Spirit of Cycling Law not the Letter


Spirit of Cycling Law not the Letter

Postby gar » 3 Jun 2005, 1:40pm

It is the differing ways in which the bicycle is used and constructed today which enables the law to be interpreted differently, and the individual to do the interpreting.

It does not mean that thew law is no longer useable but that there is far permissiveness which is obviously prermissive than there was 50 years ago.

There are bobbles for the blind, lowered pavements to allow wheelchair access from one pavement to another; there are streets which
do not allow cars but are entirely cobbled with no "pavement". All these things have an effect on the way the sensible pedestrian sees the ped..al
cyclist, and the way the ped..al cyclist sees the ped..estrian.

The lowered kerbs are part of the legal requirement for county council but they also allow the cyclist, who now has shock resistant everything, to mount the kerb without damage to him, and without overbalancing in a way threatenting to any nearby ped..estrian.

Unwise electric motor wheel chair users may be seen in the middle of the road going at about 4mph, when they should in fact be on the ...pavement to be at all safe, BUT they are motor vehicles in every sense of the words. The lowered pavements are made for them and for other disabled people.

So the world of the Traffic acts are not what they seemed in 1835 or 1898.

Those acts may be relevant somewhere some place, but as street furniture is updated and new bike technology is understood by all,
they become increasingly irrelevant, except on
Bournemouth and Weymouth promenades
in July and August and they have special rules any way.

It has become a serious risk for some cyclists to use the road rather than the footway, where those people imagine that the said laws prevail at all times and all places and are not there to be construed in the light of ... well... cycling history.


Terry D

Re:Spirit of Cycling Law not the Letter

Postby Terry D » 14 Jun 2005, 2:05pm

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is ok for us to cycle on the pavement because the roads are too dangerous?
Your main argument appears to based on the theory that because you can hop on and off pavements without falling over, you pose no danger to other pavement users.
Picture this:
A child playing by the side of the road drops a ball which rolls into the road. The child looks both ways as taught then walks into the road to retrieve the ball. There is a motor car approaching the child, but because of a bend in the road the driver cannot see the child in the road.
Will the motorist be travelling slow enough to stop in time?
We all hope that he/she will, but we all know that the chances are that he/she will be travelling too quickly and our mythical child will be seriously injured.
In much the same way a person cycling on a pavement can only really do so safely if he/she rides at no more than walking pace and is prepared to stop at every blind spot and junction just in case there is something unforseen.
Bicycles generally proceed at a pace which is at least twice that of the average pedestrian and therefore conflict is bound to occur at some point in the journey. Surely it is more pleasant for all concerned if cyclists stay on the road out of the way of pedestrians who really have nowhere else left to go.


Re:Spirit of Cycling Law not the Letter

Postby gar » 15 Jun 2005, 9:25am

Bournemouth promenade has now legitmised cycling all the way along at 10m/h max which
is far too fast.

I hope that is an answer to T
but also the legal principle of the
DUTY of CARE should be sufficient
to deal with miscreant cyclists
on areas which may or may not be

If they are locally designated then that is the LAW. If not, it is not, and woe betide.

I have a Duty of Care in my wheel chair
NOT to hurt any pedestrian at
20ml/hr. I can do 30ml/hr using hand cranks alone. As a wheel chair user I am allowed to use the pavement even according to the traffic acts mentioned above, AND even to cycle in designated pedestrian areas, but I CAN do 30ml/hr.

What say you?