Cyclists win police court battle!

[JNugent]

Adrian wrote:

> Tony Raven ([email protected]):

>>Forgetting for a moment the speed at which they do it, do you or do you
>>not accept that cars, vans and lorries are driven along the footway?

> I do not accept it.

> I presume you're now going to pop up and raise the issue of vehicles
> crossing the footway to driveways etc, and parking on the footway. That is,
> as I'm sure you're perfectly well aware, a very different kettle of fish
> from routinely travelling along the footway - whatever the mode of
> transport.

> FWIW, I don't use shared-use cycle-footways whilst cycling, because I
> bloody hate them as a ped. They're a stupid idea, utterly counterproductive
> in that they utterly reinforce completely the wrong message, in exactly the
> same way as focussing entirely on "Speed Kills" does.
> Bad Driving Kills, regardless of the speed.
> Cycles should be on the road, and if a small minority of drivers don't like
> it, they should be educated not pandered to.

Well said.

 

[JNugent]

Marc Brett wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Marc Brett wrote:
>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>If a driver drives *along* the footway (at any speed),
>>>for any distance?

>>>>that would not meet
>>>>and has not met with any support from me.

>>I couldn't flat-footedly support the word "any" -

> Then why be so flat-footed about *any* instance of pavement cycling?

I don't.

I am not so bothered about bike parking on footways (eg, chained to the
railings of public buildings - though the occupiers may be), and I am not
at all bothered about low-speed footway crossing (driveways, etc) by bike
riders.

The same as with motor vehicles (though I am not as tolerant of motor
vehicles parked on the footway).

>>some driveways and other footway crossings

> Give up on the driveway canard; it's getting boring.

It is an unfortunate fact that if it were not spelled out, some posters
would seize upon the crossing of footways as evidence of "driving on footways".

>>are not at 90 degrees to the footway, for instance. There
>>may be examples of them being parallel

> Driveways parallel to the pavement!?!?! Do tell us more about life in your part
> of the universe!

Buildings in the corners of cul-de-sacs are often good examples. The ones
in the extreme angles sometimes have very unusual footway and driveway
arrangements. I am sufficiently aware of such locations not to be able to
accept the word "any" in its absolute and literal sense.

>>The comparator is bikes being ridden by yobs along the footway. If a motor
>>vehicle was driven in that manner, I would condemn it. I would expect
>>anybody to condemn it, just like footway cycling (along the footway).

> But driving slowly along a pavement for just a few yards is A-OK by you, eh?

It might be. So might the riding of a bike in similar circumstances.

Making normal progress and manoeuvring at low speed are different things.
But you know that.

 

[Marc Brett]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:41:48 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>Making normal progress and manoeuvring at low speed are different things.

And both are illegal. But you know that, don't you?

 

[Adrian]

JNugent ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

> (though I am not as tolerant of motor vehicles parked on the footway).

I'd suggest this is one of those grey areas, defined entirely by the
consideration exhibited.

I have no issue whatsoever with parking with two wheels up on the footway -
AS LONG AS the footway is not badly encroached upon - and, yes, I am
thinking of wheelchairs, prams etc - and if doing so reduces problems
likely to be caused on the road itself.

OTOH, people parking and damn near blocking the footway entirely gets my
goat rather immensely.

If the footway is to be regarded as utterly sacrosanct, then you might like
to consider where all those telephone poles, lamp posts and road furniture
such as poles for signs are going to go.

 

[Steve Firth]

On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:55:39 GMT, Jonathan Schneider wrote:

> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Huge is right, compulsory registration, compulsory insurance, safety
>> inspections and VED are long overdue for cyclists.
>
> And pedestrians too ?

Cyclists are not pedestrians, even though they think they are, HTH.

 

[JNugent]

Marc Brett wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Making normal progress and manoeuvring at low speed are different things.

> And both are illegal. But you know that, don't you?

One is always illegal. The other is illegal in certain circumstances and
not in others.

But it is completely irrelevant anyway - nothing justifies yobs riding
bikes on the footway. You know that but would rather change the subject.

 

[Marc Brett]

On 12 Jul 2006 09:59:22 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>JNugent ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>were saying :
>
>> (though I am not as tolerant of motor vehicles parked on the footway).
>
>I'd suggest this is one of those grey areas, defined entirely by the
>consideration exhibited.
>
>I have no issue whatsoever with parking with two wheels up on the footway -
>AS LONG AS the footway is not badly encroached upon - and, yes, I am
>thinking of wheelchairs, prams etc - and if doing so reduces problems
>likely to be caused on the road itself.

And what about the broken flags left by these inconsiderate (or even
considerate, by your definition) goons. It's no fun tripping on them and no fun
paying for their repair. A million pavement cyclists pedalling a million
pavement miles will never do as much damage as a single lorry maneuvering slowly
to its illegal pavement parking slot.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> But it is completely irrelevant anyway - nothing justifies yobs riding
> bikes on the footway. You know that but would rather change the
> subject.

If by 'yobs' you mean 'anyone' (as you have so far) then the government
that introduced fines for pavement cycling disagree with you!

 

[JNugent]

Mark Thompson wrote:

>>But it is completely irrelevant anyway - nothing justifies yobs riding
>>bikes on the footway. You know that but would rather change the
>>subject.

> If by 'yobs' you mean 'anyone' (as you have so far)

No - I do not mean just "anyone", I mean anyone who rides a bike illegally
on the footway. "Yob" is a mild description of them, as I am sure you will
agree.

> then the government
> that introduced fines for pavement cycling disagree with you!

Maybe. This will be the same government that thinks "shared use" is a good
idea.

 

[JNugent]

Marc Brett wrote:

> On 12 Jul 2006 09:59:22 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
>>JNugent ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>were saying :

>>>(though I am not as tolerant of motor vehicles parked on the footway).

>>I'd suggest this is one of those grey areas, defined entirely by the
>>consideration exhibited.

>>I have no issue whatsoever with parking with two wheels up on the footway -
>>AS LONG AS the footway is not badly encroached upon - and, yes, I am
>>thinking of wheelchairs, prams etc - and if doing so reduces problems
>>likely to be caused on the road itself.

> And what about the broken flags left by these inconsiderate (or even
> considerate, by your definition) goons. It's no fun tripping on them and no fun
> paying for their repair. A million pavement cyclists pedalling a million
> pavement miles will never do as much damage as a single lorry maneuvering slowly
> to its illegal pavement parking slot.

That is true.

And it is still no justification for yobs riding bikes on the footway, is it?

 

[John Wright]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:54:45 +0100, Dave Larrington
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>> JNugent wrote on 11/07/2006 18:19 +0100:
>>
>> >
>> >> I think our resident troll JNugent who is having to reposition as each
>> >> piece of ground he tries to hold proves untenable. He'll do anything
>> >> to try to demonise an activity that
>> >
>> > .... is an offence
>> >
>>
>> An offence, like doing 31mph in a 30mph limit, that is accepted by the
>> ACPO guidelines and ministerial guidance as one not to be prosecuted
>> unless done without consideration for others.
>
>That's not an offence, that's an unwarranted tax on the Unfortunate
>Motorist who takes his eyes off the speedo for a Single Second.

Or a penalty for not having or using cruise control.
--
John Wright

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:

> And it is still no justification for yobs riding bikes on the
> footway, is it?

At what age does someone riding their bike on the footpath become a "yob"?

 

[Clive George]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> No - I do not mean just "anyone", I mean anyone who rides a bike illegally
> on the footway. "Yob" is a mild description of them, as I am sure you will
> agree.

If my granny were to ride her bike at 5mph past your house on the pavement
in the middle of the night, does that make her a yob?

(if you don't have a pavement or it's shared use, substitute another house)

clive

 

[Adrian]

Clive George ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

>> No - I do not mean just "anyone", I mean anyone who rides a bike
>> illegally on the footway. "Yob" is a mild description of them, as I
>> am sure you will agree.

> If my granny were to ride her bike at 5mph past your house on the
> pavement in the middle of the night, does that make her a yob?

Why can't she ride it past on the road? I presume she's got lights on, of
course...?

Anyway - Won't she fall off, riding so slowly?

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, Brimstone says...
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
> > And it is still no justification for yobs riding bikes on the
> > footway, is it?
>
> At what age does someone riding their bike on the footpath become a "yob"?
>
10. THe legal age of criminal responsibility.


--
Conor

"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, John Wright
says...

> >That's not an offence, that's an unwarranted tax on the Unfortunate
> >Motorist who takes his eyes off the speedo for a Single Second.
>
> Or a penalty for not having or using cruise control.
>
Or for forgetting what you were taught as a learner.

--
Conor

"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin

 

[Clive George]

"Adrian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clive George ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying :
>
>>> No - I do not mean just "anyone", I mean anyone who rides a bike
>>> illegally on the footway. "Yob" is a mild description of them, as I
>>> am sure you will agree.
>
>> If my granny were to ride her bike at 5mph past your house on the
>> pavement in the middle of the night, does that make her a yob?
>
> Why can't she ride it past on the road? I presume she's got lights on, of
> course...?

She doesn't want to.

> Anyway - Won't she fall off, riding so slowly?

If I can ride a tandem on lumpy stuff at < 3mph, I think my grany should be
able to handle 5mph on a pavement...

(actually, I don't know if my granny can still ride a bike - just substitute
Margaret Rutherford while she was still alive if you want)

clive

 

[Adrian]

Clive George ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

>>> If my granny were to ride her bike at 5mph past your house on the
>>> pavement in the middle of the night, does that make her a yob?

>> Why can't she ride it past on the road? I presume she's got lights
>> on, of course...?

> She doesn't want to.

Poor dear. Doesn't she want to stop at red lights either? Well, why SHOULD
she have to? After all, she's on a bicycle, and therefore not subject to
the normal rules of the road, is she?

Does "I don't want to" apply when she's in the car, too?

>> Anyway - Won't she fall off, riding so slowly?

> If I can ride a tandem on lumpy stuff at < 3mph, I think my grany
> should be able to handle 5mph on a pavement...

Or - perhaps - a higher speed on the road?

> (actually, I don't know if my granny can still ride a bike - just
> substitute Margaret Rutherford while she was still alive if you want)

I did assume that she may be an apocryphal granny.

 

[Clive George]

"Adrian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clive George ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying :
>
>>>> If my granny were to ride her bike at 5mph past your house on the
>>>> pavement in the middle of the night, does that make her a yob?
>
>>> Why can't she ride it past on the road? I presume she's got lights
>>> on, of course...?
>
>> She doesn't want to.
>
> Poor dear. Doesn't she want to stop at red lights either? Well, why SHOULD
> she have to? After all, she's on a bicycle, and therefore not subject to
> the normal rules of the road, is she?

Erm, you seem to have lost the plot here. Who said anything about red
lights? Who said anything about not being subject to the normal rules of the
road? Try and stick to the example at hand. Is my granny in the example
being a yob?

(If you want I can add 'because the locals are coming home from the pub in
their cars at the same time, and she wants to keep away from them' - would
that make it better?)

> Does "I don't want to" apply when she's in the car, too?

AFAIR it applies to you, doesn't it? Do you think law enforcement should be
based on the danger posed, or would you prefer all laws were enforced to the
letter? (hint : you've already posted the answer to this one many times). If
the former, since it's obvious said granny isn't causing anybody any danger,
should she be prosecuted as Mr Nugent feels she should be? Is she the yob
that he is complaining about?

clive

 

[wheelist]

Clive George ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

>> No - I do not mean just "anyone", I mean anyone who rides a bike
>> illegally on the footway. "Yob" is a mild description of them, as I
>> am sure you will agree.

> If my granny were to ride her bike at 5mph past your house on the
> pavement in the middle of the night, does that make her a yob?

Why can't she ride it past on the road? I presume she's got lights on, of
course...?

Anyway - Won't she fall off, riding so slowly?

..

No. She'll be using the granny ring to maintain her low speed.

Bleedin' obvious init?