Harrogate Borough Council oppose cycle route.

Quoted message said:

So much for the responsibilities of local authorities to promote and
encourage cycling. Naturally, local authorities are not so adverse to
going to public enquiries when this is necessary in order to achieve
something they want to do, and I bet the bye-law banning cycling was
pushed through without a public enquiry or worries about how quickly it
could be implemented...

I'm sorry 170,000 to change a law, despite the fact the police aren't
enforcing it anyway would be a gross waste of money, the councils
position seems entirely practical.

Surely it would be better spending the money somewhere more
productive?

Jim.

On 6 Jan 2007 03:28:52 -0800 someone who may be
[email hidden] wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

http://www.ripontoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=18&ArticleID=1958097

Quoted message said:

In his report the chief executive, plus the council's head of
transport, John Burton, and principal solicitor Bob Power say the
scheme would cost about £170,000.

Has a party with no interests verified the assertion of these
officials?

Quoted message said:

A by-law introduced in 1986 says no one can drive or ride any motor
vehicle, bicycle or tricycle over the Stray.

Was there a public inquiry at the time?

Quoted message said:

Mr Walsh says replacing the by-law or amending it would not be quick

Has this assertion been independently verified?

Quoted message said:

Council chiefs say if cycling was allowed routes should be shared,
involving cyclists and pedestrians. Despite narrower routes there were
still major problems in finding enough exchange land to compensate for
that lost on the Stray.

Do these officials provide very wide cycle "facilities" elsewhere,
or is their alleged devotion to width only demonstrated when they
don't want to do something?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Quoted message said:

So much for the responsibilities of local authorities to promote and
encourage cycling. Naturally, local authorities are not so adverse to
going to public enquiries when this is necessary in order to achieve
something they want to do, and I bet the bye-law banning cycling was
pushed through without a public enquiry or worries about how quickly
it could be implemented...

http://www.ripontoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=18&ArticleID=1958097

The Stray Defence Association came into being on the 12th May 1933 and 70
years later its objective remains the same; to safeguard Harrogate's Stray
against building and encroachment from all quarters and uphold the Act
granting freedom of the Stray to all people for all time.

Click here to read about our recent
'Well to Well Walk 2006'

Amongst many achievements; it forced the town council to re turf the vast
areas of West Park Stray it had dug up, helped to formulate the Stay Act of
Parliament in 1985 and defended the right of footballers to use The Stray
free of charge.

Harrogate's Stray is the most unique asset of this delightful North
Yorkshire town, also renowned for its elegant buildings, floral displays and
once famous 'medicinal' spa waters. On August 19 1778, under the Enclosures
Act of 1770, the control and management was established of 200 acres of open
common in Harrogate which had been pastures for all and sundry from time
immemorial.

'The said two hundred acres of land shall forever hereafter remain open and
unenclosed and all persons whomsoever shall and may have free access at all
times to the said springs, and be at liberty to use and drink the waters
there arising, and take the benefit thereof, and shall and may have, use,
and enjoy full and free ingress, egress and regress, in, upon, and over, the
said two hundred acres of land, and every, and any part thereof, without
being subject to the payment of any acknowledgment whatsoever for the same,
or liable to any action of trespass, or other suit, molestation, or
disturbance whatsoever, in respect thereof.'

Still surrounding the town centre are those two hundred acres of land and
trees known as The Stray. Through all seasons and all weathers residents and
visitors alike benefit from this precious swathe of green in the heart of
the town. From the carpets of crocus heralding spring, the early splendour
of cherry blossom and the verdant green of summer, to the glorious array of
autumnal colours and the snows of winter Harrogate's Stray is an integral
and much loved part of the town's history. The Stray Defence Association is
here to ensure it remains part of its future.

'We have not inherited The Stray from our parents;
we have borrowed it from our children.'

pk

Jim Ley said:

I'm sorry 170,000 to change a law, despite the fact the police aren't
enforcing it anyway would be a gross waste of money, the councils
position seems entirely practical.

Surely it would be better spending the money somewhere more
productive?

Jim.

Your confusion is understandable, given the authorities apparent
attempts to conflate a number of different issues in order to justify
continuing to ban cyclists, but drawing up a new bye-law should only
cots a few thousand pounds. This could, for example, make it an offence
to cycle on the Stray other than on certain 'designated routes' and
would allow cycling without going to the expense or legal complications
of creating a dedicated 'cycle path'. In fact the Council agreed to do
exactly this several years ago. Similarly, the council could improve or
repair existing paths without having to dedicate them as 'cycle paths',
even if they were open for use by cyclists.

It might cost 170,000 to create a sealed surface 'cycle path' (although
the figure might well be grossly inflated in order to kill off such an
idea) and creating a path under the Cycle Tracks act would raise the
possibility of a public enquiry, especially if the route were to follow
and existing footpath, but there is no need for any of this to be done.

As to trusting the police to take a 'softly-softly' approach to
enforcing the cycle ban on the Stray, I am sure I have read reports of
nimby locals calling for the ban to be enforced and the police
obliging. In any case I don't think the police can be trusted to act
with any sort of discretion given the way they so commonly ignore Home
Office guidance on the use of fixed penalty notices for 'pavement
cycling' and even go so far as to prosecute cyclists for simply
exercising their legal right to use the public road, as in the Daniel
Cadden case.

p.k. said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.ripontoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=18&ArticleID=1958097

The Stray Defence Association came into being on the 12th May 1933 and 70
years later its objective remains the same; to safeguard Harrogate's Stray
against building and encroachment from all quarters and uphold the Act
granting freedom of the Stray to all people for all time.

'...granting freedom of the Stray to all people for all time.' Quite
so, nothing there about banning cyclists, who it seems enjoyed access
for the entire history of the SDA, and earlier (until 1986 that is...).

Quoted message said:

Jim Ley said:

I'm sorry 170,000 to change a law, despite the fact the police aren't
enforcing it anyway would be a gross waste of money, the councils
position seems entirely practical.

Surely it would be better spending the money somewhere more
productive?

Your confusion is understandable, given the authorities apparent
attempts to conflate a number of different issues in order to justify
continuing to ban cyclists, but drawing up a new bye-law should only
cots a few thousand pounds.

Yes, but you would also need to change the paths - paint to seperate
from pedestrians, ensuring the quality of the path was suitable etc.
given the number of complaints about poor quality facilities on this
forum, I'm surprised to see calls for no money at all to be spent on
providing them.

Quoted message said:

It might cost 170,000 to create a sealed surface 'cycle path' (although
the figure might well be grossly inflated in order to kill off such an
idea) and creating a path under the Cycle Tracks act would raise the
possibility of a public enquiry, especially if the route were to follow
and existing footpath, but there is no need for any of this to be done.

Right, so your argument is that there's no need to do what's proper
legally but to spend just a few thousand pounds make it okay for
people to cycle across it, which is exactly what the council was
recommended, only they save the few thousand pounds, and the time.

The point was the police are not enforcing, so let's not waste time or
money.

Quoted message said:

In any case I don't think the police can be trusted to act
with any sort of discretion given the way they so commonly ignore Home
Office guidance on the use of fixed penalty notices for 'pavement
cycling' and even go so far as to prosecute cyclists for simply
exercising their legal right to use the public road, as in the Daniel
Cadden case.

Yep, typical anti-police rant from urc.

Jim.

Jim Ley said:

... you would also need to change the paths - paint to seperate
from pedestrians, ensuring the quality of the path was suitable etc.
given the number of complaints about poor quality facilities on this
forum, I'm surprised to see calls for no money at all to be spent on
providing them.

Why? I would see access on the Stray being mainly of recreational use,
perhaps giving parents somewhere pleasant to ride with their kids.

Quoted message said:

...so your argument is that there's no need to do what's proper
legally but to spend just a few thousand pounds make it okay for
people to cycle across it, which is exactly what the council was
recommended, only they save the few thousand pounds, and the time.

Either amending the bye-law or creating a dedicated 'cycle path' via
The Cycle Tracks Act would be equally legal. Plus the Council had
already agreed a while ago to amend the bye-laws so as to decriminalise
cycling on certain paths, and yet have failed to do so. It looks to me
that they are simply finding excuses to continue to exclude cyclists.

Quoted message said:

... typical anti-police rant from urc.

That the British police are overwhelming car-centric in outlook and
often unsympathetic or even hostile to cyclists is a simple fact of
life. This is something which could be illustrated by innumerable
examples ranging from the heavy-handed harassment of the Southend
Critical mass group (using surveillance equipment, plain-clothes units
and multiple arrests) through to cases like that of Daniel Cadden and
the all-too common reluctance to bring prosecutions against drivers who
injure cyclists.

Doubtless you will also dismiss the following from the House of Commons
Committee for Transport Safety as merely being an 'anti-police rant'.

'The relatively low proportion of serious cases which come to court
would not cause concern if the quality of crash investigation and any
subsequent legal proceedings was beyond question. There will always be
some crashes which are genuine "accidents"; the important thing is that
the public is confident that proper investigation takes place, and that
legal proceedings are brought whenever appropriate. Victims and their
relatives, and the organisations campaigning for victims, clearly have
no such confidence. They appear to be right.

....our witnesses had no confidence that the police would properly
investigate cases in which harm had been caused, particularly when
vulnerable road users had been injured. We were given instances of
cases in which it was alleged that the police had automatically assumed
that a cyclist or pedestrian, rather than a driver, was at fault; in
which evidence and witness statements were not promptly collected; and
in which police could not be persuaded to take an interest even though,
in some cases, serious injury had occurred.'

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmtran/105/10502.htm

Quoted message said:

Jim Ley said:

... you would also need to change the paths - paint to seperate
from pedestrians, ensuring the quality of the path was suitable etc.
given the number of complaints about poor quality facilities on this
forum, I'm surprised to see calls for no money at all to be spent on
providing them.

Why? I would see access on the Stray being mainly of recreational use,
perhaps giving parents somewhere pleasant to ride with their kids.

They have that now according to the councillor, no need to waste money
changing it.

Quoted message said:

It looks to me
that they are simply finding excuses to continue to exclude cyclists.

And it looks to me they're not wasting money to pander to pointless
targets and lobbyists of providing more cycle paths even if the effect
would be no difference to the current status quo.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... typical anti-police rant from urc.

That the British police are overwhelming car-centric in outlook and
often unsympathetic or even hostile to cyclists is a simple fact of
life.

No, This is more anti-police rant, maybe if you had more
respectability on this issue, I might listen to you more about the
other one.

Quoted message said:

This is something which could be illustrated by innumerable
examples ranging from the heavy-handed harassment of the Southend
Critical mass group (using surveillance equipment, plain-clothes units
and multiple arrests) through to cases like that of Daniel Cadden and
the all-too common reluctance to bring prosecutions against drivers who
injure cyclists.

The police don't bring prosecutions, and critical mass is not about
cyclists but about demonstrations, because the police treat all
demonstrstions in the same bad way. You're choosing to focus on the
fact they're cyclists because it meets your personal agenda.

Quoted message said:

'The relatively low proportion of serious cases which come to court
would not cause concern if the quality of crash investigation and any
subsequent legal proceedings was beyond question.

What on earth has this got to do with police enforcement of the no
cycling across the stray? yet again, you're failing to make your point
so bring up an entirely unrelated point. Please try to stay on topic
- cycling on the stray, and the motivations of the council not wanting
to waste money.

Jim.

Jim Ley said:

Quoted message said:

ukrcwrote:

I would see access on the Stray being mainly of recreational use,
perhaps giving parents somewhere pleasant to ride with their kids.

They have that now according to the councillor, no need to waste money
changing it.

How so when cycling on The Stray is currently illegal? Taking the fear
of possible prosecution away would not be a 'waste of money' in my
book.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The House of Commons Transport Committee wrote:

'The relatively low proportion of serious cases which come to court
would not cause concern if the quality of crash investigation and any
subsequent legal proceedings was beyond question.

What on earth has this got to do with police enforcement of the no
cycling across the stray?

Obvious I would have thought: it's an illustration of the frequently
car-centric, anti-cyclist bias of a significant number of the British
police force. This bias is expressed in many ways, ranging from 'zero
tolerance' campaigns against 'pavement cyclists' which disregard the
Home Office guidance on the use of fixed penalty notices, through to
the reluctance with which the police bring charges against drivers who
injure cyclists, even when there are good grounds for doing so. (In
fact one local inspector admitted to me that his force had an
unofficial 'official' policy of only pursuing prosecutions against
drivers who had effectively put a cyclist into a wheelchair or a
coffin). Yes the CPS also play an important role in this but as the
Commons report points out the police are also failing the victims of
bad drivers in a massive way.

Anyhow all this is going off topic, the main point is that the police
often show little reluctance when it comes to prosecuting cyclists,
especially if a few 'Daily Mail Readers' make a few complaints, and
given this the best approach must be to modify the bye-laws. Doing so
would also relieve the aforesaid Daily Mail readers of a stick which
they can use to beat cyclists with.

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:25:21 GMT someone who may be
[email hidden] (Jim Ley) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why? I would see access on the Stray being mainly of recreational use,
perhaps giving parents somewhere pleasant to ride with their kids.

They have that now according to the councillor, no need to waste money
changing it.

Incorrect. At any time a bored official could decide to enforce the
"unenforced" laws.

Quoted message said:

The police don't bring prosecutions,

Their version of the Daniel Cadden case differs.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/7592e29fb2384b99/94a4331a01308137?lnk=st&q=%22daniel+cadden%22&rnum=6&hl=en#94a4331a01308137

"Inspector Arnold described the processes involved in such a case;
the officer on duty stops and advises the member of the public; if
the member of the public will not accept the advice then the
officer submits paperwork to senior officers with the aim that the
courts will then decide if the officers advice was correct; then it
is passed to a lawyer; a summons is raised and the case is heard at
court. It does not go through the Crown Prosecution Service."

Quoted message said:

and critical mass is not about
cyclists but about demonstrations, because the police treat all
demonstrstions in the same bad way.

Incorrect. The police treat demonstrators that they are in sympathy
with, for example the fool protestors, very differently to ones they
are not in sympathy with. An interesting example is the pro-hunting
lobby. After decades of the police pampering their every whim they
were very surprised to be treated like other demonstrators at a
demonstration in London.

Quoted message said:

What on earth has this got to do with police enforcement of the no
cycling across the stray?

An interesting swerve, but the reason for introducing it was clear
and your huffing and puffing does not change that.

Quoted message said:

yet again, you're failing to make your point
so bring up an entirely unrelated point. Please try to stay on topic
- cycling on the stray, and the motivations of the council not wanting
to waste money.

It is mildly amusing that the person who makes such points is the
same person who tries to dismiss others' points as anti-police
rants.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Quoted message said:

Jim Ley said:

Quoted message said:

ukrcwrote:

I would see access on the Stray being mainly of recreational use,
perhaps giving parents somewhere pleasant to ride with their kids.

They have that now according to the councillor, no need to waste money
changing it.

How so when cycling on The Stray is currently illegal? Taking the fear
of possible prosecution away would not be a 'waste of money' in my
book.

Whilst not knowing the stray, I know lots of similar sort of areas
where cycling is officially banned, and I know of none where fear of
prosecution is a limiting factor, I cannot believe it is, I would much
rather see the money spent more appropriately to promote cycling -
councils do not have infinite money.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What on earth has this got to do with police enforcement of the no
cycling across the stray?

Obvious I would have thought: it's an illustration of the frequently
car-centric, anti-cyclist bias of a significant number of the British
police force.

So you've already reduced it to only a significant number - great
progress!

If you could just stay on the topic of the stray, things would be
good.

Jim.

David Hansen said:

Quoted message said:

and critical mass is not about
cyclists but about demonstrations, because the police treat all
demonstrstions in the same bad way.

Incorrect. The police treat demonstrators that they are in sympathy
with, for example the fool protestors,

If your only example is from 2000, then you're not doing a great job
of convincing me, Critical Mass certainly weren't recieving the same
attention then, nor any other demonstrators, the police have only
started treating demonstrators badly recently. So please come up with
some recent examples.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

yet again, you're failing to make your point
so bring up an entirely unrelated point. Please try to stay on topic
- cycling on the stray, and the motivations of the council not wanting
to waste money.

It is mildly amusing that the person who makes such points is the
same person who tries to dismiss others' points as anti-police
rants.

That's because they were, if I'd not responded at all, I'd've just
been accused of ignoring them - I've changed the topic now, so please
carry on and indulge your persecution fantasies.

Jim.

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:41:50 GMT someone who may be
[email hidden] (Jim Ley) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Whilst not knowing the stray, I know lots of similar sort of areas
where cycling is officially banned, and I know of none where fear of
prosecution is a limiting factor,

You can read the mind of every cyclist who might use such areas?
Fascinating.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:45:58 GMT someone who may be
[email hidden] (Jim Ley) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Incorrect. The police treat demonstrators that they are in sympathy
with, for example the fool protestors,

If your only example is from 2000,

I gave two examples.

Quoted message said:

I've changed the topic now, so please
carry on and indulge your persecution fantasies.

Excellent, a personal attack. Usually the resort of those with no
better arguments.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

p.k. said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.ripontoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=18&ArticleID=1958097

The Stray Defence Association came into being on the 12th May 1933 and 70
years later its objective remains the same; to safeguard Harrogate's
Stray
against building and encroachment from all quarters and uphold the Act
granting freedom of the Stray to all people for all time.

'...granting freedom of the Stray to all people for all time.' Quite
so, nothing there about banning cyclists, who it seems enjoyed access
for the entire history of the SDA, and earlier (until 1986 that is...).

Nor does it explicitly grant access to cyclists. You appear to expending a
lot of energy on a patch of grass over which there is no real reason to want
to pedal other than take a short cut. There are plenty of roads and streets
that make the circumnaviagtion of the Stray straight forward. It is
pointless attempting to extrapoloate from my personal encounters with
Harrogate and the Stray, but I have never felt the need or desire to cycle
on it on the numerous occasions that I've cycled through or to Harrogate.
I'm surprised that the council's stance has been interpreted as an anti
cyclist stance. I see it as a local incident which has upset a handful of
cyclists.

vernon wrote:
There are plenty of roads and streets

Quoted message said:

that make the circumnaviagtion of the Stray straight forward.

That's exactly what I thought having worked there a few years ago &
ridden from the centre out to the Knaresborough Road every day...

David Hansen said:

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:25:21 GMT someone who may be
[email hidden] (Jim Ley) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why? I would see access on the Stray being mainly of recreational use,
perhaps giving parents somewhere pleasant to ride with their kids.

They have that now according to the councillor, no need to waste money
changing it.

Incorrect. At any time a bored official could decide to enforce the
"unenforced" laws.

And that would be the point for the council to spend the money, no
need to pre-empt it, laws often fall away simply through lack of use.

Jim.

David Hansen said:

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:45:58 GMT someone who may be
[email hidden] (Jim Ley) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Incorrect. The police treat demonstrators that they are in sympathy
with, for example the fool protestors,

If your only example is from 2000,

I gave two examples.

Your other example was the pro-hunting lobby, one of which the police
got ruled against as over-stepping their powers by illegally detaining
them, that is most certainly not treating them nice.

Jim.

"Jim Ley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Hansen said:

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:25:21 GMT someone who may be
[email hidden] (Jim Ley) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

>Why? I would see access on the Stray being mainly of recreational use,
>perhaps giving parents somewhere pleasant to ride with their kids.

They have that now according to the councillor, no need to waste money
changing it.

Incorrect. At any time a bored official could decide to enforce the
"unenforced" laws.

And that would be the point for the council to spend the money, no
need to pre-empt it, laws often fall away simply through lack of use.

That doesn't apply to this sort of law, which often has a vociferous group
demanding its enforcement, even if there's no good reason to do so. Do you
really think the law in question will quietly disappear? If so, you're a bit
naive.

clive