Gazette put spotlight on issue weeks ago

1:00pm Saturday 20th October 2012 in News By Chris Gregory

PC Dumisani Sikhosana, Councillor Ranil Jayawardena and PC Ian Castle PC Dumisani Sikhosana, Councillor Ranil Jayawardena and PC Ian Castle

THE Gazette put the spotlight on the issue of illegal cycling in the Top of The Town area of Basingstoke – and now the police are taking action to try to catch law-breakers.

It was nearly two months ago that concerned pedestrians contacted The Gazette about the problem, so we went to the Top of The Town to see what was happening for ourselves.

As we previously reported, a reporter and photographer counted a total of 15 cyclists and five people on scooters flouting the law in just one hour – despite signs informing people they are not allowed to cycle there.

Now, police officers are targeting cyclists who repeatedly ignore ‘no cycling’ restrictions in the town centre, particularly in the pedestrianised Winchester Street area. Those caught flouting the law could face a £30 fine.

During an initial operation at the end of September, officers handed out more than 30 warnings and two fixed penalty notices to cyclists in the town centre.

PC Dumisani Sikhosana, from the town centre unit, said that people in local businesses, shoppers and residents have raised the issue with the police as a priority for something to be done.

He said: “These are pedestrianised areas where people should be able to walk safely without fear of being knocked over by cyclists.

Related links

“We would like to encourage better behaviour among people of all ages on bicycles, including those who ride recklessly on pavements, don’t use lights at night, and those who don’t stop at red lights or pedestrian crossings.”

Councillor Ranil Jayawardena, deputy leader of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, said: “The Top of The Town is covered by a pedestrianisation order from the late 1980s which prevents any vehicles – including bicycles – travelling along it, except for servicing at certain times.

“It is therefore right for the police to patrol this area to ensure the safety of those pedestrians using it.”

Police officers are also subject to the same rules, but can cycle through pedestrian areas for a policing purpose, such as responding to an incident.

Comments(28)

LesFrèresCrucy says...
1:28pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Nice to see plod wasting his time as usual. Fortunately this appears to be no more than a lip-service operation massively inflated by a local paper for its own self-righteous publicity, hence the paltry 'warnings' and pocket-money fines. If plod put his mind to it there would be no cycling in the Top of Town. Perhaps plod is trying to bring down the mayor, as he did with the chief whip, by sucking up to the paper. Silly old plod.

Report this post »

kronik says...
1:32pm Sat 20 Oct 12

the useless idiots wont catch me.
they couldnt even catch a cold.

Report this post »

jmwturner says...
4:54pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Plod should deal with the more important things first, deal with lunatic car drivers...oh, but a little harder to catch?and people who park outside schools, surely a greater risk to life and limb than cyclists.....even easier to catch!

Report this post »

The Mad Mike 1 says...
8:20pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Don't forget it is nearly the festive season, the council & police need their bonus from these fines.

Report this post »

Best_Name_Ever says...
11:50pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Oh Mad Mike. Even you must know that council workers do not get Christmas bonuses. Even if they did, the odd 30 quid is not going to get far is it?

Report this post »

Folkestone Saint says...
11:29am Sun 21 Oct 12

Is this the opposite to the serious crime squad

Report this post »

jmk210884 says...
12:07am Mon 22 Oct 12

Maybe when you guys ^~^^^~^ have been knocked over by a cyclist, or your child sent flying by one you might think differently, and want 'plod' to do something about it!

Report this post »

Buster Preciation says...
8:15am Mon 22 Oct 12

Is that the best ever example of a politician's grin or what?

Report this post »

LesFrèresCrucy says...
10:02am Mon 22 Oct 12

Best way to avoid being knocked over is to not be in the way - use your situational awareness and keep the brat on a leash.

Report this post »

66Mike says...
10:54am Mon 22 Oct 12

So Police are taking action, do we get to see the names of all the Police officers that ride their bikes illegaly on all the footpaths throughout town? Or as it is the Top of town in the report will we see the gazette taking pictures of Police officers on their bikes?

Report this post »

jmk210884 says...
1:09pm Mon 22 Oct 12

LesFrèresCrucy wrote:
Best way to avoid being knocked over is to not be in the way - use your situational awareness and keep the brat on a leash.
BUT THEY NOT MEANT TO BE THERE END OF!!!! I was walking a cycle path then understandably however i am not, if i was walking on a road in the way of cars i'd be in the wrong so cyclist in the way of pedestrians are the same! You narrow minded individual, lets hope you never need help cos you've been hurt by either, karma and all!

Report this post »

LesFrèresCrucy says...
10:55pm Mon 22 Oct 12

There are a wide variety of other objects moving along the Top aside from illegal cyclists that situational awareness can help avoid, such as pedestrians, baby buggies, street cleaners, cops on bikes, market traders and drunks, all of whom frequent the Top and all of whom can pose as obstacles to the sporadic motion of children and the situationally unaware parent. Surely cyclists are merely the tip of the iceberg of danger, and by far the least concerning.

Report this post »

elwwood says...
9:48am Tue 23 Oct 12

Surely in the interest of public safety the police should be target those cyclist riding without lights.
In the last week I have come close to killing 3 on the main roads around town.

Report this post »

Hector2004 says...
11:38am Tue 23 Oct 12

I guess the poor old Police have given up on cracking down on criminals as they tend to go unpunished on the whole. At least when they “crack down” on the motorist or pedestrian, the full unbridled force of the law is metered out. It is surely more gratifying to have a youth, cycling on the pavement imprisoned than wrestle a violent thug, get stabbed in the process and see them handed a 6 week supervision order….suspended for 2 weeks.

Report this post »

carsmutley says...
8:55am Wed 24 Oct 12

I do agree that in areas like the town centre it could cause problems if cyclists were to fly around while shoppers etc are there in great numbers however when the town is empty cycling through it would not be much of a problem.One thing ill never agree with though is the "cycling on pavement laws".Ive always maintained that Cyclists are less of a danger to pedestrians than cars are to cyclists. If a cyclist were to run into a walker the injuries are rarely life threatening but when a car hits a cyclist its very often fatal. So ive always told my kids to cycle ON FOOTPATHS that are next to a road but at the same time respect the pedestrians using the said footpaths. Surely this approach is common sense..your opinions ??

Report this post »

robertspet8 says...
12:01pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Since you ask carsmutely, my opinion is that young children should not cycle on the road. But they should not ride on the pavement without obeying a few basic rules, the main one of which is 'Give way to pedestrians.'

Report this post »

carsmutley says...
12:15pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Lets say there is a footpath a few miles out of town and its next to a busy A road. There is no one walking on this path, if my kids or myself are riding a bicycle we would allways be on the path. Cycling in the road here is just plain stupid and how many times have these cyclists held up traffic as a result ? Also a policeman who would stop someone in the above circumstances and issue them with a £30 fine is obviously taking the law too far. Another point id like to make is about cyclists riding 2 abreast on main roads/country lanes, this is an annoying and dangerous practice and when they dont go back into single-file when a vehicle approaches from behind they should be liable for fines.. opinions ??

Report this post »

robertspet8 says...
12:26pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Since you ask again carmutely, my opinion is that it is safer for bikes to ride two abreast on many roads. The reason is that drivers are tempted to overtake a single file even when there are vehicles coming the other way. This means they pass too close to the cyclists. With two abreast they will not attampt to overtake until it is safe to do so.
The Highway Code says that when overtaking cyclists the driver should allow as much room as for overtaking a motor vehicle. So two abreast is helping to insure this happens.

Report this post »

carsmutley says...
1:07pm Wed 24 Oct 12

Do you actually drive a car ? and have you ever come up behind 2 plonkers on bikes riding 2 abreast ? especially in a country lane. This is a dangerous practice and probably does cause injuries to cyclists. If the "code " says to allow the width of a car when overtaking one cyclist then when overtaking two you would then need to allow even more room ! Self obsessed ignorant cyclists putting themselves and other road users at risk !!!! I do cycle and if 2 abreast i always move back to single file when traffic approaches but then again i dont think im the only one entitled to use the highway....

Report this post »

robertspet8 says...
5:25pm Wed 24 Oct 12

carsmutley you asked for opinions and I gave mine so there is no need to be rude just because I do not agree with your view.
I did say 'many roads' not 'all roads' and I would not recommend two abreast along winding country lanes. However, what is the difference to the driver if he finds two abreast, a single file, a parked tractor or a herd of cows? Whatever he finds around the blind bend should not cause him to brake heavily because he should be driving at a speed which will allow him to pull up comfortably within the visible distance. Whatever the obstacle the same action is required: slow down and only overtake when it is safe to do so.

Report this post »

jonone says...
4:19pm Thu 25 Oct 12

LesFrèresCrucy wrote:
Best way to avoid being knocked over is to not be in the way - use your situational awareness and keep the brat on a leash.
But nobody is in the way of cyclists at Top of Town because no-one should be cycling there. Argument over!

Report this post »

LesFrèresCrucy says...
5:54pm Thu 25 Oct 12

No. The easiest method to avoid being knocked over - (I've never seen this happen by the way and I doubt it's a genuine problem at all, but for argument's sake let's suppose it is) - is not to depend on some flaky law to take care of all your problems for you, but simply to look around and be aware of what other people are doing. This applies to all people equally, and not just cyclists. Try it.

Report this post »

jonone says...
6:49pm Thu 25 Oct 12

LesFrèresCrucy wrote:
No. The easiest method to avoid being knocked over - (I've never seen this happen by the way and I doubt it's a genuine problem at all, but for argument's sake let's suppose it is) - is not to depend on some flaky law to take care of all your problems for you, but simply to look around and be aware of what other people are doing. This applies to all people equally, and not just cyclists. Try it.
I look out for things when I need to, i.e. crossing roads, or cycle paths etc. I will look out for other pedestrians etc. at Top of Town. I will not look out for cyclists there because they should *not* be cycling there. I don't understand why this is so hard to get to grips with!! Just because I have not seen something happen, I'd not be so arrogant to presume it doesn't.

Report this post »

LesFrèresCrucy says...
8:16pm Thu 25 Oct 12

I admire your zeal, although it's the same as refusing to look when crossing certain roads/footpaths/pede
strianised urban walkways out of a sense of principle, despite the possibility that one could encounter the object of one's derision, despite the fact that 'it's not supposed to be there' but still kind of 'is'.

I'm glad you accept the idea that it is a good idea to look where you're going - that really is a winner. Although the next time you use, say, traffic lights, and don't look out of principle, then be aware that there's no harm in looking, and even though people aren't supposed to jump lights, some people jump lights. Apply that principle to illegal cycling and you'll see what I mean.

Anyway, the obvious point is, neither of us have experienced these problems (assuming they exist), 'problems' we've been so keen to flesh out, so, why do either of us actually care?

I look where I'm going so I don't care.

Report this post »

jmk210884 says...
11:40pm Thu 25 Oct 12

Yes it does happen, i have seen it and a broken leg in a elderly person is very serious!

Report this post »

jonone says...
8:15am Fri 26 Oct 12

LesFrèresCrucy wrote:
Yes, very serious, which is why you should have looked where you were going.
So, if this person was injured in Top of Town or somewhere else a cyclist should NOT have been cycling, it was the injured party's fault?? You are amazing - or just a plain troll. Cyclists have such disdain for simple rules and good behaviour, it's difficult to tell sometimes! I wonder what you'd think of car drivers who don't bother giving you any room when overtaking because they have the equal attitude to you as you do to NO CYCLING signs? It would, of course, be a different story there!! Cyclists really are such hypocrites!!

Report this post »

Hector2004 says...
10:14am Fri 26 Oct 12

Yeah, they’re certainly complex creatures these cyclists; it’s almost as if it’s them against the world. They consider that cars are all out to get them but still maintain that it’s their right to ride around, two abreast. Traffic lights have no meaning for them as they consider themselves separate from the laws that confine cars. Pedestrians however, being lower in the food chain are an inconvenience to them and deserve what they have coming. I sense some double standards here…….
p.s. also, a lycra leotard is NOT suitable attire for riding a bike – get a grip !

Report this post »

LesFrèresCrucy says...
11:28am Fri 26 Oct 12

No. My argument is - be aware - no matter who you are. It really is that simple.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree