Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On 26/10/2010 22:16, Clive George wrote:
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?

In which precise way was his telling you and others what he believes
"mindless tripe"?

Does anything that another poster can't agree with constitute "mindless
tripe", or is the edfinition reserved entirely to you?

Clive George wrote:
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?

You're a poor spokesperson for cycling, Clive. Needless, personalised
abuse is going to achieve nothing other than to alienate people, leading to
less sympathy and courtesy towards cyclists.

On 26/10/2010 23:03, Steve Walker wrote:
Clive George wrote:
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?

You're a poor spokesperson for cycling, Clive. Needless, personalised
abuse is going to achieve nothing other than to alienate people, leading to
less sympathy and courtesy towards cyclists.

Keep up with the ****e talking. What I post here isn't going to change
anything.

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?

Both are breaking the law. EOS.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

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.

Don't you mean "idiots who use childrens toys as transport need to be
trained to keep out of the way of motorists"?


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.

They introduced cycle lanes becuse of the constant whinging from cyclists
about their 'special needs'. Now the lycra louts whinge about the cycle
lanes - that they didn't pay for, being sponging freeloaders.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

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.

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.

But only 2% of journeys are made using this "great way to get about"?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

S wrote:
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.

Rule number 6....



--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"mileburner" gurgled happily, sounding much

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.

While that may be the case in theory, experience tells me that there are a
lot of drivers on the roads who find it difficult and distressing to drive
near cyclists and would prefer to have them separated onto footpaths or into
special lanes.

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.

I don't really want to get picky but I would say that the road network was a
vastly different place to that of 100+ years ago and would suggest that
*any* law concerning road use over a century old needs to be revised and
brought up to date. While I do not think that adult cyclists riding at
speeds above walking pace should be on the pavements and footpaths, there is
a case for allowing (younger) children who have yet to be trained and tested
for riding on the roads to be allowed to use footpaths, or if the distance
travelled is short, for access, or from one shop to another for example. It
seems to me to be a very minor inconvenience if a cyclist (whatever age)
were to ride a bike, on a wide (or not too busy pavement), at walking pace.

There seems to me a to be complete lack of consistency. Some footpaths are
designated "shared use" which means it is legal for all cyclists to use
them. In fact, where there are shared use paths some drivers seem to think
that cyclists *should* use them. The police take no notice of illegal
footpath riding outside of busy urban areas and even within busy urban areas
they will only offer a FPN or "have a word" with anyone who is riding on the
footpath inconsiderately even though it is illegal.

Worse still pedestrians sometimes become angered with cyclists using shared
use paths because they do not realise it is a shared use path or they are
not aware of the legal status. The whole situation is a mish-mash of
exemptions and blind-eye, with many drivers thinking that cyclists should be
on the paths and pedestrians thinking that cyclists should be on the roads.

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

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.

While that may be the case in theory, experience tells me that there are
a lot of drivers on the roads who find it difficult and distressing to
drive near cyclists and would prefer to have them separated onto
footpaths or into special lanes.

Whether through arrogance or incompetence, it doesn't make _them_ right.

While I do not think that adult cyclists riding at speeds above walking
pace should be on the pavements and footpaths, there is a case for
allowing (younger) children who have yet to be trained and tested for
riding on the roads to be allowed to use footpaths, or if the distance
travelled is short, for access, or from one shop to another for
example.

What would your reaction be if a similar exemption was suggested for
those who have not yet passed their car driving test?

Some footpaths are designated "shared use" which means it is legal for
all cyclists to use them.

And many cyclists loath and refuse to use them. For - usually - perfectly
sensible reasons. Including the undeniable fact that they encourage the
inconsistency of...

In fact, where there are shared use paths some drivers seem to think
that cyclists *should* use them.

Worse still pedestrians sometimes become angered with cyclists using
shared use paths because they do not realise it is a shared use path or
they are not aware of the legal status.

Nobody ever said ignorance was exclusive to any particular group of road
users.

The whole situation is a mish-mash of exemptions and blind-eye, with
many drivers thinking that cyclists should be on the paths and
pedestrians thinking that cyclists should be on the roads.

....and many cyclists not actually giving a flying toss about anybody else.

On 26 Oct, 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.

And you don't think that your personal statement was intentionally
insulting?