I think that was a guess.Ayesha wrote:In 1968, the heaviest car on the road was a Jensen Inteceptor.
Bugatti Royale? That's my guess.
Even a Rolls Royce would have been heavier than an Interceptor. (another guess!)
Wheeling bikes on footpaths
Re: Wheeling bikes on footpaths
Bugatti Royale? That's my guess.
Even a Rolls Royce would have been heavier than an Interceptor. (another guess!)
Mick F. Cornwall
Re: Wheeling bikes on footpaths
Ayesha wrote:In 1968, the heaviest car on the road was a Jensen Inteceptor. All the others couldn't kill you if they tried...
Really?
Either this is another of your thoughtless throw-away lines or else the Jensen Interceptor really was the most common car on our roads in 1968.
What manner of creature's this, being but half a fish and half a monster
Re: Wheeling bikes on footpaths
Still pushing this thread along?
Re: Wheeling bikes on footpaths
Guy951 wrote:Ayesha wrote:In 1968, the heaviest car on the road was a Jensen Inteceptor. All the others couldn't kill you if they tried...
Really?
Either this is another of your thoughtless throw-away lines or else the Jensen Interceptor really was the most common car on our roads in 1968.
I may be wrong.
There was a guy with a Lincoln Continental who used it for Weddings.
Jensens were built in West Bromwich, and the most populous part of the country for ( single vehicle ) ownership was.......
Solihull.
There are still three in the borough.
The place where there is most of the cars is....
The home of the late Lord Strathcarron, Dave Mcpherson.
Re: Wheeling bikes on footpaths
Ayesha wrote:Guy951 wrote:Ayesha wrote:In 1968, the heaviest car on the road was a Jensen Inteceptor. All the others couldn't kill you if they tried...
Really?
Either this is another of your thoughtless throw-away lines or else the Jensen Interceptor really was the most common car on our roads in 1968.
I may be wrong...Blah blah blah drivel blah etc.
Missed the point completely. Or do you really believe that all those motorists who killed cyclists and pedestrians in cars other than Jensens should have their convictions overturned? Because according to you, their cars just weren't capable of killing anybody.
What manner of creature's this, being but half a fish and half a monster
-
Malaconotus
- Posts: 1846
- Joined: 30 Jul 2010, 11:31pm
- Location: Chapel Allerton, Leeds
- Contact:
Re: Wheeling bikes on footpaths
Ayesha wrote:In 1968, the heaviest car on the road was a Jensen Inteceptor. All the others couldn't kill you if they tried...
Ayesha wrote:http://www.glee.co.uk/oxford
Go here for a humour transfusion.
Nope. That's not helping. Like Guy, I cannot see any humour whatsoever in your original statement. The failing is not on his part.
Re: Wheeling bikes on footpaths
I'll be wheeling my bike along the footpath alongside Lode Lane, Solihull, opposite Land Rover this afernoon at approx 15:25 - 15:30.
If you'd like, phone Solihull police and inform them of this blatant flaunting of the law.
They'll laugh.
This reminds me of an incident outside a Lucas factory I worked at once-upon-a-time. The junction was busy with traffic, so some employees leaving work drove up onto the pavement to dodge round the left turn. Totally illegal and the local police in Hockley knew all about it because it happened every afternoon when the Lucas factory workers left to go home.
It was only when a member of the public complained she had difficulty with her push-chair, did the police show up to stop the offenders. They issued warnings and a good laugh was had by all.
Maybe your phone call ( as a member of the public ) will provoke the police into action.
Ah, the two flies in the ointment are...
It will be a complaint about something they consider NOT to be a danger to the public, and
The phone call will be from a person in another part of the country, so how does he know, and is his information 100% reliable?
If you'd like, phone Solihull police and inform them of this blatant flaunting of the law.
They'll laugh.
This reminds me of an incident outside a Lucas factory I worked at once-upon-a-time. The junction was busy with traffic, so some employees leaving work drove up onto the pavement to dodge round the left turn. Totally illegal and the local police in Hockley knew all about it because it happened every afternoon when the Lucas factory workers left to go home.
It was only when a member of the public complained she had difficulty with her push-chair, did the police show up to stop the offenders. They issued warnings and a good laugh was had by all.
Maybe your phone call ( as a member of the public ) will provoke the police into action.
Ah, the two flies in the ointment are...
It will be a complaint about something they consider NOT to be a danger to the public, and
The phone call will be from a person in another part of the country, so how does he know, and is his information 100% reliable?
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36740
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Wheeling bikes on footpaths
I've been looking at the ticket bonanza thread, and it has occurred to me how the change in official attitudes may have come about.
I'll guess that at some point, the menfromtheministry decided that it would be a good thing if cyclists could sometimes be made to walk, hence the birth of the CYCLISTS DISMOUNT sign. I suspect that there was an intention or at least desire to make that mandatory. Let's not forget that for much of the latter half of the 20C, the trend was towards removing cyclists from the roads. Somebody has then pointed out that the general legal opinion was that riding and wheeling a bike both counted as driving a carriage. This potential lack of logic in a traffic sign jarred the sensibilities of senior civil servants whose stock-in-trade is being clever, especially with traffic signs. It's hardly worth legislating for something like that so the answer was to change the advice under cover of darkness on the assumption that cyclists lacked the wit to notice.
I'll guess that at some point, the menfromtheministry decided that it would be a good thing if cyclists could sometimes be made to walk, hence the birth of the CYCLISTS DISMOUNT sign. I suspect that there was an intention or at least desire to make that mandatory. Let's not forget that for much of the latter half of the 20C, the trend was towards removing cyclists from the roads. Somebody has then pointed out that the general legal opinion was that riding and wheeling a bike both counted as driving a carriage. This potential lack of logic in a traffic sign jarred the sensibilities of senior civil servants whose stock-in-trade is being clever, especially with traffic signs. It's hardly worth legislating for something like that so the answer was to change the advice under cover of darkness on the assumption that cyclists lacked the wit to notice.
Re: Wheeling bikes on footpaths
I know where there is a 'Cyclists dismount' sign.
Its above the entrance to a subway which forms part of a dual use path.
The sign wasn't put up when the path was designated 'Dual use', it appeared after a local resident complained about cyclists riding through the subway.
Its above the entrance to a subway which forms part of a dual use path.
The sign wasn't put up when the path was designated 'Dual use', it appeared after a local resident complained about cyclists riding through the subway.
Re: Wheeling bikes on footpaths
thirdcrank:
Well possibly, but I think that's just a bit too conspiratorial.
AIUI, the law just says that you can't drive a carriage on the footway (i.e. adjacent to a road). That law was not directed specifically at bikes or cars, as Parliament was mainly thinking of horse-drawn carriages and vehicles. IANAL, but I suspect that there are no recorded prosecutions of cyclists for pushing bikes on the pavement.
Bikes were invented before cars. There was no doubt in peoples' minds that this new and (to some) unnervingly rapid form of transport was a vehicle/carriage (which it is). Everyone therefore took it for granted that you couldn't take a carriage onto the footway. Cyclists had no great reason to wheel bikes on what were probably narrow pavements, and in many places pavements probably didn't exist anyway. Therefore all responsible cyclists wheeled their machines in the gutter while walking on the pavement (footway), and policemen shouted at the odd offender who blocked a narrow pavement by doing otherwise, but no-one got fined. Cyclists also parked in the gutter with one pedal placed on the pavement to hold up the machine.
This shared assumption changed much more slowly than did the number of cars, so by the 1960s we were still wheeling bikes in the gutter, even with constant lines of cars passing at 50mph (I exaggerate). At that point, however, the perceived safety issue and (possibly) the inconvenience to motorists of having to move out to overtake a "rider-less" machine became predominent in peoples' minds. They increasingly told their kids to wheel their bikes on the pavement. Also by this point you had numbers of parents who had never ridden bikes for transport, so the chain that passed down the instruction to "Wheel it in the gutter" had been broken.
Again, IANAL, but it is in that light that I read the summary of the judgement on Crank v Brooks. Waller LJ is perfectly right that someone walking a bike must be a foot passenger. What that paragraph fails to address, however, is that the foot passenger is being accompanied by something that is obviously a vehicle!* That said, I am prepared to accept that the link gives a fair assessment of current legal opinion and practice (you won't get prosecuted for pushing a bike over a crossing) - it's just the reasoning that I find difficult.
I know that some people find this thread indescribably tedious, although confusingly it appears that they are still reading it It interests me, however, because it is a clear example of shared assumptions being more important than what the law actually says. That's important when, instead of asking whether the law on vehicles applies to bikes on pavements, you ask whether the Highway Code advice and law on overtaking other vehicles applies to overtaking bikes. I perceive a gap there too between assumption and law 
*This is rather like arguing that, having parked your car somewhere illegal, you are allowed to have it there because you are now standing beside it, and are therefore a pedestrian.
Well possibly, but I think that's just a bit too conspiratorial.
AIUI, the law just says that you can't drive a carriage on the footway (i.e. adjacent to a road). That law was not directed specifically at bikes or cars, as Parliament was mainly thinking of horse-drawn carriages and vehicles. IANAL, but I suspect that there are no recorded prosecutions of cyclists for pushing bikes on the pavement.
Bikes were invented before cars. There was no doubt in peoples' minds that this new and (to some) unnervingly rapid form of transport was a vehicle/carriage (which it is). Everyone therefore took it for granted that you couldn't take a carriage onto the footway. Cyclists had no great reason to wheel bikes on what were probably narrow pavements, and in many places pavements probably didn't exist anyway. Therefore all responsible cyclists wheeled their machines in the gutter while walking on the pavement (footway), and policemen shouted at the odd offender who blocked a narrow pavement by doing otherwise, but no-one got fined. Cyclists also parked in the gutter with one pedal placed on the pavement to hold up the machine.
This shared assumption changed much more slowly than did the number of cars, so by the 1960s we were still wheeling bikes in the gutter, even with constant lines of cars passing at 50mph (I exaggerate). At that point, however, the perceived safety issue and (possibly) the inconvenience to motorists of having to move out to overtake a "rider-less" machine became predominent in peoples' minds. They increasingly told their kids to wheel their bikes on the pavement. Also by this point you had numbers of parents who had never ridden bikes for transport, so the chain that passed down the instruction to "Wheel it in the gutter" had been broken.
Again, IANAL, but it is in that light that I read the summary of the judgement on Crank v Brooks. Waller LJ is perfectly right that someone walking a bike must be a foot passenger. What that paragraph fails to address, however, is that the foot passenger is being accompanied by something that is obviously a vehicle!* That said, I am prepared to accept that the link gives a fair assessment of current legal opinion and practice (you won't get prosecuted for pushing a bike over a crossing) - it's just the reasoning that I find difficult.
I know that some people find this thread indescribably tedious, although confusingly it appears that they are still reading it
It interests me, however, because it is a clear example of shared assumptions being more important than what the law actually says. That's important when, instead of asking whether the law on vehicles applies to bikes on pavements, you ask whether the Highway Code advice and law on overtaking other vehicles applies to overtaking bikes. I perceive a gap there too between assumption and law *This is rather like arguing that, having parked your car somewhere illegal, you are allowed to have it there because you are now standing beside it, and are therefore a pedestrian.
Re: Wheeling bikes on footpaths
Ayesha - have you seen this thread?
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36740
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Wheeling bikes on footpaths
The only significance, as far as I can see, in the sudden but apparently unremarked change, is if we know what caused it, we will know its legal, as opposed to common sense, status. We went from the advice being in the main body of the HC, with the legal stuff at the back (and as gaz's post above shows, there was then no difference made between riding and pushing - quite the opposite) to the more recent versions with everything together. I don't think that the revised version says that wheeling a bike is OK or different from wheeling it. (I've got too much thread fatigue to check. 
)
As I've posted before, there's no means of knowing how the higher courts would look at this now or in the future. Some people seem to have a naive faith that common sense would prevail.
)As I've posted before, there's no means of knowing how the higher courts would look at this now or in the future. Some people seem to have a naive faith that common sense would prevail.
Re: Wheeling bikes on footpaths
Common Sense is all very well, and it will keep you safe and happy for most of your life, but it's ALWAYS better to know the actual rules.
Mick F. Cornwall
Re: Wheeling bikes on footpaths
drossall wrote:Ayesha - have you seen this thread?
Had a look at that, and in my haste, posted a reply on that thread.
Three questions.
1/ Was there a collision incident between a pedestrian and cyclist during the days previuos?
2/ A rectangular sign with white lettering on a blue background is an 'Information' sign. This is different from the 'Giving orders' sign where a black bicycle is on a white background within a red circle.
3/ Was there a "Police check in operation" sign displayed?