# Cycle Lanes - And 'law'?



## DonnyDarko (23 Oct 2011)

If there is a cycle lane, is it law (or in the highway code) that the cyclist shouldn't be on the road? 

Sort of perhaps jay-cycling? - For want of a better word. 

Anybody got any technical info on this by chance?

I'll be commuting on my bike soon and want to know the full ins and outs for the sake of safety.


----------



## Tim Hall (23 Oct 2011)

No. Or to expand, no you don't have to use a cycle lane.

If you want "technical info" on this, try this link


----------



## Hip Priest (23 Oct 2011)

It is not compulsory for a cyclist to use a cycle lane. Indeed, I believe it is only recommended to use them below a certain speed (14mph)? Many cycle lanes are full of road debris, disintegrated tarmac and grids. Unsafe at high speeds.


----------



## gaz (23 Oct 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> It is not compulsory for a cyclist to use a cycle lane. Indeed, *I believe it is only recommended to use them below a certain speed (14mph)*? Many cycle lanes are full of road debris, disintegrated tarmac and grids. Unsafe at high speeds.



That is shared use pavements and cycle paths.


----------



## Red Light (23 Oct 2011)

DonnyDarko said:


> If there is a cycle lane, is it law (or in the highway code) that the cyclist shouldn't be on the road?



If there's a Park and Ride, is it illegal for motorists to drive in town?

Yet again it worrying that you are driving without knowing the Highway Code. Perhaps time to hand in your license and go for a retest?


----------



## DonnyDarko (23 Oct 2011)

lol @ Red Light

When I passed my test there were no cycle lanes to be fair. 

And let's be honest, at least I'm asking.  

Thanks for your help peeps I'll checkout the link.


----------



## Red Light (23 Oct 2011)

DonnyDarko said:


> lol @ Red Light
> 
> When I passed my test there were no cycle lanes to be fair.



You are supposed to keep up to date with the Highway Code, not read it once to pass the test and then forget it.


----------



## wheres_my_beard (23 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> Y*ou are supposed to keep up to date with the Highway Code,* not read it once to pass the test and then forget it.



Unfortunately, I think it is a minority of road users that do this. The majority piece together bits of hearsay, folk lore and old wives' tales to help them negotiate Britain's highways.


----------



## Dan B (23 Oct 2011)

DonnyDarko said:


> Sort of perhaps jay-cycling? - For want of a better word.


Everyone else is right. But also: there's no such thing as "jay walking" in UK law.


----------



## wheres_my_beard (23 Oct 2011)

[offtopic]



Dan B said:


> Everyone else is right. But also: there's no such thing as "jay walking" in UK law.



When I was a teenager, an old codger yanked me off my bike whilst exclaiming "F***ing jay walker!". I was baffled. I was cycling, not crossing a road, and neither of us were American.

[/offtopic]


----------



## Hip Priest (23 Oct 2011)

wheres_my_beard said:


> Unfortunately, I think it is a minority of road users that do this. The majority piece together bits of hearsay, folk lore and old wives' tales to help them negotiate Britain's highways.



I learned to drive around the time that the first ASLs appeared. I remember getting beeped by an irate motorist for stopping behind the 2nd line. My instructor just said 'people tend not to keep up with new developments on the road.


----------



## Milo (23 Oct 2011)




----------



## snorri (23 Oct 2011)

DonnyDarko said:


> If there is a cycle lane, is it law (or in the highway code) that the cyclist shouldn't be on the road?



Cycle lanes are usually on the road.


----------



## colly (23 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> Yet again it worrying that you are driving without knowing the Highway Code. Perhaps time to hand in your license and go for a retest?



Whilst wearing my pedants hat may I just point out that the original post mentions neither driving nor having a licence.

Perhaps it time you went back to school to pick up some tips on comprehension.


Edited to include: Welcome Donnydarko. Not everyone is quite as arsey.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (23 Oct 2011)

Milo said:


>


Yes, I wondered about that when I saw the second question. Could be a wind-up, but I'll wait and see what the third question is.


----------



## wheres_my_beard (23 Oct 2011)

colly said:


> Whilst wearing my pedants hat may I just point out that the original post mentions neither driving nor having a licence.
> 
> Perhaps it time you went back to school to pick up some tips on comprehension.
> 
> ...



They do say that collies are a smart breed. I guess this is some evidence to confirm that.


----------



## byegad (23 Oct 2011)

Hip Priest said:


> It is not compulsory for a cyclist to use a cycle lane. Indeed, I believe it is only recommended to use them below a certain speed (14mph)? Many cycle lanes are full of road debris, disintegrated tarmac and grids. Unsafe at high speeds.



Most of the ones I know are full of parked cars.


----------



## DonnyDarko (23 Oct 2011)

Easy now! 

I think I've been taken the wrong way a bit here. 

I'll come back tomorrow and re-read this perhaps I did sound unfair or something. 

Though the main help I needed here was the bike choices and any info on the cycle to work scheme if you can help with that for me.


----------



## Red Light (23 Oct 2011)

colly said:


> Whilst wearing my pedants hat may I just point out that the original post mentions neither driving nor having a licence.
> 
> Perhaps it time you went back to school to pick up some tips on comprehension.
> 
> ...



Perhaps its time you read some of the other parallel threads DD launched at the same time and picked up some tips on getting the full picture before making judgement.

They included:

- do commuting cyclists hold up traffic
- isn't it illegal to not cycle in the cycle lane
- isn't it illegal to ride two abreast
- isn't it illegal to have flashing LED lights on your bike.


----------



## Red Light (23 Oct 2011)

wheres_my_beard said:


> They do say that collies are a smart breed. I guess this is some evidence to confirm that.



Collies are dogs but Colly means coal dust


----------



## montyboy (23 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> Collies are dogs but Colly means coal dust




Are they dogs or vegatables?


----------



## wheres_my_beard (23 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> Collies are dogs but *Colly means coal dust*



Hmm, everyday is indeed a school day. Thanks 

I knew the bit about dogs already though.


----------



## DonnyDarko (23 Oct 2011)

colly said:


> Whilst wearing my pedants hat may I just point out that the original post mentions neither driving nor having a licence.
> 
> Perhaps it time you went back to school to pick up some tips on comprehension.
> 
> ...



Thanks Colly. 

Means a lot buddy.


----------



## DonnyDarko (23 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> Perhaps its time you read some of the other parallel threads DD launched at the same time and picked up some tips on getting the full picture before making judgement.
> 
> They included:
> 
> ...



All valid threads being a motorist about to venture into the cycling on the road world I believe? 

Why would I come across as a cyclist (on-road one at least) when I'm still driving the car? 

That would be pedantic to say the least. Surely?








Please keep the thread on-topic though. No need to start an argument over little old me.


----------



## Matthew_T (24 Oct 2011)

I recall watching a video where an American cyclist was stopped by a traffic officer and told to get off the road. The officer asked the cyclist for their details and then went about telling them why they shouldnt be on the road. The cyclist informed the officer that he was allowed on the road and the officer then started to threaten the cyclist if he didnt do as the officer said. 
I think the cyclist had had enough of trying to reason with this officer and just took his number, cycled down the cycle path, and went to the local police station later on. 
I dont know if the officer was dealt with in any way. 

America is different to this country though. Here you are allowed to ride on any road except motorways (with the acception of parts of A roads (like the A55)).


----------



## DonnyDarko (24 Oct 2011)

I'm from the UK though. I did say 'law'? with a question mark in the thread title and when I said 'jay cycling' I put it in inverted comas to make sure I didn't come across as I thought that was what it would actually be called. 

What I was asking has been answered though It think. They're just not law and it's okay to ride beside them on the road. No matter what the reason they were put in there for in the first place.

I think we have the A500 locally that can't be rode on with bicycles. Or anything less than 125cc motorbike-wise providing you're not on a provisional. I guess there is a class of roads like that? 

Is it 50mph or more and you're not allowed on a 50cc or push bike?


----------



## Matthew_T (24 Oct 2011)

DonnyDarko said:


> Is it 50mph or more and you're not allowed on a 50cc or push bike?




Well on the A55 near me, my local club used to have time trials on it. They have stopped though as it has been ruled as unsafe. 
The road was national speed limit so I dont entirely know why it was only a selection of the dual carrageway which we were allowed on.


----------



## Norm (24 Oct 2011)

DonnyDarko said:


> Is it 50mph or more and you're not allowed on a 50cc or push bike?


 Absolutely not. Motorways don't allow cyclists or motorbikes/mopeds under 50cc, unless there are specific regulations to the contrary, all other roads are available to us.


----------



## DonnyDarko (24 Oct 2011)

Yeah but is it the rule in general is if the road is 50mph or more, you can't go on it? 

So not just motorways per se, but we have the A500 you can't go on, as it's 50mph. But the A34 you can, as it's 40mph mostly (at least all near me).

I did know you couldn't go on the motorways though. Worth doubly-noting there as I've been knocked a bit already on here lol. Don't want ppl to think I am a troll.


----------



## Norm (24 Oct 2011)

DonnyDarko said:


> Yeah but is it the rule in general is if the road is 50mph or more, you can't go on it?


 Nope, it's absolutely not the rule.


----------



## DonnyDarko (24 Oct 2011)

What's it based on then? Surely you wouldn't commute down the 500?!?! I'm certain I've never seen anybody. 

Clearly there's a motorway either end perhaps it's something to do with that?

Or are all roads just classified on their own or something?


----------



## Norm (24 Oct 2011)

It's based on you can't ride on motorways but everywhere else is fair game.

There's a lot of local knowledge involved too. I think there's a road around Telford, for instance, which is, apparently, on an obvious path for people riding Lands End to John O'Groats but it's a death trap which locals all avoid. The A3 from Roehampton around Kingston to Cobham is a fast 3-lane carriageway which some enjoy riding but others wouldn't venture anywhere near. It is perfectly legal to cycle on the A322 where it is a dual-cabbageway from Slough to Windsor but, for some reason, drivers on that road seem to lose any sense of decency towards two-wheelers and I have never had one person move to the right to pass me when I'm on a bike - which is pretty rough as a few kids use it to cycle to school.

There are no roads that I wouldn't ride on - even the A404 where it passes over the M40 (which scares many people in cars!) - but there are certainly roads that I don't enjoy riding.

There's a loop from me which I seem to be doing regularly. It used to be on my commute and, at 8am, it's full of German "executive" cars doing 75+ and leaving little margin for error. On the other hand, after 9pm it is pretty much completely free of traffic. I've done it a few times recently and not had a car pass me in 30 minutes of riding which, given we're a few miles from the M25, M3 and M4, is pretty amazing.


----------



## snorri (24 Oct 2011)

DonnyDarko said:


> Clearly there's a motorway either end perhaps it's something to do with that?
> 
> Or are all roads just classified on their own or something?



Let's not worry about such things, I think we have enough on our plates at this time, cycle lanes, cycle paths, lamps, speeds, two abreast, the mind boggles.


----------



## DonnyDarko (24 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> It's based on you can't ride on motorways but everywhere else is fair game.
> 
> There's a lot of local knowledge involved too. I think there's a road around Telford, for instance, which is, apparently, on an obvious path for people riding Lands End to John O'Groats but it's a death trap which locals all avoid. The A3 from Roehampton around Kingston to Cobham is a fast 3-lane carriageway which some enjoy riding but others wouldn't venture anywhere near. It is perfectly legal to cycle on the A322 where it is a dual-cabbageway from Slough to Windsor but, for some reason, drivers on that road seem to lose any sense of decency towards two-wheelers and I have never had one person move to the right to pass me when I'm on a bike - which is pretty rough as a few kids use it to cycle to school.
> 
> ...


Fair play. 

I tell you what. I'd shat myself if I rode a bicycle down the 500! No way would you get me near it. In fact on the crew end of it I wouldn't even bother on a decent nippy 125! I think it's 70 there! That is totally crazy if it is legal to cycle down that bit of road.

Mad stuff. Learnt a bloody lot tonight (this morning?) I tell you! 


(edit was the spelling, again!)


----------



## DonnyDarko (24 Oct 2011)

snorri said:


> Let's not worry about such things, I think we have enough on our plates at this time, cycle lanes, cycle paths, lamps, speeds, two abreast, the mind boggles.



lmfao - You're not a friend on my Mrs are you?!?! She'd say that! 

Trying to clear it all up as fast as I can that's all. 

(Edit - guess what - bloody spelling, again! - gonna call it a night in a mo')


----------



## DonnyDarko (24 Oct 2011)

Milo said:


>









??


----------



## Red Light (24 Oct 2011)

DonnyDarko said:


> Mad stuff. Learnt a bloody lot tonight (this morning?) I tell you!



I would really recommend checking yourself in for a driving refresher course. Your knowledge of the law and Highway Code demonstrated here really is abysmal with the "not legal to cycle on over 50mph roads" just the latest in a string of examples. Either that or you really are the troll you profess not to be and are just winding us up with all the usual suspect poking sticks.


----------



## Red Light (24 Oct 2011)

DonnyDarko said:


> All valid threads being a motorist about to venture into the cycling on the road world I believe?



And also all the standard barbs used by trolls in cycling groups. Usually trolls spread them out over a number of days or weeks but you hit them all in your first day.


----------



## Red Light (24 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588122"]
...alternatively he might just be here to learn. And if he is, you're not helping at all.
[/quote]

ICBW but if that were the case, I suspect he would have asked the questions differently and from the viewpoint of a prospective cyclist rather than that of a delayed motorist


----------



## 400bhp (24 Oct 2011)

Give him a break RL. 

You're kind of assuming he would, prior to his posts, react negatively to a cyclist he perceived to be doing something illegal (which is actually legal).


----------



## Cubist (24 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> I would really recommend checking yourself in for a driving refresher course. Your knowledge of the law and Highway Code demonstrated here really is abysmal with the "not legal to cycle on over 50mph roads" just the latest in a string of examples. Either that or you really are the troll you profess not to be and are just winding us up with all the usual suspect poking sticks.



And if he is a troll you've done a pretty good job of biting! 

Relax, I have a feeling DD just has an enquiring mind. The sort of questions he is asking might be obvious to some, but I suspect there may be others who are just as ignorant. If you discourage those enquiries through this medium, you aren't encouraging people to ask any questions that you know the answer to!


----------



## User482 (24 Oct 2011)

Putting the correct response to DD's questions in the public domain is a good thing, in my view.


----------



## apollo179 (24 Oct 2011)

Red Light said:


> If there's a Park and Ride, is it illegal for motorists to drive in town?
> 
> Yet again it worrying that you are driving without knowing the Highway Code. Perhaps time to hand in your license and go for a retest?



You may have a valid point when it concerns driving but not regarding cycling as theres no reqirement for cyclists to know the highway code.
The only thing a cyclist needs is an adhoc knowledge of the law insofar as it affects him/her on the road.


----------



## Cubist (24 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> You may have a valid point when it concerns driving but not regarding cycling as theres no reqirement for cyclists to know the highway code.
> The only thing a cyclist needs is an adhoc knowledge of the law insofar as it affects him/her on the road.




And as you pointed out so comprehensively in some earlier threads, some cyclists take to the road completely clueless as to which laws relate to them, and even then argue that it's OK to break most of them anyway!


----------



## Tim Hall (24 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The only thing a cyclist needs is an adhoc knowledge of the law insofar as it affects him/her on the road.



If only there was an ad hoc guide to the law for road users. Perhaps in book form, or available on this new fangled interweb thing.


----------



## Cubist (24 Oct 2011)

Tim Hall said:


> If only there was an ad hoc guide to the law for road users. Perhaps in book form, or available on this new fangled interweb thing.



Indeed. Perhaps you could post the odd question on an internet forum populated in the main by people who are willing to help.


----------



## apollo179 (24 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> And as you pointed out so comprehensively in some earlier threads, some cyclists take to the road completely clueless as to which laws relate to them, and even then argue that it's OK to break most of them anyway!



Well cubist so long as theres no requirement for cyclists to undergo any form of training or testing it is allways going to be the case that a large proportion of cyclists will be ignorant of the laws that relate to them.
And so long as we live in a democracy with free speech the above mentioned cyclists will be able to argue that its ok to break most of them.


----------



## Norm (24 Oct 2011)

I think we've already done that discussion a few times, though, let's not destroy another thread, please.


----------



## Mozzy (24 Oct 2011)

As there is a 'MUST' element to cyclists taking to the highway (certain conditions), surely the onus is on the individual to know and do what is right? As is the case with many laws affecting daily life. 

Oh I'm just off on me bike down the town centre; is there anything I should know before I do? Seems too easy to me.

Mozzy


----------



## apollo179 (24 Oct 2011)

Norm said:


> I think we've already done that discussion a few times, though, let's not destroy another thread, please.



Ok Norm 
Just defending DonnyDarkos legitimacy in asking questions that some seem to think he aught to know allready.


----------



## snailracer (24 Oct 2011)

Mozzy said:


> As there is a 'MUST' element to cyclists taking to the highway (certain conditions), surely the onus is on the individual to know and do what is right? As is the case with many laws affecting daily life.
> 
> Oh I'm just off on me bike down the town centre; is there anything I should know before I do? Seems too easy to me.
> 
> Mozzy


As far as driving goes, safety and competence is more to do with applying the rules, rather than simply knowing them. Learners who have just passed their driving test "know" the rules better than experienced drivers - they're just not very good at applying them.


----------



## Cubist (24 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Ok Norm
> Just defending DonnyDarkos legitimacy in asking questions that some seem to think he aught to know allready.



I too was defending his right to ask questions. I do not however condone breaking the law, either knowingly, or through ignorance.


----------



## Borbus (24 Oct 2011)

wheres_my_beard said:


> Unfortunately, I think it is a minority of road users that do this. The majority piece together bits of hearsay, folk lore and old wives' tales to help them negotiate Britain's highways.



Yes. You don't even have to read the Highway Code to pass your test in the first place, let alone continue to study it afterwards. I find it interesting to compare Highway use to Railway (mainline) use. The rulebook for the railway is several inches thick and every driver *must* read it all and they are tested thoroughly on their knowledge of it before they can drive on the railway. The Highway Code is a tiny paperback which drivers aren't even required to own or read. Is it any wonder that so few drivers know the rules of the road?


----------



## Kiwiavenger (24 Oct 2011)

i always keep up to date with highway code etc (helps in the job) and funnily enough there is a large section of it for cyclists http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837

what always bothers me is the cycle lanes the council put around parking bays clearly putting you in the door zone!


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (24 Oct 2011)

DonnyDarko said:


> If there is a cycle lane, is it law (or in the highway code) that the cyclist shouldn't be on the road?
> 
> Sort of perhaps jay-cycling? - For want of a better word.
> 
> ...




FFS 3 questions this morning?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=+the+highway+code


----------



## Mozzy (24 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> FFS 3 questions this morning?
> 
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=+the+highway+code




That was slick, not seen that done before.






Mozzy


----------



## Dan_h (24 Oct 2011)

But isn't the point if these forums to give people somewhere to ask questions? I only googled the question about whether you have to use cycle paths a few months ago when someone yelled out of the car window at me to get on the cycle path. Peronally I have a driving license and a motorcycle license. I have been driving for about 20 years and worked as a driver for a few years. I seriously cant remember when I last read the highway code. Asking around most people I know have not read the highway code since passing their tests.


----------



## apollo179 (24 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> I too was defending his right to ask questions. I do not however condone breaking the law, either knowingly, or through ignorance.



As far as i am aware no-one is condoning breaking the law, either knowingly, or through ignorance. We seem to be agreeing that so long as theres no requirement for cyclists to undergo any form of training or testing there is allways going to be a large proportion of cyclists ignorant of the laws that relate to them. And therefore ipso facto they should be encouraged to ask questions and minimalise aforementioned ignorance.


----------



## snailracer (24 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Well cubist so long as theres no requirement for cyclists to undergo any form of training or testing it is allways going to be the case that a large proportion of cyclists will be ignorant of the laws that relate to them.
> And so long as we live in a democracy with free speech the above mentioned cyclists will be able to argue that its ok to break most of them.




[QUOTE 1588136"]
Ignorance is no defence in law, so it's the responsibility of all road users to know the laws which apply to them. That's all.
[/quote]

OK, the HC also has rules for pedestrians (1-35). Yet, I cannot quite bring myself to criticise pedestrians for not being familiar with the HC or the laws that underpin it.


----------



## Cubist (24 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> FFS 3 questions this morning?
> 
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=+the+highway+code



Perhaps you could be put in charge of the Welcome Mat thread.


----------



## snailracer (24 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588148"]
HC rules and the law aren't necessarily the same. Which laws do you think apply to pedestrians do you think that they should be exempt from due to ignorance? I'm not being awkward, just interested.
[/quote]
Well, as far as civil cases go, adherence to the rules in the HC are the basis of assigning liability, no criminal law needs to have been broken.

But to answer your question:

_16 Moving vehicles. You MUST NOT get onto or hold onto a moving vehicle.
18 You MUST NOT loiter on any type of crossing.
34 Railway level crossings. You MUST NOT cross or pass a stop line when the red lights show_, _ (including a red pedestrian figure)_

Rule 34 is an interesting one because AFAIK it is not illegal for peds to "jump" red lights at road junctions, PELICAN crossings, etc.


----------



## headcoat (24 Oct 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> Here you are allowed to ride on any road except motorways (with the acception of parts of A roads (like the A55)).



Slightly off topic  I saw a horse and cart on the A55 yesterday




Don't know how safe they felt.


----------



## Mozzy (24 Oct 2011)

Out of interest did the _Death by dangerous cycling law _get any further or is it still being chewed over?


Mozzy


----------



## Norm (24 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> FFS 3 questions this morning?
> 
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=+the+highway+code


 FFS they were last night rather than this morning, and all had been adequately discussed (something that lmgtfy won't do) before you arrived.

But hey, thanks for the input. FFS. 



Cubist said:


> Perhaps you could be put in charge of the Welcome Mat thread.


 It would resolve CCs growth problems.


----------



## snailracer (24 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588152"]
I think that the regulations for railways are quite different. 

I think that the general laws for pedestrians are common sense and/or generally socially accepted, so again ignorance is no excuse.
[/quote]
Well I, for one, had no idea that jumping on/off a moving Routemaster bus was illegal - I thought it was just good, clean fun .


----------



## apollo179 (24 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588152"]
I think that the regulations for railways are quite different. 

I think that the general laws for pedestrians are common sense and/or generally socially accepted, so again ignorance is no excuse.
[/quote]

Before you get overly carried away with your "ignorance is no excuse" mantra. 
The idea that ignorance is no defence is a fundamental principles of our legal system , however in practice ignorance can be considered as mitigation in sentencing and can be a consideration in legal action not being pursued at all.
So ignorance is no defense but it certainly is an excusing factor in certain instances.


----------



## apollo179 (24 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588157"]
Ignorance is no excuse. Mitigation comes after conviction. 

And the example you are using?...
[/quote]

I think you mean that ignorance is no legal defence.
However ignorance can be powerful mitigation ( excuse ) in sentencing and in cases just being dropped.
Do you dispute this ?
I see no point in spouting on adnauseum, giving examples etc etc unless you actually dispute this.


----------



## dand_uk (24 Oct 2011)

DonnyDarko said:


> Yeah but is it the rule in general is if the road is 50mph or more, you can't go on it?






Norm said:


> Nope, it's absolutely not the rule.



Otherwise there would be nowhere to cycle outside an urban area


----------



## apollo179 (24 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588159"]
No, I don't.




I can't dispute something that you're not saying. Feel free to give the example that leads you to your view. If not, or if it's not relevant to the thread, then don't.



[/quote]

Im saying ignorance can be powerful mitigation ( excuse ) in sentencing and in cases just being dropped.
Do you dispute this?
I was speaking generally but if you want an example - i was recently stopped by a police car cos i had no rear light. I said i didnt know and repaired the light so that it worked. The police were satisfied and no further action was taken.


----------



## apollo179 (24 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588162"]
You didn't know it was illegal to ride without a rear light, or you didn't know it wasn't working?





[/quote]

didnt know the light wasnt working.


----------



## apollo179 (24 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588164"]
So you weren't ignorant of what was right and wrong then.
[/quote]

Ignorance was my excuse.


----------



## apollo179 (24 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588167"]
You're getting muddled. You knew it was wrong. The police knew it was wrong. The officer showed discretion, because you said you didn't know it was broken.
[/quote]

You made the statement "Ignorance is no excuse."
Obviously ignorance is a powerful mitigating factor in both sentencing and prosecution . 
Common sense.


----------



## 400bhp (24 Oct 2011)

Here we go again


----------



## snailracer (24 Oct 2011)

Is it still illegal for a lady to eat chocolate on public transport?


----------



## Matthew_T (24 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588173"]
Dunno, but spitting is out.
[/quote]


What about if you are talking and you accidentally spit at someone with the close relationship between tongue and teeth?


----------



## Cubist (25 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> didnt know the light wasnt working.



Which was ignorance of fact, not ignorance of the law. 
Ignorance of fact is a defence, ignorance of the law is not. 

A month or two ago you admitted on the forum that you were unaware that the Road Traffic Act applied to cyclists. Has anything in particular led to your becoming a legal expert?


----------



## apollo179 (25 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1588169"]
And your example of how powerful ignorance is in escaping conviction is you not realising your rear light wasn't working?

Yup. You win.
[/quote]

Its not about winning. Its about correcting you in your repeated assertion "ignorance is no excuse". The danger being that if you repeat it often enough and it dosnt get corrected someone might actually beleive it.


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Oct 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> FFS 3 questions this morning?
> 
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=+the+highway+code


as Mozzy says - that is really slick


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Its not about winning. Its about correcting you in your repeated assertion "ignorance is no excuse". The danger being that if you repeat it often enough and it dosnt get corrected someone might actually beleive it.


may I just say that ignorance is no excuse?


----------



## Cubist (25 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Its not about winning. Its about correcting you in your repeated assertion "ignorance is no excuse". The danger being that if you repeat it often enough and it dosnt get corrected someone might actually beleive it.



Is there anything anyone can do to convince you you are wrong? 

Ignorance of the law is no defence.

It appears that you believe wholeheartedly that you are right, but surely some alarm bells are ringing somewhere if everybody is telling you the same thing? 

I'm going to withdraw as well, as I have done what I can to persuade you to stop making a fool of yourself. The rest is up to you.


----------



## apollo179 (25 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> Which was ignorance of fact, not ignorance of the law.
> Ignorance of fact is a defence, ignorance of the law is not.
> 
> A month or two ago you admitted on the forum that you were unaware that the Road Traffic Act applied to cyclists. Has anything in particular led to your becoming a legal expert?



Agreed.
Ignorance is not a defence.
Mtpaul was stating "ignorance is no excuse".
However ignorance can be powerful mitigation ( excuse ) in sentencing and in cases just being dropped.
We seem to agree that ignorance of fact is an excuse / defence.
I would also add that although ignorance of the law cannot be a defence it can be an excuse.


----------



## apollo179 (25 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> Is there anything anyone can do to convince you you are wrong?
> 
> Ignorance of the law is no defence.
> 
> ...



You just have a grudge against me personally and leap at any chance to attack me regardless of the facts. I shudder to think what you get up to in a professional capacity with such a unsavoury character.


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> *I would also add that although ignorance of the law cannot be a defence it can be an excuse.*


that might run if the law in question was some obscure regulation, bound up in legal language that only twelve people in the world could ever understand, but the Highway Code, which explains the most important parts of the Road Traffic Act, is readily available, easily read, and widely publicised.


----------



## Cubist (25 Oct 2011)

apollo179 said:


> You just have a grudge against me personally and leap at any chance to attack me regardless of the facts. I shudder to think what you get up to in a professional capacity with such a unsavoury character.



People come onto this forum to ask questions. You have, on a number of occasions, given what looks like authoritative advice on points of law. I can point to several examples where you are, simply, wrong. 

I'm imploring you to find out the truth of a matter before you start expounding on it. 

This thread above is one of a numberl where you have attacked my personal and professional integrity. I have not, nor will I ever enter into a debate on that subject. 
__________________


----------



## apollo179 (25 Oct 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> that might run if the law in question was some obscure regulation, bound up in legal language that only twelve people in the world could ever understand, but the Highway Code, which explains the most important parts of the Road Traffic Act, is readily available, easily read, and widely publicised.



Agreed - special circumstances ;
law changed where the infringers were (with reason) unaware of change.
Infringers misguided by authorities (led to think something was legal but actually it was not)
Person enters into a new legal jurisdiction.
Again in all cases (above included) ignorance (of the law) is not a defence but it can be mitigation / excuse.


----------



## apollo179 (25 Oct 2011)

Cubist said:


> People come onto this forum to ask questions. You have, on a number of occasions, given what looks like authoritative advice on points of law. I can point to several examples where you are, simply, wrong.
> 
> I'm imploring you to find out the truth of a matter before you start expounding on it.
> 
> ...




I from the start have said Ignorance is not a defence.
Mtpaul was stating "ignorance is no excuse".
I queried this and you took it as an opportunity to attack me - at least be honest and admit your actions are clouded by an agenda against me personally.


----------



## Moderators (25 Oct 2011)

That's the end of that diversion. Continuation will get the users banned from the thread.


----------



## Red Light (25 Oct 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> as Mozzy says - that is really slick



JFGI is slicker  Or it would be if CC didn't insist on censoring the link by converting it to http://justf***inggoogleit.com!


----------



## DonnyDarko (2 Nov 2011)

Please don't argue on my account. I asked the question and got the response I needed. It's nice to see most of you handle such threads professionally but I could see such arguing putting some newer members off coming back. 

Not me mind. I'm used to it, I'm part of a few forums and have been for years.

Either way, sorted now. I understand what the crack is. Thanks to all contributors of the thread.


----------



## Woz! (2 Nov 2011)

The attitude displayed in this thread and on CC in general certainly makes me pause before I post anything and has made my visits more and more rare.
It's getting less and less welcoming.


----------



## apollo179 (2 Nov 2011)

DonnyDarko said:


> Please don't argue on my account. I asked the question and got the response I needed. It's nice to see most of you handle such threads professionally but I could see such arguing putting some newer members off coming back.
> 
> Not me mind. I'm used to it, I'm part of a few forums and have been for years.
> 
> Either way, sorted now. I understand what the crack is. Thanks to all contributors of the thread.



Hey Donny no worries and dont be detered from posting again. There are some nasty types out there whos only contribution is to critiscise others but most of us are freindly and welcome posts like yours as the vitality of the forum and the spark that triggered a lively discussion.
And remember in the right circumstances ignorance is an excuse , not a legal defence but a jolly good excuse. .


----------



## Zoiders (2 Nov 2011)

Do not feed the troll.

Especialy a troll who claims to come from Stoke On Trent - as I have heard that one before recently.

Lock this FFS.


----------



## apollo179 (2 Nov 2011)

Zoiders said:


> Do not feed the troll.
> 
> Especialy a troll who claims to come from Stoke On Trent - as I have heard that one before recently.
> 
> Lock this FFS.



Who claims to come from stoke on trent ?


----------



## Zoiders (2 Nov 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Who claims to come from stoke on trent ?


A500, it's the biggest road in the city.

Trolls do so love google maps/streetview when creating alternate personas.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Nov 2011)

perhaps we should leave these fine judgements to the mods.........






(thinks - crikey, must lay off the streetview thingy)


----------



## apollo179 (2 Nov 2011)

Zoiders said:


> A500, it's the biggest road in the city.
> 
> Trolls do so love google maps/streetview when creating alternate personas.



I presumed you were calling me a troll , but maybe im just oversensitive and you wernt. Anyways no harm done.


----------



## DonnyDarko (19 Apr 2012)

What the hell?! haha 

I've just checked out my old posts. Seems you think I'm a troll? And perhaps not from Stoke on Trent? 

I run www.electriciansforums.co.uk and related websites (cross-promoted from that site). You can do a whois on nominet.org.uk to find the owner of that. I think admins and / or moderators will be able to confirm (but not publicise) that the email address for my account here, matches the owner of said forum I 'claim' to own. 

I genuinely wanted to ask the questions I asked, and I genuinely got the answers for them. No need to wind people up now, Zoiders, you'd end up looking like a troll maybe?


----------



## Ethan (20 Apr 2012)

What a thoroughly amusing thread!


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (21 Apr 2012)

6 pages worth of good reading


----------

