Cyclists win police court battle!

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by iiiiDougiiii, Jun 27, 2006.

  1. Tom Crispin

    Tom Crispin Guest

    On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:38:45 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Tom Crispin wrote:
    >
    >> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >>>(and in the same limited circumstances, cycling on the footway isn't
    >>>illegal either).

    >
    >> I think that it would be fair to say that in nearly all circumstances
    >> where driving on the footway is permitted, cycling on the footway is
    >> permitted, but that the converse is not true. There are extensive
    >> sections of footway where cycling is permitted but driving is not.

    >
    >Very close. The first bit is accurate enough, but cycling, while being
    >permitted on things referred to here as "shared use paths" (or similar) is
    >no more lawful along footways than is driving a motor vehicle. By
    >definition, a footway is not a shared use path and is not for vehicles to
    >travel along.


    Like motor vehicles and bicycles are permitted on the footway to
    access driveways, bicycles are permitted on the footway to access
    cycle lanes and paths.
     


  2. JNugent

    JNugent Guest

    Tom Crispin wrote:
    > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:38:45 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Tom Crispin wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>
    >>>>(and in the same limited circumstances, cycling on the footway isn't
    >>>>illegal either).

    >>
    >>>I think that it would be fair to say that in nearly all circumstances
    >>>where driving on the footway is permitted, cycling on the footway is
    >>>permitted, but that the converse is not true. There are extensive
    >>>sections of footway where cycling is permitted but driving is not.

    >>
    >>Very close. The first bit is accurate enough, but cycling, while being
    >>permitted on things referred to here as "shared use paths" (or similar) is
    >>no more lawful along footways than is driving a motor vehicle. By
    >>definition, a footway is not a shared use path and is not for vehicles to
    >>travel along.

    >
    >
    > Like motor vehicles and bicycles are permitted on the footway to
    > access driveways, bicycles are permitted on the footway to access
    > cycle lanes and paths.


    That doesn't sound intuitive.

    Certainly, cycling into driveways from the carriageway (across the footway)
    is lawful, but driveways and other entrances have to be constructed as
    (reduced-height) cross-overs. Surely unless a footway is similarly
    distinctively constructed or marked, cycling is simply illegal? Otherwise,
    the claim to be accessing a cycling-path could be literally open-ended. Are
    there any cycle lanes which are not contiguous with the carriageway at
    points where interchange is permitted? If there are, I've never seen one.
     
  3. Tom Crispin

    Tom Crispin Guest

    On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:17:19 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Tom Crispin wrote:
    >> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:38:45 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Tom Crispin wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>(and in the same limited circumstances, cycling on the footway isn't
    >>>>>illegal either).
    >>>
    >>>>I think that it would be fair to say that in nearly all circumstances
    >>>>where driving on the footway is permitted, cycling on the footway is
    >>>>permitted, but that the converse is not true. There are extensive
    >>>>sections of footway where cycling is permitted but driving is not.
    >>>
    >>>Very close. The first bit is accurate enough, but cycling, while being
    >>>permitted on things referred to here as "shared use paths" (or similar) is
    >>>no more lawful along footways than is driving a motor vehicle. By
    >>>definition, a footway is not a shared use path and is not for vehicles to
    >>>travel along.

    >>
    >>
    >> Like motor vehicles and bicycles are permitted on the footway to
    >> access driveways, bicycles are permitted on the footway to access
    >> cycle lanes and paths.

    >
    >That doesn't sound intuitive.
    >
    >Certainly, cycling into driveways from the carriageway (across the footway)
    >is lawful, but driveways and other entrances have to be constructed as
    >(reduced-height) cross-overs. Surely unless a footway is similarly
    >distinctively constructed or marked, cycling is simply illegal? Otherwise,
    >the claim to be accessing a cycling-path could be literally open-ended. Are
    >there any cycle lanes which are not contiguous with the carriageway at
    >points where interchange is permitted? If there are, I've never seen one.


    There are a great many toucan crossings which lead to cycle paths
    after crossing the footway.
     
  4. Simon Hobson

    Simon Hobson Guest

    On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 22:14:59 +0100, Tony Raven wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > I wonder how this truck got there?
    > http://cycling.raven-family.com/York.jpg


    Presumably carefully, ie not at 30mph blowing his horn (in lieu of shouting)
    to make pedestrials scatter and make way !

    But once again, it's a far cry from deliberately driving along the pavement
    as a short cut or to avoid a queue.
     
  5. JNugent

    JNugent Guest

    Tom Crispin wrote:

    > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>Tom Crispin wrote:
    >>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>Tom Crispin wrote:
    >>>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:


    >>>>>>(and in the same limited circumstances, cycling on the footway isn't
    >>>>>>illegal either).


    >>>>>I think that it would be fair to say that in nearly all circumstances
    >>>>>where driving on the footway is permitted, cycling on the footway is
    >>>>>permitted, but that the converse is not true. There are extensive
    >>>>>sections of footway where cycling is permitted but driving is not.


    >>>>Very close. The first bit is accurate enough, but cycling, while being
    >>>>permitted on things referred to here as "shared use paths" (or similar) is
    >>>>no more lawful along footways than is driving a motor vehicle. By
    >>>>definition, a footway is not a shared use path and is not for vehicles to
    >>>>travel along.


    >>>Like motor vehicles and bicycles are permitted on the footway to
    >>>access driveways, bicycles are permitted on the footway to access
    >>>cycle lanes and paths.


    >>That doesn't sound intuitive.
    >>Certainly, cycling into driveways from the carriageway (across the footway)
    >>is lawful, but driveways and other entrances have to be constructed as
    >>(reduced-height) cross-overs. Surely unless a footway is similarly
    >>distinctively constructed or marked, cycling is simply illegal? Otherwise,
    >>the claim to be accessing a cycling-path could be literally open-ended. Are
    >>there any cycle lanes which are not contiguous with the carriageway at
    >>points where interchange is permitted? If there are, I've never seen one.


    > There are a great many toucan crossings which lead to cycle paths
    > after crossing the footway.


    Of course, such things are absolute abominations, but the footway adjacent
    to them is at least marked or signed accordingly.
     
  6. Steve Firth

    Steve Firth Guest

    On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:43:38 +0000 (UTC), Mark Thompson wrote:

    >>> I think you need to think whether a bicycle can be ridden on the
    >>> pavement/shared use path safely,

    >>
    >> I think you need to think whether a bicycle can be ridden on the footpath
    >> legally.

    >
    > It goes without saying that cycling on the pavement is illegal, except
    > where it is legal. I know this, you know this, the whole world knows this.
    > It's so obvious that there's no point in my sticking that snippet of
    > information at the end of every posting.


    Then the question you asked has no meaning, the question of safety is
    irrelevant, and the act of riding on the pavement is illegal. Or are you
    advocating that I can be permitted to drive at >140mph on motorways because
    I can do so safely? Indeed I do so safely in Germany so there's not even a
    question about whether it is possible, just that it is prohibited by
    arbitrary legislation in England.
     
  7. Tom Crispin

    Tom Crispin Guest

    On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:11:28 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Tom Crispin wrote:
    >
    >> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>Tom Crispin wrote:
    >>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>Tom Crispin wrote:
    >>>>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >>>>>>>(and in the same limited circumstances, cycling on the footway isn't
    >>>>>>>illegal either).

    >
    >>>>>>I think that it would be fair to say that in nearly all circumstances
    >>>>>>where driving on the footway is permitted, cycling on the footway is
    >>>>>>permitted, but that the converse is not true. There are extensive
    >>>>>>sections of footway where cycling is permitted but driving is not.

    >
    >>>>>Very close. The first bit is accurate enough, but cycling, while being
    >>>>>permitted on things referred to here as "shared use paths" (or similar) is
    >>>>>no more lawful along footways than is driving a motor vehicle. By
    >>>>>definition, a footway is not a shared use path and is not for vehicles to
    >>>>>travel along.

    >
    >>>>Like motor vehicles and bicycles are permitted on the footway to
    >>>>access driveways, bicycles are permitted on the footway to access
    >>>>cycle lanes and paths.

    >
    >>>That doesn't sound intuitive.
    >>>Certainly, cycling into driveways from the carriageway (across the footway)
    >>>is lawful, but driveways and other entrances have to be constructed as
    >>>(reduced-height) cross-overs. Surely unless a footway is similarly
    >>>distinctively constructed or marked, cycling is simply illegal? Otherwise,
    >>>the claim to be accessing a cycling-path could be literally open-ended. Are
    >>>there any cycle lanes which are not contiguous with the carriageway at
    >>>points where interchange is permitted? If there are, I've never seen one.

    >
    >> There are a great many toucan crossings which lead to cycle paths
    >> after crossing the footway.

    >
    >Of course, such things are absolute abominations, but the footway adjacent
    >to them is at least marked or signed accordingly.


    Ill take that as an admission that your earlier remark was faulty.
     
  8. JNugent

    JNugent Guest

    Tom Crispin wrote:

    > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>Tom Crispin wrote:
    >>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>Tom Crispin wrote:
    >>>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>>Tom Crispin wrote:
    >>>>>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:


    >>>>>>>>(and in the same limited circumstances, cycling on the footway isn't
    >>>>>>>>illegal either).


    >>>>>>>I think that it would be fair to say that in nearly all circumstances
    >>>>>>>where driving on the footway is permitted, cycling on the footway is
    >>>>>>>permitted, but that the converse is not true. There are extensive
    >>>>>>>sections of footway where cycling is permitted but driving is not.


    >>>>>>Very close. The first bit is accurate enough, but cycling, while being
    >>>>>>permitted on things referred to here as "shared use paths" (or similar) is
    >>>>>>no more lawful along footways than is driving a motor vehicle. By
    >>>>>>definition, a footway is not a shared use path and is not for vehicles to
    >>>>>>travel along.


    >>>>>Like motor vehicles and bicycles are permitted on the footway to
    >>>>>access driveways, bicycles are permitted on the footway to access
    >>>>>cycle lanes and paths.


    >>>>That doesn't sound intuitive.
    >>>>Certainly, cycling into driveways from the carriageway (across the footway)
    >>>>is lawful, but driveways and other entrances have to be constructed as
    >>>>(reduced-height) cross-overs. Surely unless a footway is similarly
    >>>>distinctively constructed or marked, cycling is simply illegal? Otherwise,
    >>>>the claim to be accessing a cycling-path could be literally open-ended. Are
    >>>>there any cycle lanes which are not contiguous with the carriageway at
    >>>>points where interchange is permitted? If there are, I've never seen one.


    >>>There are a great many toucan crossings which lead to cycle paths
    >>>after crossing the footway.


    >>Of course, such things are absolute abominations, but the footway adjacent
    >>to them is at least marked or signed accordingly.


    > Ill take that as an admission that your earlier remark was faulty.


    You shouldn't, because (whichever remark you are referring to) you are
    wrong to do so. Cycling on a non-shared footway is illegal in any
    circumstances where driving on it would be illegal. So-called "toucan
    crossings" exist in order to let cycle paths or shared use paths cross a
    carriageway in tandem with a pedestrian route. There will be markings or
    signage in either case and the surface will therefore be a shared use one.
    No markings and/or no signage = illegal to cycle. By definition, a footway
    is not a shared use path and is not for vehicles to travel along.
     
  9. Tom Crispin wrote:
    > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:41:51 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>(and in the same limited circumstances, cycling on the footway isn't
    >>illegal either).

    >
    >
    > I think that it would be fair to say that in nearly all circumstances
    > where driving on the footway is permitted, cycling on the footway is
    > permitted, but that the converse is not true. There are extensive
    > sections of footway where cycling is permitted but driving is not.


    Technically, those areas of footway have been converted into cycle
    tracks. That then makes it a clear offence under the RTA to drive or
    park a motor vehicle there (rather than just parking HGVs on a footway,
    or using the 1835 Highways Act). And the RTA specifies "on" the track,
    not "along", giving no exception for driving "across" for access.
     
  10. JNugent

    JNugent Guest

    Jeremy Parker wrote:
    > "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    >
    >>But even if it were, by some miracle, possible to produce an

    >
    > example of a
    >
    >>driver driving along a footway at (say) 30mph - just supposing -

    >
    > would it
    >
    >>make it alright for cyclists to ride their bikes along the footway?
    >>
    >>Put the other way, does the indisputable fact that far too many

    >
    > cyclists
    >
    >>ride their bikes on the footway (I've seen several doing it today,

    >
    > BTW, and
    >
    >>probably, so have you) make it OK for drivers of cars to do the

    >
    > same?
    >
    > But Councils seem to **want** cyclists to ride on pavements.


    It's an absolutely lousy policy, but even so, it's only on *some* pavements.

    > They even put down white lines on the


    ....relevant...

    > pavements to mark off
    > pedestrian lanes, rather like ones suggested a few years ago to
    > regulate the pedestrians along the pavements of London's Oxford Street.


    > For Oxford Street, though, the idea was intended to be a joke. By
    > suggesting that riding on pavements may sometimes be, not just
    > acceptable, but the preferred solution, Councils imply that riding on
    > any pavement can't be very bad.


    Agreed. That's why they should never do it. Bikes belong on the carriageway.
     
  11. Brimstone

    Brimstone Guest

    In news:[email protected],
    JNugent said:

    > Bikes belong on the carriageway.


    Who's going to tell those car drivers that insist that cyclists should get
    out of the way?
     
  12. JNugent

    JNugent Guest

    Brimstone wrote:

    > JNugent said:


    >>Bikes belong on the carriageway.


    > Who's going to tell those car drivers that insist that cyclists should get
    > out of the way?


    ???
     
  13. Adrian

    Adrian Guest

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

    >> Bikes belong on the carriageway.


    > Who's going to tell those car drivers that insist that cyclists should
    > get out of the way?


    If only plod was still policing the roads, they could do it.
     
  14. Mike Sales

    Mike Sales Guest

    "JNugent" wrote in message
    >
    >
    > It is deliberate.
    >
    >
    >
    > > You still do not explain how that deliberately got in. It is, of course,

    a
    > > straw man.

    >
    > It isn't. The law does not treat deliberate and unintentional actions in
    > the same way (and it shouldn't).
    >

    I was not talking about the law. I did not assert that drivers are
    deliberately driving on the pavement. Why did you introduce the word? You
    define your case more and more narrowly.

    > > The normal operation of cars is predictably killing people on the

    pavement.
    >
    > Don't be daft.


    Killing on the pavement is such a normal everyday consequence of how we
    drive that I can predict with some certainty that at least 50 pedestrians
    will die in this way next year.

    .. Even if you are, it doesn't justify cycling on the
    > footway, does it?



    And no matter what the answer, it doesn't
    > justify cycling on the footway, does it>
    >
    > Maybe you are right. Even if you are, it doesn't justify cycling on the
    > footway, does it?
    > >

    > Maybe we should. It still doesn't justify cycling on the footway, does it?
    >
    > The x-post is not my doing. I am well aware that some cyclists are
    > incoherent with rage at any suggestion that they should obey the law.


    I have not noticed them here. Though if they were really incoherent
    presumably they could not write comprehensibly.

    >
    > >>>I've been cycling for a long time and I have seen many changes in

    normal
    > >>>behaviour, from cars and bikes. I would suggest that the changes have
    > >>>been brought about by the increasing volume of traffic, or rather,
    > >>>motorised trafffic. You may perhaps blame an epidemic of moral
    > >>>turpitude amongst cyclits. As I keep saying, you do have a rather
    > >>>narrow view through your windscreen.


    Is the big increase in pavement cycling because of changing road conditions
    or because cyclists have become scofflaws?
    >
    > >>I speak on this subject as the pedestrian I am for most of the time.

    >
    > > Sure you are.

    >
    > Are you trying to claim that I am not a pedestrian?


    Of course I have no knowledge of you. Unless you walk everywhere you are a
    motorist, a cyclist or a bus passenger. Which is it?


    I wrote

    > > I was pointing out that cyclists (and pedestrians) have to exist in an
    > > environment built for and dominated by motor traffic. To use the road
    > > correctly nowadays seems to require training. It certainly needs skill,
    > > concentration and a rooted belief that a cyclist has just as much right

    to
    > > use the road as a motorist. Though pavement cyclists may have many

    different
    > > motivations, what they have in common is that they do not believe that

    in
    > > practice they have a right to use the road as motorists do.


    Nugent replied

    > Their problem. Not the problem of the pedestrian.


    You seem not to want to understand. Your obssession with one offence amongst
    the huge number committed is unreasonable. You really cannot sensibly pick
    out one minor offence from a mass of bad behaviour.
    >
    > > They may have
    > > never grown out of the rule they learned as children (stay out of the

    way of
    > > cars), or they may just fear motor traffic, or they may have some self

    image
    > > as street wise urban guerrilla. Some may rationalise that since the law

    does
    > > not protect them and their supposed right of way, they can ignore the

    laws
    > > which were not made for them. They are all wrong, and to understand is

    not
    > > to excuse. To behave towards pedestrians as some of them do, and as you
    > > assert they all do,

    >
    > Not all, merely most.


    I could argue about the proportion of inconsiderate cyclists, but none of us
    know the true proportion. The small number of serious injuries argues that
    most are not aggressive.
    >
    > > is inexcusable and to me evidence that they have adopted
    > > the motorist viewpoint. Which would be understandable since motorists

    set
    > > the climate of behaviour on the roads. They are certainly behaving as

    many
    > > motorists do.

    >
    > Oh dear... "it's the motorist's fault..."


    I am trying to understand the reason so many cyclists break the law. You
    only want to fulminate.

    > > In case you choose deliberately to misunderstand that last
    > > sentence, I do not mean that motorists "drive" on the pavement, but that
    > > many expect the right of way and if a ped doesn't get out of the way, it

    is
    > > their fault if they are hit. You will face this attitude if you try to

    use
    > > your pedestrian right of way when crossing a side road. I have been

    shouted
    > > at by motorists crossing the pavement to their drive because I took my

    right
    > > of way as a ped.

    >
    > Same here. I'm not saying that cyclists are the only offenders. But the
    > fact that they aren't doesn't justify cycling on the footway, does it?


    Of course it does not. It helps to explain it though.

    > > I dislike pavement cycling because I fear that it is part of the process
    > > by which we are loosing the right to use the road freely.

    >
    > I dislike pavement cycling because I fear that it is part of the process

    by
    > which we are loosing the right to use the road freely as pedestrians.


    The right to cross the road is severely limited, by traffic. The pavement is
    dangerous because of carelessly driven cars. (I know that by your lights
    they have ceased to be driven ) Walkers are forced into the road by
    pavement parking. Many journeys are much longer because pedestrians are led
    by roundabout routes for motorists' convenience. Country roads without
    pavements are made dangerous and unpleasant. So many children are driven to
    school because of dangerous traffic that jams form at 9 and 3. Children have
    so little freedom that obesity is an epidemic. Motorists cross pedestrian
    crossing with the lights at red. I suggest that there are bigger problems
    for peds than cyclists.
    Motorists cause each other problems, congestion and aggressive driving.
    The road environment has much that is unpleasant and dangerous. If cyclists
    were removed from the road (and pavement) completely there would be little
    change in the death rate. An unbiased observer would not choose your King
    Charles's head to troll about.


    > > So although I dislike the practice, I understand it, and
    > > this makes me hate it even more.

    >
    > Fair enough.


    I really think that you should try to open your mind next time you are out
    on the streets. If you look around you will see many more illegal acts, many
    of them more dangerous. If you look at the road environment as a whole, with
    everyone's behaviour affecting and modifying the behaviour of everyone else,
    you will see how absurd it is to pick out one minor offence as the one you
    obsess about.

    Mike Sales
     
  15. John B

    John B Guest

    Brimstone wrote:

    > In news:[email protected],
    > JNugent said:
    >
    > > Bikes belong on the carriageway.

    >
    > Who's going to tell those car drivers that insist that cyclists should get
    > out of the way?


    Perhaps JNugent could become the cyclists' Champion after all ;-)

    John B
     
  16. JNugent

    JNugent Guest

    John B wrote:

    > Brimstone wrote:
    >>JNugent said:


    >>>Bikes belong on the carriageway.


    >>Who's going to tell those car drivers that insist that cyclists should get
    >>out of the way?


    > Perhaps JNugent could become the cyclists' Champion after all ;-)


    To the limited extent that my abilities and situation allow, I should be
    more than happy to be an associate Champion of law-abiding cyclists. I have
    never indicated anything to the contrary.
     
  17. Simon Hobson

    Simon Hobson Guest

    On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 8:12:28 +0100, Brimstone wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > In news:[email protected],
    > Simon Hobson said:
    >
    >> Just another example of a vociferous minority clamouring to have
    >> something banned because it's "not something WE think should go on",
    >> and succedding because we have an authoritarian government that seems
    >> to enjoy telling people what they can't do.

    >
    > On the other hand, if the majority can't be bothered to make their voices
    > heard then those that shout the loudest are the ones who will be heard.


    If only it were that simple, unfortunately we as a group lack the funding to
    PAY for the 'right sort of voice' - because these days things are getting
    very much like america where it all comes down to being able to pay the right
    people to say the right things in the right place.

    Needless to say, there are now a great many of us who now, whilst not
    breaking the law, will certainly be loooking for any way possible to be
    uncooperative. There are probably a significant number who will simply ignore
    the law and carry on - probably being ignored by the authorities just like
    they refused to use the laws they already had to deal with the alleged
    issues.

    Result, criminalise a group of people who weren't the problem and piss them
    off so that they no longer support "the law" and "the authorities" - whilst
    doing absolutely nothing whatsoever about the real problems. But I guess
    that's what modern politics is all about.
     
  18. Simon Hobson

    Simon Hobson Guest

    On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 6:36:42 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:58:56 +0100, Simon Hobson
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > [Snip - loads of daft ideas]


    What's daft about them - they are not new, they are ALL rules applied to
    other road users. And even if they are daft, and yes I do believe it would be
    OTT to apply all these things to cyclists, since when has that had anything
    to do with government policy ?

    >> Yep, since us motorists have to put up with all this, I don't see why
    >> cyclists shouldn'd have to !

    >
    > And wheelchair users? And micro scooter users? And skaters? And
    > pedestrians?
    >
    > Where does it stop?


    Well the way this government seems determined to get it's identity register
    bulldozed through the system, I can't help thinking they'll only be happy
    when we have a registration number tattooed on our foreheads at birth !
     
  19. Simon Hobson

    Simon Hobson Guest

    On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 6:46:29 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:59:20 +0100, Simon Hobson
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> I didn't see any about drivers who were deliberately driving along the
    >> pavement

    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3114564.stm
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3031590.stm


    Meanwhile, driving on the pavement in Guernsey is justified under certain
    circumstances, according to politician and driving instructor Deputy Peter
    Derham.
    Deputy Derham says when motorists have no option but to mount the kerb, they
    can do so - as long as they are careful.
    Deputy Derham says the practice is not dangerous - as long as motorists slow
    right down, keep a close lookout for pedestrians and leave the pavement again
    as soon as its safe to do so.

    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/3589627.stm


    Which has a picture of a police car on the pavement

    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3015614.stm
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/3993103.stm


    Which does not even mention pavement driving

    > Pavement driving, it seems, is a serious problem on Guernsey.
     
  20. Tom Crispin

    Tom Crispin Guest

Loading...
Loading...