F%&*&$g CYCLISTS!!! ARRGGGHHH!!!

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

A pointless and poorly leading question TBH. 1/10.

Whereas your implication that law breaking makes you 'wise' but law abiding is 'foolish' is the heights of reasoned argument? I know you like a good troll, but seriously...

Originally Posted by Bedhead

In my eyes, yes, it's a stupid and potentially dangerous one sided law that's so far wide of the mark it's laughable, there are already laws that cover riding like a muppet on the pavement without a blanket ban.

Actually, it has never been legal to cycle on a footway. There is no new law about it; the 'blanket ban' has been in place for 50+ years.

Originally Posted by Bedhead

Serious question, have you ever broken the law, including speed limits?

Simple yes or no.

Yes. Both knowingly and unknowingly (and we all know ignorance is no defence). What I don't do is say that I'm doing it because it is a stupid law and that I know better.

want me to rub him out / ! ??

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by simesb

Whereas your implication that law breaking makes you 'wise' but law abiding is 'foolish' is the heights of reasoned argument? I know you like a good troll, but seriously...

Yes, seriously. Not trolling.

The law states, don't cycle on a footpath.

I take that to mean don't cycle full tilt down a footpath with pedestrians on it. Or even when there are entryways from which pedestrians may emerge.

But, to cycle down an empty footpath without hidden hazards, or to cycle down one at a speed which allows you to stop in time for those hazards if they develop (sorry to sound like DSA!)... is fine, when "safe and necessary".

You could even call it common sense. You're obeying the spirit of the law if not the letter and harming noone.
I would call that being "law abiding", but consider blind obedience completely foolish.


And I think even you could have inferred that from me saying the law is for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.
Without me going into every plausible scenario in a big rule book, which only an idiot would require, or think necessary, just apply common sense. Bloke in OP obviously got it a bit wrong, in those cases just call it an unfortunate accident, apologise and get on with your life.

Originally Posted by simesb

Whereas your implication that law breaking makes you 'wise' but law abiding is 'foolish' is the heights of reasoned argument? I know you like a good troll, but seriously...



Actually, it has never been legal to cycle on a footway. There is no new law about it; the 'blanket ban' has been in place for 50+ years.



Yes. Both knowingly and unknowingly (and we all know ignorance is no defence). What I don't do is say that I'm doing it because it is a stupid law and that I know better.

Where did I say it was a new law? There are a number of laws concerning cycling on the pavement that would cover accidents like the OP's. I never claimed any of them were new?

In admitting you break the speed limit knowingly, you ARE saying you are doing it because you know better, or else you wouldn't do it. You can't pick and choose what laws to adhere too when it suits you if you want to keep the moral high ground.

If everyone adhered to every law, all of the time it'd be ridiculous.

Put it this way, you get knocked off your bike, you're lying in the road, yer femur poking out through your skin, claret everywhere, now do you expect the ambulance to trundle along to you at 30mph?

[yorkie_chris]

I don't think emergency vehicles are actually breaking the law when going faster than the speed limit.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

I take that to mean don't cycle full tilt down a footpath with pedestrians on it. Or even when there are entryways from which pedestrians may emerge.

But, to cycle down an empty footpath without hidden hazards, or to cycle down one at a speed which allows you to stop in time for those hazards if they develop (sorry to sound like DSA!)... is fine, when "safe and necessary".

You could even call it common sense. You're obeying the spirit of the law if not the letter and harming noone.
I would call that being "law abiding", but consider blind obedience completely foolish.


Bloke in OP obviously got it a bit wrong, in those cases just call it an unfortunate accident, apologise and get on with your life.

So by extension, I am foolish to stop at pedestrian crossings (the spirit of which is to allow pedestrians to cross a road safely) if the lights are red but no pedestrians are present? If I think it is safe and necessary then I can just proceed at a speed that is safe, and if no-one is hurt then no laws have really been broken. On the other hand, if somebody ran out and I got it a bit wrong, then I can call it an unfortunate accident, apologise and get on with my life. Or like riding a scooter slowly down a footpath, is that somehow different?

Laws should be about protecting the individual from the risk of injury by a 3rd party. Footpaths should be safe for pedestrians without danger of being run over by anything. I'm glad that your superior hazard awareness skills replace the necessity for laws to do this, although I'll admit to being concerned that not all drivers/riders/cyclists may be so blessed.

Originally Posted by simesb

So by extension, I am foolish to stop at pedestrian crossings (the spirit of which is to allow pedestrians to cross a road safely) if the lights are red but no pedestrians are present? If I think it is safe and necessary then I can just proceed at a speed that is safe, and if no-one is hurt then no laws have really been broken. On the other hand, if somebody ran out and I got it a bit wrong, then I can call it an unfortunate accident, apologise and get on with my life. Or like riding a scooter slowly down a footpath, is that somehow different?

Laws should be about protecting the individual from the risk of injury by a 3rd party. Footpaths should be safe for pedestrians without danger of being run over by anything. I'm glad that your superior hazard awareness skills replace the necessity for laws to do this, although I'll admit to being concerned that not all drivers/riders/cyclists may be so blessed.

And by the same token, I should put myself at the mercy of drivers who are jostling for position where there's an empty footpath? Do you stop at Zebra crossings too, just in case someone 100yds down the road wants to cross.

Most pedestrian crossings are at junctions, you couldn't go through without your route being blocked by more traffic, pedestrian crossings where you could go through are pedestrian activated with a button, unless they're broke they need someone to activete them, someone who will be crossing. If you came across one stuck at red, would you turn round or wait for an engineer to come out and fix it? Would you?

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

I don't think emergency vehicles are actually breaking the law when going faster than the speed limit.

I know that Paramedic bikes and fast response cars that can't carry a patient are not classed as ambulances and are subject to the speed imit.

Linconshire police are doing a bloke transporting a liver for speeding at the minute, Cambs. cops threw it out but Linconshire are sticking to the letter of the law.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by simesb

So by extension, I am foolish to stop at pedestrian crossings (the spirit of which is to allow pedestrians to cross a road safely) if the lights are red but no pedestrians are present? If I think it is safe and necessary then I can just proceed at a speed that is safe, and if no-one is hurt then no laws have really been broken. On the other hand, if somebody ran out and I got it a bit wrong, then I can call it an unfortunate accident, apologise and get on with my life. Or like riding a scooter slowly down a footpath, is that somehow different?

Laws should be about protecting the individual from the risk of injury by a 3rd party. Footpaths should be safe for pedestrians without danger of being run over by anything. I'm glad that your superior hazard awareness skills replace the necessity for laws to do this, although I'll admit to being concerned that not all drivers/riders/cyclists may be so blessed.

"Being run over", you can't really get "run over" by a bicycle doing barely the pace of a fast walk. Not like driving a monster truck through a playground is it?
Pedestrians share towpaths and bridleways with bicycles all the time and the world doesn't end...

Red light example, different again. There are red lights around here where you would be sat until morning if you stopped at them on your bike, because the sensors don't pick up bikes. You sit there all night?

Safe and necessary? Well it's going to stop you moving for 15 seconds, so not really necessary to go through it. If you do go through it, stop at the line, check carefully for traffic and then go without hesitation.

What the hell... anyway, you're trying to trip up common sense with extreme examples. It doesn't work.


The law is an ass, sticking absolutely to the letter of it is foolish, and will leave you sat for 6 hours at some red lights when they're broken. Which I am sure even you can admit, is a f***ing mugs game.

Originally Posted by Bedhead

I know that Paramedic bikes and fast response cars that can't carry a patient are not classed as ambulances and are subject to the speed imit.

No they are exempt why the do you think they have blue lights and sirens? I would suggest its not just to look kool