Page 1 of 1
Shot in the foot with a wooden spoon
Posted: 9 Mar 2007, 8:24pm
by thirdcrank
The man with the ostrich tail feathers is Captain John William Nott Bower, one side of the historic decided case Ellis v Nott Bower (1895) which established that a cycle is a vehicle and was the cornerstone of much campaigning in the earlier part of the twentieth century to protect the right of cyclists to use the carriageway and was arguably even more significant than recent events in Telford.
Although the hat and the cause may be impressive, the actual legal case is a bit of an anti-climax. In early attempts at traffic reduction, many cities had bye-laws prohibiting the use of vehicles for purely advertising purposes. Mr Ellis cycled around the city of Liverpool using his bike as a mobile billboard. A diligent member of Liverpool City Police, of which Captain N B was chief, took his name and address. The case went to appeal, and even though J Franklin was only a glint in his great grandfather’s eye, it was held that a cycle was a vehicle.
I see from this weeks email newsletter that a similar case is pending in Doncaster and that the CTC, with an amazing display of ignorance of history, is awarding the local authority a wooden spoon for mean-mindedness.
Posted: 10 Mar 2007, 11:39pm
by horizon
Few people realise also that Captain Bower was also the inventor of the cycle helmet.
Posted: 11 Mar 2007, 2:27pm
by thirdcrank
horizon
I fear I have shot myself in the foot with a lead balloon.
In spite of my flippant tone, every word is true. The pic is of the old boy himself; he eventually retired as Commissioner of the City of London Police at the age of 75 in 1925.
Posted: 11 Mar 2007, 7:17pm
by horizon
Not at all, thirdcrank. Before I came on this message board about a year ago, I was blissfully unaware of the significance of the cycle being a vehicle, that sustrans was held in some contempt and that cycles could conceivably be thrown off the road. It was my direct experience of cycle ways in recent years that started me thinking along these lines but I didn't expect to find the strength of feeling amongst other cyclists that I did. I find the Jon Snow debate particularly painful as I hold Snow in great regard and yet do acknowledge that he is espousing views that go right to the heart of cycling. No, your review of the original case was most enlightening and reminds us that our "right to ride" hangs on the slender thread of a case of advertising on a vehicle.
Posted: 11 Mar 2007, 8:29pm
by thirdcrank
On another thread I queried whether we needed a president at all. Somehow, in 2007, a relatively small interest group with a president is a bit reminiscent of Peter Sellers or Peter Ustinov decked out in braid and trimmings. Perhaps I should relaunch the pic as a suggested outfit for the CTC president.
Posted: 12 Mar 2007, 8:51am
by Mick F
With a bit of clever Photoshop-ing, you could make Captain Bower have a 'Kitchiner' pointy finger, saying "Your CTC needs you!"
Mick F. Cornwal
Posted: 12 Mar 2007, 2:13pm
by Mick F
Just occurred to me. If Captain Wotzit hadn't existed, a bicycle may not have been defined as a vehicle at all!
So, if a bike weren't a vehicle:
1. Lights? No need for them!
2. Silly pedal reflectors? Who needs 'em?
3. You could ride on the pavements, legally! In and out of all the pedestrians with impunity!
4. How about riding on Public Footpaths?
5. Zebra Crossings?
6. We could ride where we liked! Wow! Either, or any side of the road!
7. What traffic lights? Not for me! They're for vehicles!
8. One Way Streets? Hee Hee Hee!
Wouldn't life on two wheels be different?
Mick F. Cornwall
Posted: 12 Mar 2007, 6:45pm
by Mrs Tortoise
Mick F wrote:Just occurred to me. If Captain Wotzit hadn't existed, a bicycle may not have been defined as a vehicle at all!
So, if a bike weren't a vehicle:
1. Lights? No need for them!
2. Silly pedal reflectors? Who needs 'em?
3. You could ride on the pavements, legally! In and out of all the pedestrians with impunity!
4. How about riding on Public Footpaths?
5. Zebra Crossings?
6. We could ride where we liked! Wow! Either, or any side of the road!
7. What traffic lights? Not for me! They're for vehicles!
8. One Way Streets? Hee Hee Hee!
Wouldn't life on two wheels be different?
Mick F. Cornwall
A significant number of people who ride bicycles seem to do most of this anyway!
Posted: 12 Mar 2007, 7:44pm
by Terry T
Mick F wrote:Just occurred to me. If Captain Wotzit hadn't existed, a bicycle may not have been defined as a vehicle at all!
So, if a bike weren't a vehicle:
1. Lights? No need for them!
2. Silly pedal reflectors? Who needs 'em?
3. You could ride on the pavements, legally! In and out of all the pedestrians with impunity!
4. How about riding on Public Footpaths?
5. Zebra Crossings?
6. We could ride where we liked! Wow! Either, or any side of the road!
7. What traffic lights? Not for me! They're for vehicles!
8. One Way Streets? Hee Hee Hee!
Mick, were you being ironic
Wouldn't life on two wheels be different?
Mick F. Cornwall
Posted: 12 Mar 2007, 9:59pm
by julk
Mick F had the idea first...
Made on an AppleMac (of course)