Why police don't nick pavement cyclists - Page 3

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 22:56:33 +0100, "Danny Colyer" <danny@jugglersafety.net> wrote:

>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.

[T] Hi again Danny,

Is that the Law (or an assumption .. genuine question?)
>
>> 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' ....

[U] Again .. Law? (And I didn't mean an accident involving me!) I have been 'waved through' by the
Police .. could I then be charged for failing to stop?

I'm talking here about an accident where the Police / services are in attendance and previously I
would have pulled over (somewhere safe) and offered my assistance. The general rule these days seems
to be 'not get involved' .. (not my 'natural' way but the way it's going nevertheless?). That is
even the guidance offered by the Police?

From a 'passers by' point of view I suggest it would be difficult to dermine in all cases an
'accident' from an 'attack' ?

How many times as cyclists have we shouted at a car driver under our breath in fear of the
consequences, even though we may have been in the right?

All the best ..

T i m

Pragmatically, there are some blocks of underused sidewalk adjoining heavily trafficked roadways
here in the Bronx that I'll bike on. In some cases it's to avoid a 1-way street as another poster
suggested; I'll routinely bike a block or less of sidewalk to avoid crossing & re-crossing a street
to get into the correctly-facing lane, or to find a comfortable curb bevel. I also found a block
that's signed strangely in a way that seems to make it bicycle-only:

Fairly recently signs were posted on one sidewalk where Boston Post Rd. crosses Pelham Pkwy. that
consist of an icon of a pedestrian inside a red circle with a diagonal bar across it, indicating,
"no pedestrians". Possibly because of a change in traffic signals they no longer want people to
cross on the W side of Boston Post Rd. But there's still a stretch of cement sidewalk there between
the crossing of the eastbound & westbound roadways of what's there Fordham Rd. (which becomes
Pelham Parkway at that point), so I guess that makes it for bikers only. At least that's the way
I'm using it!

Robert

"Michael MacClancy" <news@macclancy.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Pfo$yWFLeak+EwB3@macclancy.demon.co.uk...

> >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.

I'm trying to remember how old we were before our mothers would let us ride in the roadway. Slightly
under 12 IIRC.

"ChrisW" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message news:3e919285$1_2@news.chariot.net.au...

> 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?

In New York City, they tell us an exemption applies if & only if both the rider is 12 or fewer years
old and the wheels are less than 26" dia. Rules re sidewalk riding are specifically reserved by NY
state law for local jurisdictions to decide. I wonder if the rules are more unitary in UK.

> What about scooters, and motorized scooters?

Here in New York state that's a point of contention re the definitions in the traffic law and
failure of officials to provide for registration of certain types of vehicles as authorized by state
law (thereby by default prohibiting their operation on either roadways or sidewalks). There's a
general exemption for non-motorized vehicles with solid wheels.

Robert

In message <0cp39vcf87ba89kkui6cl6rfhagg3o4i36@4ax.com>, T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> writes

>[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? ;-)

Well, you've been very lucky then or very cautious. You've never punctured in a pothole? Never
punctured hitting a large stone? Yes, I know you'll say that an observant cyclist would see these
things and avoid them but sometimes circumstances just act together in the wrong way.

Actually, I doubt you do any 'proper' cycling. You probably just ride pavements between home, shops
and pubs :-) Don't forget to wear full body armour, helmet and a police escort every time you go
out. It's so dangerous out there, you know.

Good luck to you, too.
--
Michael MacClancy

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 23:06:23 -0400, "Robert Goodman" <robgood@bestweb.net> wrote:

>"ChrisW" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote in message news:3e919285$1_2@news.chariot.net.au...
>

>> What about scooters, and motorized scooters?
>
>Here in New York state that's a point of contention re the definitions in the traffic law and
>failure of officials to provide for registration of certain types of vehicles as authorized by
>state law (thereby by default prohibiting their operation on either roadways or sidewalks). There's
>a general exemption for non-motorized vehicles with solid wheels.
>
>Robert
>
[T] Hi Guys,

My daughter has and electric scooter and I think, like most things, the Police don't know what to do
with these 'new' things when they first appear. However, what sets the rules machine going is when
someone is hurt by one? I'm pretty sure they aren't allowed on the road or pavement (as you mention
in most of the States or without road registration, helmet, age limits etc etc) in the UK, but we
have been passed by several Police cars whilst my daughter has been riding hers along the pavement
and they haven't taken any notice (so far) ;-)

The problems often start when someone witout training or proper supervision rides one at speed
through lots of peds etc?

I think a lot of this is down to common sense ..

Most of us who drive don't need speed limits .. I know when it's 'safe' to do 70 mph and when /
where it isn't ... lots of folk don't .. enter the 'rules'?

All the best ..

T i m

On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 23:29:38 +0100, T i m scrawled: )>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. ) ) Is that the Law (or an assumption .. genuine question?)

It's the law; hence the words "legal requirement." I don't know whether or not it's the Law as well,
though. That probably depends on your religion.

J-P
--
What does it mean to the crowd when they see doors open wide? It's like a seam in the clouds that
helps them to see inside

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 23:22:01 -0400, Robert Goodman scrawled: ) In some cases it's to avoid a 1-way
street as another poster suggested; ) I'll routinely bike a block or less of sidewalk to avoid
crossing & ) re-crossing a street to get into the correctly-facing lane, or to find a ) comfortable
curb bevel.

In what way is this not rationalized selfishness? I'm glad the majority of car drivers wouldn't
mount a pavement for the same reasons, despite what they /do/ get up to at times.

J-P
--
The goblin took her

On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 09:08:58 +0100, Michael MacClancy <news@macclancy.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <0cp39vcf87ba89kkui6cl6rfhagg3o4i36@4ax.com>, T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>>[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? ;-)
>
>Well, you've been very lucky then or very cautious.

[T] Cautious as in 'observent' and risk assesment yes .. apparently it's quite rare to loosen spokes
on a hand built 48 spoke Sun Rhyno Tandem rear wheel in just 500 miles .. <wink>. Maybe the
fully loaded Bob Yak put the extra strain on it?

You've never
>punctured in a pothole?

[U] Nope, I avoid them ..

Never punctured hitting a large stone?

[V] No, if it's 'large' I can normally see and avoid it?

Yes, I
>know you'll say that an observant cyclist would see these things and avoid them

[W] Doh! Mind you, it also depends on what you ride? We are 'casual' family 'fresh air and a bit of
excersise' cyclists .. we ride hybrid MTB / Tourer type bikes (mainly). My 'main' bike is a 23"
Saracen 'Trekker' that has been converted with Sachs hub brakes and front suspension. The Wife
rides a Trek 800 'Antelope' that we built out of 'returns' in Trek's workshops about 12 years
ago and now has front suspension and suspension seat post (she has a bad back, knees ...). The
daughter and I have some cheap ally hard tail MTB's that we use when we are going mainly 'off
road', or the Tandem if there is going to be more on road (although it's a MTB Tandem) because
of her road safety or just for a change. Whe the wife and I go camping / touring we go on the
Tandem with the Yak.

[X] I can imagine you either on a 6 spoke fully carbon 800 x 2mm wheeled (you had them made
specially as you calculated they were more efficient than 700c), 12oz, rocket, with not a
strand of colour co-ordinated lycra out of place .. or ... a Dutch rod brake roadster with a
home made rear box?

but sometimes circumstances just act together in the wrong
>way.

[Y] Ahh .. I wonder if we have found your problem with cycling on the pavement Michael .. you can't
'see' the peds so *you* run into them! ;-) Maybe I am getting on a bit at 46 but I am still in
the top 10 (of 60) at the local 12th scale electric RC touring car club (Yokomo MR4 TC) and am
an A class clay shooter / coach .. so the reactions must be reasonable .. and (luckily) I still
don't need glasses ..;-) The power kites and canoeing help keep the upper body fit!
>
>Actually, I doubt you do any 'proper' cycling. You probably just ride pavements between home, shops

[Z] Not the shops .. even if I chained the bike to a tree they would cut the tree down to get the
bike.. remember I don't live in a nice quiet rural (boundary) area.

and pubs

[Z] Don't go in Pubs (don't like the smoke). don't drink and ride .. (don't need to .. got a fridge
full of beer at home!) :-)

Don't forget to wear full
>body armour,

[Z] My daughter has body armour for when she's on her Motocrosser? If you look where you are
going and use caution you should stay upright shouldn't you? Mind you, I've only been cycling
30+ years ...

helmet

[Z] 'Mostly' .. if we are going on the road then yes .. if it's likely to be mainly track and trails
then 'sometimes'. The main reason for not wearing one is that with little hair I generally wear
a hat if it's cold. I think I have seen a very thin 'hat' you can wear inside a helmet in which
case I'd probably wear one all the time (when I was on the bike Michael)

and a police escort every time you go out.

[Z] Hmm, Police escort *and* on the pavement .... ?

It's so
>dangerous out there, you know.

[Z] "I know" .. I live in it .. I mean it's ok for you as you can hear a tractor from miles away and
walk your bike safely out of harms way! ;-)
>
>Good luck to you, too.

[Z] Thanks Michael .. ;-)

T i m

In message <v0359vonl362nu4vachkshgk9ib0kgmgc5@4ax.com>, T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> writes
>T i m

Why do you write 'Tim' like this? 'T i m'
--
Michael MacClancy

In message <v0359vonl362nu4vachkshgk9ib0kgmgc5@4ax.com>, T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> writes

> but sometimes circumstances just act together in the wrong
>>way.
>
>[T] Ahh .. I wonder if we have found your problem with cycling on the pavement Michael .. you can't
> 'see' the peds so *you* run into them! ;-)

Mmm. I find the thought of peds being 'circumstances' very amusing.
:-) I like your SOH.
--
Michael MacClancy

In message <nb559v8tc9l10qvnb04tla62oi926mafl9@4ax.com>, T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> writes

>I think a lot of this is down to common sense ..
>
>Most of us who drive don't need speed limits .. I know when it's 'safe' to do 70 mph and when /
>where it isn't ... lots of folk don't .. enter the 'rules'?

You're not P**l S*i*h in disguise, are you?
--
Michael MacClancy

On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 13:41:29 +0100, T i m scrawled: )>Like those little-used red lights that people
jump at 3am in the morning? ) ) I'm sure you have 'crossed' a red light ) as you will have deemed
that it might be faulty?

YES. BY GETTING OFF MY BIKE AND PUSHING IT ON FOOT, HENCE BEING LEGAL.

Christ.

An acquaintance was stopped and fined by a policeman for jumping a light when there was "nobody
around" - presumably he wasn't being observant enough to see the policeman. He offered the same,
predictable, and astonishingly lame excuses for being caught during his spurt of selfishness.

I have never jumped a red light that did not change for me and I resent the assumption that I am as
selfish as you. It's the same assumption that pedestrians are making about cyclists in general
because of people like you; the bad name that you are giving all of us.

)>Haven't we had this rationalization for illegal and antisocial behaviour )>before somewhere? ) )
[T] Pass .. I'm trying to get out more these days ;-)

[TWAT] Hilarious. Excuse me if I don't smiley.

J-P
--
Permorphous polyvert

On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:43:26 +0100, Michael MacClancy <news@macclancy.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <v0359vonl362nu4vachkshgk9ib0kgmgc5@4ax.com>, T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>> but sometimes circumstances just act together in the wrong
>>>way.
>>
>>[T] Ahh .. I wonder if we have found your problem with cycling on the pavement Michael .. you
>> can't 'see' the peds so *you* run into them! ;-)

[T] The 'circumstance(s)' is the 'not seeing' ...
>
>Mmm. I find the thought of peds being 'circumstances' very amusing.
>:-) I like your SOH.

[U] Well if you can't have a laugh and ride on the pavement what can you do ..?

T i m

On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:38:56 +0100, Michael MacClancy <news@macclancy.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <v0359vonl362nu4vachkshgk9ib0kgmgc5@4ax.com>, T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> writes
>>T i m
>
>Why do you write 'Tim' like this? 'T i m'

[T] Well, there are some other 'Tim's' and I though I can either change my name (Mum didn't like the
idea), or space the letters out to distinguish me from other 'non spaced out' Tim's?

T i m