Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:48:17 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Colin McKenzie wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:27:29 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?t=k&z=...86.77,,1,13.45

Yeuk.

On the side where the house is, no problem - cyclists on road,
drivers use hatching to pass.

On the other side, they've cunningly made it illegal to give enough
space to be safe when overtaking any cyclist doing over 10 mph.

When will transport planners be required to consider the possibility
that bikes might use their roads?

When the sponging freeloading cyclists pay to use the roads?

When they reinsate that house to its original purpose: as a toll
house?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bridgem...7622780824857/

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:20:45 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 25/10/2010 23:11, JMS wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:32:05 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

snip


No doubt you can "understand" cyclists breaking other laws as well.

Yes - and I have posted details of such circumstances before. Even
official guidance allows for cyclists to use the footway under certain
circumstances:


Rubbish - there is no such "official guidance" for cyclists to use
footways unless there are clear signs that that is the case.



"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of
traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing
so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement,
acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young
people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use
of police discretion is required."
Former Home Office Minister Paul Boateng

That was *never* ever official guidance.
Quite.

And "former" says all you need to know.

It was in a letter to another MP - who chose to publish it.

And in any case, what possible "consideration" is being shown to footway (not
"pavement") users exiting their homes directly onto the footway by cyclists
speeding past?

Are we talking about the same house?

This one certainly does not have an exit directly onto any part of a
footway that a cyclist is likely to be using:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bridgem...7622780824857/

JMS wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:32:05 +0100, Tom Crispin
"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at
responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the
pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to
other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers,
who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many
cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid
to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police
discretion is required."
Former Home Office Minister Paul Boateng

That was *never* ever official guidance.
It was in a letter to another MP - who chose to publish it.

This approach has been thoroughly tested, and rejected, in many other
situations (recently in respect of carrying knives, for example).
Statements made by politicians, whether to constituents, the press or even
directly to parliament, cannot dilute or contradict the meaning of a law.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:05:36 +0100, "Steve Walker"
wrote:

JMS wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:32:05 +0100, Tom Crispin
"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at
responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the
pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to
other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers,
who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many
cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid
to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police
discretion is required."
Former Home Office Minister Paul Boateng

That was *never* ever official guidance.
It was in a letter to another MP - who chose to publish it.

This approach has been thoroughly tested, and rejected, in many other
situations (recently in respect of carrying knives, for example).
Statements made by politicians, whether to constituents, the press or even
directly to parliament, cannot dilute or contradict the meaning of a law.

Does that imply that a nervous cyclist on the footway alongside the A2
through Deptford would be treated in exactly the same way as a highly
skilled and confident cyclist using the same stretch of footway?

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?layer=...33.35,,2,14.71

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:05:36 +0100, "Steve Walker"
wrote:

This approach has been thoroughly tested, and rejected, in
many other situations (recently in respect of carrying
knives, for example). Statements made by politicians, whether
to constituents, the press or even directly to parliament,
cannot dilute or contradict the meaning of a law.

Does that imply that a nervous cyclist on the footway
alongside the A2 through Deptford would be treated in exactly
the same way as a highly skilled and confident cyclist using
the same stretch of footway?

Traffic law doesn't provide for variable levels of confidence & skill - road
users who aren't capable of safely traveling a particular route should not
do so. That would apply just as much to the little old lady crawling along
the hard shoulder of the M1 at 20mph.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:12:58 +0100, "Steve Walker"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:05:36 +0100, "Steve Walker"
wrote:

This approach has been thoroughly tested, and rejected, in
many other situations (recently in respect of carrying
knives, for example). Statements made by politicians, whether
to constituents, the press or even directly to parliament,
cannot dilute or contradict the meaning of a law.

Does that imply that a nervous cyclist on the footway
alongside the A2 through Deptford would be treated in exactly
the same way as a highly skilled and confident cyclist using
the same stretch of footway?

Traffic law doesn't provide for variable levels of confidence & skill - road
users who aren't capable of safely traveling a particular route should not
do so. That would apply just as much to the little old lady crawling along
the hard shoulder of the M1 at 20mph.

Do you think it was the intent of lawmakers in 1835 that human powered
road users, who feel vulnerable, should be mixing with traffic legally
allowed to travel at 60 MPH and frequently exceeding that legal limit?

And does the 1835 law also prohibit the pushing of supermarket
trolleys along the footway?

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:12:58 +0100, "Steve Walker"

Traffic law doesn't provide for variable levels of confidence
& skill - road users who aren't capable of safely traveling a
particular route should not do so. That would apply just as
much to the little old lady crawling along the hard shoulder
of the M1 at 20mph.

Do you think it was the intent of lawmakers in 1835 that human
powered road users, who feel vulnerable, should be mixing with
traffic legally allowed to travel at 60 MPH and frequently
exceeding that legal limit?

And does the 1835 law also prohibit the pushing of supermarket
trolleys along the footway?

What does 1835 have to do with anything? Riding bicycles on the pavement
is dangerous, so it's not allowed.

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:12:58 +0100, "Steve Walker"

Traffic law doesn't provide for variable levels of confidence
& skill - road users who aren't capable of safely traveling a
particular route should not do so. That would apply just as
much to the little old lady crawling along the hard shoulder
of the M1 at 20mph.

Do you think it was the intent of lawmakers in 1835 that human
powered road users, who feel vulnerable, should be mixing with
traffic legally allowed to travel at 60 MPH and frequently
exceeding that legal limit?

And does the 1835 law also prohibit the pushing of supermarket
trolleys along the footway?

What does 1835 have to do with anything? Riding bicycles on the
pavement is dangerous, so it's not allowed.

The point being made is when the law came into effect, there was no motor
traffic to avoid. We have developed a situation where we have dramatically
changed the traffic on the roads but have not taught drivers how to behave
near cyclists.

The situation has become so bad that they paint lanes on the road for bikes
and allow cyclists to use some footpaths because many are **** scared
sharing the main carriageway with fast heavy vehicles, driven by angry
lunatic drivers.

Ho bleeding hum...

mileburner wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
What does 1835 have to do with anything? Riding bicycles
on the pavement is dangerous, so it's not allowed.

The point being made is when the law came into effect, there
was no motor traffic to avoid. We have developed a situation
where we have dramatically changed the traffic on the roads
but have not taught drivers how to behave near cyclists.

The situation has become so bad that they paint lanes on the
road for bikes and allow cyclists to use some footpaths
because many are **** scared sharing the main carriageway with
fast heavy vehicles, driven by angry lunatic drivers.

I don't think most drivers are 'angry' or 'lunatic' any more than cyclists
or other road users are. However it's clear that peace & harmony are
unlikely to be found on congested roads during a time of peaking economic &
social pressure.

I personally don't think it's realistic for busy, modern traffic to work
around anachronisms like horse-drawn vehicles & bicycles, velocipedes,
rickshaws & steam traction engines etc. However that doesn't justify
those vehicles moving onto the pavements, where they will in turn intimidate
and frighten pedestrians.

Perhaps we need to experiment with a widened middle lane for slow-moving
vehicles, instead of cycle lanes. Obviously there would be a fair bit of
demolition & widening required to achieve a decent amount of this, but we
need the jobs and the end result would be much safer.

On Oct 26, 7:24*pm, "Steve Walker" wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:12:58 +0100, "Steve Walker"
Traffic law doesn't provide for variable levels of confidence
& skill - road users who aren't capable of safely traveling a
particular route should not do so. * That would apply just as
much to the little old lady crawling along the hard shoulder
of the M1 at 20mph.

Do you think it was the intent of lawmakers in 1835 that human
powered road users, who feel vulnerable, should be mixing with
traffic legally allowed to travel at 60 MPH and frequently
exceeding that legal limit?

And does the 1835 law also prohibit the pushing of supermarket
trolleys along the footway?

What does 1835 have to do with anything? * *Riding bicycles on the pavement
is dangerous, so it's not allowed.

Motorists do many dangerous and forbidden things as well, e.g.,
speeding, running red lights, driving against the traffic in one-way
streets, just to name a few.