Cyclists win police court battle!

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:56:25 +0100, "Clive Coleman."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
><[email protected]> writes
>>Of course not. Putting Two wheels of a motor vehicle on a path is far
>>more serious than putting two wheels of a bicycle on a path, the
>>latter of which may well be legal.
>>
>>A much fairer comparison is between cyclists on the footway and
>>motorists in mandatory cycle lanes.
>How?

A comparison of frequency of both offences.

A comparison of deaths and serious injury caused by each.

A comparison of prosecution and convictions of each.

Just for starters.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Steve Firth wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:04:02 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 23:34:50 +0100, Simon Hobson
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/3993103.stm
>>>
>>> Which does not even mention pavement driving
>>
>> How do you suppose the pavement parkers got there?
>
> Isn't it about time that the loony lycra brigade stopped trying to
> equate their own use of footpaths as dedicated cycle lanes with a
> driver who puts two wheels on a path?

I know which intimidates me more when I'm walking around.

(Hint: it's not nice squeezing between people's living room windows and
their cars)

A

 

[Steve Firth]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:49:22 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

>>Wrong on every count. Firstly I made specific reference to footpaths, not
>>to combined use, so it's never legal for a bicycle to be ridden in those
>>circumstances. It *may* however be legal to park in this way and may even
>>be encouraged by the local authority. Despite frequent repetition you seem
>>to have missed the message that pavement parking is specifically illegal
>>London, may be illegal by by-law in other boroughs but is mostly legal over
>>most of the country.
>
> I couldn't make sense of most of the above drivel.

Oh indeed, it's because it relates to the warped perception of illegality
which affects any of the Lycra lunatics. The same warped perception that
makes then think that shooting red lights and abusing pedestrians is de
rigeur, indeed even acceptable on an everyday basis.

Your admission of failure does however make it simple to terminate the
conversation since you're obviously hard of thinking.

 

[JNugent]

Clive Coleman. wrote:

> JNugent

> <[email protected]> writes

>> Riding on the footway may not be an offence. Riding along it probably is.

> What's the difference?

"On" does not necessarily equate to "along". Well-covered in this thread
already.

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:56:25 +0100, "Clive Coleman."
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>In message <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
>><[email protected]> writes
>>
>>>Of course not. Putting Two wheels of a motor vehicle on a path is far
>>>more serious than putting two wheels of a bicycle on a path, the
>>>latter of which may well be legal.
>>>
>>>A much fairer comparison is between cyclists on the footway and
>>>motorists in mandatory cycle lanes.
>>
>>How?
>
>
> A comparison of frequency of both offences.
>
> A comparison of deaths and serious injury caused by each.
>
> A comparison of prosecution and convictions of each.
>
> Just for starters.

How about a comparison of the illegality of these actions?

Or the ease with which either could be inadvertently committed?

I think you'd have to agree that inadvertently crossing a lane line on a
carriageway is very easy to do - and trivial compared to deliberately
riding on a network which is visually and physically distinct and legally
barred to the offender.

 

[JNugent]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> Steve Firth wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:04:02 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 23:34:50 +0100, Simon Hobson
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/3993103.stm
>>>>
>>>>Which does not even mention pavement driving
>>>
>>>How do you suppose the pavement parkers got there?
>>
>>Isn't it about time that the loony lycra brigade stopped trying to
>>equate their own use of footpaths as dedicated cycle lanes with a
>>driver who puts two wheels on a path?
>
>
> I know which intimidates me more when I'm walking around.
>
> (Hint: it's not nice squeezing between people's living room windows and
> their cars)

Is it dangerous?

 

[Brimstone]

In news[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:04:02 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 23:34:50 +0100, Simon Hobson
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/3993103.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> Which does not even mention pavement driving
>>>>
>>>> How do you suppose the pavement parkers got there?
>>>
>>> Isn't it about time that the loony lycra brigade stopped trying to
>>> equate their own use of footpaths as dedicated cycle lanes with a
>>> driver who puts two wheels on a path?
>>
>>
>> I know which intimidates me more when I'm walking around.
>>
>> (Hint: it's not nice squeezing between people's living room windows
>> and their cars)
>
> Is it dangerous?

Ask the person pushing a child in a pram or buggy who has to go out into the
road due to such yobbish behaviour.

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote on 15/07/2006 19:19 +0100:
>
> I think you'd have to agree that inadvertently crossing a lane line on a
> carriageway is very easy to do - and trivial compared to deliberately
> riding on a network which is visually and physically distinct and
> legally barred to the offender.

I can show you lots of legally rideable shared use pavements that are
indistinguishable from a legally barred pavement unless you specifically
go and hunt out the little blue signs.

--
Tony

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

 

[Chris Slade]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

> I find all interaction with lunatics unpleasant.

Usenet is not for you. :-(
--
Chris

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:
> In news[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>>Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>>
>>>Steve Firth wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:04:02 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 23:34:50 +0100, Simon Hobson
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/3993103.stm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which does not even mention pavement driving
>>>>>
>>>>>How do you suppose the pavement parkers got there?
>>>>
>>>>Isn't it about time that the loony lycra brigade stopped trying to
>>>>equate their own use of footpaths as dedicated cycle lanes with a
>>>>driver who puts two wheels on a path?
>>>
>>>
>>>I know which intimidates me more when I'm walking around.

>>>(Hint: it's not nice squeezing between people's living room windows
>>>and their cars)

>>Is it dangerous?

> Ask the person pushing a child in a pram or buggy who has to go out into the
> road due to such yobbish behaviour.

I didn't think the PP was referring to that.

 

[Steve Firth]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:27:21 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:

> I can show you lots of legally rideable shared use pavements that are
> indistinguishable from a legally barred pavement unless you specifically
> go and hunt out the little blue signs.

I can show you lots of roads with a speed limit of 30mph which are
indistinguishable from those with a limit of 60mph unless you specifically
go and hunt out the little red ringed signs.

Do you think that excuses driving at 60mph in one of these areas?

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:

> JNugent wrote on 15/07/2006 19:19 +0100:

>> I think you'd have to agree that inadvertently crossing a lane line on
>> a carriageway is very easy to do - and trivial compared to
>> deliberately riding on a network which is visually and physically
>> distinct and legally barred to the offender.

> I can show you lots of legally rideable shared use pavements that are
> indistinguishable from a legally barred pavement unless you specifically
> go and hunt out the little blue signs.

If the signs are not apparent, it's a footway. That's how it works. Ride on
the carriageway.

 

[Clive Coleman.]

In message <[email protected]>, David Hansen
<[email protected]> writes
>http://www.mikecauser.com/images/P7120258.jpg
Good picture, it puts the footway cyclist firmly in his place.
--
Clive Coleman.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> In news[email protected],
>> JNugent said:
>>
>>> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:04:02 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 23:34:50 +0100, Simon Hobson
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/3993103.stm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which does not even mention pavement driving
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you suppose the pavement parkers got there?
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it about time that the loony lycra brigade stopped trying to
>>>>> equate their own use of footpaths as dedicated cycle lanes with a
>>>>> driver who puts two wheels on a path?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know which intimidates me more when I'm walking around.
>
>>>> (Hint: it's not nice squeezing between people's living room windows
>>>> and their cars)
>
>>> Is it dangerous?
>
>> Ask the person pushing a child in a pram or buggy who has to go out
>> into the road due to such yobbish behaviour.
>
> I didn't think the PP was referring to that.

Whether he was or not is irrelevant.

Kindly tell us whether or not you consider it both causes an unneccesary
danger and is unacceptable to park a car on the footway in such a manner as
to prevent someone with a pushchair/pram etc passing along that footway.

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:

> JNugent said:
>>Brimstone wrote:
>>>JNugent said:
>>>>Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>>>>>Steve Firth wrote:

[ ... ]

>>>>>>Isn't it about time that the loony lycra brigade stopped trying to
>>>>>>equate their own use of footpaths as dedicated cycle lanes with a
>>>>>>driver who puts two wheels on a path?

>>>>>I know which intimidates me more when I'm walking around.
>>>>>(Hint: it's not nice squeezing between people's living room windows
>>>>>and their cars)

>>>>Is it dangerous?

>>>Ask the person pushing a child in a pram or buggy who has to go out
>>>into the road due to such yobbish behaviour.

>>I didn't think the PP was referring to that.

> Whether he was or not is irrelevant.

Is it? I know what I was responding to.

> Kindly tell us whether or not you consider it both causes an unneccesary
> danger and is unacceptable to park a car on the footway in such a manner as
> to prevent someone with a pushchair/pram etc passing along that footway.

Why is it important what I think about it?

The act is (AFAIAA) an offence.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:19:48 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I think you'd have to agree that inadvertently crossing a lane line on a
>carriageway is very easy to do - and trivial compared to deliberately
>riding on a network which is visually and physically distinct and legally
>barred to the offender.

Both are legally barred to the offender.

What would you prefer to come across:

1. As a pedestrian walking on a footway, a cyclist knowingly cycling
on the pavement?

2. As a cyclist riding on a mandatory cycle lane, a motorist
unknowingly driving in the cycle lane?

I know which is statistically most dangerous.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>
>> JNugent said:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> JNugent said:
>>>>> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>>>>>> Steve Firth wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>>>>>>> Isn't it about time that the loony lycra brigade stopped trying
>>>>>>> to equate their own use of footpaths as dedicated cycle lanes
>>>>>>> with a driver who puts two wheels on a path?
>
>>>>>> I know which intimidates me more when I'm walking around.
>>>>>> (Hint: it's not nice squeezing between people's living room
>>>>>> windows and their cars)
>
>>>>> Is it dangerous?
>
>>>> Ask the person pushing a child in a pram or buggy who has to go out
>>>> into the road due to such yobbish behaviour.
>
>>> I didn't think the PP was referring to that.
>
>> Whether he was or not is irrelevant.
>
> Is it? I know what I was responding to.
>
>> Kindly tell us whether or not you consider it both causes an
>> unneccesary danger and is unacceptable to park a car on the footway
>> in such a manner as to prevent someone with a pushchair/pram etc
>> passing along that footway.
>
> Why is it important what I think about it?
>
> The act is (AFAIAA) an offence.

And you never, ever, under any circumstances or situation do anything other
than comply fully with the law or such other rules as may be in force at the
time and place?

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote on 15/07/2006 20:36 +0100:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> I can show you lots of legally rideable shared use pavements that are
>> indistinguishable from a legally barred pavement unless you
>> specifically go and hunt out the little blue signs.
>
> If the signs are not apparent, it's a footway. That's how it works. Ride
> on the carriageway.

Perhaps you should read up some. That's probably where you are going wrong.

"10.1.5 To convert all or part of a footway to cycle track, all or the
appropriate part of the footway must be removed under section 66(4) of
the Highways Act 1980, and a cycle track 'constructed' under section
65(1) of the act. No physical construction is necessary but there needs
to be clear evidence that the local highway authority has exercised
these powers. This can be provided by a resolution of the appropriate
committee."
LTN 2/04 - Adjacent and Shared Use Facilities for Pedestrians and Cyclists

Section 65(1) says nothing about signing.

--
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]

Brimstone wrote:

> JNugent said:

[ big snip ]

>>>Kindly tell us whether or not you consider it both causes an
>>>unneccesary danger and is unacceptable to park a car on the footway
>>>in such a manner as to prevent someone with a pushchair/pram etc
>>>passing along that footway.

>>Why is it important what I think about it?
>>The act is (AFAIAA) an offence.

> And you never, ever, under any circumstances or situation do anything other
> than comply fully with the law or such other rules as may be in force at the
> time and place?

Does anything I have done or might do excuse others when they commit an
offence?

If you consider that it does or could, please explain how.

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:19:48 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I think you'd have to agree that inadvertently crossing a lane line on a
>>carriageway is very easy to do - and trivial compared to deliberately
>>riding on a network which is visually and physically distinct and legally
>>barred to the offender.

> Both are legally barred to the offender.

> What would you prefer to come across:

> 1. As a pedestrian walking on a footway, a cyclist knowingly cycling
> on the pavement?

> 2. As a cyclist riding on a mandatory cycle lane, a motorist
> unknowingly driving in the cycle lane?

> I know which is statistically most dangerous.

Without a doubt, the first.

I accept the need for footways and see their point. There is no point in
so-called "cycle lanes" on the carriageway. Cyclists should just be another
road-user on the carriageway. They should overtake vehicles parked against
the kerb in the normal way, and such parking should not be denied merely to
create a PC "cycle lane".