who are pavements for?

[MontyVeda]

Would you be furious if you got a speeding fine whilst driving on an empty streatch of motorway?

One has got nothing to do with the other. So your point is what exactly?

Breaking the law is breaking the law and that's all have to say on the matter?

 

[ClichéGuevara]

To clarify then. I can get a form, opt out of The Statute of Law and thus be immume to it's power unless I injure another; in which case I am screwed. Is that about right?

Excuse my ignorance, but rather than the Statute of Law, I thought it was statutory law, that which is determined by Governments, as opposed to Common law, which been determined by local precedent? He reckoned Statutory laws are effectively contracts with the "person" rather than the individual. Then again, I could have misunderstood everything he said and/or everything he said could have been total rubbish.

Anyway, according to the programme I saw, yes, and a bit more too.

One down side seemed to be that the Police couldn't quite seem to grasp the complexities of the argument so locked him up anyway until they could get someone that understood,. which kind of defeated the object in my eyes.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

One has got nothing to do with the other. So your point is what exactly?

Breaking the law is breaking the law and that's all have to say on the matter?

Both involve hurting on one but yourself. Both may be seen as acceptable to some and both are illegal but there is flexibility within the law regarding the issuing of a fine and points.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463291"]
This is where it gets interesting. Why should any cyclist have to learn to manage aggressive traffic on a busy 40mph dual carriageway when there's a perfectly appropriate wide stretch of tarmac beside it?

I'll ride up the Bristol Road to work, but I wouldn't expect every cyclist I see to have to learn 'the skillset'.

In the ideal world a 3-year-old, a pensioner, a student in flip-flops on a bmx, a parent carrying a child on the bike should be able to ride on the road in safety, with drivers making allowances for him/her. That's never going to happen though.
[/quote]
As that is never going to happen isn't it better to equip yourself for the reality of the world rather than choose the illegal option that re-enforces the stereotype of cyclists being a law unto themselves?

 

[User16625]

I assume you are joking, in the event you are not. It's up to you to look out for pedestrians, not for for pedestrians to look out for you. I am pretty sure that should a court case result from an incident you will lose. I ride on the pavements occasionally. I know I shouldn't but I am careful, slow and mindful that I am the one who is introducing an element of risk. A pedestrian once stepped into me. I avoided them, stopped and apologised after all I shouldn't have been there in the first place.

You assumed correct. Wouldnt really get anywar far if I wasnt. A lot of the time im neither on the road or the pavement, its a blast coming down the local mountain at high speed over rough ground. Typicaly peaceful and stunning views too.

 

[rowan 46]

You assumed correct. Wouldnt really get anywar far if I wasnt. A lot of the time im neither on the road or the pavement, its a blast coming down the local mountain at high speed over rough ground. Typicaly peaceful and stunning views too.

Bloody mountain bikers turning our footpaths into muddy trails while I am out rambling

 

[sabian92]

Didnt even knew there were laws reguarding cyclists on pavements. I always cycle on pavements except when crossing roads or where there are no pavements etc. Admittedly I have had many near misses due to dozy dam pedestrians. Absolutely irritating!

Yes irritating, how dare they use the pavement and get in your way (!)

The reason you had many near misses is because they aren't expecting to see you there because it's illegal and you can get a £30 fixed penalty notice for it. Ride on the road from now on - you'll be able to go faster. Cars are not scary, the people operating them are. If you ride as if they're all out to kill you and are courteous, then you'll be fine.

Please don't ride on the pavement. It causes a bad name for the ones who actually do abide by the law (me included as I'm sure most cyclists on here are).

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Bloody mountain bikers turning our footpaths into muddy trails while I am out rambling

Mountain bikers should not be on footpaths. The clue is in the name

 

[rowan 46]

Mountain bikers should not be on footpaths. The clue is in the name

fair enough people who ride mountain bikes on footpaths then

 

[Angelfishsolo]

fair enough people who ride mountain bikes on footpaths then

That's better

 

[ClichéGuevara]

The least cranky site I could find about lawful rebellion.

Could be nonsense, but of some interest to some.


Edit. may seem a bit off topic, but the thread's about the legalities/lawfulness of riding in some places but not others.

 

[Red Light]

Isn't it the start of a slippery slope to pick and choose which laws to obey?

I take it you don't have clipless pedals on any of your bikes.

 

[Red Light]

That said I see no excuse for Adults to pavement cycle.

A High Court judge recently said while it was not legal, it was perfectly reasonable for a cyclist to use the pavement if they had concerns about the safety of the roads.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I take it you don't have clipless pedals on any of your bikes.

I use the black plastic inserts with the amber reflectors when on the road I also have reflectors front and rear. Anything else?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

A High Court judge recently said while it was not legal, it was perfectly reasonable for a cyclist to use the pavement if they had concerns about the safety of the roads.

So when a driver gets off with a slap on the wrist for killing a cyclist the law is an ass. When it is in favour of the cyclist it is OK? When the law is overturned I will accept it.