On 27/04/2023 02:34 pm, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 23/04/2023 17:41, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2023 05:37 pm, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 23/04/2023 17:24, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2023 05:14 pm, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 23/04/2023 14:39, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2023 05:00 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
Is Mr Arsehole going soft in his old age?
He says:
QUOTE: Of course, there are times when it remains a danger for >>>>>>>> cyclists to be on the road, say because of potholes or debris, so >>>>>>>> they have no choice but to go on to the pavement. ENDS
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11998001/Celebrity-lawyer-Mr-Loophole-says-cyclists-display-numberplates.html
If there is nowhere to ride one's fairy-cycle except for the
footway, the fairy-cycle should be left at home.
Dismounting is an alternative.
That's beneath the imaginary dignity of the typical over entitled
fairy-cyclist, though.
I expect they "think" it would make them look like a tit to be
courteous and considerate to pedestrians.
Riding a fairy-cycle on the footway is a criminal offence. It
doesn't matter what *anyone* says about it.
What does the law say about riding on a *footway* ?
In short: "Don't do it. It's an offence".
The Highway Act 1835 (in part, still in force, never repealed):
for England and Wales.
QUOTE:
Section 72:
"If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by
the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of >>>>> foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass,
sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any >>>>> truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether >>>>> any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to
suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon."
No mention of *footway*.
This clause is referred to by the current Highway Code:
Rule 64: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A
sect 129[5]
Rule 145, 1988: "You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or >>>>> bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of >>>>> an emergency."
ENDQUOTE
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Act_1835]
No mention of *footway*.
The description is:
"...footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for
the use or accommodation of foot passengers...".
That's what is now referred to (in highway terms) as a footway.
Footpaths and footways were different (in highway terms) in 1835, and now.
The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 Section 129 is clearer:
(5)Subject to section 64 of this Act, a person who, in a footway,
footpath or cycle track, as the case may be drives, rides, leads or
propels a vehicle or horse, or any swine or cattle, commits an offence:
That Act is obviously of much more recent vintage.
However, the 1835 Act is totally clear when it mentions "footpath or
causeway by the side of any road". That is what we now call a footway and could not be mistaken for anything else.
Trust me, there *are* occasional prosecutions for the very selfish offence
of riding a fairy-cycle along (as opposed to across) a footway and the wording of the 1835 Act does not cause a problem for the prosecuting authorities or for the courts.
Interestingly, in the Scottish legislation you quoted, unless a fairy-cycle doesn't count as a vehicle in Scotland, it is an offence to ride one along
a cycle track (WTMB)!
On 27/04/2023 14:50, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2023 02:34 pm, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 23/04/2023 17:41, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2023 05:37 pm, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 23/04/2023 17:24, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2023 05:14 pm, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 23/04/2023 14:39, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2023 05:00 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
Is Mr Arsehole going soft in his old age?
He says:
QUOTE: Of course, there are times when it remains a danger for >>>>>>>>> cyclists to be on the road, say because of potholes or debris, >>>>>>>>> so they have no choice but to go on to the pavement. ENDS
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11998001/Celebrity-lawyer-Mr-Loophole-says-cyclists-display-numberplates.html
If there is nowhere to ride one's fairy-cycle except for the
footway, the fairy-cycle should be left at home.
Dismounting is an alternative.
That's beneath the imaginary dignity of the typical over entitled
fairy-cyclist, though.
I expect they "think" it would make them look like a tit to be
courteous and considerate to pedestrians.
Riding a fairy-cycle on the footway is a criminal offence. It
doesn't matter what *anyone* says about it.
What does the law say about riding on a *footway* ?
In short: "Don't do it. It's an offence".
The Highway Act 1835 (in part, still in force, never repealed):
for England and Wales.
QUOTE:
Section 72:
"If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway
by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or
accommodation of foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive
any horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any
description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or
causeway; or shall tether any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle,
on any highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to
be thereon."
No mention of *footway*.
This clause is referred to by the current Highway Code:
Rule 64: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A >>>>>> sect 129[5]
Rule 145, 1988: "You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement,
footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or >>>>>> in the case of an emergency."
ENDQUOTE
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Act_1835]
No mention of *footway*.
The description is:
"...footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart
for the use or accommodation of foot passengers...".
That's what is now referred to (in highway terms) as a footway.
Footpaths and footways were different (in highway terms) in 1835,
and now.
The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 Section 129 is clearer:
(5)Subject to section 64 of this Act, a person who, in a footway,
footpath or cycle track, as the case may be drives, rides, leads or
propels a vehicle or horse, or any swine or cattle, commits an offence:
That Act is obviously of much more recent vintage.
However, the 1835 Act is totally clear when it mentions "footpath or
causeway by the side of any road". That is what we now call a footway
and could not be mistaken for anything else.
Er, no, we certainly don't call a causeway a footway.
Trust me, there *are* occasional prosecutions for the very selfish
offence of riding a fairy-cycle along (as opposed to across) a footway
and the wording of the 1835 Act does not cause a problem for the
prosecuting authorities or for the courts.
Interestingly, in the Scottish legislation you quoted, unless a
fairy-cycle doesn't count as a vehicle in Scotland, it is an offence
to ride one along a cycle track (WTMB)!
It goes on to allow exceptions, including
"in relation to a pedal cycle which is either not being ridden or is
being ridden on a cycle track"
Is Mr Arsehole going soft in his old age?
He says:
QUOTE: Of course, there are times when it remains a danger for cyclists to be on the road, say because of potholes or debris, so they have no choice but to go on to the pavement. ENDS
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11998001/Celebrity-lawyer-Mr-Loophole-says-cyclists-display-numberplates.html
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 307 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 61:18:26 |
| Calls: | 6,915 |
| Files: | 12,379 |
| Messages: | 5,431,358 |