Cycling UK Forum

merseymouth wrote:Hello there, The thing that annoys me most about the magazine is the basic fact that it is the mouthpiece of the "New Order Charity Status mob!
They can only write the word "Bike", even when a person with even my poor education can spot when a machine has more or less that two wheels!
The Cyclist's Touring Club is for cyclists, not merely Bicyclists!
Narrow minded thinking & writing by folk who do not like being pulled up over sloppy utterances.
Not worth my cancelling my 5 year membership, but I will certainly not be renewing it!
My stable of machines includes machines that are stable, not merely fall over types. Tricycles outnumber my Bicycles, but that is because I'm a true cyclist.
TTFN MM

To be pedantic the word "bike" nowadays is very much a term for motorcycle rather than a pedal-driven bicycle, tricycle, unicycle, quadricycle - Mr Google's searches with bike invariably pull up motorised stuff.

Rob

I have a few ctc gazette, taking one a random October 1955 I found the breakdown of articles is very similar to current cycles. I counted 4 pages of touring article as defined by me above. So nothing has changed.

Philip Benstead wrote:I have a few ctc gazette, taking one a random October 1955 I found the breakdown of articles is very similar to current cycles. I counted 4 pages of touring article as defined by me above. So nothing has changed.

Back even further to a couple of pre-WW2 Gazettes and the bias is without question towards touring ... and of course the mag then contained regional supplements for the local DA Runs List and small ads for members seeking cycle tour companions.

I have one copy dated July 1939 where a chap is advertising for anyone interested in joining him for a tour of Germany in late September that year . . . . I'm guessing that the tour probably didn't happen

Rob

robgul wrote:

Philip Benstead wrote:I have a few ctc gazette, taking one a random October 1955 I found the breakdown of articles is very similar to current cycles. I counted 4 pages of touring article as defined by me above. So nothing has changed.

Back even further to a couple of pre-WW2 Gazettes and the bias is without question towards touring ... and of course the mag then contained regional supplements for the local DA Runs List and small ads for members seeking cycle tour companions.

I have one copy dated July 1939 where a chap is advertising for anyone interested in joining him for a tour of Germany in late September that year . . . . I'm guessing that the tour probably didn't happen

Rob

That guy may have been the father of a ex club mate , her father had 48 hours to get out of germany

Dear Mr. Rogul, You illustrate fully my point. Accusing people who prefer to use a language correctly as "Pedants" , unworthy of consideration in such debates, makes clear that lazy thought process's are rife!
Words should be precise, because ramifications can be serious. We poke fun at the "Adulterer's Bible", one single word missing changing dramatically the intention. Court cases have suffered simply because of sloppy wording, with lives ruined as a consequence!
I only had a rudimentary education in a formal sense, but education should never stop.
I pose a simple question for you to answer - "What is the legal status of a Unicycle when used on the road/pavement"? Be Precise!
TTFN MM

merseymouth wrote:Dear Mr. Rogul, You illustrate fully my point. Accusing people who prefer to use a language correctly as "Pedants" , unworthy of consideration in such debates, makes clear that lazy thought process's are rife!
Words should be precise, because ramifications can be serious. We poke fun at the "Adulterer's Bible", one single word missing changing dramatically the intention. Court cases have suffered simply because of sloppy wording, with lives ruined as a consequence!
I only had a rudimentary education in a formal sense, but education should never stop.
I pose a simple question for you to answer - "What is the legal status of a Unicycle when used on the road/pavement"? Be Precise!
TTFN MM

I read this, and your original post about 4 times . . . I think you are agreeing with me?? I was referring to myself as perhaps a pedant . . . in seeking clarity and accuracy

. . . in the same vein for content - with the plethora of information available on the internet it's really, really annoying (to me) to search on a topic and find content that says "next month" or "next week" or "15 November" etc - in most cases it's difficult to work out when the article may have been posted, which year? - let's hear it for putting a complete date : "15 November 2016" for example.

Rob

PS - not sure about the unicycle, my foray into the one-wheel world was very short-lived!

Dear Rogbul, You would have a torrid time on "Just a minute"!
Confusing accuracy with pedantry, the former is essential, the latter irritating!

If something is wrong why use common usage as an excuse to persist with it?

You did however omit an answer to my question about the use of a particular class of pedal cycle on our roads/pavements?
It is not pedantic to request a response, merely checking if others have the knowledge to understands points of law that we are obliged to obey!

I never call a motor-cyclist a "Biker"! That might certainly be misunderstood as to being someone from an area of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne.
Simple clarity avoids problems. TTFN MM

merseymouth wrote:You did however omit an answer to my question about the use of a particular class of pedal cycle on our roads/pavements?

That would depend on what you mean by pavement, do you mean footway? Or maybe footpath? Most pavement will not be part of the public highway and will not have a legal status for any cycle. See just how ridiculous it can get?

merseymouth wrote:Dear Mr. Rogul, You illustrate fully my point. Accusing people who prefer to use a language correctly as "Pedants" , unworthy of consideration in such debates, makes clear that lazy thought process's are rife!

That's "lazy thought processes".

You're welcome.

- A passing pedant

Damn, you beat me to it Andy.

Never use apostrophe's in plural's.

EC

Never use apostrophe's in plural's.

Not even in a plural like gentlemen's?

PH wrote:

merseymouth wrote:You did however omit an answer to my question about the use of a particular class of pedal cycle on our roads/pavements?

That would depend on what you mean by pavement, do you mean footway? Or maybe footpath? Most pavement will not be part of the public highway and will not have a legal status for any cycle. See just how ridiculous it can get?

FYI

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69/section/66

nterpretation of Part III.
(1)In this Part—
• “bridleway” means a highway over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way, that is to say, a right of way on foot and a right of way on horseback or leading a horse, with or without a right to drive animals of any description along the highway;
• “byway open to all traffic” means a highway over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic, but which is used by the public mainly for the purpose for which footpaths and bridleways are so used;
• “definitive map and statement” has the meaning given by section 53(1);
• “footpath” means a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, other than such a highway at the side of a public road;
• “horse” includes a pony, ass and mule, and “horseback” shall be construed accordingly;
• “public path” means a highway being either a footpath or a bridleway;
• [F1“restricted byway” has the same meaning as in Part II of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000;]
• “right of way to which this Part applies” means a right of way such that the land over which the right subsists is a public path or a byway open to all traffic;
• [F2 “surveying authority”, in relation to any area, means the county council, [F3county borough council,]metropolitan district council, or London borough council whose area includes that area.]
(2)A highway at the side of a river, canal or other inland navigation shall not be excluded from any definition contained in subsection (1) by reason only that the public have a right to use the highway for purposes of navigation, if the highway would fall within that definition if the public had no such right thereover.
(3)The provisions of section 30(1) of the 1968 Act (riding of pedal cycles on bridleways) shall not affect the definition of bridleway in subsection (1) and any rights exercisable by virtue of those provisions shall be disregarded for the purposes of this Part.


PAVEMENT
http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-artic ... d-the-law/

robgul wrote:

Philip Benstead wrote:I have a few ctc gazette, taking one a random October 1955 I found the breakdown of articles is very similar to current cycles. I counted 4 pages of touring article as defined by me above. So nothing has changed.

Back even further to a couple of pre-WW2 Gazettes and the bias is without question towards touring ... and of course the mag then contained regional supplements for the local DA Runs List and small ads for members seeking cycle tour companions.

I have one copy dated July 1939 where a chap is advertising for anyone interested in joining him for a tour of Germany in late September that year . . . . I'm guessing that the tour probably didn't happen

Rob

The internet never existed in 1939, hence the small ads. We had ads for soul mates or touring companions in the magazine up until pretty recently, probably within the last ten years. The current issue has plenty on touring, with a bit about the CTC holiday business.

DaveP wrote:

bigjim wrote: It seems ... to be lot of political stuff, much MTB articles, bit of family news. A lot of reviews of ridiculously priced equipment that is way beyond anything I would consider spending.

Just like all the other special interest comics, in other words. They typically derive a significant portion of their income from "reviewing" new products, but always manage never to have a "lemon" on their hands - it's all good kit - you know you need it...

Interesting comment Jim - since CJ was kicked off CTC staff, I've observed very much the same as you have over 'technical' write-ups. I can't take them seriously. I no longer see these reviews as being meaningful and unbiased - not much use to me anymore. What a pity.

JohnW wrote:

DaveP wrote:

bigjim wrote: It seems ... to be lot of political stuff, much MTB articles, bit of family news. A lot of reviews of ridiculously priced equipment that is way beyond anything I would consider spending.

Just like all the other special interest comics, in other words. They typically derive a significant portion of their income from "reviewing" new products, but always manage never to have a "lemon" on their hands - it's all good kit - you know you need it...

Interesting comment Jim - since CJ was kicked off CTC staff, I've observed very much the same as you have over 'technical' write-ups. I can't take them seriously. I no longer see these reviews as being meaningful and unbiased - not much use to me anymore. What a pity.

Absolutely - Chris appeared to be totally unbiased - regardless of whether he upset the supplier ... the SJS/Andy Blance abuse that Chris received a few years ago was a classic case of the advertiser trying to pay for good reviews (SJS ceased their multi-page ads)

Rob