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

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Richard Bates, Mar 24, 2004.

  1. "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
    crap, different layout) Sutton Brass :
    www.suttonbrass.org.uk
     
    Tags:


  2. Simon Mason

    Simon Mason Guest

    "Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:eek:[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
     
  3. Ian Walker

    Ian Walker Guest

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

    >
    > "Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:eek:[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!
     
  4. 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:eek:[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
    crap, different layout) Sutton Brass :
    www.suttonbrass.org.uk
     
  5. 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
     
  6. Simon Mason

    Simon Mason Guest

    "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:eek:[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.
     
  7. 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
    crap, different layout) Sutton Brass :
    www.suttonbrass.org.uk
     
  8. W K

    W K Guest

    "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.
     
  9. Pk

    Pk Guest

    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
     
  10. 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
    crap, different layout) Sutton Brass :
    www.suttonbrass.org.uk
     
  11. Simon Mason

    Simon Mason Guest

    "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.
     
  12. Simon Mason

    Simon Mason Guest

    "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.
     
  13. 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
    crap, different layout) Sutton Brass :
    www.suttonbrass.org.uk
     
  14. Simon Mason

    Simon Mason Guest

    "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.
     
  15. Simon Mason

    Simon Mason Guest

    "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.
     
Loading...
Loading...