Four years jail...

That would've caused a few raised eyebrows.

Oh aye, braking is fine if it's done in a straight line.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

When I were a lad the examiner on my car test told me "Ped's ALWAYS have
right of way, not matter who tells you differently".

I'm not sure if he was right, but it's something that's stuck and I even
told the boychic the same thing when I taught him to drive. If it's not 100%
correct, it's worth bearing in mind with the dickheads we have wandering
about these days looking for a free meal ticket.

Give the cunts a wide berth, I say.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

That's normal, if not a bit on the low side. I usually see 3-4 on the
way from London Bridge to Gresham Street alone.

Stealth van, innit?

 

I took out another one today. One down how many to go.

 

Good advice, is that.

One that has stuck in my mind from my learner days is: "Always remember
that when you're driving a car, you're handling a loaded gun."

 

That's a funny old route to take on a bicycle: there are parallel roads
just to the north which are residential and much quieter (and signed as
the main cycle route).

You do see people cycling down there but it can be very exciting since
the traffic is travelling at 50mph plus by that point - it's a 30 limit
but changes to 50 just after the lights so people start accelerating
early.

Nick

 

Mr Nugent was putting forward a hypothesis that the reason cyclists were
banned from going through red lights was because although they did not
present a great risk to other road users in themselves, they could cause
motorists to take evasive action which would endanger other road users.

It seemed to me that the same argument would be true for pedestrians and
hence it was incongruous that they were legally allowed cross against
the lights.

It is quite a simple argument to understand. You might want to dispute
it but I would have hoped that you could follow it.

 

In reality cyclists are a bit like pedestrians and a bit like cars. If
they are tootling along a 3 or 4 miles an hour on the pavement they are
similar to a pedestrian.

If they are going at 25 mph + they are dangerous to pedestrians like a
car is. It is also true that some cyclists regard pedestrians as lesser
beings.

However as you say unlike a motorists they do squash easy and hence have
a very real vested interest in avoiding collisions.

 

Or (more simply) they are counted as traffic and therefore have to obey
the traffic regulations..

No. Pedestrians are not counted as traffic and hence don't fall under the
same regulations.

The traffic regulations don't apply to them (except for one or two
where they are explicitly mentioned).

I understood it. I just disagreed with it.

Phil.

 

No. Cyclists are (or were) forbidden to ride on the pavement since the
pavement is for foot traffic only. (In law cycles are defined as
carriages and hence required to be on the highway, not the pavement).
And in fact is specifically prohibited and punishable by a
fixed-penalty fine.

Phil

 

Phil Launchbury writtificated

You've missed his point:

At 3-5mph a cyclist will be part of the pedestrian 'flow', at higher speeds
a cyclist will not be a part of that flow.

The increasing provision of shared use paths, with low design speeds, kinda
supports this.

 

depends on the pavment some are mixed use.

roger

 

But it's still illegal for a cyclist to ride on the pavement. Which was
*my* point.

Shared use paths have a different classification to pavements.

Phil.

 

Silly boy

 

to footpaths yes, a pavement is a pavement what ever may be painted on
same as the road.

roger

 

Yes this is a fair point. I wondered how to put it. Any discussion would
clearly hinge on how important a reason it was. Clearly more than
insignificant but I would argue less than a primary factor.

But I really wasn't intending to get bogged down on such a small point.

 

Yes it is perfectly legal on the pavement by my house.

 

Phil Launchbury writtificated

I know that, you know that, Nick knows that, everyone knows that; but why
were you making that point?

I presumed it was to explain why you disagreed with Nick's idea of s-l-o-w
3-4mph cyclists being a bit like pedestrians, but couldn't really see the
relevence to it, particularly when it is legal to cycle on the bits of
pavement with paint slapped on 'em, and on many pedestrianised streets.

Disclaimer: pavement used as a non technical term.

 

Yes. They are not remotely like pedestrians and don't have access to
the pavement unless it's specially marked.

Phil.