cycle on the pavement, get a ticket

then start snivelling to anyone that will listen.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...olous-offences

On 07/07/2014 12:15, Mrcheerful wrote:

then start snivelling to anyone that will listen.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...olous-offences

Absolutely bang to rights. And the Guardian is the best place to whinge
about it.

Cycling arrogantly along a footway and far too close to pedestrians
(earlier in the clip). How is anyone supposed to get to that phone box
safely with cyclists tearing past?

Not only arrogant but apparently prepared to be corrupt (with his "I'll
talk to a councillor who is a friend of mine" when he'd been caught
red-handed).

On 07/07/2014 12:15, Mrcheerful wrote:

then start snivelling to anyone that will listen.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...olous-offences

This bit of the Guardian rant... er... report... is interesting:

QUOTE:
Cycling on pavements is against the law, punishable by a fixed penalty,
but earlier this year the cycling minister Robert Goodwill reiterated
the call made by then-minister Paul Boateng for cyclists to be shown
discretion. Boateng emphasised that some cyclists sometimes feel obliged
to use pavements out of fear of the traffic, and that the fixed penalty
should not be aimed at cyclists who show consideration to pedestrians.
ENDQUOTE

The only way to show consideration to pedestrians on a footway is not to
cycle on it. If it happens to be "necessary" to cross a stretch of
footway - do it on foot and push the bike by hand.

But it isn't necessary. He could and should have cycled on the roadway.

In article ,
JNugent wrote:

If it happens to be "necessary" to cross a stretch of
footway - do it on foot and push the bike by hand.

What a difference does that make to a pedestrian?
--
TA

On 07/07/2014 12:15, Mrcheerful wrote:
then start snivelling to anyone that will listen.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...olous-offences


He was on the footway for quite a distance from the crossing, so was
caught bang to rights.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 07/07/2014 17:40, d wrote:
In article ,
JNugent wrote:

If it happens to be "necessary" to cross a stretch of footway - do it
on foot and push the bike by hand.

What a difference does that make to a pedestrian?

A pedestrian pushing a bike is less likely to crash into another
pedestrian and injure them.

On 07/07/2014 17:40, d wrote:
In article ,
JNugent wrote:

If it happens to be "necessary" to cross a stretch of footway - do it
on foot and push the bike by hand.

What a difference does that make to a pedestrian?

Have a little think about it.

If it made no difference at all, why would it be necessary to reserve
any routes for pedestrians?

On 07/07/2014 19:36, Ariel wrote:
From Mrcheerful:

then start snivelling to anyone that will listen.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...olous-offences


If cyclists have to walk their bike 10 feet from the cycle lane to the cycle
crossing then why don't car drivers have to push their car from their
driveway, across the pavement onto the road?





Access from a driveway to the road is quite different to the situation
in question, a cyclist would be allowed to ride their bicycle with care
in the same situation as the car driver when moving from driveway to
road (via a dropped kerb) and a ticket in that case would be unjustified
if it were to be issued, and could be appealed.

"JNugent" wrote
On 07/07/2014 17:40, d wrote:
JNugent wrote:

If it happens to be "necessary" to cross a stretch of footway - do it
on foot and push the bike by hand.

Oh, so I can drive my car across but I have push my bike from the road to my
driveway?

What a difference does that make to a pedestrian?

Have a little think about it.

OK, I've had a think about it. Hmmm, I reckon I could do a significant
amount of damage walking my bicycle at 3mph along a crowded shopping
precinct. So no, I can't see any particular benefit (to anyone) of walking
alongside a bicycle against riding it carefully. I don't get off amongst
pedestrians where it is legal to remain astride.You should share your
thoughts.

If it made no difference at all, why would it be necessary to reserve any
routes for pedestrians?

Since it is difficult to work out why it is legal for cyclists to share a
footway in one location but it is not legal in another, it is difficult to
give an answer. Perhaps things were different in 1850 (or whenever) when the
original rules were drawn up. Like fewer pedestrians using cars.

In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

On 07/07/2014 17:40, d wrote:
In article ,
JNugent wrote:

If it happens to be "necessary" to cross a stretch of footway - do it
on foot and push the bike by hand.

What a difference does that make to a pedestrian?

A pedestrian pushing a bike is less likely to crash into another
pedestrian and injure them.

I do not think so.
Moreover - a cyclist on a bike occupy less space than pushing the same
bike.

--
TA