Cyclists are being tricked (was Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws).

[Richard Bates]

"Cyclists today were up in arms after being fined for
cycling on the pavement. They claimed that they had not
realised they were committing an offence since there were no
"No Cycling" signs on the pavement. A spokesman stated that
cyclists were being tricked and that it was most unfair to
expect them to know that the pavement was out of bounds if
there was not an explicit sign stating so."

--
[email protected] Personal Site: www.artybee.net (same
****, different layout) Sutton Brass :
www.suttonbrass.org.uk

 

[Simon Mason]

"Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
>
> "Cyclists today were up in arms after being fined for
> cycling on the pavement. They claimed that they had not
> realised they were committing an offence since there were
> no "No Cycling" signs on the pavement. A spokesman stated
> that cyclists were being tricked and that it was most
> unfair to expect them to know that the pavement was out of
> bounds if there was not an explicit sign stating so."

LOL. You could almost forgive them for not knowing as they
do not *need* to have knowledge of the HC before taking to
the roads (or paths), motorists have no excuse for not
knowing the law. I might send your post to the local rag

--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

 

[Ian Walker]

On 2004-03-24 12:54:27 +0000, "Simon Mason"
<[email protected]> said:

>
> "Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> "Cyclists today were up in arms after being fined for
>> cycling on the pavement. They claimed that they had not
>> realised they were committing an offence since there were
>> no "No Cycling" signs on the pavement. A spokesman stated
>> that cyclists were being tricked and that it was most
>> unfair to expect them to know that the pavement was out
>> of bounds if there was not an explicit sign stating so."
>
> LOL. You could almost forgive them for not knowing as
> they do not *need* to have knowledge of the HC before
> taking to the roads (or paths), motorists have no excuse
> for not knowing the law. I might send your post to the
> local rag

You might want to take it further:

"Murderers were today up in arms after they were imprisoned
for murdering people in the street. They claimed that they
had not realised they were committing an offence since there
were no "No Murdering" signs..."

or something to that effect!

Ian
--
Remove the nice brown paste in my signature if you
want to reply!

 

[Richard Bates]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:54:27 -0000, in
<[email protected]>, "Simon Mason"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> "Cyclists today were up in arms after being fined for
>> cycling on the pavement. They claimed that they had not
>> realised they were committing an offence since there were
>> no "No Cycling" signs on the pavement. A spokesman stated
>> that cyclists were being tricked and that it was most
>> unfair to expect them to know that the pavement was out
>> of bounds if there was not an explicit sign stating so."
>
>LOL. You could almost forgive them for not knowing as
>they do not *need* to have knowledge of the HC before
>taking to the roads (or paths), motorists have no excuse
>for not knowing the law. I might send your post to the
>local rag

I disagree that cyclists do not need knwoledge of the HC:
there is indeed a section of it specifically for cyclists
which contains a MUST or MUST NOT.

But I do make my point in a small amount of serious
comparisson with the original point about motorists
ignorance. The above motorists are complaining that as non-
30 areas are signposted then 30 areas should be too,
otherwise they won't know the difference by looking only at
the road itself. This is analogous to cyclists claiming that
since shared-use paths are specifically signposted then we
can expect to have the same compassion shown when we cannot
tell by sight alone that a pavement is not a cycle path.

I don't condone pavement cycling, exceeding 30 limits or
indeed ignorance of the HC; but if it's going to be a valid
excuse for motorists then it's only fair that it is a valid
excuse for cyclists too.

I'm off out now for a ride. I Think I'll cycle in primary
position down the M6 since there is no sign to say I can't.

And certainly feel free to send my thoughts to your
newspaper.

Love and analogies from Rich x

--
[email protected] Personal Site: www.artybee.net (same
****, different layout) Sutton Brass :
www.suttonbrass.org.uk

 

[Ambrose Nankive]

In news:[email protected],
Richard Bates <[email protected]> typed:
> I'm off out now for a ride. I Think I'll cycle in
> primary position down the M6 since there is no sign to
> say I can't.
>
> And certainly feel free to send my thoughts to your
> newspaper.

As you won't be around to yourself (taking both paragraphs
in succession).

I think they've printed letters from Helen Simmons before,
so maybe they'll do one from you, if you CBA.

A

 

[Simon Mason]

"Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:54:27 -0000, in <df-
> [email protected]>, "Simon Mason"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news[email protected]...
> >>
> >>
> >> "Cyclists today were up in arms after being fined for
> >> cycling on the pavement. They claimed that they had not
> >> realised they were committing an offence since there
> >> were no "No Cycling" signs on the pavement. A spokesman
> >> stated that cyclists were being tricked and that it was
> >> most unfair to expect them to know that the pavement
> >> was out of bounds if there was not an explicit sign
> >> stating so."
> >
> >LOL. You could almost forgive them for not knowing as
> >they do not *need*
to
> >have knowledge of the HC before taking to the roads (or
> >paths), motorists have no excuse for not knowing the law.
> >I might send your post to the
local
> >rag
>
> I disagree that cyclists do not need knwoledge of the HC:
> there is indeed a section of it specifically for cyclists
> which contains a MUST or MUST NOT.

Bad choice of words. They need the knowledge, but as they
take no test have no legal requirement to ever read it,
unlike motorists.

Simon M.

 

[Richard Bates]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:04:02 -0000, in
<[email protected]>, "Ambrose Nankivell"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In news:[email protected], Richard
>Bates <[email protected]> typed:
>> I'm off out now for a ride. I Think I'll cycle in
>> primary position down the M6 since there is no sign to
>> say I can't.
>>
>> And certainly feel free to send my thoughts to your
>> newspaper.
>
>As you won't be around to yourself (taking both paragraphs
>in succession).
>
>I think they've printed letters from Helen Simmons before,
>so maybe they'll do one from you, if you CBA.

I certainly can be arsed. Do you have some contact details
please, Simon?

--
[email protected] Personal Site: www.artybee.net (same
****, different layout) Sutton Brass :
www.suttonbrass.org.uk

 

[W K]

"Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I'm off out now for a ride. I Think I'll cycle in
> primary position down the M6 since there is no sign to
> say I can't.

the M61 is a better one for doing that on, and they will let
you off if they believe you.

 

[Pk]

Simon Mason wrote:
> Bad choice of words. They need the knowledge, but as they
> take no
> test have no legal requirement to ever read it, unlike
> motorists.
>
> Simon M.

but would be unwise not to read it and have a working
knowledge of what other users should do in certain
circumstances.

Knowing what a driver 'should' do and seeing them doing some
thing other is one of the clues to behaviour/competence that
helps keep us safe.

pk

 

[Richard Bates]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:07:59 +0000, in
<[email protected]>, Richard Bates
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:04:02 -0000, in <[email protected]
>berlin.de>, "Ambrose Nankivell"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In news:[email protected],
>>Richard Bates <[email protected]> typed:
>>> I'm off out now for a ride. I Think I'll cycle in
>>> primary position down the M6 since there is no sign to
>>> say I can't.
>>>
>>> And certainly feel free to send my thoughts to your
>>> newspaper.
>>
>>As you won't be around to yourself (taking both paragraphs
>>in succession).
>>
>>I think they've printed letters from Helen Simmons before,
>>so maybe they'll do one from you, if you CBA.
>
>I certainly can be arsed. Do you have some contact details
>please, Simon?

Found it on the net.

Reply is as follows:

If Miss Bateman is confused about the speed limit along
roads with no signposted guide (AA backs demands for 30mph
road signs, 24th March 2004), may I suggest that she reads
the Highway Code. This will leave her in no doubt that when
there is no signposted limit one is to assume a limit of
30mph regardless of the road width.

If she believes that an absence of signs is an excuse for
ignorance of the law then I trust that she will also refrain
from objecting to pavement cyclists since there are
generally no signs on footpaths stating "No Cycling", yet it
is impossible to tell simply by looking at the pavement that
it is not a cyclepath.

I do not condone pavement cycling, speeding or ignorance of
the law; however, if it is to be a valid excuse for a law-
enforcing police officer then it must also be a valid excuse
for cyclists.

--
[email protected] Personal Site: www.artybee.net (same
****, different layout) Sutton Brass :
www.suttonbrass.org.uk

 

[Simon Mason]

"W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I'm off out now for a ride. I Think I'll cycle in
> > primary position down the M6 since there is no sign to
> > say I can't.
>
> the M61 is a better one for doing that on, and they will
> let you off if
they
> believe you.

Do you mean the cyclists who were caught training there
before the Commonwealth Games in Manc? Simon M.

 

[Simon Mason]

"Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:04:02 -0000, in <[email protected]
> berlin.de>, "Ambrose Nankivell"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In news:[email protected],
> >Richard Bates <[email protected]> typed:
> >> I'm off out now for a ride. I Think I'll cycle in
> >> primary position down the M6 since there is no sign to
> >> say I can't.
> >>
> >> And certainly feel free to send my thoughts to your
> >> newspaper.
> >
> >As you won't be around to yourself (taking both
> >paragraphs in
succession).
> >
> >I think they've printed letters from Helen Simmons
> >before, so maybe
they'll
> >do one from you, if you CBA.
>
> I certainly can be arsed. Do you have some contact details
> please, Simon?

I've already sent yours in, but cheekily under my name and
address - sorry, I didn't think you'd be bothered. I'll let
you know if it gets printed. Simon M.

 

[Richard Bates]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:23:46 -0000, in
<[email protected]>, "Simon Mason"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I've already sent yours in, but cheekily under my name and
> address - sorry, I didn't think you'd be bothered. I'll
> let you know if it gets printed. Simon M.

PLAGIARISM!! Probably neither will be printed now ...

<insert smilie here>

--
[email protected] Personal Site: www.artybee.net (same
****, different layout) Sutton Brass :
www.suttonbrass.org.uk

 

[Simon Mason]

"Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:23:46 -0000, in
> <[email protected]>, "Simon Mason"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I've already sent yours in, but cheekily under my name
> > and address -
sorry,
> >I didn't think you'd be bothered. I'll let you know if it
> >gets printed. Simon M.
>
> PLAGIARISM!! Probably neither will be printed now ...

You mean you've sent one as well? If so, let me know and
I'll e-mail them to retract mine.

Simon M.

 

[Simon Mason]

"Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:23:46 -0000, in
> > <[email protected]>, "Simon Mason"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > I've already sent yours in, but cheekily under my name
> > > and address -
> sorry,
> > >I didn't think you'd be bothered. I'll let you know if
> > >it gets printed. Simon M.
> >
> > PLAGIARISM!! Probably neither will be printed now ...
>
> You mean you've sent one as well? If so, let me know and
> I'll e-mail them
to
> retract mine.

Oh I see - I've sent your spoof one in - so no
duplication is involved.

Simon M.