On 14/03/2015 22:50, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 14/03/2015 21:30, Bod wrote:
On 14/03/2015 20:25, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 14/03/2015 20:19, Bod wrote:
On 14/03/2015 20:14, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 14/03/2015 20:06, Bod wrote:
On 14/03/2015 16:44, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:43:41 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
wrote:

snip


You are only telling part of the story. Going by the guidance put
forward
by the two ministers, it seems clear that the intention of
parliament
was
to give the police powers to deal with cyclists who cycle on the
pavement in a way which poses a danger or annoyance to pedestrians.

Paul Boateng specifically said that the law was not aimed at
'responsible
cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of
fear of
the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users',
and
Robert Goodwill reiterated that guidance.


I have already pointed out that what Boateng said was not "guidance"
whatsoever.

It has no legal basis whatsoever.

If Parliament had wanted to permit one class of cyclists to use the
pavements
then they would have made it clear in the law.

They didn't.

It is illegal for anyone to cycle on the pavements.

Hope this helps.

Not on shared pathways, where, miraculously, there are no problems.
You're one of the drama queens in this ng.

there are problems, such as this one:
http://road.cc/content/news/75569-te...clist-southend





And how many people are killed or seriously injured by vehicles on the
roads every day?
You've found *one* instance. Not exactly carnage on shared pathways,
is it.


You stated 'there are no problems' I point out that you are wrong,
conflicts and crashes between cyclists and pedestrians on shared use
paths are common, some have even ended in fatalities, usually the
pedestrian.

You *are* a drama queen........ and ICMFP ;-)

Just admit it, you were wrong. Name calling is not very grown up.

nice to see that the child's helmet is on back to front

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/activ...-pavement.html