Why police don't nick pavement cyclists - Page 4

T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> wrote:
><jstacey@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Like those little-used red lights that people jump at 3am in the morning?
>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

As I understand it, the law permits you to proceed with caution through a faulty traffic light, and
hence these are not the same.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?

Michael MacClancy <news@macclancy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
><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?

I haven't ever when my tyres have not been underinflated. If one rides road tyres at high pressures
I think it takes a really colossal impact to pinch flat them.

If Tim rides such tyres and is exceptionally diligent when it comes to pumping them up this does not
seem implausible.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?

T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>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.

I'm not disputing your assertion about the police, but I think in fact electric scooters are covered
by existing law like any electric-assist vehicle not capable of more then 15mph under power.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?

On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 09:46:15 +0000 (UTC), "j-p.s" <jstacey@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

>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.

[T] WHAT IF YOU WERE IN YOUR CAR ... ARE YOU GOING TO PUSH THAT ACROSS .. TRY TO BE MORE OPEN
MINDED ...
>
>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.

[U] Never dreamed you would do anything illegal. I just hope you never get a STUCK red light whilst
in your car ..or your malnourished remains will be found there some days later ..

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.

[V] I would suggest, contary to your 'opinion' of how 'others' see our activities, that 'we' (my
family and I) bring a positive and considerate attitude to our recreation. Let's say we may ride
(numbers out of the sky here) 25m (meters) of 'pavement' / week. Often when we are doing this
there is NO ONE around. Compare that with the many miles and many peds we meet along the towparh
to whom we may say 'thanks' or 'Hi' or chat about bikes etc. I would suggest the 'bad' name' in
'my' experience comes from the lycra clad types who travel the tracks and towpaths at circa 20
mph and who rarely offer any warning of their presence?
>
>)>Haven't we had this rationalization for illegal and antisocial behaviour )>before somewhere? ) )
>[T] Pass .. I'm trying to get out more these days ;-)

[W] I wouldn't dream of trying to 'rationalize' an illegal act, simply explaining why and when *I*
choose to do so. Primarily, the 'why' is because I judge it to be safer, the 'when' is when it
is appropriate (for me) to do so (all things considered).

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

[X] You are excused.. What I was trying to say is I hadn't seen anything on here myself as I don't
lurk here regularly.
>
>J-P

[Y] Sleep well .. I do ...

T i m

On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 09:40:31 +0000 (UTC), "j-p.s" <jstacey@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

>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

[T] Ah, I'm agnostic so it won't apply .. ;-)

T i m

p.s. Were you hit with a piece of pavement when you were a child J-P ? ;-)

T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:38:56 +0100, Michael MacClancy
>>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?

Don't you have a surname, then?
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?

In message <g0j*UBlPp@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, David Damerell
<damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>Michael MacClancy <news@macclancy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>><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?
>
>I haven't ever when my tyres have not been underinflated. If one rides road tyres at high pressures
>I think it takes a really colossal impact to pinch flat them.

I'd tend to agree. This is the first I've ever had. The tyre was fully inflated when I left
(110psi). It's possible that I lost some pressure during the ride but unlikely, I think. I did hit
the stone very hard.

--
Michael MacClancy

"Michael MacClancy" <news@macclancy.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rppWvSMPruk+Ewm+@macclancy.demon.co.uk...

>
> I'd tend to agree. This is the first I've ever had. The tyre was fully inflated when I left
> (110psi). It's possible that I lost some pressure during the ride but unlikely, I think. I did hit
> the stone very hard.

Nice in theory. However 4 snakebites on 3 trips over a cinder track convince me otherwise. The tyre
was pumped to about 110 psi each time. There is some sidewall damage but not excessive. The tyre is
now condemned (actually booted and transferred to the front until a replacement is obtained.)

The exact failure mechanism is unknown but since punctures don't all coincide with heavy bumps
(though some but not all did coincided with fairly fast riding) I can't believe some pressure had
not been lost. The mechanism for this is obscure as no secondary punctures were found, several tubes
(and so valves) were involved and no other faults found.

T

On 08 Apr 2003 15:28:39 +0100 (BST), David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>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.
>
>I'm not disputing your assertion about the police, but I think in fact electric scooters are
>covered by existing law like any electric-assist vehicle not capable of more then 15mph
>under power.

Hi David,

True, but possibly more that they are 'not covered' by the same rule. I think the 'issue' here may
well be their use (or suitability for use) on the public highway?

I 'believe' there is a rule re electrically assisted cycles, Sinclair C5's etc and I'm sure there
are new ones coming in for new machines where the motor must not exceed a certain HP AND the vehicle
must be under a certain weight AND not be capeable of more that 15mph (or metric equiv) unassisted
AND needs the pedals to be turning before it will 'assist' AND the rider must be over a certain age?

This would therefore not cover my 12yr old daughter on the (whisper ... 'pavement' ...) ;-)

All the best David ..

T i m

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

prompting j-p.s to yell:
> YES. BY GETTING OFF MY BIKE AND PUSHING IT ON FOOT, HENCE BEING LEGAL.

That wouldn't make it legal, unless the Highways Act of 1835 has finally been updated (which I'm not
aware of). If you push the bike then it still counts as a carriage - pushing it through a red light
is no more legal than pushing a pram through a red light (or along the pavement for that matter). If
you *carry* it then it becomes a parcel, so no problem.

The fact that pushing through a red light is just as illegal as riding through came up when I took
my cycling proficiency nearly 20 (blimey) years ago.

--
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 i m wondered:
> 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? ;-)

I've come across this situation *once*. (Maybe I'm a lot younger than you ;-) ).

I was on my motorbike at the time, about 5 years ago. I turned round and went another way. Of
course, that depends on being able to turn round and knowing the area well enough to easily find an
alternative route.

I've also been yelled at by a car passenger while cycling home from work (she got out of the car to
have a go at me) for sitting at the front of a queue of traffic at roadwork traffic lights when she
was certain they were broken. What I knew (and she evidently didn't) was that these were 4 way
lights and were working just fine.

--
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

I wrote:
> > ... 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.

and T i m wondered:
> Is that the Law (or an assumption .. genuine question?)

That's the law. Relevant HC rules are13 and 48.

Rule 13 is in the section for pedestrians: "Routes shared with cyclists. Cycle tracks may run
alongside footpaths, with a dividing line segregating the two. Keep to the section for
pedestrians. Take extra care where cyclists and pedestrians share the same path without separation
(see Rule 48)."

Note that there is no "DO NOT" or "YOU MUST". I am not aware of any legislation restricting
pedestrian freedom of movement on public rights of way and public highways, except for motorways and
slip roads.

Rule 48 is in the section for cyclists: "Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the
road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may
be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST
keep to the side intended for cyclists. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children,
elderly or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop
if necessary."

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

> [T] 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?

Frankly, I don't know.

--
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 08 Apr 2003 15:21:41 +0100 (BST), David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>><jstacey@plato.wadham.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>Like those little-used red lights that people jump at 3am in the morning?
>>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
>
>As I understand it, the law permits you to proceed with caution through a faulty traffic light, and
>hence these are not the same.

[T] Indeed. I *was* trying to make a point though along the lines of 'we can sometimes do things
that are strictly illegal but would not be considered a major threat to society or even any
concern of the Police' (like finding a company pencil in you work bag when you get home ..is
strictly 'theft' if you don't return it or whatever?)

T i m

On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 20:09:10 +0100, "Danny Colyer" <danny@jugglersafety.net> wrote:

>T i m suggested:
>> ) I'm sure you have 'crossed' a red light ) as you will have deemed that it might be faulty?
>
>prompting j-p.s to yell:
>> YES. BY GETTING OFF MY BIKE AND PUSHING IT ON FOOT, HENCE BEING LEGAL.
>
>That wouldn't make it legal, unless the Highways Act of 1835 has finally been updated (which I'm
>not aware of). If you push the bike then it still counts as a carriage - pushing it through a red
>light is no more legal than pushing a pram through a red light (or along the pavement for that
>matter). If you *carry* it then it becomes a parcel, so no problem.
>
>The fact that pushing through a red light is just as illegal as riding through came up when I took
>my cycling proficiency nearly 20 (blimey) years ago.

[T] Nice one Danny! ;-)

T i m

On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 19:57:08 +0100, "Danny Colyer" <danny@jugglersafety.net> wrote:

>T i m wondered:
>> 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? ;-)
>
>I've come across this situation *once*. (Maybe I'm a lot younger than you ;-) ).

[T] Good chance that you are .. (I'm 46?)
>
>I was on my motorbike at the time, about 5 years ago. I turned round and went another way. Of
>course, that depends on being able to turn round and knowing the area well enough to easily find an
>alternative route.

[U] Well, indeed .. that's where the GPS comes in handy! Mind you, I suppose it also depends (for me
anyway) if I could see the 'end' of the contraflow I might be happier going through?
>
>I've also been yelled at by a car passenger while cycling home from work (she got out of the car to
>have a go at me) for sitting at the front of a queue of traffic at roadwork traffic lights when she
>was certain they were broken. What I knew (and she evidently didn't) was that these were 4 way
>lights and were working just fine.

[V] Been there (on both sides) as well. One of those 'local info' things.

As you seem to know the law Danny, I think I remember someone suggesting that 'temp' lights as put
up by contractors etc, don't have the same legal standing as fixed ones (not that I treat them any
differently)? Or was it that temp speed limints (other than on mortorways) didn't carry penalty
points ..?

All the best ..

T i m