Cyclists banned.

Apparently ignoring this sign is the pedal cycle offence of riding where
prohibited (contrary to Section 8 (1) of the Road. Traffic Regulation
Act 2984.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...no-cycling.jpg

You can be fined £50 for doing so.

It effectively removes the cyclists right to use that road.

David Lang wrote:
Apparently ignoring this sign is the pedal cycle offence of riding
where prohibited (contrary to Section 8 (1) of the Road. Traffic
Regulation Act 2984.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...no-cycling.jpg

You can be fined £50 for doing so.

It effectively removes the cyclists right to use that road.

Yup, there is a ginnel near me with such a sign at each end.
A couple of months ago I was walking my little dog down the ginnel, coming
towards me was an ape on a bike. It tried to weave past me, I obstructed it.
After I pointed out the sign it got off its kids toy and walked, head down.
This was a big ape, cowards to the end are cyclists.

David Lang wrote:

Apparently ignoring this sign is the pedal cycle offence of riding where
prohibited (contrary to Section 8 (1) of the Road. Traffic Regulation
Act 2984.

What, an Act that's not going to be passed for over nine hundred and sixty
years?

*rofl*

You ****ing tool.
--
john smith
'_The Guardian_. Wrong about everything. All the time'
(Anon)

..On 06/11/2015 07:44, John Smith wrote:
David Lang wrote:

Apparently ignoring this sign is the pedal cycle offence of riding where
prohibited (contrary to Section 8 (1) of the Road. Traffic Regulation
Act 2984.

What, an Act that's not going to be passed for over nine hundred and sixty
years?

*rofl*

You ****ing tool.

The act is in force. 1984.

No doubt you are going to use a simple typo as the basis for your
argument that a cyclist can't be banned from the roads?

I think we will have to start calling you Desperate Dan.

Or Wriggly Worm.

David Lang wrote:
Apparently ignoring this sign is the pedal cycle offence of riding where
prohibited (contrary to Section 8 (1) of the Road. Traffic Regulation
Act 2984.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...no-cycling.jpg

You can be fined £50 for doing so.

It effectively removes the cyclists right to use that road.

And of course, that sign is principally found at the entrance to motorways,
which are not classed as the public highway - as has been pointed out to
you on many, many occasions.

Any other time it appears is normally in the context of a Traffic
Regulation Order, or a Traffic Management Order in Greater London. I shall
address that particularly laughable post of yours when I get the time this
afternoon.

But of course, this is not a 'ban' on using the road. This is not a
'prohibition' on using the road. If you require proof of this, consider:
i) can a driver who has been banned for (for example) driving whilst under
the influence of alcohol, use the road to which the above sign applies? ii)
can this sign be used to remove the cyclists' rights to use the public
highway at a national level?

No, and no.

This sign does not constitute a 'ban' on using the roads, anymore than
this..

https://slm-assets0.secondlife.com/a...g?1296 795413

.... constitutes a 'ban' on pedestrians from walking on the pavement.

Next time, make an effort not to be so comprehensively thrashed.

--
john smith
'_The Guardian_. Wrong about everything. All the time'
(Anon)

David Lang wrote:
.On 06/11/2015 07:44, John Smith wrote:
David Lang wrote:

Apparently ignoring this sign is the pedal cycle offence of riding
where prohibited (contrary to Section 8 (1) of the Road. Traffic
Regulation Act 2984.

What, an Act that's not going to be passed for over nine hundred and
sixty years?

*rofl*

You ****ing tool.

The act is in force. 1984.

No ****, Einstein. What a pity for you that a quick google search isn't
a suitable replacement for five years studying law.

No doubt you are going to use a simple typo as the basis for your
argument that a cyclist can't be banned from the roads?

Please tell us the last time this sign was used to 'ban a cyclist from
using the roads'.

Answer: it isn't, because it can't be used for that, and indeed, that is
not its [1] purpose.

S. 1 of the Act permits _inter alia_ [2] county councils (London boroughs
are empowered by s. 6 of the Act) and other approved public authorities to
enact (pursuant to Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England
and Wales) Regulations 1996 SI 1996/2489) Traffic Management Orders or
Traffic Regulation Orders. When these Orders are enacted, the appropriate
authority has a statutory duty under s. 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation
Act 1984 '... to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of
vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians)'.

There has never, in the history of Parliament, been an occasion when a
Traffic Management Order or Traffic Regulation Order has been used to 'ban'
a pedestrian or a cyclist from using any road. That is not their purpose.
They quite simply cannot be used to 'ban' a cyclist or cyclists from using
any section of road.

Traffic Management Orders or Traffic Regulation Orders can also, for
example, be used to create one-way traffic systems. This does not
constitute 'a ban' on using the road, either.

I think we will have to start calling you Desperate Dan.

Or Wriggly Worm.

Your hilarious claims above are pretty desperate. If you want to argue the
law with me, then fine. But if you do it without knowing what you're
talking about, then you're going to get hammered.

As you have been above.


[1] or 'it's' if you're thick-****oid Davy-the-Light-Bulb-Changer
[2] I might need to explain that term to your chum again....
--
john smith
'_The Guardian_. Wrong about everything. All the time'
(Anon)

On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 21:12:22 -0000, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:

David Lang wrote:
Apparently ignoring this sign is the pedal cycle offence of riding
where prohibited (contrary to Section 8 (1) of the Road. Traffic
Regulation Act 2984.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...no-cycling.jpg

You can be fined £50 for doing so.

It effectively removes the cyclists right to use that road.

Is it a road or a footpath? Can cars use it?

Yup, there is a ginnel near me with such a sign at each end.
A couple of months ago I was walking my little dog down the ginnel,
coming
towards me was an ape on a bike. It tried to weave past me, I obstructed
it.
After I pointed out the sign it got off its kids toy and walked, head
down.
This was a big ape, cowards to the end are cyclists.

Hurrah for vigilantes!

You do seem to tar all cyclists with the same brush, do you have
monochrome vision?


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 21:12:22 -0000, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:

David Lang wrote:
Apparently ignoring this sign is the pedal cycle offence of riding
where prohibited (contrary to Section 8 (1) of the Road. Traffic
Regulation Act 2984.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...no-cycling.jpg

You can be fined £50 for doing so.

It effectively removes the cyclists right to use that road.

Is it a road or a footpath? Can cars use it?

Yup, there is a ginnel near me with such a sign at each end.
A couple of months ago I was walking my little dog down the ginnel,
coming
towards me was an ape on a bike. It tried to weave past me, I
obstructed it.
After I pointed out the sign it got off its kids toy and walked, head
down.
This was a big ape, cowards to the end are cyclists.

Hurrah for vigilantes!

You do seem to tar all cyclists with the same brush, do you have
monochrome vision?

I can only speak as I see.
As for tarring with the same brush, I've seen enough cyclists to justify
this.

On 06/11/2015 13:15, John Smith wrote:
David Lang wrote:
Apparently ignoring this sign is the pedal cycle offence of riding where
prohibited (contrary to Section 8 (1) of the Road. Traffic Regulation
Act 2984.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...no-cycling.jpg

You can be fined £50 for doing so.

It effectively removes the cyclists right to use that road.

And of course, that sign is principally found at the entrance to motorways,
which are not classed as the public highway - as has been pointed out to
you on many, many occasions.

Any other time it appears is normally in the context of a Traffic
Regulation Order, or a Traffic Management Order in Greater London. I shall
address that particularly laughable post of yours when I get the time this
afternoon.

But of course, this is not a 'ban' on using the road. This is not a
'prohibition' on using the road. If you require proof of this, consider:
i) can a driver who has been banned for (for example) driving whilst under
the influence of alcohol, use the road to which the above sign applies? ii)
can this sign be used to remove the cyclists' rights to use the public
highway at a national level?

No, and no.

This sign does not constitute a 'ban' on using the roads, anymore than
this..

https://slm-assets0.secondlife.com/a...g?1296 795413

... constitutes a 'ban' on pedestrians from walking on the pavement.

Next time, make an effort not to be so comprehensively thrashed.

The sign is to be found on entrances to the A120 between the M11
junction and Braintree, and on the A130 between the outskirts of
Chelmsford and the A127 Southend Road. I take it a ban on cyclists
using these roads, although having said that I cannot see any cyclist
particularly wanting to when there are more sensible alternate routes.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 06/11/2015 13:28, John Smith wrote:
David Lang wrote:
.On 06/11/2015 07:44, John Smith wrote:
David Lang wrote:

Apparently ignoring this sign is the pedal cycle offence of riding
where prohibited (contrary to Section 8 (1) of the Road. Traffic
Regulation Act 2984.

What, an Act that's not going to be passed for over nine hundred and
sixty years?

*rofl*

You ****ing tool.

The act is in force. 1984.

No ****, Einstein. What a pity for you that a quick google search isn't
a suitable replacement for five years studying law.

Watching re runs of Rumpole of the Bailey doesn't constitute studying law.

Oh, and I didn't get that from Google, a knowledgeable customer of mine
informed me.

No doubt you are going to use a simple typo as the basis for your
argument that a cyclist can't be banned from the roads?

Please tell us the last time this sign was used to 'ban a cyclist from
using the roads'.

On a daily basis.

Answer: it isn't, because it can't be used for that, and indeed, that is
not its [1] purpose.

I suggest you immediately write to The Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP and
inform him that these signs are invalid and that the Police can't fine
cyclists for Riding Where Prohibited.



I think we will have to start calling you Desperate Dan.

Or Wriggly Worm.

Your hilarious claims above are pretty desperate. If you want to argue the
law with me, then fine. But if you do it without knowing what you're
talking about, then you're going to get hammered.

So you keep saying. But since your are clearly retarded that isn't
likely to happen, is it?

As you have been above.

The above simply confirms what a fool you are. Keep digging.