On 2023-04-18, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I may have lost track of this subthread. Is Norman seriously
claiming that the vast majority of shared-use paths and cycle
lanes marked by local authorities in this country are not valid?
I think he is claiming that the vast majority have been built
illegally!
A recent post of his indicated that he thinks they don't qualify if
they were not "constructed." In his mind "constructed" means
intentionally created and constructed for that particular purpose.
Would the courts actually agree with that?
I doubt it.
Also, how are people using paths with shared-use signs supposed to
know whether they were Constructed(TM) or not?
On 24/04/2023 15:57, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-18, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I may have lost track of this subthread. Is Norman seriously
claiming that the vast majority of shared-use paths and cycle
lanes marked by local authorities in this country are not valid?
I think he is claiming that the vast majority have been built
illegally!
A recent post of his indicated that he thinks they don't qualify if
they were not "constructed." In his mind "constructed" means
intentionally created and constructed for that particular purpose.
Would the courts actually agree with that?
I doubt it.
How can they not? They will have to interpret the words 'construct a
cycle track' which appear in the Act.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 17:10:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/04/2023 15:57, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-18, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I may have lost track of this subthread. Is Norman seriously
claiming that the vast majority of shared-use paths and cycle
lanes marked by local authorities in this country are not valid?
I think he is claiming that the vast majority have been built
illegally!
A recent post of his indicated that he thinks they don't qualify if
they were not "constructed." In his mind "constructed" means
intentionally created and constructed for that particular purpose.
Would the courts actually agree with that?
I doubt it.
How can they not? They will have to interpret the words 'construct a
cycle track' which appear in the Act.
You are sure "they" will have to do that? Exactly why and when will anyone have to perform such an interpretation? What dispute exists before any court that requires this interpretation?
If you now intend to seek judicial review of some related matter then please share the date and location so that interested people can buy our popcorn
and attend.
On 24/04/2023 21:54, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 17:10:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>> On 24/04/2023 15:57, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-18, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I may have lost track of this subthread. Is Norman seriously
claiming that the vast majority of shared-use paths and cycle
lanes marked by local authorities in this country are not valid?
I think he is claiming that the vast majority have been built
illegally!
A recent post of his indicated that he thinks they don't qualify if
they were not "constructed." In his mind "constructed" means
intentionally created and constructed for that particular purpose.
Would the courts actually agree with that?
I doubt it.
How can they not? They will have to interpret the words 'construct a
cycle track' which appear in the Act.
You are sure "they" will have to do that? Exactly why and when will anyone >> have to perform such an interpretation? What dispute exists before any court >> that requires this interpretation?
The question was 'would the courts actually agree with that?'. It kind
of pre-supposes that there would be a case before them wouldn't you say?
If you now intend to seek judicial review of some related matter then please >> share the date and location so that interested people can buy our popcorn
and attend.
It is more likely to arise where the legitimacy of any apparent joint
use is put into question by, say, a pedestrian suffering injury at the
wheels of a cyclist, where a claim could lie against the highways authority.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 22:45:55 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:54, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 17:10:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 24/04/2023 15:57, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-18, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I may have lost track of this subthread. Is Norman seriouslyI think he is claiming that the vast majority have been built
claiming that the vast majority of shared-use paths and cycle
lanes marked by local authorities in this country are not valid? >>>>>>>
illegally!
A recent post of his indicated that he thinks they don't qualify if >>>>>> they were not "constructed." In his mind "constructed" means
intentionally created and constructed for that particular purpose. >>>>>> Would the courts actually agree with that?
I doubt it.
How can they not? They will have to interpret the words 'construct a
cycle track' which appear in the Act.
You are sure "they" will have to do that? Exactly why and when will anyone >>> have to perform such an interpretation? What dispute exists before any court
that requires this interpretation?
The question was 'would the courts actually agree with that?'. It kind
of pre-supposes that there would be a case before them wouldn't you say?
If you now intend to seek judicial review of some related matter then please
share the date and location so that interested people can buy our popcorn >>> and attend.
It is more likely to arise where the legitimacy of any apparent joint
use is put into question by, say, a pedestrian suffering injury at the
wheels of a cyclist, where a claim could lie against the highways authority.
Unless that unfortunate pedestrian happened to be you I see no likelihood that anyone would question the designation of a dual-use path merely on account of the lack of physical exertion put into its construction.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 22:45:55 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:54, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 17:10:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>> On 24/04/2023 15:57, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-18, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I may have lost track of this subthread. Is Norman seriouslyI think he is claiming that the vast majority have been built
claiming that the vast majority of shared-use paths and cycle
lanes marked by local authorities in this country are not valid? >>>>>>>
illegally!
A recent post of his indicated that he thinks they don't qualify if >>>>>> they were not "constructed." In his mind "constructed" means
intentionally created and constructed for that particular purpose. >>>>>> Would the courts actually agree with that?
I doubt it.
How can they not? They will have to interpret the words 'construct a
cycle track' which appear in the Act.
You are sure "they" will have to do that? Exactly why and when will anyone >>> have to perform such an interpretation? What dispute exists before any court
that requires this interpretation?
The question was 'would the courts actually agree with that?'. It kind
of pre-supposes that there would be a case before them wouldn't you say?
If you now intend to seek judicial review of some related matter then please
share the date and location so that interested people can buy our popcorn >>> and attend.
It is more likely to arise where the legitimacy of any apparent joint
use is put into question by, say, a pedestrian suffering injury at the
wheels of a cyclist, where a claim could lie against the highways authority.
Unless that unfortunate pedestrian happened to be you I see no likelihood that anyone would question the designation of a dual-use path merely on account of the lack of physical exertion put into its construction.
On 25/04/2023 01:50, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 22:45:55 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>> On 24/04/2023 21:54, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 17:10:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>> On 24/04/2023 15:57, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-18, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Adam Funk" <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
I may have lost track of this subthread. Is Norman seriously >>>>>>>>> claiming that the vast majority of shared-use paths and cycle >>>>>>>>> lanes marked by local authorities in this country are not valid? >>>>>>>>I think he is claiming that the vast majority have been built
illegally!
A recent post of his indicated that he thinks they don't qualify if >>>>>>> they were not "constructed." In his mind "constructed" means
intentionally created and constructed for that particular purpose. >>>>>>> Would the courts actually agree with that?
I doubt it.
How can they not? They will have to interpret the words 'construct a >>>>> cycle track' which appear in the Act.
You are sure "they" will have to do that? Exactly why and when will anyone >>>> have to perform such an interpretation? What dispute exists before any court
that requires this interpretation?
The question was 'would the courts actually agree with that?'. It kind
of pre-supposes that there would be a case before them wouldn't you say? >>>
If you now intend to seek judicial review of some related matter then please
share the date and location so that interested people can buy our popcorn >>>> and attend.
It is more likely to arise where the legitimacy of any apparent joint
use is put into question by, say, a pedestrian suffering injury at the
wheels of a cyclist, where a claim could lie against the highways authority.
Unless that unfortunate pedestrian happened to be you I see no likelihood
that anyone would question the designation of a dual-use path merely on
account of the lack of physical exertion put into its construction.
The question of whether a path was legally shared use clearly arose even
in Ms Grey's case, where the situation was reversed, so it's not at all beyond the realms of possibility as you seem to think. In the event of
a pedestrian being hurt by a cyclist on a path, I think any lawyer worth
his salt would look at the legal status of the path, especially if there
was any doubt, to see if the cyclist was in fact entitled to be there.
A potential claim for damages against a highways authority would not be overlooked, not least because it would be able to pay up whereas the
cyclist may not and may not be insured.
Anyway, perhaps *you* would answer the question Mr Goodge must have accidentally snipped from my previous post in relation to 'construct a
cycle track', namely:
What are *you* saying the word 'construct' in that phrase means?
On 25/04/2023 01:50 am, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 22:45:55 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>> It is more likely to arise where the legitimacy of any apparent joint
use is put into question by, say, a pedestrian suffering injury at the
wheels of a cyclist, where a claim could lie against the highways authority.
Unless that unfortunate pedestrian happened to be you I see no likelihood
that anyone would question the designation of a dual-use path merely on
account of the lack of physical exertion put into its construction.
Do you think it would be reasonable to question its designation if there
was no evidence that the "designation" had ever happened at all?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 53:05:50 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,264 |