"Paul Terry" wrote in message
In message Ian writes

How often have you seen a cyclist dismount before using the pavement? They
normally ride along the pavement and expect pedestrians to jump out of the
way, even though it has been offence for 180 years to ride on the
pavement.
The police no longer enforce the no cycling on the pavement law as can be
clearly seen in dft_foi_037604.pdf. In 1984 there were 1991 successful
prosecution for cycling on the pavement. By 2003 there were only 82.

Perhaps that's because the police now issue on-the-spot penalty notices
rather than prosecuting. This has happened to more than one person I know
in recent months.


Maybe, but this is not borne out by looking at the figures. There were 1,991
prosecutions for cycling on the pavement in 1984, this reduced to 276 in
1991. It then went up to 933 in 1998 and down again to 82 in 2003. Other
figures don't suggest that the number of cyclists followed this pattern and
I according to my local police, Nips for cyclists is a new thing. If
anything cyclists have become less likely to comply with the law from my own
observations.

I have seen this year cyclists ride passed policemen on the pavement without
comment and through a pedestrian precinct right passed the no cycling sign,
again without comment. At night it is unusual to spot a cyclist with lights
on in town and as for cycling through red traffic lights during the
pedestrian crossing phase.......



Ian

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Richard J. wrote:

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
"Richard J." typed

Likewise, cyclists whose machines do not trigger sensors are not
obliged to die of exposure for that reason.

Cyclists can always dismount and walk across the junction.

It is still an offence to pass the stop line whilst wheeling a
bicycle though.

Really? I thought if you wheeled a bicycle you became a pedestrian, as
with a shopping trolley.

I was recently told, by a friend who ought to know, that both pushed
bicycles and shopping trolleys, and prams, and anything similar, are
strictly not legal on the footway. BHCBW.

tom

--
Would you like to remember more?

"Richard J." typed


I can't believe the law is that much of an ass. Do you have a
reference?

Sorry no.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

Tom Anderson wrote in
:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Richard J. wrote:

I was recently told, by a friend who ought to know, that both pushed
bicycles and shopping trolleys, and prams, and anything similar, are
strictly not legal on the footway. BHCBW.

What planet are these law-makers on? Where are you supposed to push your
shopping trolleys and prams? In the road with the traffic passing at 20, 30,
60 mph? My opinion of the legal system in this country has taken yet another
nose-dive.

I presume electric buggies used by elderly people should also be on the road
rather than the pavement, which is ludicrous considering that they can only
go about 5 mph - the other day I saw a queue of traffic about 30 cars long
behind an electric buggy which was in the *middle* of its side of the road
(not even as far left as possible, close to the kerb) which made overtaking
impossible given that there was oncoming traffic such as myself.

I may be accused of heresy, but I'd impose a minimum speed limit of (say) 10
mph on all roads to make sure that prams, cyclists who are walking with
their bikes, electric buggies etc are kept on the pavement where the
differential speed between them and pedestrians is less than between them
and cars in the road.

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message

I may be accused of heresy, but I'd impose a minimum speed limit of (say)
10 mph on all roads to make sure that prams, cyclists who are walking with
their bikes, electric buggies etc are kept on the pavement where the
differential speed between them and pedestrians is less than between them
and cars in the road.

What about pedestrians on roads where there is no pavement?

Or preserved steam traction engines?

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If a river bridge were not guarded by a parapet, the slackness of the
defaulting authority deserves the blame, not the people who fall in" -
Lieut. Col. Mervyn O'Gorman.

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:58:12 +0100, Laurence Payne
wrote:

You can argue all night over whether a cyclist who gets off and pushes
becomes a pedestrian.

I was right, I see :-)

Martin Underwood wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote in
:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Richard J. wrote:

I was recently told, by a friend who ought to know, that both
pushed bicycles and shopping trolleys, and prams, and anything
similar, are strictly not legal on the footway. BHCBW.

What planet are these law-makers on?

Tom's a law maker??

Tom: your friend "who ought to know" -- get him to quote chapter and
verse in the law that says that it's illegal to push a pram on the
footway. If he can't, then his statement is not credible.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Richard J. wrote:

Martin Underwood wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote in
:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Richard J. wrote:

I was recently told, by a friend who ought to know, that both pushed
bicycles and shopping trolleys, and prams, and anything similar, are
strictly not legal on the footway. BHCBW.

What planet are these law-makers on?

Tom's a law maker??

Round these parts, pardner ...

Sorry.

Tom: your friend "who ought to know" -- get him to quote chapter and
verse in the law that says that it's illegal to push a pram on the
footway. If he can't, then his statement is not credible.

I'll ask him next time i see him - probably in a few months - but he's not
really a chapter-and-verse sort of guy.

tom

--
find porn apricot

"Richard J." wrote in message
.uk...

Try reporting it as a fault to http://streetfaults.tfl.gov.uk/

Thanks!

No-one bother me for a while, I have a few hundred street faults to report.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"Helen Deborah Vecht" wrote in message
...
....
AIUI you can squeeze past a red light if you think the traffic lights
are out of order. The OP waited five minutes and then had good reason to
believe this was the case.

Regulation 36 (1) (a) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General
Directions 2002 states that 'the red signal shall convey the prohibition
that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line'. The only
permitted exceptions are where there is one or more green arrow (regs 36 (1)
(f) and (g)) and for emergency vehicles (reg 36 (1) (b)). If you cross the
line against a red light under any other circumstances you have committed an
offence. Showing that the lights had failed might be accepted in mitigation
if you end up in Court as a result of doing so.

Colin Bignell