkestone Saint wrote:The people of Basingstoke would have given permission, each byelaw is advertised in the local newspapers, you then have every opportunity to complain if you don't what they are planning. And the council are voted in by the voters, so must answer to the voters. Right to your local councillor if you don't like it.
I remember when this was a main road so when did the council get permission to say it can no longer be used as such, I feel they have too much power with noone to answer to when they make these decisions. Don't get me wrong if a cyclist is on a pavement next to a road I will tell them it is a FOOT path and yes I walk ride and drive but not at the same time.
kronik
says...
3:16pm Thu 20 Sep 12
i ride where & when i like, i do consider walkers and they are usually very friendly as I say hello as i go past
i will continue to do so
if they wish to fine me, they'll have to catch me first. good luck :)
W Wallace
says...
3:17pm Thu 20 Sep 12
But I also agree that the gazette should highlight vehicles parking badly in unauthorised areas. I'll happily take you on a 10 minute walk round my area and you can see what I am referring too. These are the proper menaces, go on get in touch.
Quimbo
says...
3:49pm Thu 20 Sep 12
JacquesMeahof
says...
4:00pm Thu 20 Sep 12
W Wallace
says...
4:16pm Thu 20 Sep 12
See our picture gallery for more http://www.basingsto
kegazette.co.uk/phot
ographs/cyclists_top
_of_the_town/
They have, this link is below the story...
W Wallace
says...
4:22pm Thu 20 Sep 12
Quimbo
says...
4:24pm Thu 20 Sep 12
Thanks again, people.
Quimbo
says...
4:27pm Thu 20 Sep 12
AndrewRH
says...
4:47pm Thu 20 Sep 12
http://youtu.be/dFc6
1Ku1P_M
AndrewRH
says...
4:50pm Thu 20 Sep 12
youtu.be/dFc61Ku1P_M
If that link gets split across two lines by this comment system then just glue it back together! Title of video is "Shopping by bike (Netherlands)" by markenlei.
Folkestone Saint
says...
6:41pm Thu 20 Sep 12
erbert wrote:Thank you erbert, I really did not know about by laws in local papers it maybe due to the fact that I have not brought a newspaper since 1994, however when I vote I am told what the party's are going to do if it buys vote's but not what they will do if it may lose them, so it would appear the onus is on me to find out what the local council is doing not for them (whose wages I pay) to inform me
Folkestone Saint wrote:The people of Basingstoke would have given permission, each byelaw is advertised in the local newspapers, you then have every opportunity to complain if you don't what they are planning. And the council are voted in by the voters, so must answer to the voters. Right to your local councillor if you don't like it.
I remember when this was a main road so when did the council get permission to say it can no longer be used as such, I feel they have too much power with noone to answer to when they make these decisions. Don't get me wrong if a cyclist is on a pavement next to a road I will tell them it is a FOOT path and yes I walk ride and drive but not at the same time.
shame
says...
8:23pm Thu 20 Sep 12
JacquesMeahof
says...
8:30pm Thu 20 Sep 12
W Wallace wrote:Please tell me you don't believe an inch of expanded polystyrene with a thin plastic cover will offer any substantial protection for a full grown adult?
@Quimbo
See our picture gallery for more http://www.basingsto
kegazette.co.uk/phot
ographs/cyclists_top
_of_the_town/
They have, this link is below the story...
Best you do some research if so.
W Wallace
says...
9:04am Fri 21 Sep 12
Well it acted as a buffer when I was knocked off my bike. To the extent that should I not have been wearing a helmet they are pretty certain it would have been my skull that cracked as opposed to the helmet.
So yes I am living proof that they do offer protection. Is that research good enough for you. You seem to know a lot about nothing.
cybersheeep
says...
9:28am Fri 21 Sep 12
jbee37
says...
11:29am Fri 21 Sep 12
adiebb
says...
12:31pm Fri 21 Sep 12
JacquesMeahof
says...
12:37pm Fri 21 Sep 12
Whilst I respect that you believe you wouldn't be alive had you not worn your helmet, factually it is impossible to prove, thankfully.
Would you be as good to read the evidence on the following link?
http://www.cyclehelm
ets.org/1209.html
The cycle helmet "truth" isn't as clear cut as the manufacturers would have us believe.
AndrewRH
says...
1:34pm Fri 21 Sep 12
Drive on! (or walk as the case may be)
Quimbo
says...
2:05pm Fri 21 Sep 12
AndrewRH wrote:a lack of bicycle paths in Basingstoke is an issue
The reporter has told me that only 2 people (me being one) say a lack of bicycle paths in Basingstoke is an issue - no article planned until more people tell her same.
Drive on! (or walk as the case may be)
that's three
BasTran
says...
2:30pm Fri 21 Sep 12
Quimbo wrote:That's four. Maybe an article on the number of cyclists injured on B'stoke roads next week?
AndrewRH wrote:a lack of bicycle paths in Basingstoke is an issue
The reporter has told me that only 2 people (me being one) say a lack of bicycle paths in Basingstoke is an issue - no article planned until more people tell her same.
Drive on! (or walk as the case may be)
that's three
RgPostcode
says...
4:12pm Fri 21 Sep 12
adiebb wrote:Really? that path is very wide 3 times wider than normal.
I have no problem with cyclists, except the moron that expects me to move so he can go past me on the narrow footpath along the A30!
RgPostcode
says...
4:18pm Fri 21 Sep 12
They're also at the bottom of Church Street.
It's quite an issue because this area of no bikes does get in the way of getting from lets say Kings Furlong to Popley.
There is not enough cycle paths in Basingstoke I can think of about 4
1. Eastrop Park where people walk in the way of it
2. Worting Road by Lidl
3. Winklebury Way where buses will try and hit you.
4. is by Milestones.
JacquesMeahof
says...
6:00pm Fri 21 Sep 12
You have to *really* take care going past the Lidl exit - some folk using that exit don't seem to recognise that the bike path has priority there.
BTG
says...
6:36pm Fri 21 Sep 12
The lack of bicycle paths in Basingstoke is an issue..........espec
ially for us motorists who cringe when the cyclists go flying out into the flow of traffic
Best_Name_Ever
says...
10:28pm Fri 21 Sep 12
Mighty Antar
says...
1:28pm Sat 22 Sep 12
velolutionary
says...
5:04pm Sun 23 Sep 12
keepontriking
says...
10:16am Mon 24 Sep 12
And still waiting for their 'chief' reporter to take up an offer of riding around the alternative road route.
Hey, I'd even buy her a coffee after.
adiebb
says...
10:16am Mon 24 Sep 12
RgPostcode wrote:Well, you obviosusly do not walk this every day, as I do. Can I suggest you walk from the Junction with Homesteads Rd towards the BH roundabout for approx two thirds of a mile, then tell me it's 3x as wide as normal!
adiebb wrote: I have no problem with cyclists, except the moron that expects me to move so he can go past me on the narrow footpath along the A30!Really? that path is very wide 3 times wider than normal.
amazingstoke
says...
12:06pm Mon 24 Sep 12
robertspet8
says...
5:26pm Mon 24 Sep 12
I was surprised to learn that the TOT is a cycle free zone. But why a £500 when it is only £60 for a speeding in a car - which will cause the greater damage and injury, a bike or a car?
I agree with many of the above comments:
Basingstoke is far too car-centric, although improvemnts for both cyclists and pedestrians are gradually being made.
Why not put a cycle lane down the middle of the TOT?
Too many cyclists are flouting the laws which in turn are not being inforced.
As amazingstoke infers this is a good article - it has made people think and has created a debate.
DougieL
says...
6:14pm Mon 24 Sep 12
1. When they built Festival Place they blocked the nice access road that went under the Malls from West to East.
2. There's a safe, sensible, desirable one-way route from East to West going round Timberlake/New Road. But the only coherent route from West to East is Churchill Way dual carriageway through the tunnel. You'll understand why folks dislike that - it's not safe, sensible or desirable in the dark with cars travelling at 40mph (and more).
3. The signs that prohibit cycling on London St/Winchester St are not to Highways Agency/DfT standards. They are tiny almost invisible little circles just about at ground level. Where's the head height sign that's at least 27cm in diameter?
4. Is there a current valid traffic restriction order (TRO) in force to prevent cycling? There's a "No Vehicles" (Except for Access) sign at the Winton Sq end, but I'm using the route to access some of the premises in the town - so that doesn't count.
5. As robertspet8 says, "Why not have an authorised cycle route?" As long as everyone slows down a bit there's enough room to share the ToT with pedestrians. Make the route twisty (not direct like the Romans made it) and cyclists will have to slow to avoid traffic calming obstacles.
CathMeIfYouCan
says...
7:14pm Mon 24 Sep 12
So yeah, sucks to be us 'Criminals' caught on camera. Even if most of them are arse shots, I look great kitted up and riding on my bike, thanks Gazette!
Opinion next. While the cycle routes are great in Basingstoke, connecting the dots to make a complete transport network is sorely needed. I take friends cycling occasionally and there's no cycle route from Brighton Hill to the town centre that doesn't involve some road work. Not much fun if you have kids in your group. Positively nerve racking if they are under 12. (They wobble a lot and are easily distracted)
Fun facts. One there's a pic of me in that lot and I look great, happy and fit.
Two: Opinion. If the Police and PCSOs would like to set the example and get off their own bikes and walk, I would happily follow.
That I have to make room for them, when they are on a pathway, is just plain rude. I ride the cycle routes and always encounter foot traffic meandering across into the clearly marked cycle lanes, I consider it my job to avoid the pedestrians and thread my way through them, not the other way around.
In the same way car drivers have the rule about not taking action that causes others to take avoiding action, I apply the same rule to sharing the environment with pets, children, parents, slow moving wobbly PCSOs on bikes, distracted workmen, old people, cars buses and trucks.
Three: Taunt. Catch me if you think you're going to be giving me a £500 fine. I'm on bike and a hell of a lot fitter than the lardy boys and girls in uniform I see most days.
Fun Downhill Fact :
If you can hit the Top of town early (7am-7:30am) there's almost no one around. From the top of town, down the hill past Halifax, past Waggamamas, through the food court and past Lloyds, down towards the fountains, take a sharp left and you're under Churchill way. Do that at full tilt, the most Urban fun I've had in years. Remember it's not the speed that kills you, it's coming to a sudden stop that'll do it.
CathMeIfYouCan
says...
7:17pm Mon 24 Sep 12
dunkinbiskit
says...
3:47pm Tue 25 Sep 12
Cyclemania
says...
5:55pm Tue 25 Sep 12
I personally am a cyclist and use these "paths" with respect to others every day (as do the Market traders with their vehicles twice a week!) and the bike shop to let customers try out new bikes.
As others have said trying to get from one side of town to the other on a bike is virtually impossible if you don't either use the top of town or cycle around ring roads and roundabouts which are not safe for bikes.
The top of town became pedestrianised when other roads could still be used however there are very few roads that I now feel safe riding a bicycle on.
I have been a gazette reader for a long time but if they're putting this much emphasis into catching cyclists this is not the sort of newspaper that I want to read.
Quimbo
says...
12:27am Sat 29 Sep 12
"Cyclists caught on camera flouting the law"
so what?
velolutionary
says...
1:26pm Sun 30 Sep 12
velolutionary
says...
1:38pm Sun 30 Sep 12
amazingstoke wrote:My understanding is that a newspapers primary function is to report on events with a reasonable degree of impartiality
As a newspaper is supposed to stir debate, I would say the 40-plus comments here alone says it is job done by the Gazette team.
this enables informed debate to take place reactionary lazy journalism helps nobody
robertspet8
says...
4:22pm Tue 2 Oct 12
velolutionary wrote:I do not think you are as naive as your comment suggests.
amazingstoke wrote: As a newspaper is supposed to stir debate, I would say the 40-plus comments here alone says it is job done by the Gazette team.My understanding is that a newspapers primary function is to report on events with a reasonable degree of impartiality this enables informed debate to take place reactionary lazy journalism helps nobody
The primary function of a newspaper is to make money for its owners (Newsquest in this instance). The Gazette has printed a trailer at the top of this page, not an article. This means we have to read the article in the Thursday Gazette to assess how impartially they have treated the subject (although I expect the majority of us will read it for voyeuristic reasons). But of course The Gazette wants us to buy the Thursday edition for financial reasons. Trailing news articles is common practice and is employed by all the news media - printed, TV, online, etc. If they did not whet our appetites with little morsels like this they would soon lose their audience.
As amazingstoke says, 'job done by the Gazette.'
nothingchanges says...
11:03am Thu 20 Sep 12
In Europe, cyclists have much more freedom and they wouldn't think twice about allowing cyclists to use town centre streets, pedestrianised or not. Perhaps it's time the council provided real solutions across the entire borough for decent cycle lanes etc.
The top of town is dead anyway so surely we should be encouraging more people in - in fact, wasn't there a suggestion recently that it should be opened up to traffic. What will the people do then with cars and buses all over the place?
I'm not an avid cyclist and I'm not one of the people in the "rogue gallery" but this is just ridiculous! Oh, and has the Gazette got permission from these people to include their pictures in the paper/online?