Pavement cyclist loses in court
 

Mr Arnold, who cycles to Cambridge station daily, was caught in an operation
by special officers who said residents were angry at cyclists avoiding
traffic lights by riding on pavements.

The 35-year-old, who was convicted of riding a pedal cycle on a footpath
after a one-hour trial at Cambridge Magistrates' Court, was one of 40
cyclists caught at the junction of Arbury Road and Milton Road on September
6 - but chose to fight his case as he said the path followed on from a
shared use pavement and there was nothing to show it was illegal to cycle
there.

A Cambridgeshire County Council spokesman said: "Shared use footpaths are
clearly marked and our advice to cyclists would be that unless the footpath
is clearly signed as such they should not use it as a cycleway."

Looking on google earth the pavements are awash with cyclists, it must be
awful for pedestrians.



http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News...t-06122012.htm

Pavement cyclist loses in court
 

On 10/12/2012 20:07, Mrcheerful wrote:

Mr Arnold, who cycles to Cambridge station daily, was caught in an operation
by special officers who said residents were angry at cyclists avoiding
traffic lights by riding on pavements.

The 35-year-old, who was convicted of riding a pedal cycle on a footpath
after a one-hour trial at Cambridge Magistrates' Court, was one of 40
cyclists caught at the junction of Arbury Road and Milton Road on September
6 - but chose to fight his case as he said the path followed on from a
shared use pavement and there was nothing to show it was illegal to cycle
there.

A Cambridgeshire County Council spokesman said: "Shared use footpaths are
clearly marked and our advice to cyclists would be that unless the footpath
is clearly signed as such they should not use it as a cycleway."

Looking on google earth the pavements are awash with cyclists, it must be
awful for pedestrians.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News...t-06122012.htm

I see that the cyclist was "given a criminal record" and that the:

"... Arbury Court resident was fined £30 plus a £15 victim surcharge.
Fixed penalty notices on the day involve a £30 fine".

Bearing in mind that he must have been *observed* committing this mean,
nasty, selfish, offence, he should have had an additional exemplary fine
(say, £1,000) for wasting the time, and insulting the intelligence of,
the court and all involved.

Pavement cyclist loses in court
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:07:02 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Looking on google earth the pavements are awash with cyclists, it must be
awful for pedestrians.

Really!?
http://goo.gl/maps/I9zNI

I can see a few bicycles on the footway, and some of those pedestrians
might also be cyclists. But I can't spot anyone riding a bike on the
footway.

Pavement cyclist loses in court
 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:57:02 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 10/12/2012 20:07, Mrcheerful wrote:

Mr Arnold, who cycles to Cambridge station daily, was caught in an operation
by special officers who said residents were angry at cyclists avoiding
traffic lights by riding on pavements.

The 35-year-old, who was convicted of riding a pedal cycle on a footpath
after a one-hour trial at Cambridge Magistrates' Court, was one of 40
cyclists caught at the junction of Arbury Road and Milton Road on September
6 - but chose to fight his case as he said the path followed on from a
shared use pavement and there was nothing to show it was illegal to cycle
there.

A Cambridgeshire County Council spokesman said: "Shared use footpaths are
clearly marked and our advice to cyclists would be that unless the footpath
is clearly signed as such they should not use it as a cycleway."

Looking on google earth the pavements are awash with cyclists, it must be
awful for pedestrians.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News...t-06122012.htm

I see that the cyclist was "given a criminal record" and that the:

"... Arbury Court resident was fined £30 plus a £15 victim surcharge.
Fixed penalty notices on the day involve a £30 fine".

Bearing in mind that he must have been *observed* committing this mean,
nasty, selfish, offence, he should have had an additional exemplary fine
(say, £1,000) for wasting the time, and insulting the intelligence of,
the court and all involved.

While I wouldn't put his offence in the same terms as you, I'm minded
to agree of the order of the fine you suggest should have been
imposed.

A one hour trial must cost something in the region of £1000.

As an alternative to court and such a fine, I propose he should have
been given a meaningful act of public duty to carry out, such as
removing all the D-locks, without bike attached, some cyclists leave
attached to public bike stands.

Pavement cyclist loses in court
 

Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:07:02 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Looking on google earth the pavements are awash with cyclists, it
must be awful for pedestrians.

Really!?
http://goo.gl/maps/I9zNI

I can see a few bicycles on the footway, and some of those pedestrians
might also be cyclists. But I can't spot anyone riding a bike on the
footway.

I was looking on Google earth (rather than google maps) and the whole area
around the junction was covered in bicycles, probably around twenty or more,
and only one was riding in the road.

Pavement cyclist loses in court
 

On Dec 10, 11:41*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:07:02 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Looking on google earth the pavements are awash with cyclists, it
must be awful for pedestrians.

Really!?
http://goo.gl/maps/I9zNI

I can see a few bicycles on the footway, and some of those pedestrians
might also be cyclists. But I can't spot anyone riding a bike on the
footway.

I was looking on Google earth (rather than google maps) and the whole area
around the junction was covered in bicycles, probably around twenty or more,
and only one was riding in the road.

They must be big bicycles if 20 were sufficient to cover a whole area.
Idiot.

Pavement cyclist loses in court
 

Justin wrote:
On Dec 10, 11:41 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:07:02 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Looking on google earth the pavements are awash with cyclists, it
must be awful for pedestrians.

Really!?
http://goo.gl/maps/I9zNI

I can see a few bicycles on the footway, and some of those
pedestrians might also be cyclists. But I can't spot anyone riding
a bike on the footway.

I was looking on Google earth (rather than google maps) and the
whole area around the junction was covered in bicycles, probably
around twenty or more, and only one was riding in the road.

They must be big bicycles if 20 were sufficient to cover a whole area.
Idiot.

Is idiot your sig.? You might want to change that.

Anyway, since you don't know how big the area I am describing is, you are
not qualified to comment, but I do realise that perhaps you are mentally
challenged and foreign to boot ('to boot' is an English idiom, meaning
'also').

Pavement cyclist loses in court
 

On Dec 11, 10:02*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Justin wrote:
On Dec 10, 11:41 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:07:02 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Looking on google earth the pavements are awash with cyclists, it
must be awful for pedestrians.

Really!?
http://goo.gl/maps/I9zNI

I can see a few bicycles on the footway, and some of those
pedestrians might also be cyclists. But I can't spot anyone riding
a bike on the footway.

I was looking on Google earth (rather than google maps) and the
whole area around the junction was covered in bicycles, probably
around twenty or more, and only one was riding in the road.

They must be big bicycles if 20 were sufficient to cover a whole area.
Idiot.

Is idiot your sig.? *You might want to change that.

Anyway, since you don't know how big the area I am describing is, you are
not qualified to comment, but I do realise that perhaps you are mentally
challenged and foreign to boot ('to boot' is an English idiom, meaning
'also').

Could you perhaps attach the Google Earth image so that we might see
it?

Pavement cyclist loses in court
 

Squashme wrote:
On Dec 11, 10:02 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Justin wrote:
On Dec 10, 11:41 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:07:02 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Looking on google earth the pavements are awash with cyclists, it
must be awful for pedestrians.

Really!?
http://goo.gl/maps/I9zNI

I can see a few bicycles on the footway, and some of those
pedestrians might also be cyclists. But I can't spot anyone riding
a bike on the footway.

I was looking on Google earth (rather than google maps) and the
whole area around the junction was covered in bicycles, probably
around twenty or more, and only one was riding in the road.

They must be big bicycles if 20 were sufficient to cover a whole
area. Idiot.

Is idiot your sig.? You might want to change that.

Anyway, since you don't know how big the area I am describing is,
you are not qualified to comment, but I do realise that perhaps you
are mentally challenged and foreign to boot ('to boot' is an English
idiom, meaning 'also').

Could you perhaps attach the Google Earth image so that we might see
it?

It would not be practical to do so.
The views are street level and so there would be several views from each of
the four ways, I would guess that the online version of google maps has a
different set of pictures to google earth. With my elderly PC I find that
google maps online is excruciatingly slow, while google earth is OK

Pavement cyclist loses in court
 

"Justin" wrote in message
...
On Dec 10, 11:41 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:07:02 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Looking on google earth the pavements are awash with cyclists, it
must be awful for pedestrians.

Really!?
http://goo.gl/maps/I9zNI

I can see a few bicycles on the footway, and some of those pedestrians
might also be cyclists. But I can't spot anyone riding a bike on the
footway.

I was looking on Google earth (rather than google maps) and the whole area
around the junction was covered in bicycles, probably around twenty or
more,
and only one was riding in the road.

They must be big bicycles if 20 were sufficient to cover a whole area.

Idiot.

Nice sig.