Nick Finnigan wrote in
:

Martin Underwood wrote:
Nick Finnigan wrote in
:


The stop line usually goes across only the left hand side of the
carriageway, but nobody imagines that using the right hand side of
the road gets you past a red light legally. Cyclists can cycle past a
stop line if there is a marked cycle lane which is not covered by it.

Ah, so the absence of a stop line on a cycle lane in the road means
it's OK to go ahead, but the absence of a stop line on a pavement
that is separated from the road by a kerb still means you have to
stop? Perverse.

Yep.

I'm not sure whether a shopping trolley could be classed as a
vehicle, on the grounds that it's not usually used for carrying
people on/in it - unless you count the obligatory pekinese that the
LOL/LOM always seems to carry in their trolley!

It would be a goods vehicle (even with pekinese dogs in it).

So it would need a licence to transport livestock as well.

Richard J. wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...

We also seem to have gone backwards on area control of a set of lights.
Do these schemes still exist in London? I keep being stopped,
particularly at light-controlled pedestrian crossings, in a way that sug
gests that each set of lights functions independently.

There is already London-wide control of traffic signals on the major
road network under the control of the SCOOT computer system, which
monitors traffic flow across the whole network and adjusts signal
timings accordingly.
--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

John Rowland wrote:
"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.

Good luck... I reported a fault with some street lighting in Shepherd's
Bush (quite a dangerous fault - the lights in a pedestrian subway had
gone, plunging it into darkness), and ended up ringing around about 6
different numbers when nothing got done about it. I got bounced around
from TfL to Kensington, who said it was Hammersmith's problem, who said
it was TfL's, who said I needed to ring their contractors, who told me I
had rung the wrong number etc... eventually the lighting got fixed. But
it did break again two days later.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Ian wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
Anyway, if you wheel your bicycle past the stop line on the pavement,
surely you count as a pedestrian then?

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.

Similarly, in 1982 there were 4441 successful prosecution of cyclists for
lighting and reflector offences. By 2003 this had dropped to 166. Careless
and reckless cycling offences peak on the table mentioned above at 398 in
1983. By 2003 they had dropped to 77.

According to dft_transstats_031373, 214 pedestrians were hit by cyclists, 38
were seriously injured and 4 killed. I don't suppose that those injured and
the relatives of those killed by cyclists think that dangerous cycling is as
trivial as the police obviously now do.

Although certainly the numbers "caught" have gone down, as someone else
said, it's now a fixed penalty notice job. In Kensington & Chelsea they
are certainly having a crackdown on cyclists riding on the pavement.

As a cyclist (some days of the week), it annoys me to see people do this
(and to see cyclists going through red lights) as it makes everyone more
hostile towards cyclists (although that's been discussed at great length
here before!).


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Richard J." wrote in message
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.
--

I think it is in Section 72 of the Highways Act of 1835. That is the law
that makes it illegal to cycle on the pavement and I think it extends to all
wheeled vehicles. Unfortunately, I can't find it online.

Ian

Ian wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message

Martin Underwood wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote in
. li:


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.
--


I think it is in Section 72 of the Highways Act of 1835. That is the law
that makes it illegal to cycle on the pavement and I think it extends to all
wheeled vehicles. Unfortunately, I can't find it online.

http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/misc/misc.html

has an appropriate discussion.

Nick Finnigan wrote:
Ian wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message

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.
--


I think it is in Section 72 of the Highways Act of 1835. That is
the law that makes it illegal to cycle on the pavement and I think
it extends to all wheeled vehicles. Unfortunately, I can't find it
online.

http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/misc/misc.html

has an appropriate discussion.

It does indeed, and concludes that a person pushing a bike, on a
pedestrian crossing anyway, is a pedestrian. "a person who is walking
across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the
pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going
across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is
clearly a 'foot passenger'."
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Ian" wrote in message
...

SNIP

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

You frequently see cyclists, usually kids, cycling across zebra crossings
which is an offence but I doubt anybody ever told them that !!
Baz

"Richard J." wrote in message Nick Finnigan wrote:
Ian wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message

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.
--


I think it is in Section 72 of the Highways Act of 1835. That is
the law that makes it illegal to cycle on the pavement and I think
it extends to all wheeled vehicles. Unfortunately, I can't find it
online.

http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/misc/misc.html

has an appropriate discussion.

It does indeed, and concludes that a person pushing a bike, on a
pedestrian crossing anyway, is a pedestrian. "a person who is walking
across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the
pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going
across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is
clearly a 'foot passenger'."
--

Thanks Nick for the link. So if a cyclist rides across a pedestrian crossing
can I legally knock him/her over?

Ian

nightjar nightjar@ wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, John Rowland wrote:


Why doesn't Britain extend the "flashing amber" signal from meaning "you
can go if no pedestrians are crossing" to also mean "you can go if no
cars are crossing"?

Good idea.

I'm not entirely sure about using flashing amber, though: rightly or
wrongly, people associate amber with 'go' - and, indeed, 'go, quick!' -
which is not what you want to say here.


Flashing amber is very distinct from a steady amber and the French use the
system quite successfully on quiet junctions at night.

And the United States, with some slightly different meanings. Late at
night, it is not unusual to see lights flashing "yellow" (watch for
cross traffic, but you have the right of way) for a major street and red
(come to a complete stop and proceed only when it is safe to do so) for
a side street. Flashing red for all traffic is the default power-on
failure mode for most lights.

A single-bulb installation with flashing red is used where needed to
emphasize a "stop" sign, since it carries the same meaning. Flashing
amber, on its own, can have the same meaning as part of a traffic light,
but might have several other meanings, depending on the context.