Re: Street furniture, footpath furniture

[JNugent]

JohnB wrote:

> Adrian wrote:

[ re: cycle maintenance, particularly of the brakes: ]

>>> As has already been pointed out to you there are Regulations
>>> regarding brakes on cycles.

>> And those regs (does anybody have a link to them?) are enforced how?

> The braking on cycles comes under the 1983 Pedal Cycles Construction
> and Use Regulations.
> You may like to read the CTC's summary of these:
> "A constable in uniform is empowered to stop a cyclist and test for
> compliance with these regulations, and to enter the premises where a
> cycle is kept if it has been involved in an accident up to 48 hours
> previously."

> "The main requirement is that a cycle (of any sort) must have two
> braking systems. These systems must be efficient and independent -
> which basically means two separate means of operation and for most
> types of cycle the front wheel or wheels have to be braked separately
> from the rear."

> So Adrian - enforcement exists, and as checking a cycle is a very easy
> thing to do, compared say to checking a motor vehicle, it is far
> easier to implement.

> That's a shame for you as it shoots your aguments to threads

...except that it very obviously *doesn't*.

He asked not about regulation (I think we all know that there is some
notional form of regulation as to the construction, fitness for use and
maintenance of bicycles), but about *enforcement* of that system of
regulation, and in particular, whether (and if so, how) it happens.

You have described the regulation (which was not necessary) and have
described a way in which enforcement might, theoretically, be carried out.

His question was about something significantly different, and your response
simply doesn't answer it.

You *know* that, so it is difficult to see what you are playing at.

 

[JohnB]

JNugent wrote:
>
> JohnB wrote:
>
> > Adrian wrote:
>
> [ re: cycle maintenance, particularly of the brakes: ]
>
> >>> As has already been pointed out to you there are Regulations
> >>> regarding brakes on cycles.
>
> >> And those regs (does anybody have a link to them?) are enforced how?
>
> > The braking on cycles comes under the 1983 Pedal Cycles Construction
> > and Use Regulations.
> > You may like to read the CTC's summary of these:
> > "A constable in uniform is empowered to stop a cyclist and test for
> > compliance with these regulations, and to enter the premises where a
> > cycle is kept if it has been involved in an accident up to 48 hours
> > previously."
>
> > "The main requirement is that a cycle (of any sort) must have two
> > braking systems. These systems must be efficient and independent -
> > which basically means two separate means of operation and for most
> > types of cycle the front wheel or wheels have to be braked separately
> > from the rear."
>
> > So Adrian - enforcement exists, and as checking a cycle is a very easy
> > thing to do, compared say to checking a motor vehicle, it is far
> > easier to implement.
>
> > That's a shame for you as it shoots your aguments to threads
>
> ..except that it very obviously *doesn't*.
>
> He asked not about regulation (I think we all know that there is some
> notional form of regulation as to the construction, fitness for use and
> maintenance of bicycles), but about *enforcement* of that system of
> regulation, and in particular, whether (and if so, how) it happens.
>
> You have described the regulation (which was not necessary)

Oh, do keep up. Adrian asked for a link.
I gave him the CTC's description instead.

> and have
> described a way in which enforcement might, theoretically, be carried out.

No that is the way enforcementis carried out (but arguably not enough).
I'll remind you:
"A constable in uniform is empowered to stop a cyclist and test for
compliance with these regulations".

> His question was about something significantly different, and your response
> simply doesn't answer it.

He asked for how the regulations wee enforced. He received an answer to that.
What do you think he was asking for?

> You *know* that, so it is difficult to see what you are playing at.

I suggest you re-read the thread to the comments:
"Pity there's no way to ensure they're [rim brakes] well maintained then".

That was a statement that showed a degree of ignorance and has been debunked.

Perhaps you would like to make a point.

John B

 

[Adrian]

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

> "A constable in uniform is empowered to stop a cyclist and test for
> compliance with these regulations".

I wonder when that last happened...

 

[JohnB]

Adrian wrote:
>
> JohnB ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying :
>
> > "A constable in uniform is empowered to stop a cyclist and test for
> > compliance with these regulations".
>
> I wonder when that last happened...

It happenned to me a few years back.
PC straight-out-of-school had opened a car door on me when apprehending
a moped rider for summat or other.
He tried to cover his embarrassment by trying to test my cycle brakes.
His side-kick was killing hilmself with laughter and winked at me as his
'mate' fumbled away.

Of course he found nothing wrong but he learned a lesson on self-control

John B

 

[JNugent]

JohnB wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> JohnB wrote:
>>> Adrian wrote:

>> [ re: cycle maintenance, particularly of the brakes: ]

JohnB:
>>>>> As has already been pointed out to you there are Regulations
>>>>> regarding brakes on cycles.

Adrian:
>>>> And those regs (does anybody have a link to them?) are enforced
>>>> how?

JohnB:
>>> The braking on cycles comes under the 1983 Pedal Cycles Construction
>>> and Use Regulations.
>>> You may like to read the CTC's summary of these:
>>> "A constable in uniform is empowered to stop a cyclist and test for
>>> compliance with these regulations, and to enter the premises where a
>>> cycle is kept if it has been involved in an accident up to 48 hours
>>> previously."
>>> "The main requirement is that a cycle (of any sort) must have two
>>> braking systems. These systems must be efficient and independent -
>>> which basically means two separate means of operation and for most
>>> types of cycle the front wheel or wheels have to be braked
>>> separately from the rear."

>>> So Adrian - enforcement exists, and as checking a cycle is a very
>>> easy thing to do, compared say to checking a motor vehicle, it is
>>> far easier to implement.

>>> That's a shame for you as it shoots your aguments to threads

JN:
>> ..except that it very obviously *doesn't*.
>> He asked not about regulation (I think we all know that there is some
>> notional form of regulation as to the construction, fitness for use
>> and maintenance of bicycles), but about *enforcement* of that system
>> of regulation, and in particular, whether (and if so, how) it
>> happens.
>> You have described the regulation (which was not necessary)

> Oh, do keep up. Adrian asked for a link.
> I gave him the CTC's description instead.

He didn't ask for that - and in any event, we all (I'm sure this includes
Adrian) *know* that there are rules about the "roadworthiness" of bikes.

>> and have
>> described a way in which enforcement might, theoretically, be
>> carried out.

> No that is the way enforcementis carried out (but arguably not
> enough). I'll remind you:
> "A constable in uniform is empowered to stop a cyclist and test for
> compliance with these regulations".

That is a theoretical means by which enforcement could be carried out.

It is not an answer to the question actually put, which was: "And those regs
.... are enforced how? ".

Note the word: "are".

If he had asked "How might those regs be enforced?", yours would have been
an adequate and accurate response.

But he didn't, and so it wasn't.

>> His question was about something significantly different, and your
>> response simply doesn't answer it.

> He asked for how the regulations wee enforced. He received an answer
> to that.

Did he?

> What do you think he was asking for?

How the regulations *are* enforced.

If they aren't enforced, the answer has to reflect that, rather than giving
a notional answer which might be true in some parallel universe, but which
has no basis in observed fact in this one. After all, we all know what your
own comment: "...(but arguably not enough)..." means - it ,means the
regulations are not enforced in any meaningful sense, and that the correct
answer to Adrian's question about how the regulations are enforced
would/should have been: "They aren't" (any more than the rules about cycling
on the footway or through red lights are).