Street furniture, footpath furniture
squa...@gmail.com
public place that is constructed and laid out for pedestrian use." But
shouldn't street furniture be called footpath furniture?
Nick Finnigan
news:1110665314.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Now I know that the footpath is, apparently, "the part of road or other
> public place that is constructed and laid out for pedestrian use." But
> shouldn't street furniture be called footpath furniture?
Like those bollards to keep vans out of cycle paths, you mean?
Doug
Street furniture should be called a 'bloody nuisance'. Motorists here
expect peds to keep to the pavements but they don't object to their
traffic signs and other vehicle crap cluttering peds pavements.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Don't vote, it only encourages them.
If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal.
Madmucks
"Doug" <do...@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message
news:1110705431....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> squa...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Now I know that the footpath is, apparently, "the part of road or
> other
>> public place that is constructed and laid out for pedestrian use."
> But
>> shouldn't street furniture be called footpath furniture?
>
> Street furniture should be called a 'bloody nuisance'. Motorists here
> expect peds to keep to the pavements but they don't object to their
> traffic signs and other vehicle crap cluttering peds pavements.
Obviously you are now admitting that in your oponion road signs only apply
to motorists, and not to cycles- you would have said motorists and cyclists,
otherwise, wouldn't you?
squa...@gmail.com
How about we swap then? Move all the car-related piping, tinplate and
pretty lights off the footpath into the area that belongs "exclusively"
to the cars?
squa...@gmail.com
Cyclists usually find sharing the road with pedestrians less annoying
than motorists do. Perhaps steet furniture is the motorist's selfless
way of impeding pavement cyclists. How thoughtful. Good show!
Ian
<squa...@gmail.com> wrote in message >
>
> Cyclists usually find sharing the road with pedestrians less annoying
> than motorists do. Perhaps steet furniture is the motorist's selfless
> way of impeding pavement cyclists. How thoughtful. Good show!
>
Pedestrians do mind sharing the pavement with cyclists and being buzzed by
them when crossing the road at pedestrian crossings. I wonder when was the
last time a cyclist was prosecuted for riding through a red light or cycling
on the pavement? I suppose it isn't politically correct to punish cyclists
for any offence as the government wants to encourage that mode of transport,
which is why anarchy has broken out on the streets and pavements.
Ian
Tony Raven
>
> Obviously you are now admitting that in your oponion road signs only apply
> to motorists, and not to cycles- you would have said motorists and cyclists,
> otherwise, wouldn't you?
>
Well to a point. After all cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders
managed quite well without all those signs and still could I would bet.
The main reason they and all their associated laws had to be installed
was to stop motorists crashing into each other and killing themselves
and others. We cyclists just got caught as a consequence.
Tony
Jon Senior
> Pedestrians do mind sharing the pavement with cyclists and being buzzed by
> them when crossing the road at pedestrian crossings. I wonder when was the
> last time a cyclist was prosecuted for riding through a red light or cycling
> on the pavement? I suppose it isn't politically correct to punish cyclists
> for any offence as the government wants to encourage that mode of transport,
> which is why anarchy has broken out on the streets and pavements.
Can't we have a couple of weeks off before the next crossposted thread?
Jon
Just zis Guy, you know?
<zo...@thegreek.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
<d113he$2s0$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>:
>Obviously you are now admitting that in your oponion road signs only apply
>to motorists, and not to cycles
Most of them do. We have no need of the vast majority of warning
signs, for example, because we are moving at a speed which allows us
to perceive hazards in plenty of time to react to them. And some
order signs explicitly don't apply to us.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
ian henden
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote in message
news:gce831d157qe39iua...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:09:48 -0000, "Madmucks"
> <zo...@thegreek.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> <d113he$2s0$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>:
>
>>Obviously you are now admitting that in your oponion road signs only apply
>>to motorists, and not to cycles
>
> Most of them do. We have no need of the vast majority of warning
> signs, for example, because we are moving at a speed which allows us
> to perceive hazards in plenty of time to react to them. And some
> order signs explicitly don't apply to us.
Wouldn't make any difference to the average cyclist if they DID apply!!!
>
--
A Duhg is for life, not just for Christmas.
Unfortunately.
JohnB
But it is interesting how many cyclists comply with rules compared to
bus drivers [1].
I had the misfortune to travel on both Stagecoach and Solent Blue Line
yesterday and both were driven by utter b*st*rds.
John B
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote in message <vwXYd.379$vB4...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>:
>>>Obviously you are now admitting that in your oponion road signs only apply
>>>to motorists, and not to cycles
>> Most of them do. We have no need of the vast majority of warning
>> signs, for example, because we are moving at a speed which allows us
>> to perceive hazards in plenty of time to react to them. And some
>> order signs explicitly don't apply to us.
>Wouldn't make any difference to the average cyclist if they DID apply!!!
I refer the hon. gentleman to my earlier reply:
<url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Bloody_cyclists>
I have just realised that this is not an orphan of the earlier
crosspost to urcm, but is instead x-posted to uk.tosspot. To the
bitbucket with it.
Ian
"Jon Senior" wrote in message
As the whole of this thread is cross posted and you have clipped the start
of my reply I guess I have touched a nerve somewhere. Another cyclist who
ignores all traffic regulations?
Ian
Clive Coleman
>But it is interesting how many cyclists comply with rules compared to
>bus drivers [1].
>
>I had the misfortune to travel on both Stagecoach and Solent Blue Line
>yesterday and both were driven by utter b*st*rds.
cyclists who were stopping them from keeping to schedule.
--
Clive.
Simon Brooke
There is no area which belongs to cars - either exclusively or
otherwise. It all belongs to cyclists, pedestrians and horse-riders.
Car drivers are allowed to use it only if they have a license and
insurance.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Morning had broken, and I found when I looked that we had run out
of copper roove nails.
JohnB
They didn't care about keeping to the rules of the road - or to the
comfort and safety of their passengers.
And what schedule?
The SBL was 20 minutes late and that was just five miles from its start point.
John B
PeterE
>
> I had the misfortune to travel on both Stagecoach and Solent Blue Line
> yesterday and both were driven by utter b*st*rds.
Why put yourself in the hands of such poor drivers?
Buy a car! :P
(er, there might be a flaw in that theory...)
--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If a river bridge were not guarded by a parapet, the slackness of the
defaulting authority deserves the blame, not the people who fall in" -
Lieut. Col. Mervyn O'Gorman.
Not Responding
.
>
> I had the misfortune to travel on both Stagecoach and Solent Blue Line
> yesterday and both were driven by utter b*st*rds.
>
> John B
Having spent over 6 months with Solent Blue Line, First and Stagecoach
as my main mode of transport last year, I can only agree.
In truth, they weren't too bad in dealing with cyclists - something I've
noticed with First[1] in particular when cycling. It was more traffic
lights and so on. Total disregard for lights and a plentiful application
of the rule of gross tonnage for general manoevres.
[1] I think First have woken up to cyclists since one of their drivers
killed one last year. Usual minimal fine and ban for the driver but
First handled it very well in that they sacked him despite a lot of
union pressure.
Nick Finnigan
<squa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110709692.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
> > <squa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1110665314.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Now I know that the footpath is, apparently, "the part of road or
> other
> > > public place that is constructed and laid out for pedestrian use."
> But
> > > shouldn't street furniture be called footpath furniture?
> >
> > Like those bollards to keep vans out of cycle paths, you mean?
>
> How about we swap then?
Swap what? I don't like cycling around bollards, but whoever put
them up would see no point in putting them other than on a cycle path.
>Move all the car-related piping, tinplate and pretty lights
There is no such stuff.
>off the footpath into the area that belongs "exclusively" to the cars?
There is no such area.
Tony Raven
>
>
>>off the footpath into the area that belongs "exclusively" to the cars?
>
>
> There is no such area.
>
There is; the outside lane of a motorway. As good a place as any to
dump it all ;-)
Tony
Clive Coleman
>And what schedule?
>The SBL was 20 minutes late and that was just five miles from its start
>point.
stupid cyclist was in his way exercising their right to the carriage
way.
--
Clive.
Jon Senior
> As the whole of this thread is cross posted and you have clipped the start
> of my reply I guess I have touched a nerve somewhere. Another cyclist who
> ignores all traffic regulations?
If you'd followed the link (A google groups reference), you'd see that
we're still running a similar cross-posted thread elsewhere. While I'm
sure you regard your originality quite highly, you might want to read it
before repeating the same questions / assertions that have been covered
in the last few days!
As for my regard for traffic regulations: I ride within the bounds of
the RTA. I presume that you can claim the same for your driving / cycling?
Jon
Tony Raven
30 mins for 5 miles? Even us stupid cyclists are not that slow.
Probably got stuck in a traffic jam.
Tony
PeterE
10 mph - isn't that a reasonably achievable point-to-point average for
cycling?
JohnB
Wrong.
It was other motorists holding him up - apparently mainly other buses
and coaches.
Anyone on cycles would have eased the congestion.
John B
Clive Coleman
<ju...@raven-family.com> writes
> Even us stupid cyclists are not that slow.
--
Clive.
Tony Raven
Most cyclists can easily average more than the average traffic speeds in
cities these days. Most of the time cycling in cities I get held up by
the motor traffic.
Tony
squa...@gmail.com
Nick Finnigan wrote:
> <squa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1110709692.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Nick Finnigan wrote:
> > > <squa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1110665314.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Now I know that the footpath is, apparently, "the part of road
or
> > other
> > > > public place that is constructed and laid out for pedestrian
use."
> > But
> > > > shouldn't street furniture be called footpath furniture?
> >Move all the car-related piping, tinplate and pretty lights
>
> There is no such stuff.
Hmmm, must be Scotch mist, then. Strange, others seem to have noticed
it.
>
> >off the footpath into the area that belongs "exclusively" to the
cars?
>
> There is no such area.
Are you in denial? I got the impression that motorists owned the road,
as they paid all the taxes, unlike free-riding pedestrians and
cyclists.
So no chance of a swap. How about motorists paying rent for their
non-existent road signs which block or clutter the footpaths, then?
Could be quite a revenue raiser.
squa...@gmail.com
Gosh, anarchy! Where do you live? I rode on the pavement for 20 metres
Friday evening (don't usually do this sort of thing). I had just turned
into a side-road, when I was nearly clanged by a very confident and
doubtless competent motorist speeding backwards at me. He was reversing
out of the way of four cars coming the other way, in this narrow road,
lined by parked cars on both sides. What they used to call a Knight of
the Road, he was. Like the coward I am, I decided that the road had
become no place for me, I was just impeding them, and so hauled myself
onto the pavement. I would have just backed away, but I was already
impeding another car that was right behind me. I so wish that it had
been ahead of me.
Tony Raven
>
>
Perhaps this pavement had that magic white paint that Councils put down
to make them suitable for cycling. Quite what it is about the magic
white paint that converts an unsuitable pavement into a suitable one for
cycling remains a mystery though.
Tony
squa...@gmail.com
>
mouth.
>
Oooohhh, you young satirists, I don't know!!!
> --
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
>
> -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Words may show a man's wit but actions his meaning.
Benjamin Franklin
Ian
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
> Ian wrote:
>> As the whole of this thread is cross posted and you have clipped the
>> start of my reply I guess I have touched a nerve somewhere. Another
>> cyclist who ignores all traffic regulations?
>
> If you'd followed the link (A google groups reference), you'd see that
> we're still running a similar cross-posted thread elsewhere. While I'm
> sure you regard your originality quite highly, you might want to read it
> before repeating the same questions / assertions that have been covered in
> the last few days!
And perhaps you need to read the post that I was commenting on instead of
clipping it off your reply. Then my post would not seem out of place.
>
> As for my regard for traffic regulations: I ride within the bounds of the
> RTA. I presume that you can claim the same for your driving / cycling?
>
Glad to hear it, although in my experience that is rare. I still think I
have touched a nerve and you are only enforcing that idea.
Ian
ian henden
"JohnB" <nos...@here.com> wrote in message
news:42344DA4...@here.com...
[]
>
> I had the misfortune to travel on both Stagecoach and Solent Blue Line
> yesterday and both were driven by utter b*st*rds.
Really? email me privately with times, direction and routes
Thanks.
ian henden
"Not Responding" <now...@dev.null> wrote in message
news:42345b2b$0$22501$7b0f...@reader.news.newnet.co.uk...
You forgot to mention that the cyclist in question was wearing headphones,
had a load on the handlebars, and was cycling on one of the most dangerous
roundabouts in Hampshire, and that there is a signposted (admittedly 5
minutes longer) signposted alternative route.
Oh, and he wasn't sacked. He is doing cleaning duties pending return to
work, but *might not choose* to take up bus driving again. Been driving
years and years, a very pleasant quiet bloke, no points on licence
previously, who had the same sort of accident that thousands of other
people do, this one happened to have more serious consequences.
And no, I don't think First DID handle it well. They were more interested in
preserving their image.
ian henden
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1gtdsiz.29tmikft85agN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>
Come on, Steve, be fair to him ... he was trying to avoid being splatted by
a car driver!!!!
As I *have* pointed out before, not *all* cyclists are idiots (just a
significant proportion of them).
And not all drivers (car, lorry or bus) are perfect, either. But the
standards are usually a bit higher than those of most cyclists.
--
A Duhg is for life, not just for Christmas.
Unfortunately.
LSMike
> Come on, Steve, be fair to him ... he was trying to avoid being
splatted by
> a car driver!!!!
Nice call, that was a bit of a stupid comment by Steve IMO.
> As I *have* pointed out before, not *all* cyclists are idiots (just a
> significant proportion of them).
Perhaps that's like all those nice car drivers, many are great, but a
significant portion of them are very poor at observing speed limits,
are guilty of a serious lack of care for vulnerable road users, etc.
etc.
> And not all drivers (car, lorry or bus) are perfect, either. But the
> standards are usually a bit higher than those of most cyclists.
I imagine it often really doesn't feel that way from most cyclists'
points of view.
Tony Raven
>
> You forgot to mention that the cyclist in question was wearing headphones,
> had a load on the handlebars, and was cycling on one of the most dangerous
> roundabouts in Hampshire, and that there is a signposted (admittedly 5
> minutes longer) signposted alternative route.
>
I don't know the circumstances of the accident but none of those are
excuses for killing someone with a bus.
Tony
Not Responding
> "Not Responding" <now...@dev.null> wrote in message
> news:42345b2b$0$22501$7b0f...@reader.news.newnet.co.uk...
>>[1] I think First have woken up to cyclists since one of their drivers
>>killed one last year. Usual minimal fine and ban for the driver but First
>>handled it very well in that they sacked him despite a lot of union
>>pressure.
>
>
> You forgot to mention that the cyclist in question was wearing headphones,
So?
> had a load on the handlebars,
However, was still run over from behind by a bus driver who was looking
right for a gap in the traffic rather than where he was going.
> and was cycling on one of the most dangerous
> roundabouts in Hampshire,
Market Quay, the most dangerous? Ho Ho.
> and that there is a signposted (admittedly 5
> minutes longer) signposted alternative route.
More like 10 mins once you factor in all the "get off and push" bits of
the route. And remember this is 10 mins compared to 100 metres across
the roundabout.
> Oh, and he wasn't sacked. He is doing cleaning duties pending return to
> work, but *might not choose* to take up bus driving again.
In that case they u-turned from their original position.
> Been driving
> years and years, a very pleasant quiet bloke, no points on licence
> previously, who had the same sort of accident that thousands of other
> people do, this one happened to have more serious consequences.
Which sums it up rather well. Most road casulties are caused by normal,
decent people who simply fail to do their job as a driver.
ian henden
"Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.com> wrote in message
news:39km3aF...@individual.net...
That is true. You now do know the circumstances of the accident.
But ..... in exactly the same circumstances, how many people have ever
rearended the car in front, because they were looking at the fast
unrelenting traffic coming from the right, and had thought the vehicle in
front had gone? It is a standard accident scenario, very common, and
usually results in minor damage to vehicle and a loss of someones NCB. A
bike comes off rather worse in the same scenario.
This is why, where a potential danger exists, local authorities seek to
remove vulnerable potential victims from the hazard scenario - in this case,
by the provision of the cycle route. This route in Fareham is five minutes
longer, through quite a pleasant park, under a not very nice underpass (10
seconds???) and along the pavement next to the Quay. Given the local
topgraphy, it is probably the best they can do, short of bulldozing even
more of Fareham, including the railway viaduct, and starting again from
scratch, together with a new road from Gosport somewhere near Fleetlands,
straight onto A27 at Cams Hall and then the M27. That isn't going to
happen.
In this instance, I beleive the young lady actually fell off her bike before
being struck by the bus, whilst the driver was making the (understandable)
error.
I do not suspect for one second that he intended to kill someone with a bus.
Neither did the courts. He was charged with standard "driving without due
care and attention".
It cost her her life. But she *did* save the five minutes that using the
sign posted cycle route would have cost her. I know which cost I would
rather have borne.
Tragic - for her, her family, for the bus driver, and for the bus drivers
family.
You, of course, have NEVER made a mistake. This driver did - and it will
affect him for the rest of his life.
Fact remains - the cyclist was author, to a large extent, to her own
misfortune.
David Hansen
<ju...@raven-family.com> wrote this:-
>Most cyclists can easily average more than the average traffic speeds in
>cities these days. Most of the time cycling in cities I get held up by
>the motor traffic.
Impossible. We have been told by means of loud assertion that it is
cyclists that hold up motorists. Anyone who thinks that motorists
hold up motorists, or even worse motorists hold up cyclists, must be
a lentil-eating, lycra-clad deviant.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
Jon Senior
> And perhaps you need to read the post that I was commenting on instead of
> clipping it off your reply. Then my post would not seem out of place.
Or alternatively, it could be that I had read it, but clipped it as it
was not relevant to the comments I made. There is no need to keep the
entire context of the conversation in quotes.
> Glad to hear it, although in my experience that is rare. I still think I
> have touched a nerve and you are only enforcing that idea.
In your experience it is rare that you can claim the same for your
driving? :-)
The relative proportions of law-breaking cyclists and law-breaking
motorists were discussed in the other thread. When ignoring speeding
offenses, the proportions as found by the RAC in a survey showed that
motorists tend to be the worst offenders of the two groups. Given that
most drivers interviewed admitted to regularly exceeding speed limits it
would seem that cyclists are a much maligned minority.
This is why it touches a nerve.
And yes... I do drive as well.
Jon
Jon Senior
> But ..... in exactly the same circumstances, how many people have ever
> rearended the car in front, because they were looking at the fast
> unrelenting traffic coming from the right, and had thought the vehicle in
> front had gone? It is a standard accident scenario, very common, and
> usually results in minor damage to vehicle and a loss of someones NCB. A
> bike comes off rather worse in the same scenario.
And this is a justification? Surely it provides a perfect example of why
far higher standards should be expected of our drivers than currently are.
> This is why, where a potential danger exists, local authorities seek to
> remove vulnerable potential victims from the hazard scenario - in this case,
> by the provision of the cycle route.
Genius. You have a danger. Rather than control the source of the danger,
you just get people out of the way. Are you actually as daft as you come
across, or have you never thought about what you are posting.
> This route in Fareham is five minutes
> longer, through quite a pleasant park, under a not very nice underpass (10
> seconds???) and along the pavement next to the Quay. Given the local
> topgraphy, it is probably the best they can do, short of bulldozing even
> more of Fareham, including the railway viaduct, and starting again from
> scratch, together with a new road from Gosport somewhere near Fleetlands,
> straight onto A27 at Cams Hall and then the M27. That isn't going to
> happen.
>
> In this instance, I beleive the young lady actually fell off her bike before
> being struck by the bus, whilst the driver was making the (understandable)
> error.
Driving over the top of someone because he failed to look where he was
going. We must use some different definition of "understandable".
> I do not suspect for one second that he intended to kill someone with a bus.
Probably not, but through entirely his own fault he committed
manslaughter...
> Neither did the courts. He was charged with standard "driving without due
> care and attention".
...which is never used in driving cases. And the police now admit that
they will rarely push for the higher penalty offence of dangerous
driving as it is harder to get a conviction. The courts do not decide
the charge.
> It cost her her life. But she *did* save the five minutes that using the
> sign posted cycle route would have cost her. I know which cost I would
> rather have borne.
I'd have rather that the bus driver paid more attention.
> Tragic - for her, her family, for the bus driver, and for the bus drivers
> family.
>
> You, of course, have NEVER made a mistake. This driver did - and it will
> affect him for the rest of his life.
Most of my mistakes have occurred on a bike. It is far harder to inflict
the same level of injury with a 15kg bike, than with a 1.5T car, or 10T+
bus.
> Fact remains - the cyclist was author, to a large extent, to her own
> misfortune.
Fact: She was (From the information that you have posted), correctly
placed to proceed around a roundabout.
Fact: She was run over by a driver who was not looking where he was
putting his 10T+ of metal.
Do you consider rape victims to be at fault for "looking like they
wanted it"?
Jon
Doug
Madmucks wrote:
> "Doug" <do...@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message
> news:1110705431....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > squa...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Now I know that the footpath is, apparently, "the part of road or
> > other
> >> public place that is constructed and laid out for pedestrian use."
> > But
> >> shouldn't street furniture be called footpath furniture?
> >
here
> > expect peds to keep to the pavements but they don't object to their
> > traffic signs and other vehicle crap cluttering peds pavements.
>
> Obviously you are now admitting that in your oponion road signs only
apply
> to motorists, and not to cycles- you would have said motorists and
cyclists,
> otherwise, wouldn't you?
Cyclist don't need massive road signs. A small sign on a lampost will
usually suffice.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Don't vote, it only encourages them.
If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal.
Tony Raven
>
> Anyone who thinks that motorists
> hold up motorists, or even worse motorists hold up cyclists, must be
> a lentil-eating, lycra-clad deviant.
>
>
Guilty as charged your Honour (apart from the lentil bit.....oh and the
lycra bit too)
Tony
Tony Raven
>
> That is true. You now do know the circumstances of the accident.
>
> But ..... in exactly the same circumstances, how many people have ever
> rearended the car in front, because they were looking at the fast
> unrelenting traffic coming from the right, and had thought the vehicle in
> front had gone? It is a standard accident scenario, very common, and
> usually results in minor damage to vehicle and a loss of someones NCB. A
> bike comes off rather worse in the same scenario.
That's no excuse for not paying attention and killing someone.
Presumably he knew the cyclist was there and that they do not magically
evaporate out of the way. Anywhere else and it would be called
manslaughter and not "just one of those things"
>
> This is why, where a potential danger exists, local authorities seek to
> remove vulnerable potential victims from the hazard scenario - in this case,
> by the provision of the cycle route.
You mean they attempt to make up for drivers' lack of patience and
attention by penalising the non-drivers.
> This route in Fareham is five minutes
> longer, through quite a pleasant park, under a not very nice underpass (10
> seconds???) and along the pavement next to the Quay. Given the local
> topgraphy, it is probably the best they can do, short of bulldozing even
> more of Fareham, including the railway viaduct, and starting again from
> scratch, together with a new road from Gosport somewhere near Fleetlands,
> straight onto A27 at Cams Hall and then the M27. That isn't going to
> happen.
I'm sure there are all sorts of other routes the bus driver could also
take to avoid that roundabout if he can't cope with it. And he only has
the extra effort of pressing the accelerator and brake a few more time
to do so.
>
> In this instance, I beleive the young lady actually fell off her bike before
> being struck by the bus, whilst the driver was making the (understandable)
> error.
>
> I do not suspect for one second that he intended to kill someone with a bus.
>
They never do.
> Neither did the courts. He was charged with standard "driving without due
> care and attention".
>
Seems to be normal. You can have never passed a driving test, be banned
from driving, owe £1400 in unpaid driving fines, be doing double the
speed limit, overtaking a line of stationary traffic and uninsured when
you kill someone and that's still all they will charge you with [1].
These days motor vehicles are the murder weapon of choice if you want a
trivial sentence.
> It cost her her life. But she *did* save the five minutes that using the
> sign posted cycle route would have cost her. I know which cost I would
> rather have borne.
And he saved all of 10 secs by not waiting and he cost her her life.
Should she have to make a five minute detour to save him the extra few
seconds it would have taken to not kill her?
>
> Tragic - for her, her family, for the bus driver, and for the bus drivers
> family.
>
> You, of course, have NEVER made a mistake. This driver did - and it will
> affect him for the rest of his life.
Not that has or anywhere near could have resulted in someone's death.
>
> Fact remains - the cyclist was author, to a large extent, to her own
> misfortune.
>
For failing to get out of the way of the inattentive driver of many tons
of metal? Typical victim blaming for doing what they were perfectly
entitled to be doing. Bit like saying that a manslaughter victim was the
author of their own death by failing to get out of the way of the bullet.
Tony
[1] James Boffey after the death of 15 year old Anthony Wakelin in
Dorset. http://www.roadsupervisors.net/shb.news.htm
Madmucks
>
> Madmucks wrote:
>> "Doug" <do...@zing.icom43.net> wrote in message
>> news:1110705431....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > squa...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> Now I know that the footpath is, apparently, "the part of road or
>> > other
>> >> public place that is constructed and laid out for pedestrian use."
>> > But
>> >> shouldn't street furniture be called footpath furniture?
>> >
>> > Street furniture should be called a 'bloody nuisance'. Motorists
> here
>> > expect peds to keep to the pavements but they don't object to their
>> > traffic signs and other vehicle crap cluttering peds pavements.
>>
>> Obviously you are now admitting that in your oponion road signs only
> apply
>> to motorists, and not to cycles- you would have said motorists and
> cyclists,
>> otherwise, wouldn't you?
>
> Cyclist don't need massive road signs. A small sign on a lampost will
> usually suffice.
>
at all I would say the present ones are not big enough.
Tony W
"ian henden" <i...@henden.co.uk> wrote in message
news:YT9Zd.9$6P...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
snip
> It cost her her life. But she *did* save the five minutes that using the
> sign posted cycle route would have cost her. I know which cost I would
> rather have borne.
snip
> Fact remains - the cyclist was author, to a large extent, to her own
> misfortune.
The fact remains that the victim was legally using the highway when she was
hit and killed due to the inattention of the bus driver.
While a 'fender bender' in that situation is not uncommon and might normally
have little consequence a bus is a heavy vehicle. A bus or an HGV can do
very significant damage to even quite substantial cars in these
circumstances so one might expect the driver to be even more aware than
Dippy Don/Dora in his/her plonker-mobile.
Furthermore, maybe the victim was not using the alternative route for some
other reason. Lots of people -- and especially women -- find underpasses
unpleasant ant threatening and this woman may have had good reason to avoid
the park which you describe as 'quite pleasant.
The fact remains that she was using the highway legally.
Tony W
"Tony W" <tonyr...@chapmore.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39l5jfF...@individual.net...
>
> The fact remains that she was using the highway legally.
Sorry -- missed intended last line.
The fact remains that she was using the highway legally. It seems you are
trying to deflect the blame for the 'accident' from the person responsible
(the inattentive bus driver) to the victim.
njf>badger<
Tony W wrote:
> Furthermore, maybe the victim was not using the alternative route for some
> other reason. Lots of people -- and especially women -- find underpasses
> unpleasant ant threatening and this woman may have had good reason to avoid
> the park which you describe as 'quite pleasant.
That underpass has been the scene of several assaults and muggings, one
fellow Scouters son lost his bike, mobile phone and wallet there last
year to two male persons of non-white ethnic origin (not many of those
in Fareham BTW). He was lucky he remembered to do what he was taught
when they visited South Africa the year before, otherwise he might have
lost his life as well, both were armed with large carving knives....
Niel.
David Hansen
<i...@henden.co.uk> wrote this:-
>But ..... in exactly the same circumstances, how many people have ever
>rearended the car in front, because they were looking at the fast
>unrelenting traffic coming from the right, and had thought the vehicle in
>front had gone?
Presumably the cyclist did not appear out of thin air.
Assuming this is the case then the bus driver presumably saw the
cyclist as he drove up to the roundabout. To comply with the law he
should then have been extra careful of her, but he was not.
>This is why, where a potential danger exists, local authorities seek to
>remove vulnerable potential victims from the hazard scenario
I take it that you apply the same "logic" to other situations. For
example women should not go out as they are vulnerable potential
victims of male aggression. Or perhaps they should only go out
covered head to foot in black robes.
Fortunately most people (at least in this part of the world) have
moved on from such ideas. It is a pity the road "safety" lobby are
still adopting the same approach.
mma...@my-deja.com
> Cyclists usually find sharing the road with pedestrians less annoying
> than motorists do.
However, as a pedestrian, I find sharing the road with cyclists very
annoying. What's the point of 'pedestrianised' areas, if cyclists come
blasting along the road in any direction while you're walking to the
shops, with no regard for the rest of us?
Mark
David Hansen
<zo...@thegreek.fsnet.co.uk> wrote this:-
>> Cyclist don't need massive road signs. A small sign on a lampost will
>> usually suffice.
>>
>Must disagree with that. Judging by their inability to respond to road signs
>at all I would say the present ones are not big enough.
Nice try. However, as a data point I refer you to a scene I saw in
Edinburgh a while ago.
Officer Dibble was trying to prevent a cyclist entering Rose Street
because "cycling is not allowed". The street has signs which warn
people to beware of low flying motorbikes.
David Hansen
wrote this:-
>However, as a pedestrian, I find sharing the road with cyclists very
>annoying. What's the point of 'pedestrianised' areas, if cyclists come
>blasting along the road in any direction while you're walking to the
>shops, with no regard for the rest of us?
The Road Research Laboratory has studied the subject in some detail.
Their conclusion is that cycling in "pedestrianised areas" does not
cause a great deal of danger.
Motorists in "pedestrianised areas" cause more danger I strongly
suspect.
njf>badger<
David Hansen wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2005 04:29:36 -0800 someone who may be mma...@my-deja.com
> wrote this:-
>
>
>>However, as a pedestrian, I find sharing the road with cyclists very
>>annoying. What's the point of 'pedestrianised' areas, if cyclists come
>>blasting along the road in any direction while you're walking to the
>>shops, with no regard for the rest of us?
>
>
> The Road Research Laboratory has studied the subject in some detail.
> Their conclusion is that cycling in "pedestrianised areas" does not
> cause a great deal of danger.
>
> Motorists in "pedestrianised areas" cause more danger I strongly
> suspect.
#
All depends on the motorist and how they are driving, in low box at
tick-over in a land-rover the danger is much lower than when some banned
drugged/drunk idiot attempting to out run the police tried to use one as
an escape route....Yes I have driven in such areas, at less than walking
pace, here a large slow moving vehicle presents a quickly/easily
observed target easily avoided, or easily avoiding an pedestrian who's
not seen it, esp. with an escort walking in front. Thats how most
deliveries are made to the shops near the labia tower in Portsmouth...
Niel.
David Hansen
%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote this:-
>And it's typical of you to excuse lawbreaking on the part
>of the rogue cycling element.
Nice try. However, I made no observation on the legality or
otherwise of the cycling they observed.
>unlike the cyclists, the motorists are permitted to use the
>street,
A "pedestrianised area" motorists are allowed to use but not
cyclists. Fascinating.
David Hansen
%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote this:-
>Just as an explanation for those unfamiliar with Hansen "nice try" is
>his admission of defeat.
Nice try, but incorrect.
David Hansen
%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote this:-
>Another admission of defeat.
Not in the least.
>No, not motorists, "the" motorists. The definite article is actually
>significant.
Does not help the discussion progress very far.
There are pedestrianised areas where some motorists are allowed to
drive for access purposes. Are cyclists not allowed to do the same
in this particular pedestrianised area? Fascinating.
JNugent
> David Hansen <SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>> <zo...@thegreek.fsnet.co.uk> wrote this:-
>>>> Cyclist don't need massive road signs. A small sign on a lampost
>>>> will usually suffice.
>>> Must disagree with that. Judging by their inability to respond to
>>> road signs at all I would say the present ones are not big enough.
>> Nice try.
> Just as an explanation for those unfamiliar with Hansen "nice try" is
> his admission of defeat.
:-)
He also seems not to understand that proceeding along a stretch of road
contrary to the explicit instruction of a police officer in uniform is an
offence in itself.
JohnB
> A "pedestrianised area" motorists are allowed to use but not
> cyclists. Fascinating.
Unfortunately one has recently been created in Andover. No vehicles at
all - except some deliveries, disabled, council and service vehicles,
and anyone who smiles nicely at the wardens.
Cyclists use it still and cause _zero_ problems for pedestrians, yet it
is the bullying tactics of motorists people are complaining about in the
local rag :-)
John B
Christine.
<jnu...@ac30.spamfreeserve.co.uk> writes
>>>>> Cyclist don't need massive road signs. A small sign on a lampost
>>>>> will usually suffice.
the pavement, carrying your bike around the corner against red lights
and carrying you bike across the road with other pedestrians. Isn't it
funny how cyclists don't obey the law here but make a noise when car
drivers do the same. They seem to think a different HC pertains to
them.
--
Clive.
Not Responding
> In message <d14iku$ba1$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, JNugent
> <jnu...@ac30.spamfreeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>>>>>> Cyclist don't need massive road signs. A small sign on a lampost
>>>>>> will usually suffice.
>
> Just as exceeding the speed limit is breaking the law
not for cyclists it isn't.
> so is cycling on
> the pavement,
except where the council put up blue signs. Fortunately I have more
sense than to ride on the pavement, blue sign or not. It brings me great
joy when some dipstick driver without a clue about the HC shouts "get on
the pavement".
> carrying your bike around the corner against red lights
I'm fairly, fairly certain you're very wrong here.
> and carrying you bike across the road with other pedestrians.
I'm utterly certain you're wrong on this one.
> Isn't it
> funny how cyclists don't obey the law here but make a noise when car
> drivers do the same. They seem to think a different HC pertains to them.
Well, judging by your post it's certainly a different HC to the one
you've read.
Not Responding
I have some fun in Fareham from time to time. As a ped or when pushing
my bike along West Street ped area, if a car comes up behind me I refuse
to get out of the way. Seeing as it's a ped area one would expect them
to be happy to break the law at walking pace, but no, they want to go
faster; they hoot, they shout, they rev their engines.
Richard
> Just as exceeding the speed limit is breaking the law
Not on a bicycle it isn't.
> so is cycling on
> the pavement,
Depends on the pavement.
> carrying your bike around the corner against red lights
Wrong. This is legal.
> and carrying you bike across the road with other pedestrians. Isn't it
Wrong. Wrong. This is legal.
R.
Christine.
Responding <now...@dev.null> writes
>Well, judging by your post it's certainly a different HC to the one
>you've read.
--
Clive.
JNugent
> JNugent <jnu...@ac30.spamfreeserve.co.uk> writes
>>>>>> Cyclist don't need massive road signs. A small sign on a lampost
>>>>>> will usually suffice.
No. I didn't write a word of that.
> Just as exceeding the speed limit is breaking the law so is cycling on
> the pavement, carrying your bike around the corner against red lights
> and carrying you bike across the road with other pedestrians. Isn't
> it funny how cyclists don't obey the law here but make a noise when
> car drivers do the same. They seem to think a different HC pertains
> to them.
You are making those remarks to someone else.
JNugent
> Christine. wrote:
>> Just as exceeding the speed limit is breaking the law
>> so is cycling on the pavement,
>> carrying your bike around the corner against red lights
> Wrong. This is legal.
>
>> and carrying you bike across the road with other pedestrians.
>> Isn't it
> Wrong. Wrong. This is legal.
I side with your response there.
But can you tell us why cyclists never (or very very rarely) do that, but
can so frequently be seen simply cycling through red traffic lights or along
the footway, when there is such a lawful and simple alternative?
Not that they all do it of course - I did see a cyclist (a lady, as it
happens) stop at a red light in London a few months ago.
JohnB
> Not that they all do it of course - I did see a cyclist (a lady, as it
> happens) stop at a red light in London a few months ago.
Was that one that stopped a motorist going through on red?
John B
JohnB
>
> "JohnB" <nos...@here.com> wrote in message
> news:42344DA4...@here.com...
> []
> >
> > I had the misfortune to travel on both Stagecoach and Solent Blue Line
> > yesterday and both were driven by utter b*st*rds.
>
> Really? email me privately with times, direction and routes
Give me one good reason why I should e-mail *you* in preference to the
companies involved?
SBL Bluestar 1 at Otterbourne, more than 15 minutes late, ignored girl
waiting at bus stop waving her arms for it to stop.
Stagecoach 76, Basingstoke mounted central reservation at Winton Square
then cut corner on roundabout clipping kerb, both severely jolting passengers.
Driver then made unnecessarily rude remarks at West Ham to an elderly
passenger who couldn't immediately produce the right ticket from his pocket.
John B
Not Responding
Not changed in two months, I believe. You can also find it online, at
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/
Be interested if you could give us some links supporting your previous
assertions.
Not Responding
> ian henden wrote:
>
>>"JohnB" <nos...@here.com> wrote in message
>>news:42344DA4...@here.com...
>>[]
>>
>>>I had the misfortune to travel on both Stagecoach and Solent Blue Line
>>>yesterday and both were driven by utter b*st*rds.
>>
>>Really? email me privately with times, direction and routes
IIRC IH is a bus driver in this neck of the woods. Maybe he's being
helpful - but then again he's got you marked down as a cyclist so I
doubt it.
JohnB
I've my drawn pump with him on tosspot before as he regularly calls for
cyclists to be thrown off the roads coz they slow his bus up.
<thinks> I wonder whether he was the SBL driver who blasted his horn and
intimidated a cyclist into jumping on to the pavement in Otterbourne a
couple of days ago.
John B
Richard
> But can you tell us why cyclists never (or very very rarely) do that, but
> can so frequently be seen simply cycling through red traffic lights or along
> the footway, when there is such a lawful and simple alternative?
Not having a telepathic connection to the Borg collective consciousness
of "cyclists", I can't tell you why any individual cyclist does it.
However, I'd like to put some numbers on your value of "very very
rarely". The RAC, that well-known pro-cyclist, anti-car organisation
[1] found that in Glasgow "up to one in four" cyclists jumped red
lights, rising in London to "as high as 50%". So your "very very
rarely" actually translates as "the majority of cyclists."
Incidentally the same survey found that 10% of car drivers drive through
a traffic light when it had been red at least three seconds.
You might like to notice the RAC's clever discounting, for motorists
only, of any lights passed at less than three seconds after red; that's
over forty feet of road space at 30 mph. So rather more than 10% of
car drivers, then, break the law by jumping red traffic lights.
As to cycling along the footway, it couldn't possibly be because 85% of
drivers admit to speeding, rising to 96% of young drivers (figures
courtesy of the AA, and note that's just the ones who admit it), and the
cyclists are afraid to go out on the road because of the criminal
behaviour of the car drivers? Just a suggestion.
> Not that they all do it of course - I did see a cyclist (a lady, as it
> happens) stop at a red light in London a few months ago.
I once saw a car driver yield to pedestrians crossing the side road into
which he was turning. Just the once, mind. He was honked at by the
car behind.
[1] Yes, that was irony.
R.
JNugent
> JNugent wrote:
No.
I was the one following her, and a more upright citizen you will not find.
:-)
Badger
Not Responding wrote:
> I have some fun in Fareham from time to time. As a ped or when pushing
> my bike along West Street ped area, if a car comes up behind me I refuse
> to get out of the way. Seeing as it's a ped area one would expect them
> to be happy to break the law at walking pace, but no, they want to go
> faster; they hoot, they shout, they rev their engines.
Not me thankfully, I crawl along in it, perfectly legal though, access
to Cawtes Place. What securicor, the farmers market and the dinky
donutters etc do however....
Niel.
Badger
David Hansen wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:34:36 +0000 someone who may be Tony Raven
> <ju...@raven-family.com> wrote this:-
>
>
>>Most cyclists can easily average more than the average traffic speeds in
>>cities these days. Most of the time cycling in cities I get held up by
>>the motor traffic.
>
>
> Impossible. We have been told by means of loud assertion that it is
> cyclists that hold up motorists. Anyone who thinks that motorists
> hold up motorists, or even worse motorists hold up cyclists, must be
> a lentil-eating, lycra-clad deviant.
Na its buses that hold everyone up, atleast in soton it is...
JohnB
> > Impossible. We have been told by means of loud assertion that it is
> > cyclists that hold up motorists. Anyone who thinks that motorists
> > hold up motorists, or even worse motorists hold up cyclists, must be
> > a lentil-eating, lycra-clad deviant.
>
> Na its buses that hold everyone up, atleast in soton it is...
They certainly held me up on Saturday. I had to wait nearly 20 minutes
for the Solent Blue Line sooper dooper Bluestar 1 to turn up.
And that was at a supposedly quiet mid-evening time.
But what did the driver do?
He blamed other buses and coaches for delaying him.
I know should have cycled.
John B
Tony Raven
>
> Just as exceeding the speed limit is breaking the law so is cycling on
> the pavement,
Unless the Council has designated it as for cycle use which is quite
common these days.
> carrying your bike around the corner against red lights
> and carrying you bike across the road with other pedestrians.
Nope. Crank v Brooks 1980. As soon as you are off the bike and pushing
you are a pedestrian not a cyclist so no offence committed. Now if you
were to scoot it round the corner or across the road it would be an
offence, but walking it? No.
> Isn't it
> funny how cyclists don't obey the law here but make a noise when car
> drivers do the same. They seem to think a different HC pertains to them.
Different laws do apply to cyclists e.g. the pedestrian status above,
the fact that speed limits do not apply to cyclists etc etc. Might help
if you actually learnt what the law was before you start citing it in
arguments.
Tony
Taz
"Not Responding" <now...@dev.null> wrote in message
news:4235217b$0$22500$7b0f...@reader.news.newnet.co.uk...
> ian henden wrote:
>> "Not Responding" <now...@dev.null> wrote in message
>> news:42345b2b$0$22501$7b0f...@reader.news.newnet.co.uk...
>
>>>[1] I think First have woken up to cyclists since one of their drivers
>>>killed one last year. Usual minimal fine and ban for the driver but First
>>>handled it very well in that they sacked him despite a lot of union
>>>pressure.
>>
>>
>> You forgot to mention that the cyclist in question was wearing
>> headphones,
>
> So?
>
>> had a load on the handlebars,
>
> However, was still run over from behind by a bus driver who was looking
> right for a gap in the traffic rather than where he was going.
>
>> and was cycling on one of the most dangerous roundabouts in Hampshire,
>
> Market Quay, the most dangerous? Ho Ho.
>
>> and that there is a signposted (admittedly 5 minutes longer) signposted
>> alternative route.
>
> More like 10 mins once you factor in all the "get off and push" bits of
> the route. And remember this is 10 mins compared to 100 metres across the
> roundabout.
>
>> Oh, and he wasn't sacked. He is doing cleaning duties pending return to
>> work, but *might not choose* to take up bus driving again.
>
> In that case they u-turned from their original position.
>
>> Been driving years and years, a very pleasant quiet bloke, no points on
>> licence previously, who had the same sort of accident that thousands of
>> other people do, this one happened to have more serious consequences.
>
> Which sums it up rather well. Most road casulties are caused by normal,
> decent people who simply fail to do their job as a driver.
The main fact remains, in was an accident, induced by human error. End of
story. Until we breed perfect humans it will remain the same. Some of us
here tend to forget we are fallible. Whether it is a scratch or a fatality,
it is the result of an error made by a human, and that is pretty difficult
to legislate against. It happens.
Andy Morris
> In message <d14iku$ba1$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, JNugent
> <jnu...@ac30.spamfreeserve.co.uk> writes
>>>>>> Cyclist don't need massive road signs. A small sign on a lampost
>>>>>> will usually suffice.
> Just as exceeding the speed limit is breaking the law so is cycling on
> the pavement, carrying your bike around the corner against red lights
> and carrying you bike across the road with other pedestrians.
I'm pretty certain that a person pushing a bicycle is no more a vehicle than
a driver carrying car keys. Theres some case low
In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ stated:
"In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing
a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on
the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the
ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If for example she had
been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing
herself along, she would not have been a 'foot passenger'. But the fact that
she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any
difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand. I
regard it as unarguable the finding that she was not a foot passenger "
--
Andy Morris
AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK
Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
David Hansen
<chri...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>Just as exceeding the speed limit is breaking the law
Not on a bike.
>so is cycling on the pavement,
That depends on whether the council have made it into a "facility"
by the addition of white paint and blue signs.
I have no doubt that these "facilities" have encouraged people to
cycle on pavements which are not "facilities" but look much the
same.
>carrying your bike around the corner against red lights
Is not illegal. Wheeling it around the corner is.
>and carrying you bike across the road with other pedestrians.
Is not illegal.
>They seem to think a different HC pertains to them.
Some cyclists do, just as some motorists do.
David Hansen
%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote this:-
>No, they are banned because it is a pedestrian zone with limited rights
>of access.
So your phrase, "limited rights of access", is different too my,
"for access purposes".
David Hansen
<nos...@here.com> wrote this:-
>> A "pedestrianised area" motorists are allowed to use but not
>> cyclists. Fascinating.
>
>Unfortunately one has recently been created in Andover. No vehicles at
>all - except some deliveries, disabled, council and service vehicles,
>and anyone who smiles nicely at the wardens.
And if some of these things are done by bike?
Jon Senior
> The main fact remains, in was an accident, induced by human error. End of
> story. Until we breed perfect humans it will remain the same. Some of us
> here tend to forget we are fallible. Whether it is a scratch or a fatality,
> it is the result of an error made by a human, and that is pretty difficult
> to legislate against. It happens.
Humans _do_ make mistakes. However, when they are not controlling over a
ton of metal at (relatively) high speeds, those mistakes would not have
the same consequences.
The reason for insisting that drivers of large vehicles pass more tests
is to demonstrate a higher level of competence than a "normal" driver,
since their level of responsibility increases with their ability to
cause harm.
Someone is walking through a busy shopping area with a gun. They have
forgotten to put the safety on and the gun discharges and kills someone.
They didn't intend to kill. The death was "the result of an error made
by a human". Would you dismiss it as such, or would you start asking
whether the gun needed to be there; whether is should be loaded; whether
you should expect a higher standard of awareness from those carrying
loaded guns?
Jon
JohnB
>
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:58:34 +0000 someone who may be JohnB
> <nos...@here.com> wrote this:-
>
> >> A "pedestrianised area" motorists are allowed to use but not
> >> cyclists. Fascinating.
> >
> >Unfortunately one has recently been created in Andover. No vehicles at
> >all - except some deliveries, disabled, council and service vehicles,
> >and anyone who smiles nicely at the wardens.
>
> And if some of these things are done by bike?
The order is No vehicles except for deliveries, disabled, market
vehicles, blah, blah
It is not motor specific and is backed up by the usual white circle red
edge signing.
So no doubt bikes are OK if acting as any of the exempted classes within
the specified time frames.
John B
JNugent
> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote this:-
>> No, they are banned because it is a pedestrian zone with limited
>> rights of access.
> So your phrase, "limited rights of access", is different too my,
> "for access purposes".
> Fascinating.
The English language clearly has too many unreached depths and profundities
for you to fully comprehend the distinctions (which are not at all subtle).
"Limited rights of access" means that the right of access is prescriptively
limited, and that vehicles in non-prescribed categories (including, in this
case, bicycles - it seems) cannot lawfully use the highway/paved area.
"For access purposes" is altogether a more woolly phrase, interpretable in
too many different ways to have significant precise meaning.
That is not to say that different individuals may not use those phrases in
describing the same thing, but one of them is accurate (according to what we
are told) and the other is not. You work out which is which.
Madmucks
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:111087502...@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
That's a ridiculous comparison to make. If they had no right to be in a
public place with a loaded gun in the first place, they would obviously be
in trouble. However, if they were in the course of their lawful activities
carrying a loaded gun e.g. Police armed response team, Army in Northern
Ireland etc., things are looked at rather differently.
I'm sure we all remember the 'loaded chair leg' case, and several others
where members of the public were killed by armed Police who were
subsequently cleared of all blame, because they were considered to be 'doing
their job'- in exactly the same way the bus driver was. An error of
judgement does not necessarily make you a criminal or bad person, but it
appears it does if you happen to be a driver!
Richard
> An error of
> judgement does not necessarily make you a criminal or bad person, but it
> appears it does if you happen to be a driver!
Or (legally) holding a weapon, or in charge of heavy machinery, or in
command of a ship or aircraft, or (legally) administering drugs, etc,
etc. When you are in a position of responsibility where an error of
judgement could be fatal, it behoves you to take greater care than if
you are not. If you do not take greater care you can rightly expect
serious consequences, not just a shrug of the shoulders and a blithely
dismissive "well, accidents happen".
R.
Madmucks
"Richard" <ric...@nomail.nospam.thanks.percival.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:d16b4v$mpq$1...@hermes.shef.ac.uk...
armed police etc., make a fatal error of judgement or mistake they rarely
end up before the courts. This also applies to ferry operators
(Zeebrugge), rail operators (Hatfield, Southall, Notting Hill et al).
Could it be, perhaps, that the erroneous driver is a lot easier to
prosecute- after all, he is unlikely to have the resources to employ a team
of barristers to fight his case?
JLB
However, if they were in the course of their lawful activities
> carrying a loaded gun e.g. Police armed response team, Army in Northern
> Ireland etc., things are looked at rather differently.
> I'm sure we all remember the 'loaded chair leg' case, and several others
> where members of the public were killed by armed Police who were
> subsequently cleared of all blame, because they were considered to be 'doing
> their job'- in exactly the same way the bus driver was. An error of
> judgement does not necessarily make you a criminal or bad person, but it
> appears it does if you happen to be a driver!
You could not be more wrong about the loaded chair leg.
The police did everything they could to hold back the investigation of
what happened. However, a coroners court finally heard the facts. A jury
gave a verdict of unlawful killing. The verdict made it clear the police
lied when giving evidence. For example, there was a lot made of the
claim by the police that they had to make an instant decision on the
"threat" they faced. This did not explain the forensic evidence of
events. The officers were suspended.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3965207.stm
All the armed police in London then went into a big strop and said they
were taking their bat and ball and going home. The authorities quietly
decided that Harry Stanley had no right to life or justice and no
further action was taken.
What you are referring to is an arrangement where some people can kill
other people with impunity; bit like motorists, now I think about it.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
David Hansen
%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote this:-
>hence market stall holders are specifically exempt from the
>restrictions in force in the pedestrian area.
Though not if their vehicle is a bike. Fascinating.
njf>badger<
JohnB wrote:
> Badger wrote:
>>
>>Na its buses that hold everyone up, atleast in soton it is...
>
>
> They certainly held me up on Saturday. I had to wait nearly 20 minutes
> for the Solent Blue Line sooper dooper Bluestar 1 to turn up.
> And that was at a supposedly quiet mid-evening time.
>
> But what did the driver do?
> He blamed other buses and coaches for delaying him.
>
> I know should have cycled.
>
> John B
Funny that, if it'd been a first southampton it probably would have been
on time, with their transponders "green waving" them through some
junctions FWIT. Mind if it had have been the driver would have been
throwing rubbish out of the open passenger doors as he drove along.....
Niel.