Why are cyclists so cheeky?

[Paul Boyd]

Ian Smith said the following on 23/09/2006 09:49:

> Because it doesn't. Fact. It means what it means.

I think you're the one being deliberately thick. A sign says "Pedal
cycles only" in an official book aimed at pedestrians and cyclists (and
drivers). I don't give a stuff about all the legal malarkey that is
kept hidden from the general public, I just go by the HC that you can
buy in WH Smiths. Can you not see that?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 07:39:27 +0100 someone who may be Paul Boyd
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I prefer to keep things simple. The average man on the street doesn't
>have all the legal documents you refer to. The average man on the
>street has a copy of the Highway Code, which has on the cover
>(paraphrasing) "rules for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists." Inside
>it has a sign that says "Pedal cycles only". That sign is an
>instruction to pedestrians as well because it says so on the front
>cover, so why can't it simply mean what it says?

You forget that the Highway Code is written by the motoring lobby.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 10:25:51 +0100, Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith said the following on 23/09/2006 09:49:
>
> > Because it doesn't. Fact. It means what it means.
>
> I think you're the one being deliberately thick. A sign says "Pedal
> cycles only" in an official book aimed at pedestrians and cyclists (and
> drivers). I don't give a stuff about all the legal malarkey that is
> kept hidden from the general public, I just go by the HC that you can
> buy in WH Smiths. Can you not see that?

Then you are being dumb, and should bear in mind that ignorance of
what the law imposes on you does not exempt you from complying with
the law.

You "don't give a stuff" about what the actual law is, you want to
live your life according to a simplified guide of good practice which
only incidently notes some aspects of the law. Yet you claim it is me
that is being "thick". Oh well, I suppose the recourse of getting the
highway code revised to several thousand A4 pages of text remains open
to you. Carry on.

I also observe that despite your assertions, you are NOT going by
what the highway code says, because the highway code itself tells you
that the section on signs is neither exhaustive nor definitive. It
suggests you buy another book, though it notes that even that book is
not definitive or exhaustive.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On 23 Sep 2006 02:15:52 -0700, squeaker <[email protected]> wrote:

> So as I understand it (thank, Ian) peds have a 'right' to be on a road,
> and on a cycle path (but presumably not on a motorway, but that's a bit
> OT for now).

Yes.

> So if, as a ped, I walk off the pavement onto a road and into the path
> of an oncoming car, who's at fault if there is a collision?

Fault in a collision has nothing whatsoever to do with right to be
present at that location. Whoever was at fault will be at fault,
which might be ped, or might be driver, or might be both in differing
or equal proportions. Since both parties are entitled to be present,
the right to be present cannot influence fault.

At no point in highway law does a right to be present (or right of
way) grant an absolute right to drive over (or indeed walk over)
whoever or whatever is in your way.

> Does it matter if I do it in good time, so the car can see me and could
> stop, or avoid me, or not?

Yes, as above.

> Now substitute cycle path for road, and bicycle for car (the closing
> speeds could be similar)......

And? It makes no difference what teh parties involved are.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Colin McKenzie]

John Pitcock wrote:

> Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3113
> The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002
> lists the blue circular sign 955 at
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/023113ab.gif
> describes it as "route for use by pedal cycles only"
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/023113ac.gif
> has the shared path sign 956
>
> If they both mean no vehicles other than cyclists, and pedestrians can use
> them both - then what is the difference?

955 is used on things that look like roads - usually cycle gaps in
places where motor vehicles are not meant to pass through - e.g.
adjacent to a no entry sign.

956 and 957 are used on things that look like pavements or footpaths.
They allow cyclists to ride there, overriding the law against cycling
on pavements.

It is arguable that 956 and 957 are not necessary on footpaths -
absence of a 950 (the red circle with a bike in it) is generally taken
to mean a footpath can be cycled on.

> Wouldn't most cyclists, on seeing a "route for use by pedal cycles only"
> expect to have precedence over pedestrians?

They might. Actually the normal rules for roads apply. Pedestrians are
encouraged to use the pavement.

967, by the way, is for ordinary roads that cyclists are encouraged to
use - implying that we're encouraged not to use other roads. This is a
blue rectangle with a bike on it.

Colin McKenzie

--
On average in Britain, you're more likely to get a head injury walking
a mile than cycling it.
So why aren't we all exhorted to wear walking helmets?

 

[squeaker]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On 23 Sep 2006 02:15:52 -0700, squeaker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So as I understand it (thank, Ian) peds have a 'right' to be on a road,
> > and on a cycle path (but presumably not on a motorway, but that's a bit
> > OT for now).
>
> Yes.
>
> > So if, as a ped, I walk off the pavement onto a road and into the path
> > of an oncoming car, who's at fault if there is a collision?
>
> Fault in a collision has nothing whatsoever to do with right to be
> present at that location. Whoever was at fault will be at fault,
> which might be ped, or might be driver, or might be both in differing
> or equal proportions. Since both parties are entitled to be present,
> the right to be present cannot influence fault.
>
> At no point in highway law does a right to be present (or right of
> way) grant an absolute right to drive over (or indeed walk over)
> whoever or whatever is in your way.
>
> > Does it matter if I do it in good time, so the car can see me and could
> > stop, or avoid me, or not?
>
> Yes, as above.
>
> > Now substitute cycle path for road, and bicycle for car (the closing
> > speeds could be similar)......
>
> And? It makes no difference what teh parties involved are.
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
> |\ /| no .sig
> |o o|
> |/ \|
Aah - an AirZound is now beginning to make a lot of sense

 

[Paul Boyd]

Ian Smith said the following on 23/09/2006 13:30:

<a load of ****>

You must be a civil servant to be so obtuse. You really can't see the
point I'm trying, and obviously failing, to make, can you?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Paul Boyd
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Ian Smith said the following on 23/09/2006 13:30:
>
> <a load of ****>
>
> You must be a civil servant to be so obtuse. You really can't see the
> point I'm trying, and obviously failing, to make, can you?

The point is, whatever the highway code says, pedestrians have a right to
walk on every designated cycle path under either English or Scottish law.
That's the law; what's written in the highway code, or implied by signs
however misleading, isn't.

And, personally, I would not have it any other way; our right (in Scotland)
to cycle more or less anywhere is part of the same deal as gives
pedestrians (in Scotland) the right to walk more or less anywhere. I don't
want to unpick that deal, because we benefit hugely from it. Yes, you have
to get used to sharing paths with pedestrians (and they have to get used
to sharing paths with us), but that seems to me a small price to pay. And
if you want to go faster, there's always the road.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Anagram: I'm soon broke.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:47:59 +0100, Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith said the following on 23/09/2006 13:30:
>
> <a load of ****>
>
> You must be a civil servant to be so obtuse. You really can't see the
> point I'm trying, and obviously failing, to make, can you?

The point you seem to be trying to make is it's sensible to assume
that a document that explicitly states it does not tell you everything
you need to know tells you everything you need to know.

I consider it unlikely that you will succeed, but do please continue
to try.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|