We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
A cyclist's rant to incompetent road users...
Comments
-
http://www.bobulous.org.uk/articles/road_traffic_accident.html
"Excessive speed was the most common contributory factor in fatal accidents"
Easy fix then... reduce the national speed limit to zero and ban reverse.
Sorted.
Unless you want to go somewhere.0 -
Gloomendoom wrote: »It does, but it also spoils our fun.
A question...
When motor vehicles started using the public highways some 200 years ago, what right did their drivers have to use the road? If it wasn't common law, what was it?
I'm genuinely interested.
Absolutely none, other than the rights given when using footpaths and bridleways (the right to pass and re-pass). Things evolved and the government issued laws to regulate and make profit from the use of motorvehicles. They never did this for pedestrian travel.0 -
Gloomendoom wrote: »A geographical area that just happens to be entirely made up of roads.
He should appeal. After all, he has an 'inalienable' right to use those roads.
.
.
.
.
Its absolutely no different to a restraining order being placed on an individual, stopping him/her from being within a certain distance of another person.
The cyclist concerned has not been prevented from using the roads.
Now do me a favour, try and answer some of the questions I've already asked you. Or !!!!off.0 -
sebdangerfield wrote: »Thought I might jump in here. Expressed my opinion here on this subject previously so wont bother again but just wanted to clear up some glaring issues.
All this talk of inalienable rights is utter nonsense. An inalienable right is a natural right, not a legal one. It can never be a legal right, like to the right to food and air is an inalienable right. A cyclist has a common law right to use the roads. Two very different things. A motorist does not have a common law right. He is allowed by the government to use the roads when certain criteria are met, licence acquired, tax paid etc. A cyclist does not need to obtain anything for that right to be used and it therefore is a common law right. Either way, not really much point in arguing it as both do use the roads so it's irrelevant 'who has more right' albeit would be the cyclist.
Trying to prove a point by googling cases where the cyclist has been banned is impressive and much have taken some time! Ultimately, the case is an asbo, not the removal of the common law right. An asbo could be used to stop anybody doing any anti-social act in a given geographical area. It could have been a man singing too loudly to the annoyance of others being told to stop singing loudly in a certain area. it does not mean he can be stopped singing! An asbo on a bloke who assaulted people over 7 years whilst riding a bicycle does not prove your point. A cyclists ability to ride on a road can not be taken away, it is a right in common law. A motorist's can be taken away or not even granted in the first place.
Hope this helps.
Quoted for making the most sense.0 -
I would just be happy if cyclists would USE the dedicated cycle lanes...
There's no obligation for cyclists to do so - it's perfectly legal for them to use the road instead. Some cycle lanes are so dangerous or pointless due to their length that it makes sense to avoid them; others are as welcome to cyclists as they are to motorists!
As mentioned earlier a lot if not almost all cyclist don't know there is NO CYCLING on a towpath next to a canal
First time I've heard that one! The ones near me have signs with a picture of a pedestrian and cycle and say "shared use - please be considerate of other towpath users" or something similar.Just remembered a neighbour was cycling with his two young daughters on the road nearby when a policeman stopped him and advised him to use the footpath as it was safer, if had have been cycling on the footpath he would have told him he was breaking the law, you can't win.
It may be safest for children under 13 to use the footpath. As they are below the age of legal responsibility, they cannot be penalised for it.
What annoys me, as a cyclist, is dog owners who, despite having no control of their animal, allow them off the leash to chase cyclists, run out in front of them, and deposit huge steaming mounds right in the middle of the path.
It's not cyclists that should be taxed and insured - it's dog owners!0 -
sebdangerfield wrote: »This is really poor post. Firstly, How on earth do you know if a police cyclist is on an emergency? They don't have to tell you! Even the vehicles, which have the lights and sirens the bikes lack often don't use them in order to make a silent approach to a job. You never really know when any police officer is on an emergency.
Secondly, British waterways actively encourage cyclists on the canals. They offer a free pass card to anyone who applies, have 55% of the national cycle network run long their towpaths and are even subsidised by sustrans.
Yes you were right, I honestly thought you couldn't ride on the towpath, I see there is a code of conduct though that should be followed plus you need a free permit.
As for the police cyclists taking the short cut I very much doubt they were on an emergency call, they were were cycling 2 abreast chatting and going very slow, and not going slow to avoid anyone either, if they were on an emergency they didn't want to be the first to get there.0 -
Yes you were right, I honestly thought you couldn't ride on the towpath, I see there is a code of conduct though that should be followed plus you need a free permit.
As for the police cyclists taking the short cut I very much doubt they were on an emergency call, they were were cycling 2 abreast chatting and going very slow, and not going slow to avoid anyone either, if they were on an emergency they didn't want to be the first to get there.
mind has anyone ever been pulled for not having the permit?
i bet 99.9% of folks using the tow paths in Edinburgh dont have one0 -
There's no obligation for cyclists to do so - it's perfectly legal for them to use the road instead. Some cycle lanes are so dangerous or pointless due to their length that it makes sense to avoid them; others are as welcome to cyclists as they are to motorists!
Not to mention idiots who park in cycle lanes.“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an a** of yourself.”
<><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><> Don't forget to like and subscribe \/ \/ \/0 -
Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »Its absolutely no different to a restraining order being placed on an individual, stopping him/her from being within a certain distance of another person.
The cyclist concerned has not been prevented from using the roads.
Yes, I know. I read sebdangerfield's most informative post (^^^^ up there). Further debate seems rather pointless... although I am interested to know when motorists lost their common law right to the road.Now do me a favour, try and answer some of the questions I've already asked you. Or !!!!off.
Don't I have an inalienable right to take the p!ss?
0 -
sebdangerfield wrote: »Absolutely none, other than the rights given when using footpaths and bridleways (the right to pass and re-pass). Things evolved and the government issued laws to regulate and make profit from the use of motorvehicles. They never did this for pedestrian travel.
But, in law, a bicycle is a carriage and not a pedestrian. :huh:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards