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

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

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

I didn't think it was an extreme example; after all I wasn't the one comparing it to driving a monster truck through a childs playground.

I am just interested to understand why some people seem to feel that when presented with two parts of the highway code intended to protect pedestrians, they can flaunt one on their own private risk assessment, but not the other.

As for "safe and necessary", it is never 'necessary' to ride on a footway. After all, there is nothing to stop you getting off and pushing. Or is that just too inconvenient?

[yorkie_chris]

That was a comparison, not an example. And meant to be a slightly humourous one at that.

You are the one saying you can flaunt one bit and not the other.


riding on a footway at walking pace is no more dangerous than walking.

[SoulKiss]

Well I am not going to get into the ins and outs of the what to ignore and not to ignore on the law books, just going to say that "The law is an ass" is NEVER going to stand up in a court of law.

The BIG difference is that when most motorcyclists get caught out, they take it on the chin, put their hands up to it and take the consequences.

Cyclists in my experience get VERY defensive when called out on it - they are not doing any harm etc etc - tell that to the pensioner they hit and cause them to break a hip.

For the cyclists justifying that its ok to go on the pavement for safety reasons - no its not - if that road is too dangerous to cycle on then pick another route. The road network is designed for motorised vehicles that are not reduced to 5mph by a hill.

If you need to use the pavement, get off the bike and push it.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

You are the one saying you can flaunt one bit and not the other.

No, all I've said is that cyclist shouldn't ride on the footway and that it is illegal. I don't advocate breaking laws (but that doesn't mean I don't break any)

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

riding on a footway at walking pace is no more dangerous than walking.

Does that hold for horses too, or just push bikes?

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by simesb

Does that hold for horses too, or just push bikes?

I dunno, you seem to know more about cycling than me, has your bicycle ever kicked anyone in the face for no reason?

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

I dunno, you seem to know more about cycling than me.

I never professed any such thing, I just dare to disagree with you.

I am interested in the evidence for the assertion that riding on the footpath at walking speed is no more dangerous than walking. I was wondering, also, why the cycling campaign groups have missed this gem and aren't lobbying the powers that be to allow it.

Or maybe it's because they'd all speed on the footpath?

Originally Posted by metalmonkey

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

Well, maybe you should phone Linconshire Police and give them the benefit of your knowledge?

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

For the cyclists justifying that its ok to go on the pavement for safety reasons - no its not - if that road is too dangerous to cycle on then pick another route. The road network is designed for motorised vehicles that are not reduced to 5mph by a hill.

Err, with the exception of M-way and dual carriageways, the vast majority of roads were actually laid out before the advent of the motor vehicle.

[widepants]

Originally Posted by metalmonkey

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

Originally Posted by Bedhead

Well, maybe you should phone Linconshire Police and give them the benefit of your knowledge?

Well Im sure Mr Monkey is one of our finest ,so I hope he knows without having to ask

Originally Posted by widepants

Well Im sure Mr Monkey is one of our finest ,so I hope he knows without having to ask

Legal definition of an ambulance

"an ambulance, being a vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) which is constructed or adapted for the purposes of conveying sick, injured or disabled persons and which is used for such purposes. "

Road Safety Bill 2004

Road Safety Bill

24

18

Exemptions from speed limits

(1)

Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (exemption of fire,
ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits) is to be renumbered as
subsection (1) of that section.

(2)

In that subsection, after “when” insert “(a)” and for “if” substitute—
5

“(b)

it is being used for other prescribed purposes in such
circumstances as may be prescribed, or

(c)

it is being used for training persons to drive vehicles for use for
any of those purposes,
if”.