|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning
|
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning
On 14/03/2015 22:50, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 14/03/2015 21:30, Bod wrote: On 14/03/2015 20:25, Mrcheerful wrote: On 14/03/2015 20:19, Bod wrote: On 14/03/2015 20:14, Mrcheerful wrote: On 14/03/2015 20:06, Bod wrote: On 14/03/2015 16:44, Judith wrote: On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:43:41 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster wrote: snip You are only telling part of the story. Going by the guidance put forward by the two ministers, it seems clear that the intention of parliament was to give the police powers to deal with cyclists who cycle on the pavement in a way which poses a danger or annoyance to pedestrians. Paul Boateng specifically said that the law was not aimed at 'responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users', and Robert Goodwill reiterated that guidance. I have already pointed out that what Boateng said was not "guidance" whatsoever. It has no legal basis whatsoever. If Parliament had wanted to permit one class of cyclists to use the pavements then they would have made it clear in the law. They didn't. It is illegal for anyone to cycle on the pavements. Hope this helps. Not on shared pathways, where, miraculously, there are no problems. You're one of the drama queens in this ng. there are problems, such as this one: http://road.cc/content/news/75569-te...clist-southend And how many people are killed or seriously injured by vehicles on the roads every day? You've found *one* instance. Not exactly carnage on shared pathways, is it. You stated 'there are no problems' I point out that you are wrong, conflicts and crashes between cyclists and pedestrians on shared use paths are common, some have even ended in fatalities, usually the pedestrian. You *are* a drama queen........ and ICMFP ;-) Just admit it, you were wrong. Name calling is not very grown up. lol. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning
You stated 'there are no problems' I point out that you are wrong, conflicts and crashes between cyclists and pedestrians on shared use paths are common, some have even ended in fatalities, usually the pedestrian. You *are* a drama queen........ and ICMFP ;-) Just admit it, you were wrong. Name calling is not very grown up. nice to see that the child's helmet is on back to front http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/activ...-pavement.html This sums you and a few others up with your sad pettiness. It's from the very link you just sent: "It's hard to imagine the equivalent level of jobsworthness in another vocation. It's like a cinema attendant refusing to let a kid of 14 years and 364 days into a 15-certificate film showing for a birthday party; or a postman binning – not delivering – a child's application for a Blue Peter badge because the 5 in the postcode look a little like an S. It's a number of fairly unpleasant, petty, unnecessary acts by people in positions of power" |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning
On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 2:07:43 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
I assume (and I am being charitable here) that even you would not claim that it is alright for a 9-yr-old with a gun to shoot people (because he is "a person under 10 is not committing a criminal offence by killing another person". Nice strawman. I didn't even claim that it is OK for a child under 10 to ride on the footway. My claim is that Parliament has made it quite clear that a child under 10 is not committing a criminal offence by riding their bicycle on the footway. Neither would a child under 10 be committing a criminal offence is they killed you. It is also of note that plenty of adults kill innocent cyclists each year without being found guilty of a criminal offence. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning
On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 11:54:13 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
Where to start with that statement... How about starting with the tenet that a person under 10 is innocent until proved guilty, and then examine how a person under 10 can commit the criminal offence of cycling on the footway when parliament has made it quite clear that children under 10 are below the age of criminal responsibility. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning
On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 1:12:54 PM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 11:54:13 AM UTC, JNugent wrote: Where to start with that statement... How about starting with the tenet that a person under 10 is innocent until proved guilty, As is everyone. and then examine how a person under 10 can commit the criminal offence of cycling on the footway Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835 Penalty on persons committing nuisances by riding on footpaths, &c. If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon;. . . every person so offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale, over and above the damages occasioned thereby. The offence is absolute, anyone riding a bicycle on a footpath commits a criminal act whether they be 5 or 50. No they don't. The riding on the footway must be wilful. when parliament has made it quite clear that children under 10 are below the age of criminal responsibility. You are conflating the crime and the perpetrator. The crime is riding on the footpath. Parliament has not decided a child under 10 cannot commit an offence, only that they cannot be found responsible for doing so. I never claimed that Parliament had decided that a child under 10 cannot commit an offence. My claim was specific to a criminal offence. "Children and Young Persons Act 1933 50 Age of criminal responsibility. It shall be conclusively presumed that no child under the age of ten years can be guilty of any offence. " It doesn't mean the crime goes away whether it be cycling on a footpath or murder. It merely means the miscreant, if under 10, cannot be brought to trial for the offence even when it is clear they committed it. Yes it does. It is not a crime for a child under 10 to cycle on the footway. It may or may not be an offence, but that is a different matter, |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
discount girl easter dress baby girl briggs washington state northface metropolis girl | [email protected] | Recumbent Biking | 0 | March 24th 08 01:37 PM |
Police on the Innocent Railway Path (NCR1) Edinburgh | Tom Orr | UK | 7 | March 16th 06 04:23 PM |
The Age: Police warning for iPod users | daveL | Australia | 68 | February 22nd 06 10:31 AM |
[media] TheAge (AU) Police warning for iPod users | Alan J. Wylie | UK | 12 | February 17th 06 07:26 PM |