And then they came for the cyclists

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/home...l-cyclists/article-536785-detail/article.html

 

'officers stopped cyclists who ran red lights and went on pavements'

....

'Cycling on the pavement is not against the law but it does contravene
the Highway Code'

How the **** can they make you give your details for doing something
that is 'not against the law'?

'wearing a pink hat is not against the law, but it does annoy people'.
'name and address, please, Sir ..'

D.

--
des | 'what does it matter what he posts?'
http://www.jr.co.il/terror/israel/index.html
end the 'occupation': http://minilien.fr/a0k8xe
ukrm: 'where it's "cool" to be stupid!'
myths of islam: http://minilien.fr/a0j5qo

 

Good. **** 'em.

 

Splendid. Who's going to x-post this to rec.cycling, then?

 

That's what I thought.

 

About bloody time.

 

<Puts hand up>

I've got no problem with people objecting against cyclists who ride
through red lights and along pavements. I know a middle aged father of
two who routinely cycles about a mile along the pavements to and from
my local pub at night. I've asked him why he doesn't buy lights and
get on the road, but he doesn't give a toss.

Now, if we can just do the same with the huge number of cars and
lorries jumping red lights regularly in London, parking on double
yellows and red routes, parking on pavements etc. Mopeds and
motorcycles using the ASLs and bus lanes (not yet boys!) etc etc ...
the world will be a beautiful place.

As it stands, it's a sh*th*le and we're all having a good old moan
about each other, and the Welsh.

 

read the rest of the sentence you quoted, fuckwit.

 

I did read it, you cretin. I also took note of the conjunction 'and'
between the two clauses. Something that you, apparently, didn't do.

D.
--
des | 'what does it matter what he posts?'
http://www.jr.co.il/terror/israel/index.html
end the 'occupation': http://minilien.fr/a0k8xe
ukrm: 'where it's "cool" to be stupid!'
myths of islam: http://minilien.fr/a0j5qo

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837
"64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. [Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A
1984, sect 129]"

I always thought it was illegal but it's so difficult to keep up with
all the things which were illegal but are now compulsory or vice-versa.

 

I'm not trolling, just cannot understand why cyclists don't have to take
out 3rd party liability insurance etc.

 

.... and what about runners? And walkers? And don't forget people
sleeping in the gutter; they present a significant trip hazard!

 

Since when has it not been against the law to ride a push bike on the
pavement? I was taken to court as a 15 year old for doing just that!
It was 1975 so maybe the law has changed since then but I thought it
was still illegal?

Maybe it was for having no lights when cycling at night, carrying a
passenger and having no brakes but I was convicted of all four crimes
so have always assumed they were all illegal activities...

Mark

 

I got a clip round the ear by a bobby for riding no-handed in 1971.
Don't seem to be able to do it these days though.

 

Nonsense. Riding no-handed is still possible; nobody's changed the laws
of physics.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Eddie

You mean nobody told you?

Come on guys, who was supposed to tell him?

 

<Tough love[1] mode=on>

Nah. Let him find out for himself. He'll remember it better that way.
If he survives.

</TLM>

Phil.

[1] 'Love' used in it's loosest[2] possible sense
[2] Fnar.

 

There are many things I could do in 1971 that I can't manage now.
The lotus position, auto-fellatio, riding no-handed, for example.
(Not all at the same time, of course.)
I don't think it's worth getting nostalgic about it.

 

eeeewwwww