Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-ways
Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-
But there is no requirement in law to provide an alternative where traffic is banned from an all-purpose road.
Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-
cotswolds wrote:I've at least twice seen signs banning "vehicles not capable of exceeding 25mph" ...
Odd since there is a standard approved sign to indicate minimum speed limits.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-
Bmblbzzz wrote:But there is no requirement in law to provide an alternative where traffic is banned from an all-purpose road.
But my point is that singling out cyclists could be said to be unfair both to cyclists who lose their route and but also to other slower road users who, as the HA argues the ban is about the safety of a slow road user(cyclists), it would appear they care not for the safety of any other slow road user... which might invoke some sort law leverage: If one is OK the other is not.....
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------
Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-
It's easier to create a road environment that is so hostile for cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians that they choose not to use it than it is to legally prohibit them.
IME once Highways England have achieved the former they do not bother with the latter, even when their own reports suggest they should.
IME once Highways England have achieved the former they do not bother with the latter, even when their own reports suggest they should.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-
SA_SA_SA wrote:Bmblbzzz wrote:But there is no requirement in law to provide an alternative where traffic is banned from an all-purpose road.
But my point is that singling out cyclists could be said to be unfair both to cyclists who lose their route and but also to other slower road users who, as the HA argues the ban is about the safety of a slow road user(cyclists), it would appear they care not for the safety of any other slow road user... which might invoke some sort law leverage: If one is OK the other is not.....
Presumably if cyclists are banned from using a non-motorway dual carriageway it is because that road has been deemed to be too dangerous for people on bicycles. But yes, how can such a road still be safe for horse riders? Or anyone with a very slow vehicle? If banning cycling on a particular road is seen as helping cyclists by keeping them from harm, why is that protection not extended to all the other slow users? It is inconsistent whichever stance you take.
Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-
I very much doubt if anyone rides a horse on a dual carriageway, so it's not a problem that arises; not a use that is encountered to be banned. As for tractors and so on, not only are they much faster than cyclists and horses (up to 40mph), they are also solid, it looks as if their occupants are well protected (whether this is true or not) and they are obviously work vehicles, so seen to be there of necessity. But the practical reality is that if they were to be banned as well, they would simply be banned along with cycling; it certainly does not mean alternative provision would be made. None is being proposed in the case of the Humberside dual carriageway currently in the news (sorry, forgotten its number).
Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-
Username wrote:Man-eating sheep
Subliminal messaging?
You've lost me there, although driving all manner of cattle on a road can be prohibited by TRO.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-
pwa wrote:.....
Presumably if cyclists are banned from using a non-motorway dual carriageway it is because that road has been deemed to be too dangerous for people on bicycles. But yes, how can such a road still be safe for horse riders? Or anyone with a very slow vehicle? If banning cycling on a particular road is seen as helping cyclists by keeping them from harm, why is that protection not extended to all the other slow users? It is inconsistent whichever stance you take.
Whose stance? You seen to be agreeing with me?
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------
Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-
SA_SA_SA wrote:pwa wrote:.....
Presumably if cyclists are banned from using a non-motorway dual carriageway it is because that road has been deemed to be too dangerous for people on bicycles. But yes, how can such a road still be safe for horse riders? Or anyone with a very slow vehicle? If banning cycling on a particular road is seen as helping cyclists by keeping them from harm, why is that protection not extended to all the other slow users? It is inconsistent whichever stance you take.
Whose stance? You seen to be agreeing with me?
I am agreeing with you. It is inconsistent to remove one user group because they are too vulnerable, but not remove other user groups who are just as vulnerable. Even if you see that removal as doing them a favour by making them safer. It makes no sense.
-
- Posts: 36778
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-
gaz wrote:Username wrote:Man-eating sheep
Subliminal messaging?....
Baa?
Baa, baa, black sheep?
Bah?
Bah, humbug?
Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-
What does overturning this inconsistency achieve? An alliance of cyclists and farmers?
Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-
Bmblbzzz wrote:But there is no requirement in law to provide an alternative where traffic is banned from an all-purpose road.
Isn't the definition of a highway something to do with a facility allowing the free passage of the public, and their goods, to and fro? In which case, banning some of the public isn't free passage?
Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-
There are various categories of Highway. Footpaths are Highways and whilst you may have free passage on foot do not take it for granted that you can take a barrow of bricks with you too .drossall wrote:Isn't the definition of a highway something to do with a facility allowing the free passage of the public, and their goods, to and fro?
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Re: Disallow bans of only cyclists from (previously) all-purpose roads:only allow ban of same list of vehicles as for M-
I cannot find It now, but I remember from the 70's a version. of Martin Niemoller's "First they came" about traffic types and access rights