Cyclists win police court battle!

[Marc Brett]

On 12 Jul 2006 11:31:08 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Even if there is vehicular damage, if they'd been laid properly in the
>first place, they wouldn't have broken.

Wrong. The design and construction of pavements varies depending on whether
vehicles are expected on them.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
Clive George said:

> AFAIR it applies to you, doesn't it? Do you think law enforcement
> should be based on the danger posed, or would you prefer all laws
> were enforced to the letter? (hint : you've already posted the answer
> to this one many times). If the former, since it's obvious said
> granny isn't causing anybody any danger, should she be prosecuted as
> Mr Nugent feels she should be? Is she the yob that he is complaining
> about?

According to Mr Nugent anyone and everyone who rides a bicycle on the
footway, irrespective of the circumstances and manner in which they do it,
is a yob. Therefore the said granny should be prosecuted to the fullest
extent of the law.

 

[Adrian]

Clive George ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

>>>>> If my granny were to ride her bike at 5mph past your house on the
>>>>> pavement in the middle of the night, does that make her a yob?

>>>> Why can't she ride it past on the road? I presume she's got lights
>>>> on, of course...?

>>> She doesn't want to.

>> Poor dear. Doesn't she want to stop at red lights either? Well, why
>> SHOULD she have to? After all, she's on a bicycle, and therefore not
>> subject to the normal rules of the road, is she?

> Erm, you seem to have lost the plot here. Who said anything about red
> lights? Who said anything about not being subject to the normal rules
> of the road?

Your Granny seems to think she isn't - just wondering how far that
stretched...

> (If you want I can add 'because the locals are coming home from the
> pub in their cars at the same time, and she wants to keep away from
> them' - would that make it better?)

No, not really.

Because - hopefully - those leaving the pub ****** will be on the footway,
whilst those leaving the pub by car will be sober.

>> Does "I don't want to" apply when she's in the car, too?

> AFAIR it applies to you, doesn't it? Do you think law enforcement
> should be based on the danger posed

Of course.

> If the former, since it's obvious said granny isn't causing anybody any
> danger

Apart from herself - because, according to Marc, the pavement is in a
parlous state because of HGVs parking on it - and the ****** pedestrians
that are coming out of the pub.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
Adrian said:

> Even if there is vehicular damage, if they'd been laid properly in the
> first place, they wouldn't have broken.

All such surfaces are designed to take a certain weight and no more with
regard to the normal traffic of the district. Normal traffic on a footpath
does not include delivery lorries or cars.

 

[Adrian]

Brimstone ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

>> Even if there is vehicular damage, if they'd been laid properly in
>> the first place, they wouldn't have broken.

> All such surfaces are designed to take a certain weight and no more
> with regard to the normal traffic of the district. Normal traffic on a
> footpath does not include delivery lorries or cars.

So motor vehicles on the footway are a total red herring, then, because
they're so rare that councils don't take them into account when designing
footways along the side of the highway?

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>,
Adrian <[email protected]> writes
>Brimstone ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
>they were saying :
>
>>> Even if there is vehicular damage, if they'd been laid properly in
>>> the first place, they wouldn't have broken.
>
>> All such surfaces are designed to take a certain weight and no more
>> with regard to the normal traffic of the district. Normal traffic on a
>> footpath does not include delivery lorries or cars.
>
>So motor vehicles on the footway are a total red herring, then, because
>they're so rare that councils don't take them into account when designing
>footways along the side of the highway?

Perhaps someone should tell them?

I find it quite surprising that the engineers would be unaware of the
practice, though, since I used to work for a civil engineering
consultancy with woefully inadequate parking, and they all used to park
on the drive with the wheels on one side on the grass.

--
Steve Walker

 

[Tony Raven]

Adrian wrote on 12/07/2006 10:11 +0100:
> Tony Raven ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying :
>
>> Forgetting for a moment the speed at which they do it, do you or do you
>> not accept that cars, vans and lorries are driven along the footway?
>
> I do not accept it.
>
> I presume you're now going to pop up and raise the issue of vehicles
> crossing the footway to driveways etc, and parking on the footway. That is,
> as I'm sure you're perfectly well aware, a very different kettle of fish
> from routinely travelling along the footway - whatever the mode of
> transport.
>

Nope, the use of "along" instead of "on" was deliberate to avoid the
confusion with across or onto.

So you are saying that Steve Bosman is a liar when he says "what I see
is IMO far more serious since it involves driving fully onto the
pavement and then round a corner (past a safety barrier) and then back
onto another road"....."I would say fully mounting the pavement and
driving for approximately 100 metres is "driving along the pavement""

And of course I must also be lying when I say I was walking along the
pavement and looked up to see a delivery truck driving along the
pavement towards me or that I saw a taxi pull over onto the pavement at
some roadworks where the lights were on red, drive 30 yards down the
pavement with traffic on-coming on the road alongside and then turn
right to park in front of a shop.


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Adrian]

Steve Walker ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

>>>> Even if there is vehicular damage, if they'd been laid properly in
>>>> the first place, they wouldn't have broken.

>>> All such surfaces are designed to take a certain weight and no more
>>> with regard to the normal traffic of the district. Normal traffic on a
>>> footpath does not include delivery lorries or cars.

>>So motor vehicles on the footway are a total red herring, then, because
>>they're so rare that councils don't take them into account when designing
>>footways along the side of the highway?

> Perhaps someone should tell them?

Well, quite. It's either an utter red herring to raise the issue, or the
footways weren't laid properly for the loads which could reasonably be
expected. Some consistency is needed...

> I find it quite surprising that the engineers would be unaware of the
> practice, though, since I used to work for a civil engineering
> consultancy with woefully inadequate parking, and they all used to park
> on the drive with the wheels on one side on the grass.

Was the grass properly engineered to take those loads, though?

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>,
Adrian <[email protected]> writes
>Steve Walker ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
>like they were saying :

>> I find it quite surprising that the engineers would be unaware of the
>> practice, though, since I used to work for a civil engineering
>> consultancy with woefully inadequate parking, and they all used to park
>> on the drive with the wheels on one side on the grass.
>
>Was the grass properly engineered to take those loads, though?

Eventually... Some kind of grid was laid to prevent sinking and chewing
up of the grass, but their options were limited by the bloody stupid
regulations on providing permanent parking spaces. They eventually got
consent to extend the car park.

--
Steve Walker

 

[Clive George]

"Adrian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clive George ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying :
>
>>>>>> If my granny were to ride her bike at 5mph past your house on the
>>>>>> pavement in the middle of the night, does that make her a yob?
>
>>>>> Why can't she ride it past on the road? I presume she's got lights
>>>>> on, of course...?
>
>>>> She doesn't want to.
>
>>> Poor dear. Doesn't she want to stop at red lights either? Well, why
>>> SHOULD she have to? After all, she's on a bicycle, and therefore not
>>> subject to the normal rules of the road, is she?
>
>> Erm, you seem to have lost the plot here. Who said anything about red
>> lights? Who said anything about not being subject to the normal rules
>> of the road?
>
> Your Granny seems to think she isn't - just wondering how far that
> stretched...
>
>> (If you want I can add 'because the locals are coming home from the
>> pub in their cars at the same time, and she wants to keep away from
>> them' - would that make it better?)
>
> No, not really.
>
> Because - hopefully - those leaving the pub ****** will be on the footway,
> whilst those leaving the pub by car will be sober.

Not here - they're being driven home by their mates (or driving themselves.
Amusing case round here a couple of years ago when husband and wife both
decided to drive home from the pub, and both got nicked. The extra amusing
bit was it was about 2-400 yards from pub to home. He was a truck driver, so
I wonder how they enjoyed their life on the dole with no transport...)

>>> Does "I don't want to" apply when she's in the car, too?
>
>> AFAIR it applies to you, doesn't it? Do you think law enforcement
>> should be based on the danger posed
>
> Of course.

I think we can stop there.

So, do you agree that calling every person who rides a bike illegaly on a
pavement is a yob is wrong? That instead we should consider the danger
posed - eg haring down a busy pavement at full tilt is almost certainly
yobbish behaviour, but pootling along when there aren't any people to run
over isn't yobbish at all.

clive

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:08:20 +0100, "Brimstone"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>According to Mr Nugent anyone and everyone who rides a bicycle on the
>footway, irrespective of the circumstances and manner in which they do it,
>is a yob.
I fully agree with him in fact after the exhibition of how not to ride
a bike I saw earlier I will extend that statement to public roads
also.

 

[Adrian]

Clive George ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

>>> (If you want I can add 'because the locals are coming home from the
>>> pub in their cars at the same time, and she wants to keep away from
>>> them' - would that make it better?)

>> No, not really.
>>
>> Because - hopefully - those leaving the pub ****** will be on the
>> footway, whilst those leaving the pub by car will be sober.

> Not here - they're being driven home by their mates

Providing those mates are sober, is that an issue?

> (or driving
> themselves. Amusing case round here a couple of years ago when husband
> and wife both decided to drive home from the pub, and both got nicked.
> The extra amusing bit was it was about 2-400 yards from pub to home.
> He was a truck driver, so I wonder how they enjoyed their life on the
> dole with no transport...)

Quite.

>>>> Does "I don't want to" apply when she's in the car, too?

>>> AFAIR it applies to you, doesn't it? Do you think law enforcement
>>> should be based on the danger posed

>> Of course.

> I think we can stop there.
>
> So, do you agree that calling every person who rides a bike illegaly
> on a pavement is a yob is wrong?

I think it's overly simplistic, but I find it difficult to picture
circumstances where the road would not be a more suitable location.
So far, we've got your aged granny at pub-kicking-out-o'clock...

> That instead we should consider the
> danger posed - eg haring down a busy pavement at full tilt is almost
> certainly yobbish behaviour, but pootling along when there aren't any
> people to run over isn't yobbish at all.

Assuming your apocryphal Granny promptly moves to riding on the road when
she comes across a pedestrian, I'm happy with that.

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, Clive
George says...
> "Adrian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Clive George ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
> > like they were saying :
> >
> >>> No - I do not mean just "anyone", I mean anyone who rides a bike
> >>> illegally on the footway. "Yob" is a mild description of them, as I
> >>> am sure you will agree.
> >
> >> If my granny were to ride her bike at 5mph past your house on the
> >> pavement in the middle of the night, does that make her a yob?
> >
> > Why can't she ride it past on the road? I presume she's got lights on, of
> > course...?
>
> She doesn't want to.
>
So she's a habitual criminal then.



--
Conor

"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>,
Clive George says...
> "Adrian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Clive George ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
> > like they were saying :
> >
> >>>> If my granny were to ride her bike at 5mph past your house on the
> >>>> pavement in the middle of the night, does that make her a yob?
> >
> >>> Why can't she ride it past on the road? I presume she's got lights
> >>> on, of course...?
> >
> >> She doesn't want to.
> >
> > Poor dear. Doesn't she want to stop at red lights either? Well, why SHOULD
> > she have to? After all, she's on a bicycle, and therefore not subject to
> > the normal rules of the road, is she?
>
> Erm, you seem to have lost the plot here. Who said anything about red
> lights? Who said anything about not being subject to the normal rules of the
> road? Try and stick to the example at hand. Is my granny in the example
> being a yob?

In so much that she is no better than the yoof who flout whatever laws
they don't agree with.

> AFAIR it applies to you, doesn't it? Do you think law enforcement should be
> based on the danger posed, or would you prefer all laws were enforced to the
> letter? (hint : you've already posted the answer to this one many times). If
> the former, since it's obvious said granny isn't causing anybody any danger,
> should she be prosecuted as Mr Nugent feels she should be? Is she the yob
> that he is complaining about?
>
Why do you think her age should be of any consequence? You consistently
mention that she's a granny as if it's some kind of justification.

--
Conor

"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, Clive
George says...

> So, do you agree that calling every person who rides a bike illegaly on a
> pavement is a yob is wrong?

No.


--
Conor

"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>,
Adrian says...

> (I'll presume the delivery truck "driving along the pavement" wasn't in a
> pedestrianised area where it may be perfectly legitimate to drive to
> deliver to businesses?)
>
And I wonder if by truck, he meant Transit the same as the news reports
the other week which reported a truck as going over on its side and
closing the M11 when it was in fact a flatbed Transit.


--
Conor

"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin

 

[Clive George]

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

> Why do you think her age should be of any consequence? You consistently
> mention that she's a granny as if it's some kind of justification.

Because 'yob' almost definitively doesn't apply to grannies, being a) old
and b) female. You do know where the word 'yob' comes from, don't you?

clive

 

[Tony Raven]

Adrian wrote on 12/07/2006 15:40 +0100:
>
> (I'll presume the delivery truck "driving along the pavement" wasn't in a
> pedestrianised area where it may be perfectly legitimate to drive to
> deliver to businesses?)

Nope, on the pavement with the road alongside. There were cars queueing
on the road though which presumably he couldn't wait behind.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Tony Raven]

Conor wrote on 12/07/2006 16:41 +0100:
>
> And I wonder if by truck, he meant Transit the same as the news reports
> the other week which reported a truck as going over on its side and
> closing the M11 when it was in fact a flatbed Transit.
>

I do know the difference between a Transit and a truck.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[JNugent]

Clive George wrote:
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> No - I do not mean just "anyone", I mean anyone who rides a bike
>> illegally on the footway. "Yob" is a mild description of them, as I am
>> sure you will agree.
>
>
> If my granny were to ride her bike at 5mph past your house on the
> pavement in the middle of the night, does that make her a yob?
>
> (if you don't have a pavement or it's shared use, substitute another house)

I have never seen anyone classifiable as a granny do it.

As long as it was at dead of night (ad I therefore knew nothing about it)...