Marc Brett wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:44:23 +0100, JNugent
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Marc Brett wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:41:26 +0100, JNugent
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>There is no irony at all in observing that cycling along the footway is
>>>>>>not only illegal, but also stupid and inconsiderate.
>>>>
>>>>>That's garbage. If the conditions dictate it is right and proper a bicycle
>>>>>on a pavement is no more dangerous than a pram.
>>>>
>>>>That's not for you to judge.
>>>
>>>
>>>So who is in a position to judge, then?
>>
>>No-one.
>
>
> Eh?
>
>
>>It's illegal to cycle on the footway.
>>
>>
>>>The framers of the original "no
>>>cycling on pavemet" law, now almost two centuries old? That was drafted
>>>in an age that did not experience the modern traffic conditions we all
>>>suffer today; long before the invention of the motorcar, even. Back
>>>then, the idea of a child on a bicycle was unheard of.
>>
>>>In view of its antiquity, I suggest that the law needs re-examination.
>>>Certainly, re-drafting it so it's in line with Home Office
>>>recommendations on its enforcement[1] would be a step in the right
>>>direction.
>>
>>>[1] http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php
>>Ah... so you're another that cares nowt for pedestrian safety?
> Absolutely not; I care about it a lot. I am also sympathetic to the
> Home Office advice on pavement cycling:
> "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
> cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of
> traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing
> so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement,
> acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people,
> are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police
> discretion is required."
You might as well issue advice to the effect that it's OK to give
loaded guns to nine-year-olds as long as they use them responsibly.
> In what way does this advice compromise pedestrian safety?
By partly-empowering people to break the law with absolutely no
guarantee that they will take the slightest effective notice of the
advice or are capable of exercising the level of judgment which would
be essential in such a situation.
Can I be the only one who finds it absolutely bizarre that a
government department issues guidance authorising breach of the law?
What next? The DoT issuing guidance that it's ok to exceed speed
limits in some circumstances (judged by the individual driver)? Or by
the DWP to the effect that benefit fraud is OK as long as it's not too
much? Or HMRC saying that smuggling isn't all that bad, really, as
long as you don't get caught?
Cyclists should all simply ignore that patently stupidly-issued advice
and cycle only on the carriageway. I wonder whether that killer
cyclist (the one doing 25mph along the footway until stopped by
running into a defenceless pedestrian) had read that Home Office
advice? If so, the people who issued it should have that man's death
on their consciences.
> If the
> legislation was to be redrafted to enshrine these guidelines into law,
> how would that compromise pedestrian safety?
Who cares?
If there were any such suggestion, I for one would lobby hard against it.
