|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
You really couldn't make it up...
On Friday, 19 July 2013 20:46:24 UTC+1, Iain wrote:
I am taking footways to equal pavements. Rule 64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Oops, I forgot to correct it. I do not understand Latin. Is a pavement something found in Rome? Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclist...rview-59-to-71 Of course the HC is not any more a HMSO publication and is not a legal document so it not surprising they believe they can get away with this little slip of language. Every little (bit of programming) helps. Obviously not a document to be trusted. So remind me, what is a law, because it's not what guberment tells us? Is it in The Bible, or is that just a fiction created by the "Universal Church" (Vatican City/Holy Roman Empire)? |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
You really couldn't make it up...
On Saturday, 20 July 2013 00:59:35 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
It would be difficult to attribute *any* harm at all to cars parked on, or partly on, the footway, with the possible (and oft-cited) cracking of flagstones (do many places still use flagstones? There are certainly none hereabouts). So you're not concerned about blind people, parents with buggies etc? Flagstones are a disappearing aspect of the urban landscape simply because irresponsible drivers break them, imposing costs on the local authority. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
You really couldn't make it up...
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
You really couldn't make it up...
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 00:59:35 +0100, JNugent
wrote: On 19/07/2013 17:31, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:56:53 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 19/07/2013 14:30, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:18:54 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 19/07/2013 07:41, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:35:33 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 18/07/2013 19:14, Tosspot wrote: On 18/07/13 11:35, JNugent wrote: On 18/07/2013 02:03, Paul Cummins wrote: In article , (JNugent) wrote: Police Car...? OK... Just for the kids, I'll throw in the word "unlawfully". I stand by my answer. So you insist that I will - or anyone - see a police car being driven along the footway more frequently than we will see a bicycle being ridden along it, do you? Just to clarify, I meant Planet Earth, not your obviously-other world. Well, if it's any help. I saw 4 being driven on a pavement tonight. I have driven my car on the footway several times today. Cars being illegally driven onto, and parked, on the footway by criminals is a chronic problem in parts of London. http://goo.gl/maps/HKNEy On the map display, it asks: "Is something missing"? The answer is; "Yes, the so-called criminals referred to by the previous poster". That's because they have left the scene of their crime. The evidence remains. Clare, who works in Central London says that cyclists on the footway is a chronic problem also. However, I have scoured Google Streetview on the area around Kingsway, where Clare works, but have not found one example to show you. I did find this, where cyclists are actively encouraged to ride on the footway: http://goo.gl/maps/oDsyV You don't need a weatherman... Let's be clear about this. In any circumstance where it is lawful and acceptable to drive a motor car on a footway, it is equally legal and acceptable for a bicycle to be used in the same way. Thus, any vehicle can cross a footway for access to off-road land, including a private dwelling, or a space which looks as though it physically forms part of the footway but has, in fact, been reserved for parking, of whatever sort of vehicle. There may be other, equally lawful, circumstances. What I am referring to is the footway being used as the route for part of a journey, other than the very beginning or the very end of it. And you and others *know* that. Oh - so it is OK to drive on the footway so long as it is to park on (and obstruct) the footway? It is OK wherever it is not an offence to park on (part of) the footway. As you are well aware, there are places where LA signage indicates that parking on part of the width is not only allowed, but in some cases, encouraged by the painting of parking bays. This is admittedly usually in locations where the footway shows signs of once having had part of its width under cultivation. I am, of course, only concerned about motorists driving on, parking on and obstructing parts of the footway where this is not permitted. In my experience it is a far far bigger problem than cyclists on the footway, who scare people more often than cause real harm. It would be difficult to attribute *any* harm at all to cars parked on, or partly on, the footway, with the possible (and oft-cited) cracking of flagstones (do many places still use flagstones? There are certainly none hereabouts). That does not mean that I condone or recommend the practice. OK - your attitude to driving along to obstruct by parking on the footway is very similar to my attitude to cycling along the footway. While I don't condone or recommend the practice, I find it difficult to attribute any harm in it so long as the cyclist shows due respect to legitimate footway users. I have far more concern with motor vehicles on the footway. Not only do they damage the footway, they cause significant obstacles to certain groups of legitimate footway users - parents with buggies, the disabled, the elderly, couples or groups wanting to chat and walk side by side, etc, etc, etc... OTOH, if drivers were in the habit of travelling along the footway as a normal part of their journey, I would condemn that. And to the negligible extent that any drivers might be in that habit, I do so now without hesitation, just as I know you will condemn cyclists doing the same thing.. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
You really couldn't make it up...
On 20/07/2013 10:18, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 09:00:30 +0100, Tony Dragon wrote: On 20/07/2013 08:22, wrote: On Saturday, 20 July 2013 00:59:35 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: It would be difficult to attribute *any* harm at all to cars parked on, or partly on, the footway, with the possible (and oft-cited) cracking of flagstones (do many places still use flagstones? There are certainly none hereabouts). So you're not concerned about blind people, parents with buggies etc? Flagstones are a disappearing aspect of the urban landscape simply because irresponsible drivers break them, imposing costs on the local authority. There are a large number of broken flagstones (Paving slabs) in my road, the only motorised vehicles that I have ever seen on them are motorised street sweepers & grass cutters (when they have to pass trees, etc.) As a matter of interest, how would a blind person know if a footway was shared use? Tactile paving at the beginning and end of the shared use section. If there is a separate cycleway and footway, tramline paving at both ends of the cycleway and ladder paving both ends of the footway. If truly shared use, then I the standard hazard corduroy paving should be used both ends of the path. Guidance he https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...e-pavement.pdf I can think of a few places where that has not happened. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
You really couldn't make it up...
On 20/07/13 11:19, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 20/07/2013 10:18, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 09:00:30 +0100, Tony Dragon wrote: On 20/07/2013 08:22, wrote: On Saturday, 20 July 2013 00:59:35 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: It would be difficult to attribute *any* harm at all to cars parked on, or partly on, the footway, with the possible (and oft-cited) cracking of flagstones (do many places still use flagstones? There are certainly none hereabouts). So you're not concerned about blind people, parents with buggies etc? Flagstones are a disappearing aspect of the urban landscape simply because irresponsible drivers break them, imposing costs on the local authority. There are a large number of broken flagstones (Paving slabs) in my road, the only motorised vehicles that I have ever seen on them are motorised street sweepers & grass cutters (when they have to pass trees, etc.) As a matter of interest, how would a blind person know if a footway was shared use? Tactile paving at the beginning and end of the shared use section. If there is a separate cycleway and footway, tramline paving at both ends of the cycleway and ladder paving both ends of the footway. If truly shared use, then I the standard hazard corduroy paving should be used both ends of the path. Guidance he https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...e-pavement.pdf I can think of a few places where that has not happened. I'm thinking that as well. Usually a dash of paint and a sign provided by Bodgit & Scarper. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
You really couldn't make it up...
Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 00:59:35 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 19/07/2013 17:31, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:56:53 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 19/07/2013 14:30, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:18:54 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 19/07/2013 07:41, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:35:33 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 18/07/2013 19:14, Tosspot wrote: On 18/07/13 11:35, JNugent wrote: On 18/07/2013 02:03, Paul Cummins wrote: In article , (JNugent) wrote: Police Car...? OK... Just for the kids, I'll throw in the word "unlawfully". I stand by my answer. So you insist that I will - or anyone - see a police car being driven along the footway more frequently than we will see a bicycle being ridden along it, do you? Just to clarify, I meant Planet Earth, not your obviously-other world. Well, if it's any help. I saw 4 being driven on a pavement tonight. I have driven my car on the footway several times today. Cars being illegally driven onto, and parked, on the footway by criminals is a chronic problem in parts of London. http://goo.gl/maps/HKNEy On the map display, it asks: "Is something missing"? The answer is; "Yes, the so-called criminals referred to by the previous poster". That's because they have left the scene of their crime. The evidence remains. Clare, who works in Central London says that cyclists on the footway is a chronic problem also. However, I have scoured Google Streetview on the area around Kingsway, where Clare works, but have not found one example to show you. I did find this, where cyclists are actively encouraged to ride on the footway: http://goo.gl/maps/oDsyV You don't need a weatherman... Let's be clear about this. In any circumstance where it is lawful and acceptable to drive a motor car on a footway, it is equally legal and acceptable for a bicycle to be used in the same way. Thus, any vehicle can cross a footway for access to off-road land, including a private dwelling, or a space which looks as though it physically forms part of the footway but has, in fact, been reserved for parking, of whatever sort of vehicle. There may be other, equally lawful, circumstances. What I am referring to is the footway being used as the route for part of a journey, other than the very beginning or the very end of it. And you and others *know* that. Oh - so it is OK to drive on the footway so long as it is to park on (and obstruct) the footway? It is OK wherever it is not an offence to park on (part of) the footway. As you are well aware, there are places where LA signage indicates that parking on part of the width is not only allowed, but in some cases, encouraged by the painting of parking bays. This is admittedly usually in locations where the footway shows signs of once having had part of its width under cultivation. I am, of course, only concerned about motorists driving on, parking on and obstructing parts of the footway where this is not permitted. In my experience it is a far far bigger problem than cyclists on the footway, who scare people more often than cause real harm. It would be difficult to attribute *any* harm at all to cars parked on, or partly on, the footway, with the possible (and oft-cited) cracking of flagstones (do many places still use flagstones? There are certainly none hereabouts). That does not mean that I condone or recommend the practice. OK - your attitude to driving along to obstruct by parking on the footway is very similar to my attitude to cycling along the footway. While I don't condone or recommend the practice, I find it difficult to attribute any harm in it so long as the cyclist shows due respect to legitimate footway users. I have far more concern with motor vehicles on the footway. Not only do they damage the footway, they cause significant obstacles to certain groups of legitimate footway users - parents with buggies, the disabled, the elderly, couples or groups wanting to chat and walk side by side, etc, etc, etc... OTOH, if drivers were in the habit of travelling along the footway as a normal part of their journey, I would condemn that. And to the negligible extent that any drivers might be in that habit, I do so now without hesitation, just as I know you will condemn cyclists doing the same thing.. It is far easier and safer for almost anyone to negotiate a relatively smooth stationary vehicle parked partly or even wholly on a pavement, than it is to negotiate an obscenity screaming, slobbering, smelly oaf on a moving bike (with lots of sticky out bits) that may approach from any direction . |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
You really couldn't make it up...
Mrcheerful wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 00:59:35 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 19/07/2013 17:31, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:56:53 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 19/07/2013 14:30, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:18:54 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 19/07/2013 07:41, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:35:33 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 18/07/2013 19:14, Tosspot wrote: On 18/07/13 11:35, JNugent wrote: On 18/07/2013 02:03, Paul Cummins wrote: In article , (JNugent) wrote: Police Car...? OK... Just for the kids, I'll throw in the word "unlawfully". I stand by my answer. So you insist that I will - or anyone - see a police car being driven along the footway more frequently than we will see a bicycle being ridden along it, do you? Just to clarify, I meant Planet Earth, not your obviously-other world. Well, if it's any help. I saw 4 being driven on a pavement tonight. I have driven my car on the footway several times today. Cars being illegally driven onto, and parked, on the footway by criminals is a chronic problem in parts of London. http://goo.gl/maps/HKNEy On the map display, it asks: "Is something missing"? The answer is; "Yes, the so-called criminals referred to by the previous poster". That's because they have left the scene of their crime. The evidence remains. Clare, who works in Central London says that cyclists on the footway is a chronic problem also. However, I have scoured Google Streetview on the area around Kingsway, where Clare works, but have not found one example to show you. I did find this, where cyclists are actively encouraged to ride on the footway: http://goo.gl/maps/oDsyV You don't need a weatherman... Let's be clear about this. In any circumstance where it is lawful and acceptable to drive a motor car on a footway, it is equally legal and acceptable for a bicycle to be used in the same way. Thus, any vehicle can cross a footway for access to off-road land, including a private dwelling, or a space which looks as though it physically forms part of the footway but has, in fact, been reserved for parking, of whatever sort of vehicle. There may be other, equally lawful, circumstances. What I am referring to is the footway being used as the route for part of a journey, other than the very beginning or the very end of it. And you and others *know* that. Oh - so it is OK to drive on the footway so long as it is to park on (and obstruct) the footway? It is OK wherever it is not an offence to park on (part of) the footway. As you are well aware, there are places where LA signage indicates that parking on part of the width is not only allowed, but in some cases, encouraged by the painting of parking bays. This is admittedly usually in locations where the footway shows signs of once having had part of its width under cultivation. I am, of course, only concerned about motorists driving on, parking on and obstructing parts of the footway where this is not permitted. In my experience it is a far far bigger problem than cyclists on the footway, who scare people more often than cause real harm. It would be difficult to attribute *any* harm at all to cars parked on, or partly on, the footway, with the possible (and oft-cited) cracking of flagstones (do many places still use flagstones? There are certainly none hereabouts). That does not mean that I condone or recommend the practice. OK - your attitude to driving along to obstruct by parking on the footway is very similar to my attitude to cycling along the footway. While I don't condone or recommend the practice, I find it difficult to attribute any harm in it so long as the cyclist shows due respect to legitimate footway users. I have far more concern with motor vehicles on the footway. Not only do they damage the footway, they cause significant obstacles to certain groups of legitimate footway users - parents with buggies, the disabled, the elderly, couples or groups wanting to chat and walk side by side, etc, etc, etc... OTOH, if drivers were in the habit of travelling along the footway as a normal part of their journey, I would condemn that. And to the negligible extent that any drivers might be in that habit, I do so now without hesitation, just as I know you will condemn cyclists doing the same thing.. It is far easier and safer for almost anyone to negotiate a relatively smooth stationary vehicle parked partly or even wholly on a pavement, than it is to negotiate an obscenity screaming, slobbering, smelly oaf on a moving bike (with lots of sticky out bits) that may approach from any direction . Isn't it nice, then, that the latter hardly ever happens? It my personal case, it is an experience I have never had and, but for your post, would not even have given a passing thought to. -- Alexis |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
You really couldn't make it up...
"thirty-six" wrote in message ... On Friday, 19 July 2013 20:46:24 UTC+1, Iain wrote: I am taking footways to equal pavements. Rule 64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Oops, I forgot to correct it. I do not understand Latin. Is a pavement something found in Rome? Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclist...rview-59-to-71 Of course the HC is not any more a HMSO publication and is not a legal document so it not surprising they believe they can get away with this little slip of language. Every little (bit of programming) helps. Obviously not a document to be trusted. So remind me, what is a law, because it's not what guberment tells us? Is it in The Bible, or is that just a fiction created by the "Universal Church" (Vatican City/Holy Roman Empire)? Woof Woof! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
You couldn't make it up! | Squashme | UK | 44 | January 15th 13 05:38 PM |
You couldn't make it up! | Squashme | UK | 13 | August 27th 11 10:29 AM |
You couldn't make it up | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 0 | August 15th 11 01:04 PM |
You couldn't make it up! | Brian Robertson | UK | 274 | May 18th 09 12:54 AM |
You Couldn't Make it Up | Sam Salt | UK | 4 | October 14th 05 09:35 PM |