# Is a bicycle a "road vehicle"



## classic33 (3 Sep 2012)

Walking down Wakefield Road, Bradford, last week with a POB coming up towards me on the path. As we passed each other I said to him that he should be on the road, not the footpath. Because a bicycle is a "road vehicle". He disagreed. It wasn't a shared cycle path he was simply taking the easy way.

So, is a bicycle a "road vehicle" or not.


----------



## terry_gardener (3 Sep 2012)

highway code rule 64 you must not cycle on pavement, laws ha 1835 sect 72 & r(s)a 1984 sect 129

So bicycles must use the road or cyclepath


----------



## The Jogger (3 Sep 2012)

It is when it is on the road, it's not when it's on a cycle path, I guess.


----------



## Pauluk (3 Sep 2012)

Most are definitely road vehicles. I guess some people will ride on the pavement sometimes if they are afraid of the roads and some are told to stay off the roads and some will do it when they really shouldn't.


----------



## terry_gardener (3 Sep 2012)

I quoted the highway code above of the law but I personally thing if you are riding responsibly and giving way to people then does it really matter.


----------



## Linford (3 Sep 2012)

If they banned the sale of cheap MTB's, and doubled the sale of roadies, you would virtually eliminate cycling on the pavement as they wouldn't want to bump up and down the kerbs and risk wheel damage.

Creating shared spaces by taking part of a pavement from pedestrians and putting up a cyclist sign just makes drivers think cyclists have no lawful place on the road which runs adjacent to it.

Cyclists get hate from pedestrians for cycling in their space, and hate from drivers who think that they should have exclusive use of the roads, and cyclists should just get out of their way.


----------



## Linford (3 Sep 2012)

terry_gardener said:


> I quoted the highway code above of the law but I personally thing if you are riding responsibly and giving way to people then does it really matter.


 
Yes, see above ^


----------



## vernon (3 Sep 2012)

terry_gardener said:


> I quoted the highway code above of the law but I personally thing if you are riding responsibly and giving way to people then does it really matter.


 
It a question of attitude. In Austria, Slovakia and Hungary, bikes and pedestrians mixed with no aggro. The cyclists cycled slowly and responsibly. The pedestrians were unfazed. Live and let live seemed to be the attitude.


----------



## Saddle bum (3 Sep 2012)

A bicycle is a carriage.


----------



## classic33 (3 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2020971, member: 45"]But not a car, and not exclusively a road vehicle.[/quote]
But it is a road vehicle.


----------



## Drago (4 Sep 2012)

A car is a motor vehicle, ie, a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted or intended for use on a road. There is no such thing in law as a 'road vehicle'.

Footpaths aren't so clear cut. A footpath along side a road is a 'footway' and it's an offence to cycle on it unless its also designated for cycling. Footpaths that aren't alongside a road, such as those that cross-cross many 60's and 70's housing estates, have a strange legal status and there is no corresponding offence for cycling on them, unless there are local by-laws prohibiting it.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Sep 2012)

How can we be classed as using a road vehicle, when it isn't taxed or insured? So say many motorists!


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Sep 2012)

Mine are insured, and I pay the full "Tax" for it's emission group


----------



## Headgardener (4 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Mine are insured, and I pay the full "Tax" for it's emission group


Me too.


----------



## Saddle bum (4 Sep 2012)

A bicycle is a carriage.

Roads are technically "Carriageways". Bicycles, Peds and Horses have their right to use carriageways enshrined in Law.

Bicycles may also be ridden on bridleways, but not on public footpaths, which includes pavements.

IIRC, £30 fine for riding on the pavement. There are, of course, designated, shared pavements with bits allocated for bicycles.

Carriages are exempt from Vehicle Excise Duty. Tommy Tintop is always shouting about "You don't pay Road Tax". Well neither does he, it's called VED and has been since 1934 when Churchill abolished Road Tax. Ergo, car drivers do not pay for the roads.

It would pay everyone to learn up the Law as it applies to bicycles and the rider.

Insurance; Only a fool is not insured.


----------



## Linford (4 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2020840, member: 45"]No, it doesn't. Shared use is growing all the time, and pavement that is not designated is ok to cycle on if you're not causing any bother (according to HM Gov.).

A bike isn't just for the road, and accepting this doesn't mean that we give up our road rights. Idiot drivers complain whatever cyclists do.[/quote]

Would you be happy to see horses on the pavements as well ?


----------



## Linford (4 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2021482, member: 45"]I'll reply to a question relevant to the thread. All other diversionary interests will be ignored.

Unless you're offering me a donkey ride.[/quote]

Well it is relevant really as Horses are not allowed on the pavements. Now if you were saying that the status of pavements should be changed to alllow both horses and cyclists on them, then, I'd also disagree.

Are you looking for the pavements as a place for vulnerable road users to ride on as Horses need to be included or just a highway where you become the dominant user given the mass/speed etc which you bring as a cyclist ?

I actually found that using the pavement with the horses on a busy road increases the danger to them as the traffic don't give them consideration, and actually bother to slow down as they pass as they aren't sharing the space.


----------



## Linford (4 Sep 2012)

There are over a million Horses in the UK. All have a legal right to use the roads to go from A to B
Not so many Elephants and Airships just don't bother with roads


----------



## theclaud (4 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> Yeh but this thread forum is about bikes?


 
FTFL


----------



## Linford (4 Sep 2012)

theclaud said:


> Go and pester someone about it on a horse forum if it bothers you. Or are you _actually_ offering Mr P a donkey ride after all? He is, of course, not saying that at all. For anyone new to Linford's trolling tactics I'll point out that it's almost unheard of that someone is saying what he claims they are saying.


 
Horses and cyclists are both vulnerable users on the roads. Neither are legally allowed on footpaths, but there are plenty of bridleays they share where motor vehicles aren't allowed.

MrP is more than able to present is case without you sticking your claws in Claudine. You don't want to argue the point, you just want to argue....


----------



## Linford (4 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> Yeh but this thread is about bikes?


 
This threasd is about non motorised road users wanting to claim the space reserved for non road users as their legal right. I think it should encompass the two modes as they are given their own ROWs away from the roads.

Argue for access for one, then why not argue for access for both ? - Otherwise it appears a selfish demand.


----------



## beanzontoast (4 Sep 2012)

Linford said:


> If they banned the sale of cheap MTB's, and doubled the sale of roadies, you would virtually eliminate cycling on the pavement as they wouldn't want to bump up and down the kerbs and risk wheel damage.
> 
> Creating shared spaces by taking part of a pavement from pedestrians and putting up a cyclist sign just makes drivers think cyclists have no lawful place on the road which runs adjacent to it.
> 
> Cyclists get hate from pedestrians for cycling in their space, and hate from drivers who think that they should have exclusive use of the roads, and cyclists should just get out of their way.


 
This is the best post I've read on the subject in a long time.


----------



## byegad (4 Sep 2012)

I avoid cycle paths as they are almost universally useless and dangerous to boot. However I had a course of treatment at a local cottage hospital that entailed riding down a steep hill which has three lanes ;eft right and middle, also known as a suicide lane for overtaking motorists. It has a 60mph limit which is largely ignored by drivers. Going to the appointments I rode on the road, often topping 30mph and certainly feeling safe. Going home up the hill the first time I crawled up with lunatic drivers passing me and each other in the face of oncoming traffic. So the next time I used to footpath.As I was climbing well into single figure mph dodging the occasional pedestrian, and/or giving way to them was easy and nobody seemed unhappy with me, even though I ride a recumbent trike, which is fairly wide!

IIRC there is advice to Police to take the road circumstances into consideration with this kind of pavement cycling. Anyway had I been stopped I'd have videoed the traffic at the time and used that in court as a defence. I was occasionally passed by Police cars, but none of them stopped.


----------



## theclaud (4 Sep 2012)

Linford said:


> This threasd is about non motorised road users wanting to claim the space reserved for *non road users* as their legal right. I think it should encompass the two modes as they are given their own ROWs away from the roads.
> 
> Argue for access for one, then why not argue for access for both ? - Otherwise it appears a selfish demand.


 
Pedestrians are not "non road users".


----------



## theclaud (4 Sep 2012)

beanzontoast said:


> This is the best post I've read on the subject in a long time.


 
I respectfully suggest you need get out more...


----------



## Linford (4 Sep 2012)

I say cycles should be on the road along with Horses, and not on the pavements. It just makes you appear selfish if you argue for one without the other. Both are vulnerable, but both require respect from the other traffic. Turning them into 'non' road users opens the doors for valid demand they have no right to be there.


----------



## Linford (4 Sep 2012)

2021554 said:


> 1) The pavement is part of the road.
> 
> 2) That aside I agree. No pavement cycling and no parallel cycle paths, they both increase the perception of not belonging on the road, which as we all know is where bike belong not the back of the garage covered in excuses.


 

Adrian - The Pavement is part of the Highway reserved for pedestrians, not cyclists, not horses, cattl, sheep, or Donkey's

Are we arguing for all pavements to be converted to shared spaces for vulnerable road users ?


----------



## Davidc (4 Sep 2012)

If you really want to know then look up the Vienna Convention on Road Transport (the UK is a signatory) and the laws listed at the end of the Highway Code.

Between them they cover almost everything.

The insurance thing is easily countered - the majority of cyclists have 3rd party insurance, mostly through household policies. Many cars are uninsured. I've heard the silly remark made and if I reply I say that perhaps we need to look at compulsory bike insurance once the uninsured cars problem is solved.


----------



## Linford (4 Sep 2012)

Davidc said:


> If you really want to know then look up the Vienna Convention on Road Transport (the UK is a signatory) and the laws listed at the end of the Highway Code.
> 
> Between them they cover almost everything.
> 
> The insurance thing is easily countered - the majority of cyclists have 3rd party insurance, mostly through household policies. Many cars are uninsured. I've heard the silly remark made and if I reply I say that perhaps we need to look at compulsory bike insurance once the uninsured cars problem is solved.


 
Not quite correct on the cars, and all victims of uninsured drivers have an entitlement to make a claim through the Motorists Insurance Bureaux - which all motorists driving legally are obliged to pay into through their premiums.


----------



## Linford (4 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2021638, member: 45"]I have, many times. It has never involved, neither does it ever need to involve, discussing horses.[/quote]

I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on pavement cycling MrP


----------



## ohnovino (4 Sep 2012)

It's not just bikes that use the pavement illegally. By law, an occupied pram also counts as a carriage and therefore should be on the road rather than the pavement.


----------



## Linford (4 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2021667, member: 45"]Ah, so you know what my case is already then. What a waste of 4 posts.[/quote]

I think it a shame you are so blatant about wanting to break the law on your bike, but so quick to pull others up on other vehicular offences.


----------



## Davidc (4 Sep 2012)

Linford said:


> Not quite correct on the cars, and all victims of uninsured drivers have an entitlement to make a claim through the Motorists Insurance Bureaux - which all motorists driving legally are obliged to pay into through their premiums.


 
My comment about the cars is 100% correct thank you. That there is an arrangement for mitigating the effects is 100% irrelevant to it.


----------



## Linford (4 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2021688, member: 45"]As you'll well know, as it's my case which you've read before, the police have been told by the government to allow sensible pavement cycling.
..[/quote]

Any chance of a link to the source as this is certainly not the case in Cardiff right now?

http://road.cc/content/news/61316-zero-tolerance-pavement-cyclists-cardiff


----------



## Theseus (4 Sep 2012)

Possibly referring to the Boateng letter to a fellow MP.

I don't know if any guidence was issued to all police forces from the then Home Secretary or if the letter carries any weight over 10 years after being written.


----------



## classic33 (4 Sep 2012)

Linford said:


> _*This threasd is about non motorised road users wanting to claim the space reserved for non road users as their legal right.*_ I think it should encompass the two modes as they are given their own ROWs away from the roads.
> 
> Argue for access for one, then why not argue for access for both ? - Otherwise it appears a selfish demand.


 The question asked in the opening post of this thread was is a bicycle a road vehichle. Nowt else.

I gave my reason for asking the question, but don't recall saying it was putting one form of transport before another. The POB met on the day, didn't believe that a bicycle was a road vehicle, so I asked the question here.


----------



## Scoosh (4 Sep 2012)

<dons Mod's hat>

You should have observed that I have deleted many of the posts in this thread for being irrelevant, bullying, trolling, stalking - you name it, you've probably been doing it.

Please stop now.

This is not P & L, so do not bring P & L attitudes into the Cafe.

That is all.


----------



## Linford (4 Sep 2012)

classic33 said:


> The question asked in the opening post of this thread was is a bicycle a road vehichle. Nowt else.
> 
> I gave my reason for asking the question, but don't recall saying it was putting one form of transport before another. The POB met on the day, didn't believe that a bicycle was a road vehicle, so I asked the question here.


 
You actuallly said:-



classic33 said:


> As we passed each other I said to him that he should be on the road, not the footpath. Because a bicycle is a "road vehicle".


 
You made the assertion to the POB that he had no place on the pavement. I extenced that in my opening post to MrP if he would be happy for other vulnerable users to share that same space which he currently uses illegally with impunity.


----------



## theclaud (4 Sep 2012)

Scoosh said:


> <dons Mod's hat>
> 
> You should have observed that I have deleted many of the posts in this thread for being irrelevant, bullying, trolling, stalking - you name it, you've probably been doing it.
> 
> ...



Shouldn't this thread be in "General Cycling Discussions"?


----------



## Scoosh (4 Sep 2012)

Moved.

Don't take that as an excuse to bring 'P & L attitudes' to it.


----------



## theclaud (4 Sep 2012)

Scoosh said:


> Moved.
> 
> Don't take that as an excuse to bring 'P & L attitudes' to it.



I was just about to ask what those are...


----------



## srw (4 Sep 2012)

theclaud said:


> I was just about to ask what those are...


 They're like "commuting attitudes", only rather more baroque.


----------



## Linford (4 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2021780, member: 45"]Linfy, the link has been quoted many times on here, including threads that you've read. Use the search facility.

Oh, and from your link...

_But another commenter wrote: "I am police cyclist in Wales and unless someone is absolute dangerous or in a busy shopping centre would never ticket for riding on the pavement ._[/quote]

I'm sorry but it is for the police to enforce the laws as written. Not doing so is a dereliction of duty.


----------



## Scoosh (4 Sep 2012)

theclaud said:


> I was just about to ask what those are...


There is a BIG clue here:


> ..... irrelevant, bullying, trolling, stalking ...


----------



## theclaud (4 Sep 2012)

2021973 said:


> Irrelevant? I don't like to complain but you do appear to have left some of Linf's input untouched.



I've liked this quickly before it gets modded into oblivion.


----------



## Linford (4 Sep 2012)

2021994 said:


> Why thank you but will that give it magic protection?


 
Just argue the point if you want a peeing contest. I've got broad shoulders. I need them to carry you, Claudine, MrP etc


----------



## MissTillyFlop (4 Sep 2012)

classic33 said:


> Walking down Wakefield Road, Bradford, last week with a POB coming up towards me on the path. As we passed each other I said to him that he should be on the road, not the footpath. Because a bicycle is a "road vehicle". He disagreed. It wasn't a shared cycle path he was simply taking the easy way.
> 
> So, is a bicycle a "road vehicle" or not.


 
A vehicle is defined as: *a. * A device or structure for transporting persons or things; which is exactly what bicycles do, so were good on the vehicle part

And the highway code (and the law) says:
You *MUST NOT* cycle on a pavement.
*[Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129]*

So I guess yes, that makes it a road vehicle.

But you can use it some paths - go figure.


----------



## theclaud (4 Sep 2012)

Linford said:


> *Just argue the point* if you want a peeing contest. I've got broad shoulders. I need them to carry you, Claudine, MrP etc



Remind us what the point was, would you?


----------



## Theseus (4 Sep 2012)

Linford said:


> Just argue the point if you want a peeing contest. I've got broad shoulders. I need them to carry you, Claudine, MrP etc


 
[QUOTE 2022031, member: 45"]And you're not allowed to mention horses, as they're rubbish, smelly and irrelevant.[/quote]


... but they can beat you in a peeing contest.


----------



## Theseus (4 Sep 2012)

2022040 said:


> Linf you blithering idiot, if you read back over what remains here, you could see that I agree with your fundamental point, that cyclists do not belong on the road.


 
Which makes both of you wrong. The road is exactly where we should be.


----------



## Theseus (4 Sep 2012)

2022053 said:


> You appear to have quoted me too quickly. Or to put that another way, I was wondering who would be first to spot that deliberate mistake.


 
It is good to see that at least 3 of us agree on this now the post has been corrected.


----------



## Theseus (4 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2022067, member: 45"]I don't.[/quote]

I wasn't including you in the count anyway.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Sep 2012)

Linford said:


> Just argue the point if you want a peeing contest. I've got broad shoulders. I need them to carry you, Claudine, MrP etc


 
What is the benefit of broad shoulders in a peeing competition?

As to the OP, today my bicycle is a ridden vehicle; yesterday it was a rode vehicle. That is the answer you are looking for.

That might only be funny in the Marches where we do not speak good English. In fact it might not even be funny here.

I'd still appreciate an answer about the shoulders and the peeing.


----------



## Theseus (4 Sep 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> What is the benefit of broad shoulders in a peeing competition?


 
It reduces the number of people that can line up at the wall, thereby increasing your chances.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Sep 2012)

A horse is a machine for changing grass into obnoxious waste.

Then it will kick you or bite you.

A few cyclists perform the same function.

Both should be banned from the pavements


----------



## Linford (4 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> A horse is a machine for changing grass into obnoxious waste.
> 
> Then it will kick you or bite you.
> 
> ...


 
So you agree with me then ?


----------



## Linford (4 Sep 2012)

2022670 said:


> Try not to be quite so needy.


 
I generally have to wring consensus out of the regulars here. It is nice to hear it as a few just argue for the sake it when I post anything.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Sep 2012)

Linford said:


> So you agree with me then ?


Not neccesarily - both could be trained, and wear nappies:


----------



## Linford (4 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Not neccesarily - both could be trained, and wear nappies:


 

One from the album Cunobelin ?


----------



## Deleted member 20519 (5 Sep 2012)

Definition of vehicle: A thing used for transporting people or goods

Do we ride these vehicles on the road? Yes.

That makes them road vehicles.


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2023597, member: 45"]That depends whether you're going to then go on to say that as a bike is a road vehicle it belongs exclusively on the road. Because that would be incorrect.

I'm a road user. I'm also many other things.[/quote]

I struggle to reconcile with your logic on this. What I read from this is that you feel you should be granted rights to use your bike where you want to. 

Just because the bike is built to go offroad, doesn't mean that it should be used there with impunity.

Back in the days of C+, when there was a very robust anti 4x4 contingent, and the NERC bill was being introduced, I had no end of arguments with people (you included) who said it was right that vehicular rights should be removed from RUPPs (Roads uses as Public Paths), and the only vehicles allowed down there was actually horse drawn vehicles - incidentally, we now drive one of the horses with a trap, and the nearest RUPP has been blocked off so we can't get in there with it, but the local farmer can still take his 4 tonne tractor down it and chop the surface up - as he still does)

Why should the law be enforced for the prohibition of motor vehicles on these now 'restricted byways', and they have to adhere to that, but you feel it right that you can ride your bike on the pavement when a similar law prohibits you from doing it ?

To a casual bystander, it might appear that you are happy with the application of double standards as long as the infringement favours your chosen pursuit.....


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> Because recreational 4x4s'are a ecological and environmental nightmare?*
> 
> * And driven by strange people.


 
They are damned good fun though


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> I think you are confusing the word "fun" with "embarassing"


 
That would depend on where you are standing. If it were the burgundy car on its side and tryingto figure out how to get it righted, then absolutely - he didn't know how to drive it offroad, and that is how it got into that position.


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> To be fair, if I was standing in a lonely wood, in my Friday night pulling gear, whilst pointing at a burgundy car on its side, in a ditch, Id be pretty embarassed too.


 
I don't actually know him, He just turned up and paid for the use of the course on the day.


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> We call them "woodland"


 
Well to be precise, it is the training course which the Environmental agency (amongst other) sends their workers to so they can learn to drive their offroad vehicles properly.

The alternative is that the woodland is cleared, the banks flattened and rapeseed is grown on it for biofuel production. At least it is still woodland. they were also doing pheasant shooting, and survival training when in season, and the lake nearby was being used for carp fishing. It is part of a 600 acre farm and is crown land in the Savernake forest south of Marlborough.


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> Nope. To be precise its still woodland.
> 
> The alternative is that the woodland is left alone.


 
It is part of a farm. Farmers have to pay rent on this land, and have the permission of the landowner to do as they wish. It is actually a small collection of tree's surrounded by fields. The tracks through it still allow deer to roam, and other wildlife to flourish.

It is called Apshill Copse if you care to follow the link. I suspect they left it as they couldn't farm it as it is quite hilly.


----------



## srw (5 Sep 2012)

Linford said:


> The alternative is that the woodland is cleared, the banks flattened and rapeseed is grown on it for biofuel production.





Linford said:


> I suspect they left it as they couldn't farm it as it is quite hilly.


 
And you wonder why people take the piss out of you?


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

srw said:


> And you wonder why people take the piss out of you?


 

Anything is possible with money. a vehicle track through it still leaves it as woodland. a bulldozer flattening it and turning it into something which resembles the surrounding fields doesn't.

You don't take the piss srw, you look to bully, and dominate..as is your way. I hope you are a nicer person in real life as you really come across as agressively impotent here, but then nobody says no to the big guy do they 

Didn't you take the mods warning yesterday about this as a hint ?


----------



## 400bhp (5 Sep 2012)

Is a bike a vehicle then?


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

400bhp said:


> Is a bike a vehicle then?


 
It is a 'carriage'


----------



## 400bhp (5 Sep 2012)

Not a chariot then?


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> No they dont.


 
It is crown land at the end of the day. What they say goes.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Sep 2012)

Ahh, it's another of those "gang up Linford" threads.

See you later.


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

400bhp said:


> Not a chariot then?


 
Does a horse drawn trap count as a chariot as we have one of them


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> So the Queen owns the aforementioned farm?


 
I was told by the farmer it is crown land. See the previous link.


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

400bhp said:


> Ahh, it's another of those "gang up Linford" threads.
> 
> See you later.


 
Give them enough rope, and most would hang themselves with it. The usual suspects turn into a lynch mob here though.
They just can't see that whilst they take great pleasure ganging together to mock me, that others are actually judging them by their actions..if it were a beauty contest, they'd not be whowingtheir best side.


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> So this hilly or flat, woodland or 4x4 'course' thats owned by the crown or a farmer, is theirs (or not) to do what they want with?
> 
> Confused? Remind me not to put the 4x4 Owners Club in charge of rural planning .
> 
> Your link was just to Google maps.


 
Try this http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=savernake forest&hl=en&ll=51.372879,-1.700649&spn=0.008385,0.018625&t=h&z=15

It is called Apshill copse, wooton rivers


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

just google for Apshill copse, wootton rivers then and look it up on the map


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> The Linf MO....
> 
> a) Say something delibrately provocative and factually wrong
> b) Counter any facts with a personal anecdote and / or something completely unrelated
> ...


 
Nothing wrong with anecdotes smeggers - shows you live in the real world, and not some place which can only exist if it has been previously peer reviewed 

Anyway, would appreciate if you could show me how this is relevant to this thread


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> I can see an aerial shot of some woodland called Apshill Copse.


 Slightly bigger than a football field in the middle of a very big field. It is called a copse as it isn't a wood or part of one.


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> Ah, so when you said "course" that was just a typo was it?


 

Er.....yup


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2024093, member: 45"]I've crossed out the irrelevance. It won't work with pointless 4x4s any more than it won't work with smelly horses.

To the remaining words...

A bicycle is a mode of transport. It's unique, has many uses for many reasons. It should not be seen purely as a road vehicle and restricted to the road. As I've elaborated on before and as you've read before.

"What you read" is incorrect, and intentionally so.[/quote]

You could say any of this of a MX bike or a 4x4 or a Horse and carriage,.However, unless they are being used on private land, have to be used in accordance with the law.

I'm trying to help you see that you can't just ignore the laws which you don't like. They are there for a reason and far outdate your or my time alive.


----------



## Davidc (5 Sep 2012)

Linford said:


> Does a horse drawn trap count as a chariot as we have one of them


 
Only if it has lethal sharpened spikes sticking out sideways...


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2024131, member: 45"]Irrelevance deleted.

Read one of my posts yesterday which covered the remaining point.[/quote]

We had a very similar disagreement over speeding with you being quite adamant that there is no excuse for exceeding the limit under any circumstance - and then you went on to admit that you did actually deliberately exceed the posted limit by a few mph on the motorway, which you accepted was wrong after I clarified your misunderstanding of the way which speedo's are calibrated for UK law.
Now I'm not interested in making a big deal of that as you are not alone, but it is another instance of where you deliberately break the law, so your judgment and scruples regarding the laws of the land is demonstrably wanting.

You have to accept that if the law is on the statute books and you break it, you are doing wrong, and if caught shouldn't bleat about the punishment handed down, or claim that they are just 'wrong' as you are doing with me now.
It is one thing to break the law and accept the punishment, but another thing entirely to also break it and then stick two fingers up the the system as you blatantly appear to do with pavement cycling.


----------



## theclaud (5 Sep 2012)

Linford said:


> We had a very similar disagreement over speeding with you being quite adamant that there is no excuse for exceeding the limit under any circumstance - and then you went on to admit that you did actually deliberately exceed the posted limit by a few mph on the motorway, which you accepted was wrong after I clarified your misunderstanding of the way which speedo's are calibrated for UK law.
> Now I'm not interested in making a big deal of that as you are not alone, but it is another instance of where you deliberately break the law, so your judgment and scruples regarding the laws of the land is demonstrably wanting.
> 
> You have to accept that if the law is on the statute books and you break it, you are doing wrong, and if caught shouldn't bleat about the punishment handed down, or claim that they are just 'wrong' as you are doing with me now.
> It is one thing to break the law and accept the punishment, but another thing entirely to also break it and then stick two fingers up the the system as you blatantly appear to do with pavement cycling.


 
Are you trying to wear out Mr P's strikethrough button?


----------



## classic33 (5 Sep 2012)

Right, I know we went down this way before, people getting on their high horse & all, but can I point something out.
If the wood is being used as an off-road course then there are two possible reasons why it remains woodland.
1.The farmer is claiming under "set aside" rules. Effectively paid for using the land for something other than farming.
2. Said woodland may not be allowed to be cleared.

Either way, what does it have to do with the question asked at the start?


----------



## Linford (5 Sep 2012)

classic33 said:


> Right, I know we went down this way before, people getting on their high horse & all, but can I point something out.
> If the wood is being used as an off-road course then there are two possible reasons why it remains woodland.
> 1.The farmer is claiming under "set aside" rules. Effectively paid for using the land for something other than farming.
> 2. Said woodland may not be allowed to be cleared.
> ...



Your answer is in the thread above ....


----------



## StuAff (5 Sep 2012)

Linford said:


> Your answer is in the thread above ....


That'll be absolutely nothing then.


----------



## Scoosh (5 Sep 2012)

OK - time to call 'Time'.

You've reduced this thread into a petty playground name-call/argument. I am fed up with trying to sort out and Delete the irrelevant, the offensive and the trolling.

Thread locked.

Many of you need to look carefully at what and how you have been posting. Your manner and 'style' can easily be seen as aggressive, bullying and trolling.

Please do not repeat this in other threads.


----------

