Nice People Thread Part 9 - and so it continues

LydiaJ

PasturesNew wrote: »

I know laws have changed over the years, but I've always understood that kids under 14 can cycle on the pavement.... so, if so, did you make her ride on the pavement?

Caveat: I am talking of cycling on the pavement, not tear-4rsing down it like an entitled loon.

I've just looked it up. Apparently it's not legal to cycle on the pavement whatever your age, but since children under 16 can't be issued with a fixed penalty notice, they can't be punished for doing it. In practice, DD cycles on the road most of the time, and on the pavement where the road is particularly narrow/busy.

http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/

PasturesNew wrote: »

Legally, to be a pedestrian, you'd have to pick up and carry your bike

Why? To be a pedestrian you don't have to pick up and carry anything else on wheels that you might happen to be pushing along. A pedestrian is somebody walking along on their feet. I am a pedestrian if I am walking along on my feet while wheeling my bike, I think.

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Having taken an anti-sickness tablet, I've just (cautiously) actually sat down at the table with Isaac and OH and had DINNER.

Admittedly, it was a carefully-chosen dinner with no meat / fish / strong-smelling stuff, but I did actually eat something.

:beer::j:T:D

lostinrates

Well done NDG.

Not eating destroys your appetite, so managing to eat anything will help a little.


Don't read below unless stomach is feeling stoic....






And if you are going to be sick its better to be sick on something.

Yorkie1

vivatifosi wrote: »

A question for our resident legal eagles. Given the seriousness of keeping three people as slaves for 30 years, one of whom was a child, why have those arrested for this been bailed?

I understand that being arrested is not the same as being charged, but this is so grave a case, and the couple are allegedly foreign, so surely a flight risk... I know if I was facing a lengthy jail sentence I would be plotting my escape from the clutches of the law asap. Unless I was innocent of course.

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

You can't remand someone in custody unless and until they are charged. Police bail (which is what appears to have happened in this case) isn't the same thing as bail from a court.

It sounds as though it will be a very long enquiry in order to get full details of what has happened over the last 3 decades from the victims. They are said to be extremely traumatised and therefore the police have to have first regard to their welfare.

There's also thousands of documents apparently to go through.

As NDG says, you can only lock someone up once they have been charged. It is possible to charge someone on an interim basis if certain strict criteria are met, but I don't think they are met here.

The police will only have a maximum overall amount of time to keep the arrested people in custody before finally charging or releasing - and that's cumulative - so given that there's no immediate prospect of charge, they will want to release them at this stage sooner rather than later in order to retain maximum custody time for later questioning stages.

It sounds as though the passports have been confiscated to minimise the flight risk.

Generali wrote: »

It's why you should rarely (if ever) sit at a red light in front of a lorry or a bus. Much better to jump the light than be crushed.

I'd pay $98 rather than die. That's the fine for a bike jumping a red light in NSW.

I sit behind lorries or long vehicles rather than go down the side of them, as I know that they can swing into my path despite the cycle lane. There's one particularly tight left hand corner at some pedestrian traffic lights, where buses have to swing out and then cut straight across the apex of the corner. Even cars have to go really close to the pavement on the left. Unless you know for sure that you can get down the side of the traffic while the lights are still red, it's just not worth it.

I'd rather get there slowly than not at all.

My boss was in London a couple of weeks ago. He's a very experienced cyclist and motorcyclist. He often gets a Boris Bike from his London train terminus to our HQ office. He braked what seems to be too hard at a pedestrian crossing, fell off somehow, and bounced off a taxi en route to falling to the ground. He went to the local A&E where, luckily the only damage was a black eye where his glasses frames had hit his face. But in the light of the recent stats you do just shudder to think 'what if' ....

PasturesNew

LydiaJ wrote: »

Why? To be a pedestrian you don't have to pick up and carry anything else on wheels that you might happen to be pushing along. A pedestrian is somebody walking along on their feet. I am a pedestrian if I am walking along on my feet while wheeling my bike, I think.

That's the trouble with us old people .... laws change and precedents are set since we "learnt" our rules.

There was a court case in 1980 that decided that walking a bicycle (not riding it) across a pedestrian crossing means they are a foot passenger. So it is OK. That gives me less to have to do then. I've been carrying mine over for years!

I learnt to ride a bike aged 8, so a lot of what I "know" is from age 8-18

PasturesNew

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Admittedly, it was a carefully-chosen dinner with no meat / fish / strong-smelling stuff, but I did actually eat something.

Just a slice of bread then?

That just reminded me - donkeys' years ago I used to eat/like baby rusks! Dry, eaten like biscuits. No idea where I could have got those from - I must have been about 8 or so, no babies in my family at that stage.

PasturesNew

bugslet wrote: »

Yep PN, definitely a dog!

I probably need to get a bigger/better screen

lostinrates

PasturesNew wrote: »

That's the trouble with us old people .... laws change and precedents are set since we "learnt" our rules.

There was a court case in 1980 that decided that walking a bicycle (not riding it) across a pedestrian crossing means they are a foot passenger. So it is OK. That gives me less to have to do then. I've been carrying mine over for years!

I learnt to ride a bike aged 8, so a lot of what I "know" is from age 8-18

There are times to be safe I have had to lead ponies or horses on verges or pavements. I couldn't have carried them, but I was definitely a pied!



That's the thing with rules, some are non sensical. When I was a young person I lived near an a road with pavements either side that were rarely used. Apart from by the occasional horse rider for reasons of keeping traffic going or not getting hit. I prefer not to ride on a pavement but I have done so, including that one. And I will actively choose to ride on verges I know or that are mown sometimes. (Even though its not strictly correct) because its fairer on other road users really.

PasturesNew

lostinrates wrote: »

There are times to be safe I have had to lead ponies or horses on verges or pavements. I couldn't have carried them, but I was definitely a pied!

Things on pavements are part of Section 72 of the 1835 Highway Act that has never been rewritten.

Spirit_2

GDB2222 wrote: »

Just thinking laterally for a moment, maybe there's an opening for buses equipped with gym equipment?

Or for buses like the Flintstones had. Holes in the floor, holding up the body and powered by the running of the passengers.

PasturesNew

Spirit wrote: »

Or for buses like the Flintstones had. Holes in the floor, holding up the body and powered by the running of the passengers.

Do you remember the Romper Room cars??
http://www.findanauction.com/images/njauction/850592276.jpg

I wanted one of those - and the hobbyhorses.

Made do with a regular cardboard box and a broom.