crack down on people driving dangerously on the pavement.”

On 27/09/2013 11:28, JNugent wrote:
On 27/09/2013 10:40, Brian R0berts0n wrote:
On 27/09/2013 10:38, JNugent wrote:
On 27/09/2013 10:34, Brian R0berts0n wrote:

On 27/09/2013 10:22, wrote:
On Friday, 27 September 2013 10:09:52 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/09/2013 09:53, Brian R0bertson wrote:

Yes it is possible to cycle on a pavement and not realise that you
are
breaking the law.

Only if you are so stupid that you don't know it's an offence.
I was being charitable in ruling that out, but it may have been
wrong to
do so.

If you cycled, then you'd know that cycle path signage is
inconsistent.

Exactly! Even the most law abiding of cyclist can suddenly find himself
breaking the law.

Not if the problem is lack of permissive signage.

Such an absence means that it's an offence to cycle along it.

The pedestrian also has rights, and one of them is a right to know
whether the whole width of the footway is available to him.

More crap from you.

You meant "more inconvenient truth", of course.

God, this is getting boring!

Listen, ****wit, I could take you to a section of road right now where
there are a series of shared footpaths that are so badly signed that it
is impossible to tell where the sharing begins and where it ends. The
best comparison would be for a motorist to be driving down a one way
street and to suddenly find himself facing oncoming traffic because it
has switched to two way, but with no signs to warn of this fact.

Signs should be clear and cyclists should be left in no doubt where
shared footpaths begin and end.

On Friday, 27 September 2013 11:40:15 UTC+1, Brian R0berts0n wrote:

Listen, ****wit, I could take you to a section of road right now where
there are a series of shared footpaths that are so badly signed that it
is impossible to tell where the sharing begins and where it ends. The
best comparison would be for a motorist to be driving down a one way
street and to suddenly find himself facing oncoming traffic because it
has switched to two way, but with no signs to warn of this fact.

Signs should be clear and cyclists should be left in no doubt where
shared footpaths begin and end.

Exactly so. Mr Nugent is speaking from a position of ignorance as he doesn't cycle. If he mixed his modes and got out on the bike, he'd find the situation isn't as simple as it appears from his bubble.

On 27/09/2013 11:58, wrote:
On Friday, 27 September 2013 11:40:15 UTC+1, Brian R0berts0n wrote:

Listen, ****wit, I could take you to a section of road right now where
there are a series of shared footpaths that are so badly signed that it
is impossible to tell where the sharing begins and where it ends. The
best comparison would be for a motorist to be driving down a one way
street and to suddenly find himself facing oncoming traffic because it
has switched to two way, but with no signs to warn of this fact.

Signs should be clear and cyclists should be left in no doubt where
shared footpaths begin and end.

Exactly so. Mr Nugent is speaking from a position of ignorance as he doesn't cycle. If he mixed his modes and got out on the bike, he'd find the situation isn't as simple as it appears from his bubble.


No, that is the mistake that people are making about these creeps all
the time. They are NOT writing from a position of ignorance: they are
writing from a position of hating cyclists simply for being there. It
doesn't matter how law abiding you are. They will hate you just as much.

"Brian R0berts0n" wrote in message
...

On 27/09/2013 09:56, wrote:
On Friday, 27 September 2013 09:47:25 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 27/09/2013 09:40, wrote:
What's the difference in outlook between a motorist who thinks speed
limits are arbitrary and a cyclist who thinks banning bikes from some
pavements is arbitrary?

You are making the mistake of confusing quite separate concepts.

It isn't illegal to drive along a 30mph road at 30mph or 29mph. Subject
to the difficulties of measurement (for all parties) it might be illegal
to do so at 31mph. It's a question of degree and the "offence" (if one
is being committed) is not obvious or apparent to an outside observer
(or even to the driver); it has to be measured with scientifically
calibrated technical equipement, thus setting it apart from most other
offences.

It is always illegal to cycle along a footway on which cycling isn't
permitted (ie, the vast majority of the network). It isn't a question of
degree. It's just an offence, at any time and at any speed. There is no
difficulty involved in the cyclist knowing that he is committing the
offence. He can't do it inadvertently. In that respect, it's a bit like
going through a red light. Or the wrong way along a one-way street.

That's the difference. Or one of them, at least.

Good point. But the similarity is that both think they know better than
the authority that imposed the restriction.


When it comes to cycling on the pavement, we often DO know better than
the authority that imposed the restriction.

I think that's what you could call an own goal.

On Friday, 27 September 2013 12:29:12 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:

When it comes to cycling on the pavement, we often DO know better than
the authority that imposed the restriction.

I think that's what you could call an own goal.

Eh?

On 27/09/2013 12:37, wrote:
On Friday, 27 September 2013 12:29:12 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:

When it comes to cycling on the pavement, we often DO know better than
the authority that imposed the restriction.

I think that's what you could call an own goal.

Eh?


Wondered what you were going on about then. Then I realised that you
were answering Catcrap. lol

Don't forget that in the world of cyclist hating that his rather slow
brain inhabits, placing your own personal safety above the law is not a
defence. Well, not if you are on a bike anyway. ie If you were sat at a
set of lights and saw a runaway coach - probably one of Mentalguy's,
doing 70+ mph - coming towards you, he would demand that you be
prosecuted if you crashed the lights to get to a position of safety.

By contrast, there is NEVER a defence for deliberately going over the
speed limit in a car.

Brian R0berts0n put finger to keyboard:

On 27/09/2013 12:37, wrote:
On Friday, 27 September 2013 12:29:12 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:

When it comes to cycling on the pavement, we often DO know better than
the authority that imposed the restriction.

I think that's what you could call an own goal.

Eh?


Wondered what you were going on about then. Then I realised that you
were answering Catcrap. lol

Don't forget that in the world of cyclist hating that his rather slow
brain inhabits, placing your own personal safety above the law is not a
defence. Well, not if you are on a bike anyway.

I would be intrigued if you could come up with a realistic scenario where
your personal safety is increased by cycling on a pavement rather than,
say, walking on it.

On 27/09/2013 15:04, Scion wrote:
Brian R0berts0n put finger to keyboard:

On 27/09/2013 12:37, wrote:
On Friday, 27 September 2013 12:29:12 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:

When it comes to cycling on the pavement, we often DO know better than
the authority that imposed the restriction.

I think that's what you could call an own goal.

Eh?


Wondered what you were going on about then. Then I realised that you
were answering Catcrap. lol

Don't forget that in the world of cyclist hating that his rather slow
brain inhabits, placing your own personal safety above the law is not a
defence. Well, not if you are on a bike anyway.

I would be intrigued if you could come up with a realistic scenario where
your personal safety is increased by cycling on a pavement rather than,
say, walking on it.


No, that's a loaded question. You are trying to suggest that if a
section of road is too dangerous to cycle upon, that I should get off
and push. That isn't going to happen. You wouldn't do that and nor would
I. It's as stupid an idea as that offered by Mentalgit when he said that
if a set of lights won't change for a bike that we should get off and
push to avoid breaking the law.

wrote in message
...

On Friday, 27 September 2013 12:29:12 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:

When it comes to cycling on the pavement, we often DO know better than
the authority that imposed the restriction.

I think that's what you could call an own goal.

Eh?

I realise as a psycholist you would be too dim-witted to understand the
implications of what the idiot has said.
I certainly wouldn't expect the idiot to understand what he is actually
saying.

Brian R0berts0n put finger to keyboard:

On 27/09/2013 15:04, Scion wrote:
Brian R0berts0n put finger to keyboard:

On 27/09/2013 12:37, wrote:
On Friday, 27 September 2013 12:29:12 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:

When it comes to cycling on the pavement, we often DO know better
than the authority that imposed the restriction.

I think that's what you could call an own goal.

Eh?


Wondered what you were going on about then. Then I realised that you
were answering Catcrap. lol

Don't forget that in the world of cyclist hating that his rather slow
brain inhabits, placing your own personal safety above the law is not
a defence. Well, not if you are on a bike anyway.

I would be intrigued if you could come up with a realistic scenario
where your personal safety is increased by cycling on a pavement rather
than, say, walking on it.


No, that's a loaded question.

It wasn't a question at all.

You are trying to suggest that if a
section of road is too dangerous to cycle upon, that I should get off
and push.

You were advocating personal safety over complying with the law as a
justification for cycling on the pavement. I was pointing out (indirectly)
that using the pavement and complying with the law can be achieved
simultaneously, even if you have a bike with you.

That isn't going to happen. You wouldn't do that and nor would
I.

Wouldn't you? Even if the pavement was crowded with pedestrians? That's a
very arrogant approach.

It's as stupid an idea as that offered by Mentalgit when he said that
if a set of lights won't change for a bike that we should get off and
push to avoid breaking the law.

Happily for me, and other law-abiding cyclists, what *you* deem stupid is
irrelevant.