Why police don't nick pavement cyclists - Page 2

Johnny Klunk <johnnyklunk@:rem0ve-this:johnnyklunk.com> wrote:
>I think cycling on the pavement is a perceived danger, rather than an actual one. Does anyone know
>the stats of people injured or killed by pavement cyclists each year?

One ped is killed by a cyclist of any kind most years.

Clearly pavement cycling is a bad thing, but if (as Mr. Mason says) it cannot be dealt with quickly,
there must be better uses of the police's time.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:49:25 +0000 (UTC), "j-p.s" <jstacey@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

[T] Hi JP, thanks for the input .. it did make me chuckle .. ;-)

>On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 09:45:03 +0100, T i m scrawled: ) Thanks for the reply and your thoughts (that
>I fully accept). But, I ) am generally talking here about the little birs of pavement found in )
>rural areas that rarely see a pedestrian!
>
>Like those little-used red lights that people jump at 3am in the morning?

[U] Was there supposed to be a comparison there JP? Equating jumping a red light (at whatever time
of the day) to using an obviously open and empty bit of rural pavement? I'm sure you have
'crossed' a red light as you will have deemed that it might be faulty? It's the same thing as
'jumping' the light in the eyes of the law but you have made a rational decision to proceed
based on the situation even though it is strictly against the law? Like riding on a bit of
empty pavement?

>Haven't we had this rationalization for illegal and antisocial behaviour before somewhere?

[V] Pass .. I'm trying to get out more these days ;-)
>
>These bits of pavement rarely see cyclists either. So imagine the bone-crunching hilarity if you
>bip round a blind corner,

[W] Assumption: I don't 'bip' and would never do it round a 'blind corner' ?

safe in the
>unusedness of the pavement,

[X] Assumption again .. I never 'assume' I'm safe, more the opposite infact?

and land on an OAP tottering in the opposite
>direction, similarly safe and also convinced by the fact that pavement cycling is strictly
>forbidden in both the HC and law.

[Y] But carried out in such places as some law abiding and considerate folk deem it would be prudent
to do so? (Risk my childs safety versus breaking the law for 5 yards, hmm, now let me think ..)
Don't get me wrong JP, I'm not trying to condone such action or suggest the rules should be
changed, I'm just being honest in saying I make my own choices and don't believe they put
'anyone' at risk because of how I impliment them?
>
>Just - get off and walk if you're on a pavement. It isn't hard and nobody thinks you're a wuss for
>doing it.

[Z] Irrelevant , there would be no one there to make such a jugement? Are you assuming again that we
all might even 'bother' what other folk think about what we wear and how 'wussy' we may look? I
have been riding motorcycles for 30 years and have *always* worn a full face helmet whilst doing
so (long before it was the law)? Along with protective gear, reflective stripes etc etc. Never
been 'cool' and enjoy living..

It's good for the soul, if not the
>soles.

[Z] Possibly .. ;-)
>
>) [T] Again, I take your plea but at the same time, and in a 'real ) world' of muggers, nutters,
>drunks, druggies and many car drivers ) driving withougt tax, insurance wearing safety belts and
>driving ) whilst on the phone
>
>Oh, in the name of the wee man.
>
> Dere Editor,
>
> Why oh why oh why was I caught by the police ridding my bike in an illegal manner? Dont the
> 'Boys in Blue' have something better to do?

[Z] I should think so ... ask them .. they will tell you they start their shift with an ever
lengthing list of calls to things deemed more important by most of society (like street robbery,
burgulary, rape, stabbings, gun crime etc). Caught riding in an 'illegal' manner .. I hope
descresion would come into it .. riding in a 'dangerous' manner . different story.

Ca'nt they chase after real villains e.g. the working class,
> rather than upper middle-class parents imprisoning their children in expensive guilded
> cages?

[Z] I think they chase villains from all classes don't they?
>
> Wen we are not plowing down cyclists in our enormous tank vehicles, with our blond-eyed
> Ueberkind peeping pensively out of the back windows, we are being vilified for our
> justifiable over-protectiveness. It has to stop.
>
> Yours angrily, J Broadarse Home Counties.
>
>J-P

[Z] Hmmm .. back into the sunshine for me ..

Cheers JP ..

T i m (or TS to you <g>)

In message <dik29vcp7b3r39793251sv7349cln9ql2o@4ax.com>, T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> writes
>Hi Michael,
>
>Shouldn't this all need to be kept in perpective?

Yes, within the perspective that pavement cycling is illegal. Furthermore, if cyclists desert the
roads and take to the pavements drivers who injure cyclists will start using the excuse, "But s/he
should have been on the pavement" in the same way that insurance companies try to argue contributory
negligence when cyclists don't wear helmets. (See another thread.)

>
>Cycling on the pavement in the UK is illegal? Yes
>
>Are there many miles of rural pavement that are slightly remote from the main (and often fast,
>twisty and narrow) road that would offer a safer journey for most cyclists and completely abandoned
>by the pedestrians that are now all in cars?

Are there? There isn't much rural pavement anywhere near I live - on the edge of a rural area.

>
>But as far as 'illegal' activities go, and when taken in the above light, is pretty 'low profile'.
>The addition of a white stripe down the middle of the path and a picture of a cycle every 100 yards
>then not illegal at all? Same cycles, same pedestrians same 'risks' to both with or without the
>white line?

The difference is that the pedestrians know it's a shared use path.

>
>There are quite a few 'shared' footpaths around our town and although *we* stick to the
>'cycling' side the pedestrians do not stick to theirs? Why don't the police 'nick' them ?<devils
>advocate> ;-)

It would be interesting to hear what the legal position is on this one.

>
>All the best
>
>T i m
>
>
>p.s. Years ago I was 'done' for doing 63 mph, in a 70 limit (derestricted dual carrigeway)
> *because* the construstion of my vehicle (a Morris Minor Van) was deemed to be a 'Goods
> Vehicle'? I was therefore limited to 50 mph?
>
>I took my papers to the local Cop shop and they informed me that the traffic dept had 'got it
>wrong' and I wouldn't hear anyting ..
>
>So first offence, in a totally road legal vehicle, within the speed limit (of the road) on the dry,
>empty, sunny road and got an endoresment, a fine and had to pay court costs? (and I was polite to
>the officer and stopped quicky when requested etc (I had even seen them following me for some
>distance but was unaware I was doing anything wrong))!

So were you in the right or not? Did the traffic police make a mistake? Couldn't you be bothered /
couldn't you afford to fight your case?

>
>Did anyone (except the local Traffic dept) think the outcome was reasonable under the circumstances
>... nope?
>
>Did that change my feelings towards the Police in general .. Yep.

Why should it? They can make mistakes just like everyone else.

>
>Would I stop to help the Police at the scene of an accident as I used to ...

I would hope so. It's really the victim who needs helping, the police are only agents.
--
Michael MacClancy

"Tony W" <tonyREMOVE@chapmore.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<b6reaf$88abg$1@ID-161007.news.dfncis.de>...
> "John Redman" <johnredman@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Byaka.112$1F4.26576@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > I am a local councillor and I once tackled our local beat bobby about cycling on our village
> > pavements. He replied that the roads were too dangerous for children and he would advise his own
> > to do the same. I must add that the area is all covered by 30mph restrictions.
>
> Another victory of woolly minded intuition over reality

What does he mean there? Cars at 30mph cannot endanger children? Even if the speed limit is obeyed
(dream on...) half a ton of steel at 30mph will flatten even local councillors (why do I have an
image of David Horton when I see "local councillor"?)

In message <ab018408.0304070515.54c6402a@posting.google.com>, Rory <spacenetus@yahoo.com> writes
>"Tony W" <tonyREMOVE@chapmore.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<b6reaf$88abg$1@ID-161007.news.dfncis.de>...
>> "John Redman" <johnredman@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:Byaka.112$1F4.26576@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>> > I am a local councillor and I once tackled our local beat bobby about cycling on our village
>> > pavements. He replied that the roads were too dangerous for children and he would advise his
>> > own to do the same. I must add that the area is all covered by 30mph restrictions.
>>
>> Another victory of woolly minded intuition over reality
>
>What does he mean there? Cars at 30mph cannot endanger children? Even if the speed limit is obeyed
>(dream on...) half a ton of steel at 30mph will flatten even local councillors (why do I have an
>image of David Horton when I see "local councillor"?)

My interpretation is he means that the policeman is exaggerating the risk. Of course cars travelling
at 30mph can endanger children but the statistics demonstrate that the risk is very low. Certainly
not high enough to warrant a wholesale migration to the pavements.
--
Michael MacClancy

So why isn't the letter-writer ranting about pavement-spitters, litter-louts, double-yellow-parkers and the perpetrators of the other acts too numerous to mention?

And what on earth is the business of vicars and invisible bishops about?

A sideline: when I was a kid there was a widely-held belief that you were allowed to ride on the pavement if your bike had small wheels - in those days small wheels meant a small bike ridden by a small child. Was this true? Is it still true? Does it mean that adults on BMXs and folders are immune from prosecution? What about scooters, and motorized scooters?

Chris Walker

"Michael MacClancy" <news@macclancy.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
newsjF2tpB83Xk+Ew3r@macclancy.demon.co.uk...
>
> My interpretation is he means that the policeman is exaggerating the risk. Of course cars
> travelling at 30mph can endanger children but the statistics demonstrate that the risk is very
> low. Certainly not high enough to warrant a wholesale migration to the pavements.

A good summary. I would also add that it underestimates the risks of riding on pavements -- the
additional danger of being sideswiped by cars turning across your path at junctions, driveways and
other entrances. Statistical evidence suggests that the road is the safest place for cyclists where
they are less likely to suffer such sideswipes while the risk of 2 tonne of metal up the jacksy is
negligible.

Plod was letting woolly minded intuition get in the way of rational analysis of the data.

T

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 14:27:40 +0100, Michael MacClancy <news@macclancy.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <dik29vcp7b3r39793251sv7349cln9ql2o@4ax.com>, T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> writes
>>Hi Michael,
>>
>>Shouldn't this all need to be kept in perpective?
>
>Yes, within the perspective that pavement cycling is illegal.

[T] Indeed ..

>Furthermore, if cyclists desert the roads and take to the pavements drivers who injure cyclists
>will start using the excuse, "But s/he should have been on the pavement" in the same way that
>insurance companies try to argue contributory negligence when cyclists don't wear helmets. (See
>another thread.)

[U] I am for most of this argument refering to the use of the pavement, by my 12yr old daughter. My
Wife and I stick to the roads. However, there are times when I will 'lead' my daughter through
what I see as a dangerous intersection or a twisty fast country road by using the path for her
safety and mine? If this set's a presidence so be it ... time for a cycle lane there maybe? Or,
are you suggesting I put my daughter and possibly my Wife at risk by insisting they use the road
where an unused path runs parallel?
>
>>
>>Cycling on the pavement in the UK is illegal? Yes
>>
>>Are there many miles of rural pavement that are slightly remote from the main (and often fast,
>>twisty and narrow) road that would offer a safer journey for most cyclists and completely
>>abandoned by the pedestrians that are now all in cars?
>
>Are there? There isn't much rural pavement anywhere near I live - on the edge of a rural area.

[V] On the edge or rural is still surburban isn't it?
>
>>
>>But as far as 'illegal' activities go, and when taken in the above light, is pretty 'low profile'.
>>The addition of a white stripe down the middle of the path and a picture of a cycle every 100
>>yards then not illegal at all? Same cycles, same pedestrians same 'risks' to both with or without
>>the white line?
>
>The difference is that the pedestrians know it's a shared use path.

[W] No more than most of them realise a 'shared path' is shared?
>
>>
>>There are quite a few 'shared' footpaths around our town and although *we* stick to the
>>'cycling' side the pedestrians do not stick to theirs? Why don't the police 'nick' them ?<devils
>>advocate> ;-)
>
>It would be interesting to hear what the legal position is on this one.

[X] We always give peds 'right of way' .. however .. it would seem some are intent on commiting
suicide not only in front of us but other road users as well. We have the same issue with cars
<> motorbikes. Car drivers don't see us motorcyclists as we are seen as little risk to them, as
peds do re cyclists?
>

>>
>>p.s. Years ago I was 'done' for doing 63 mph, in a 70 limit (derestricted dual carrigeway)
>> *because* the construstion of my vehicle (a Morris Minor Van) was deemed to be a 'Goods
>> Vehicle'? I was therefore limited to 50 mph?
>>
>>I took my papers to the local Cop shop and they informed me that the traffic dept had 'got it
>>wrong' and I wouldn't hear anyting ..
>>
>>So first offence, in a totally road legal vehicle, within the speed limit (of the road) on the
>>dry, empty, sunny road and got an endoresment, a fine and had to pay court costs? (and I was
>>polite to the officer and stopped quicky when requested etc (I had even seen them following me for
>>some distance but was unaware I was doing anything wrong))!
>
>So were you in the right or not?

[Y] No, a friend you was a Sargent at one of the training schools went into the lib to look up the
'rules'. After a long search he found a book that covered the suitable section and my vehicle
*was* constructed as a goos vechile. Had I added a pair of side windows of two square feet
behind the drivers position and had two rear windows of at least 100 sq inches (which the van
had) it could of been seen as a 'multi purpose vehicle' 9aka Estate car) and I would not have
been commiting an offence?

Did the traffic police make a mistake?
>Couldn't you be bothered / couldn't you afford to fight your case?
>
[Z] No and therefore there was nothing to 'fight'. I plead guilty by letter (no point doing
otherwise) but they still proseuted?
>>
>>Did anyone (except the local Traffic dept) think the outcome was reasonable under the
>>circumstances ... nope?
>>
>>Did that change my feelings towards the Police in general .. Yep.
>
>Why should it? They can make mistakes just like everyone else.
>
[Z] As above.
>>
>>Would I stop to help the Police at the scene of an accident as I used to ...
>
>I would hope so. It's really the victim who needs helping, the police are only agents.

[Z] Indeed, and the Police are paid by us to protect 'us' against folk who are trying to do
otherwise? Not those minding their own buisness doing 63 in a 70 limit or taking the odd safety
shortcut along a deserted footpath to protect their children? I wouldn't do the illegal thing if
there was a workable alternative (we could all stay indoors or move to Milton Keynes with all
it's cycleways I suppose?)

There is a suggestion that things have to get worse before they can get better and that to some
degree is where we are (in the UK) ... 'on our own' at the moment. The Police have insufficient
funds and manpower do deal with the real damaging stuff, let alone get to deal with the trivial.

Moreso, most of the Police Officers are parents and asked 'off record', would probably advise their
children to do the same?

Recent survey re the use of (illegal) dark lenses as used on motorcycles in the UK. Most of the
Police forces contacted suggested that they would NOT 'pull' a rider for that alone. If they were
riding dangerously, ran a loud exhaust pipe, small number plate, riding with a dark visor at night
etc then they would stop the biker. Even then, depending on their attitude and the seriousness of
the bikers actions often let them off with a warning ..

And what would happen if my 12 yr old was stopped by the Police for just riding on an empty
pavement? There are loads of kids caught every day breaking into cars and houses and they are often
just taken home?

Why would they themselves suggest that they wouldn't act to the letter of the law?

Time, effort, minimal 'actual' real world risk if an illegal visor was used sensibly ..?

All the best ..

T i m

'It's good to talk ..'

In message <30739v4b91c9c02lhfcmdhg0obpd04i61f@4ax.com>, T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> writes
>On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 14:27:40 +0100, Michael MacClancy <news@macclancy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <dik29vcp7b3r39793251sv7349cln9ql2o@4ax.com>, T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> writes
>>>Hi Michael,
>>>
>>>Shouldn't this all need to be kept in perpective?
>>
>>Yes, within the perspective that pavement cycling is illegal.
>
>[T] Indeed ..
>
>>Furthermore, if cyclists desert the roads and take to the pavements drivers who injure cyclists
>>will start using the excuse, "But s/he should have been on the pavement" in the same way that
>>insurance companies try to argue contributory negligence when cyclists don't wear helmets. (See
>>another thread.)
>
>[T] I am for most of this argument refering to the use of the pavement, by my 12yr old daughter. My
> Wife and I stick to the roads.

Change the above to, "But the 12yr old girl should have been on the pavement, Officer."

>However, there are times when I will 'lead' my daughter through what I see as a dangerous
>intersection or a twisty fast country road by using the path for her safety and mine? If this set's
>a presidence so be it ... time for a cycle lane there maybe? Or, are you suggesting I put my
>daughter and possibly my Wife at risk by insisting they use the road where an unused path runs
>parallel?

What's the matter with pushing?

>>
>>>
>>>Cycling on the pavement in the UK is illegal? Yes
>>>
>>>Are there many miles of rural pavement that are slightly remote from the main (and often fast,
>>>twisty and narrow) road that would offer a safer journey for most cyclists and completely
>>>abandoned by the pedestrians that are now all in cars?
>>
>>Are there? There isn't much rural pavement anywhere near I live - on the edge of a rural area.
>
>[T] On the edge or rural is still surburban isn't it?

No, on the edge of rural means what it says. In front of me suburban, behind me rural. One mile from
where I am sitting is most definitely rural. There isn't a footpath anywhere to be seen.
>>
>>>
>>>But as far as 'illegal' activities go, and when taken in the above light, is pretty 'low
>>>profile'. The addition of a white stripe down the middle of the path and a picture of a cycle
>>>every 100 yards then not illegal at all? Same cycles, same pedestrians same 'risks' to both with
>>>or without the white line?
>>
>>The difference is that the pedestrians know it's a shared use path.
>
>[T] No more than most of them realise a 'shared path' is shared?

Well, anyone who can't understand the signs must be stupid.

>>
>>>
>>>There are quite a few 'shared' footpaths around our town and although *we* stick to the
>>>'cycling' side the pedestrians do not stick to theirs? Why don't the police 'nick' them ?<devils
>>>advocate> ;-)
>>
>>It would be interesting to hear what the legal position is on this one.
>
>[T] We always give peds 'right of way' .. however .. it would seem some are intent on commiting
> suicide not only in front of us but other road users as well. We have the same issue with cars
> <> motorbikes. Car drivers don't see us motorcyclists as we are seen as little risk to them, as
> peds do re cyclists?

I would have thought peds were more likely to be injured by cyclists than vice versa.

>>
>
>>>
>>>p.s. Years ago I was 'done' for doing 63 mph, in a 70 limit (derestricted dual carrigeway)
>>> *because* the construstion of my vehicle (a Morris Minor Van) was deemed to be a 'Goods
>>> Vehicle'? I was therefore limited to 50 mph?
>>>
>>>I took my papers to the local Cop shop and they informed me that the traffic dept had 'got it
>>>wrong' and I wouldn't hear anyting ..
>>>
>>>So first offence, in a totally road legal vehicle, within the speed limit (of the road) on the
>>>dry, empty, sunny road and got an endoresment, a fine and had to pay court costs? (and I was
>>>polite to the officer and stopped quicky when requested etc (I had even seen them following me
>>>for some distance but was unaware I was doing anything wrong))!
>>
>>So were you in the right or not?
>
>[T] No, a friend you was a Sargent at one of the training schools went into the lib to look up the
> 'rules'. After a long search he found a book that covered the suitable section and my vehicle
> *was* constructed as a goos vechile. Had I added a pair of side windows of two square feet
> behind the drivers position and had two rear windows of at least 100 sq inches (which the van
> had) it could of been seen as a 'multi purpose vehicle' 9aka Estate car) and I would not have
> been commiting an offence?
>
>Did the traffic police make a mistake?
>>Couldn't you be bothered / couldn't you afford to fight your case?
>>
>[T] No and therefore there was nothing to 'fight'. I plead guilty by letter (no point doing
> otherwise) but they still proseuted?

Well, the law might seem to be an ass sometimes but I'm sure there are good reasons for these rules.
If not, campaign to have them changed.

>>>
>>>Did anyone (except the local Traffic dept) think the outcome was reasonable under the
>>>circumstances ... nope?
>>>
>>>Did that change my feelings towards the Police in general .. Yep.
>>
>>Why should it? They can make mistakes just like everyone else.
>>
>[T] As above.
>>>
>>>Would I stop to help the Police at the scene of an accident as I used to ...
>>
>>I would hope so. It's really the victim who needs helping, the police are only agents.
>
>[T] Indeed, and the Police are paid by us to protect 'us' against folk who are trying to do
> otherwise? Not those minding their own buisness doing 63 in a 70 limit

............. in a vehicle not permitted to do this speed.......

>or taking the odd safety shortcut along a deserted footpath to protect their children?

................ riding on a footpath when you could push ......

>I wouldn't do the illegal thing if there was a workable alternative (we could all stay indoors or
>move to Milton Keynes with all it's cycleways I suppose?)
>
>There is a suggestion that things have to get worse before they can get better and that to some
>degree is where we are (in the UK) ... 'on our own' at the moment. The Police have insufficient
>funds and manpower do deal with the real damaging stuff, let alone get to deal with the trivial.
>
>Moreso, most of the Police Officers are parents and asked 'off record', would probably advise their
>children to do the same?

........ Perhaps, but that doesn't make it right.
>
>Recent survey re the use of (illegal) dark lenses as used on motorcycles in the UK. Most of the
>Police forces contacted suggested that they would NOT 'pull' a rider for that alone. If they were
>riding dangerously, ran a loud exhaust pipe, small number plate, riding with a dark visor at night
>etc then they would stop the biker. Even then, depending on their attitude and the seriousness of
>the bikers actions often let them off with a warning ..

One of the reasons people don't obey the law is that they know that they won't be penalised. I
suspect there's a spiralling effect at play here.

>
>And what would happen if my 12 yr old was stopped by the Police for just riding on an empty
>pavement?

It happened to me when I was about 12. I was cautioned and didn't do it again.

>There are loads of kids caught every day breaking into cars and houses and they are often just
>taken home?

I am sure plenty of youngsters enter the judicial process under these circumstances.

--
Michael MacClancy

>>[T] I am for most of this argument refering to the use of the pavement, by my 12yr old daughter.
>> My Wife and I stick to the roads.
>
>Change the above to, "But the 12yr old girl should have been on the pavement, Officer."

[T] So, there is a two mile run of narrow, fast, twisty country road with no side escape and a
'remote' path running parallel. You are telling me you would 'rather' take your chances on the
road than 'make use' of an unused (by peds) path?
>
>
>>However, there are times when I will 'lead' my daughter through what I see as a dangerous
>>intersection or a twisty fast country road by using the path for her safety and mine? If this
>>set's a presidence so be it ... time for a cycle lane there maybe? Or, are you suggesting I put my
>>daughter and possibly my Wife at risk by insisting they use the road where an unused path runs
>>parallel?
>
>What's the matter with pushing?

[U] Nothing .. it's just slower and apert from not being 'illegal' I can't see the point? Loads of
folk do illegal things like smoking dope and it dosen't 'stop' them from doing it?

>>[T] On the edge or rural is still surburban isn't it?
>
>No, on the edge of rural means what it says. In front of me suburban, behind me rural.

[V] So it depends which way you are standing then? ;-)

One mile from where I am sitting is most definitely
>rural. There isn't a footpath anywhere to be seen.

[W] No chance of breaking the law for you then!

>
>>[T] No more than most of them realise a 'shared path' is shared?
>
>Well, anyone who can't understand the signs must be stupid.

[X] Have you not followed the "Audible warning' thread .. do you actually cycle outside .. if so you
'must' of come across people who don't seem to be in charge of themselves, let alone their kids
/ dogs etc etc? It's the same folk who sit and smoke under a 'No Smoking' sign or park across my
'No Parking' gate ... yes .. there are stupid people out there ..

>>
>>[T] We always give peds 'right of way' .. however .. it would seem some are intent on commiting
>> suicide not only in front of us but other road users as well. We have the same issue with cars
>> <> motorbikes. Car drivers don't see us motorcyclists as we are seen as little risk to them,
>> as peds do re cyclists?
>
>I would have thought peds were more likely to be injured by cyclists than vice versa.

[Y] I didn't mean to suggest they wouldn't? What I was trying to say was that some of them, seeing
the cycle beside / behind / infront of them *still* wander into it's path like a lemming?
>
>>[T] No and therefore there was nothing to 'fight'. I plead guilty by letter (no point doing
>> otherwise) but they still proseuted?
>
>Well, the law might seem to be an ass sometimes but I'm sure there are good reasons for these
>rules. If not, campaign to have them changed.

[Z] And how do people often campaign about something .. they occupy it!
>
>>[T] Indeed, and the Police are paid by us to protect 'us' against folk who are trying to do
>> otherwise? Not those minding their own buisness doing 63 in a 70 limit
>
>............. in a vehicle not permitted to do this speed.......

[Z] Indeed ...so you think the resultant was correct then .. do you live in a black and white world?
>
>>or taking the odd safety shortcut along a deserted footpath to protect their children?
>
>................ riding on a footpath when you could push ......

[Z] I might as well leave the bikes at home and just walk about? Do you find pushing a cycle
(especially a loaded one) a fun experience, let alone a Tandem?
>

>>Moreso, most of the Police Officers are parents and asked 'off record', would probably advise
>>their children to do the same?
>
>........ Perhaps, but that doesn't make it right.

[Z] Do you always do what's 'right' especially when it's not safe?
>>

>>And what would happen if my 12 yr old was stopped by the Police for just riding on an empty
>>pavement?
>
>It happened to me when I was about 12. I was cautioned and didn't do it again.
>
[Z] A lesson learnt then .. I'm still waiting for mine (apart from my reckless 63 mph moment up a
70mph dual carrageway in my 1/2 ton 'commecial vehicle' ... and that was in 1978 ..)
>
>>There are loads of kids caught every day breaking into cars and houses and they are often just
>>taken home?
>
>I am sure plenty of youngsters enter the judicial process under these circumstances.

[Z] The repeat offenders maybe ... do you not watch the telly ... progs showing estates being
terrorised by gangs of 10-14 yr olds. They get caught, get taken to the Police station and are
back home 2 hours later?

"Excuse me Officer, I've just seen a family riding along the path on that road where the cyclist got
killed by a lorry last week ... "

Riding on the pavement .. you are having a laugh!

Ride safe ... (honestly ..)

T i m ;-)

In message <3df39vs8hbnnc15391tv6ua6it8qjgg8ob@4ax.com>, T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> writes
>>>[T] I am for most of this argument refering to the use of the pavement, by my 12yr old daughter.
>>> My Wife and I stick to the roads.
>>
>>Change the above to, "But the 12yr old girl should have been on the pavement, Officer."
>
>[T] So, there is a two mile run of narrow, fast, twisty country road with no side escape and a
> 'remote' path running parallel. You are telling me you would 'rather' take your chances on the
> road than 'make use' of an unused (by peds) path?

I probably would stay on the road. I used a cycle path on Saturday and regretted it because I got a
pinch flat almost immediately. At least the road surfaces are pretty free of debris.

>>
>>
>>>However, there are times when I will 'lead' my daughter through what I see as a dangerous
>>>intersection or a twisty fast country road by using the path for her safety and mine? If this
>>>set's a presidence so be it ... time for a cycle lane there maybe? Or, are you suggesting I put
>>>my daughter and possibly my Wife at risk by insisting they use the road where an unused path runs
>>>parallel?

Does your wife stay on the road or not? See your comment above.
>>
>>What's the matter with pushing?
>
>[T] Nothing .. it's just slower and apert from not being 'illegal' I can't see the point? Loads of
> folk do illegal things like smoking dope and it dosen't 'stop' them from doing it?

And I know lots of people who don't smoke dope because it's illegal. Is this a discussion about
cycling or dope smoking?

>
>>
>>>[T] No more than most of them realise a 'shared path' is shared?
>>
>>Well, anyone who can't understand the signs must be stupid.
>
>[T] Have you not followed the "Audible warning' thread .. do you actually cycle outside .. if so
> you 'must' of come across people who don't seem to be in charge of themselves, let alone their
> kids / dogs etc etc? It's the same folk who sit and smoke under a 'No Smoking' sign or park
> across my 'No Parking' gate ... yes .. there are stupid people out there ..
>

All perfectly good reasons to stay off pavements and cycle paths, even.

>>
>>Well, the law might seem to be an ass sometimes but I'm sure there are good reasons for these
>>rules. If not, campaign to have them changed.
>
>[T] And how do people often campaign about something .. they occupy it!

I don't understand. Occupying your car wouldn't have helped you much.

>>
>>>[T] Indeed, and the Police are paid by us to protect 'us' against folk who are trying to do
>>> otherwise? Not those minding their own buisness doing 63 in a 70 limit
>>
>>............. in a vehicle not permitted to do this speed.......
>
>[T] Indeed ...so you think the resultant was correct then ..

Yes.

>do you live in a black and white world?

No.

>>
>>>or taking the odd safety shortcut along a deserted footpath to protect their children?
>>
>>................ riding on a footpath when you could push ......
>
>[T] I might as well leave the bikes at home and just walk about? Do you find pushing a cycle
> (especially a loaded one) a fun experience, let alone a Tandem?

Riding a tandem on a pavement/footpath seems even more irresponsible.

>>
>
>>>Moreso, most of the Police Officers are parents and asked 'off record', would probably advise
>>>their children to do the same?
>>
>>........ Perhaps, but that doesn't make it right.
>

>[T] Do you always do what's 'right' especially when it's not safe?
>>>
>

In this case doing what's wrong might be unsafe for pedestrians. To answer your question - no.

>>>And what would happen if my 12 yr old was stopped by the Police for just riding on an empty
>>>pavement?
>>
>>It happened to me when I was about 12. I was cautioned and didn't do it again.
>>
>[T] A lesson learnt then .. I'm still waiting for mine (apart from my reckless 63 mph moment up a
> 70mph dual carrageway in my 1/2 ton 'commecial vehicle' ... and that was in 1978 ..)

Are you suggesting that you have to be found guilty of a felony before you learn a lesson?
>>
>>>There are loads of kids caught every day breaking into cars and houses and they are often just
>>>taken home?
>>
>>I am sure plenty of youngsters enter the judicial process under these circumstances.
>
>[T] The repeat offenders maybe ... do you not watch the telly ... progs showing estates being
> terrorised by gangs of 10-14 yr olds. They get caught, get taken to the Police station and are
> back home 2 hours later?

Yes, there do appear to be problems with the criminal justice system.

>
>"Excuse me Officer, I've just seen a family riding along the path on that road where the cyclist
>got killed by a lorry last week ... "

"Excuse me Officer, I've just seen a family riding along the path where that old lady got hurt by
that tandem last week .....?
>
>Riding on the pavement .. you are having a laugh!

Riding on the pavement .. you are having a laugh, aren't you?
>
>Ride safe ... (honestly ..)
>
>T i m ;-)
>

--
Michael MacClancy

T i m wrote:
> There are quite a few 'shared' footpaths around our town and although *we* stick to the
> 'cycling' side the pedestrians do not stick to theirs? Why don't the police 'nick' them ?<devils
> advocate> ;-)

Probably because there is no legal requirement for peds to stick to their side, while there is a
legal requirement for cyclists to stick to the cycling side.

> Would I stop to help the Police at the scene of an accident as I used to ...

Depends whether you want to be charged with failing to stop at the scene of an 'accident' ....

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine

>>[T] So, there is a two mile run of narrow, fast, twisty country road with no side escape and a
>> 'remote' path running parallel. You are telling me you would 'rather' take your chances on the
>> road than 'make use' of an unused (by peds) path?
>
>I probably would stay on the road. I used a cycle path on Saturday and regretted it because I got a
>pinch flat almost immediately. At least the road surfaces are pretty free of debris.

[T] Sounds like poor bike maintenance to me ... ;-) Never had a pinch flat on any bike ever .. mayby
that's someting else I'm doing wrong? ;-)

>>>>However, there are times when I will 'lead' my daughter through what I see as a dangerous
>>>>intersection or a twisty fast country road by using the path for her safety and mine? If this
>>>>set's a presidence so be it ... time for a cycle lane there maybe? Or, are you suggesting I put
>>>>my daughter and possibly my Wife at risk by insisting they use the road where an unused path
>>>>runs parallel?
>
>Does your wife stay on the road or not? See your comment above.

[U] No, we all tend to do the same ..
>>>
>>>What's the matter with pushing?
>>
>>[T] Nothing .. it's just slower and apert from not being 'illegal' I can't see the point? Loads of
>> folk do illegal things like smoking dope and it dosen't 'stop' them from doing it?
>
>And I know lots of people who don't smoke dope because it's illegal. Is this a discussion about
>cycling or dope smoking?

[V] Jumping red lights <> cycling on the pavement? (seems it's got to be black and white again?)
>
>>[T] Have you not followed the "Audible warning' thread .. do you actually cycle outside .. if so
>> you 'must' of come across people who don't seem to be in charge of themselves, let alone their
>> kids / dogs etc etc? It's the same folk who sit and smoke under a 'No Smoking' sign or park
>> across my 'No Parking' gate ... yes .. there are stupid people out there ..
>>
>
>All perfectly good reasons to stay off pavements and cycle paths, even.

[W] Ok ... last time ... the paths we are talking about are EMPTY!
>
>
>>>
>>>Well, the law might seem to be an ass sometimes but I'm sure there are good reasons for these
>>>rules. If not, campaign to have them changed.
>>
>>[T] And how do people often campaign about something .. they occupy it!
>
>I don't understand. Occupying your car wouldn't have helped you much.

[X] Em no .. occupy the path .. or maybe I'll call it a 'potential shared use pathway' then it won't
confuse the spirit of my discussion? I am not saying it is right to cycle on crowed public
paths, I'm saying there are times when I will, where for a request to the council and some white
paint it would no longer offend your sensibilities?
>

>>do you live in a black and white world?
>
>No.

[Y] Are you sure ;-)
>
>>>
>>[T] I might as well leave the bikes at home and just walk about? Do you find pushing a cycle
>> (especially a loaded one) a fun experience, let alone a Tandem?
>
>Riding a tandem on a pavement/footpath seems even more irresponsible.

[Z] Ok, is it illegal for me to run down the footpath with a loaded wheelbarrow? No. Not illegal
but probably dangerous, but in your world, because it's not illegal it would be acceptable?
(devils advocate)
>

>>[T] A lesson learnt then .. I'm still waiting for mine (apart from my reckless 63 mph moment up a
>> 70mph dual carrageway in my 1/2 ton 'commecial vehicle' ... and that was in 1978 ..)
>
>Are you suggesting that you have to be found guilty of a felony before you learn a lesson?

[Z] ("felony .. ?") Often the case ... hence the use of the 'Law' to administer suitable punishment.
In the case of my Goods Vehicle thing I was unaware of the restriction? Still my 'fault' I
suppose, not being fully conversant with *all* the Road Traffic and Construction and Use
regulations?
>>>

>Yes, there do appear to be problems with the criminal justice system.
>
[Z] We agree about something at least! ;-)
>>
>>"Excuse me Officer, I've just seen a family riding along the path on that road where the cyclist
>>got killed by a lorry last week ... "
>
>"Excuse me Officer, I've just seen a family riding along the path where that old lady got hurt by
>that tandem last week .....?

[Z] Hmm, I wonder who that was ... It couldn't have been us ... unless she walked into our
stationary Tandem? You don't have a problem with us resting on our Tandem on the path do you or
should we sit in the trailer for the rest! ;-)
>>
>>Riding on the pavement .. you are having a laugh!
>
>Riding on the pavement .. you are having a laugh, aren't you?

[Z] Usually ... just think of all those nice peds *you* don't meet ... "Oh, I do like your Tandem!
My Husband and I used to have one years ago .. you don't see them much these days do you ...
well the roads were much safer in those days ... no wonder you use this old path ... no one else
does ... " <wink>
>>
>>Ride safe ... (honestly ..)
>>
>>T i m ;-)

[Z] Cheers Michael ..

T i m

T i m wrote:
> I'm sure you have 'crossed' a red light as you will have deemed that it might be faulty?

That sounds like an "I break the law, so surely everyone else does" kind of an argument. How can you
be sure that someone else has jumped a red light because they deem it to be faulty? I certainly
never have.

(That doesn't mean I've never jumped a red light. I remember going through one once on my motorbike
because I just didn't see it in time to stop safely. And there's no excuse, I just shouldn't have
made such a long journey when it was cold, dark, wet and windy).

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 23:00:28 +0100, "Danny Colyer" <danny@jugglersafety.net> wrote:

>T i m wrote:
>> I'm sure you have 'crossed' a red light as you will have deemed that it might be faulty?
>
>That sounds like an "I break the law, so surely everyone else does" kind of an argument. How can
>you be sure that someone else has jumped a red light because they deem it to be faulty? I certainly
>never have.

[T] Hi Danny,

What, you have never come to a set of lights (be they road works or back street junction) and just
sat there for ages and they haven't changed? I must admit I haven't seen that myself for a while now
but it used to happen quite a lot? Assuming you *did* come across such a failed light, what would
you do, stay there for ever Danny? ;-)
>
>(That doesn't mean I've never jumped a red light. I remember going through one once on my motorbike
>because I just didn't see it in time to stop safely. And there's no excuse, I just shouldn't have
>made such a long journey when it was cold, dark, wet and windy).

[U] Indeed not .. and that would be 'Due care and attention, crossing a red stop light, dangerous
driving' etc etc. But some folk would call that a mistake but it could have been avoided (as you
have admitted ..you *could* of pulled into a B&B or whatever and rested) and it could of turned
into an 'accident'. But, 'to err is human'?

When driving I rarely even cross on the amber if I can stop ( crossing well into the red is not
uncommon the nearer the City of London you get) and in some countries (South of Italy for example)
I'm told it's rare even dangerous to stop at a red light! (you have another car in your boot!)

All the best ..

T i m