Why are cyclists so cheeky?

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:25:10 +0100, John B <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > Well, possibly. However, since there's no such thing as a dedicated
> > cycle path in teh UK, the would-0be annoyed cyclist has no cause for
> > concern.
>
> Hmmm.
> Here's a pic taken earlier this year.
> I'll be cycling along this route on Friday

OK, I'll rephrase:

Since there's no such thing as a public highway with a portion
dedicated as a cycle path ...

Private owners can define any path for any purpose they like, I
suppose. However, no-one would be breaking traffic law wherever they
walked / rode. At most, you could be trespassing, but in the absence
of any damage, it's hard to penalise that.

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

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Earl
Purple ('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> Ian Smith wrote:
>>
>> Well, possibly. However, since there's no such thing as a dedicated
>> cycle path in teh UK, the would-0be annoyed cyclist has no cause for
>> concern.
>
> I often find that pedestrians walk on the road itself (particularly
> little narrow side-roads) when there is a perfectly good pavement for
> them. (Especially near Barts hospital)

They've a right to. In fact, legally, they've the best right of all.

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

For office use only. Please do not write or type below this line.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
John B <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>.
>
> Hmmm.
> Here's a pic taken earlier this year.
> I'll be cycling along this route on Friday
>
I take it they have fairly low entry requirements.

 

On 20 Sep,
John B <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hmmm.
> Here's a pic taken earlier this year.
> I'll be cycling along this route on Friday
>
> I think I'll prime up the AirZound ;-)
>
> http://www.velotree.co.uk/cyclepathquiz.html
>
But but but, for once the cycle farcility is the /shorter/ route! That *must*
be a first.


--
BD
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

"Earl Purple" <[email protected]>typed



> Ian Smith wrote:
> >
> > Well, possibly. However, since there's no such thing as a dedicated
> > cycle path in teh UK, the would-0be annoyed cyclist has no cause for
> > concern.

> I often find that pedestrians walk on the road itself (particularly
> little narrow side-roads) when there is a perfectly good pavement for
> them. (Especially near Barts hospital)

Yeah, and cyclists use the road when there's a 'perfectly good' cycle track...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[John Hearns]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 08:41:32 -0700, Earl Purple wrote:

>
> I often find that pedestrians walk on the road itself (particularly little
> narrow side-roads) when there is a perfectly good pavement for them.
> (Especially near Barts hospital)

They have every right to. No offence of jaywalking in this country.
More pedestrians on city streets I say - it'll make the environment more
agreeable for the lot of us. And do away with those awful 'safety
railings' which corral people onto the pavement.

http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/Field/tripp.html

 

[John Pitcock]

"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 08:50:33 +0100, Josey <nospam@josey> wrote:
> Well, possibly. However, since there's no such thing as a dedicated
> cycle path in the UK,

What, then, is the meaning of the "Route to be used by pedal cycles only"
sign in
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs04.htm (signs giving orders)
(I can't find the shared path sign other than the "Segregated pedal cycle
and pedestrian route" sign)

www.JohnPitcock.com

 

[Dave Larrington]

John Pitcock wrote:

> What, then, is the meaning of the "Route to be used by pedal cycles
> only" sign in
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs04.htm (signs giving orders)

I think it means "if you have a mechanical failure and are unable to ride
your bicycle any more, you must phone 999 and request a helicopter
evacuation".

Or something.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
The elder stoat leads, in all circumstances.

 

[Paul Boyd]

John Pitcock said the following on 22/09/2006 09:46:

> What, then, is the meaning of the "Route to be used by pedal cycles only"
> sign in
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs04.htm (signs giving orders)
> (I can't find the shared path sign other than the "Segregated pedal cycle
> and pedestrian route" sign)

I've asked this before here, and never had a satisfactory answer. To my
mind, a sign that says "pedal cycles only" has a different meaning to
"pedal cycles and pedestrians can share" which has a different meaning
to "pedal cycles and pedestrians are segregated".

But on this hallowed group, consensus seems to be that they all mean the
same thing, which is that pedestrians can go wherever they like. If
that really is the case, why bother having three different signs?

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

 

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:46:47 GMT someone who may be "John Pitcock"
<j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com> wrote this:-

>What, then, is the meaning of the "Route to be used by pedal cycles only"
>sign

Other vehicles, in fact just motorised vehicles, are not permitted.

Very few road signs apply to pedestrians, but the authors don't
bother to point this out every time.


--
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

 

[wheelist]

It also quite amusing when you ask them what they think that funny white
painted symbol they've just walked over is meant to show. Not only can
these morons not read, they can't even seem to understand simple pictograms!

Make them understand this one:

http://www.wheelism.co.uk/images/bunnyhop.gif

Bunny hop into their ****ing heads.

;o)

 

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:03:41 +0100, Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I've asked this before here, and never had a satisfactory answer. To my
> mind, a sign that says "pedal cycles only" has a different meaning to
> "pedal cycles and pedestrians can share" which has a different meaning
> to "pedal cycles and pedestrians are segregated".
>
> But on this hallowed group, consensus seems to be that they all mean the
> same thing, which is that pedestrians can go wherever they like. If
> that really is the case, why bother having three different signs?

Because they mean three different things.

1: Vehicular route not to be used by vehicles other than pedal cycles.

2: Shared pedestrian & cyclist route on which pedestrians and cyclists
share all the available space.

3: Shared pedestrian & cyclist route on which cyclists are constrained
to use only part of the available space.

Very simple really. I'm not sure why you're claiming consensus on
this group is that they all mean the same thing - I'm not aware of
ever having seen that opinion expressed.

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

 

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:46:47 GMT, John Pitcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 08:50:33 +0100, Josey <nospam@josey> wrote:
> > Well, possibly. However, since there's no such thing as a dedicated
> > cycle path in the UK,
>
> What, then, is the meaning of the "Route to be used by pedal cycles
> only" sign in
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs04.htm (signs giving orders)

From the Traffic Signs Manual chapter 3, 'Regulatory Signs', clause
4.7.1 (page 24 in my copy):

"The sign to Diagram 625 is used to indicate a cycle route but it is
also a prohibitory sign in that it excludes all other vehicles from
using that route. It may be used only to give effect to an Order
excluding vehicles other than non-mechanically propelled pedal
cycles ... Pedal cyclists are not, however, compelled to follow the
route indicated by this sign."

It means no vehicles other than cycles. Pedestrians do not have any
rights removed by this sign.

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

 

[John Pitcock]

"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> From the Traffic Signs Manual chapter 3, 'Regulatory Signs', clause
> 4.7.1 (page 24 in my copy):
>
> "The sign to Diagram 625 is used to indicate a cycle route but it is
> also a prohibitory sign in that it excludes all other vehicles from
> using that route. It may be used only to give effect to an Order
> excluding vehicles other than non-mechanically propelled pedal
> cycles ... Pedal cyclists are not, however, compelled to follow the
> route indicated by this sign."
>
> It means no vehicles other than cycles. Pedestrians do not have any
> rights removed by this sign.

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?

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

www.JohnPitcock.com

 

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:39:42 GMT someone who may be "John Pitcock"
<j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com> wrote this:-

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

Some might, but they would be wrong.


--
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 Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:39:42 GMT, John Pitcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > From the Traffic Signs Manual chapter 3, 'Regulatory Signs', clause
> > 4.7.1 (page 24 in my copy):
> >
> > "The sign to Diagram 625 is used to indicate a cycle route but it is
> > also a prohibitory sign in that it excludes all other vehicles from
> > using that route. It may be used only to give effect to an Order
> > excluding vehicles other than non-mechanically propelled pedal
> > cycles ... Pedal cyclists are not, however, compelled to follow the
> > route indicated by this sign."
> >
> > It means no vehicles other than cycles. Pedestrians do not have any
> > rights removed by this sign.
>
> Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3113
> The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002

Yes, but that document is principally concerned with how the signs
look, not what they actually mean or their application, which I why I
quoted from the Traffic Signs Manual, being the document that tells
you what they mean and how to apply them. It's rather thicker than
Regulations and General Directions.

> 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"

So what? It doesn't matter what label is applied to it - you could
call it sign "625" (oh look, they do, in Traffic Signs Manual) and it
doesn't alter what it actually means.

> 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?

Chapter 3 of the traffic signs manual does not appear to be on the
web, so I can't check the application of the shared use path one until
I get back to work, where I have it in the dead-tree version.

However, at a guess it seems likely that one applies to an
on-carriageway route, and one refers to an off-carriageway path.

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

So what? They'd be wrong. The question is what is legally true, not
what most people might think could be legally true.

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

 

[Paul Boyd]

Ian Smith said the following on 22/09/2006 13:42:

> 1: Vehicular route not to be used by vehicles other than pedal cycles.
>
> 2: Shared pedestrian & cyclist route on which pedestrians and cyclists
> share all the available space.
>
> 3: Shared pedestrian & cyclist route on which cyclists are constrained
> to use only part of the available space.
>
> Very simple really. I'm not sure why you're claiming consensus on
> this group is that they all mean the same thing - I'm not aware of
> ever having seen that opinion expressed.

Because this group seems to think that peds can go anywhere they like -
this has been said many times on this group - you can do the search.
Therefore in practise 2 & 3 are the same, 1 & 2 are the same. In other
words, although there are three different signs, they make no difference
to cyclists - pedestrians can use them all.

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

 

[Paul Boyd]

Ian Smith said the following on 22/09/2006 20:09:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:39:42 GMT, John Pitcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> From the Traffic Signs Manual chapter 3, 'Regulatory Signs', clause
>>> 4.7.1 (page 24 in my copy):

<Snip lots of legal references>

<snip loads more legal references>

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

Yes

> So what? They'd be wrong. The question is what is legally true, not
> what most people might think could be legally true.

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?

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

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 07:39:27 +0100, Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith said the following on 22/09/2006 20:09:
> > On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:39:42 GMT, John Pitcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Wouldn't most cyclists, on seeing a "route for use by pedal cycles only"
> >> expect to have precedence over pedestrians?
>
> Yes
>
> > So what? They'd be wrong. The question is what is legally true, not
> > what most people might think could be legally true.
>
> 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?

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

If you don't like the description given to the sign in the highway
code, I hope you responded to the consultation on the draft highway
code and proposed a remedy, incorporating a more accurately described
meaning of the sign in the code.

The meaning isn't going to change - there are too many traffic orders
and application in force, and it would require a fundamental change of
law to start restricting pedestrians from certain patches of surface
on roads generally open to all users. If you're so upset that the
meaning and the caption don't exactly correlate, your only recourse is
to correct the caption. There's nothing stopping you - go ahead, stop
whinging and do something about it.

Of course, doing that for every sign is going to make nine pages of
the highway code expand to the size of the Traffic Signs Manual -
about six inches of large bookshelf - but I'm sure you're right that
it's the only proper thing to do.

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

 

[squeaker]

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).
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?
Does it matter if I do it in good time, so the car can see me and could
stop, or avoid me, or not?
Now substitute cycle path for road, and bicycle for car (the closing
speeds could be similar)......