If you're on this cycle path

iakobski said:

Whatever you do, don't break down. Apparently if you walk on it you
will be "robustly prosecuted".

Quoted message said:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1829289,00.html

I once suffered a faulty disc brake overheating and seizing full on on
my motorcycle on the Forth Road Bridge. That made it impossible to
move the motorcycle until the brake had cooled down. But you're not
allowed to stop on the Forth Road Bridge. This caused baffled
consternation and heated debate among sundry brain-damaged bridge
officials for about ten minutes. After which time the brake had cooled
down and solved the problem for them :-)

It's very kind of the public services to offer employment to these
poor people.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

iakobski said:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1829289,00.html

There simply has to be more to that story.

On 17 Oct 2005 01:49:10 -0700 someone who may be "iakobski"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Whatever you do, don't break down. Apparently if you walk on it you
will be "robustly prosecuted".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1829289,00.html

That is the [censored] so-called cycle path in Dundee, to use which one
is supposed to have an "identity" card.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

iakobski said:

Whatever you do, don't break down. Apparently if you walk on it you
will be "robustly prosecuted".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1829289,00.html

Would be interesting to scoot it with one foot on a pedal and see if
they did you then quote Crank v Brookes as evidence you were not walking.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Tony Raven said:

iakobski said:

Whatever you do, don't break down. Apparently if you walk on it
you will be "robustly prosecuted".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1829289,00.html

Would be interesting to scoot it with one foot on a pedal and see
if they did you then quote Crank v Brookes as evidence you were not
walking.

Anyone brave/mischievous enough to tackle it with a push scooter?
Skates? Pogo-stick?

--
Dave...

iakobski said:

Quoted message said:

Would be interesting to scoot it with one foot on a pedal and see
if they did you then quote Crank v Brookes as evidence you were not
walking.

prompting dkahn400 to wonder:

Quoted message said:

Anyone brave/mischievous enough to tackle it with a push scooter?
Skates? Pogo-stick?

If I was up that way I'd be tempted to try it on a unicycle.

David Stone, a regular unicycle commuter in New York, recently posted to
rec.sport.unicycling about having been stopped by a policemen who seemed
worried that he might be a terrorist.

--
Danny Colyer (my reply address is valid but checked infrequently)
<URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Simon Bennett said:

There simply has to be more to that story.

Mmmmm top of the head not taking sides etc.

Supposed to have a card to use that "cycle path" - She wasn't cycling
so no "card" would be valid
She was told not to proceed - By the gateman, but she did
She was told to turn back - By the harbour master, but she didn't.

Fair enough the rules surrounding that "cycle path" are ludicrous but
if two seperate(?) people tell you not to do something and legally you
shouldn't be there in the first place ... the phrase "author of your own
misfortune" comes to mind.

That article says she is being "done" for trespassing on the cycle path
but I very much doubt that she will be being "done" for that, rather I
feel she is being "done" for trespassing in a dockyard.
Have a hunch that if she had been on a bike that had "broken down" any
"lawmen" involved would have shown a bit of common sense and not
"lifted" her, wouldn't surprise me if they threw the bike in the back of
the wagon and driven her to the gate at the far side.

Lots of feel and think in that post as I am not familiar with the
case but reading between the lines (V-dangerous on usenet).

--
This post contains no hidden meanings, no implications and certainly no
hidden agendas so it should be taken at face value. The wrong words
may be used this is due to my limitations with the English language .

David Hansen said:

On 17 Oct 2005 01:49:10 -0700 someone who may be "iakobski"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Whatever you do, don't break down. Apparently if you walk on it you
will be "robustly prosecuted".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1829289,00.html

That is the [censored] so-called cycle path in Dundee, to use which one
is supposed to have an "identity" card.

Well it if is then it is. The requirement may be stupid or not but
obviously the woman was abismally stupid. If I read it correctly
Signs
Gatekeeper
Harbour master ( with megaphone)

What did she want, HM to tell her she was breaking the law? I think
she got off lightly.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Danny Colyer said:

iakobski said:

Quoted message said:

Would be interesting to scoot it with one foot on a pedal and see
if they did you then quote Crank v Brookes as evidence you were not
walking.

prompting dkahn400 to wonder:

Quoted message said:

Anyone brave/mischievous enough to tackle it with a push scooter?
Skates? Pogo-stick?

If I was up that way I'd be tempted to try it on a unicycle.

There's no doubt in my mind that riding a unicycle would definitely be
cycling, as long as you didn't upd too often. In the official mind,
however, who knows?

Space Hopper anyone?

Quoted message said:

David Stone, a regular unicycle commuter in New York, recently posted to
rec.sport.unicycling about having been stopped by a policemen who seemed
worried that he might be a terrorist.

Well of course, it is a well-known Al Quaeda ploy to use uni-cycles.
There was the suspicious case of the man of Arab appearance who enrolled
in a uni-cycle course and told the instructors he wasn't particularly
bothered about mounting or dismounting. He just wanted to be able to
ride towards tall buildings.

--
Dave...

John_Kane said:

she got off lightly.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

I guess in Canada you don't have the same 'rights of way' as we have
become used to over here.

"Bertie Wiggins" <cycling_remove_bertie@yahoo_dot_co_dot_uk> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John_Kane said:

she got off lightly.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

I guess in Canada you don't have the same 'rights of way' as we have
become used to over here.

It was not a right of way. it was a route that cyclists with passes could
use. All other users are prohibited from passessing through what
essentially is a restricted zone on private property. The woman ignored
strong advice from two people who are charge with enforcing the rules. She
doesn't have a leg to stand on, pun intended. The loacl law seems to be
ludicrous but it was enforced legitimately.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:45:59 +0100, "vernon" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Bertie Wiggins" <cycling_remove_bertie@yahoo_dot_co_dot_uk> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John_Kane said:

she got off lightly.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

I guess in Canada you don't have the same 'rights of way' as we have
become used to over here.

It was not a right of way. it was a route that cyclists with passes could
use. All other users are prohibited from passessing through what
essentially is a restricted zone on private property. The woman ignored
strong advice from two people who are charge with enforcing the rules. She
doesn't have a leg to stand on, pun intended. The loacl law seems to be
ludicrous but it was enforced legitimately.

I understood all that.

In Britain public rights of way over private property can be
established by historical use. North America has stronger property
laws.

However, something from the depths of my memory says that dockyards
are a special case.

Quoted message said:

In Britain public rights of way over private property can be
established by historical use. North America has stronger property
laws.

However, something from the depths of my memory says that dockyards
are a special case.

It was in Scotland which has different access laws to England
and Wales and, in the case of the feckless pedestrian, some very specific
laws
introduced in Scotland, not England and Wales, post 9/11 dealing with
accessing restricted areas around docks. Rights of access are very
different
betwenn Scotland and England and Wales as are many laws.

Incidentally, is it normal to have to sign a poisons register or something
similar
when purchasing methylated spirits in Scotland? I had to do so in
Thornhill.

vernon said:

Incidentally, is it normal to have to sign a poisons register or something
similar
when purchasing methylated spirits in Scotland? I had to do so in
Thornhill.

It is indeed.

druidh

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:05:16 +0100 someone who may be "vernon"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

It was in Scotland which has different access laws to England
and Wales and, in the case of the feckless pedestrian, some very specific
laws introduced in Scotland, not England and Wales, post 9/11 dealing with
accessing restricted areas around docks.

These "laws" came about following an international review. As with
most things where "9/11" is mentioned they are [censored] designed to
reassure the nervous and allow officials/party politicians to say
they have "done something".

Quoted message said:

Rights of access are very different
betwenn Scotland and England and Wales as are many laws.

Indeed. However, the use of the route for many years had established
a right of way which idiots removed for no good purpose.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

soup said:

if two seperate(?) people tell you not to do something

....I've had multiple separate people tell me not to do something, which
in fact was perfectly legal. If I want to know the legal status of
something I'll ask someone who's qualified, not a jobsworth. :-)

R.

David Hansen said:

On 17 Oct 2005 01:49:10 -0700 someone who may be "iakobski"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Whatever you do, don't break down. Apparently if you walk on it you
will be "robustly prosecuted".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1829289,00.html

That is the [censored] so-called cycle path in Dundee, to use which one
is supposed to have an "identity" card.

I'm not sure you have ever seen it. If you have I would wonder why you
describe it as '[censored]' (it is a full width, smoothly surfaced path), or
as a 'so-called cycle path', implying that it is a stick on label for a
poor facility.

In fact it is neither of the two things you infer. It is a very usable,
reasonably well maintained path for cyclies only. It was designed and
built as such from scratch.

It is tru that you need a pass to use it because it is part of the
Forth Ports estate and the farcical legislation requires that. It is
however separated fromt eh main part of the estate by a large fence.

...d

On 18 Oct 2005 06:05:02 -0700 someone who may be "David Martin"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

It is tru that you need a pass to use it because it is part of the
Forth Ports estate and the farcical legislation requires that.

Hence my accurate description.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen said:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:05:16 +0100 someone who may be "vernon"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

It was in Scotland which has different access laws to England
and Wales and, in the case of the feckless pedestrian, some very specific
laws introduced in Scotland, not England and Wales, post 9/11 dealing with
accessing restricted areas around docks.

These "laws" came about following an international review. As with
most things where "9/11" is mentioned they are [censored] designed to
reassure the nervous and allow officials/party politicians to say
they have "done something".

Quoted message said:

Rights of access are very different
betwenn Scotland and England and Wales as are many laws.

Indeed. However, the use of the route for many years had established
a right of way which idiots removed for no good purpose.

No it hadn't. There was no right of way through the docks prior to the
cycle path. The authorities frequently turned cyclists back from
passing through if they were not visiting a business in the docks. To
go in by car you also need a pass (temporary ones are issued at the
gate with all passengers names and addresses taken.) This was the case
before 9-11, but was tightened up since.

The existing cycle path is a new development that avoids much of the
hassle that previously existed as cyclists tried to use the through
road. It is a new facility, separated from the main road by a fence. It
is manned with a gatehouse at each end. You have to apply for a pass to
use it (or take ID and give your name every time you go through.

So David, you are wrong. There was no right of way, any more than there
is a right of way through your local Tesco.

It is not a 'so-called cycle path' it is a cycle path. It is not a
public ROW and never has been. It is exempt from the right to roam
legislation.

...d