Cycling on pavements...

grayo59

Thank you Spen, very helpful.

spen666

grayo59 wrote:

Thank you Spen, very helpful.

Just a thought- I was thinking of an adult cyclist when I wrote my last post.

A young child may be more at risk of an accident

jc4lab

Just returned from Japan...in the city everyone avoids the main roads cycles on the pavement irrepective of the rules and no one bothers..It is however done with consideration and care...Just think the brit mentality doesnt lend itself to this..we live in a age of rage and confrontation..The ragewar between car and cyclist would only extend to the pavement so here its a no no....

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

what bothers me is people choosing what laws they want to obey

This seems to be the general story though - veryone from royalty at the top, right down through the armed forces, the police, our politicians, most road-users, big businesses, banks....etc. all think that they can break laws they don;t like - but of course - noone else can.

Maybe we're all anarchists deep inside.

ohlala!

Some percentage of the National Cycle Network are on pavements. In my opinion as long as you're considerate no one would mind. Same as if you were riding on the road.

redvee

Walking on the pavement on saturday and knew there was a cyclist 6 foot behind me on the road. Next thing I hear is the bell because I'm blocking the pavement and she can't get passed. I turn around and tell her that the roads are empty and quiet and the pavements are for pedestrians, though I nearly did say bikes :oops: , and not bikes. She drops back onto the road and rides off asking why I had the attitude.

downfader

Porgy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

what bothers me is people choosing what laws they want to obey

This seems to be the general story though - veryone from royalty at the top, right down through the armed forces, the police, our politicians, most road-users, big businesses, banks....etc. all think that they can break laws they don;t like - but of course - noone else can.

Maybe we're all anarchists deep inside.

Human beings have never been good at rules. If you go back to our neolithic roots I'm sure we were designed to problem solve day to day and take what is best for us individually as a result.

bianchi777

If I come to a roundabout or a dangerous section of road then I usually pull in before it, dismount and walk on the pavement until I'm past the dangerous/undesirable part of the road, then when it is clear behind I rejoin the road. If I have to go on the pavement I always make a point of getting off my bike and walking.

snailracer

[Rant]

The majority of cyclists ride on the pavement at some time. I might ask whether laws that criminalize the majority and are arbitrarily enforced would be considered, to use the established legal phrase, "an ass".

Every time a car/lorry/bus buzzes a cyclist, the law is broken. Presumably, the remedy in law is to phone the police each and every time this happens, however the cyclist would then be breaking some other law. The fact remains that the law is a very crude and impractical device, which is why lawyers, judges, home secretaries, etc. encourage discretion, out-of-court settlements and refer to semi-legal "codes" (such as the Highway Code) which allow plenty of room for fudging liability.

Cycling on the pavement is clearly breaking the law, even for a 5-year-old on training wheels. However, the consequences of this illegality are less severe, for the cyclist, than those of being run over by a car/bus/lorry, so they do it anyway and tough luck on those peds unlucky enough to get hit. Apparently, putting up a shared ped/cycle lane sign magically makes pavement cycling legal and safe for all, so perhaps the authorities should just put them up everywhere. In any case, the ped is still much more likely to get hit by a car/bus/lorry crossing the road where the pavement is interrupted.

As for getting off and walking/taking another route (both of which I do some of the time) that is about as valid as telling motorists to get out of their cars and walk, or asking them to take the long/slow way round in order to avoid cyclists on their chosen route. Or asking them to take the bus.

As for the "losing motorists' respect" issue, would someone please PM me when this mythical golden age of mutual respect between road users arrives and the roads are finally safe.

The pavement cyclist is just passing on a small percentage of the danger, not creating it -
that's what motor vehicles do. I refuse to feel guilty for the small amount of pavement cycling I sometimes have to resort to.

[/Rant]

spen666

snailracer wrote:

[Rant]

The majority of cyclists ride on the pavement at some time.

speak for yourself.

I for one do NOT ride on the pavement

I might ask whether laws that criminalize the majority and are arbitrarily enforced would be considered, to use the established legal phrase, "an ass".

Every time a car/lorry/bus buzzes a cyclist, the law is broken. Presumably, the remedy in law is to phone the police each and every time this happens, however the cyclist would then be breaking some other law.

and what law would that be?

The fact remains that the law is a very crude and impractical device, which is why lawyers, judges, home secretaries, etc. encourage discretion, out-of-court settlements and refer to semi-legal "codes" (such as the Highway Code) which allow plenty of room for fudging liability.

Cycling on the pavement is clearly breaking the law, even for a 5-year-old on training wheels. However, the consequences of this illegality are less severe, for the cyclist, than those of being run over by a car/bus/lorry, so they do it anyway and tough luck on those peds unlucky enough to get hit. Apparently, putting up a shared ped/cycle lane sign magically makes pavement cycling legal and safe for all, so perhaps the authorities should just put them up everywhere. In any case, the ped is still much more likely to get hit by a car/bus/lorry crossing the road where the pavement is interrupted.

As for getting off and walking/taking another route (both of which I do some of the time) that is about as valid as telling motorists to get out of their cars and walk, or asking them to take the long/slow way round in order to avoid cyclists on their chosen route. Or asking them to take the bus.

As for the "losing motorists' respect" issue, would someone please PM me when this mythical golden age of mutual respect between road users arrives and the roads are finally safe.

The pavement cyclist is just passing on a small percentage of the danger, not creating it -

No, the pavement cyclist is CREATING danger for the pedestrian.

He may at the same time be reducing his own danger from motor cars, but is creating a danger still for pedestrians that does not exisat for the pedestrian if the cyclist was not there

that's what motor vehicles do. I refuse to feel guilty for the small amount of pavement cycling I sometimes have to resort to.

that would be for the law breaking you CHOOSE to commit.

[/Rant]

Your rant seems to forget the difference between criminal law and civil law

The two are very different things

verloren

Regarding being buzzed by cars, that law would be based on section 212 of the highway code, which says "When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room". And from the Introduction:

"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence...

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability."

The same reasoning applies to cycling on the pavement, of course.

robertbeal

Massimo wrote:

Real men don't eat quiche or ride on the pavement...

Woah. Quiche is awesome.

Quiche and beans on a plate. Students dinner.

spen666

verloren wrote:

Regarding being buzzed by cars, that law would be based on section 212 of the highway code, which says "When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room". And from the Introduction:

"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence...

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability."

The same reasoning applies to cycling on the pavement, of course.

you appear to be possibly mis-interpreting the status of the highway Code. The law is not based on the HC. The HC is based on the law. The quote you provide is not worded very well, but what do you expect from civil servants....

The

The use of the HC to establish liability is in relation to civil proceedings as liability is a civil term in law not a criminal term

snailracer

spen666 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

[Rant]

The majority of cyclists ride on the pavement at some time.

speak for yourself.

I for one do NOT ride on the pavement

See poll results.

spen666 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

I might ask whether laws that criminalize the majority and are arbitrarily enforced would be considered, to use the established legal phrase, "an ass".

Every time a car/lorry/bus buzzes a cyclist, the law is broken. Presumably, the remedy in law is to phone the police each and every time this happens, however the cyclist would then be breaking some other law.

and what law would that be?

On your next commute, phone the police each and every time a motorist buzzes you, and let us know.

spen666 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

The fact remains that the law is a very crude and impractical device, which is why lawyers, judges, home secretaries, etc. encourage discretion, out-of-court settlements and refer to semi-legal "codes" (such as the Highway Code) which allow plenty of room for fudging liability.

Cycling on the pavement is clearly breaking the law, even for a 5-year-old on training wheels. However, the consequences of this illegality are less severe, for the cyclist, than those of being run over by a car/bus/lorry, so they do it anyway and tough luck on those peds unlucky enough to get hit. Apparently, putting up a shared ped/cycle lane sign magically makes pavement cycling legal and safe for all, so perhaps the authorities should just put them up everywhere. In any case, the ped is still much more likely to get hit by a car/bus/lorry crossing the road where the pavement is interrupted.

As for getting off and walking/taking another route (both of which I do some of the time) that is about as valid as telling motorists to get out of their cars and walk, or asking them to take the long/slow way round in order to avoid cyclists on their chosen route. Or asking them to take the bus.

As for the "losing motorists' respect" issue, would someone please PM me when this mythical golden age of mutual respect between road users arrives and the roads are finally safe.

The pavement cyclist is just passing on a small percentage of the danger, not creating it -

No, the pavement cyclist is CREATING danger for the pedestrian.

He may at the same time be reducing his own danger from motor cars, but is creating a danger still for pedestrians that does not exisat for the pedestrian if the cyclist was not there

The chain of cause and effect here is obvious, surely?

spen666 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

that's what motor vehicles do. I refuse to feel guilty for the small amount of pavement cycling I sometimes have to resort to.

that would be for the law breaking you CHOOSE to commit.

YES.

spen666 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

[/Rant]

Your rant seems to forget the difference between criminal law and civil law

The two are very different things

So which one am I allowed to break?

Pross

Quote:
Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 provides an offence of riding or driving on the footpath.

It states:
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, cattle or carriage of any description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway or tether any horse, ass, mule, swine or cattle on any highway so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon.

Is the 1835 Act still current? I've only ever used the 1980 version.

Cycling on the footway is a definite no from me, I just can't see the benefit in the hassle of dodging pedestrians and street furniture. It could be as I don't ride on busy city streets but to my mind the safest way to cycle is to be positive and make your intentions clear to other road users in plenty of time. The way some people ride it's no wonder cyclists get killed on the roads although I know that motorists are just as bad.

Porgy

Pross wrote:

The way some people ride it's no wonder cyclists get killed on the roads

Ah - so good cyclists never get killed on the road. Phew - that's good news, I can stop worrying now.

snailracer

Pross wrote:

Quote:
Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 provides an offence of riding or driving on the footpath.

It states:
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, cattle or carriage of any description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway or tether any horse, ass, mule, swine or cattle on any highway so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon.

Is the 1835 Act still current? I've only ever used the 1980 version.

Cycling on the footway is a definite no from me, I just can't see the benefit in the hassle of dodging pedestrians and street furniture. It could be as I don't ride on busy city streets but to my mind the safest way to cycle is to be positive and make your intentions clear to other road users in plenty of time. The way some people ride it's no wonder cyclists get killed on the roads although I know that motorists are just as bad.

I respect your choice. However, out in the sticks there are neither pedestrians nor street furniture on the pavements, but still lots of speeding cars that think they are in a rally race. In this environment I think a reasonable person would cycle on the pavement.

snailracer

Pross wrote:

Quote:
Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 provides an offence of riding or driving on the footpath.

It states:
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, cattle or carriage of any description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway or tether any horse, ass, mule, swine or cattle on any highway so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon.

Is the 1835 Act still current? I've only ever used the 1980 version.

Cycling on the footway is a definite no from me, I just can't see the benefit in the hassle of dodging pedestrians and street furniture. It could be as I don't ride on busy city streets but to my mind the safest way to cycle is to be positive and make your intentions clear to other road users in plenty of time. The way some people ride it's no wonder cyclists get killed on the roads although I know that motorists are just as bad.

Rather usefully, Pross' quote highlights the fact that there is no blanket ban on cycling on footpaths that DO NOT run next to a highway. It would be legal to cycle on these footpaths, unless there was a local prohibition. Now, why this should make any difference is not something I understand, probably because there's nothing to understand - the law is simply inconsistent in it's treatment of paths.

bigflangesmallsprocket

Porgy, pross never said that only good cyclists get killed, but some do bring it on themselves. I live near a skate/bmx park in Ipswich that's on a particularly busy junction. It's not unusual to see kids (and not always just kids) jumping on and off the pavement without checking for vehicles. I'm guessing their parents have told them nothing about road-sense or they've not listened to their parents...imagine driving along and suddenly a bike appears directly in front of you, ridden by some adrenalin pumped kid still excited from learning some new tricks, and possibly showing off in front of his mates.

Possibly the worst example I've seen of cycling ignorance was actually an adult leading his young children along a busy road. He decided to turn right into a side street...didn't bother checking behind for traffic, didn't check where his kids were, didn't signal, simply swerved into the middle of the road and turned, and his kids followed in the same fashion. Imagine the headlines there if the cyclist had led his kids in front of a vehicle, and possibly the howls on forums like this, with probably automatic blame of the motorist for 'murder' etc.

I know there are some right twonks of drivers out there that are dangerous to cyclists, but there are plenty of dangerous cyclists out there too. There's actually no guarantee of safety on the road for a cyclist, but you can make a big difference by (as mentioned) being visibly positive; making big obvious movements; planning ahead and making your intentions plain ahead of time; making eye contact with motorists; claiming your road-space but showing respect to the motorist who's space you're pinching..this to show you're being purposeful but actually considering the driver and not being merely selfish or confrontational. With confidence riding on busy town roads can actually be an enjoyable challenge.

snailracer

bigflangesmallsprocket wrote:

Porgy, pross never said that only good cyclists get killed, but some do bring it on themselves. I live near a skate/bmx park in Ipswich that's on a particularly busy junction. It's not unusual to see kids (and not always just kids) jumping on and off the pavement without checking for vehicles. I'm guessing their parents have told them nothing about road-sense or they've not listened to their parents...imagine driving along and suddenly a bike appears directly in front of you, ridden by some adrenalin pumped kid still excited from learning some new tricks, and possibly showing off in front of his mates.

Possibly the worst example I've seen of cycling ignorance was actually an adult leading his young children along a busy road. He decided to turn right into a side street...didn't bother checking behind for traffic, didn't check where his kids were, didn't signal, simply swerved into the middle of the road and turned, and his kids followed in the same fashion. Imagine the headlines there if the cyclist had led his kids in front of a vehicle, and possibly the howls on forums like this, with probably automatic blame of the motorist for 'murder' etc.

I know there are some right twonks of drivers out there that are dangerous to cyclists, but there are plenty of dangerous cyclists out there too. There's actually no guarantee of safety on the road for a cyclist, but you can make a big difference by (as mentioned) being visibly positive; making big obvious movements; planning ahead and making your intentions plain ahead of time; making eye contact with motorists; claiming your road-space but showing respect to the motorist who's space you're pinching..this to show you're being purposeful but actually considering the driver and not being merely selfish or confrontational. With confidence riding on busy town roads can actually be an enjoyable challenge.

The onus is on motorists to watch out for cyclists. This is implicit in the law, since it is legal for cyclists to ride on public roads with no training/licensing/minimum age limit, but not motorists. There should not be a presumption of equal competence. You can not expect an untrained (and often inexperienced) cyclist to ride safely - it would be absurd to think they have a deathwish, they are simply riding in accordance with their competence (ie almost none).

In certain countries, whenever a motorist is in collision with a cyclist, the law presumes that the motorist is at fault unless they can prove otherwise. In other words, the legal system emphasizes that the onus is on trained motorists to watch out for untrained cyclists. What actually needs addressing is why we in the UK seem unaware of this simple, common-sense principle.

I don't see many "reckless" BMX-riding schoolkids involved in accidents, tbh. Perhaps it is because they are so obviously incompetent that motorists give them a wide berth.

As for the not looking behind before turning:
(a) the responsibility lies with the overtaking vehicle to ensure it is safe to overtake
(b) overtaking should not be done at a junction
(c) if cycling down the middle of the lane all the time (ie not sharing) prevents cr@p overtaking, then perhaps all cyclists should practice this, all the time

PS I do look behind me before turning right, but I know I shouldn't have to.

Al33

spen666 wrote:

snailracer wrote:

[Rant]

The majority of cyclists ride on the pavement at some time.

speak for yourself.

I for one do NOT ride on the pavement

I might ask whether laws that criminalize the majority and are arbitrarily enforced would be considered, to use the established legal phrase, "an ass".

Every time a car/lorry/bus buzzes a cyclist, the law is broken. Presumably, the remedy in law is to phone the police each and every time this happens, however the cyclist would then be breaking some other law.

and what law would that be?

The fact remains that the law is a very crude and impractical device, which is why lawyers, judges, home secretaries, etc. encourage discretion, out-of-court settlements and refer to semi-legal "codes" (such as the Highway Code) which allow plenty of room for fudging liability.

Cycling on the pavement is clearly breaking the law, even for a 5-year-old on training wheels. However, the consequences of this illegality are less severe, for the cyclist, than those of being run over by a car/bus/lorry, so they do it anyway and tough luck on those peds unlucky enough to get hit. Apparently, putting up a shared ped/cycle lane sign magically makes pavement cycling legal and safe for all, so perhaps the authorities should just put them up everywhere. In any case, the ped is still much more likely to get hit by a car/bus/lorry crossing the road where the pavement is interrupted.

As for getting off and walking/taking another route (both of which I do some of the time) that is about as valid as telling motorists to get out of their cars and walk, or asking them to take the long/slow way round in order to avoid cyclists on their chosen route. Or asking them to take the bus.

As for the "losing motorists' respect" issue, would someone please PM me when this mythical golden age of mutual respect between road users arrives and the roads are finally safe.

The pavement cyclist is just passing on a small percentage of the danger, not creating it -

No, the pavement cyclist is CREATING danger for the pedestrian.

He may at the same time be reducing his own danger from motor cars, but is creating a danger still for pedestrians that does not exisat for the pedestrian if the cyclist was not there

that's what motor vehicles do. I refuse to feel guilty for the small amount of pavement cycling I sometimes have to resort to.

that would be for the law breaking you CHOOSE to commit.

[/Rant]

Your rant seems to forget the difference between criminal law and civil law

The two are very different things

BBC News Online - July 30, 1999

A new rule coming into force on 1 August will enable police to issue a £20 fixed penalty, like a parking fine, to anyone caught cycling on any area reserved for pedestrians.

In a letter to cycling MP Ben Bradshaw Home Office Minister Paul Boateng wrote "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users."
.

1footedninja

Going around a left-turn corner the other day in a designated cycle lane at a crossroads with lights , the lights on green , I had no choice but to go on to the pavement, the driver of the car clearly knew I was there but still chose to cut the corner sharply, coming into me from my right hand side, thus if I had not gone onto the pavement then I would have crashed into his car or ended up being pushed into the curb possibly causing me injury that way also. Luckily nobody on the pavement as I went onto it. I would have shouted loudly if there was and loudly shouted my situation to all to hear thus stating why I had to go onto the pavement. Too many f**kwits in cars about to not cut corners when you have too and not ride defensively ie not pushed into the gutter where the cars would like you to be.

So I say, Do what you have to do to preserve your life, as a bikerider, knowing full well that you get the shi**y end of the stick if you was to crash / have a collision with a car.

Accept the responsibility of your actions, knowing full well that the driver of the vehicle trying to maim / kill you probably isnt accepting their responsibility.

And try to preserve the life of others around you, if you can, whilst doing the right thing at that moment in time.

xRichx

spen666 wrote:

I disagree. I don't want to have to worry about bikes when I am walking on the pavement. Average walking pace is circa 3-4 miles per hour or less. Are you really suggesting people are riding bikes that slowly? I think you are having a giraffe

Going by this, you must also be suggesting that anyone jogging or running should also be on the road yes?

I 98% of the time will be riding on the road, and 2% of the time will be on cycle paths. I see no harm in diving up onto a pavement if someone is feeling 'scared' by traffic, as long as they are being VERY considerate of any pedestrians around and get back on the road asap.

I've been a pedestrian in collision with a guy on a MTB a few years back... it was around the centre of bristol and he rode towards me so close that his handle bars hit my arm/waist area and he went flying into a heap on the ground... Got up then started shouting at me as if it was my fault. I calmly informed him that there was an empty road next to us and that he should be riding in that. I pulled his bike up and gave it back to him just after I placed it in the gutter at the side of the road.

1footedninja

oh just remembered!

t'other day I had to go over a local 'over the railway' bridge and to do that I had to firstly pull into the curb and then walk onto pavement / tarmac with my bike picked up and placed in most comfortable position to traverse and climb up quite steep steps with it, as I was going up, possibly roughly about five or six steps upwards on a roughly about thirty steps bridge another guy started coming down, and there isn't much room as you pass each other, even without a bike, anyway I misjudged a bit, as we passed somewhere around the fifteen or twenty step mark, lightly tapping the guy with my back wheel as I passed him, around his forearm area, I apologised there and then to him, but probably pi**ed him off a bit, yunno what the british seething bubbling under the surface resentment can be like! , and he probably crossed over to the 'fookin bikeriders shouldn't be going over railway bridges or being on pavements...let alone on the bloody roads, pay no road tax, why don't they drive, red light jumpers etc etc hooligans the lot of them... camp. you just can't win somedays even when you really really try to do the right thing..... nah mean...like. or not.

sicknote

Pross

I agree with you able some cyclists almost having a death wish as I was driving to a friends house down a side road and got to a junction, lucky I was not going any faster than I was because a school boy rode out from the side road without looking or stopping at the line.

Two young guys were on the pavement to my left and was this, to which they both shook they heads as I did the same.

He would have gone under the car if it was anyone else come down that road from what I have seen and could not have seen him before his was in front of me plus people riding around with no lights and dark clothing.

Being on the road you have to try and help yourself as much as you can.

By the way I have also had someone turn right in front of me without looking, across a crossing and again he was luck that I had given him some room but also the some it was closer than I would have liked.

beverick

Al33 wrote:

.....



BBC News Online - July 30, 1999

A new rule coming into force on 1 August will enable police to issue a £20 fixed penalty, like a parking fine, to anyone caught cycling on any area reserved for pedestrians.

In a letter to cycling MP Ben Bradshaw Home Office Minister Paul Boateng wrote "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users."
.

The home office guidelines, inlcudes the line is that a ticket "..should only be issued where the cyclist caused a direct danger or obstruction to a pedestrian."

colintrav

Robspedding wrote:

Should cyclists be allowed to ride on pavements. Richard Bacon will be discussing this next Tuesday on Radio Five Live, you can call in if you like. Anyway, do you ever hit the pavement?

Your Question is like how do you teach your kid to play golf when it's illegal to hit golf balls in the local park even though the person can't afford to join a course never mind fee's for the Course pro to give lessons ,,,


And if the parents don't drive or even afford a set of clubs and gear .. .period


And like how do you teach your kid to ride a bike .. when you have the dangers of Paedo's and other things .. and whinging fkers complain about being on the pavement ...

gobi

As cyclists we cannot win either way.

Ride on a "cycle path" upset pedestrians or ride REALLY SLOW
Ride on a "path" upset pedestrians
Ride on the road (I always tell people I ride a ROAD bike) and upset car drivers.

As a car driver I am more concerned about bikes on paths than bikes on the road.

Kids on paths change course without warning.

Personally I like to ride on the road but will in certain situations (if on an MTB) use the path.

Dawnrider

If I have to, and if its clear yes. I hate cycling on a busy main road these days and if I can't ride on the path because its busy I will either ride slow or get off and walk.

veronese68

snailracer wrote:

PS I do look behind me before turning right, but I know I shouldn't have to.

I know this is an old quote from an old thread, but bloody hell that is ridiculous. :shock: