Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
Post Reply
audaxjk
Posts: 155
Joined: 2 Mar 2020, 4:45pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by audaxjk »

As a cyclist, this forum is a refuge from the cycle haters. As a dog owner too, I think I’m on thin ice now.
Perhaps an amicable solution would be to insist that all dog owners carry their dogs on bikes?
Campag
Posts: 94
Joined: 2 Dec 2018, 8:04pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by Campag »

Or that while walking the dog(s) keep them under control and/or on the lead while on shared paths. And while cycling on a shared path, slow down, use a bell or verbal warning, and take care.
ossie
Posts: 1793
Joined: 15 Apr 2011, 7:52pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by ossie »

Campag wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 7:32pm Or that while walking the dog(s) keep them under control and/or on the lead while on shared paths. And while cycling on a shared path, slow down, use a bell or verbal warning, and take care.
Spot on (speaking as a dog owner who walks them partly on a major NCN cycling route and trailway)

I'm also a motorist as many of us are, the vitriol towards cyclists on even the most genteel forums is just something else. I just try and educate the idiots.
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by pete75 »

simonineaston wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 12:26pm This all started with that Tony Blair promoting the idea of "choice" and dangling the carrot of a classless society. And that other one too, that Thatcher with her notions of share ownership. Bring back national service. And grammar schools.
We've got grammar schools here in Lincolnshire and the overall secondary school results are about average. What you grammar school fans never mention are the Secondary Modern schools which co-exist with grammars as somewhere to dump 11+ failures. They generally give a dismal education.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
MartinC
Posts: 2127
Joined: 10 May 2007, 6:31pm
Location: Bredon

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by MartinC »

Yes. Selective education is a wonderful thing and I think everyone should have it.
Jdsk
Posts: 24630
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by Jdsk »

pete75 wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 9:15pmWhat you grammar school fans never mention are the Secondary Modern schools which co-exist with grammars as somewhere to dump 11+ failures.
And the evidence for the effect of the selective model on attainment of the whole population is out there for anyone who wants to find it.

Jonathan

PS: And, as above, no-one ever stands up and advocates return to the Secondary Modern system, although that's where most of the children went.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by mjr »

MartinC wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 12:45pm Yes. Selective education is a wonderful thing and I think everyone should have it.
:lol: Sublimely absurd! :lol: A great way to show up how ridiculous it is!
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
nirakaro
Posts: 1578
Joined: 22 Dec 2007, 2:01am

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by nirakaro »

MartinC wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 12:45pm Yes. Selective education is a wonderful thing and I think everyone should have it.
Just as every man should have a valet and every woman should have a maid.
The extraordinary drift of this thread is proving wonderfully entertaining.
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by Mick F »

pete75 wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 9:15pm What you grammar school fans never mention are the Secondary Modern schools which co-exist with grammars as somewhere to dump 11+ failures. They generally give a dismal education.
Secondary Modern?
That was a system from the 1950's and dropped ten years later. The term "Secondary Modern" seems have existed erroneously for decades.

I (happily) failed my 11+ and went to a good Secondary school. Shevington County Secondary School. Left with five O Levels.
Mrs Mick F still maintains today that she went to Burscough Secondary Modern, and she won't believe me when I correct her that it wasn't a Sec Mod, but a County Sec.

PS:
Secondary doesn't mean "second class" but a term to differentiate from primary.
It could be argued that a Grammar School is also a secondary school.
Mick F. Cornwall
Jdsk
Posts: 24630
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by Jdsk »

Mick F wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 3:46pm
pete75 wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 9:15pm What you grammar school fans never mention are the Secondary Modern schools which co-exist with grammars as somewhere to dump 11+ failures. They generally give a dismal education.
Secondary Modern?
That was a system from the 1950's and dropped ten years later. The term "Secondary Modern" seems have existed erroneously for decades.
The name was changed but the system continued in several counties of England and in Northern Ireland:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_modern_school

Jonathan
User avatar
RickH
Posts: 5832
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by RickH »

mjr wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 1:45pm
MartinC wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 12:45pm Yes. Selective education is a wonderful thing and I think everyone should have it.
:lol: Sublimely absurd! :lol: A great way to show up how ridiculous it is!
We could get everyone above average then! Didn't Michael Gove say that was what he wanted when he was Education Secretary? :twisted:
Former member of the Cult of the Polystyrene Head Carbuncle.
User avatar
freiston
Posts: 1504
Joined: 6 Oct 2013, 10:20am
Location: Coventry

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by freiston »

Mick F wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 3:46pm
pete75 wrote: 19 Jan 2022, 9:15pm What you grammar school fans never mention are the Secondary Modern schools which co-exist with grammars as somewhere to dump 11+ failures. They generally give a dismal education.
Secondary Modern?
That was a system from the 1950's and dropped ten years later. The term "Secondary Modern" seems have existed erroneously for decades.

I (happily) failed my 11+ and went to a good Secondary school. Shevington County Secondary School. Left with five O Levels.
Mrs Mick F still maintains today that she went to Burscough Secondary Modern, and she won't believe me when I correct her that it wasn't a Sec Mod, but a County Sec.

PS:
Secondary doesn't mean "second class" but a term to differentiate from primary.
It could be argued that a Grammar School is also a secondary school.
I'm from a part of Lincolnshire where grammar and secondary modern schools existed in the 80s (by those names, I'm sure) and still do in all but name, from what I gather. My school life was predominantly in the 70s.

Contrary to common belief, the 11+ "test" didn't determine whether you got into the grammar school but was a "tool" for a board that made the selection decision. I got into the grammar school but my parents were told by a teacher or board member (much later, I think) that the board was split when it came to me and it was a very close call.

My recollection is that the boys' secondary modern school in my town didn't teach or hold examinations for pupils at 'O' or 'A' level but only 'CSE' level. If a secondary modern pupil wanted to take 'O' and/or 'A' levels, the usual route was the local F.E. college - a combination of one and two year courses over three years being the usual pattern. At my grammar school, there was no metalwork, woodwork, or technical drawing. At the end of the third year, you had to choose your subjects and the system made combining arts, languages and sciences very difficult. There was a definite socio-economic bias in the family backgrounds of the grammar school pupils too.

My personal experience has helped me form my opinion that such selective schools are not good: they force a judgement of intelligence/ability on young children (which often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy) and then restrict the child for the rest of their school life and beyond (in a small town in my day, the school you went to would be a big factor in some job applications). The system also puts a false value and hierarchy to subjects and skills too. My impression is that the way money was spent and resources allocated at schools was a factor too.

I am sure that some selection occurs within comprehensive schools too, but imho, the old system* was in practice not so much to do with giving each pupil the best and most suitable education but more to do with defining and developing a child according to their background.

* The tripartite system was supposed to give each pupil the best and most suitable education but soon became a tool for status and aspiration hence the fact that hardly any secondary technical schools were ever built - no aspiration for it - as far as most were concerned, the child either "passed" or "failed".
Disclaimer: Treat what I say with caution and if possible, wait for someone with more knowledge and experience to contribute. ;)
Spen
Posts: 27
Joined: 11 Jun 2021, 8:25pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by Spen »

axel_knutt wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 12:35pm I think you'd have to go to the council offices and have a look at the definitive rights of way map, then when you know what it is you'll know what rights you have on it.
Cycle paths aren't recorded on the definitive map
Spen
Posts: 27
Joined: 11 Jun 2021, 8:25pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by Spen »

gaz wrote: 16 Jan 2022, 1:55pm It's on the council produced "Warwick & Leamington Cycling Guide" map as a cycle route.
Map.png

Continue to share with care.
But of course the map has the councils get out jail free card tagged to the bottom "Whilst every care has been taken in the production of this guide, Warwickshire County Council cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information contained herein and accepts no responsibility for any error or omission. It is intended only as a guide and users of the routes should exercise caution and be aware of their surroundings and conditions when using them. (my emphasis) Warwickshire County Council shall not be liable for any death, personal injury or damage to property arising from the use of any of the routes indicated within this guide except to the extent that any liability may have arisen from negligence on the part of Warwickshire County Council or under general law."

These maps are by no means definitive, despite being produced by the council. My local cycling map shows cycling paths through local parks where there are bylaws in place forbidding cycling!
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by thirdcrank »

I can see a distinction between a map produced by the traffic authority and one produced privately, even if it has the endorsement of the authorities. Long ago, we had one of the latter sort here in Leeds and the only significant effect - as I had predicted - was that the author's quiet back street routes were used by the authorities (in this case the Highways Agency as was) as evidence that there was no need for cycling provision on "their" trunk roads.

Accepting that the likes of the OP's dogwalkers might not be convinced by the lord chief justice, I've suggested that the main risk is of meeting an enforcement-minded PCSO. No matter what the caveats on the map, I can see it would be excellent evidence to ask the police to withdraw a ticket and if they refused, I cannot imagine the CPS running it at court.
Post Reply