Cyclists win police court battle!

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:
> JNugent wrote on 15/07/2006 20:36 +0100:
>
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>> I can show you lots of legally rideable shared use pavements that are
>>> indistinguishable from a legally barred pavement unless you
>>> specifically go and hunt out the little blue signs.
>>
>>
>> If the signs are not apparent, it's a footway. That's how it works.
>> Ride on the carriageway.
>
>
> Perhaps you should read up some. That's probably where you are going
> wrong.
>
> "10.1.5 To convert all or part of a footway to cycle track, all or the
> appropriate part of the footway must be removed under section 66(4) of
> the Highways Act 1980, and a cycle track 'constructed' under section
> 65(1) of the act. No physical construction is necessary but there needs
> to be clear evidence that the local highway authority has exercised
> these powers. This can be provided by a resolution of the appropriate
> committee."
> LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists
>
> Section 65(1) says nothing about signing.

On your basis, no pedestrian could ever feel properly protected from
cyclists on any footway, whether marked, signed, or not. Is it your
contention that the pedestrian does not need to be able to tell whether the
danger is lawful?

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>
>> JNugent said:
>
> [ big snip ]
>
>>>> Kindly tell us whether or not you consider it both causes an
>>>> unneccesary danger and is unacceptable to park a car on the footway
>>>> in such a manner as to prevent someone with a pushchair/pram etc
>>>> passing along that footway.
>
>>> Why is it important what I think about it?
>>> The act is (AFAIAA) an offence.
>
>> And you never, ever, under any circumstances or situation do
>> anything other than comply fully with the law or such other rules as
>> may be in force at the time and place?
>
> Does anything I have done or might do excuse others when they commit
> an offence?

I made no reference to excusing others. Kindly answer the question and then
we can progress.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:40:28 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:19:48 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think you'd have to agree that inadvertently crossing a lane line on a
>>>carriageway is very easy to do - and trivial compared to deliberately
>>>riding on a network which is visually and physically distinct and legally
>>>barred to the offender.
>
>> Both are legally barred to the offender.
>
>> What would you prefer to come across:
>
>> 1. As a pedestrian walking on a footway, a cyclist knowingly cycling
>> on the pavement?
>
>> 2. As a cyclist riding on a mandatory cycle lane, a motorist
>> unknowingly driving in the cycle lane?
>
>> I know which is statistically most dangerous.
>
>Without a doubt, the first.
>
>I accept the need for footways and see their point. There is no point in
>so-called "cycle lanes" on the carriageway. Cyclists should just be another
>road-user on the carriageway. They should overtake vehicles parked against
>the kerb in the normal way, and such parking should not be denied merely to
>create a PC "cycle lane".

Is that an excuse for motorists driving along mandatory cycle lanes?

 

[Steve Firth]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:20:49 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

> What would you prefer to come across:
>
> 1. As a pedestrian walking on a footway, a cyclist knowingly cycling
> on the pavement?
>
> 2. As a cyclist riding on a mandatory cycle lane, a motorist
> unknowingly driving in the cycle lane?

3. Anna Friel's breasts?

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote on 15/07/2006 21:45 +0100:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> JNugent wrote on 15/07/2006 20:36 +0100:
>>
>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can show you lots of legally rideable shared use pavements that
>>>> are indistinguishable from a legally barred pavement unless you
>>>> specifically go and hunt out the little blue signs.
>>>
>>>
>>> If the signs are not apparent, it's a footway. That's how it works.
>>> Ride on the carriageway.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps you should read up some. That's probably where you are going
>> wrong.
>>
>> "10.1.5 To convert all or part of a footway to cycle track, all or the
>> appropriate part of the footway must be removed under section 66(4) of
>> the Highways Act 1980, and a cycle track 'constructed' under section
>> 65(1) of the act. No physical construction is necessary but there
>> needs to be clear evidence that the local highway authority has
>> exercised these powers. This can be provided by a resolution of the
>> appropriate committee."
>> LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and
>> Cyclists
>>
>> Section 65(1) says nothing about signing.
>
> On your basis, no pedestrian could ever feel properly protected from
> cyclists on any footway, whether marked, signed, or not. Is it your
> contention that the pedestrian does not need to be able to tell whether
> the danger is lawful?

Its not my basis and my contention doesn't come into it - that's just
how the law is unless and until someone persuades the Government to
change it.

Perhaps motor vehicles should have big LED signs mounted on the roof
displaying the vehicle speed so that pedestrians can tell whether that
danger is lawful too.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Tony Raven]

Steve Firth wrote on 15/07/2006 20:34 +0100:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:27:21 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> I can show you lots of legally rideable shared use pavements that are
>> indistinguishable from a legally barred pavement unless you specifically
>> go and hunt out the little blue signs.
>
> I can show you lots of roads with a speed limit of 30mph which are
> indistinguishable from those with a limit of 60mph unless you specifically
> go and hunt out the little red ringed signs.
>
> Do you think that excuses driving at 60mph in one of these areas?

Speed limit signs are required by law "For the purpose of ensuring
adequate guidance is given to the drivers of motor vehicles" and
adequate guidance is clearly defined in law. (Road Traffic Regulations
Act 1984 s85)

There is no legal requirement for signs for shared use cycle paths AFAIK
just as there is no legal requirement for pavements to be signed.

So since motorists are adequately guided and cyclists aren't no it
doesn't excuse driving at 60mph in a lower limit area (not that I
condone cycling on the pavement either)

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Mark Thompson]

Steve Firth wrote...

....stuff, but I've no idea what he was going on about. Sorry.

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>>Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JNugent said:
>>
>>[ big snip ]
>>
>>
>>>>>Kindly tell us whether or not you consider it both causes an
>>>>>unneccesary danger and is unacceptable to park a car on the footway
>>>>>in such a manner as to prevent someone with a pushchair/pram etc
>>>>>passing along that footway.
>>
>>>>Why is it important what I think about it?
>>>>The act is (AFAIAA) an offence.
>>
>>>And you never, ever, under any circumstances or situation do
>>>anything other than comply fully with the law or such other rules as
>>>may be in force at the time and place?
>>
>>Does anything I have done or might do excuse others when they commit
>>an offence?
>
>
> I made no reference to excusing others. Kindly answer the question and then
> we can progress.

Progress is not assisted by such irrelevance. It really does not matter
what I do, have done, will do or might do. None of it justifies what others
might do.

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:40:28 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:19:48 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think you'd have to agree that inadvertently crossing a lane line on a
>>>>carriageway is very easy to do - and trivial compared to deliberately
>>>>riding on a network which is visually and physically distinct and legally
>>>>barred to the offender.
>>
>>>Both are legally barred to the offender.
>>
>>>What would you prefer to come across:
>>
>>>1. As a pedestrian walking on a footway, a cyclist knowingly cycling
>>>on the pavement?
>>
>>>2. As a cyclist riding on a mandatory cycle lane, a motorist
>>>unknowingly driving in the cycle lane?
>>
>>>I know which is statistically most dangerous.
>>
>>Without a doubt, the first.
>>
>>I accept the need for footways and see their point. There is no point in
>>so-called "cycle lanes" on the carriageway. Cyclists should just be another
>>road-user on the carriageway. They should overtake vehicles parked against
>>the kerb in the normal way, and such parking should not be denied merely to
>>create a PC "cycle lane".
>
>
> Is that an excuse for motorists driving along mandatory cycle lanes?

I hope not.

I also hope that cyclists are not so dependant upon them that they cannot
cycle safely on ordinary carriageways without being so frightened
(allegedly) that "have" to cycle on footways and bully the pedestrians.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> In news:[email protected],
>> JNugent said:
>>
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> JNugent said:
>>>
>>> [ big snip ]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Kindly tell us whether or not you consider it both causes an
>>>>>> unneccesary danger and is unacceptable to park a car on the
>>>>>> footway in such a manner as to prevent someone with a
>>>>>> pushchair/pram etc passing along that footway.
>>>
>>>>> Why is it important what I think about it?
>>>>> The act is (AFAIAA) an offence.
>>>
>>>> And you never, ever, under any circumstances or situation do
>>>> anything other than comply fully with the law or such other rules
>>>> as may be in force at the time and place?
>>>
>>> Does anything I have done or might do excuse others when they commit
>>> an offence?
>>
>>
>> I made no reference to excusing others. Kindly answer the question
>> and then we can progress.
>
> Progress is not assisted by such irrelevance. It really does not
> matter what I do, have done, will do or might do. None of it
> justifies what others might do.

I made no reference to justification nor excusing others. Kindly answer the
question and then we can progress.

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>>Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>>In news:[email protected],
>>>JNugent said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brimstone wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>JNugent said:
>>>>
>>>>[ big snip ]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Kindly tell us whether or not you consider it both causes an
>>>>>>>unneccesary danger and is unacceptable to park a car on the
>>>>>>>footway in such a manner as to prevent someone with a
>>>>>>>pushchair/pram etc passing along that footway.
>>>>
>>>>>>Why is it important what I think about it?
>>>>>>The act is (AFAIAA) an offence.
>>>>
>>>>>And you never, ever, under any circumstances or situation do
>>>>>anything other than comply fully with the law or such other rules
>>>>>as may be in force at the time and place?
>>>>
>>>>Does anything I have done or might do excuse others when they commit
>>>>an offence?
>>>
>>>
>>>I made no reference to excusing others. Kindly answer the question
>>>and then we can progress.
>>
>>Progress is not assisted by such irrelevance. It really does not
>>matter what I do, have done, will do or might do. None of it
>>justifies what others might do.
>
>
> I made no reference to justification nor excusing others. Kindly answer the
> question and then we can progress.

It really does not matter what I do, have done, will do or might do. None
of it justifies what others might do.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> In news:[email protected],
>> JNugent said:
>>
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:[email protected],
>>>> JNugent said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> JNugent said:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ big snip ]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kindly tell us whether or not you consider it both causes an
>>>>>>>> unneccesary danger and is unacceptable to park a car on the
>>>>>>>> footway in such a manner as to prevent someone with a
>>>>>>>> pushchair/pram etc passing along that footway.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why is it important what I think about it?
>>>>>>> The act is (AFAIAA) an offence.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And you never, ever, under any circumstances or situation do
>>>>>> anything other than comply fully with the law or such other rules
>>>>>> as may be in force at the time and place?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anything I have done or might do excuse others when they
>>>>> commit an offence?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I made no reference to excusing others. Kindly answer the question
>>>> and then we can progress.
>>>
>>> Progress is not assisted by such irrelevance. It really does not
>>> matter what I do, have done, will do or might do. None of it
>>> justifies what others might do.
>>
>>
>> I made no reference to justification nor excusing others. Kindly
>> answer the question and then we can progress.
>
> It really does not matter what I do, have done, will do or might do.
> None of it justifies what others might do.

As I said, I made no reference to justification nor excusing others. Kindly
answer the question and then we can progress.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

JNugent wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>> ...mandatory cycle lanes?
> I hope not.
>
> I also hope that cyclists are not so dependant upon them that they
> cannot cycle safely on ordinary carriageways without being so
> frightened (allegedly) that "have" to cycle on footways and bully the
> pedestrians.

That is a hope that we all share.

See, so much in common, yet still we argue.

 

[JNugent]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>>Tom Crispin wrote:

>>>...mandatory cycle lanes?

>>I hope not.
>>I also hope that cyclists are not so dependant upon them that they
>>cannot cycle safely on ordinary carriageways without being so
>>frightened (allegedly) that "have" to cycle on footways and bully the
>>pedestrians.

> That is a hope that we all share.
> See, so much in common, yet still we argue.

Some of us have never made a secret of it.

 

[Steve Firth]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:18:39 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote on 15/07/2006 20:34 +0100:
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:27:21 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>> I can show you lots of legally rideable shared use pavements that are
>>> indistinguishable from a legally barred pavement unless you specifically
>>> go and hunt out the little blue signs.
>>
>> I can show you lots of roads with a speed limit of 30mph which are
>> indistinguishable from those with a limit of 60mph unless you specifically
>> go and hunt out the little red ringed signs.
>>
>> Do you think that excuses driving at 60mph in one of these areas?
>
> Speed limit signs are required by law "For the purpose of ensuring
> adequate guidance is given to the drivers of motor vehicles" and
> adequate guidance is clearly defined in law. (Road Traffic Regulations
> Act 1984 s85)
>
> There is no legal requirement for signs for shared use cycle paths AFAIK
> just as there is no legal requirement for pavements to be signed.

Oh look you missed the point, by a mile.

The fact that you cannot see a sign permitting use of a footpath as a cycle
route does not mean that you should assume that the route is a cycle path.
Just as a motorist in an built up area with street lighting who cannot see
a speed restriction would be foolish to assume that the speed limit is
60mph.

Is being dumb something that happens to the lycra-clad cyclists or is there
some other excuse for it?

 

[Steve Firth]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:22:19 +0000 (UTC), Mark Thompson wrote:

> ....stuff, but I've no idea what he was going on about.

Then I pity your stupidity and hope that science finds a cure.

 

[Steve Firth]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:56:04 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:40:28 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
[snip]

>>I accept the need for footways and see their point. There is no point in
>>so-called "cycle lanes" on the carriageway. Cyclists should just be another
>>road-user on the carriageway. They should overtake vehicles parked against
>>the kerb in the normal way, and such parking should not be denied merely to
>>create a PC "cycle lane".
>
> Is that an excuse for motorists driving along mandatory cycle lanes?

Is it being a teacher or being a cyclist that makes you immune to logic?

There is no excuse for motorists driving along mandatory cycle lanes, there
is no excuse for motorists driving on the footpath, there is no excuse for
motorists ignoring red lights or driving the wrong way up a one way street.
Not is there an excuse for them driving uninsured, without VED, withotu
taking appropriate safety precuations such as using a seatbelt, nor for
road rage, driving on the footpath or any one of hundreds of other traffic
offences.

And now the bit you seem to find difficult to take in. Neither is there an
excuse for any cyclist who commits similar offences, particularly the
offence of cycling on the footpath. And *you* cannot use the fact that
motorists may have broken the law as justification for cyclists to do so.
This is a logical fallacy referred to as "tu quoque" and it appears to be
the favourite form of argument of poorly educated cyclists. Even those who
profess to be "well paid" teachers.

So, any chance that you can stop trying to justify the appalling behaviour
of cyclists based on what you imagine the behaviour of motorists to be?

Or are you going to continue your attempts to branch out from "tu quoque"
by dragging in yet another bunch of straw men?

 

[PeterE]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>>>> ...mandatory cycle lanes?
>
>>> I hope not.
>>> I also hope that cyclists are not so dependant upon them that they
>>> cannot cycle safely on ordinary carriageways without being so
>>> frightened (allegedly) that "have" to cycle on footways and bully the
>>> pedestrians.
>
>> That is a hope that we all share.
>> See, so much in common, yet still we argue.
>
> Some of us have never made a secret of it.

Totally agreed.

Why is it that those of us who are often labelled as "pro-car" also strongly
favour cycling, so long as it is done on the basis of shared use of
all-purpose roads?

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If a river bridge were not guarded by a parapet, the slackness of the
defaulting authority deserves the blame, not the people who fall in" -
Lieut. Col. Mervyn O'Gorman.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:52:56 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:56:04 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:40:28 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>>>I accept the need for footways and see their point. There is no point in
>>>so-called "cycle lanes" on the carriageway. Cyclists should just be another
>>>road-user on the carriageway. They should overtake vehicles parked against
>>>the kerb in the normal way, and such parking should not be denied merely to
>>>create a PC "cycle lane".
>>
>> Is that an excuse for motorists driving along mandatory cycle lanes?
>
>Is it being a teacher or being a cyclist that makes you immune to logic?
>
>There is no excuse for motorists driving along mandatory cycle lanes, there
>is no excuse for motorists driving on the footpath, there is no excuse for
>motorists ignoring red lights or driving the wrong way up a one way street.
>Not is there an excuse for them driving uninsured, without VED, withotu
>taking appropriate safety precuations such as using a seatbelt, nor for
>road rage, driving on the footpath or any one of hundreds of other traffic
>offences.

Good.

>And now the bit you seem to find difficult to take in. Neither is there an
>excuse for any cyclist who commits similar offences, particularly the
>offence of cycling on the footpath. And *you* cannot use the fact that
>motorists may have broken the law as justification for cyclists to do so.
>This is a logical fallacy referred to as "tu quoque" and it appears to be
>the favourite form of argument of poorly educated cyclists. Even those who
>profess to be "well paid" teachers.

I have never condoned adults who cycle on pavements. The comparison
with driving offences is purely to highlight the relative dangers.

>So, any chance that you can stop trying to justify the appalling behaviour
>of cyclists based on what you imagine the behaviour of motorists to be?

See above.

>Or are you going to continue your attempts to branch out from "tu quoque"
>by dragging in yet another bunch of straw men?

 

[Mark Thompson]

> And now the bit you seem to find difficult to take in. Neither is
> there an excuse for any cyclist who commits similar offences,
> particularly the offence of cycling on the footpath.

The problem is, according to Paul Boateng, the Home Office Minister when
fixed penalties were introduced, there IS an excuse:

<www.cyclingforums.com/archive/index.php/t-188179.html>

Note how the law was NOT introduced to clear the pavements of careful and
considerate cyclists. JNugent cannot see that many pavement cyclists are
not yobs, and cycle s-l-o-w-l-y, carefully, and deferring to peds. Instead
he lumps them all into the one group of psycho ped killers.

Most posters here disagree with pavement cycling on both moral grounds
(it's illegal) and on political grounds (gives us bad press, excuse to get
us off the roads). Arguing that people can cycle on the pavement in a safe
manner does not mean you disagree with either of the above, or even condone
it. It's just pointing out the obvious.