Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Cyclist warns of "constant stupidity"
136 views
Skip to first unread message
M Wicks
Oct 10, 2012, 6:28:46 AM10/10/12
to
I would certainly be a big fan of 'cracking down' (proportionately) on
the minority of cyclists who misbehave, and I mean really misbehave,
e.g. suicidal 'cutting' manoeuvres and nearly running down
pedestrians, rather than technical offences like red light jumping
(which a fair number of people think shouldn't even be illegal for
cyclists). I'm sure we've all seen some REALLY dodgy things done by
cyclists which make us temporarily embarrassed to be using the same
form of transport. Some places (usually junctions) are particularly
prone to that kind of bad behaviour, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to
position 'bike cops' (who are well-versed in how to deal with cyclists
and what exactly the laws are which apply to them) at such places from
time to time.
If we could even halve the number of 'Oh my goodness, did you see
THAT?' type events that are caused by a few (and it is just a few)
errant cyclists, then it would be of enormous help to us all in being
seen as a 'grown-up', non-anarchic form of transport. A road user who
doesn't cycle probably only has to see one or two 'outrageous' acts by
a cyclist per month to maintain a negative image of cyclists as a
whole. While we could argue that this is 'unfair', and that they're
noticing 'bad cyclists' a lot more than 'bad drivers', 'bad
pedestrians' etc because they have an innate prejudice against
cyclists to begin with thanks to society, and they don't actually
cause many injuries, and all that sort of thing, the fact is that if
we're trying to gain the respect that we deserve then it only takes a
couple of bad apples to spoil that effort and we'd be much better off
with fewer said apples.
Obviously if enough cyclists are doing the same 'bad' things at a
junction, then it's perfectly possible that a junction redesign would
solve the problem the most effectively. But this doesn't excuse
irresponsible behaviour.
[I apologise to 'Ace' and anyone else who doesn't want another
'political' thread. Hopefully my thread title is sufficiently clear
for those who aren't interested in such matters to avoid reading the
thread altogether, which presumably should keep everyone happy.]
Cyclist warns of "constant stupidity"
http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/local/9971861.Cyclist_warns_of__constant_stupidity_/
A CYCLIST has warned the public is losing patience with bike users
because of their �almost constant stupidity�.
Deborah Golby, who has been cycling for nearly 45 years, says instead
of blaming motorists for collisions and near misses, cyclists should
work on their own skills on the road.
�I�m a cyclist myself, and I would never discourage people from
getting on their bike, but it is at the stage now where I am seeing
almost constant stupidity,� said Mrs Golby, 52, of Bromley Road, in
Greenstead.
�When accidents happen, the public perception is that it is the
motorist�s fault, but I can tell you now, it usually isn�t.
�We are seeing no end to the stupidity of some cyclists and as
responsible cyclists, we need to acknowledge this.�
Mrs Golby also said she had seen several close shaves near to the
University of Essex Knowledge Gateway, where cyclists had ignored red
lights and continued on, causing motorists to brake suddenly.
�At the very least they should respect the rules of the road,� she
added.
�I think all cyclists need to make sure they are safer on the road.�
the minority of cyclists who misbehave, and I mean really misbehave,
e.g. suicidal 'cutting' manoeuvres and nearly running down
pedestrians, rather than technical offences like red light jumping
(which a fair number of people think shouldn't even be illegal for
cyclists). I'm sure we've all seen some REALLY dodgy things done by
cyclists which make us temporarily embarrassed to be using the same
form of transport. Some places (usually junctions) are particularly
prone to that kind of bad behaviour, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to
position 'bike cops' (who are well-versed in how to deal with cyclists
and what exactly the laws are which apply to them) at such places from
time to time.
If we could even halve the number of 'Oh my goodness, did you see
THAT?' type events that are caused by a few (and it is just a few)
errant cyclists, then it would be of enormous help to us all in being
seen as a 'grown-up', non-anarchic form of transport. A road user who
doesn't cycle probably only has to see one or two 'outrageous' acts by
a cyclist per month to maintain a negative image of cyclists as a
whole. While we could argue that this is 'unfair', and that they're
noticing 'bad cyclists' a lot more than 'bad drivers', 'bad
pedestrians' etc because they have an innate prejudice against
cyclists to begin with thanks to society, and they don't actually
cause many injuries, and all that sort of thing, the fact is that if
we're trying to gain the respect that we deserve then it only takes a
couple of bad apples to spoil that effort and we'd be much better off
with fewer said apples.
Obviously if enough cyclists are doing the same 'bad' things at a
junction, then it's perfectly possible that a junction redesign would
solve the problem the most effectively. But this doesn't excuse
irresponsible behaviour.
[I apologise to 'Ace' and anyone else who doesn't want another
'political' thread. Hopefully my thread title is sufficiently clear
for those who aren't interested in such matters to avoid reading the
thread altogether, which presumably should keep everyone happy.]
Cyclist warns of "constant stupidity"
http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/local/9971861.Cyclist_warns_of__constant_stupidity_/
A CYCLIST has warned the public is losing patience with bike users
because of their �almost constant stupidity�.
Deborah Golby, who has been cycling for nearly 45 years, says instead
of blaming motorists for collisions and near misses, cyclists should
work on their own skills on the road.
�I�m a cyclist myself, and I would never discourage people from
getting on their bike, but it is at the stage now where I am seeing
almost constant stupidity,� said Mrs Golby, 52, of Bromley Road, in
Greenstead.
�When accidents happen, the public perception is that it is the
motorist�s fault, but I can tell you now, it usually isn�t.
�We are seeing no end to the stupidity of some cyclists and as
responsible cyclists, we need to acknowledge this.�
Mrs Golby also said she had seen several close shaves near to the
University of Essex Knowledge Gateway, where cyclists had ignored red
lights and continued on, causing motorists to brake suddenly.
�At the very least they should respect the rules of the road,� she
added.
�I think all cyclists need to make sure they are safer on the road.�
Rob Morley
Oct 10, 2012, 7:27:07 AM10/10/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:28:46 +0100
M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Deborah Golby, who has been cycling for nearly 45 years, says instead
> of blaming motorists for collisions and near misses, cyclists should
> work on their own skills on the road.
I suspect the cyclists who call for better behaviour from motorists
M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Deborah Golby, who has been cycling for nearly 45 years, says instead
> of blaming motorists for collisions and near misses, cyclists should
> work on their own skills on the road.
aren't the same ones who are responsible for those "OMFG did you see
that?" moments.
Peter Keller
Oct 10, 2012, 6:23:56 PM10/10/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:28:46 +0100, M Wicks wrote:
> I would certainly be a big fan of 'cracking down' (proportionately) on
> the minority of cyclists who misbehave, and I mean really misbehave,
> e.g. suicidal 'cutting' manoeuvres and nearly running down pedestrians,
I nearly ran down a pedestrian yesterday.
> I would certainly be a big fan of 'cracking down' (proportionately) on
> the minority of cyclists who misbehave, and I mean really misbehave,
> e.g. suicidal 'cutting' manoeuvres and nearly running down pedestrians,
I was keeping up with the traffic along the main shopping street (not a
mall, so cars, buses etc can use this street) when, from between two
parked cars, a middle-aged distinguished looking gentleman wandered onto
the road without even looking up from his ?iphone. He just appeared!
I slammed on the brakes and yelled LOUDLY!! The whole street must have
heard it. He stopped, I stopped nearly touching him. He looked most
sheepish. I smiled slightly, then continued on my way.
--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.
Andy Morris
Oct 10, 2012, 7:35:42 PM10/10/12
to
Highway code Rule 206:
Drive carefully and slowly when
in crowded shopping streets, Home Zones and Quiet Lanes (see Rule 218)
or residential areas
driving past bus and tram stops; pedestrians may emerge suddenly into
the road
passing parked vehicles, especially ice cream vans; children are more
interested in ice cream than traffic and may run into the road unexpectedly
--
Andy Morris
Andy dot Jinkas at Googlemail
Rob Morley
Oct 11, 2012, 4:19:14 AM10/11/12
to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:35:42 +0100
Andy Morris <AndyM...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 23:23, Peter Keller wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:28:46 +0100, M Wicks wrote:
> >
> >> I would certainly be a big fan of 'cracking
> >> down' (proportionately) on the minority of cyclists who misbehave,
> >> and I mean really misbehave, e.g. suicidal 'cutting' manoeuvres
> >> and nearly running down pedestrians,
> >
> > I nearly ran down a pedestrian yesterday.
> > I was keeping up with the traffic along the main shopping street
> > (not a mall, so cars, buses etc can use this street) when, from
> > between two parked cars, a middle-aged distinguished looking
> > gentleman wandered onto the road without even looking up from
> > his ?iphone. He just appeared! I slammed on the brakes and yelled
> > LOUDLY!! The whole street must have heard it. He stopped, I
> > stopped nearly touching him. He looked most sheepish. I smiled
> > slightly, then continued on my way.
> >
> >
>
> You should expect it and be prepared for it.
>
He avoided the guy, didn't fall off and didn't swerve into the path of
Andy Morris <AndyM...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 23:23, Peter Keller wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:28:46 +0100, M Wicks wrote:
> >
> >> I would certainly be a big fan of 'cracking
> >> down' (proportionately) on the minority of cyclists who misbehave,
> >> and I mean really misbehave, e.g. suicidal 'cutting' manoeuvres
> >> and nearly running down pedestrians,
> >
> > I nearly ran down a pedestrian yesterday.
> > I was keeping up with the traffic along the main shopping street
> > (not a mall, so cars, buses etc can use this street) when, from
> > between two parked cars, a middle-aged distinguished looking
> > gentleman wandered onto the road without even looking up from
> > his ?iphone. He just appeared! I slammed on the brakes and yelled
> > LOUDLY!! The whole street must have heard it. He stopped, I
> > stopped nearly touching him. He looked most sheepish. I smiled
> > slightly, then continued on my way.
> >
> >
>
> You should expect it and be prepared for it.
>
another vehicle - that would suggest that he was sufficiently prepared.
Simon Mason
Oct 11, 2012, 4:20:17 AM10/11/12
to
On 10 Oct, 23:23, Peter Keller <muzhm...@centrum.sk> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:28:46 +0100, M Wicks wrote:
> > I would certainly be a big fan of 'cracking down' (proportionately) on
> > the minority of cyclists who misbehave, and I mean really misbehave,
> > e.g. suicidal 'cutting' manoeuvres and nearly running down pedestrians,
>
> I nearly ran down a pedestrian yesterday.
Tell me about it. As you can see by the oncoming car, all of these
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:28:46 +0100, M Wicks wrote:
> > I would certainly be a big fan of 'cracking down' (proportionately) on
> > the minority of cyclists who misbehave, and I mean really misbehave,
> > e.g. suicidal 'cutting' manoeuvres and nearly running down pedestrians,
>
> I nearly ran down a pedestrian yesterday.
pedestrians were walking against a red man.
http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zombies.wmv
One such person was hit by a bus the other day at a local blackspot
where peds will insist on ignoring the red man despite two being
killed at that crossing.
http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Pedestrian-seriously-hurt-hit-bus/story-17005143-detail/story.html
The comments all condemn the peds for wilfully not waiting for the
green man, they've even put a countdown display to let them know how
long it will take for the OK to appear, but even that gets ignored.
--
Simon Mason
Tony Dragon
Oct 11, 2012, 5:07:49 AM10/11/12
to
changes to red.
My wife still has the problem, that because she has problems walking,
she can't cross during the time the green man is on.
All road users have given us problems because of that (except buses for
some reason)
toomtab...@gmail.com
Oct 11, 2012, 8:05:03 AM10/11/12
to
junctions and where I know the traffic light sequence and the traffic conditions.
Road skills and experience are just as important to safety as a pedestrian as
to cycling and driving. If I waited for every green man I'd spent a long time
waiting. I'm not ignoring the red man - I'm fully aware of the red/green status,
but will frequently negotiate the junction on the red man. Been doing it safely
for years without even a near miss or causing any concern, hazard or obstruction to drivers. however, I agree that many cross without
care and skill, and there's always the problem that one of them might set off
just because they see me step confidently off the pavement.
If waiting on the green man was mandatory, I'd do it, just as I wait on a green
traffic light when cycling. Even on the green man, when walking, it's important watch out for drivers (with phone clutched to ear) making mistakes and particularly for cyclists whizzing past.
Toom
toomtab...@gmail.com
Oct 11, 2012, 8:47:03 AM10/11/12
to
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:28:47 AM UTC+1, M Wicks wrote:
> I would certainly be a big fan of 'cracking down' (proportionately) on
>
> the minority of cyclists who misbehave, and I mean really misbehave,
> e.g. suicidal 'cutting' manoeuvres and nearly running down
> pedestrians, rather than technical offences like red light jumping.
> I would certainly be a big fan of 'cracking down' (proportionately) on
>
> the minority of cyclists who misbehave, and I mean really misbehave,
> e.g. suicidal 'cutting' manoeuvres and nearly running down
In terms of running down pedestrians, there's also the issue of training
young cyclists. I'm all in favour of kids cycling to and from school on
pavements, but we're talking about fast, heavy, multi-geared machines
now, not trikes and fairy cycles. I frequently wince when I see them barreling
past shop doorways where someone could step out at any second.
When walking home about school-out time, I was passed by a guy cycling along
the road. His son was coming up behind me on the pavement. I only became aware
when he whizzed out from behind me and nearly felled a guy
walking the other way. He, of course, could at least see him coming and was
able to fend him off and jump to the side. The father cycled on unaware, and
the laddie set off to catch up with him. If I'd been able to catch up, I'd have
spoken to the father about what happened, and the need for supervision, and safe
cycling near pedestrians, not just whizzing along leaving the child to try
and keep up.
Toom
Owen Dunn
Oct 11, 2012, 11:50:38 AM10/11/12
to
toomtab...@gmail.com writes:
> In terms of running down pedestrians, there's also the issue of
> training young cyclists. I'm all in favour of kids cycling to and
> from school on pavements, but we're talking about fast, heavy,
> multi-geared machines now, not trikes and fairy cycles. I frequently
> wince when I see them barreling past shop doorways where someone
> could step out at any second.
I don't think children should cycle to school on pavements. It
> In terms of running down pedestrians, there's also the issue of
> training young cyclists. I'm all in favour of kids cycling to and
> from school on pavements, but we're talking about fast, heavy,
> multi-geared machines now, not trikes and fairy cycles. I frequently
> wince when I see them barreling past shop doorways where someone
> could step out at any second.
ingrains a habit in them that cycling on the pavement is OK, and that
cycling on the road is `difficult' or `something to be avoided'. When
they use more powerful bikes pavement cyclists can be a danger to
pedestrians.
Similarly child pavement cycling leads drivers to expect cyclists on
the pavement and not on the road, to the detriment of road cyclists.
(S)
thirty-six
Oct 11, 2012, 11:50:56 AM10/11/12
to
On Oct 11, 12:35�am, Andy Morris <AndyMor...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 23:23, Peter Keller wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:28:46 +0100, M Wicks wrote:
>
> >> I would certainly be a big fan of 'cracking down' (proportionately) on
> >> the minority of cyclists who misbehave, and I mean really misbehave,
> >> e.g. suicidal 'cutting' manoeuvres and nearly running down pedestrians,
>
> > I nearly ran down a pedestrian yesterday.
> > I was keeping up with the traffic along the main shopping street (not a
> > mall, so cars, buses etc can use this street) when, from between two
> > parked cars, a middle-aged distinguished looking gentleman wandered onto
> > the road without even looking up from his ?iphone. �He just appeared!
> > I slammed on the brakes and yelled LOUDLY!! �The whole street must have
> > heard it. �He stopped, I stopped nearly touching him. �He looked most
> > sheepish. �I smiled slightly, then continued on my way.
>
> You should expect it and be prepared for it.
>
> Highway code Rule 206:
>
> Drive carefully and slowly when
One may propel a bicycle but one cannot drive it, even when there is
> On 10/10/2012 23:23, Peter Keller wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:28:46 +0100, M Wicks wrote:
>
> >> I would certainly be a big fan of 'cracking down' (proportionately) on
> >> the minority of cyclists who misbehave, and I mean really misbehave,
> >> e.g. suicidal 'cutting' manoeuvres and nearly running down pedestrians,
>
> > I nearly ran down a pedestrian yesterday.
> > I was keeping up with the traffic along the main shopping street (not a
> > mall, so cars, buses etc can use this street) when, from between two
> > parked cars, a middle-aged distinguished looking gentleman wandered onto
> > the road without even looking up from his ?iphone. �He just appeared!
> > I slammed on the brakes and yelled LOUDLY!! �The whole street must have
> > heard it. �He stopped, I stopped nearly touching him. �He looked most
> > sheepish. �I smiled slightly, then continued on my way.
>
> You should expect it and be prepared for it.
>
> Highway code Rule 206:
>
> Drive carefully and slowly when
carriage of commercial goods. The code cannot therefore be applied to
one who rides a bicycle without some form of motorized assistance. It
may possibly be used against someone who uses an electrical assist
bicycle, but lets not encourage officialdom.
I also agree wiith Rob Morley's words "He avoided the guy, didn't fall
off and didn't swerve into the path of another vehicle - that would
suggest that he was sufficiently prepared." This is a fair and
unbiased view which should be understood by any other unbiased man.
You must understand that.
Simon Mason
Oct 11, 2012, 11:51:12 AM10/11/12
to
On 11 Oct, 13:05, toomtabard1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, October 11, 2012 9:20:17 AM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
> > On 10 Oct, 23:23, Peter Keller <muzhm...@centrum.sk> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:28:46 +0100, M Wicks wrote:
> > > > I would certainly be a big fan of 'cracking down' (proportionately) on
> > > > the minority of cyclists who misbehave, and I mean really misbehave,
> > > > e.g. suicidal 'cutting' manoeuvres and nearly running down pedestrians,
>
> > > I nearly ran down a pedestrian yesterday.
> > Tell me about it. As you can see by the oncoming car, all of these
> > pedestrians were walking against a red man.
> >http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zombies.wmv
> > One such person was hit by a bus the other day at a local blackspot
> > where peds will insist on ignoring the red man despite two being
> > killed at that crossing.
>
> >http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Pedestrian-seriously-hurt-hi...
> On Thursday, October 11, 2012 9:20:17 AM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
> > On 10 Oct, 23:23, Peter Keller <muzhm...@centrum.sk> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:28:46 +0100, M Wicks wrote:
> > > > I would certainly be a big fan of 'cracking down' (proportionately) on
> > > > the minority of cyclists who misbehave, and I mean really misbehave,
> > > > e.g. suicidal 'cutting' manoeuvres and nearly running down pedestrians,
>
> > > I nearly ran down a pedestrian yesterday.
> > Tell me about it. As you can see by the oncoming car, all of these
> > pedestrians were walking against a red man.
> >http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zombies.wmv
> > One such person was hit by a bus the other day at a local blackspot
> > where peds will insist on ignoring the red man despite two being
> > killed at that crossing.
>
>
> > The comments all condemn the peds for wilfully not waiting for the
> > green man, they've even put a countdown display to let them know how
> > long it will take for the OK to appear, but even that gets ignored.
>
> > --
> > Simon Mason
>
> I walk a lot, and I mean a lot, in town in areas where there are many red man
> junctions and where I know the traffic light sequence and the traffic conditions.
>
> Road skills and experience are just as important to safety as a pedestrian as
> to cycling and driving. If I waited for every green man I'd spent a long time
> waiting. I'm not ignoring the red man - I'm fully aware of the red/green status,
> but will frequently negotiate the junction on the red man. Been doing it safely
> for years without even a near miss or causing any concern, hazard or obstruction to drivers
What annoys me is that the peds will see the red man and me
> > The comments all condemn the peds for wilfully not waiting for the
> > green man, they've even put a countdown display to let them know how
> > long it will take for the OK to appear, but even that gets ignored.
>
> > --
> > Simon Mason
>
> I walk a lot, and I mean a lot, in town in areas where there are many red man
> junctions and where I know the traffic light sequence and the traffic conditions.
>
> Road skills and experience are just as important to safety as a pedestrian as
> to cycling and driving. If I waited for every green man I'd spent a long time
> waiting. I'm not ignoring the red man - I'm fully aware of the red/green status,
> but will frequently negotiate the junction on the red man. Been doing it safely
> for years without even a near miss or causing any concern, hazard or obstruction to drivers
approaching on green and think "it's only a cyclist" and act as though
I don't matter, whereas if I was in a car they would not attempt to
cross until I had passed by.
--
Simon Mason
thirty-six
Oct 11, 2012, 11:51:28 AM10/11/12
to
On Oct 11, 10:07�am, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 09:20, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Oct, 23:23, Peter Keller <muzhm...@centrum.sk> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:28:46 +0100, M Wicks wrote:
> >>> I would certainly be a big fan of 'cracking down' (proportionately) on
> >>> the minority of cyclists who misbehave, and I mean really misbehave,
> >>> e.g. suicidal 'cutting' manoeuvres and nearly running down pedestrians,
>
> >> I nearly ran down a pedestrian yesterday.
>
> > Tell me about it. As you can see by the oncoming car, all of these
> > pedestrians were walking against a red man.
>
> >http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zombies.wmv
>
> > One such person was hit by a bus the other day at a local blackspot
> > where peds will insist on ignoring the red man despite two being
> > killed at that crossing.
>
> >http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Pedestrian-seriously-hurt-hi...
> On 11/10/2012 09:20, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Oct, 23:23, Peter Keller <muzhm...@centrum.sk> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:28:46 +0100, M Wicks wrote:
> >>> I would certainly be a big fan of 'cracking down' (proportionately) on
> >>> the minority of cyclists who misbehave, and I mean really misbehave,
> >>> e.g. suicidal 'cutting' manoeuvres and nearly running down pedestrians,
>
> >> I nearly ran down a pedestrian yesterday.
>
> > Tell me about it. As you can see by the oncoming car, all of these
> > pedestrians were walking against a red man.
>
> >http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zombies.wmv
>
> > One such person was hit by a bus the other day at a local blackspot
> > where peds will insist on ignoring the red man despite two being
> > killed at that crossing.
>
>
> > The comments all condemn the peds for wilfully not waiting for the
> > green man, they've even put a countdown display to let them know how
> > long it will take for the OK to appear, but even that gets ignored.
>
> > --
> > Simon Mason
>
> Surely the countdown timer indicates how long it is before the green man
> changes to red.
> My wife still has the problem, that because she has problems walking,
> she can't cross during the time the green man is on.
>
> All road users have given us problems because of that (except buses for
> some reason)
I believe it is in the bus driver's training not to run down
> > The comments all condemn the peds for wilfully not waiting for the
> > green man, they've even put a countdown display to let them know how
> > long it will take for the OK to appear, but even that gets ignored.
>
> > --
> > Simon Mason
>
> Surely the countdown timer indicates how long it is before the green man
> changes to red.
> My wife still has the problem, that because she has problems walking,
> she can't cross during the time the green man is on.
>
> All road users have given us problems because of that (except buses for
> some reason)
pedestrians, as a rule. A bus full of witnesses possibly encourages
this peculiar motorists behaviour amongst atheist bus-drivers, the
belief in the presence of God will encourage the God-fearers and the
desire to complement the world will encourage those with naturalistic
tendencies.
Adam Funk
Oct 11, 2012, 12:56:42 PM10/11/12
to
On 2012-10-11, thirty-six wrote:
> On Oct 11, 12:35 am, Andy Morris <AndyMor...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>> Highway code Rule 206:
>>
>> Drive carefully and slowly when
>
> One may propel a bicycle but one cannot drive it, even when there is
> carriage of commercial goods. The code cannot therefore be applied to
> one who rides a bicycle without some form of motorized assistance. It
> may possibly be used against someone who uses an electrical assist
> bicycle, but lets not encourage officialdom.
Isn't cycling "driving a carriage" in the sense used in the older
> On Oct 11, 12:35 am, Andy Morris <AndyMor...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>> Highway code Rule 206:
>>
>> Drive carefully and slowly when
>
> One may propel a bicycle but one cannot drive it, even when there is
> carriage of commercial goods. The code cannot therefore be applied to
> one who rides a bicycle without some form of motorized assistance. It
> may possibly be used against someone who uses an electrical assist
> bicycle, but lets not encourage officialdom.
traffic laws?
> I also agree wiith Rob Morley's words "He avoided the guy, didn't fall
> off and didn't swerve into the path of another vehicle - that would
> suggest that he was sufficiently prepared." This is a fair and
> unbiased view which should be understood by any other unbiased man.
> You must understand that.
Tim+
Oct 11, 2012, 12:59:20 PM10/11/12
to
they're too nervous to ride on the roads.
I reckon a 1/4 mile zone around every school where there is no
pavement/road demarcation would go a long way towards getting kids back on
bikes "reclaiming the streets".
Tim
thirty-six
Oct 11, 2012, 1:53:32 PM10/11/12
to
On Oct 11, 4:50�pm, Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
They should not wear flourescents as such but coats bearing "pension
fund", mind you the numbskulls will probably misinterpret it.
fund", mind you the numbskulls will probably misinterpret it.
thirty-six
Oct 11, 2012, 1:54:09 PM10/11/12
to
On Oct 11, 5:59锟絧m, Tim+ <timdownie2...@nospampleaseyahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
street which we knew was strange. We had bonfires for the 5th and
new-year and built giant snowmen in the road when we could to stop any
strangers. We played cricket and tennis in the summer and footy for
most of the rest of the time in the street. On a weekend we would go
to the park on our bicycles and dare each other to do things I am
probably best not recalling for discussion here. Playinindepark at
least protected us from the onslaught of commerce which prevailed
itself in the rest of our world. I realise now that I wasn't acting
like a mischievous five year old when I was a teenager in the park but
holding and developing a naturalistic appreciation, as all men
should. Claiming the streets as our own, cos we lived there, you
must understand, was obviously our expression of a naturalistic
barrier to commerce, although we knew not what we were blocking out at
the time. I now KNOW that claiming the streets is essential to the
continuous well-being of a community and strangers should respect the
lives of others who live on and use those streets.
wrote:
> Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > toomtabard1...@gmail.com writes:
>
> >> In terms of running down pedestrians, there's also the issue of
> >> training young cyclists. I'm all in favour of kids cycling to and
> >> from school on pavements, but we're talking about fast, heavy,
> >> multi-geared machines now, not trikes and fairy cycles. I frequently
> >> wince when I see them barreling past shop doorways where someone
> >> could step out at any second.
>
> > I don't think children should cycle to school on pavements. 锟絀t
>
> >> In terms of running down pedestrians, there's also the issue of
> >> training young cyclists. I'm all in favour of kids cycling to and
> >> from school on pavements, but we're talking about fast, heavy,
> >> multi-geared machines now, not trikes and fairy cycles. I frequently
> >> wince when I see them barreling past shop doorways where someone
> >> could step out at any second.
>
> > ingrains a habit in them that cycling on the pavement is OK, and that
> > cycling on the road is `difficult' or `something to be avoided'. 锟絎hen
> > they use more powerful bikes pavement cyclists can be a danger to
> > pedestrians.
>
> > Similarly child pavement cycling leads drivers to expect cyclists on
> > the pavement and not on the road, to the detriment of road cyclists.
>
> Exactly. 锟絀 despair at the number of adults who ride on pavements because
> > pedestrians.
>
> > Similarly child pavement cycling leads drivers to expect cyclists on
> > the pavement and not on the road, to the detriment of road cyclists.
>
> they're too nervous to ride on the roads.
>
> I reckon a 1/4 mile zone around every school where there is no
> pavement/road demarcation would go a long way towards getting kids back on
> bikes "reclaiming the streets".
>
> Tim
Yeah, our gang would let the tyres down of any car that parked in our
>
> I reckon a 1/4 mile zone around every school where there is no
> pavement/road demarcation would go a long way towards getting kids back on
> bikes "reclaiming the streets".
>
> Tim
street which we knew was strange. We had bonfires for the 5th and
new-year and built giant snowmen in the road when we could to stop any
strangers. We played cricket and tennis in the summer and footy for
most of the rest of the time in the street. On a weekend we would go
to the park on our bicycles and dare each other to do things I am
probably best not recalling for discussion here. Playinindepark at
least protected us from the onslaught of commerce which prevailed
itself in the rest of our world. I realise now that I wasn't acting
like a mischievous five year old when I was a teenager in the park but
holding and developing a naturalistic appreciation, as all men
should. Claiming the streets as our own, cos we lived there, you
must understand, was obviously our expression of a naturalistic
barrier to commerce, although we knew not what we were blocking out at
the time. I now KNOW that claiming the streets is essential to the
continuous well-being of a community and strangers should respect the
lives of others who live on and use those streets.
thirty-six
Oct 11, 2012, 1:54:36 PM10/11/12
to
witnesses may suddenly appear. who will testify the trafficator was
red. ;-)
thirty-six
Oct 11, 2012, 1:55:17 PM10/11/12
to
On Oct 11, 5:56�pm, Adam Funk <a240...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-10-11, thirty-six wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 12:35�am, Andy Morris <AndyMor...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> >> Highway code Rule 206:
>
> >> Drive carefully and slowly when
>
> > One may propel a bicycle but one cannot drive it, even when there is
> > carriage of commercial goods. �The code cannot therefore be applied to
> > one who rides a bicycle without some form of motorized assistance. �It
> > may possibly be used against someone who uses an electrical assist
> > bicycle, but lets not encourage officialdom.
>
> Isn't cycling "driving a carriage" in the sense used in the older
> traffic laws?
Driving or droving is a professional term which describes the
> On 2012-10-11, thirty-six wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 12:35�am, Andy Morris <AndyMor...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> >> Highway code Rule 206:
>
> >> Drive carefully and slowly when
>
> > One may propel a bicycle but one cannot drive it, even when there is
> > carriage of commercial goods. �The code cannot therefore be applied to
> > one who rides a bicycle without some form of motorized assistance. �It
> > may possibly be used against someone who uses an electrical assist
> > bicycle, but lets not encourage officialdom.
>
> Isn't cycling "driving a carriage" in the sense used in the older
> traffic laws?
commercial movement of a motorised carriage or animal. One has to be
engaged in commerce for there to be any consideration that driving has
taken place, unless one understands, as questioned by an officer. You
are a bright chap. You do understand this (legislation), don't
you? ;-)
thirty-six
Oct 11, 2012, 4:07:07 PM10/11/12
to
signal and I do realise you mostly have the evidence side covered, but
freezers MUST be covered or you will burn in hell. ;-)
Toom Tabard
Oct 12, 2012, 5:13:29 AM10/12/12
to
On Thursday, 11 October 2012 16:50:56 UTC+1, thirty-six wrote:
> On Oct 11, 12:35�am, Andy Morris <AndyMor...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10/10/2012 23:23, Peter Keller wrote:
>
> > You should expect it and be prepared for it.
> >
> > Highway code Rule 206:
> >
> > Drive carefully and slowly when
>
> One may propel a bicycle but one cannot drive it, even when there is
> carriage of commercial goods. The code cannot therefore be applied to
> one who rides a bicycle without some form of motorized assistance. It
> may possibly be used against someone who uses an electrical assist
> bicycle, but lets not encourage officialdom.
>
It's part of a section of how to behave towards, road users needing extra care,
> On Oct 11, 12:35�am, Andy Morris <AndyMor...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10/10/2012 23:23, Peter Keller wrote:
>
> > You should expect it and be prepared for it.
> >
> > Highway code Rule 206:
> >
> > Drive carefully and slowly when
>
> One may propel a bicycle but one cannot drive it, even when there is
> carriage of commercial goods. The code cannot therefore be applied to
> one who rides a bicycle without some form of motorized assistance. It
> may possibly be used against someone who uses an electrical assist
> bicycle, but lets not encourage officialdom.
>
and is useful and applicable information for cyclists, not only
to protect other users, but since they themselves are
be vulnerable to injury if they hit other road user, or have to take sudden
avoiding action.
Rule 206 is intended to be applicable to cyclists. The earlier section of 'rules for cyclists' says 'These rules are in addition to those in the following sections, which apply to all vehicles (except the motorway section).'
It's best to take the highway code in total as providing useful information
and an awareness of the rules for each of us, and applying anything that make ourselves and others safer A strict legal interpretation
and arguments over individual words is a separate issue. One could argue endlessly about a strict legalistic interpretations and definitions.
Toom
thirty-six
Oct 12, 2012, 9:50:26 AM10/12/12
to
On 12 Oct, 10:13, Toom Tabard <toomtabard1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 October 2012 16:50:56 UTC+1, thirty-six �wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 12:35�am, Andy Morris <AndyMor...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 10/10/2012 23:23, Peter Keller wrote:
>
> > > You should expect it and be prepared for it.
>
> > > Highway code Rule 206:
>
> > > Drive carefully and slowly when
>
> > One may propel a bicycle but one cannot drive it, even when there is
> > carriage of commercial goods. �The code cannot therefore be applied to
> > one who rides a bicycle without some form of motorized assistance. �It
> > may possibly be used against someone who uses an electrical assist
> > bicycle, but lets not encourage officialdom.
>
> It's part of a section of how to behave towards, road users needing extra care,
> and is useful and applicable information for cyclists, not only
> to protect other users, but since they themselves are
> be vulnerable to injury if they hit other road user, or have to take sudden
> avoiding action.
>
> Rule 206 is intended to be applicable to cyclists.
If such intent existed then it would be there in print. They've had
> On Thursday, 11 October 2012 16:50:56 UTC+1, thirty-six �wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 12:35�am, Andy Morris <AndyMor...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 10/10/2012 23:23, Peter Keller wrote:
>
> > > You should expect it and be prepared for it.
>
> > > Highway code Rule 206:
>
> > > Drive carefully and slowly when
>
> > One may propel a bicycle but one cannot drive it, even when there is
> > carriage of commercial goods. �The code cannot therefore be applied to
> > one who rides a bicycle without some form of motorized assistance. �It
> > may possibly be used against someone who uses an electrical assist
> > bicycle, but lets not encourage officialdom.
>
> It's part of a section of how to behave towards, road users needing extra care,
> and is useful and applicable information for cyclists, not only
> to protect other users, but since they themselves are
> be vulnerable to injury if they hit other road user, or have to take sudden
> avoiding action.
>
> Rule 206 is intended to be applicable to cyclists.
enough practice at it, what is it now, eleventh edition?
>The earlier section of 'rules for cyclists' says 'These rules are in addition to those in the following sections, which apply to all vehicles (except the motorway section).'
bicycle without a motor.
>
> It's best to take the highway code in total as providing useful information
> and an awareness of the rules for each of us, and applying anything that make ourselves and others safer A strict legal interpretation
> and arguments over individual words is a separate issue. One could argue endlessly about a strict legalistic interpretations and definitions.
>
When I drive a bicycle I'll take 206 into account. If you would like
to quote the legislation which supports your argument that a bicycle
is driven without a motor, go ahead. I've not seen that before as
common or legislative language.
Adam Funk
Oct 12, 2012, 9:50:47 AM10/12/12
to
driving & isn't covered by the law? Hmm.
Toom Tabard
Oct 12, 2012, 5:01:21 PM10/12/12
to
On Friday, 12 October 2012 14:50:27 UTC+1, thirty-six wrote:
>
>
> No, it says drive, you are arguing that there is something implied.
> When I drive a bicycle I'll take 206 into account. If you would like
> to quote the legislation which supports your argument that a bicycle
> is driven without a motor, go ahead. I've not seen that before as
> common or legislative language.
It doesn't need to be defined by legislation.
>
>
> No, it says drive, you are arguing that there is something implied.
> When I drive a bicycle I'll take 206 into account. If you would like
> to quote the legislation which supports your argument that a bicycle
> is driven without a motor, go ahead. I've not seen that before as
> common or legislative language.
The highway code is a code, not a law. It refers to 'musts' which are legal
requirements, and 'shoulds' which are instructions but without separate legal
statutory enforcement, and other 'rules' as guidance and advice
for benefit of road users.
If it came to legal interpretation of individual words that would be argued
in the context. In this case, the rule is intended to apply to the use of a cycle - the Highway Code wording specifically says so. In a contract or statute, unless the use of a word is strictly qualified and limited, you can expect it to be interpreted fairly fully.
'drive' direct course of a vehicle, etc. OED
'vehicle' conveyance of any kind used on land. OED
i.e. it may not be common parlance but driving a bike is a clear,
understandable and unambiguous action.
Section 206 is neither a 'must' or 'should'. It is recommendations which merely
list several scenarios where you would, in any event, also owe a reasonable duty of care to others under common law. If you were driving contrary to such a duty
then an injured party might well succeed in a claim of negligence or
contributory negligence on your part. They might refer to the section in support
of that, but you have the duties in any event, and arguments on the distinction
of driving/riding would be irrelevant.
It is not an issue of statutory definition or legislation - it is a matter
of common law principles in legal liability cases, or reasonable interpretation
if you are charged with some associated offence.
I'll read any response but the is nothing further I can or would add on what is a reasonably clear legal issue.
Toom
thirty-six
Oct 13, 2012, 1:44:56 PM10/13/12
to
On 12 Oct, 22:01, Toom Tabard <toomtabard1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 12 October 2012 14:50:27 UTC+1, thirty-six wrote:
>
> > No, it says drive, you are arguing that there is something implied.
> > When I drive a bicycle I'll take 206 into account. If you would like
> > to quote the legislation which supports your argument that a bicycle
> > is driven without a motor, go ahead. I've not seen that before as
> > common or legislative language.
>
> It doesn't need to be defined by legislation.
> The highway code is a code, not a law. It refers to 'musts' which are legal
> requirements, and 'shoulds' which are instructions but without separate legal
> statutory enforcement, and other 'rules' as guidance and advice
> for benefit of road users.
> If it came to legal interpretation of individual words that would be argued
> in the context. In this case, the rule is intended to apply to the use of a cycle - the Highway Code wording specifically says so. In a contract or statute, unless the use of a word is strictly qualified and limited, you can expect it to be interpreted fairly fully.
>
> 'drive' direct course of a vehicle, etc. OED
> 'vehicle' conveyance of any kind used on land. OED
>
> i.e. it may not be common parlance but driving a bike is a clear,
> understandable and unambiguous action.
Its bollox and I do not understand!. The highway code is meant to be
> On Friday, 12 October 2012 14:50:27 UTC+1, thirty-six wrote:
>
> > No, it says drive, you are arguing that there is something implied.
> > When I drive a bicycle I'll take 206 into account. If you would like
> > to quote the legislation which supports your argument that a bicycle
> > is driven without a motor, go ahead. I've not seen that before as
> > common or legislative language.
>
> It doesn't need to be defined by legislation.
> The highway code is a code, not a law. It refers to 'musts' which are legal
> requirements, and 'shoulds' which are instructions but without separate legal
> statutory enforcement, and other 'rules' as guidance and advice
> for benefit of road users.
> If it came to legal interpretation of individual words that would be argued
> in the context. In this case, the rule is intended to apply to the use of a cycle - the Highway Code wording specifically says so. In a contract or statute, unless the use of a word is strictly qualified and limited, you can expect it to be interpreted fairly fully.
>
> 'drive' direct course of a vehicle, etc. OED
> 'vehicle' conveyance of any kind used on land. OED
>
> i.e. it may not be common parlance but driving a bike is a clear,
> understandable and unambiguous action.
understood on common language. In common language, when one is
driving, one can not be on a a man-powered bicycle. The very mention
of driving is a specific exclusion of the application of that rule to
bicycle and horse riders.
>
> Section 206 is neither a 'must' or 'should'. It is recommendations which merely
> list several scenarios where you would, in any event, also owe a reasonable duty of care to others under common law. If you were driving contrary to such a duty
agree. I guess this is the nearestI'll get to an admission you were
wrong.
> then an injured party might well succeed in a claim of negligence or
> contributory negligence on your part. They might refer to the section in support
> of that, but you have the duties in any event, and arguments on the distinction
> of driving/riding would be irrelevant.
driving, it would say.
> It is not an issue of statutory definition or legislation - it is a matter
> of common law principles in legal liability cases, or reasonable interpretation
> if you are charged with some associated offence.
>
> I'll read any response but the is nothing further I can or would add on what is a reasonably clear legal issue.
I'm not worried about your legal issues. I don't give a hoot about
offences to a code of practice for which I have not come to an
agreement. All this is the fog that legal (one letter too many)
swindlers (of the lawless society) use to defraud the common man by
making feel guilty for offences for which if he does not agree to he
cannot be lawfully penalised for. The system of police, courts and
lawyers and laterly summarily issued on-the-spot notices, is set to
induce maximum fear into the common man and in most this has been
successful. I prefer not to be part of the nonsense. I prefer to
maintain some freedoms outside the bounds of such a staged theatre.
Just because I have not pursued return of the costs to see this show
does not mean I have enjoyed it and continue to give support. For all
intents and purposes, I have left the theatre. You may carry on your
dockside plays without my contributions.
Message has been deleted
Mark
Oct 15, 2012, 8:44:50 AM10/15/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:28:46 +0100, M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com>
For this we would need massively more money spent on the Police. Given
the limited resources I'd rather they spent the time on more serious
offenses.
And I don't think cracking down on cyclists will have any effect on
the "anti-cyclists". I believe cyclists will remain an out group
until a lot more people cycle.
--snip--
>Cyclist warns of "constant stupidity"
>
>http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/local/9971861.Cyclist_warns_of__constant_stupidity_/
>
>A CYCLIST has warned the public is losing patience with bike users
>because of their “almost constant stupidity”.
>motorist’s fault, but I can tell you now, it usually isn’t.
TBH I think this assertion is wrong. But it's foolish to always blame
one side or the other. Every incident is different and it's dangerous
to generalise. However, given a collision, a cyclist is likely to
come off worse so they have a far greater motivation to be careful.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?
wrote:
>I would certainly be a big fan of 'cracking down' (proportionately) on
>the minority of cyclists who misbehave, and I mean really misbehave,
>e.g. suicidal 'cutting' manoeuvres and nearly running down
>pedestrians.
>I would certainly be a big fan of 'cracking down' (proportionately) on
>the minority of cyclists who misbehave, and I mean really misbehave,
>e.g. suicidal 'cutting' manoeuvres and nearly running down
For this we would need massively more money spent on the Police. Given
the limited resources I'd rather they spent the time on more serious
offenses.
And I don't think cracking down on cyclists will have any effect on
the "anti-cyclists". I believe cyclists will remain an out group
until a lot more people cycle.
--snip--
>Cyclist warns of "constant stupidity"
>
>http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/local/9971861.Cyclist_warns_of__constant_stupidity_/
>
>A CYCLIST has warned the public is losing patience with bike users
>because of their “almost constant stupidity”.
>
>Deborah Golby, who has been cycling for nearly 45 years, says instead
>of blaming motorists for collisions and near misses, cyclists should
>work on their own skills on the road.
>
>“When accidents happen, the public perception is that it is the
>Deborah Golby, who has been cycling for nearly 45 years, says instead
>of blaming motorists for collisions and near misses, cyclists should
>work on their own skills on the road.
>
>motorist’s fault, but I can tell you now, it usually isn’t.
TBH I think this assertion is wrong. But it's foolish to always blame
one side or the other. Every incident is different and it's dangerous
to generalise. However, given a collision, a cyclist is likely to
come off worse so they have a far greater motivation to be careful.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?
toomtab...@gmail.com
Oct 16, 2012, 7:02:55 AM10/16/12
to
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:13:54 PM UTC+1, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Toom Tabard <toomtab...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 12 Oct 2012
> >It is not an issue of statutory definition or legislation - it is a matter
> >of common law principles in legal liability cases, or reasonable interpretation
> >if you are charged with some associated offence.
>
> Obviously not in the opinion of most judges - for example in the
> celebrated Crank vs Brooks case, where if "directing the course of a
> vehicle" was regarded as significant by LJ Waller, the cycle would
> have been regarded as having been driven across the pedestrian
> crossing, instead of being an article of luggage in the hand of the
> pedestrian.
>
The point at issue there was whether a person pushing a bike was a foot-passenger, not whether they could be regarded as driving a bike.
And it is not a question of whether riding and driving a bike are the same thing. That simply does not enter into the case you quote, nor into the application of the highway code rules we are discussing. It is purely the interpretation of 'driving a bike'per se.
The 'opinion of most judges' is not best exemplified by one non-relevant example.
Toom
> Toom Tabard <toomtab...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 12 Oct 2012
> >It is not an issue of statutory definition or legislation - it is a matter
> >of common law principles in legal liability cases, or reasonable interpretation
> >if you are charged with some associated offence.
>
> celebrated Crank vs Brooks case, where if "directing the course of a
> vehicle" was regarded as significant by LJ Waller, the cycle would
> have been regarded as having been driven across the pedestrian
> crossing, instead of being an article of luggage in the hand of the
> pedestrian.
>
The point at issue there was whether a person pushing a bike was a foot-passenger, not whether they could be regarded as driving a bike.
And it is not a question of whether riding and driving a bike are the same thing. That simply does not enter into the case you quote, nor into the application of the highway code rules we are discussing. It is purely the interpretation of 'driving a bike'per se.
The 'opinion of most judges' is not best exemplified by one non-relevant example.
Toom
thirty-six
Oct 17, 2012, 6:11:34 PM10/17/12
to
On Oct 16, 12:02 pm, toomtabard1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:13:54 PM UTC+1, Phil W Lee wrote:
> > Toom Tabard <toomtabard1...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 12 Oct 2012
> On Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:13:54 PM UTC+1, Phil W Lee wrote:
for a bicycle, no motor no driving. I'd be most interested if you
could indicate where "driving" is defined in legislation. It seems to
me that it has not been defined as it is misused so frequently. I
was steering a motor-carriage today, I certainly did not drive it. In
fact most of the time it was barely above idling. I suppose one
could be prosecuted for driving a shopping trolley along a pavement as
this uses the same "motor" as does a bicycle. How about using a
mobile phone while driving perambulator?
Simon Mason
Oct 18, 2012, 7:13:44 AM10/18/12
to
On 17 Oct, 23:11, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
I
> was steering a motor-carriage today, I certainly did not drive it. In
> fact most of the time it was barely above idling. I suppose one
> could be prosecuted for driving a shopping trolley along a pavement as
> this uses the same "motor" as does a bicycle. How about using a
> mobile phone while driving perambulator?
As I was cycling to work yesterday, a four wheeled electric scooter
I
> was steering a motor-carriage today, I certainly did not drive it. In
> fact most of the time it was barely above idling. I suppose one
> could be prosecuted for driving a shopping trolley along a pavement as
> this uses the same "motor" as does a bicycle. How about using a
> mobile phone while driving perambulator?
was being operated by an elderly gentleman along a footpath connecting
two streets (called a snicket here in Yorkshire). I wondered about the
legality of this vis a vis it being illegal for me to ride down the
same path which I also use as a shortcut.
--
Simon Mason
Tim+
Oct 18, 2012, 9:05:14 AM10/18/12
to
than 4mph then electric scooters may use the pavement. above that they're
supposed to use the road. I suppose you could argue that as long as you
travel no faster than this it should be allowable but "law" and "common
sense" don't always agree.
Incidentally, this "safe speed on a pavement" is also the reason that some
runners eschew pavements and prefer to use roads and cycle lanes as their
speed is unsafe on pavements.
Tim
Andy Leighton
Oct 18, 2012, 1:13:27 PM10/18/12
to
to use on any pavement as long as they do not go faster than 4mph.
Those scooters/wheelchairs that cannot go faster than 4mph (class 2)
the recommendation is to use the pavement wherever possible.
Similarly if you had a manual wheelchair you would be allowed to go
on the pavement.
Bikes, even a trike when used as a mobility aid, aren't so privileged.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Mike Bristow
Oct 18, 2012, 1:13:27 PM10/18/12
to
In article <ba7aa585-3f04-4f65...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
carriages. But not pedal cycles.
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I was cycling to work yesterday, a four wheeled electric scooter
> was being operated by an elderly gentleman along a footpath connecting
> two streets (called a snicket here in Yorkshire). I wondered about the
> legality of this vis a vis it being illegal for me to ride down the
> same path which I also use as a shortcut.
Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, section 20, applies to invalid
> As I was cycling to work yesterday, a four wheeled electric scooter
> was being operated by an elderly gentleman along a footpath connecting
> two streets (called a snicket here in Yorkshire). I wondered about the
> legality of this vis a vis it being illegal for me to ride down the
> same path which I also use as a shortcut.
carriages. But not pedal cycles.
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
thirty-six
Oct 18, 2012, 1:14:02 PM10/18/12
to
possibly not. If you were wearing normal clothing, you could use a
nomal bike as a walking frame with the weight of one pedal carrying
your weight. Like scooting, but not.
Message has been deleted
kimble
Oct 19, 2012, 4:10:45 AM10/19/12
to
On 19/10/12 00:26, Phil W Lee wrote:
> But does not exclude pedal cycles from being an invalid carriage, so a
> pedal cycle would be included if it met the requirements to be an
> invalid carriage.
>
> "invalid carriage" means a vehicle, whether mechanically propelled or
> not, constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of one person,
> being a person suffering from some physical defect or disability.
Interesting.
So I reckon my partner's trike counts, as long as you consider her arm
problems (for which it has been adapted) and her ear problems (for which
she uses it as a mobility aid, as her balance is poor) as part of the
same disability. Which in her case they are.
That's actually quite handy to know, as she has difficulty wheeling it
and will generally prefer to ride it considerately at dead slow speeds
in the sort of situations where one would normally wheel a bicycle.
Kim.
--
> But does not exclude pedal cycles from being an invalid carriage, so a
> pedal cycle would be included if it met the requirements to be an
> invalid carriage.
>
> "invalid carriage" means a vehicle, whether mechanically propelled or
> not, constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of one person,
> being a person suffering from some physical defect or disability.
Interesting.
So I reckon my partner's trike counts, as long as you consider her arm
problems (for which it has been adapted) and her ear problems (for which
she uses it as a mobility aid, as her balance is poor) as part of the
same disability. Which in her case they are.
That's actually quite handy to know, as she has difficulty wheeling it
and will generally prefer to ride it considerately at dead slow speeds
in the sort of situations where one would normally wheel a bicycle.
Kim.
--
Message has been deleted
Simon Mason
Oct 19, 2012, 5:34:41 AM10/19/12
to
and walked past a no entry sign and then jogged down a one way street
with the bike between my legs, but I was out of the saddle and so was
a pedestrian. When it became two way I mounted the bike and cycled
over the next bridge. All 100% legal.
--
Simon Mason
Clive George
Oct 19, 2012, 5:49:27 AM10/19/12
to
On 19/10/2012 09:11, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> considered Thu, 18 Oct 2012
>>>> was steering a motor-carriage today, I certainly did not drive it.  In
>>>> fact most of the time it was barely above idling.  I suppose one
>
> See my previous post.
>
> As long as they meet the definition for an invalid carriage, they can
> exercise that privilege, and that definition is (perhaps surprisingly)
> very wide.
>
> For instance, there is no requirement that the "constructed or
> modified" be for any particular disability - merely that it be for a
> single user.
>
> It is clear, however, that a cycle (with any number of wheels) used as
> in invalid carriage, falls into class 1, so is not subject to any
> speed limitation.
While I agree it does sound reasonable, has any of this actually been
successfully tested anywhere? I'm more interested in the access part of
this than the speed part.
> Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> considered Thu, 18 Oct 2012
> 18:13:27 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:13:44 +0100, Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 17 Oct, 23:11, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>>  I
>
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:13:44 +0100, Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 17 Oct, 23:11, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> was steering a motor-carriage today, I certainly did not drive it.  In
>>>> fact most of the time it was barely above idling.  I suppose one
>>>> could be prosecuted for driving a shopping trolley along a pavement as
>>>> this uses the same "motor" as does a bicycle.  How about using a
>>>> mobile phone while driving perambulator?
>>>
>>> As I was cycling to work yesterday, a four wheeled electric scooter
>>> was being operated by an elderly gentleman along a footpath connecting
>>> two streets (called a snicket here in Yorkshire). I wondered about the
>>> legality of this vis a vis it being illegal for me to ride down the
>>> same path which I also use as a shortcut.
>>
>> I think that mobility scooters (even 4 wheeled ones) are perfectly legal
>> to use on any pavement as long as they do not go faster than 4mph.
>> Those scooters/wheelchairs that cannot go faster than 4mph (class 2)
>> the recommendation is to use the pavement wherever possible.
>>
>> Similarly if you had a manual wheelchair you would be allowed to go
>> on the pavement.
>>
>> Bikes, even a trike when used as a mobility aid, aren't so privileged.
>
> Yes they are.
>>>
>>> As I was cycling to work yesterday, a four wheeled electric scooter
>>> was being operated by an elderly gentleman along a footpath connecting
>>> two streets (called a snicket here in Yorkshire). I wondered about the
>>> legality of this vis a vis it being illegal for me to ride down the
>>> same path which I also use as a shortcut.
>>
>> I think that mobility scooters (even 4 wheeled ones) are perfectly legal
>> to use on any pavement as long as they do not go faster than 4mph.
>> Those scooters/wheelchairs that cannot go faster than 4mph (class 2)
>> the recommendation is to use the pavement wherever possible.
>>
>> Similarly if you had a manual wheelchair you would be allowed to go
>> on the pavement.
>>
>> Bikes, even a trike when used as a mobility aid, aren't so privileged.
>
>
> See my previous post.
>
> As long as they meet the definition for an invalid carriage, they can
> exercise that privilege, and that definition is (perhaps surprisingly)
> very wide.
>
> For instance, there is no requirement that the "constructed or
> modified" be for any particular disability - merely that it be for a
> single user.
>
> It is clear, however, that a cycle (with any number of wheels) used as
> in invalid carriage, falls into class 1, so is not subject to any
> speed limitation.
While I agree it does sound reasonable, has any of this actually been
successfully tested anywhere? I'm more interested in the access part of
this than the speed part.
Mike Bristow
Oct 19, 2012, 5:49:27 AM10/19/12
to
In article <r1j6l9-...@willow.ductilebiscuit.net>,
>> "invalid carriage" means a vehicle, whether mechanically propelled or
>> not, constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of one person,
>> being a person suffering from some physical defect or disability.
The law I cited says:
} In the case of a vehicle which is an invalid carriage complying
} with the prescribed requirements and which is being used in accordance
} with the prescribed conditions --
} a) no statutory provision prohibiting or restricting the use of
} footways shall prohibit or restrict the use of that vehicle on a
} footway;
I haven't looked for the prescribed requirements & conditions (I expect
they're in an SI somewhere), but they will say things about limiting
the speed to 4mph when used on the pavement.
> Interesting.
>
> So I reckon my partner's trike counts,
I don't.
Or rather, it probably counts as an invalid carriage, but not one
that meets the requirements necessary to be be granted the exemptions
above.
If you are going to go down that particular route, you should first
find out what the prescribed requirements & conditions are rather
than relying on my vague half-remembered and unsupported guessing.
If you do the research, I'd be curious as to what answer you come
to and why.
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
kimble <k...@ductilebiscuit.net> wrote:
> On 19/10/12 00:26, Phil W Lee wrote:
>> But does not exclude pedal cycles from being an invalid carriage, so a
>> pedal cycle would be included if it met the requirements to be an
>> invalid carriage.
Correct.
> On 19/10/12 00:26, Phil W Lee wrote:
>> But does not exclude pedal cycles from being an invalid carriage, so a
>> pedal cycle would be included if it met the requirements to be an
>> invalid carriage.
>> "invalid carriage" means a vehicle, whether mechanically propelled or
>> not, constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of one person,
>> being a person suffering from some physical defect or disability.
} In the case of a vehicle which is an invalid carriage complying
} with the prescribed requirements and which is being used in accordance
} with the prescribed conditions --
} a) no statutory provision prohibiting or restricting the use of
} footways shall prohibit or restrict the use of that vehicle on a
} footway;
I haven't looked for the prescribed requirements & conditions (I expect
they're in an SI somewhere), but they will say things about limiting
the speed to 4mph when used on the pavement.
> Interesting.
>
> So I reckon my partner's trike counts,
Or rather, it probably counts as an invalid carriage, but not one
that meets the requirements necessary to be be granted the exemptions
above.
If you are going to go down that particular route, you should first
find out what the prescribed requirements & conditions are rather
than relying on my vague half-remembered and unsupported guessing.
If you do the research, I'd be curious as to what answer you come
to and why.
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
Andy Leighton
Oct 19, 2012, 7:14:08 AM10/19/12
to
details of the law so well may still give your partner a bit of hassle,
and in the worse case an on the spot fine.
Andy Leighton
Oct 19, 2012, 7:14:08 AM10/19/12
to
If you get a £30 fine you may well choose to pay rather than go through
the expense and time of challenging it. Of course that would be heard
in a lower court which wouldn't create a legal precedent anyway and
will not change how plod/PCSOs behave.
ben.d...@outlook.com
Oct 19, 2012, 7:32:14 AM10/19/12
to
Mike Bristow wrote:
> The law I cited says:
>
> } In the case of a vehicle which is an invalid carriage complying
> } with the prescribed requirements and which is being used in accordance
> } with the prescribed conditions --
> } a) no statutory provision prohibiting or restricting the use of
> } footways shall prohibit or restrict the use of that vehicle on a
> } footway;
>
> I haven't looked for the prescribed requirements & conditions (I expect
> they're in an SI somewhere), but they will say things about limiting
> the speed to 4mph when used on the pavement.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2268/made?view=plain
> The law I cited says:
>
> } In the case of a vehicle which is an invalid carriage complying
> } with the prescribed requirements and which is being used in accordance
> } with the prescribed conditions --
> } a) no statutory provision prohibiting or restricting the use of
> } footways shall prohibit or restrict the use of that vehicle on a
> } footway;
>
> I haven't looked for the prescribed requirements & conditions (I expect
> they're in an SI somewhere), but they will say things about limiting
> the speed to 4mph when used on the pavement.
says essentially that
a non mechanically-propelled invalid carriage
manufactured after Jan 30th 1989 (in the alternative the 1970 regs
apply) must be used by a person in class of people for whom the carriage
was constructed or adapted - or for a number of incidental purposes such
as transporting it to or from a place where maintenance of work must be
performed, or for demonstartion before purchase, or instruction, or
testing (of the carriage);
that it cannot weigh more than 113.4 kg; and
that if fitted with a horn that horn shall not be sounded
a) if the carriage is staionary on a road at any time other than when a
danger from another moving vehicel is present, or
b) when in motion on a restricted road between 23:30 and 7:00
In particular it appears that for Class 1 invalid carriages
(non-mechanically propelled) there is no speed limit specified, nor any
restriction as to use on (or not on) the pavement.
Tally Ho.
thirty-six
Oct 19, 2012, 9:12:58 AM10/19/12
to
On 19 Oct, 12:14, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:49:27 +0100, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 19/10/2012 09:11, Phil W Lee wrote:
> >> It is clear, however, that a cycle (with any number of wheels) used as
> >> in invalid carriage, falls into class 1, so is not subject to any
> >> speed limitation.
>
> > While I agree it does sound reasonable, has any of this actually been
> > successfully tested anywhere?
>
> Yes the tested is important. Plus are plod/PCSOs going to know?
>
> If you get a ÂŁ30 fine you may well choose to pay rather than go through
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:49:27 +0100, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 19/10/2012 09:11, Phil W Lee wrote:
> >> It is clear, however, that a cycle (with any number of wheels) used as
> >> in invalid carriage, falls into class 1, so is not subject to any
> >> speed limitation.
>
> > While I agree it does sound reasonable, has any of this actually been
> > successfully tested anywhere?
>
> Yes the tested is important. Plus are plod/PCSOs going to know?
>
Do not accept an on the spot fine, that is an admission of guilt.
Sign nothing. When asked "have you anything to say?", tell em "This
is an invalid carriage as defined in law."
> the expense and time of challenging it.
the spot. Do not identify yourself by name (on birth certificate).
Sign nothing. "Do you understand?", correct answer is "NO!" Do not
get hoodwinked. As a warning PCSOs already are in possession of
warrant cards awaiting the time when they are authorised to use them,
at a moments notice. These are officers who have not been sworn in,
they are there purely engaged in the act of commerce/taxation and with
authority will be given the backing to use force against a man.
> Of course that would be heard
> in a lower court which wouldn't create a legal precedent anyway and
> will not change how plod/PCSOs behave.
not generally for the better, it just gives them excuse to smash your
brains in.
Adam Funk
Oct 19, 2012, 9:13:37 AM10/19/12
to
On 2012-10-19, Simon Mason wrote:
> A while ago when a bridge was up for river traffic, I got off my bike
> and walked past a no entry sign and then jogged down a one way street
> with the bike between my legs, but I was out of the saddle and so was
> a pedestrian. When it became two way I mounted the bike and cycled
> over the next bridge. All 100% legal.
The "bike between my legs ... legal" bit is debatable. There was
> A while ago when a bridge was up for river traffic, I got off my bike
> and walked past a no entry sign and then jogged down a one way street
> with the bike between my legs, but I was out of the saddle and so was
> a pedestrian. When it became two way I mounted the bike and cycled
> over the next bridge. All 100% legal.
something in the CTC magazine recently to the effect that case law
says (1) if you're beside a bike, pushing it, you're not "driving a
carriage" & can use the pavement, but (2) if you're astride a
motorcycle, paddling it with your feet, it's illegal to use the
pavement. In the absence of a case confirming or reject that (2)
applies to pedal cycles, the article recommended walking beside the
bike.
Matthew Vernon
Oct 19, 2012, 9:51:43 AM10/19/12
to
Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> writes:
> Yes the tested is important. Plus are plod/PCSOs going to know?
>
> If you get a ﾂ｣30 fine you may well choose to pay rather than go through
> Yes the tested is important. Plus are plod/PCSOs going to know?
>
^-- I'm not sure why you've put HALFWIDTH KATAKANA LETTER
TU here...
Matthew
--
`O'-----0 `O'---. `O'---. `O'---.
\___| | \___|0-/ \___|/ \___|
| | /\ | | \ | |\ | |
The Dangers of modern veterinary life
thirty-six
Oct 19, 2012, 10:32:36 AM10/19/12
to
Mike Bristow
Oct 19, 2012, 10:54:38 AM10/19/12
to
In article <k5rdhq$abn$1...@dont-email.me>,
ben.d...@outlook.com <ben.d...@outlook.com> wrote:
Or "I'm wrong" :) Thanks for digging it out - and I agree that it
appears to be true that a bike, adapated for the use of a disabled
person, can legally be used on any footway.
> Tally Ho.
Indeed.
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
ben.d...@outlook.com <ben.d...@outlook.com> wrote:
> Mike Bristow wrote:
>> I haven't looked for the prescribed requirements & conditions (I expect
>> they're in an SI somewhere), but they will say things about limiting
>> the speed to 4mph when used on the pavement.
>
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2268/made?view=plain
>
> says essentially that
[snip]
>> I haven't looked for the prescribed requirements & conditions (I expect
>> they're in an SI somewhere), but they will say things about limiting
>> the speed to 4mph when used on the pavement.
>
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2268/made?view=plain
>
> says essentially that
Or "I'm wrong" :) Thanks for digging it out - and I agree that it
appears to be true that a bike, adapated for the use of a disabled
person, can legally be used on any footway.
> Tally Ho.
Indeed.
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
Eleanor Blair
Oct 19, 2012, 10:54:51 AM10/19/12
to
Adam Funk wrote:
>In the absence of a case confirming or reject that (2)
>applies to pedal cycles, the article recommended walking beside the
>bike.
I think I'd recommend that anyway in terms of speed, comfort and
>In the absence of a case confirming or reject that (2)
>applies to pedal cycles, the article recommended walking beside the
>bike.
(especially for blokes) personal safety!
--
ele...@the-blairs.co.uk http://lnr.livejournal.com/
D.M. Procida
Oct 19, 2012, 12:00:42 PM10/19/12
to
ben.d...@outlook.com <ben.d...@outlook.com> wrote:
> > I haven't looked for the prescribed requirements & conditions (I expect
> > they're in an SI somewhere), but they will say things about limiting
> > the speed to 4mph when used on the pavement.
>
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2268/made?view=plain
>
> says essentially that
>
> > I haven't looked for the prescribed requirements & conditions (I expect
> > they're in an SI somewhere), but they will say things about limiting
> > the speed to 4mph when used on the pavement.
>
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2268/made?view=plain
>
> says essentially that
>
> that it cannot weigh more than 113.4 kg; and
How on earth does someone come up with a figure like 113.4kg?
Daniele
Bertie Wooster
Oct 19, 2012, 12:16:03 PM10/19/12
to
Matthew Vernon
Oct 19, 2012, 12:16:15 PM10/19/12
to
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Oct 19, 2012, 12:51:08 PM10/19/12
to
Cheers - Jaimie
--
I always wanted to be someone. I should have been more specific.
-- Lily Tomlin
Rob Morley
Oct 19, 2012, 1:16:51 PM10/19/12
to
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:00:42 +0100
real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:
> How on earth does someone come up with a figure like 113.4kg?
>
Quite easily - it's 250lb.
> How on earth does someone come up with a figure like 113.4kg?
>
Mike Causer
Oct 19, 2012, 1:37:03 PM10/19/12
to
> > that it cannot weigh more than 113.4 kg; and
>
> How on earth does someone come up with a figure like 113.4kg?
By converting 250lb to kg (and rounding a touch).
>
> How on earth does someone come up with a figure like 113.4kg?
Mike
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
nomen-...@outlook.com
Oct 20, 2012, 10:44:31 AM10/20/12
to
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:12:58 +0100, thirty-six <thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Yes it is difficult to challenge what you had already admitted to on
>the spot. Do not identify yourself by name (on birth certificate).
I have said similar elsewhere, people need to be very, very careful of
accepting legal advice, in a newsgroup such as this, at face value. You are
much better asking any such question in the moderated legal group.
Police Reform Act 2002
50 Persons acting in an anti-social manner
(1)If a constable in uniform has reason to believe that a person has been
acting, or is acting, in an anti-social manner (within the meaning of section 1
of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (anti-social behaviour orders)), he
may require that person to give his name and address to the constable.
(2)Any person who:
(a)fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection
(1), or
(b)gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement
under that subsection,
is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine
not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale
<snip>
>
>Yes it is difficult to challenge what you had already admitted to on
>the spot. Do not identify yourself by name (on birth certificate).
accepting legal advice, in a newsgroup such as this, at face value. You are
much better asking any such question in the moderated legal group.
Police Reform Act 2002
50 Persons acting in an anti-social manner
(1)If a constable in uniform has reason to believe that a person has been
acting, or is acting, in an anti-social manner (within the meaning of section 1
of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (anti-social behaviour orders)), he
may require that person to give his name and address to the constable.
(2)Any person who:
(a)fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection
(1), or
(b)gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement
under that subsection,
is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine
not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale
nomen-...@outlook.com
Oct 20, 2012, 10:44:42 AM10/20/12
to
be very wary of accepting legal advice just like that at face value. It would
probably be worth you raising the query in uk.legal.moderated where you should
get a balanced view on the legal situation.
thirty-six
Oct 20, 2012, 3:28:53 PM10/20/12
to
On 20 Oct, 15:44, nomen-nes...@outlook.com wrote:
around giving my name and address to those on their way to a fancy
dress party, so don't see why I should start.
> (a)fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection
> (1), or
I do not understand.
> (b)gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement
> under that subsection,
> is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction,
duh, one either denies the supposed illegality at magistrates or one
shows them one's arse.
> to a fine
> not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale
if all else fails, I may stand before my peers.
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:12:58 +0100, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >Yes it is difficult to challenge what you had already admitted to on
> >the spot. Do not identify yourself by name (on birth certificate).
>
> I have said similar elsewhere, people need to be very, very careful of
> accepting legal advice, in a newsgroup such as this, at face value. You are
> much better asking any such question in the moderated legal group.
>
> Police Reform Act 2002
> 50 Persons acting in an anti-social manner
>
> (1)If a constable in uniform has reason to believe that a person has been
> acting, or is acting, in an anti-social manner (within the meaning of section 1
> of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (anti-social behaviour orders)), he
> may require that person to give his name and address to the constable.
>
> (2)Any person who:
I'm not a person, so I may, by law, be excused. I don't commonly go
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >Yes it is difficult to challenge what you had already admitted to on
> >the spot. Do not identify yourself by name (on birth certificate).
>
> I have said similar elsewhere, people need to be very, very careful of
> accepting legal advice, in a newsgroup such as this, at face value. You are
> much better asking any such question in the moderated legal group.
>
> Police Reform Act 2002
> 50 Persons acting in an anti-social manner
>
> (1)If a constable in uniform has reason to believe that a person has been
> acting, or is acting, in an anti-social manner (within the meaning of section 1
> of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (anti-social behaviour orders)), he
> may require that person to give his name and address to the constable.
>
> (2)Any person who:
around giving my name and address to those on their way to a fancy
dress party, so don't see why I should start.
> (a)fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection
> (1), or
> (b)gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement
> under that subsection,
> is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction,
shows them one's arse.
> to a fine
> not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale
Ian Jackson
Oct 21, 2012, 10:26:20 AM10/21/12
to
In article <qcr388p55aceq0j59...@4ax.com>,
Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>CSDPA 1970 s20 contains the definition of an invalid carriage to be
>used "in this section" so there is no possibility of ambiguity.
...
>It doesn't need to be adapted for the use of a disabled person, it
>just needs to be "a vehicle, whether mechanically propelled or not,
There seem to me to be two possible interpretations:
Firstly, the obvious reading of the words to me is that "person" means
some specific person, and the qualification "being ..." restricts
who that person might be. But that makes no sense in context:
obviously an invalid carriage can be something designed for a group of
people rather than one specific person.
Alternatively, "adapted for the use of one person, being..." means
that the adaptations are intended to facilitate the use by any
disabled person (but only one such disabled person at a time). Ie
that "one person" restricts the number of people at a time, and
"being" restricts the kind of people.
I don't think your reading can be sustained because it seems to depend
on making the word "person" mean two different things simultaneously:
when considering "one person" you take it to mean "any one person but
no-one in particular" and when considering "being" you take it to
mean "the specific person using the carriage".
However this is a technical difficulty which can perahps be
surmounted: all that is required is that you "adapt" the machine
somehow. Now perhaps a court wouldn't regard an entirely trivial
adaptation as relevant but in many cases there might be a plausible
adaptation which would make the bike more useful to the disabled
rider.
The problem really is that I wouldn't expect a constable necessarily
to know all about this. It's all very well being right in law but if
you're stopped and asked to dismount, and can't in practice walk
properly, you may be stuck. I guess you could ask the policeman to
take you to your destination and if that fails phone an ambulance, but
adding a battle against the police to your no doubt already quite
challenging life is not really going to help much.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>CSDPA 1970 s20 contains the definition of an invalid carriage to be
>used "in this section" so there is no possibility of ambiguity.
...
>It doesn't need to be adapted for the use of a disabled person, it
>just needs to be "a vehicle, whether mechanically propelled or not,
>constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of one person, being a
>person suffering from some physical defect or disability".
I'm afraid I don't think this means what you think it means.
>person suffering from some physical defect or disability".
There seem to me to be two possible interpretations:
Firstly, the obvious reading of the words to me is that "person" means
some specific person, and the qualification "being ..." restricts
who that person might be. But that makes no sense in context:
obviously an invalid carriage can be something designed for a group of
people rather than one specific person.
Alternatively, "adapted for the use of one person, being..." means
that the adaptations are intended to facilitate the use by any
disabled person (but only one such disabled person at a time). Ie
that "one person" restricts the number of people at a time, and
"being" restricts the kind of people.
I don't think your reading can be sustained because it seems to depend
on making the word "person" mean two different things simultaneously:
when considering "one person" you take it to mean "any one person but
no-one in particular" and when considering "being" you take it to
mean "the specific person using the carriage".
However this is a technical difficulty which can perahps be
surmounted: all that is required is that you "adapt" the machine
somehow. Now perhaps a court wouldn't regard an entirely trivial
adaptation as relevant but in many cases there might be a plausible
adaptation which would make the bike more useful to the disabled
rider.
The problem really is that I wouldn't expect a constable necessarily
to know all about this. It's all very well being right in law but if
you're stopped and asked to dismount, and can't in practice walk
properly, you may be stuck. I guess you could ask the policeman to
take you to your destination and if that fails phone an ambulance, but
adding a battle against the police to your no doubt already quite
challenging life is not really going to help much.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Rob Morley
Oct 21, 2012, 12:24:35 PM10/21/12
to
rOn Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:26:20 +0100
invalid carriage, don't you think?
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <qcr388p55aceq0j59...@4ax.com>,
> Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> [...]
> In article <qcr388p55aceq0j59...@4ax.com>,
> Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> ...
> >It doesn't need to be adapted for the use of a disabled person, it
> >just needs to be "a vehicle, whether mechanically propelled or not,
> >constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of one person, being
> >a person suffering from some physical defect or disability".
>
> I'm afraid I don't think this means what you think it means.
> There seem to me to be two possible interpretations:
>
> Firstly, the obvious reading of the words to me is that "person" means
> some specific person, and the qualification "being ..." restricts
> who that person might be. But that makes no sense in context:
> obviously an invalid carriage can be something designed for a group of
> people rather than one specific person.
It does seem to say that the bike I built for myself counts as an
> >It doesn't need to be adapted for the use of a disabled person, it
> >just needs to be "a vehicle, whether mechanically propelled or not,
> >constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of one person, being
> >a person suffering from some physical defect or disability".
>
> I'm afraid I don't think this means what you think it means.
> There seem to me to be two possible interpretations:
>
> Firstly, the obvious reading of the words to me is that "person" means
> some specific person, and the qualification "being ..." restricts
> who that person might be. But that makes no sense in context:
> obviously an invalid carriage can be something designed for a group of
> people rather than one specific person.
invalid carriage, don't you think?
Message has been deleted
Ian Jackson
Oct 22, 2012, 7:52:16 AM10/22/12
to
In article <20121021163836.74326e8a@hyperion>,
Yes, arguably. (If you're disabled, which I'm afraid I have
forgotten...)
forgotten...)
Ian Jackson
Oct 22, 2012, 11:06:57 AM10/22/12
to
In article <clo888dh2kk8tsvl3...@4ax.com>,
>conventional (self-propelled) wheelchair, in regard to it's
>acceptability under the definition in the Act?
>
>It can't.
I don't think your argument as you put it above will convince the
judge. They'll want to draw a line somewhere.
You obviously won't have any joy trying to persuade the judge that all
bicycles should always be classed as invalid carriages and therefore
that everyone should be entitled to ride them legally on the pavement.
So what you want to argue is that a bicycle is an invalid carriage
when a disabled person is using it - and thus that they are then
allowed to ride on the pavement; but that it's not an invalid carriage
when an able-bodied person is using it - and thus the able-bodied
rider isn't allowed on the pavement.
The difficulty is that the law talks about invalid carriages as if
they are specific kinds of object, not a category which the same
object might sometimes be in and sometimes not.
The best you're probably going to get is an acknowledgement that _this
bicycle_ counts as an invalid carriage because it has some
adaptation(s) for disabled rider(s).
>Would it be legal to discriminate between a disabled user on a bicycle
>and one in a self-propelled conventional wheelchair?
>
>Clearly not, the equality act would apply.
>You can't treat a disabled person less favourably than an able bodied
>one, so you cannot require them to use a less convenient type of
>vehicle just because they are disabled.
The question is surely whether a disabled person is entitled to ride a
bicycle in circumstances where an able-bodied person is not. I don't
think anyone is arguing that disabled people have _less_ right to ride
their bike. What the disabled person would want is to have _more_
right to ride it, because for them the alternative of parking and
walking (or walking the bike) is less practical.
Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>How then, does a pedal cycle (built for one) differ from a
>conventional (self-propelled) wheelchair, in regard to it's
>acceptability under the definition in the Act?
>
>It can't.
I don't think your argument as you put it above will convince the
judge. They'll want to draw a line somewhere.
You obviously won't have any joy trying to persuade the judge that all
bicycles should always be classed as invalid carriages and therefore
that everyone should be entitled to ride them legally on the pavement.
So what you want to argue is that a bicycle is an invalid carriage
when a disabled person is using it - and thus that they are then
allowed to ride on the pavement; but that it's not an invalid carriage
when an able-bodied person is using it - and thus the able-bodied
rider isn't allowed on the pavement.
The difficulty is that the law talks about invalid carriages as if
they are specific kinds of object, not a category which the same
object might sometimes be in and sometimes not.
The best you're probably going to get is an acknowledgement that _this
bicycle_ counts as an invalid carriage because it has some
adaptation(s) for disabled rider(s).
>Would it be legal to discriminate between a disabled user on a bicycle
>and one in a self-propelled conventional wheelchair?
>
>Clearly not, the equality act would apply.
>You can't treat a disabled person less favourably than an able bodied
>one, so you cannot require them to use a less convenient type of
>vehicle just because they are disabled.
The question is surely whether a disabled person is entitled to ride a
bicycle in circumstances where an able-bodied person is not. I don't
think anyone is arguing that disabled people have _less_ right to ride
their bike. What the disabled person would want is to have _more_
right to ride it, because for them the alternative of parking and
walking (or walking the bike) is less practical.
Rob Morley
Oct 22, 2012, 11:07:24 AM10/22/12
to
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:52:16 +0100
incident with a blind car driver.
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <20121021163836.74326e8a@hyperion>,
> Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:26:20 +0100
> >Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >>Firstly, the obvious reading of the words to me is that "person"
> >>means some specific person, and the qualification "being ..."
> >>restricts who that person might be. But that makes no sense in
> >>context: obviously an invalid carriage can be something designed
> >>for a group of people rather than one specific person.
> >
> >It does seem to say that the bike I built for myself counts as an
> >invalid carriage, don't you think?
>
> Yes, arguably. (If you're disabled, which I'm afraid I have
> forgotten...)
>
I wouldn't expect you to remember, I have a knackered knee after an
> In article <20121021163836.74326e8a@hyperion>,
> Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:26:20 +0100
> >Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >>Firstly, the obvious reading of the words to me is that "person"
> >>means some specific person, and the qualification "being ..."
> >>restricts who that person might be. But that makes no sense in
> >>context: obviously an invalid carriage can be something designed
> >>for a group of people rather than one specific person.
> >
> >It does seem to say that the bike I built for myself counts as an
> >invalid carriage, don't you think?
>
> Yes, arguably. (If you're disabled, which I'm afraid I have
> forgotten...)
>
incident with a blind car driver.
kimble
Oct 22, 2012, 11:40:29 AM10/22/12
to
On 21/10/12 23:21, Phil W Lee wrote:
> If a large number of perfectly able bodied people decided that a
> conventional wheelchair was a convenient tool for getting around,
> would that decrease the relevance of the Act to it?
Except that AIUI the act doesn't apply to a wheelchair used by a
perfectly able bodied person for getting around (as opposed to
transporting, testing, demonstrating etc. the wheelchair, which are
specifically permitted).
I'm not sure what it's legal status would then be. I don't think it's a
pedal cycle. Presumably it would be the same as a skateboard or
scooter, whatever that may be..
Kim.
--
> If a large number of perfectly able bodied people decided that a
> conventional wheelchair was a convenient tool for getting around,
> would that decrease the relevance of the Act to it?
Except that AIUI the act doesn't apply to a wheelchair used by a
perfectly able bodied person for getting around (as opposed to
transporting, testing, demonstrating etc. the wheelchair, which are
specifically permitted).
I'm not sure what it's legal status would then be. I don't think it's a
pedal cycle. Presumably it would be the same as a skateboard or
scooter, whatever that may be..
Kim.
--
Owen Dunn
Oct 22, 2012, 11:41:00 AM10/22/12
to
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> The difficulty is that the law talks about invalid carriages as if
> they are specific kinds of object, not a category which the same
> object might sometimes be in and sometimes not.
>
> The best you're probably going to get is an acknowledgement that _this
> bicycle_ counts as an invalid carriage because it has some
> adaptation(s) for disabled rider(s).
Although different Acts have their own definitions of invalid carriage
> The difficulty is that the law talks about invalid carriages as if
> they are specific kinds of object, not a category which the same
> object might sometimes be in and sometimes not.
>
> The best you're probably going to get is an acknowledgement that _this
> bicycle_ counts as an invalid carriage because it has some
> adaptation(s) for disabled rider(s).
for the purposes of each Act, many of them copy the definition from
the Road Traffic Act 1960, including the Road Traffic Regulation Act
1984. This wording excludes mere adaptation.
For the purposes of the RTRA 1984, `"invalid carriage" means a
mechanically propelled vehicle of which the weight unladen does not
exceed 254 kilograms and which is specially designed and constructed,
and not merely adapted, for the use of a person suffering from some
physical defect or disability and is used solely by such a person.'
(S)
Ian Jackson
Oct 22, 2012, 1:30:02 PM10/22/12
to
In article <a94gl9-...@willow.ductilebiscuit.net>,
wording of the CSDPA 1970 ?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/44/section/20
I haven't been able to find the regulations. For that matter I can't
seem to find the commencement order for s20...
kimble <k...@ductilebiscuit.net> wrote:
>On 21/10/12 23:21, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>If a large number of perfectly able bodied people decided that a
>>conventional wheelchair was a convenient tool for getting around,
>>would that decrease the relevance of the Act to it?
>
>Except that AIUI the act doesn't apply to a wheelchair used by a
>perfectly able bodied person for getting around (as opposed to
>transporting, testing, demonstrating etc. the wheelchair, which are
>specifically permitted).
Do you think that's covered by the "prescribed conditions" in the
>On 21/10/12 23:21, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>If a large number of perfectly able bodied people decided that a
>>conventional wheelchair was a convenient tool for getting around,
>>would that decrease the relevance of the Act to it?
>
>Except that AIUI the act doesn't apply to a wheelchair used by a
>perfectly able bodied person for getting around (as opposed to
>transporting, testing, demonstrating etc. the wheelchair, which are
>specifically permitted).
wording of the CSDPA 1970 ?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/44/section/20
I haven't been able to find the regulations. For that matter I can't
seem to find the commencement order for s20...
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Mike Bristow
Oct 22, 2012, 6:10:38 PM10/22/12
to
In article <IIp*69...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
(as found by ben.d...@outlook.com).
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Do you think that's covered by the "prescribed conditions" in the
> wording of the CSDPA 1970 ?
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/44/section/20
>
> I haven't been able to find the regulations. For that matter I can't
> seem to find the commencement order for s20...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2268/made?view=plain
> Do you think that's covered by the "prescribed conditions" in the
> wording of the CSDPA 1970 ?
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/44/section/20
>
> I haven't been able to find the regulations. For that matter I can't
> seem to find the commencement order for s20...
(as found by ben.d...@outlook.com).
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
Ian Jackson
Oct 23, 2012, 7:08:19 AM10/23/12
to
In article <slrnk8bd63...@cheddar.urgle.com>,
Ah, excellent. That seems to do some of what Phil wants:
[It is required that:]
(a) in the case of Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 invalid carriages
that the invalid carriage must be used-
(i) by a person falling within a class of persons for whose use it
was constructed or adapted, being a person suffering from some
physical defect or physical disability;
[various edge cases]
Regardless of the merits I still think it would be difficult to
persuade a judge that an unadapted pushbike meets the requirement in
the Act and therefore if I were disabled and wanted to ride my bike on
the pavement I would make some adaptation to it.
[It is required that:]
(a) in the case of Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 invalid carriages
that the invalid carriage must be used-
(i) by a person falling within a class of persons for whose use it
was constructed or adapted, being a person suffering from some
physical defect or physical disability;
[various edge cases]
Regardless of the merits I still think it would be difficult to
persuade a judge that an unadapted pushbike meets the requirement in
the Act and therefore if I were disabled and wanted to ride my bike on
the pavement I would make some adaptation to it.
Clive George
Oct 23, 2012, 9:10:40 AM10/23/12
to
On 23/10/2012 12:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Regardless of the merits I still think it would be difficult to
> persuade a judge that an unadapted pushbike meets the requirement in
> the Act and therefore if I were disabled and wanted to ride my bike on
> the pavement I would make some adaptation to it.
Crutch carrier?
> Regardless of the merits I still think it would be difficult to
> persuade a judge that an unadapted pushbike meets the requirement in
> the Act and therefore if I were disabled and wanted to ride my bike on
> the pavement I would make some adaptation to it.
(I did one for my wife when she had a broken leg, but that was only
temporary. Drainpipe attached to the rack.)
Tom Gardner
Oct 23, 2012, 12:01:46 PM10/23/12
to
crutch carrier - she has a broken foot. I haven't
asked how she's attaching the crutches.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Oct 23, 2012, 1:56:58 PM10/23/12
to
broken ankle and had a clumsy moment on her bike. Knocked the pot,
grazed her skin inside, and a couple of weeks later when they took the
pot off to check progress she'd gone moldy - bright green and reeky.
Healed up fine after but it left an extensive surface scar.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
If you can't measure it, it's not science.
Tom Gardner
Oct 23, 2012, 5:40:29 PM10/23/12
to
Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:01:46 +0100, Tom Gardner
> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Clive George wrote:
>>> On 23/10/2012 12:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Regardless of the merits I still think it would be difficult to
>>>> persuade a judge that an unadapted pushbike meets the requirement in
>>>> the Act and therefore if I were disabled and wanted to ride my bike on
>>>> the pavement I would make some adaptation to it.
>>>
>>> Crutch carrier?
>>>
>>> (I did one for my wife when she had a broken leg, but that was only temporary. Drainpipe attached to the rack.)
>>
>> My daughter is currently using her bike as a
>> crutch carrier - she has a broken foot. I haven't
>> asked how she's attaching the crutches.
>
> While cycling? Can be a bit hazardous, my lass had a pot on for a
> broken ankle and had a clumsy moment on her bike.
Not entirely sure; she's nowhere near me and she's at an
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:01:46 +0100, Tom Gardner
> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Clive George wrote:
>>> On 23/10/2012 12:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Regardless of the merits I still think it would be difficult to
>>>> persuade a judge that an unadapted pushbike meets the requirement in
>>>> the Act and therefore if I were disabled and wanted to ride my bike on
>>>> the pavement I would make some adaptation to it.
>>>
>>> Crutch carrier?
>>>
>>> (I did one for my wife when she had a broken leg, but that was only temporary. Drainpipe attached to the rack.)
>>
>> My daughter is currently using her bike as a
>> crutch carrier - she has a broken foot. I haven't
>> asked how she's attaching the crutches.
>
> While cycling? Can be a bit hazardous, my lass had a pot on for a
> broken ankle and had a clumsy moment on her bike.
age where she knows better than me. "If you don't want
to know the answer, don't ask the question". Fundamentally
she is sensible and responsible, fortunately.
She isn't in plaster, though: she has a chipped
metatarsal and the foot is a bit swollen.
I once thumped my foot and after a week the
swelling/bruising was going down but the pain wasn't.
So I cycled 5 miles to A&E and they found I had an
inch long spiral fracture in the fifth metatarsal.
Since I was wearing walking boots with a high ankle
and a stiff sole, they didn't put it in plaster. And
then I cycled the 5 miles home.
Shortly after, I went to a job interview in a suit
and the boots. Since they hadn't commented during
the day-long interview, I told finally them why I was wearing
the boots. They said they had wondered why and offered
me a job. It was a wonderfully zany hi-tech company to
work for, and I had a great time there.
kimble
Oct 23, 2012, 5:40:47 PM10/23/12
to
On 22/10/12 23:10, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> considered Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:07:24
> footway - possibly asleep (although that was never proven or
> admitted).
Whereas my knee was rendered dodgy (knackered is a bit strong,
especially as the last few years of cycling with SPDs have worked
wonders for stabilising it) by a drunk and speeding car driver.
Cars and knees. Evidently not a good combination. :(
Kim.
--
> Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> considered Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:07:24
> +0100 the perfect time to write:
>> I wouldn't expect you to remember, I have a knackered knee after an
>> incident with a blind car driver.
>
> Not the same one as knackered mine then - mine was speeding and on the
>> I wouldn't expect you to remember, I have a knackered knee after an
>> incident with a blind car driver.
>
> footway - possibly asleep (although that was never proven or
> admitted).
Whereas my knee was rendered dodgy (knackered is a bit strong,
especially as the last few years of cycling with SPDs have worked
wonders for stabilising it) by a drunk and speeding car driver.
Cars and knees. Evidently not a good combination. :(
Kim.
--
Message has been deleted
Eleanor Blair
Oct 24, 2012, 6:06:45 AM10/24/12
to
Tom Gardner wrote:
>
>She isn't in plaster, though: she has a chipped
>metatarsal and the foot is a bit swollen.
I sprained and chipped a bone in my ankle a few years back. Have to say
>
>She isn't in plaster, though: she has a chipped
>metatarsal and the foot is a bit swollen.
I was walking without crutches (though with a folding stick) before I
was happy to be back on the bike - and even then I had to be *bloody*
careful when stopped and putting my feet down not to wrench it.
I was mildly amused by cycling to my physio for a while though :)
--
ele...@the-blairs.co.uk http://lnr.livejournal.com/
Tom Gardner
Oct 24, 2012, 7:59:18 AM10/24/12
to
Eleanor Blair wrote:
> Tom Gardner wrote:
>>
>> She isn't in plaster, though: she has a chipped
>> metatarsal and the foot is a bit swollen.
>
> I sprained and chipped a bone in my ankle a few years back. Have to say
> I was walking without crutches (though with a folding stick) before I
> was happy to be back on the bike - and even then I had to be *bloody*
> careful when stopped and putting my feet down not to wrench it.
I can see why you were careful! Fortunately an injury below the ankle
> Tom Gardner wrote:
>>
>> She isn't in plaster, though: she has a chipped
>> metatarsal and the foot is a bit swollen.
>
> I sprained and chipped a bone in my ankle a few years back. Have to say
> I was walking without crutches (though with a folding stick) before I
> was happy to be back on the bike - and even then I had to be *bloody*
> careful when stopped and putting my feet down not to wrench it.
joint and "forward" of the heel means that _some_ weight can still be
applied to the pedal via the heel. Not quite an optimal position
for cycling, though :)
> I was mildly amused by cycling to my physio for a while though :)
my leg in plaster from just above my ankle to my thigh.
I knew that putting weight on the leg wouldn't hurt it,
and that the knee couldn't bend.
It was an icy winter, and pedestrians were rather taken
aback to see someone on crutches with their leg in plaster
moving noticeably faster along the pavement than they
were :)
Clive George
Oct 24, 2012, 8:17:49 AM10/24/12
to
On 24/10/2012 12:59, Tom Gardner wrote:
> When I stretched a knee ligament (skiing accident) I had
> my leg in plaster from just above my ankle to my thigh.
> I knew that putting weight on the leg wouldn't hurt it,
> and that the knee couldn't bend.
>
> It was an icy winter, and pedestrians were rather taken
> aback to see someone on crutches with their leg in plaster
> moving noticeably faster along the pavement than they
> were :)
Whereas with a broken hip there's no outward sign of any problems but
> When I stretched a knee ligament (skiing accident) I had
> my leg in plaster from just above my ankle to my thigh.
> I knew that putting weight on the leg wouldn't hurt it,
> and that the knee couldn't bend.
>
> It was an icy winter, and pedestrians were rather taken
> aback to see someone on crutches with their leg in plaster
> moving noticeably faster along the pavement than they
> were :)
you're not allowed to put any weight on it at all for three months :-(
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Rob Morley
Oct 24, 2012, 4:49:39 PM10/24/12
to
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:17:49 +0100
Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Whereas with a broken hip there's no outward sign of any problems but
> you're not allowed to put any weight on it at all for three months :-(
>
>
I was walking on crutches in a few days when I broke my neck of femur.
Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Whereas with a broken hip there's no outward sign of any problems but
> you're not allowed to put any weight on it at all for three months :-(
>
>
Admittedly there was a rather large screw holding it together.
0 new messages