Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

[meic]

All dogs are supposed to be chipped now. Which will say who the owner is.
If it isnt they either have to admit to owning the dog (and pay the fine) or it isnt theirs and it gets taken away.

[reohn2]

All dogs are supposed to be chipped now. Which will say who the owner is.
If it isnt they either have to admit to owning the dog (and pay the fine) or it isnt theirs and it gets taken away.

That'll be about right,however there appears to be a slight flaw in that cunning plan

An reminds of two chaps I know who bought a greyhound,which with great excitement they told me was going to make them their fortune.
Anyway,spool forward about six months and quite a few races later,it turned out the dog wasn't doing as predicted,in fact it had got the whole racing strategy wrong and kept coming in last
So in a deep conversation with them in the pub,I asked what were there plans for it .
One of them informed me that they planned to take it for a walk down the canal,and run away from it

[mjr]

The point is being missed here. Such a supermarket car park and approach driveway is not a public highway. The supermarket owner could lock a gate when the shop was closed.

Doesn't matter. I know a barriered car park that was found to be public highway when they wanted to punish someone for drink driving. Highways can be part time, or barriered like many toll roads. Highway laws still apply.

[Bmblbzzz]

Getting back to cycle paths and the point made a page ago that they are used by cyclists who should know the highway code and pedestrians who don't have to, I'm not sure I see the distinction. HC has sections (and laws) relating specifically to cyclists and pedestrians, so if there's an obligation or expectation on cyclists to follow it, there must be the same for pedestrians (and horse riders, animal herders, etc). However, regardless of whether a cycle path is in law a highway, it is certainly not a road. In fact, a large part of the attraction and utility of it is that is not a road, and therefore can be used safely by those incapable of using roads safely or comfortably, such as children. That applies whether the kids are on foot or on bikes and there isn't in practice, as opposed to in law, a clear point at which people stop being children. You don't wake up on your 16th birthday with a fully developed understanding of traffic laws and customs, it's something that develops and is learned; some you learn well before then, some you are learning your whole life, particularly as circumstances change. But I'm straying off the path and onto the users: the main point is that (even on roads) our behaviour is a process of negotiation bounded by the rules and regulations; sometimes more sharply, sometimes less, and at times following the rules to the letter can be more dangerous than reacting to the way other people are behaving. There is also a conflict here between the idea of cycling as "wheeled pedestrianism" and "vehicular cycling" – both concepts I think are totally valid and beneficial but not in all situations for all people.

[mjr]

Straying off the point is putting it mildly! Under 16s are perfectly entitled to use roads too and many are capable and do so safely. If they aren't safe to be out in public, they shouldn't be on any highway unattended, regardless of whether it's a road or a track. The main difference is the probable severity of their injuries.

[jgurney]

HC has sections (and laws) relating specifically to cyclists and pedestrians, so if there's an obligation or expectation on cyclists to follow it, there must be the same for pedestrians (and horse riders, animal herders, etc).

Quite right.

regardless of whether a cycle path is in law a highway, it is certainly not a road.

Cycle routes certainly are roads - if they were not our vehicles would not be allowed there.

'Road' does not mean a route used by motor traffic: motor -free roads were the norm for most of the last millennium.

There is also a conflict here between the idea of cycling as "wheeled pedestrianism" and "vehicular cycling" – both I think are totally valid and beneficial but not in all situations for all people.

Quite so: the later suits cyclists, the former suits car salesmen and people dependent on cars for self-esteem, who for different motives have the shared goal of resisting the bicycle being taken seriously, and so push propaganda about bicycles not being real vehicles and cycle ways not counting as roads.