On Sunday, 30 August 2020 00:34:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 29/08/2020 15:25, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 29 August 2020 11:02:07 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 29/08/2020 00:44, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 29 August 2020 00:20:48 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 28/08/2020 22:44, Mike Collins wrote:
On Friday, 28 August 2020 21:29:42 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 28/08/2020 17:41, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:
In yet another depressing incident of extreme violence that appears to be aimed at cyclists, Norfolk Police have issued a warning after a cyclist was garroted by a rope strung between trees.

Police say the 25-year-old man was left with "extensive lacerations" across his neck after falling victim to the trap in woods next to Edinburgh Way in Thetford. Shockingly, wood containing nails was also placed at head height down alleyways that are regularly used by cyclists from Edinburgh Way and Durham Way used by cyclists.

PC Nike Harris commented: “We are concerned as these throughways are sometimes used by cyclists on their way to from work. We do not know why the rope and wood has been put in place but it may be in attempt to discourage cyclists and bikers.

“We would ask you report anti-social behaviour in the areas to police rather than take matters into your own hands if this is the case. Although we know these routes are not strictly meant for cyclists or bikers we do not want to find people are being seriously injured.”

Norfolk Police have asked anyone with information to contact PC Harris on 101, quoting crime reference 36/60081/20.

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling...log-item-18383

Is "...not strictly meant for cyclists or bikers..." modern police-speak
for *footpaths*?

Define footpath taking in to account S72 of the 1835 Highways act.

Why?

Because there is a difference.

Explain it and explain why the alleged "difference" means that it is
lawful or acceptable for cyclists to abuse footpaths or footways.

Are cyclists supposed to use them (on bikes, that is) or not?

Treat "footpath" as including "footway"if you like.

It's a straightforward enough question.

Can you answer it?

I'd conclude that you can't, but that's a step too far. It's more a case
of "you daren't".

If so, the answer's so obvious, isn't it?
Why don't cyclists and bikers frustrate the rope-slingers by simply not
riding on footways?

So you believe I can cause permanent injury to the next motorist who violates the above cited act?
Or S34 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act?

I shan't ever drive along a footpath so will never be a target for
anyone incensed by cyclists abusing footpaths.

Can you equally guarantee that you won't cycle along one?

That's a straightforward enough question, isn't it?

Can you - dare you - answer it?\

Avoiding the question as usual.

You are not prepared to guarantee that you will never abuse a footpath
or footway by riding a bicycle along one, thereby bringing nuisance and
danger to adjacent residents and other pedestrians using the route for
its proper and intended purpose.

And that was the fully-expected reaction from you.

I'll pay you the compliment of adding that it would have been an easy
and cheap gambit for you to say that you were prepared to give that
guarantee, but it would have been a lie you were not prepared to tell.
That's something.

I, of course, will unhesitatingly guarantee that I shall never knowingly
drive or ride any sort of vehicle along a designated footway or footpath.

Apology accepted.

I haven't apologised to you and have done and said nothing to apologise for.

Back to the real world.
Apology accepted once again.