Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

[Marie]

http://tinyurl.com/3x5q46d

TOTNES couple Rod and Angela Mears have been saddled with a row over a
pavement that bike riders are turning into an unofficial cycle path.

For years the couple have placed pots and plants outside their home at
The Toll House on the busy Kingsbridge Hill to make it clear where
their property ends and the public footpath begins.

But now cyclists who ride on the public pavement rather than the road
have started complaining that the pots narrow the pavement too much
and don't give them enough room to ride past the couple's home.

[Mr Pounder]

"Marie" > wrote in message
...
> http://tinyurl.com/3x5q46d
>
> TOTNES couple Rod and Angela Mears have been saddled with a row over a
> pavement that bike riders are turning into an unofficial cycle path.
>
> For years the couple have placed pots and plants outside their home at
> The Toll House on the busy Kingsbridge Hill to make it clear where
> their property ends and the public footpath begins.
>
> But now cyclists who ride on the public pavement rather than the road
> have started complaining that the pots narrow the pavement too much
> and don't give them enough room to ride past the couple's home.

My wife once drove out of a driveway and was hit by a cyclist who was
belting along on the footpath.
Yes I know, six of one and half a dozen etc.
Response from the scum cyclist when he got back on his bike was, "**** off"
Damage to her car - a new front wing.

Mr Pounder
>

[[email protected]]

On Oct 23, 9:36*pm, "Mr Pounder" >
wrote:
> "Marie" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/3x5q46d
>
> > TOTNES couple Rod and Angela Mears have been saddled with a row over a
> > pavement that bike riders are turning into an unofficial cycle path.
>
> > For years the couple have placed pots and plants outside their home at
> > The Toll House on the busy Kingsbridge Hill to make it clear where
> > their property ends and the public footpath begins.
>
> > But now cyclists who ride on the public pavement rather than the road
> > have started complaining that the pots narrow the pavement too much
> > and don't give them enough room to ride past the couple's home.
>
> My wife once drove out of a driveway and was hit by a cyclist who was
> belting along on the footpath.
> Yes I know, six of one and half a dozen etc.
> Response from the scum cyclist when he got back on his bike was, "**** off"
> Damage to her car - a new front wing.
>
> Mr Pounder
>
>

Perhaps she should drive faster.

[Mr Pounder]

> wrote in message
...
On Oct 23, 9:36 pm, "Mr Pounder" >
wrote:
> "Marie" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/3x5q46d
>
> > TOTNES couple Rod and Angela Mears have been saddled with a row over a
> > pavement that bike riders are turning into an unofficial cycle path.
>
> > For years the couple have placed pots and plants outside their home at
> > The Toll House on the busy Kingsbridge Hill to make it clear where
> > their property ends and the public footpath begins.
>
> > But now cyclists who ride on the public pavement rather than the road
> > have started complaining that the pots narrow the pavement too much
> > and don't give them enough room to ride past the couple's home.
>
> My wife once drove out of a driveway and was hit by a cyclist who was
> belting along on the footpath.
> Yes I know, six of one and half a dozen etc.
> Response from the scum cyclist when he got back on his bike was, "****
> off"
> Damage to her car - a new front wing.
>
> Mr Pounder
>
>

Perhaps she should drive faster.


Out of a driveway?

Mr Pounder

[Squashme]

On 23 Oct, 20:31, Marie > wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/3x5q46d
>
> TOTNES couple Rod and Angela Mears have been saddled with a row over a
> pavement that bike riders are turning into an unofficial cycle path.
>
> For years the couple have placed pots and plants outside their home at
> The Toll House on the busy Kingsbridge Hill to make it clear where
> their property ends and the public footpath begins.
>
> But now cyclists who ride on the public pavement rather than the road
> have started complaining that the pots narrow the pavement too much
> and don't give them enough room to ride past the couple's home.

It would be an expense and possibly ugly, but can't they put fixed
stanchions on their boundary?

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Squashme wrote:
> On 23 Oct, 20:31, Marie > wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/3x5q46d
>>
>> TOTNES couple Rod and Angela Mears have been saddled with a row over
>> a pavement that bike riders are turning into an unofficial cycle
>> path.
>>
>> For years the couple have placed pots and plants outside their home
>> at The Toll House on the busy Kingsbridge Hill to make it clear where
>> their property ends and the public footpath begins.
>>
>> But now cyclists who ride on the public pavement rather than the road
>> have started complaining that the pots narrow the pavement too much
>> and don't give them enough room to ride past the couple's home.
>
> It would be an expense and possibly ugly, but can't they put fixed
> stanchions on their boundary?

with barbed wire or razor wire?

[Mr. Benn[_7_]]

"Mr Pounder" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Marie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://tinyurl.com/3x5q46d
>>
>> TOTNES couple Rod and Angela Mears have been saddled with a row over a
>> pavement that bike riders are turning into an unofficial cycle path.
>>
>> For years the couple have placed pots and plants outside their home at
>> The Toll House on the busy Kingsbridge Hill to make it clear where
>> their property ends and the public footpath begins.
>>
>> But now cyclists who ride on the public pavement rather than the road
>> have started complaining that the pots narrow the pavement too much
>> and don't give them enough room to ride past the couple's home.
>
> My wife once drove out of a driveway and was hit by a cyclist who was
> belting along on the footpath.
> Yes I know, six of one and half a dozen etc.
> Response from the scum cyclist when he got back on his bike was, "****
> off"
> Damage to her car - a new front wing.

Did the cyclist leave his insurance details?

[Simon Mason]

"Marie" > wrote in message
...
> http://tinyurl.com/3x5q46d
>
> TOTNES couple Rod and Angela Mears have been saddled with a row over a
> pavement that bike riders are turning into an unofficial cycle path.
>
> For years the couple have placed pots and plants outside their home at
> The Toll House on the busy Kingsbridge Hill to make it clear where
> their property ends and the public footpath begins.
>
> But now cyclists who ride on the public pavement rather than the road
> have started complaining that the pots narrow the pavement too much
> and don't give them enough room to ride past the couple's home.

Oddly enough, the local Council said this:

"Totnes town and district councillor Judy Westacott is adamant that the
pavement has never been designated as a cycle path, although cyclists are
*encouraged* to use it rather than the extremely busy main road".

Strange.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

[Mr Pounder]

"Mr. Benn" > wrote in message
...
> "Mr Pounder" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Marie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> http://tinyurl.com/3x5q46d
>>>
>>> TOTNES couple Rod and Angela Mears have been saddled with a row over a
>>> pavement that bike riders are turning into an unofficial cycle path.
>>>
>>> For years the couple have placed pots and plants outside their home at
>>> The Toll House on the busy Kingsbridge Hill to make it clear where
>>> their property ends and the public footpath begins.
>>>
>>> But now cyclists who ride on the public pavement rather than the road
>>> have started complaining that the pots narrow the pavement too much
>>> and don't give them enough room to ride past the couple's home.
>>
>> My wife once drove out of a driveway and was hit by a cyclist who was
>> belting along on the footpath.
>> Yes I know, six of one and half a dozen etc.
>> Response from the scum cyclist when he got back on his bike was, "****
>> off"
>> Damage to her car - a new front wing.
>
> Did the cyclist leave his insurance details?

LOL

Mr Pounder
>
>

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Phil W Lee wrote:
>
> Seems to me like an admission of negligence (failure to maintain the
> highway in a safe condition for vehicular traffic) as well as an
> incitement to break the law.

Looking at the site, there'd be plenty of room on the road for cyclists
and cars going up hill if they got rid of the wide band of hatched
no-mans land in the middle of the road.

Tony

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 12:31:04 -0700 (PDT), Marie
> wrote:

>http://tinyurl.com/3x5q46d
>
>TOTNES couple Rod and Angela Mears have been saddled with a row over a
>pavement that bike riders are turning into an unofficial cycle path.
>
>For years the couple have placed pots and plants outside their home at
>The Toll House on the busy Kingsbridge Hill to make it clear where
>their property ends and the public footpath begins.
>
>But now cyclists who ride on the public pavement rather than the road
>have started complaining that the pots narrow the pavement too much
>and don't give them enough room to ride past the couple's home.

Streetview:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?t=k&z=20&layer=c&panoid=XkoiFtBQ-2AUYJvN-FRCGQ&cbp=13,86.77,,1,13.45

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Marie wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/3x5q46d
>
> TOTNES couple Rod and Angela Mears have been saddled with a row over a
> pavement that bike riders are turning into an unofficial cycle path.
>
> For years the couple have placed pots and plants outside their home at
> The Toll House on the busy Kingsbridge Hill to make it clear where
> their property ends and the public footpath begins.
>
> But now cyclists who ride on the public pavement rather than the road
> have started complaining that the pots narrow the pavement too much
> and don't give them enough room to ride past the couple's home.

IMHO they have absolutely no right to complain "It would be no problem
whatsoever if some of the cyclists were a bit more courteous when asked
to slow down," she said.

"There is nothing there to say that it is a cycle path. You can
understand them wanting to use it, but at the end of the day it is not
legal, and very least they can do is to be civil."

In my view, the illegality of riding on the path and the apparent
arroganceof the cyclists doing so don't do any cyclists any favours and
bring us all into disrepute.

Shame too on the council who are encouraging cyclists to break the law
....


--
Paul - xxx

'96/97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
'96/97 Dyna-Tech Cro mo comp

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 24/10/2010 19:27, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 12:31:04 -0700 (PDT), Marie
> > wrote:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/3x5q46d
>>
>> TOTNES couple Rod and Angela Mears have been saddled with a row over a
>> pavement that bike riders are turning into an unofficial cycle path.
>>
>> For years the couple have placed pots and plants outside their home at
>> The Toll House on the busy Kingsbridge Hill to make it clear where
>> their property ends and the public footpath begins.
>>
>> But now cyclists who ride on the public pavement rather than the road
>> have started complaining that the pots narrow the pavement too much
>> and don't give them enough room to ride past the couple's home.
>
> Streetview:
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?t=k&z=20&layer=c&panoid=XkoiFtBQ-2AUYJvN-FRCGQ&cbp=13,86.77,,1,13.45

The posts serve the purpose of making sure that anyone passing - whether by
legal or illegal means - stays out in the clear channel, and does not make
the mistake of trying to walk - or cycle - into the property's bay window.
And they may keep some people away from the windows, for an improvement in
privacy.

It might be a good idea for the occupant(s) to also paint the tarmac where it
is on their property.

[Mr Pounder]

"Paul - xxx" > wrote in message
...
> Marie wrote:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/3x5q46d
>>
>> TOTNES couple Rod and Angela Mears have been saddled with a row over a
>> pavement that bike riders are turning into an unofficial cycle path.
>>
>> For years the couple have placed pots and plants outside their home at
>> The Toll House on the busy Kingsbridge Hill to make it clear where
>> their property ends and the public footpath begins.
>>
>> But now cyclists who ride on the public pavement rather than the road
>> have started complaining that the pots narrow the pavement too much
>> and don't give them enough room to ride past the couple's home.
>
> IMHO they have absolutely no right to complain "It would be no problem
> whatsoever if some of the cyclists were a bit more courteous when asked
> to slow down," she said.
>
> "There is nothing there to say that it is a cycle path. You can
> understand them wanting to use it, but at the end of the day it is not
> legal, and very least they can do is to be civil."
>
> In my view, the illegality of riding on the path and the apparent
> arroganceof the cyclists doing so don't do any cyclists any favours and
> bring us all into disrepute.

"Bring"?
Too late for "bring".
>
> Shame too on the council who are encouraging cyclists to break the law
> ...
>
>
> --
> Paul - xxx
>
> '96/97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
> '96/97 Dyna-Tech Cro mo comp

[Squashme]

On 24 Oct, 19:59, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Marie wrote:
> >http://tinyurl.com/3x5q46d
>
> > TOTNES couple Rod and Angela Mears have been saddled with a row over a
> > pavement that bike riders are turning into an unofficial cycle path.
>
> > For years the couple have placed pots and plants outside their home at
> > The Toll House on the busy Kingsbridge Hill to make it clear where
> > their property ends and the public footpath begins.
>
> > But now cyclists who ride on the public pavement rather than the road
> > have started complaining that the pots narrow the pavement too much
> > and don't give them enough room to ride past the couple's home.
>
> IMHO they have absolutely no right to complain "It would be no problem
> whatsoever if some of the cyclists were a bit more courteous when asked
> to slow down," she said.
>
> "There is nothing there to say that it is a cycle path. You can
> understand them wanting to use it, but at the end of the day it is not
> legal, and very least they can do is to be civil."
>
> In my view, the illegality of riding on the path and the apparent
> arroganceof the cyclists doing so don't do any cyclists any favours and
> bring us all into disrepute.
>

Us all? Not me. I don't do it, and I don't defend it. They are not my
people and I have no connection with them. I would be quite happy if
the householders shoved a broomstick out the window and knocked the
cyclists off, but I expect that would just be feeding frenzy for the
lawyers.

This is a country road. I don't understand why any cyclists would do
this, even allowing for the fact that motorists drive like lemmings
out of hell on them. ("the high death toll on rural roads, where, in
2007, 69% of car crash fatalities took place.")

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

Mr Pounder wrote:
> "Paul - xxx" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Marie wrote:
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/3x5q46d
>>>
>>> TOTNES couple Rod and Angela Mears have been saddled with a row
>>> over a pavement that bike riders are turning into an unofficial
>>> cycle path. For years the couple have placed pots and plants outside
>>> their home
>>> at The Toll House on the busy Kingsbridge Hill to make it clear
>>> where their property ends and the public footpath begins.
>>>
>>> But now cyclists who ride on the public pavement rather than the
>>> road have started complaining that the pots narrow the pavement too
>>> much and don't give them enough room to ride past the couple's home.
>>
>> IMHO they have absolutely no right to complain "It would be no
>> problem whatsoever if some of the cyclists were a bit more courteous
>> when asked to slow down," she said.
>>
>> "There is nothing there to say that it is a cycle path. You can
>> understand them wanting to use it, but at the end of the day it is
>> not legal, and very least they can do is to be civil."
>>
>> In my view, the illegality of riding on the path and the apparent
>> arroganceof the cyclists doing so don't do any cyclists any favours
>> and bring us all into disrepute.
>
> "Bring"?
> Too late for "bring".

And they wonder why the term 'lycra lout' entered the lexicon.


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

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
> wrote:

>This is a country road. I don't understand why any cyclists would do
>this, even allowing for the fact that motorists drive like lemmings
>out of hell on them. ("the high death toll on rural roads, where, in
>2007, 69% of car crash fatalities took place.")

Looking at Google Maps, Kingsbridge Hill and "Old Road" offers a
quieter alternative to the A361 between Totnes and Harbertonford
except for a small section including that bit of footway.

I can understand that a nervous cyclist might prefer to use the
footway to the road.

[mileburner]

"Squashme" > wrote in message
...
> On 24 Oct, 19:59, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>>
>> IMHO they have absolutely no right to complain "It would be no problem
>> whatsoever if some of the cyclists were a bit more courteous when asked
>> to slow down," she said.
>>
>> "There is nothing there to say that it is a cycle path. You can
>> understand them wanting to use it, but at the end of the day it is not
>> legal, and very least they can do is to be civil."
>>
>> In my view, the illegality of riding on the path and the apparent
>> arroganceof the cyclists doing so don't do any cyclists any favours and
>> bring us all into disrepute.
>>
>
> Us all? Not me. I don't do it, and I don't defend it. They are not my
> people and I have no connection with them. I would be quite happy if
> the householders shoved a broomstick out the window and knocked the
> cyclists off, but I expect that would just be feeding frenzy for the
> lawyers.

Me neither and if I was on a road which I was too frightened to cycle on I
would get off and walk. When cyclists use footpaths such as these, the
traffic will not slow down for them and they run the risk of coming off the
path and falling into the road. In that situation, you do not want 50 or 60
mph traffic passing at the time. Cyclists would be far better off riding on
the road, forcing traffic to slow down and taking more care. Footpath riding
is a cop-out to gutter riding (which also ought to be illegal).

> This is a country road. I don't understand why any cyclists would do
> this, even allowing for the fact that motorists drive like lemmings
> out of hell on them. ("the high death toll on rural roads, where, in
> 2007, 69% of car crash fatalities took place.")

Because the have a misplaced sense of danger and a misunderstanding of risk.

[JMS]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:30:24 +0100, Tom Crispin
> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
> wrote:
>
>>This is a country road. I don't understand why any cyclists would do
>>this, even allowing for the fact that motorists drive like lemmings
>>out of hell on them. ("the high death toll on rural roads, where, in
>>2007, 69% of car crash fatalities took place.")
>
>Looking at Google Maps, Kingsbridge Hill and "Old Road" offers a
>quieter alternative to the A361 between Totnes and Harbertonford
>except for a small section including that bit of footway.
>
>I can understand that a nervous cyclist might prefer to use the
>footway to the road.



No doubt you can "understand" cyclists breaking other laws as well.

--

Per billion passenger kilometres

Car KSI 18
Cycle KSI 541
Pedestrian 358

(KSI : Killed or Seriously Injured)
Dft 2008 FIgures

Who says cycling is safer than walking?

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:01:03 +0100, JMS >
wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:30:24 +0100, Tom Crispin
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
> wrote:
>>
>>>This is a country road. I don't understand why any cyclists would do
>>>this, even allowing for the fact that motorists drive like lemmings
>>>out of hell on them. ("the high death toll on rural roads, where, in
>>>2007, 69% of car crash fatalities took place.")
>>
>>Looking at Google Maps, Kingsbridge Hill and "Old Road" offers a
>>quieter alternative to the A361 between Totnes and Harbertonford
>>except for a small section including that bit of footway.
>>
>>I can understand that a nervous cyclist might prefer to use the
>>footway to the road.
>
>
>
>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:
"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

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:47:04 +0100, "mileburner"
> wrote:

>> This is a country road. I don't understand why any cyclists would do
>> this, even allowing for the fact that motorists drive like lemmings
>> out of hell on them. ("the high death toll on rural roads, where, in
>> 2007, 69% of car crash fatalities took place.")
>
>Because the have a misplaced sense of danger and a misunderstanding of risk.

Perhaps - but in that case the law has a misplaced sense of justice.

A driver who kills a cyclist who is riding correctly on the road is
likely to be charged with causing death by careless driving; a driver
who kills a cyclist who is riding incorrectly on the pavement is
likely to be charged with causing death by dangerous driving. The
latter is a far more serious offence and is likely to lead to a
custodial sentence.

[mileburner]

"Tom Crispin" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:47:04 +0100, "mileburner"
> > wrote:
>
>>> This is a country road. I don't understand why any cyclists would do
>>> this, even allowing for the fact that motorists drive like lemmings
>>> out of hell on them. ("the high death toll on rural roads, where, in
>>> 2007, 69% of car crash fatalities took place.")
>>
>>Because the have a misplaced sense of danger and a misunderstanding of
>>risk.
>
> Perhaps - but in that case the law has a misplaced sense of justice.
>
> A driver who kills a cyclist who is riding correctly on the road is
> likely to be charged with causing death by careless driving;

Fair enough.

a driver
> who kills a cyclist who is riding incorrectly on the pavement is
> likely to be charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

Not so fair enough, at least not in all situations. Lets say I am turning a
car into an access road or driveway and need to cross the pavement/footpath.
I indicate, I slow down, I check carefully for pedestians coming either way
(including runners with a maximum expected speed of about 8mph). Lets also
say the visibility is obscured by trees or parked vehicles, I proceed
cautiously (****ing off the driver behind) and wham! A psycho pavement
cyclist whacks into the wing, goes over the bonnet and breaks his neck on
landing.

Not necessarily dangerous driving when I have taken all reasonable steps to
avoid any collision.

The
> latter is a far more serious offence and is likely to lead to a
> custodial sentence.

In the above scenario? I don't think so. I would be appalled if it was.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Paul - xxx wrote:

> In my view, the illegality of riding on the path and the apparent
> arroganceof the cyclists doing so don't do any cyclists any favours
> and bring us all into disrepute.

To clarify what I posted a tad ...

By saying "bring us all into disrepute" I meant that any cyclists using
the pathway and being discouteous as reported, simply makes
none-cyclists think we're all like that and gives them some ammunition
to use against us.


--
Paul - xxx

'96/97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
'96/97 Dyna-Tech Cro mo comp

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

mileburner wrote:
>
> Not so fair enough, at least not in all situations. Lets say I am turning a
> car into an access road or driveway and need to cross the pavement/footpath.
> I indicate, I slow down, I check carefully for pedestians coming either way
> (including runners with a maximum expected speed of about 8mph). Lets also
> say the visibility is obscured by trees or parked vehicles, I proceed
> cautiously (****ing off the driver behind) and wham! A psycho pavement
> cyclist whacks into the wing, goes over the bonnet and breaks his neck on
> landing.
>
> Not necessarily dangerous driving when I have taken all reasonable steps to
> avoid any collision.
>


And what if that pavement turned out to be a totally legal shared used
cycle facility but you hadn't noticed (its often pretty hard to spot
them from the road). Do you not proceed cautiously and look far enough
up and down in each direction as you would if crossing another
carriageway just in case?

Tony

[mileburner]

"Tony Raven" > wrote in message
...
> mileburner wrote:
>>
>> Not so fair enough, at least not in all situations. Lets say I am turning
>> a car into an access road or driveway and need to cross the
>> pavement/footpath. I indicate, I slow down, I check carefully for
>> pedestians coming either way (including runners with a maximum expected
>> speed of about 8mph). Lets also say the visibility is obscured by trees
>> or parked vehicles, I proceed cautiously (****ing off the driver behind)
>> and wham! A psycho pavement cyclist whacks into the wing, goes over the
>> bonnet and breaks his neck on landing.
>>
>> Not necessarily dangerous driving when I have taken all reasonable steps
>> to avoid any collision.
>>
>
>
> And what if that pavement turned out to be a totally legal shared used
> cycle facility but you hadn't noticed (its often pretty hard to spot them
> from the road). Do you not proceed cautiously and look far enough up and
> down in each direction as you would if crossing another carriageway just
> in case?

I do yes.

But I also think that if the cyclist is using a shared use cycle facility,
they should not be belting along it. If they want to ride fast, they should
stay off shared paths and use the road.

[JMS]

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.

It was in a letter to another MP - who chose to publish it.

If you have any evidence that that was how the Home Office wanted the
law to be interpreted and he told the Chief Constables that that was
the case - feel free to post it here.

I am not even aware that the Home Office *can* give guidance that the
law of the land is to be ignored.

If it was Parliament's intention that cyclists could pick and chose
when to obey that law then they would have made it clear in the
legislation.

[Colin McKenzie]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:27:29 +0100, Tom Crispin
> wrote:

> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?t=k&z=20&layer=c&panoid=XkoiFtBQ-2AUYJvN-FRCGQ&cbp=13,86.77,,1,13.45

Yeuk.

On the side where the house is, no problem - cyclists on road, drivers use
hatching to pass.

On the other side, they've cunningly made it illegal to give enough space
to be safe when overtaking any cyclist doing over 10 mph.

When will transport planners be required to consider the possibility that
bikes might use their roads?

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[JMS]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 23:13:58 +0100, "Colin McKenzie"
> wrote:




>and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
>Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.



Still spouting two lots of ******** there I see.

--

Per billion passenger kilometres

Car KSI 18
Cycle KSI 541
Pedestrian 358

(KSI : Killed or Seriously Injured)
Dft 2008 FIgures

Who says cycling is safer than walking?

[JNugent[_7_]]

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?

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

Colin McKenzie wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:27:29 +0100, Tom Crispin
> > wrote:
>
>> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?t=k&z=20&layer=c&panoid=XkoiFtBQ-2AUYJvN-FRCGQ&cbp=13,86.77,,1,13.45
>
> Yeuk.
>
> On the side where the house is, no problem - cyclists on road,
> drivers use hatching to pass.
>
> On the other side, they've cunningly made it illegal to give enough
> space to be safe when overtaking any cyclist doing over 10 mph.
>
> When will transport planners be required to consider the possibility
> that bikes might use their roads?

When the sponging freeloading cyclists pay to use the roads?


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

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:48:17 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
> wrote:

>Colin McKenzie wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:27:29 +0100, Tom Crispin
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?t=k&z=20&layer=c&panoid=XkoiFtBQ-2AUYJvN-FRCGQ&cbp=13,86.77,,1,13.45
>>
>> Yeuk.
>>
>> On the side where the house is, no problem - cyclists on road,
>> drivers use hatching to pass.
>>
>> On the other side, they've cunningly made it illegal to give enough
>> space to be safe when overtaking any cyclist doing over 10 mph.
>>
>> When will transport planners be required to consider the possibility
>> that bikes might use their roads?
>
>When the sponging freeloading cyclists pay to use the roads?

When they reinsate that house to its original purpose: as a toll
house?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bridgemarkertim/4312227176/in/set-72157622780824857/

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:20:45 +0100, JNugent >
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/bridgemarkertim/4312227176/in/set-72157622780824857/

[Steve Walker[_2_]]

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.

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

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=c&cbll=51.474811,-0.025261&cbp=12,33.35,,2,14.71

[Steve Walker[_2_]]

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.

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

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?

And does the 1835 law also prohibit the pushing of supermarket
trolleys along the footway?

[Steve Walker[_2_]]

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.

[mileburner]

"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.

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...

[Steve Walker[_2_]]

mileburner wrote:
> "Steve Walker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.

I don't think most drivers are 'angry' or 'lunatic' any more than cyclists
or other road users are. However it's clear that peace & harmony are
unlikely to be found on congested roads during a time of peaking economic &
social pressure.

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. However that doesn't justify
those vehicles moving onto the pavements, where they will in turn intimidate
and frighten pedestrians.

Perhaps we need to experiment with a widened middle lane for slow-moving
vehicles, instead of cycle lanes. Obviously there would be a fair bit of
demolition & widening required to achieve a decent amount of this, but we
need the jobs and the end result would be much safer.

[S[_2_]]

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.

[Clive George]

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.

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

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...
>

[Adrian]

"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.

[Steve Walker[_2_]]

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....?

[Steve Walker[_2_]]

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.

[Clive George]

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?

[JNugent[_7_]]

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/bridgemarkertim/4312227176/in/set-72157622780824857/

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?

[JNugent[_7_]]

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=c&cbll=51.474811,-0.025261&cbp=12,33.35,,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".

[JNugent[_7_]]

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.

[JNugent[_7_]]

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.

[JNugent[_7_]]

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?

[Steve Walker[_2_]]

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.

[Clive George]

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.

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

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.

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

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.

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

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.

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

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.

[mileburner]

"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.

[Adrian]

"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.

[Squashme]

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?

[Jeff[_18_]]

>> 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 not changed at all, the risk to pedestrians from
cyclists remains the same as it was in 1835.

The risk to cyclists on the roads may have changed, but that does not
give cyclists the right to endanger pedestrians in order to mitigate
that risk.

Jeff

[mileburner]

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

>> 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.

Absolutely not, but the root cause of the perceived need for cycle
facilities comes from drivers and in particular careless, inconsiderate and
incompetent drivers. If we did not have these careles, inconsiderate and
incompetent drivers there would be no perceived need for separate cycle
facilities and drivers themselves would not be demanding that we had them.

>> 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?

The exemption for pre-test learner drivers is that they may drive on the
roads *if* they display an L plate *and* are under supervision. Children of
any age *may* ride on the road anyway. I do not however think it is sensible
to allow an untrained child on the public highway and especially so if they
are not under direct supervision.

>> 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.

Attitudes are not exclusive to any particular group of road user...

[Adrian]

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

>>> 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.

> Absolutely not, but the root cause of the perceived need for cycle
> facilities comes from drivers and in particular careless, inconsiderate
> and incompetent drivers. If we did not have these careles, inconsiderate
> and incompetent drivers there would be no perceived need for separate
> cycle facilities and drivers themselves would not be demanding that we
> had them.

You appear to be suggesting that we should accept arrogance and
incompetence, and to base our road rules on the inevitability of it -
rather than assuming a base level of competence and penalising
infractions of it?

>>> 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?

> The exemption for pre-test learner drivers is that they may drive on the
> roads *if* they display an L plate *and* are under supervision. Children
> of any age *may* ride on the road anyway.

Motorcyclists.

> I do not however think it is sensible to allow an untrained child on
> the public highway and especially so if they are not under direct
> supervision.

Fine. So let's go with the motorcycling situation, and require an off-the-
road CBT (I've probably still got my Cycling Proficiency certificate
somewhere. Riding round and round the primary school playground) before
cyclists can legally take to the road.

Is that what you were suggesting we should introduce?

>>> 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.

> Attitudes are not exclusive to any particular group of road user...

Very true. So why use them to inform transport planning decisions?

[mileburner]

"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
> "mileburner" > gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
>
>>>> 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.
>
>> Absolutely not, but the root cause of the perceived need for cycle
>> facilities comes from drivers and in particular careless, inconsiderate
>> and incompetent drivers. If we did not have these careles, inconsiderate
>> and incompetent drivers there would be no perceived need for separate
>> cycle facilities and drivers themselves would not be demanding that we
>> had them.
>
> You appear to be suggesting that we should accept arrogance and
> incompetence, and to base our road rules on the inevitability of it -
> rather than assuming a base level of competence and penalising
> infractions of it?

I am not suggesting it, but pointing out that this is the status quo. There
seems to me to be strong suggestions fram various quarters that to alleviate
the problem we allow more pavement cycling and mark out cycle lanes where
that is not possible.

>>>> 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?
>
>> The exemption for pre-test learner drivers is that they may drive on the
>> roads *if* they display an L plate *and* are under supervision. Children
>> of any age *may* ride on the road anyway.
>
> Motorcyclists.

Are resticted by the power of the vehicle and as I understand it, now must
pass some kind of off-road testing before being allowed on the road. We are
however talking about *young* children who slowly ride small light bikes
whose parents often demand that they ride on the pavement anyway. And
perhaps adults moving at slow speed, over short distences where the
inconvenience to anyone else ought to be nil.

>> I do not however think it is sensible to allow an untrained child on
>> the public highway and especially so if they are not under direct
>> supervision.
>
> Fine. So let's go with the motorcycling situation, and require an off-the-
> road CBT (I've probably still got my Cycling Proficiency certificate
> somewhere. Riding round and round the primary school playground) before
> cyclists can legally take to the road.

Sounds fine to me! I never allowed my kids to ride on the road unless under
direct supervision and control. Any parent who allows an untrained
unsupervised child on the road is being rather careless in their
responsibilities. As I have already stated, many parents demand that their
children ride on the pavement and therefore demand that their children break
the law.

> Is that what you were suggesting we should introduce?

It would not be a bad thing but I do not think it is going to happen so we
can all dream on...

>>>> 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.
>
>> Attitudes are not exclusive to any particular group of road user...
>
> Very true. So why use them to inform transport planning decisions?

That's just the way it is - it seems.

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 27/10/2010 12:41, Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Steve > considered Tue, 26 Oct 2010
> 20:08:40 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> 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. However that doesn't justify
>> those vehicles moving onto the pavements, where they will in turn intimidate
>> and frighten pedestrians.
>>
> The obvious alternative is to restrict the motor vehicles so that they
> can only use those roads where they do not present a threat to
> existing traffic. We do have such roads, although the motorway
> network would probably need extending in some areas to bring it within
> reasonable (ie non-motorised or public transport) reach of all
> destinations. Then you just have a park& ride at all the motorway
> junctions, where people can transfer to public or non-motorised
> transport.

That's either:

(a) a stupid joke, or

(b) a sign of your very odd antagonistic attitude to your fellow citizens.

But are you noted for your sense of humour?

[JMS]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 04:03:08 +0100, Tom Crispin
> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:20:45 +0100, JNugent >
>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/bridgemarkertim/4312227176/in/set-72157622780824857/



Unless of course they stepped on to the footpath by leaving the exit
of their property to the RHS of the house which has the dropped curb.

[JMS]

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.
>



Excellent - I quite agree.

This example (above) is rolled out every couple of months by cyclists
who take it as some authority that it is OK to ride on a pavement.

[JMS]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:12:25 +0100, Tom Crispin
> wrote:

<snip>


>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=c&cbll=51.474811,-0.025261&cbp=12,33.35,,2,14.71



Any cyclist on a pavement is breaking the law (unless signed
otherwise).

If a cyclist is so "nervous" that they have to ride on the pavement -
then they should not be cycling on the public highway - full stop


I can assure you that many pedestrians are very "nervous" about the
number of cyclists using pavements in an illegal and dangerous
fashion.

It is not something you - or anyone else - should encourage.

[JMS]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:16:21 +0100, 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?



This is totally OT - but you - Clive George - were the first to
respond to me when I first posted in URC - in an identical fashion as
to how you responded to SW above.

Your words to me (from memory) were:

"Oh dear - I feel that you are badly informed"

The rest is history.

[JMS]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:00:36 +0100, "mileburner"
> wrote:

<snip>



>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.
>



The answer of course is to get cyclists off the footpaths - and to
prohibit cycling on the roadway when there are cycle paths provided.

"Mandatory" cycle lanes need to be precisely that.

[mileburner]

"Phil W Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve Walker" > considered Tue, 26 Oct 2010
> 20:08:40 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>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. However that doesn't justify
>>those vehicles moving onto the pavements, where they will in turn
>>intimidate
>>and frighten pedestrians.
>>
> The obvious alternative is to restrict the motor vehicles so that they
> can only use those roads where they do not present a threat to
> existing traffic. We do have such roads, although the motorway
> network would probably need extending in some areas to bring it within
> reasonable (ie non-motorised or public transport) reach of all
> destinations. Then you just have a park & ride at all the motorway
> junctions, where people can transfer to public or non-motorised
> transport.

A quaint idea, but you seem to have overlooked the fact that the motoring
public hijacked the road network and assumed its exclusive use and ownership
long ago. It started around the late 50s early 60s when motoring started to
become cheap enough for the masses.

Nowadays, the privilige has been extended to the unemployed, those on
benefits and of course, handymen :-(

[JMS]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:09:32 -0700 (PDT), S >
wrote:

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


<snip>


>> 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.
--

Pyscholist Rule Number 6

In an argument - if the going gets really tough - fall back on the "But what about motorists, they are much worse ...."
It does no good to the actual argument - but it shows you up as a real prat - and hence you are living up to the psycholist creed.

[JNugent[_7_]]

Tom Crispin > wrote:

> > wrote:
>> On 25/10/2010 23:11, JMS wrote:
>>> 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?

I don't know. I'm talking about the very many houses there are in the UK with
front doors opening directly onto the footway. There are a lot of them -
possibly millions. Thera re also many shops and other high-street places of
business which answer to the same description. A sensible person would grasp
instinctively that it is wrong to cycle along any of them.

But you don't, apparently.

[Steve Walker[_2_]]

Squashme wrote:
> 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?

You mean the suggestion of a safe, intermediate lane for slower traffic?

"Perhaps we need to experiment with a widened middle lane for slow-moving
vehicles, instead of cycle lanes. Obviously there would be a fair bit of
demolition & widening required to achieve a decent amount of this, but we
need the jobs and the end result would be much safer."

You think that was insulting, do you? To whom, pray?

[Steve Walker[_2_]]

Clive George wrote:
> 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.

You're helping to reinforce a perception of cycling enthusiasts as
supercilious & arrogant people - Nigel Oldfield in Lycra It's an
unfortunate trait that some of you have - you just can't stop yourselves
from being needlessly, deliberately offensive. The real effect of that
will be felt by other cyclists, most of whom probably wouldn't support your
behaviour at all.

[Squashme]

On 27 Oct, 23:27, "Steve Walker" > wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > 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?
>
> You mean the suggestion of a safe, intermediate lane for slower traffic?
>
> "Perhaps we need to experiment with a widened middle lane for slow-moving
> vehicles, instead of cycle lanes. *Obviously there would be a fair bit of
> demolition & widening required to achieve a decent amount of this, but we
> need the jobs and the end result would be much safer."
>
> You think that was insulting, do you? * *To whom, pray?

"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. However that doesn't
justify
those vehicles moving onto the pavements, where they will in turn
intimidate
and frighten pedestrians."

I think that paragraph was insulting and I think that you meant it to
be.

[Clive George]

On 27/10/2010 23:37, Steve Walker wrote:
> Clive George wrote:
>> 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.
>
> You're helping to reinforce a perception of cycling enthusiasts as
> supercilious& arrogant people - Nigel Oldfield in Lycra It's an
> unfortunate trait that some of you have - you just can't stop yourselves
> from being needlessly, deliberately offensive. The real effect of that
> will be felt by other cyclists, most of whom probably wouldn't support your
> behaviour at all.

Oh, don't talk such utter nonsense.

You're the one who started off being needlessly, deliberately offensive.
Sort yourself out before you start on others.

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

mole****** wrote:
>
> A quaint idea, but you seem to have overlooked the fact that the
> motoring public hijacked the road network and assumed its exclusive
> use and ownership long ago. It started around the late 50s early 60s
> when motoring started to become cheap enough for the masses.

Oh dear. Another Daily Mail overdose from mole******. Surprising from a
Gironaught.

Of course, if you had any balls at all, you would make your employment
status public, but you obviously have something to hide

> Nowadays, the privilige has been extended to the unemployed, those on
> benefits and of course, handymen :-(

I've wondered why you have such a problem with the concept of a handyman.
At first I just put it down to your natural stupidity - as evidenced by your
posts here. You clearly do overdose on the Daily Mail.

Your bum chum Cwispin also has a problem with handymen, because he keeps
having homoerotic fantasies about tradesmen in public toilets, but with you
it's something else.

Then I put it down to your immaturity - after all, anyone who thinks a push
bike is a viable form of transport is a schoolboy who never grew up.

Then I considered that you keep getting beaten in simple arguments and made
to look foolish - that would clearly annoy someone educated beyond their
natural intelligence.

Which explains your tendency to attack everything apart from the argument.

But I've finally realised. What really annoys you about a handyman is that
you are a complete incompetant. You have no practical skills at all &
resent highly skilled people like me.

You don't know one end of a screwdriver from the other do you? You can't
put up a shelf without it falling down can you?

Does your missus deride you for this incompetance? I expect she does. That
must affect your Daily Mail man self image.

To summarise, you are just a complete ****** aren't you?


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

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

mileburner wrote:
> "Adrian" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "mileburner" > gurgled happily, sounding
>> much
>
>>> 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.
>
> Absolutely not, but the root cause of the perceived need for cycle
> facilities comes from drivers and in particular careless,
> inconsiderate and incompetent drivers. If we did not have these
> careles, inconsiderate and incompetent drivers there would be no
> perceived need for separate cycle facilities and drivers themselves
> would not be demanding that we had them.
>>> 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?
>
> The exemption for pre-test learner drivers is that they may drive on
> the roads *if* they display an L plate *and* are under supervision.
> Children of any age *may* ride on the road anyway. I do not however
> think it is sensible to allow an untrained child on the public
> highway and especially so if they are not under direct supervision.

Oh dear, mole****** makes a **** of himself again.

I do not however think it is sensible to allow an untrained adult cyclist on
the public highway and especially so if they are not under direct
supervision


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

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:56:26 +0100, JNugent >
wrote:

>Tom Crispin > wrote:
>
>> > wrote:
>>> On 25/10/2010 23:11, JMS wrote:
>>>> 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?
>
>I don't know. I'm talking about the very many houses there are in the UK with
>front doors opening directly onto the footway. There are a lot of them -
>possibly millions. Thera re also many shops and other high-street places of
>business which answer to the same description. A sensible person would grasp
>instinctively that it is wrong to cycle along any of them.
>
>But you don't, apparently.

Given that this thread was about a specific couple in a specific
house, I find it odd that you start talking about non-specific people
in non-specific houses.

[Adrian]

"Steve Walker" > gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

> Nigel Oldfield in Lycra

AAAAGH! YOU *******!

MINDBLEACH! NOW!

[Jeff[_18_]]

> A quaint idea, but you seem to have overlooked the fact that the motoring
> public hijacked the road network and assumed its exclusive use and ownership
> long ago.

So now your solution is for cyclists to hijack the pavements from the
pedestrians. It seems to undermine your argument somewhat!!

Jeff

[mileburner]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
>
>> A quaint idea, but you seem to have overlooked the fact that the motoring
>> public hijacked the road network and assumed its exclusive use and
>> ownership
>> long ago.
>
> So now your solution is for cyclists to hijack the pavements from the
> pedestrians. It seems to undermine your argument somewhat!!

Not at all.

Cyclists should not be intimidated into using pavements. They should get out
on to the main carriageway.

Cyclists using the pavement, shared use paths and cycle lanes are copping
out.

Frankly, I would like to see pavement cycling totally eradicated.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Oct 27, 8:44*am, Squashme > wrote:
> 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?

Well he did only refer to horse-drawn bicycles - I don't think there
are many users of them on this newsgroup that would be insulted by
it. Of course if he really meant to refer to all bicycles as
anachronisms then of course it is intentionally provocative on a
cycling newsgroup. Maybe he should clarify.

Colin

[Squashme]

On 28 Oct, 08:11, Tom Crispin > wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:56:26 +0100, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Tom Crispin > *wrote:
>
> >> > wrote:
> >>> On 25/10/2010 23:11, JMS wrote:
> >>>> 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?
>
> >I don't know. I'm talking about the very many houses there are in the UK with
> >front doors opening directly onto the footway. There are a lot of them -
> >possibly millions. Thera re also many shops and other high-street places of
> >business which answer to the same description. A sensible person would grasp
> >instinctively that it is wrong to cycle along any of them.
>
> >But you don't, apparently.
>
> Given that this thread was about a specific couple in a specific
> house, I find it odd that you start talking about non-specific people
> in non-specific houses.

He sometimes heads off from the specific and actual into "the
principle." I wonder why?

"Ah, that's all very well in practice, but how does it work out in
theory?"

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 28/10/2010 08:11, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:56:26 +0100, >
> wrote:
>
>> Tom > wrote:
>>
>>> > wrote:
>>>> On 25/10/2010 23:11, JMS wrote:
>>>>> Tom > 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?
>>
>> I don't know. I'm talking about the very many houses there are in the UK with
>> front doors opening directly onto the footway. There are a lot of them -
>> possibly millions. Thera re also many shops and other high-street places of
>> business which answer to the same description. A sensible person would grasp
>> instinctively that it is wrong to cycle along any of them.
>>
>> But you don't, apparently.
>
> Given that this thread was about a specific couple in a specific
> house, I find it odd that you start talking about non-specific people
> in non-specific houses.

The original post was about a house where some land which *appeared* to be
part of the footway, but was not, because it was part of the curtilage of the
property. There was a bay window occupying part of that piece of land. It was
clearly of little use to anyone passing by any means, and the occupier sought
to mark out his property in order to dissuade cyclists from cycling on it.

There would be at least two reasons for that AFAICS. One was that there might
be danger to pedestrians on the footway (which might include the occupiers).
Another was that privacy inside the house was compromised, though this could
be ameliorated by dissuading cyclists - and, it has to be said, pedestrians -
from using it. A third one might be that there is significant risk of
cosmetic damage to the exterior of the front of the property, including
breakage of windows as well as scraping.

If I were the occupier of that house, I would do what I could to prevent the
use of the private land adjacent to the wall of the house from being used by
anyone, let alone cyclists. This might involve some structure making cycling
impossible and walking very inconvenient. In an ideal world, a sign saying
"Private property" would be all that was required.

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

Tom Cwispin wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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?
>>
>> I don't know. I'm talking about the very many houses there are in
>> the UK with front doors opening directly onto the footway. There are
>> a lot of them - possibly millions. Thera re also many shops and
>> other high-street places of business which answer to the same
>> description. A sensible person would grasp instinctively that it is
>> wrong to cycle along any of them.
>>
>> But you don't, apparently.
>
> Given that this thread was about a specific couple in a specific
> house, I find it odd that you start talking about non-specific people
> in non-specific houses.

You would, you are a thick ****.


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

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

Squashme wrote:
> On 27 Oct, 23:27, "Steve Walker" > wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> You mean the suggestion of a safe, intermediate lane for slower
>> traffic?
>>
>> "Perhaps we need to experiment with a widened middle lane for
>> slow-moving vehicles, instead of cycle lanes. Obviously there would
>> be a fair bit of demolition & widening required to achieve a decent
>> amount of this, but we need the jobs and the end result would be
>> much safer."
>>
>> You think that was insulting, do you? To whom, pray?
>
> "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. However that doesn't
> justify
> those vehicles moving onto the pavements, where they will in turn
> intimidate
> and frighten pedestrians."
>
> I think that paragraph was insulting and I think that you meant it to
> be.

The paragraph was spot on.

Insulting is me calling you a thick ****. Actually no, thats simply an
accurate description you might not agree with, being a thick ****.


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

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

wrote:
> On Oct 27, 8:44 am, Squashme > wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Well he did only refer to horse-drawn bicycles - I don't think there
> are many users of them on this newsgroup that would be insulted by
> it.

Are you completely & utterly ****ing stupid? He didn't refer to horse-drawn
bicycles at all you idiot.

The reference was to horse-drawn vehicles & bicycles which are clearly two
separate things.

>Of course if he really meant to refer to all bicycles as
> anachronisms then of course it is intentionally provocative on a
> cycling newsgroup. Maybe he should clarify.

All bicycles are anachronisms. Relegated to childrens toys & completely
unsuitable as a form of transport - unless you are an immature schoolboy.


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

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

mileburner wrote:
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>> A quaint idea, but you seem to have overlooked the fact that the
>>> motoring public hijacked the road network and assumed its exclusive
>>> use and ownership
>>> long ago.
>>
>> So now your solution is for cyclists to hijack the pavements from the
>> pedestrians. It seems to undermine your argument somewhat!!

Mole****** doesn't really 'do' arguments. He spouts crap & then goes to
endless lengths to discredit anyone who reminds him of his inherent
stupidity.

>
> Not at all.
>
> Cyclists should not be intimidated into using pavements. They should
> get out on to the main carriageway.

Cyclists should realise they are using a childrens toy as a form of
transport & keep off the roads completely.

> Cyclists using the pavement, shared use paths and cycle lanes are
> copping out.
>
> Frankly, I would like to see pavement cycling totally eradicated.

As would most pedestrians who face terrorism by cyclists on a daily basis.

Frankly, I would like to see cycling totally eradicated.


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

[Squashme]

On 29 Oct, 01:02, "The Medway Handyman" <davidno-spam-
> wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 27 Oct, 23:27, "Steve Walker" > wrote:
> >> Squashme wrote:
> >>> 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?
>
> >> You mean the suggestion of a safe, intermediate lane for slower
> >> traffic?
>
> >> "Perhaps we need to experiment with a widened middle lane for
> >> slow-moving vehicles, instead of cycle lanes. Obviously there would
> >> be a fair bit of demolition & widening required to achieve a decent
> >> amount of this, but we need the jobs and the end result would be
> >> much safer."
>
> >> You think that was insulting, do you? To whom, pray?
>
> > "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. * *However that doesn't
> > justify
> > those vehicles moving onto the pavements, where they will in turn
> > intimidate
> > and frighten pedestrians."
>
> > I think that paragraph was insulting and I think that you meant it to
> > be.
>
> The paragraph was spot on.
>
> Insulting is me calling you a thick ****. *Actually no, thats simply an
> accurate description you might not agree with, being a thick ****.
>

World toy production:-

http://www.worldometers.info/bicycles/

World production of ****mobiles:-

http://www.worldometers.info/cars/

[Peter Keller]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:08:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:


>
> All bicycles are anachronisms. Relegated to childrens toys & completely
> unsuitable as a form of transport - unless you are an immature
> schoolboy.


Utter ****ing bull****.


--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

[mileburner]

"Peter Keller" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:08:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:
>
>
>>
>> All bicycles are anachronisms. Relegated to childrens toys & completely
>> unsuitable as a form of transport - unless you are an immature
>> schoolboy.
>
>
> Utter ****ing bull****.

Clue.

Posted by: The Medway Handyman

HTH

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

mileburner wrote:
> "Peter Keller" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:08:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> All bicycles are anachronisms. Relegated to childrens toys &
>>> completely unsuitable as a form of transport - unless you are an
>>> immature schoolboy.
>>
>>
>> Utter ****ing bull****.
>
> Clue.
>
> Posted by: The Medway Handyman

Clueless.

Answer from; mole******. Unable to answer the point made as usual.


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

[Peter Keller]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:07:54 +0100, mileburner wrote:

> "Peter Keller" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:08:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> All bicycles are anachronisms. Relegated to childrens toys &
>>> completely unsuitable as a form of transport - unless you are an
>>> immature schoolboy.
>>
>>
>> Utter ****ing bull****.
>
> Clue.
>
> Posted by: The Medway Handyman
>
> HTH

I know. Not news. An expected event is not news.



--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

[bod]

On 30/10/2010 07:52, Peter Keller wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:07:54 +0100, mileburner wrote:
>
>> "Peter > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:08:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> All bicycles are anachronisms. Relegated to childrens toys&
>>>> completely unsuitable as a form of transport - unless you are an
>>>> immature schoolboy.
>>>
>>>
>>> Utter ****ing bull****.
>>
>> Clue.
>>
>> Posted by: The Medway Handyman
>>
>> HTH
>
> I know. Not news. An expected event is not news.
>
>
>
We knew men were going to land on the moon, did that not qualify as news
when they actually did? ie; it was expected.
Of course it was news.

Bod

[mileburner]

"bod" > wrote in message
...
> On 30/10/2010 07:52, Peter Keller wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:07:54 +0100, mileburner wrote:
>>
>>> "Peter > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:08:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> All bicycles are anachronisms. Relegated to childrens toys&
>>>>> completely unsuitable as a form of transport - unless you are an
>>>>> immature schoolboy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Utter ****ing bull****.
>>>
>>> Clue.
>>>
>>> Posted by: The Medway Handyman
>>>
>>> HTH
>>
>> I know. Not news. An expected event is not news.
>>
>>
>>
> We knew men were going to land on the moon, did that not qualify as news
> when they actually did? ie; it was expected.
> Of course it was news.

Did they *really* ever land on the moon?
http://www.clavius.org/

[webreader]

On Oct 30, 10:27*am, "mileburner" > wrote:
> "bod" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On 30/10/2010 07:52, Peter Keller wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:07:54 +0100, mileburner wrote:
>
> >>> "Peter > *wrote in message
> ...
> >>>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:08:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:
>
> >>>>> All bicycles are anachronisms. *Relegated to childrens toys&
> >>>>> completely unsuitable as a form of transport - unless you are an
> >>>>> immature schoolboy.
>
> >>>> Utter ****ing bull****.
>
> >>> Clue.
>
> >>> Posted by: The Medway Handyman
>
> >>> HTH
>
> >> I know. *Not news. *An expected event is not news.
>
> > We knew men were going to land on the moon, did that not qualify as news
> > when they actually did? ie; it was expected.
> > Of course it was news.
>
> Did they *really* ever land on the moon?http://www.clavius.org/

Stupid boy, they must have done, a friend of mine bought some of the
green cheese they brought back.

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

mileburner wrote:
> "bod" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 30/10/2010 07:52, Peter Keller wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:07:54 +0100, mileburner wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Peter > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:08:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> All bicycles are anachronisms. Relegated to childrens toys&
>>>>>> completely unsuitable as a form of transport - unless you are an
>>>>>> immature schoolboy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Utter ****ing bull****.
>>>>
>>>> Clue.
>>>>
>>>> Posted by: The Medway Handyman
>>>>
>>>> HTH
>>>
>>> I know. Not news. An expected event is not news.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> We knew men were going to land on the moon, did that not qualify as
>> news when they actually did? ie; it was expected.
>> Of course it was news.
>
> Did they *really* ever land on the moon?
> http://www.clavius.org/

Ask your bum chum Mason, he's written a book about exploring shortwave's
dark side & strange transmissions.


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

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:14:56 +0100, Jeff > wrote:

>
>>> 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 not changed at all, the risk to pedestrians from
>cyclists remains the same as it was in 1835.

How many cyclists were there about in 1835?

Has the risk to pedestrians from *trucks* (shopping trolleys), changed
since 1835? Or perhaps the law was written for some reason other than
the safety of pedestrians.

On reading Section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act, I am left with the
clear impression that the intention of the lawmakers of the time is
that the footway should remain clear of obstruction and dirt left
behind by animals.


==========Section 72==========
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.
==========/Section 72==========

>The risk to cyclists on the roads may have changed, but that does not
>give cyclists the right to endanger pedestrians in order to mitigate
>that risk.
>
>Jeff

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:27:10 +0100, JMS >
wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:12:25 +0100, Tom Crispin
> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>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=c&cbll=51.474811,-0.025261&cbp=12,33.35,,2,14.71
>
>
>
>Any cyclist on a pavement is breaking the law (unless signed
>otherwise).
>
>If a cyclist is so "nervous" that they have to ride on the pavement -
>then they should not be cycling on the public highway - full stop
>
>
>I can assure you that many pedestrians are very "nervous" about the
>number of cyclists using pavements in an illegal and dangerous
>fashion.

I find myself unable to argue with you here.

But what about a nervous cyclist riding on the pavement in an illegal
but safe fashion?

>It is not something you - or anyone else - should encourage.

I can assure you that I would never encourage cyclists to use the
pavement in an illegal and dangerous fashion.

[Tony Dragon]

On 31/10/2010 17:43, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:27:10 +0100, >
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:12:25 +0100, Tom Crispin
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> 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=c&cbll=51.474811,-0.025261&cbp=12,33.35,,2,14.71
>>
>>
>>
>> Any cyclist on a pavement is breaking the law (unless signed
>> otherwise).
>>
>> If a cyclist is so "nervous" that they have to ride on the pavement -
>> then they should not be cycling on the public highway - full stop
>>
>>
>> I can assure you that many pedestrians are very "nervous" about the
>> number of cyclists using pavements in an illegal and dangerous
>> fashion.
>
> I find myself unable to argue with you here.
>
> But what about a nervous cyclist riding on the pavement in an illegal
> but safe fashion?
>
>> It is not something you - or anyone else - should encourage.
>
> I can assure you that I would never encourage cyclists to use the
> pavement in an illegal and dangerous fashion.

Just to clarify your reply.

Would you encourage cyclists to use the pavement in an illegal or
dangerous fashion?

--
Tony Dragon

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 17:59:09 +0000, Tony Dragon
> wrote:

>> I can assure you that I would never encourage cyclists to use the
>> pavement in an illegal and dangerous fashion.
>
>Just to clarify your reply.
>
>Would you encourage cyclists to use the pavement in an illegal or
>dangerous fashion?

I would encourage cyclists to use the pavement if they consider the
road dangerous. I would warn them that cycling on the footway is
illegal, and if they choose to ride on the footway they should do so
with consideration for other footway users. Indeed, this came up a few
days ago when I worked with a young lad. His father sent me an email
tanking me for my time and asking if I felt the child was safe to
cycle unaccompanied on the road:

==========Email quote with names blanked==========

>Thank you very much Tom.
>
>I spoke to him and he seemed to really enjoy his riding today. He knows
>that he needs to practice the signalling. He mentioned not cutting the
>corner when turning right as well.
>
>He was very pleased with how quickly you got to Eltham and back
>(although I am not convinced it would rank as one of your quicker rides!)
>
>He was however most excited about the electronic marvel attached to his
>bike.
>
>Thanks once again. We will practice the points you mention.
>
>Do you think he is ok to cycle on most roads unaccompanied or would
>you think he needs to practice and do his level 3 before doing that?
>
>Regards Dxxxxx

Hi Dxxxxx,

An hour and a half for a ten mile bike ride is very good, especially
when it includes Shooters Hill. Gxxxxx cut the corners when
practising the turns, when I explained to him why he should not cut
the corners he stopped doing it. This is not a problem.

I would say that Gxxxxx is ready to use residential roads
unaccompanied. Busier roads, including those with traffic lights
(other than pedestrian lights) and roundabouts should be avoided, or
he should use the footway. At major junctions he should push across
the busy road.

Note that it is illegal to cycle on the footway unless it is marked
for cyclists. If riding on the footway which is not marked for
cyclists Gxxxxx should be courteous to pedestrians, and get off and
push in busy areas. (I think that the risk of an arrest for cycling on
the footway for a child lies somewhere between highly unlikely and
nil; fixed penalty tickets cannot be issued to children.) On all
footways he needs to be careful passing driveways, and unlike being on
the main road he has no right-of-way at side roads. Be especially
careful of vehicles travelling behind in the same direction and
turning left into a side road.

Kind regards,
Tom Crispin