D'oh :(

spokes said:

Sorry to be inconvenient. Is this better?

Please trim down quotes to the bare minimum, intersperse your replies
directly beneath the quoted bit you are responding to.

--
Membrane

Quoted message said:

So, whilst Christopher was breaking the law, if it was found to be his
fault purely because he's riding on the pavement, does that mean that if
I see a cyclist on the pavement I can just ignore him and cross anyway?
Of course not, but that would seem to be the message being sent out.

It's the message sent out by some peeps on usenet. I think they can be
safely ignored.

Thanks - that's helpful guidance, which I shall heed.
"Membrane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

spokes said:

Sorry to be inconvenient. Is this better?

Please trim down quotes to the bare minimum, intersperse your replies
directly beneath the quoted bit you are responding to.

--
Membrane

spokes said:

while he was where he didn't ought to be. cycle on footpaths, you don't have
a leg to stand on. metaphorically only, if you're lucky. end of.

Whereas if the council have seen fit to paint pictures of bicycles on
the footway, suddenly the situation is completely different.

Or is it? Most here would say "no - just because it's legal doesn't
make it safe or sensible" - and for riding at any reasonable speed,
they'd be right. But the flipside of that is: exactly how unsafe is
cycling on a pavement _without_ magic markers at (let us say) walking
pace merely by virtue of its illegality? The other road users you may
come into conflict with on a pavement rarely modify their behaviour
depending on whether you're there legally or not. Most of them probably
don't even know.

Who hasn't wheeled their bike through a pedestrian-only area and been
tempted to scoot it?

I'm not trying to justify the behaviour of the OP. I'm just pointing
out that in general you can't get very far saying "it's illegal
therefore it's Wrong" when the legality can so easily be changed (and
frequently is). Better to say "it's inconsiderate therefore it's Wrong"
(when it is) or "it's unsafe therefore it's Wrong" (again, in situations
where it is)

-dan

spokes said:

Because overtaking on the inside is illegal, period.

Incorrect.

-dan

spokes said the following on 28/06/2007 12:04:

Quoted message said:

Because overtaking on the inside is illegal, period.

In some circumstances, overtaking on the inside is perfectly legal.
Just one example, how would you ever pass a queue waiting or slowly
moving down a right-hand slip lane if you couldn't pass on the left.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Quoted message said:

we
know that if we come a cropper because someone opens a door without
looking, it's our fault. Yes, maybe they should have looked. But they
are under no obligation to.

Is incorrect, as was the bit about undertaking.

On Jun 28, 12:04 pm, "spokes" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It's really really simple. If you do things like this, you take the
consequences. I'm sure we all, for example, overtake lines of stationary
traffic on the inside. But we do it really carefully, not least because we
know that if we come a cropper because someone opens a door without looking,
it's our fault. Yes, maybe they should have looked. But they are under no
obligation to.

Yes they are.

Quoted message said:

Because overtaking on the inside is illegal, period.

No it isn't.

--
Dave...

"spokes" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Thanks - that's helpful guidance, which I shall heed.
"Membrane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

spokes said:

Sorry to be inconvenient. Is this better?

Please trim down quotes to the bare minimum, intersperse your replies
directly beneath the quoted bit you are responding to.

--
Membrane

Please do not top post.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"spokes" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Thanks - that's helpful guidance, which I shall heed.
"Membrane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"spokes" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Sorry to be inconvenient. Is this better?

Please trim down quotes to the bare minimum, intersperse your replies
directly beneath the quoted bit you are responding to.

--
Membrane

Please do not top post.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

To quote the OP: D'oh!

Yes, maybe they should have looked. But they are under no

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

obligation to.

Yes they are

I don't believe so. And even if they were, you'd be damn silly to rely on
it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because overtaking on the inside is illegal, period.

Ok, overtaking on the inside is - I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong -
legal in two specific situations: if you're in one of more than one lanes of
slowly-moving traffic; or if whoever you're 'undertaking' is turning right.
Overtaking stationary traffic on the inside (which was what I was referring
to - tho' I do take your point) is, I believe, illegal.

The substantive point I was making - that if you whizz up the inside & come
a cropper you've no-one to blame but yourself - remains valid. And, by
extension, that if you ride at speed on a pavement because it suits you,
you're out of order, and if you get hurt, tough. (And if you hurt anyone
else, shame on you.)

Quoted message said:

--
Dave...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes they are

I don't believe so.

We *know* so.

spokes said:

Ok, overtaking on the inside is - I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong -
legal in two specific situations:

You _are_ wrong. There is no law forbidding "undertaking". It may be
frowned upon in the Highway Code though, and in certain circumstances be
considered "careless" or even "dangerous".

--
Matt B

In article said:

Quoted message said:

Ok, overtaking on the inside is - I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong -

You know how the Highway Code uses "should" for things that aren't actually
legal requirements and "MUST" for things that are? Overtaking on the right
except in those specific situations is a "should".
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#139

So either you are wrong, or the Highway Code is.

"you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door" on the
other hand is a MUST. http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/22.htm#214

spokes said:

Yes, maybe they should have looked. But they are under no

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

obligation to.

Yes they are

I don't believe so. And even if they were, you'd be damn silly to rely on
it.

While it's certainly sound advice to leave a car door's width between
you and a parked or slow moving motor vehicle, you are under no
obligation to do so, and it is the responsibility of the door opener
to ensure it is safe to open the door.

I am unsure who would be liable in the case of a child under 10 who
opened a door into the path of a cyclist - I expect the driver would
be liable, but that might be a bit harsh in the case of a taxi driver
where mum and child are sitting on the rear seats.

Much sympathy on the injuries, hope you heal well.

However you were riding on the pavement. To get injuries like that
either a) you were going fairly fast or b) he was. Both are equally
likely, however you were doing the illegal thing and should, IMO,
gracefully accept more of the responsibility. A driver would not be
expecting a cyclist at 15-20mph along a footpath, so would not assume
to look for one. If I have to use a footpath I travel at walking pace
for this very reason - I used to ride along at a pace but having had a
couple of these incidents when younger I learned the hard way!

in message <[email hidden]>, spokes

(') said:

It's really really simple. If you do things like this, you take the
consequences. I'm sure we all, for example, overtake lines of stationary
traffic on the inside. But we do it really carefully, not least because
we know that if we come a cropper because someone opens a door without
looking, it's our fault.

Time to sit your driving test again, methinks.

What part of Highway Code rule 214, and of the Construction and Use
Regulations to which it refers, do you not understand?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those
who are now possible remain possible -- Michael Bakunin

In article <[email hidden]>, spokes
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"spokes" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Thanks - that's helpful guidance, which I shall heed.
"Membrane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> "spokes" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>Sorry to be inconvenient. Is this better?
>
> Please trim down quotes to the bare minimum, intersperse your replies
> directly beneath the quoted bit you are responding to.
>
> --
> Membrane

Please do not top post.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

To quote the OP: D'oh!

And don't quote signatures (the bit that starts '-- '😉 :-)

Rob Morley said the following on 29/06/2007 04:26:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, spokes
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"spokes" <[email hidden]>typed

> Thanks - that's helpful guidance, which I shall heed.
> "Membrane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> "spokes" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry to be inconvenient. Is this better?
>> Please trim down quotes to the bare minimum, intersperse your replies
>> directly beneath the quoted bit you are responding to.
>>
>> --
>> Membrane

Please do not top post.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

To quote the OP: D'oh!

And don't quote signatures (the bit that starts '-- '😉 :-)

And if you're going to bottom-post as you should, only quote the bits
relevant to your post to save people having to scroll down a mile :-)

(D'oh!!!!!!)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

But never just delete the entire article you're following up to, or
people will find it difficult to work out what you're talking about.

-dan