Obey the law or use common sense?

[Scoosh]

That's the slippery slope towards justification of red light jumping y all and sundry, speeding (it was an open road gov it wasn't causing a problem) and whether or not a law is daft is a personal opinion and not a fact - try defending that stance when refusing to pay a fixed penalty notice.

It's simply bad citizenship and irresponsible to pick and choose which byelaws to obey and which to ignore. Common sense does not come in to it.

+1
If you wish to bring common sense into it - question the byelaw. Ask the council why it exists etc etc. See if any common sense has prevailed !

 

[marinyork]

A partial daytime ban for one month of the year, if I am to understand correctly, seems a fair compromise compared to some the of total bans on sections applied elsewhere. Seeing a coastguard rescuing someone off the tarmac of a promenade would be a sight to behold though.

 

[tdr1nka]

I'd have stuck to the road, or wheeled my bike FWIW.
Obeying by laws like these should be a fairly simple act of courtesy and civic duty, the only reason the lifeguard pulled you up for it was because you had already ignored what was already a polite request.

You can grumble all you want, I think you're just miffed at being caught out.

 

[Smokin Joe]

You can if the law is plainly daft. Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men, as Doulas Bader was fond of saying.

A middle aged man who has sex with an experienced 13 year old girl who is a willing participant might well persue the same line of argument. You can't ignore a law because in your judgement there was no danger in breaking it at that particular time.

 

[Blue]

I cycle over 200 miles a week. I'm a comitted cyclist. It gets on my tits when I see cyclists ignore the signs and cycle on my local prom. When I go for a stroll along the prom I don't want to have to dodge twits on bikes.

Isn't there enough roadway for you?

 

[Night Train]

They are the same people who get behind the wheel of their cars and sit two feet from your bumper on the motorway, giving you the finger because you dare to be in their way. Bad behaviour is not dictated by the vehicle choice, but by character.

Yes, true, they generally are as bad whatever the mode of transport. I was using it as an example that being on a bike doesn't make one holier then thou and so allowed to pick and choose which rule to follow and which to break.

 

[Pip]

I would say it's pretty clear cut really, as others have said - however daft the law may appear (and I agree it seems daft to be so arbitary) it's still the law and therefore you need to obey it....

 

[mary-jane]

I totally disagree with pretty much everyone on this.
There is no good reason why bikes should not be able to share the promenade,the roads are full of the same bullies who want to prevent cycling.
Also,it is nothing to do with the RNLI,it is a council by-law,and any lifeboat staff getting involved are just jumping on the bullying cyclists bandwagon.
All banning bikes accomplishes is to educate children who see bikes down there that cycling is naughty and not allowed.

 

[Dayvo]

A polite Foxtrot Oscar would have sufficed in that situation.

I would have said the same! But tried to explain WHY I didn't get off as I decked rounded him!

 

[Dayvo]

I cycle over 200 miles a week. I'm a comitted cyclist. It gets on my tits when I see cyclists ignore the signs and cycle on my local prom. When I go for a stroll along the prom I don't want to have to dodge twits on bikes.

Isn't there enough roadway for you?

Your comment isn't relevant to the post in question!
If there aren't any pedestrians around, then they can't be hit! It's not about cycling amongst them!

Are you one of those people who, as a pedestrian, religiously waits at the traffic lights cos the little red man says peds must wait, although there isn't a car in sight?

 

[Dayvo]

There's a cycle path that runs for several miles on the Brighton prom which is fraught with danger of collisions of unaware peds but cycling is banned for some reason on a 200 yard section out of town whre the promenade is 40 yards wide and rarely used by walkers (by Hove Lagoon for those who know the area). There's no logic to it and I admit to ignoring the pointless ban.

I agree with you, rich p, but don't let Smokin Joe hear you!

You can't pick and choose which laws you want to obey.

Obviously common sense isn't his strong point!

 

[Smokin Joe]

I agree with you, rich p, but don't let Smokin Joe hear you!



Obviously common sense isn't his strong point!

Next time you see a car driver in a bus lane or a motorcyclist on a cycle path, remember they are only using their common sense.

 

[Dayvo]

Next time you see a car driver in a bus lane or a motorcyclist on a cycle path, remember they are only using their common sense.

There's common sense and there's foolishness!
Obviously you can't distinguish between the two!

 

[Blue]

Your comment isn't relevant to the post in question!
If there aren't any pedestrians around, then they can't be hit! It's not about cycling amongst them!

Are you one of those people who, as a pedestrian, religiously waits at the traffic lights cos the little red man says peds must wait, although there isn't a car in sight?

Unlike you, I don't think that just because some twat plonks his/her arse on a bike he/she can do whatever the fcuk he/she likes.

Oh, BTW, my post has as much relevance as most of the crap you post from day to day so fcuk off.

 

[Dayvo]

Oh, BTW, my post has as much relevance as most of the crap you post from day to day so fcuk off.

Oh, where shall I **** off to?