A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old October 26th 10, 08:58 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Clive George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,394
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On 26/10/2010 20:08, Steve Walker wrote:

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.


There there.

Live with it - unlike your opinions, bikes aren't anachronisms, they're
a great way to get about, especially when there's too much busy, modern
traffic.

Fortunately enough people realise this, and support the use of bikes
rather than complaining about them. And that includes the current mob in
government.
Ads
  #42  
Old October 26th 10, 09:25 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Tom Crispin[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,007
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:37:08 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"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.


There were precious few cyclists around in 1835 either. The *riding*
almost certainly refers to horses, but handcarts almost certainly
refers to the predecessor of the supermarket trolley.

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...

  #43  
Old October 26th 10, 09:35 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Adrian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,630
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

"mileburner" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

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.


Maybe not. But there certainly were large, fast-moving and frequently
barely controlled horse-drawn coaches and carts.

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.


Yes, we have. Every driver who's passed a UK driving test has proven they
are familiar with the Highway Code - which includes plenty of rules on
how to play nicely with other traffic. No matter _what_ form it may take.

BTW, the bicycle hadn't been invented in 1835, either. Yes, there were
the odd roughly similar ancestor about, just as there were roughly
similar ancestors to the car about. If you want to get picky about it,
Cugnot predates Baron von Drais by about 40 years - and von Drais was
less than 20yrs before those laws were passed.
  #44  
Old October 26th 10, 09:58 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Steve Walker[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

S wrote:
On Oct 26, 7:24 pm, "Steve Walker" wrote:


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.


Yes, and Peter Sutcliffe killed lots of women. Your point is....?


  #45  
Old October 26th 10, 10:02 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Steve Walker[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

Clive George wrote:
On 26/10/2010 20:08, Steve Walker wrote:

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.


There there.


I wasn't asking to be comforted, or patronised. This is meant to be a
discussion about traffic safety, if you want a snide name-calling exercise
then please start a new thread.


  #46  
Old October 26th 10, 10:16 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Clive George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,394
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On 26/10/2010 22:02, Steve Walker wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 26/10/2010 20:08, Steve Walker wrote:

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.


There there.


I wasn't asking to be comforted, or patronised. This is meant to be a
discussion about traffic safety, if you want a snide name-calling exercise
then please start a new thread.


If you don't want to get called names, don't write mindless tripe like
you did above. If you want others to behave like grown-ups, maybe you
ought to start yourself?
  #47  
Old October 26th 10, 10:55 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
JNugent[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,576
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On 26/10/2010 04:03, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:20:45 +0100,
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/


The question stands whichever particular example is used:

What possible "consideration" is being shown by cyclists to footway users
exiting their homes directly onto the footway?



  #48  
Old October 26th 10, 10:57 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
JNugent[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,576
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On 26/10/2010 15:12, Tom Crispin wrote:
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


Unless the general principle is that self-proclaimed "nervous" offenders are
let-off (eg, for drink-driving) without penalty, the answer, of course, is "Yes".

  #49  
Old October 26th 10, 10:58 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
JNugent[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,576
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On 26/10/2010 18:53, Tom Crispin wrote:
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?


Only if they wanted to. It was never intended to be compulsory, any more than
it was intended that pedestrians should be mixing with road-users legally
allowed to travel at 30mph.
  #50  
Old October 26th 10, 10:59 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
JNugent[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,576
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On 26/10/2010 19:37, mileburner wrote:
"Steve 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.


It ISN'T compulsory.

They are free not to cycle at all if not competent to do so.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
and the cyclists complain about every little thing in the UK Mrcheerful[_2_] UK 3 June 18th 10 07:48 AM
and the cyclists complain about every little thing in the UK Mrcheerful[_2_] UK 0 June 17th 10 06:32 PM
OK to hit cyclists outside a cycle lane. spindrift UK 66 August 19th 08 10:29 AM
odd couples [email protected] Racing 4 December 11th 06 01:42 AM
Why do cyclists not use the cycle path? Tony Raven UK 30 August 13th 06 12:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.