Shared cycle path - auditorially distracted pedestro-kretins stepping into the path of cycles

Ian Smith wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009, Jolly Polly wrote:
David Hansen wrote:

There is no pedestrian side. Pedestrians may use the whole width of
the pavement.

Only on a NON segregated feature

Why did you bother asking the question if you are going to refuse to
believe all the answers?

I remain unconvinced and have seen no evidence, I have only seen other
peoples interpretations

See The Highway Code Rule 13, (rules for pedestrians)it clearly
identifies a pedestrian side

"On the pedestrian side this will comprise a series..."

Yes, that is the side which is exclusively for pedestrians, as opposed
to the other side which is for pedestrians and cyclists.

It goes on to say "On the cyclist side the same bars are orientated in
the direction of travel..."

So that is the side exclusively for cyclists, because it does not say or
imply the side for pedestrians and cyclists. Here is the complete rule
from the Highway Code

Rule 13

Routes shared with cyclists. Some cycle tracks run alongside footpaths
or pavements, using a segregating feature to separate cyclists from
people on foot. Segregated routes may also incorporate short lengths of
tactile paving to help visually impaired people stay on the correct
side. On the pedestrian side this will comprise a series of flat-topped
bars running across the direction of travel (ladder pattern). On the
cyclist side the same bars are orientated in the direction of travel
(tramline pattern). Not all routes which are shared with cyclists are
segregated. Take extra care where this is so (see Rule 62).

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:17:20 +0000, Jolly Polly wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009, Jolly Polly wrote:
David Hansen wrote:

There is no pedestrian side. Pedestrians may use the whole width
of the pavement.

Only on a NON segregated feature

Why did you bother asking the question if you are going to refuse
to believe all the answers?

I remain unconvinced and have seen no evidence, I have only seen
other peoples interpretations

So everyone else is out of step with you? None so blind...

I give up.

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:17:20 +0000 someone who may be Jolly Polly
wrote this:-

Why did you bother asking the question if you are going to refuse to
believe all the answers?

I remain unconvinced and have seen no evidence, I have only seen other
peoples interpretations

The evidence has been provided. You have (presumably) decided not to
accept it [1], but that is another discussion.

Yes, that is the side which is exclusively for pedestrians, as opposed
to the other side which is for pedestrians and cyclists.

It goes on to say "On the cyclist side the same bars are orientated in
the direction of travel..."

So that is the side exclusively for cyclists,

No. The evidence as to why it is not exclusively for cyclists has
already been provided.

because it does not say or imply the side for pedestrians and cyclists.

You are relying on your interpretation of the words of something
written by officials. Even if your interpretation was correct this
relies on the officials who wrote the Highway Code being fit and
proper people to write it. Their attempt to force cyclists to use
cycle "facilities" demonstrates that the officials, working for the
Driving Standards Agency, are not fit and proper persons. The name
explains why.


[1] there are other possibilities, which is why this is my last word
on the subject for the moment.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:17:20 +0000, Jolly Polly wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009, Jolly Polly wrote:
David Hansen wrote:

There is no pedestrian side. Pedestrians may use the whole width of
the pavement.

Only on a NON segregated feature

Why did you bother asking the question if you are going to refuse to
believe all the answers?

I remain unconvinced and have seen no evidence, I have only seen other
peoples interpretations

So you think that pedestrians have less rights on a shared cycle path
than on an A road? Yes it is perfectly legal for someone to walk on
an A road and I have done plenty of times (and not just to cross it).

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

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 09:41:58 -0500 someone who may be Andy Leighton
wrote this:-

So you think that pedestrians have less rights on a shared cycle path
than on an A road? Yes it is perfectly legal for someone to walk on
an A road and I have done plenty of times (and not just to cross it).

Indeed. Some people appear to think that all roads have pavements
alongside them.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 09 Mar 2009 13:27:43 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:17:20 +0000, Jolly Polly wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009, Jolly Polly wrote:
David Hansen wrote:

There is no pedestrian side. Pedestrians may use the whole width
of the pavement.

Only on a NON segregated feature

Why did you bother asking the question if you are going to refuse
to believe all the answers?

I remain unconvinced and have seen no evidence, I have only seen
other peoples interpretations

So everyone else is out of step with you? None so blind...

I give up.


That's unusual - you haven't snipped any posts dishonestly or told
people they are all arseholes. I believe that you usually do that
before giving up?


--




The Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (BHRF) is an independent body with the message:
Helmets are not beneficial to cyclists - unless the evidence forces them to a dramatically different conclusion.

Andy Leighton wrote:
I remain unconvinced and have seen no evidence, I have only seen other
peoples interpretations

So you think that pedestrians have less rights on a shared cycle path
than on an A road? Yes it is perfectly legal for someone to walk on
an A road and I have done plenty of times (and not just to cross it).


No I don't think pedestrians have less rights on a segregated facility.
I too have walked on A roads, but it would be foolish to do so when a
perfectly good footpath was available

Judith Smith wrote:
That's unusual - you haven't snipped any posts dishonestly or told
people they are all arseholes. I believe that you usually do that
before giving up?


LOL

maybe the penny's dropped

Rob Morley wrote:

The intention as stated in the document I posted a link to earlier is
that cyclists will never use the pedestrian side, and pedestrians will
only cross into the cyclist's side when necessary - pedestrians should
not be using the whole path without regard to cyclists. So it's pretty
much like a road really - pedestrians are allowed to walk along it or
across it with due care, but they should keep to the pavement when
possible.


Yes, I would agree with you there Rob