|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |