Harrogate Borough Council oppose cycle route.

[[email protected]]

So much for the responsibilities of local authorities to promote and
encourage cycling. Naturally, local authorities are not so adverse to
going to public enquiries when this is necessary in order to achieve
something they want to do, and I bet the bye-law banning cycling was
pushed through without a public enquiry or worries about how quickly it
could be implemented...


http://www.ripontoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=18&ArticleID=1958097

05 January 2007

Reject cycle paths on Stray - report

A SCHEME to lift a cycling ban and create official routes across
Harrogate's 200-acre Stray should not go ahead, says a report headed by
the borough council's chief executive, Mick Walsh.

Recommending the council's cabinet reject a cycling network on the
famous grassland, it says the scheme would not meet essential
legalities.

This centres on not enough exchange land available to compensate for
areas of grass needed to create a shared cyclist-pedestrian route.

In his report the chief executive, plus the council's head of
transport, John Burton, and principal solicitor Bob Power say the
scheme would cost about £170,000.

Last year community groups mounted a campaign to allow cycling on
certain footways across the Stray. They organised a summer rally on the
grassland, demonstrating their support for the cycling project.

Owned by the Duchy of Lancaster the Stray is managed by Harrogate
Borough Council under an Act of Parliament.

The Act, says the report from council chiefs, severely restricts use of
Stray land.

A by-law introduced in 1986 says no one can drive or ride any motor
vehicle, bicycle or tricycle over the Stray.

Owners of vehicles and cycles must secure temporary permission for
events held on the Stray.

Mr Walsh says replacing the by-law or amending it would not be quick
and could involve a public inquiry, which would be paid for by the
council.

Council chiefs say if cycling was allowed routes should be shared,
involving cyclists and pedestrians. Despite narrower routes there were
still major problems in finding enough exchange land to compensate for
that lost on the Stray.

Although cycling was not allowed on the Stray, enforcement of bylaws
banning it rested with North Yorkshire Police who had taken a low key
approach to the issue.

However, changing council by-laws would involve an extensive public
consultation and an inquiry, where the outcome would be
"uncertain."

The council's cabinet will consider the issue on Wednesday.

[Jim Ley]

On 6 Jan 2007 03:28:52 -0800, wrote:

>So much for the responsibilities of local authorities to promote and
>encourage cycling. Naturally, local authorities are not so adverse to
>going to public enquiries when this is necessary in order to achieve
>something they want to do, and I bet the bye-law banning cycling was
>pushed through without a public enquiry or worries about how quickly it
>could be implemented...

I'm sorry 170,000 to change a law, despite the fact the police aren't
enforcing it anyway would be a gross waste of money, the councils
position seems entirely practical.

Surely it would be better spending the money somewhere more
productive?

Jim.

[David Hansen]

On 6 Jan 2007 03:28:52 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

>http://www.ripontoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=18&ArticleID=1958097

>In his report the chief executive, plus the council's head of
>transport, John Burton, and principal solicitor Bob Power say the
>scheme would cost about £170,000.

Has a party with no interests verified the assertion of these
officials?

>A by-law introduced in 1986 says no one can drive or ride any motor
>vehicle, bicycle or tricycle over the Stray.

Was there a public inquiry at the time?

>Mr Walsh says replacing the by-law or amending it would not be quick

Has this assertion been independently verified?

>Council chiefs say if cycling was allowed routes should be shared,
>involving cyclists and pedestrians. Despite narrower routes there were
>still major problems in finding enough exchange land to compensate for
>that lost on the Stray.

Do these officials provide very wide cycle "facilities" elsewhere,
or is their alleged devotion to width only demonstrated when they
don't want to do something?



--
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

[p.k.]

wrote:
> So much for the responsibilities of local authorities to promote and
> encourage cycling. Naturally, local authorities are not so adverse to
> going to public enquiries when this is necessary in order to achieve
> something they want to do, and I bet the bye-law banning cycling was
> pushed through without a public enquiry or worries about how quickly
> it could be implemented...
>
>
> http://www.ripontoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=18&ArticleID=1958097



The Stray Defence Association came into being on the 12th May 1933 and 70
years later its objective remains the same; to safeguard Harrogate's Stray
against building and encroachment from all quarters and uphold the Act
granting freedom of the Stray to all people for all time.

Click here to read about our recent
'Well to Well Walk 2006'

Amongst many achievements; it forced the town council to re turf the vast
areas of West Park Stray it had dug up, helped to formulate the Stay Act of
Parliament in 1985 and defended the right of footballers to use The Stray
free of charge.

Harrogate's Stray is the most unique asset of this delightful North
Yorkshire town, also renowned for its elegant buildings, floral displays and
once famous 'medicinal' spa waters. On August 19 1778, under the Enclosures
Act of 1770, the control and management was established of 200 acres of open
common in Harrogate which had been pastures for all and sundry from time
immemorial.

'The said two hundred acres of land shall forever hereafter remain open and
unenclosed and all persons whomsoever shall and may have free access at all
times to the said springs, and be at liberty to use and drink the waters
there arising, and take the benefit thereof, and shall and may have, use,
and enjoy full and free ingress, egress and regress, in, upon, and over, the
said two hundred acres of land, and every, and any part thereof, without
being subject to the payment of any acknowledgment whatsoever for the same,
or liable to any action of trespass, or other suit, molestation, or
disturbance whatsoever, in respect thereof.'

Still surrounding the town centre are those two hundred acres of land and
trees known as The Stray. Through all seasons and all weathers residents and
visitors alike benefit from this precious swathe of green in the heart of
the town. From the carpets of crocus heralding spring, the early splendour
of cherry blossom and the verdant green of summer, to the glorious array of
autumnal colours and the snows of winter Harrogate's Stray is an integral
and much loved part of the town's history. The Stray Defence Association is
here to ensure it remains part of its future.

'We have not inherited The Stray from our parents;
we have borrowed it from our children.'

pk

[[email protected]]

Jim Ley wrote:

>
> I'm sorry 170,000 to change a law, despite the fact the police aren't
> enforcing it anyway would be a gross waste of money, the councils
> position seems entirely practical.
>
> Surely it would be better spending the money somewhere more
> productive?
>
> Jim.

Your confusion is understandable, given the authorities apparent
attempts to conflate a number of different issues in order to justify
continuing to ban cyclists, but drawing up a new bye-law should only
cots a few thousand pounds. This could, for example, make it an offence
to cycle on the Stray other than on certain 'designated routes' and
would allow cycling without going to the expense or legal complications
of creating a dedicated 'cycle path'. In fact the Council agreed to do
exactly this several years ago. Similarly, the council could improve or
repair existing paths without having to dedicate them as 'cycle paths',
even if they were open for use by cyclists.

It might cost 170,000 to create a sealed surface 'cycle path' (although
the figure might well be grossly inflated in order to kill off such an
idea) and creating a path under the Cycle Tracks act would raise the
possibility of a public enquiry, especially if the route were to follow
and existing footpath, but there is no need for any of this to be done.

As to trusting the police to take a 'softly-softly' approach to
enforcing the cycle ban on the Stray, I am sure I have read reports of
nimby locals calling for the ban to be enforced and the police
obliging. In any case I don't think the police can be trusted to act
with any sort of discretion given the way they so commonly ignore Home
Office guidance on the use of fixed penalty notices for 'pavement
cycling' and even go so far as to prosecute cyclists for simply
exercising their legal right to use the public road, as in the Daniel
Cadden case.

[[email protected]]

p.k. wrote:

> >
> > http://www.ripontoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=18&ArticleID=1958097
>
>
> The Stray Defence Association came into being on the 12th May 1933 and 70
> years later its objective remains the same; to safeguard Harrogate's Stray
> against building and encroachment from all quarters and uphold the Act
> granting freedom of the Stray to all people for all time.
>

'...granting freedom of the Stray to all people for all time.' Quite
so, nothing there about banning cyclists, who it seems enjoyed access
for the entire history of the SDA, and earlier (until 1986 that is...).

[Jim Ley]

On 6 Jan 2007 05:04:30 -0800, wrote:

>
>Jim Ley wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm sorry 170,000 to change a law, despite the fact the police aren't
>> enforcing it anyway would be a gross waste of money, the councils
>> position seems entirely practical.
>>
>> Surely it would be better spending the money somewhere more
>> productive?
>
>Your confusion is understandable, given the authorities apparent
>attempts to conflate a number of different issues in order to justify
>continuing to ban cyclists, but drawing up a new bye-law should only
>cots a few thousand pounds.

Yes, but you would also need to change the paths - paint to seperate
from pedestrians, ensuring the quality of the path was suitable etc.
given the number of complaints about poor quality facilities on this
forum, I'm surprised to see calls for no money at all to be spent on
providing them.

>It might cost 170,000 to create a sealed surface 'cycle path' (although
>the figure might well be grossly inflated in order to kill off such an
>idea) and creating a path under the Cycle Tracks act would raise the
>possibility of a public enquiry, especially if the route were to follow
>and existing footpath, but there is no need for any of this to be done.

Right, so your argument is that there's no need to do what's proper
legally but to spend just a few thousand pounds make it okay for
people to cycle across it, which is exactly what the council was
recommended, only they save the few thousand pounds, and the time.

The point was the police are not enforcing, so let's not waste time or
money.

> In any case I don't think the police can be trusted to act
>with any sort of discretion given the way they so commonly ignore Home
>Office guidance on the use of fixed penalty notices for 'pavement
>cycling' and even go so far as to prosecute cyclists for simply
>exercising their legal right to use the public road, as in the Daniel
>Cadden case.

Yep, typical anti-police rant from urc.

Jim.

[[email protected]]

Jim Ley wrote:
>
> ... you would also need to change the paths - paint to seperate
> from pedestrians, ensuring the quality of the path was suitable etc.
> given the number of complaints about poor quality facilities on this
> forum, I'm surprised to see calls for no money at all to be spent on
> providing them.
>

Why? I would see access on the Stray being mainly of recreational use,
perhaps giving parents somewhere pleasant to ride with their kids.

> ...so your argument is that there's no need to do what's proper
> legally but to spend just a few thousand pounds make it okay for
> people to cycle across it, which is exactly what the council was
> recommended, only they save the few thousand pounds, and the time.
>

Either amending the bye-law or creating a dedicated 'cycle path' via
The Cycle Tracks Act would be equally legal. Plus the Council had
already agreed a while ago to amend the bye-laws so as to decriminalise
cycling on certain paths, and yet have failed to do so. It looks to me
that they are simply finding excuses to continue to exclude cyclists.

>
> ... typical anti-police rant from urc.
>

That the British police are overwhelming car-centric in outlook and
often unsympathetic or even hostile to cyclists is a simple fact of
life. This is something which could be illustrated by innumerable
examples ranging from the heavy-handed harassment of the Southend
Critical mass group (using surveillance equipment, plain-clothes units
and multiple arrests) through to cases like that of Daniel Cadden and
the all-too common reluctance to bring prosecutions against drivers who
injure cyclists.

Doubtless you will also dismiss the following from the House of Commons
Committee for Transport Safety as merely being an 'anti-police rant'.

'The relatively low proportion of serious cases which come to court
would not cause concern if the quality of crash investigation and any
subsequent legal proceedings was beyond question. There will always be
some crashes which are genuine "accidents"; the important thing is that
the public is confident that proper investigation takes place, and that
legal proceedings are brought whenever appropriate. Victims and their
relatives, and the organisations campaigning for victims, clearly have
no such confidence. They appear to be right.

....our witnesses had no confidence that the police would properly
investigate cases in which harm had been caused, particularly when
vulnerable road users had been injured. We were given instances of
cases in which it was alleged that the police had automatically assumed
that a cyclist or pedestrian, rather than a driver, was at fault; in
which evidence and witness statements were not promptly collected; and
in which police could not be persuaded to take an interest even though,
in some cases, serious injury had occurred.'

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmtran/105/10502.htm

[Jim Ley]

On 6 Jan 2007 07:55:25 -0800, wrote:

>Jim Ley wrote:
>>
>> ... you would also need to change the paths - paint to seperate
>> from pedestrians, ensuring the quality of the path was suitable etc.
>> given the number of complaints about poor quality facilities on this
>> forum, I'm surprised to see calls for no money at all to be spent on
>> providing them.
>>
>
>Why? I would see access on the Stray being mainly of recreational use,
>perhaps giving parents somewhere pleasant to ride with their kids.

They have that now according to the councillor, no need to waste money
changing it.

> It looks to me
>that they are simply finding excuses to continue to exclude cyclists.

And it looks to me they're not wasting money to pander to pointless
targets and lobbyists of providing more cycle paths even if the effect
would be no difference to the current status quo.

>> ... typical anti-police rant from urc.
>>
>
>That the British police are overwhelming car-centric in outlook and
>often unsympathetic or even hostile to cyclists is a simple fact of
>life.

No, This is more anti-police rant, maybe if you had more
respectability on this issue, I might listen to you more about the
other one.

> This is something which could be illustrated by innumerable
>examples ranging from the heavy-handed harassment of the Southend
>Critical mass group (using surveillance equipment, plain-clothes units
>and multiple arrests) through to cases like that of Daniel Cadden and
>the all-too common reluctance to bring prosecutions against drivers who
>injure cyclists.

The police don't bring prosecutions, and critical mass is not about
cyclists but about demonstrations, because the police treat all
demonstrstions in the same bad way. You're choosing to focus on the
fact they're cyclists because it meets your personal agenda.

>'The relatively low proportion of serious cases which come to court
>would not cause concern if the quality of crash investigation and any
>subsequent legal proceedings was beyond question.

What on earth has this got to do with police enforcement of the no
cycling across the stray? yet again, you're failing to make your point
so bring up an entirely unrelated point. Please try to stay on topic
- cycling on the stray, and the motivations of the council not wanting
to waste money.

Jim.

[[email protected]]

Jim Ley wrote:

> >ukrcwrote:
> >
> >I would see access on the Stray being mainly of recreational use,
> >perhaps giving parents somewhere pleasant to ride with their kids.
>
> They have that now according to the councillor, no need to waste money
> changing it.

How so when cycling on The Stray is currently illegal? Taking the fear
of possible prosecution away would not be a 'waste of money' in my
book.

> > The House of Commons Transport Committee wrote:
> >
> >'The relatively low proportion of serious cases which come to court
> >would not cause concern if the quality of crash investigation and any
> >subsequent legal proceedings was beyond question.
>
> What on earth has this got to do with police enforcement of the no
> cycling across the stray?

Obvious I would have thought: it's an illustration of the frequently
car-centric, anti-cyclist bias of a significant number of the British
police force. This bias is expressed in many ways, ranging from 'zero
tolerance' campaigns against 'pavement cyclists' which disregard the
Home Office guidance on the use of fixed penalty notices, through to
the reluctance with which the police bring charges against drivers who
injure cyclists, even when there are good grounds for doing so. (In
fact one local inspector admitted to me that his force had an
unofficial 'official' policy of only pursuing prosecutions against
drivers who had effectively put a cyclist into a wheelchair or a
coffin). Yes the CPS also play an important role in this but as the
Commons report points out the police are also failing the victims of
bad drivers in a massive way.

Anyhow all this is going off topic, the main point is that the police
often show little reluctance when it comes to prosecuting cyclists,
especially if a few 'Daily Mail Readers' make a few complaints, and
given this the best approach must be to modify the bye-laws. Doing so
would also relieve the aforesaid Daily Mail readers of a stick which
they can use to beat cyclists with.

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:25:21 GMT someone who may be
(Jim Ley) wrote this:-

>>Why? I would see access on the Stray being mainly of recreational use,
>>perhaps giving parents somewhere pleasant to ride with their kids.
>
>They have that now according to the councillor, no need to waste money
>changing it.

Incorrect. At any time a bored official could decide to enforce the
"unenforced" laws.

>The police don't bring prosecutions,

Their version of the Daniel Cadden case differs.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/7592e29fb2384b99/94a4331a01308137?lnk=st&q=%22daniel+cadden%22&rnum=6&hl=en#94a4331a01308137

"Inspector Arnold described the processes involved in such a case;
the officer on duty stops and advises the member of the public; if
the member of the public will not accept the advice then the
officer submits paperwork to senior officers with the aim that the
courts will then decide if the officers advice was correct; then it
is passed to a lawyer; a summons is raised and the case is heard at
court. It does not go through the Crown Prosecution Service."

>and critical mass is not about
>cyclists but about demonstrations, because the police treat all
>demonstrstions in the same bad way.

Incorrect. The police treat demonstrators that they are in sympathy
with, for example the fool protestors, very differently to ones they
are not in sympathy with. An interesting example is the pro-hunting
lobby. After decades of the police pampering their every whim they
were very surprised to be treated like other demonstrators at a
demonstration in London.

>What on earth has this got to do with police enforcement of the no
>cycling across the stray?

An interesting swerve, but the reason for introducing it was clear
and your huffing and puffing does not change that.

>yet again, you're failing to make your point
>so bring up an entirely unrelated point. Please try to stay on topic
>- cycling on the stray, and the motivations of the council not wanting
>to waste money.

It is mildly amusing that the person who makes such points is the
same person who tries to dismiss others' points as anti-police
rants.


--
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

[Jim Ley]

On 6 Jan 2007 08:56:01 -0800, wrote:

>Jim Ley wrote:
>
>> >ukrcwrote:
>> >
>> >I would see access on the Stray being mainly of recreational use,
>> >perhaps giving parents somewhere pleasant to ride with their kids.
>>
>> They have that now according to the councillor, no need to waste money
>> changing it.
>
>How so when cycling on The Stray is currently illegal? Taking the fear
>of possible prosecution away would not be a 'waste of money' in my
>book.

Whilst not knowing the stray, I know lots of similar sort of areas
where cycling is officially banned, and I know of none where fear of
prosecution is a limiting factor, I cannot believe it is, I would much
rather see the money spent more appropriately to promote cycling -
councils do not have infinite money.

>> What on earth has this got to do with police enforcement of the no
>> cycling across the stray?
>
>Obvious I would have thought: it's an illustration of the frequently
>car-centric, anti-cyclist bias of a significant number of the British
>police force.

So you've already reduced it to only a significant number - great
progress!

If you could just stay on the topic of the stray, things would be
good.

Jim.

[Jim Ley]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:23:15 +0000, David Hansen
> wrote:
>>and critical mass is not about
>>cyclists but about demonstrations, because the police treat all
>>demonstrstions in the same bad way.
>
>Incorrect. The police treat demonstrators that they are in sympathy
>with, for example the fool protestors,

If your only example is from 2000, then you're not doing a great job
of convincing me, Critical Mass certainly weren't recieving the same
attention then, nor any other demonstrators, the police have only
started treating demonstrators badly recently. So please come up with
some recent examples.

>>yet again, you're failing to make your point
>>so bring up an entirely unrelated point. Please try to stay on topic
>>- cycling on the stray, and the motivations of the council not wanting
>>to waste money.
>
>It is mildly amusing that the person who makes such points is the
>same person who tries to dismiss others' points as anti-police
>rants.

That's because they were, if I'd not responded at all, I'd've just
been accused of ignoring them - I've changed the topic now, so please
carry on and indulge your persecution fantasies.

Jim.

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:41:50 GMT someone who may be
(Jim Ley) wrote this:-

>Whilst not knowing the stray, I know lots of similar sort of areas
>where cycling is officially banned, and I know of none where fear of
>prosecution is a limiting factor,

You can read the mind of every cyclist who might use such areas?
Fascinating.


--
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

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:45:58 GMT someone who may be
(Jim Ley) wrote this:-

>>Incorrect. The police treat demonstrators that they are in sympathy
>>with, for example the fool protestors,
>
>If your only example is from 2000,

I gave two examples.

>I've changed the topic now, so please
>carry on and indulge your persecution fantasies.

Excellent, a personal attack. Usually the resort of those with no
better arguments.


--
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

[vernon]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> p.k. wrote:
>
>> >
>> > http://www.ripontoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=18&ArticleID=1958097
>>
>>
>> The Stray Defence Association came into being on the 12th May 1933 and 70
>> years later its objective remains the same; to safeguard Harrogate's
>> Stray
>> against building and encroachment from all quarters and uphold the Act
>> granting freedom of the Stray to all people for all time.
>>
>
> '...granting freedom of the Stray to all people for all time.' Quite
> so, nothing there about banning cyclists, who it seems enjoyed access
> for the entire history of the SDA, and earlier (until 1986 that is...).
>
Nor does it explicitly grant access to cyclists. You appear to expending a
lot of energy on a patch of grass over which there is no real reason to want
to pedal other than take a short cut. There are plenty of roads and streets
that make the circumnaviagtion of the Stray straight forward. It is
pointless attempting to extrapoloate from my personal encounters with
Harrogate and the Stray, but I have never felt the need or desire to cycle
on it on the numerous occasions that I've cycled through or to Harrogate.
I'm surprised that the council's stance has been interpreted as an anti
cyclist stance. I see it as a local incident which has upset a handful of
cyclists.

[Dan Gregory]

vernon wrote:
There are plenty of roads and streets
> that make the circumnaviagtion of the Stray straight forward.
That's exactly what I thought having worked there a few years ago &
ridden from the centre out to the Knaresborough Road every day...

[Jim Ley]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:23:15 +0000, David Hansen
> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:25:21 GMT someone who may be
(Jim Ley) wrote this:-
>
>>>Why? I would see access on the Stray being mainly of recreational use,
>>>perhaps giving parents somewhere pleasant to ride with their kids.
>>
>>They have that now according to the councillor, no need to waste money
>>changing it.
>
>Incorrect. At any time a bored official could decide to enforce the
>"unenforced" laws.

And that would be the point for the council to spend the money, no
need to pre-empt it, laws often fall away simply through lack of use.

Jim.

[Jim Ley]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 18:27:48 +0000, David Hansen
> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:45:58 GMT someone who may be
(Jim Ley) wrote this:-
>
>>>Incorrect. The police treat demonstrators that they are in sympathy
>>>with, for example the fool protestors,
>>
>>If your only example is from 2000,
>
>I gave two examples.

Your other example was the pro-hunting lobby, one of which the police
got ruled against as over-stepping their powers by illegally detaining
them, that is most certainly not treating them nice.

Jim.

[Clive George]

"Jim Ley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:23:15 +0000, David Hansen
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:25:21 GMT someone who may be
(Jim Ley) wrote this:-
>>
>>>>Why? I would see access on the Stray being mainly of recreational use,
>>>>perhaps giving parents somewhere pleasant to ride with their kids.
>>>
>>>They have that now according to the councillor, no need to waste money
>>>changing it.
>>
>>Incorrect. At any time a bored official could decide to enforce the
>>"unenforced" laws.
>
> And that would be the point for the council to spend the money, no
> need to pre-empt it, laws often fall away simply through lack of use.

That doesn't apply to this sort of law, which often has a vociferous group
demanding its enforcement, even if there's no good reason to do so. Do you
really think the law in question will quietly disappear? If so, you're a bit
naive.

clive

[[email protected]]

Dan Gregory wrote:

> > vernon wrote:
> > There are plenty of roads and streets
> > that make the circumnaviagtion of the Stray straight forward.
>
> That's exactly what I thought having worked there a few years ago &
> ridden from the centre out to the Knaresborough Road every day...

>From the original story...

Last year community groups mounted a campaign to allow cycling on
certain footways across the Stray. They organised a summer rally on the

grassland, demonstrating their support for the cycling project.

[[email protected]]

Dan Gregory wrote:
> >vernon wrote:
> >
> > There are plenty of roads and streets
> > that make the circumnaviagtion of the Stray straight forward.
>
> That's exactly what I thought having worked there a few years ago &
> ridden from the centre out to the Knaresborough Road every day...


>From the original story.

'Last year community groups mounted a campaign to allow cycling on
certain footways across the Stray. They organised a summer rally on the

grassland, demonstrating their support for the cycling project.'

[vernon]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Dan Gregory wrote:
>> >vernon wrote:
>> >
>> > There are plenty of roads and streets
>> > that make the circumnaviagtion of the Stray straight forward.
>>
>> That's exactly what I thought having worked there a few years ago &
>> ridden from the centre out to the Knaresborough Road every day...
>
>
>>From the original story.
>
> 'Last year community groups mounted a campaign to allow cycling on
> certain footways across the Stray. They organised a summer rally on the
>
> grassland, demonstrating their support for the cycling project.'
>
Yes but are *you* personally familiar with the Stray?

[vernon]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Dan Gregory wrote:
>
>> > vernon wrote:
>> > There are plenty of roads and streets
>> > that make the circumnaviagtion of the Stray straight forward.
>>
>> That's exactly what I thought having worked there a few years ago &
>> ridden from the centre out to the Knaresborough Road every day...
>
>>From the original story...
>
> Last year community groups mounted a campaign to allow cycling on
> certain footways across the Stray. They organised a summer rally on the
>
> grassland, demonstrating their support for the cycling project.
>
Dear Outraged O'Proxy,
Before taking up cudgels on behalf of the 'put-upon-cyclist', try to
familiarise yourself with more than a written account of a dispute. The
Stray is hardly a huge expanse that warrants being carved up by cycle paths
or indeed having paths widened to accomodate the demands of a small
vociferous group. I am sure that the demands would diminish if the
protesters were invited to contribute towards to expense. There are higher
priority targets for the council that would benefit more of the local
population.

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 20:30:24 GMT someone who may be
(Jim Ley) wrote this:-

>>Incorrect. At any time a bored official could decide to enforce the
>>"unenforced" laws.
>
>And that would be the point for the council to spend the money, no
>need to pre-empt it,

Incorrect. At that point the bored official will have a victim. Far
better to spend a minimal amount of money to sort it out beforehand.




--
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

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 20:32:28 GMT someone who may be
(Jim Ley) wrote this:-

>Your other example was the pro-hunting lobby, one of which the police
>got ruled against as over-stepping their powers by illegally detaining
>them, that is most certainly not treating them nice.

You miss, for whatever reason, the point I made in my original
posting about the hunting lobby. Other than this one incident the
police have bent over backwards for this lobby.

A third example is the way the police pick on groups they wish to
apply the "law" preventing free speech around the Westminster
parliament. The Institute of Directors did not give six days notice
or get permission from the police, but their demonstration was not
molested by the police
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/06/343792.html

On the other hand people holding picnics are treated very
differently by the police and there have been two attempts to use
this "law" on cyclists who happened to congregate for a ride
together. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/actions/2006/socpa/ is a
general discussion.




--
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

[Jim Ley]

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 21:19:31 -0000, "Clive George"
> wrote:

>"Jim Ley" > wrote in message
>> And that would be the point for the council to spend the money, no
>> need to pre-empt it, laws often fall away simply through lack of use.
>
>That doesn't apply to this sort of law, which often has a vociferous group
>demanding its enforcement, even if there's no good reason to do so. Do you
>really think the law in question will quietly disappear? If so, you're a bit
>naive.

I don't believe the current law is being enforced, there's certainly
no evidence that it is.

Jim.

[Jim Ley]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 22:49:19 +0000, David Hansen
> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 20:32:28 GMT someone who may be
(Jim Ley) wrote this:-
>
>>Your other example was the pro-hunting lobby, one of which the police
>>got ruled against as over-stepping their powers by illegally detaining
>>them, that is most certainly not treating them nice.
>
>You miss, for whatever reason, the point I made in my original
>posting about the hunting lobby. Other than this one incident the
>police have bent over backwards for this lobby.

Erm, not that I've seen - they've illegally detained people, they've
fought them in the street, they've issued fixed penalties for wearing
"******** to blair" t-shirts, I can't understand why you think they've
bent over backwards at all - what sort of example did you have in
mind.

Jim.

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 23:01:56 GMT someone who may be
(Jim Ley) wrote this:-

>I don't believe the current law is being enforced,

A reason for deleting it then.

Personally I would have vast numbers of laws deleted, after which
new laws could only be introduced if an equivalent or greater number
were deleted. Party politicians could then do something useful,
instead of creating ever more laws to try and convince newspaper
editors something is being done.


--
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

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 23:06:38 GMT someone who may be
(Jim Ley) wrote this:-

>what sort of example did you have in mind.

In Ye Olden Days the police nearly always found reasons not to do
anything when those opposed to hunting were attacked by the hunting
lobby, sometimes sustaining serious injuries.

Now the police claim they don't have the resources to keep an eye on
the hunting lobby. However, a few years ago they had the resources
to employ large numbers of officers to police those opposed to
hunting.

It is a clear case of the police bending over backwards to do what
the hunting lobby want.


--
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

[Jim Ley]

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 23:27:46 +0000, David Hansen
> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 23:01:56 GMT someone who may be
(Jim Ley) wrote this:-
>
>>I don't believe the current law is being enforced,
>
>A reason for deleting it then.

Nope, it'd be a waste of money, if it cost nothing to delete, then of
course, but it doesn't it costs both time and money that could be
better spent elsewhere.

Jim.

[[email protected]]

Jim Ley wrote:

> ...it'd be a waste of money, if it cost nothing to delete, then of
> course, but it doesn't it costs both time and money that could be
> better spent elsewhere.
>

The costs of modifying the bye-laws would be minimal, and doing so
would be in accordance with the wishes of a significant number of local
people, who, after all, pay the taxes which provide the Council's money
in the first place. Again, from the original story:

'Last year community groups mounted a campaign to allow cycling on
certain footways across the Stray. They organised a summer rally on the
grassland, demonstrating their support for the cycling project.'

An update from Harrogate Today shows that, as might have been guessed,
that the Stray Defence Association is in the 'Nimby' corner on this
issue, although their representative seems to fail to see the irony of
her claim that "It's an enormous asset for Harrogate and we have to
make sure everybody can enjoy it."

My experience of working in local government convinced me that local
authorities will use almost any pretext to side with the anti-cycling
Nimbies, even when doing so costs them a lot of money and the 'antis'
are in a small minority. For example, my local authority, despite their
legal obligation to 'protect and assert rights of way' sided with a
local landowner in an attempt to downgrade a local bridleway to
footpath status. This was opposed by local cycling and equestrian
bodies but the authority then employed a specialist lawyer at a
reported £200 and hour to fight for closure and forced a 2 week public
enquiry on the issue. Similarly, local authorities appear to be much
more likely to pay regard to a few anti-cycling nimbies than the views
of local cyclists when considering highway schemes. When I worked in a
local authority highways team I saw this sort of thing constantly, yet
the views of locals were ignored when the authority wanted to force
something though which suited it's own agenda.

------------------------------------------------------

Cycling ban to remain on The Stray
05 January 2007

A CONTROVERSIAL bid to allow cycling on Harrogate's historic Stray has
been vetoed by council officers.

A report on a scheme which would lift the cycling ban, due to be
considered by Harrogate Borough Council's cabinet on Wednesday,
recommends the plans should not be developed. The council announced it
would be considering ways to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians on
The Stray after the Harrogate Advertiser highlighted the town's
strength of feeling on the issue.

Dozens of readers wrote to the Advertiser voicing their views both for
and against the ban, and a mass protest objecting to it was organised
which saw hundreds of cyclists take to The Stray with their bicycles.

The council officers' report says there is not enough "exchange land"
on The Stray to compensate for the area of grass that would need to be
used to create a shared cycle route network.

As a result, the officers' report says it is not possible to meet an
essential legal requirement of The Stray Act.

Members of the council's cabinet will discuss the report next week.

Harrogate Cycle Group's Malcolm Margolis, who organised the protest
last summer, said: "We are disappointed that the officers'
recommendation is not to develop a scheme to allow cycling on The
Stray. Their key concern is the effect of widening paths, which may in
fact not be necessary.

"In view of the considerable support for cycling on The Stray,
Harrogate Cycle Group believes the Cabinet should defer any decision
regarding cycling on Stray paths until a survey has been made of the
width of other paths in Harrogate where shared cycle and pedestrian use
has proved successful. Several of these are significantly less than the
2.5 metres suggested by the council's officers."

Judy D'Arcy Thompson, PRO of the Stray Defence Association welcomed the
officers' reccommendation.

"We are very pleased, we didn't think it was going to be feasible," she
said.

"We have had an inordinate number of meetings since this started. We've
had a long and hard debate about it and met with cycling groups and had
long discussions with them."

She said the association had been concerned allowing cycling on The
Stray would result in inevitable changes to the protected green space.

"We don't own The Stray, we've borrowed it from our children," she
explained. "It's an enormous asset for Harrogate and we have to make
sure everybody can enjoy it."

[[email protected]]

Jim Ley wrote:

>
> ...they've illegally detained people, they've
> fought them in the street, they've issued fixed penalties for wearing
> "******** to blair" t-shirts, I can't understand why you think they've
> bent over backwards at all - what sort of example did you have in
> mind.
>

One example which comes to my mind is the way the police have 'bent
over backwards' to protect 'the right to protest' of groups such as The
National Front over the years, even when marches were deliberately
routed through areas with a high proportion of ethnic minorities...

A rather different approach is likely when a protest is perceived to be
'leftist', (union or strike related) 'subversive' ( anti-war, Critical
Mass and so on) or anti-government (especially since the authoritarian
'New Labour Project' came to power).

[[email protected]]

Jim Ley wrote:

> ...they've illegally detained people, they've
> fought them in the street, they've issued fixed penalties for wearing
> "******** to blair" t-shirts, I can't understand why you think they've
> bent over backwards at all - what sort of example did you have in
> mind.

One example which comes to my mind is the way the police have 'bent
over backwards' to protect 'the right to protest' of groups such as The

National Front over the years, even when marches were deliberately
routed through areas with a high proportion of ethnic minorities...

A rather different approach is likely when a protest is perceived to be

'leftist', (union or strike related) 'subversive' ( anti-war, Critical
Mass and so on) or anti-government (especially since the authoritarian
'New Labour Project' came to power).

[vernon]

> wrote in message
ups.com...

An update from Harrogate Today shows that, as might have been guessed,
that the Stray Defence Association is in the 'Nimby' corner on this
issue, although their representative seems to fail to see the irony of
her claim that "It's an enormous asset for Harrogate and we have to
make sure everybody can enjoy it."

My experience of working in local government convinced me that local
authorities will use almost any pretext to side with the anti-cycling
Nimbies, even when doing so costs them a lot of money and the 'antis'
are in a small minority. For example, my local authority, despite their
legal obligation to 'protect and assert rights of way' sided with a
local landowner in an attempt to downgrade a local bridleway to
footpath status. This was opposed by local cycling and equestrian
bodies but the authority then employed a specialist lawyer at a
reported £200 and hour to fight for closure and forced a 2 week public
enquiry on the issue. Similarly, local authorities appear to be much
more likely to pay regard to a few anti-cycling nimbies than the views
of local cyclists when considering highway schemes. When I worked in a
local authority highways team I saw this sort of thing constantly, yet
the views of locals were ignored when the authority wanted to force
something though which suited it's own agenda.

There's still no evidence that you are familiar with the patch of grass
called the Stray. Obfuscate the issue with as many side issues as you like,
the fact remains that at 200 acres, the Stray is not a significantly huge
expanse of grass. It's split into smaller patches by public highways, some
with cycle lanes into smaller patches. As for your argument about having a
bridle path downrated - it's barely the same as trying to maintain the staus
quo i.e. keeping footpaths as footpaths. If someone is so determined as to
want to have their cycle in the middle of the Stray, what is wrong with
getting off and pushing it? It's not that much different from
pedestrianised zones in city centres. So few people are genuinely
inconvenienced by the no cycling rule that to spend money on granting access
is an expensive folly.

[A.Lee]

> wrote:

> One example which comes to my mind is the way the police have 'bent
> over backwards' to protect 'the right to protest' of groups such as The

You know, you really need to chill out a bit more, and stop such minor
things irritating you. You have posted so many lines to this thread that
a book could be written with the text. It shows now with you following
up your own posts.
This group is rapidly degenerating into uk.rec.bicycle.advocacy, and is
far the worse because of that.
Your argument is with Harrogate Council, who seem to me to have nothing
against cyclists except stopping them ride in a park, but you cannot see
that, and will start an argument with a lamppost to state your point.
Take a chill pill, dont read/pot to usenet for a few days, then come
back a little more relaxed and see things from another perspective.
ATB
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

[[email protected]]

vernon wrote:

>
> There's still no evidence that you are familiar with the patch of grass
> called the Stray.

Of course I know the Stray, do you?

> If someone is so determined as to
> want to have their cycle in the middle of the Stray, what is wrong with
> getting off and pushing it? It's not that much different from
> pedestrianised zones in city centres.

And why should cyclists have to 'get off and push' in pedestrianised
areas? This is not expected in continental Europe and even DfT guidance
recommends that cyclists be allowed to ride through pedestrianised
areas.

> So few people are genuinely
> inconvenienced by the no cycling rule that to spend money on granting access
> is an expensive folly.

Amending the bye-law would cost peanuts, and I feel that if 250 people
can turn out in support of a chnage in the bye-law, it is far from
'few' people who feel that they would benefit from access.

[[email protected]]

A.Lee wrote:

> Your argument is with Harrogate Council, who seem to me to have nothing
> against cyclists except stopping them ride in a park, but you cannot see
> that, and will start an argument with a lamppost to state your point.

You seem to miss the central point, which is the fact that this case
reflects a much greater malaise, and if the interests of cyclists can
be disregarded in such relatively minor issues such as this, they have
no chance of bringing about wider scale change.

[David Hansen]

On 7 Jan 2007 00:12:14 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

>My experience of working in local government convinced me that local
>authorities will use almost any pretext to side with the anti-cycling
>Nimbies, even when doing so costs them a lot of money and the 'antis'
>are in a small minority. For example, my local authority, despite their
>legal obligation to 'protect and assert rights of way' sided with a
>local landowner in an attempt to downgrade a local bridleway to
>footpath status. This was opposed by local cycling and equestrian
>bodies but the authority then employed a specialist lawyer at a
>reported £200 and hour to fight for closure and forced a 2 week public
>enquiry on the issue.

In my view the problem is larger. In general council officials and
councillors are arrogant and believe in the decide then defend
approach to their activities.

A spectacular example near here is the case of the illegal waste
dump at Kaimes. This operated for over a decade without planning
permission. Although the council are very keen on enforcing planning
rules (and their own whims) on little people [1] they showed a very
different approach with regard to this dump, which they were a major
customer of, operated by a large company. It was claimed that this
business relationship had no bearing on the council's actions, but I
don't believe this for a second.

In their arrogance the council stonewalled people objecting to the
dump. This forced the objectors to spend huge amounts of time and
risk their own money in taking legal action on the issue. Had they
been reasonable people the council could have easily avoided this
hassle for the objectors by being open. Instead the council decided
to continue in their arrogant way and only revealed the lack of
planning permission at the last moment. That was the situation when
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/364129.stm was written.

After that the council adopted a different approach. They finally
started doing their job and ordered the dump to be closed. The large
company concerned, who according to their spokesman, "would not work
outside the law", appealed. They failed in this appeal, though the
appeal did allow them a further couple of years of dumping.

The last I heard, a few years ago, removal of a mound of waste had
been stopped due to badgers and the owners were trying to put a
waste separation plant on the site.

It would be nice if the City of Edinburgh Council had learned from
this experience, but they have not. They still continue in their
arrogant ways. Several times recently they have tried the mushroom
management approach with communities about waste stations.
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=970332006 is an
example. As a result the uproar when their plans are dragged out of
them is larger then it would be had they been open.

The sad thing is that some of the councillors are sensible people,
who I have a great deal of respect for, but who appear unable or
unwilling to control their officials. As a result of this and a
fairer voting system several of them may well be booted out in a few
months time, but the arrogant officials will remain and it is not
clear that a new political party or parties will be any better at
keeping control of them.

This is the council which has banned me from cycling to work, but I
thought much the same about them before they did that.



[1] three examples are ordering someone to remove solar panels,
ordering someone to remove a (fairly substantial) children's play
house and the advertising board police. Their zeal for being
officious with little people is in marked contrast with their being
in bed with a large company at Kaimes.


--
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

[vernon]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> vernon wrote:
>
>>
>> There's still no evidence that you are familiar with the patch of grass
>> called the Stray.
>
> Of course I know the Stray, do you?

There's very little evidence that you do from your postings.

Clearly you don'y bother to assimilate the information posted by others in
your dogged pursuit if the inconsequential.
>
>> If someone is so determined as to
>> want to have their cycle in the middle of the Stray, what is wrong with
>> getting off and pushing it? It's not that much different from
>> pedestrianised zones in city centres.
>
> And why should cyclists have to 'get off and push' in pedestrianised
> areas? This is not expected in continental Europe and even DfT guidance
> recommends that cyclists be allowed to ride through pedestrianised
> areas.
>
>> So few people are genuinely
>> inconvenienced by the no cycling rule that to spend money on granting
>> access
>> is an expensive folly.
>
> Amending the bye-law would cost peanuts, and I feel that if 250 people
> can turn out in support of a chnage in the bye-law, it is far from
> 'few' people who feel that they would benefit from access.

And what percentage of the Harrogate population does that represent?

[Andrew Price]

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 10:55:28 +0000, David Hansen
> wrote:

[---]

>The sad thing is that some of the councillors are sensible people,
>who I have a great deal of respect for, but who appear unable or
>unwilling to control their officials.

This reminds me of the European Parliament, and its Commission in
Brussels ...

[Nigel Wade]

Jim Ley wrote:

> On 6 Jan 2007 07:55:25 -0800, wrote:
>
>>Jim Ley wrote:
>>>
>>> ... you would also need to change the paths - paint to seperate
>>> from pedestrians, ensuring the quality of the path was suitable etc.
>>> given the number of complaints about poor quality facilities on this
>>> forum, I'm surprised to see calls for no money at all to be spent on
>>> providing them.
>>>

Why can't the council simply change the legal status of the paths from footpath
to bridleway? Tarmac and paint are not a necessary part of cycling, only
driving.

>>
>>Why? I would see access on the Stray being mainly of recreational use,
>>perhaps giving parents somewhere pleasant to ride with their kids.
>
> They have that now according to the councillor, no need to waste money
> changing it.
>

Are you seriously proposing that cyclists should ignore the law and cycle where
they want simply because that law is not being enforced, and that adults, by
doing so with their children, encourage children to do likewise?

Or are you a troll?


--
Nigel Wade