You really couldn't make it up...

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.

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.

Can you point out any cases where a car parking partially on a pavement has
hurt anyone?

On Friday, 19 July 2013 16:51:46 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 19/07/2013 16:19, Iain wrote:

Judith wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:00:47 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith

wrote:



On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:22:34 +0100, Bertie Wooster

wrote:



It is very rare that cyclists ignore speed limits, some

accidentally speed in the royal parks, but motorists do it quite

deliberately.



Royal parks speed limits no longer apply to cyclists. The Royal

Parks

and Other Open Spaces (Amendments) etc Regulations 2010 redefined

'vehicle' to mean motor vehicles, so the speed limits there no longer

apply to cyclists.



regards, Ian SMith





Oh great - just what pedestrians in the parks need.



... but there is a Cycling Policy, which contains a Pathway Code of Conduct

which states things like, "Pedestrians have priority over all other users of

pathways and shared

pathways, even in areas designated and marked for other purposes." and

similar things like consideration and safety:

http://www.royalparks.org.uk/__docum..._july_2008.pdf



There's a law which says that cyclists may not cycle along footways


There are no such laws.


unless they are designated and marked as cycle routes, another law which

says that cyclists should obey traffic lights and yet another which says

that cyclists must comply with one-way working.



Cyclists don't, for the most part, take any notice of any of those either.

There are no such laws.

On Friday, 19 July 2013 17:31:55 UTC+1, Bertie Wooster wrote:


I am, of course, only concerned about motorists driving on, parking on

and obstructing parts of the footway where this is not permitted.


These instances need enaction of specific legislation to be illegal. None of your concerns are generally illegal.
Driving along the footway is what concerns me which is generally illegal and may be unlawful (paricularly with respect to a collision with intended user).



In my experience it is a far far bigger problem than cyclists on the

footway, who scare people more often than cause real harm.

"thirty-six" wrote in message
...

On Friday, 19 July 2013 16:51:46 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 19/07/2013 16:19, Iain wrote:

Judith wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:00:47 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith

wrote:



On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:22:34 +0100, Bertie Wooster

wrote:



It is very rare that cyclists ignore speed limits, some

accidentally speed in the royal parks, but motorists do it quite

deliberately.



Royal parks speed limits no longer apply to cyclists. The Royal

Parks

and Other Open Spaces (Amendments) etc Regulations 2010 redefined

'vehicle' to mean motor vehicles, so the speed limits there no longer

apply to cyclists.



regards, Ian SMith





Oh great - just what pedestrians in the parks need.



... but there is a Cycling Policy, which contains a Pathway Code of
Conduct

which states things like, "Pedestrians have priority over all other
users of

pathways and shared

pathways, even in areas designated and marked for other purposes." and

similar things like consideration and safety:

http://www.royalparks.org.uk/__docum..._july_2008.pdf



There's a law which says that cyclists may not cycle along footways


There are no such laws.


unless they are designated and marked as cycle routes, another law which

says that cyclists should obey traffic lights and yet another which says

that cyclists must comply with one-way working.



Cyclists don't, for the most part, take any notice of any of those either.

There are no such laws.

And we all thought Doug was bad..........

thirty-six wrote:
On Friday, 19 July 2013 16:51:46 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 19/07/2013 16:19, Iain wrote:

Oh great - just what pedestrians in the parks need.

... but there is a Cycling Policy, which contains a Pathway Code of
Conduct
which states things like, "Pedestrians have priority over all other
users of
pathways and shared
pathways, even in areas designated and marked for other purposes."
and
similar things like consideration and safety:
http://www.royalparks.org.uk/__docum..._july_2008.pdf


There's a law which says that cyclists may not cycle along footways


There are no such laws.

I am taking footways to equal pavements.
Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclist...rview-59-to-71


unless they are designated and marked as cycle routes, another law
which

says that cyclists should obey traffic lights and yet another which
says

that cyclists must comply with one-way working.



Cyclists don't, for the most part, take any notice of any of those
either.

There are no such laws.

Same page - Rule 69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)
https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclist...rview-59-to-71

IANAL, but I think that these are quite clear.

--
Iain

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 20:32:53 +0100, "Partac" wrote:

snip


Cyclists don't, for the most part, take any notice of any of those either.

There are no such laws.

And we all thought Doug was bad..........


I am sorry to say but he really is a fruit cake.

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 20:46:24 +0100, "Iain" wrote:

thirty-six wrote:
On Friday, 19 July 2013 16:51:46 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 19/07/2013 16:19, Iain wrote:

Oh great - just what pedestrians in the parks need.

... but there is a Cycling Policy, which contains a Pathway Code of
Conduct
which states things like, "Pedestrians have priority over all other
users of
pathways and shared
pathways, even in areas designated and marked for other purposes."
and
similar things like consideration and safety:
http://www.royalparks.org.uk/__docum..._july_2008.pdf


There's a law which says that cyclists may not cycle along footways


There are no such laws.

I am taking footways to equal pavements.
Rule 64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclist...rview-59-to-71


unless they are designated and marked as cycle routes, another law
which

says that cyclists should obey traffic lights and yet another which
says

that cyclists must comply with one-way working.



Cyclists don't, for the most part, take any notice of any of those
either.

There are no such laws.

Same page - Rule 69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)
https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclist...rview-59-to-71

IANAL, but I think that these are quite clear.


Iain - you are wasting your time - he really is barking.

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.

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..

On Friday, 19 July 2013 20:46:24 UTC+1, Iain wrote:
thirty-six wrote:

On Friday, 19 July 2013 16:51:46 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

On 19/07/2013 16:19, Iain wrote:



Oh great - just what pedestrians in the parks need.



... but there is a Cycling Policy, which contains a Pathway Code of

Conduct

which states things like, "Pedestrians have priority over all other

users of

pathways and shared

pathways, even in areas designated and marked for other purposes."

and

similar things like consideration and safety:

http://www.royalparks.org.uk/__docum..._july_2008.pdf





There's a law which says that cyclists may not cycle along footways





There are no such laws.



I am taking footways to equal pavements.

Rule 64

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclist...rview-59-to-71





unless they are designated and marked as cycle routes, another law

which



says that cyclists should obey traffic lights and yet another which

says



that cyclists must comply with one-way working.







Cyclists don't, for the most part, take any notice of any of those

either.



There are no such laws.



Same page - Rule 69

You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclist...rview-59-to-71



IANAL, but I think that these are quite clear.



--

Iain

Status:

This is the original version (as it was originally enacted).

from Highways ACT 1835

LXXIIPenalty on Persons committing Nuisances by riding on Footpaths, &c.

And be it further enacted, That 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 ; or shall cause any Injury or Damage to be done to the said Highway, or the Hedges, Posts, Rails, Walls, or Fences thereof , or shall wilfully obstruct the Passage of any Footway; or wilfully destroy or injure the Surface of any Highway; or shall wilfully or wantonly pull up, cut down, remove, or damage the Posts, Blocks, or Stones fixed by the said Surveyor as herein directed; or dig or cut down the Banks which are the Securities and Defence of the said Highways ; or break, damage, or throw down the Stones, Bricks, or Wood fixed upon the Parapets or Battlements of Bridges, or otherwise injure or deface the same ; or pull down, destroy, obliterate, or deface any Milestone or Post, Graduated or Direction Post or Stone, erected upon any Highway; or shall play at Football or any other Game on any Part of the said Highways, to the Annoyance of any Passenger or Passengers ; or if any Hawker, Higgler, Gipsy, or other Person travelling shall pitch any Tent, Booth, Stall, or Stand, or encamp, upon any Part of any Highway; or if any Person shall make or assist in making any Fire, or shall wantonly fire off any Gun or Pistol, or shall set fire to or wantonly let off or throw any Squib, Rocket, Serpent, or other Firework whatsoever, within Fifty Feet of the Centre of such Carriageway or Cartway; or bait, or run for the Purpose of baiting, any Bull upon or near any Highway ; or shall lay any Timber, Stone, Hay, Straw, Dung, Manure, Lime, Soil, Ashes, Rubbish, or other Matter or Thing whatsoever upon such Highway, to the Injury of such Highway, or to the Injury, Interruption, or personal Danger of any Person travelling thereon ; or shall suffer any Filth, Dirt, Lime, or other offensive Matter or Thing whatsoever to run or flow into or upon any Highway from any House, Building, Erection, Lands, or Premises adjacent thereto; or shall in any Way wilfully obstruct the free Passage of any such Highway; every Person so offending in any of the Cases aforesaid shall for each and every such Offence forfeit and pay any Sum not exceeding Forty Shillings, over and above the Damages occasioned thereby.

========

NOT LAW, AN ACT of legislation applicable to the corporate entity, a Person, which is the creation of government through manipulation of civil registration of birth.

I am not a Person. I am a living breathing man. The Person is the legal fictional entity created by government on the assumed death of a child. It is this entity which is traded and for which police, lawyers and judges (all working for the City/Knight's Templar and ultimately Holy Roman Empire) get the man or woman to accept Personal responsibility. Making your mark against the Registered name shows acceptance of responsibilty for that artificial entity.

While I agree it is good practice, to minimise individual risk, to not ride a bicycle on a footway while there are walkers upon it, there is no law binding the individual man or woman, only the fiction, the Person, as created by guberment.

I am a man, not a Person. Guess what you should do when presented with a wordy bit of paper by a policy officer and you want to accept responsibility for "your person" and be dealt with under Crown legislation. Guess what you should not do if you do not accept responsibilty for the fictional Person. Duh, is it really so hard to see the truth?