Roundabouts

On Feb 9, 7:57*pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

FX Bottom of barrel being scrapedFX

Very good.

What's your view on electric cars? They don't pay specific fuel or
road tax either.

Neil

On Feb 9, 8:23*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

Imagine there's some land where you would be trespassing. Is it OK if
you wear shoes - so that your bare feet don't touch the ground?

With regard to cycles, you seem to be arguing what the law perhaps
*should* be, not what it *is*.

Neil

On Feb 9, 9:59*pm, Mark Goodge
wrote:

In this context, a sign on a footpath crossing private land which says "no
bicycles" has exactly the same meaning as one which says "no guns" or "no
dogs". It is entirely that irrelevant that the gun, or the dog, or the
bicycle, is neither being used nor touching the ground - it is its mere
presence within the boundary of the land which is prohibited.

Indeed.

It is rather more usual outdoors that "no cycling" is the rule (that
is the meaning of the common bicycle-in-red-circle road sign, and
pushing a bicycle is not "cycling".

In shopping centres, "no bicycles" is perhaps more likely to be the
norm (unless, I suppose, you just purchased one there).

Neil

In message
, at
01:28:05 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Neil Williams
remarked:
In shopping centres, "no bicycles" is perhaps more likely to be the
norm (unless, I suppose, you just purchased one there).

Someone must have a photo of a "No bicycles" sign next to a cycle shop.

One of my favourites is a sign on a canal towpath which said "No
Motorcycling Offenders Will Be Prosecuted". No, we just wave our fists
at you.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:24:05 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 09/02/2012 21:02, Clive George wrote:

On a footpath, what gives the landowner the right to prevent somebody
carrying a bike along it?

Ownership.

Depends if it is a public right of way or a permissive path.

In the case of a PROW I don't think the landowner has that right.

For the PP I am not sure that a landowner would win a case about
restrictions on items carried if it went to law if they were to go down
that route. The argument would have to be made very strongly on safety
grounds, and the restriction really ought to be made on size and
unwieldiness of object and not type of object. A Brompton in a bag should
be OK, a pushchair/pram would not - if making the large unwieldy object
is unsafe argument. Otherwise I am sure it could easily get silly with
protestors carrying all kinds of improbably things as luggage along the
path, with the landowner adding more and more luggage restrictions to
the note at the gate.

--
Andy Leighton =
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

"Andy Leighton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:24:05 +0000, JNugent
wrote:
On 09/02/2012 21:02, Clive George wrote:

On a footpath, what gives the landowner the right to prevent somebody
carrying a bike along it?

Ownership.

Depends if it is a public right of way or a permissive path.

In the case of a PROW I don't think the landowner has that right.

The right to 'pass and re-pass' on foot on a public footpath (PROW) extends
to such things that are usual accompaniments of a large class of foot
passengers, being so small and light, as neither to be a nuisance to other
passengers nor injurious to the soil.' The landowner could remove anything
else 'that encumbers the close'. There is no definition of usual
accompaniments, though a 'pushchair' has been accepted by a jury. A carried
bicycle could not 'injure the soil', though depending on the path and the
likelihood of meeting other people it could be 'a nuisance to other
passengers'.

Peter

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:

Don't I?

Let me explain this in simple terms for the terminally ****witted (and
those of less brain, like Dave)

See Janet with her car taking up tens of feet of roadspace while
parked all day.

See John with his bike folded up under his desk.

See the sun go down...

See Janet switch on her installed lights and not realise one of them
has failed.

See John's dynamo-powered lights switch themselves on as the light
sensor detects the lower light levels.

See Janet not see John because she is not concentrating.

See Janet's insurance company wriggle and try not pay out because John
was not in an armoured car.

See John come out of hospital on crutches and have to go an buy a new
bike, and new lights, and pay VAT on both, and spend two years chasing
Janet's insurance company for the money.

Or did you not know that most cyclist injuries are the driver's fault?
Oh, wait, you do know because it's been pointed out before, you were
just ignoring it in order to sput more anti-cyclist bigotry.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

"Phil W Lee" wrote

Having set the precedent that a person pushing a bicycle is a foot
passenger on one type of pedestrian facility, it would be a perverse
decision to say that the situation was different on any other form of
pedestrian facility.
LJ Waller does include in his judgment that such a person was starting
on the pavement on one side, so pavements (or footways) are clearly
covered in the judgment.

"In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing
pushing a bicycle,

having started on the pavement on one side on her
feet and not on the bicycle,
^^^^^^^^^^^THIS BIT^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and going across pushing the bicycle with
both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If
for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on
the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a 'foot
passenger'. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was
walking does not create any difference from a case where she is
walking without a bicycle in her hand. I regard it as unarguable the
finding that she was not a foot passenger "

It establishes the fact that a pedestrian pushing a bicycle is a pedestrian
(and therefore must be accorded precedence by drivers of vehicles when using
a pedestrian crossing). It does not establish whether or not a pedestrian is
entitled to push a bicycle on a footway or footpath. There doesn't appear to
be an offence committed by doing so, although a large group of people
pushing bicycles on the footways of Oxford Street during shopping hours
might be obstructing the highway (and possibly contravening regulations
about demonstrations). But by taking a bicycle on to a footpath (away from a
carriageway) a pedestrian pushing a bicycle might be committing trespass
against the owner of the land, in the same way as someone riding a bicycle
there would be.

Peter

On 09/02/2012 19:59, Paul Cummins wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when (Dave -
Cyclists VOR) came up to me and whispered:

Because you don't pay to use your push bike on the road.

Don't I?

No you don't. Do you have a tax disc?

Let me explain this in simple terms for the terminally ****witted (and
those of less brain, like Dave)

What a ****ing idiot. Listen, I expect cyclists to be thick ****s, but
you are abusing the privilege.


See Janet with her car

See John with his bike

See the sun go down...

See Janet switch on her installed lights

See John look for his installed lights, then try riding without then

So John is now breaking the law by riding without lights?

See Janet not see John because he has no lights, and hit him and hurt
him.

Clearly Johns fault. Since John probably doesn't have insurance, who is
going to pay for any damage to Janet's car?

See Janet's insurance company wriggle and not pay out because John had no
lights.

Quite rightly. They should also pursue John for any damage to Janet's car.

See John come out of hospital on crutches and have to go an buy a new
bike, and new lights, and pay VAT on both, before he can ride in the
dark.

Janey paid VAT on her car you thick twunt. What bit of this confused you?;

"See John paying Income Tax, NI & VAT.
See Janet paying exactly the same Income Tax, NI & VAT".



See Janet with her car

See John with his bike

See the sun go down...

See Janet switch on her installed lights

Which she paid VAT on.

See John switch on HIS installed lights that he paid extra for

Which were a legal requirement he should have had in the first place.

See Janet not see John because she is a blind ****, and hit him and hurt
him.

Unlikely because as part of Janet's driving test, she would have taken
an eyesight test. Should her eyesight have deteriorated she would have
had to inform the DVLA and her driving license would be suspended.

See Janet's insurance company wriggle and not pay out because John was a
cyclist.

See John sue Janet's ass off and win.

See Mr Taxman take away 25% of John Winnings for the cost of his benefits
while he couldn't work!

You tell me that's not additional taxes John has to pay to use the roads.


Its not addition taxes you ****.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 10/02/2012 17:06, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:

Don't I?

Let me explain this in simple terms for the terminally ****witted (and
those of less brain, like Dave)

See Janet with her car taking up tens of feet of roadspace while
parked all day.

Which she pays for in Road Tax.

See John with his bike folded up under his desk.

What percentage of pushbikes are folding?

See the sun go down...

See Janet switch on her installed lights and not realise one of them
has failed.

See John's dynamo-powered lights switch themselves on as the light
sensor detects the lower light levels.

See Janet not see John because she is not concentrating.

See Janet's insurance company wriggle and try not pay out because John
was not in an armoured car.

John of course has no ****ing insurance at all.

See John come out of hospital on crutches and have to go an buy a new
bike, and new lights, and pay VAT on both, and spend two years chasing
Janet's insurance company for the money.

Or did you not know that most cyclist injuries are the driver's fault?
Oh, wait, you do know because it's been pointed out before, you were
just ignoring it in order to sput more anti-cyclist bigotry.


I gave up sputting years ago.

Accidents between cyclists & motorists are clearly always the fault of
the cyclist - because he shouldn't be on the road in the first place.

A push bike simply isn't a viable form of transport - read the research.





--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University