Pavement cycling

Peter Fox said:

Following on from bookieb's message. . .

Quoted message said:

Fairy nuff. As long as you're not bombing it, swerving around and
between pedestrians etc., you may or may not be stopped, but in any
case will not be posecuted or fined.

Umm...that's the /theory/. Of course you *will be* if nabbed by a
quota-driven dough-brain-in-a-uniform or community thingy. "Lets have
more of that on-the-spot stuff to stop terrorists". You might be able
to get out of it *eventually* but that won't stop them trying it on again.

I don't know if they still do, but at one time Stockport had council
officers specifically located on short cuts used by cyclists (largely to
avoid the ill considered traffic calming measures they had put in). I
was stopped once on what is sometimes referred to as the "Moorfield
Bridleway". Despite its name, and the fact that they built a bridge over
the new bypass wide enough to take a car, apparently it was a "public
footpath". I was warned that "I could be committing a criminal offence".
When I asked the jobsworth how many houses had been burgled while he was
talking to me, he was strangely silent. Oddly he "hadn't seen" any of
the horse riders who also regularly used that route.

I'm not talking about the pavement here, but a wide path through fields.
What makes the pavement cycling issue an even greyer area is that
sometimes some stretches of the pavement are designated as shared
between cyclists and pedestrians, whilst others aren't.

OT, but sometimes the law is a confusing ass. In this country it's
illegal to park on the pavement - you must park on the road. If France
and many other continental countries it's generally illegal to park on
the road - you must park on the pavement.

---
Brian

BrianW wrote on 29/07/2006 11:18 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I don't know if they still do, but at one time Stockport had council
officers specifically located on short cuts used by cyclists (largely to
avoid the ill considered traffic calming measures they had put in). I
was stopped once on what is sometimes referred to as the "Moorfield
Bridleway". Despite its name, and the fact that they built a bridge over
the new bypass wide enough to take a car, apparently it was a "public
footpath". I was warned that "I could be committing a criminal offence".

Well they were definitely wrong there. The criminal offence only
applies to footways alongside the road. Footpaths across the field are
not criminal - its a civil matter of trespass. The land owner only can
ask you to leave by the shortest route and can take you to court to
recover any damages (and if you are persistent obtain an injunction).

--
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 wrote:

The criminal offence only

Quoted message said:

applies to footways alongside the road. Footpaths across the field are
not criminal - its a civil matter of trespass.

so what of footpaths that go cross country but are tarmacced and have
the familiar red circle No Cycling sign? we got lot of those round here
(often termed twittens). I always assumed they were subject to bylaws
which presumably mean bike riders can be put in the stocks or somesuch.