Pavement permissive cycling

gar

Pavement permissive cycling

Postby gar » 21 May 2005, 6:53am

I am very much in favour of allowing cyclists to behave exctly the same as any other pedestrian.
I do actually have that opportunity for myself
as I ride a hand cranked trike, which may be used as a wheel cahir, but most cyclists do not have that opportunity.

I can go 30km/hr on my trike legitimately
in the UK on the pavement because it is a wheel chair, to me a recumbent hand cranked trike;

If some body were injured then it might be my fault.

What is the big deal about cyclists on pavements?

I could take issue on the subject with Bournemouth Council where they are manic about anti cycle wardens.

They could threaten to charge me if I don't get off my "cycle"

If they did I COULD discuss it in court.

I could obtain costs but I am a cyclist on Bournemouth promeande when it is not allowed.

Don't you think that cyclists should be able to use the pavements at all times?

They do in France.

There are NO specific bike regs in France

gerry

Re:Pavement permissive cycling

Postby gerry » 21 May 2005, 10:51pm

Cyclists are not pedestrians. A cycle is a vehicle (Local Gov't Act 1898). Vehicles are not allowed on "...that part of the highway set aside for pedestrians" (Highway Act 1835).
Furthermore, the speed difference in a built-up area between a pedestrian 3mph and a cyclist 15mph or more (5 to 1) is greater than the difference between a cyclist and a car 15/30 mph. (2 to 1).

So the big deal is: it's the law.

gar

Re:Pavement permissive cycling

Postby gar » 22 May 2005, 7:49am

Thanks for that Gerry.
Yet in France they are just that, or at least not legislated against as per 1898 nor defined as vehicles.

The rest of your comment is rather like a surgeon who has found "pink lung" on autopsy in rural areas
after town training. It just so happens that town smog makes a hell of a mess of the lungs and pink lungs are as they should be, healthy!

I hope you see the analogy with your hypothetical contention re velocity or impact.

You might say 1:60 for cyclists against cars
and 1:3 for pedestrians to cyclists.

On thse two the impact is 61 and 4 respectively,
if they are going in opposite directions.

Take two pedestrians 1: 10 one is jogging fast
10 knocks over 1 ==== damage.

I am on a recumbent disabled trike,which is also a wheel chair by definition, going at 30mph on the sidewalk (which is road)

I knock somebody over.
Am I a pedestrian or a vehicle? Or both or neither?

Or I am on the said trike and pedestrian knocks ME out of the seat becoz I am in a vehicle. Or as happened to me in B'motuh promenade last week somebody (a member of the public with your opinon about cyclists on sidewalks) put spikes in the pedestrian road to unseat a cyclist.
It causes me to have an accident .
Is mine a vehicle or am I a pedestrian the same as anybody else? Is the memebr of public comitting a lesser crime or a greater one through deliberately injuring a disabled person?

The Law is the proverbial Ass... which is why it has to be taken seriously, and why people make big money out of it, possibly even coppers intent on finding crime where in reality none exists,
other than by footling law!

What say you?!

Regards.
Gar

gar

Re:Pavement permissive cycling

Postby gar » 22 May 2005, 7:58am

My experience of law making and law amending tells me that if the law of 1898 were changed becoz it is such a footling law and so out of date, then there would be vast hoo has about it.

Much law is not there merely to be observed but is a conclusion of legislative discussion which would be pointless without saying Well we had to submit a Bill to discuss it publicly.... the discussion has been most valuable but WITHOUT the ACT of parliament it will seem as though our discussion has been vain.... so here is the act.....

It is on the statute, but only a fool would use it
especially 100 years after the penny farthing.
They had the discussion.

We should continue to discuss permissive pavement cycling, and enjoy more Bills in parliament on the use of bicycles.

Kind regards

Gar

gar

Re:Pavement permissive cycling

Postby gar » 22 May 2005, 8:45am

Sorry i cannot edit so here is thrid thought.:

Collins English dictionary defines vehicle as follows
N any conveyance in or by which people or objects are transported esp one fitted with wheels
C17 from Latin vehiculum from vehere to carry.

A wheel chair is fitted with wheels as are chidren's scooters.

Let us be sensible shall we?!!!

Regards

gar

gar

Re:Pavement permissive cycling

Postby gar » 22 May 2005, 8:57am

Vehicles are not allowed on "...that part of the highway set aside for pedestrians" (Highway Act 1835).

A horse was a vehicle by the definition of the Collins dictionary. One in 1835 the latter 1995
How could they possibly have known what Collins would say in 1995?

The Bournemouth promenade is not set aside except through by law notices; it gives every appearance of being a road otherwise..

Even if I do injure a fellow pedestrain from my wheel chair going at 30mph (which I shall not do) my case is foolproof .

My wheelchair does go at that speed same as those in the olympics and it IS a wheel chair.
I am disabled, thanks to a mischievous car driver
with real impact on the road of about 10:4
(same direction) +6 tipped into ditch and concrete through being so.

Funny eh??

Kind Regards,

Gar

On Bournemouth promenade and other similar places the

gar

Re:Pavement permissive cycling

Postby gar » 22 May 2005, 11:04am

It is also verifiable by simple classical mechanics that the human frame is also a vehicle...
and this is clearer to the disabled than the able....
for the conveyance of the person him/her self.

Merely becoz the mechanics described observes
"motion in a straight line" that of putting one foot in front of the other and that of the wheel "motion in a circle" is neither here nor there.

The one is a precondition of the other.

Motion in a straight line is merely a PART of motion in a circle.

In 1838 or so nothing was known of the mechanical laws of motion.
In 1900 few people knew about it.
In2005 it is possible that even the Lords of Appeal are familiar or would be able to understand that infinite straight lines form
a circle.

Thus a pedestrian taking however few or many paces to walk a particular path is a vehicle
for himself.

QED

The French are not inhibited by ignoirance in the way that the British are with regard to their cycling laws.

Try me on it Bournemouth Promenade

Gar