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

You really couldn't make it up...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old July 20th 13, 03:10 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
thirty-six
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,049
Default 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  
Old July 20th 13, 08:22 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 484
Default 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.
  #104  
Old July 20th 13, 10:06 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bertie Wooster[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,958
Default 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..



  #105  
Old July 20th 13, 10:18 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bertie Wooster[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,958
Default You really couldn't make it up...

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
  #106  
Old July 20th 13, 10:19 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tony Dragon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,715
Default 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  
Old July 20th 13, 10:42 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tosspot[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,563
Default 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  
Old July 20th 13, 11:11 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mrcheerful[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,662
Default 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  
Old July 20th 13, 11:50 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Pristine Bruise
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default 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  
Old July 20th 13, 11:51 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Partac[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,115
Default 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

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
You couldn't make it up! Squashme UK 44 January 15th 13 06:38 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:20 PM.


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.