A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is this a cycle or footpath?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 9th 19, 07:59 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,727
Default Is this a cycle or footpath?

On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 6:59:26 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 9:58:03 PM UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 2:03:17 PM UTC+1, wrote:
Nobody seems to know what it is.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...otpath-2386098



It's not a road and that is the only thing that matters.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/34

No doubt Nugent will cry 'But Mummy cyclists ride on pavements and it's not faaayeeeerrr'


Guess what?
I dropped my car off for its MOT today and walking back home, we passed a parked car half on the footpath in the village of Worlaby.

IT HAD A FPN STUCK TO ITS WINDSCREEN!

(((APPLAUSE)))


The driver was forced to park on the footway to avoid an unlit cyclist in Tierra Del Fuego.
Ads
  #12  
Old April 9th 19, 09:52 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 489
Default Is this a cycle or footpath?

On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 7:59:54 PM UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 6:59:26 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 9:58:03 PM UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 2:03:17 PM UTC+1, wrote:
Nobody seems to know what it is.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...otpath-2386098


It's not a road and that is the only thing that matters.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/34

No doubt Nugent will cry 'But Mummy cyclists ride on pavements and it's not faaayeeeerrr'


Guess what?
I dropped my car off for its MOT today and walking back home, we passed a parked car half on the footpath in the village of Worlaby.

IT HAD A FPN STUCK TO ITS WINDSCREEN!

(((APPLAUSE)))


The driver was forced to park on the footway to avoid an unlit cyclist in Tierra Del Fuego.


Judging by the amount of bird droppings it had on it, it may have been there for some time. Might be able to get a photo tomorrow if it is still there.
  #13  
Old April 10th 19, 02:12 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default Is this a cycle or footpath?

On 09/04/2019 16:35, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 2:05:48 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 09/04/2019 09:13, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 1:56:50 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/04/2019 12:09, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 11:15:53 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 07/04/2019 21:58, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 2:03:17 PM UTC+1, wrote:
Nobody seems to know what it is.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...otpath-2386098


It's not a road and that is the only thing that matters.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/34

No doubt Nugent will cry 'But Mummy cyclists ride on pavements and it's not faaayeeeerrr'

You are projecting again.

Anyone who drives a motor vehicle or rides a bicycle on a
pedestrian-only part of the highway (especially a footway) should be
prosecuted.

It's only people like you who think it's acceptable to drive and/or ride
where driving and riding are prohibited.

Please cite the post where I have said this is acceptable.

If you have condemned pavement cyclists (unequivocally), I missed that post.

Perhaps you could conveniently repeat the condemnation now, then I can
give you the applause which would then be necessary.

We'll soon see...

Just answer the question and leave the goalposts alone.
Where did I say pavement cycling is acceptable?


See what I mean?

You don't condemn pavement cycling and never have.

If you had, and if you were posting in good faith, you'd have no
difficulty in repeating it.


Not condemning something and saying it is acceptable are completely different.
I have never universally condemned drink driving on this group, does that mean I find it acceptable?

Now, are you going to provide evidence or not?


*IF* you don't support pavement cycling, there is nothing to stop you
saying so, explicitly.

But you don't say it, which tells its own tale.

As the lawyers have it: silence gives consent.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

  #14  
Old April 10th 19, 09:36 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default Is this a cycle or footpath?

On 10/04/2019 02:12, JNugent wrote:

*IF* you don't support pavement cycling, there is nothing to stop you
saying so, explicitly.


Nobody "supports" pavement cycling. Some of us just don't think it is
something to get worked up about.

But you don't say it, which tells its own tale.

As the lawyers have it: silence gives consent.


It's not a binary issue.
  #15  
Old April 10th 19, 09:43 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 489
Default Is this a cycle or footpath?

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 9:36:49 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

Nobody "supports" pavement cycling. Some of us just don't think it is
something to get worked up about.


Around here. pavement parking is being clamped down on but kids under 10 are often seen using scooters and small bicycles on the footpaths with no problems. Dogs on leads are more of a hazard.
  #16  
Old April 10th 19, 12:02 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default Is this a cycle or footpath?

On 10/04/2019 09:36, TMS320 wrote:

On 10/04/2019 02:12, JNugent wrote:

*IF* you don't support pavement cycling, there is nothing to stop you
saying so, explicitly.


Nobody "supports" pavement cycling. Some of us just don't think it is
something to get worked up about.


In other (more honest and less weaselly) words, "some of" you don't
think - and refuse to accept - that there is anything wrong with it. To
the extent that such a stance is distinct from supporting it, the
distinction is purely semantic.

But you don't say it, which tells its own tale.
As the lawyers have it: silence gives consent.


It's not a binary issue.


It's a plain breach of the law designed to protect all of us when we are
pedestrians, which is most of the time. That is very definitely a right
or wrong issue. And cycling along footways or in other areas where
cycling is prohibited by law is simply illegal. Except in some
far-fetched situation-driven extreme case (I don't rule that out as a
matter of principle*), it is an offence which ought to be robustly
enforced.

It was obvious that neither of you would take an opportunity to condemn
pavement cycling. And the reason is obvious.

[* I accept that in a wholly exceptional case - note the word "case" and
its correct meaning - it might be physically necessary to cycle on a
footway,just as in another analogous case it might be necessary to drive
on one, or to do something else, such as temporarily riding or driving
without lights. But such cases are, as I said, wholly exceptional and do
not form part of any general approach to the issue.]

  #17  
Old April 10th 19, 12:19 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 489
Default Is this a cycle or footpath?

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 9:36:49 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
Nobody "supports" pavement cycling. Some of us just don't think it is
something to get worked up about.


Indeed. Here is an example of a car opposite my house that ALWAYS parks ***completely*** on the footpath. It does not concern me in the slightest, despite it breaking the law several times a day.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3yaGWVXoAAYr59.jpg
  #18  
Old April 10th 19, 12:45 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mr Pounder Esquire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,896
Default Is this a cycle or footpath?

wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 9:36:49 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
Nobody "supports" pavement cycling. Some of us just don't think it is
something to get worked up about.


Indeed. Here is an example of a car opposite my house that ALWAYS
parks ***completely*** on the footpath. It does not concern me in the
slightest, despite it breaking the law several times a day.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3yaGWVXoAAYr59.jpg

That is not on!
There is a bloke over the road who I think is knocking off the lady of the
house. He blocks the footpath every day as in that I cannot walk on the
footpath.
There is a school down the road and the bimbos walk down the footpath. I can
see a key being used on his car.


  #19  
Old April 10th 19, 01:42 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default Is this a cycle or footpath?

On 10/04/2019 12:45, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 9:36:49 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
Nobody "supports" pavement cycling. Some of us just don't think it is
something to get worked up about.


Indeed. Here is an example of a car opposite my house that ALWAYS
parks ***completely*** on the footpath. It does not concern me in the
slightest, despite it breaking the law several times a day.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3yaGWVXoAAYr59.jpg

That is not on!


Of course it isn't.

There is a bloke over the road who I think is knocking off the lady of the
house. He blocks the footpath every day as in that I cannot walk on the
footpath.
There is a school down the road and the bimbos walk down the footpath. I can
see a key being used on his car.


That's where we don't agree. Doing that is a crime - criminal damage* -
and the correct way to deal with the problem is for the police to issue
a FPN or a summons.

[* Something like that in one's history causes all sorts of problems.]
  #20  
Old April 10th 19, 02:17 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default Is this a cycle or footpath?

On 10/04/2019 12:02, JNugent wrote:
On 10/04/2019 09:36, TMS320 wrote:

On 10/04/2019 02:12, JNugent wrote:

*IF* you don't support pavement cycling, there is nothing to stop you
saying so, explicitly.


Nobody "supports" pavement cycling. Some of us just don't think it is
something to get worked up about.


In other (more honest and less weaselly) words, "some of" you don't
think - and refuse to accept - that there is anything wrong with it. To
the extent that such a stance is distinct from supporting it, the
distinction is purely semantic.


You are projecting.

Have you heard the word "gammon" used in current parlance?

But you don't say it, which tells its own tale.
As the lawyers have it: silence gives consent.


It's not a binary issue.


It's a plain breach of the law designed to protect all of us when we are
pedestrians, which is most of the time.


Rubbish. The official figures show that most people go by car if their
journey is further than the fridge.

It may be a technical breach of the law but I am giving you my opinion
that it is nothing to get worked up about.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Don't cycle on the footpath Alycidon UK 2 October 14th 15 09:38 AM
Look where you are going and don't ride on a footpath Mrcheerful UK 0 March 1st 14 02:46 PM
On the footpath? Mr Pounder UK 3 December 14th 11 06:10 PM
footpath riding Zebee Johnstone Australia 27 October 13th 07 04:36 AM
Prize for narrowest combined cycle lane/footpath. David W.E. Roberts UK 5 August 31st 04 11:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.