Why police don't nick pavement cyclists - Page 6

T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> wrote:
><damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>T i m <kitcar@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>True, but possibly more that they are 'not covered' by the same rule.
>>What's with all these quotes? Do you mean "not covered", "issue", "believe", "assist", or
>>"pavement", or don't you?
>I thought quotes were double and I was only using single to try but obviously failing to empart
>some emphasis?

Single quotes used in that fashion are just wrong. The most reasonable explanation seemed to be that
you meant (admittedly also incorrect) double "scare" quotes.

Words are conventionally emphasised on Usenet like _this_ or *this*, but one should use such
techniques in moderation if at all.

>>In fact, I am mistaken; only electrically assisted vehicles (ie, with pedals) can squeeze under
>>the 15mph rule (and associated weight and power restrictions). In general electric vehicles are
>>vehciles, requiring licensing, etc.
>[T] I run a 4 seater electric car. In the UK it has to be road legal but needs no MOT test, has to
> carry a Tax disk but it costs nothing and has to be insured.

Yes, I believe that fits with what I am saying.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?

I wrote:
> > ...it's technically illegal to push a bike on the pavement....

Prompting Paul Rudin to challenge:
> I think not. Do you have a pointer to legislation making such an offence?

From memory the relevant legislation is the 1835 Carriageways Act, but I think memory is wrong and
the legislation is actually the 1835 Highway Act. I don't have a link - they didn't put legislation
online in those days! I have also never read the act, though I should be interested to do so. It
supposedly also made it illegal to push a pram or pushchair along the footway - I imagine the
definition of a "carriage" would be an important part of the act.

Dave Kahn has already mentioned a case in 1980 where someone pushing a bike was deemed to be a
pedestrian (the link provided by Tim Woodall,
http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebik...oad/offroadlaw .html, and I believe there
have been other similar cases since. Although awareness of such cases is invaluable and will make a
successful prosecution less likely in future, I doubt that a judge's decision actually changes the
law where there is already specific legislation. I don't know, IANAL.

The case law may not matter too much now, anyway. I wrote a few days ago that I didn't believe the
1835 act had ever been updated, but even as I typed that there was a nagging feeling of uncertainty
at the back of my mind. When the fixed penalty was introduced for pavement cycling a couple of years
ago, ISTR reading in either C+ or the CTC magazine that the legislation allowing the fines had been
preceded by legislation specifically updating the act to allow bikes to be pushed on the pavement.

(A quick look at the HC also reveals that there was a new Highway Act in 1980, but from what I've
read in the past it seems unlikely that the relevant legislation was updated here. Also, in the
current HC rule 54 still refers to the 1835 act).

From what I know, I would say that what I wrote on Wednesday was probably wrong, but has only been
wrong for 2 or 3 years and wasn't wrong when I was taught it (when I took my Cycling Proficiency).

--
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