Media demonisation of cyclists, there's more.

richardast

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I though someone earlier on in the thread pointed out that where the footway does not run parallel to the road, it is NOT illegal to cycle on it?

Doesn't the underpass route fall into this category?

What's the legal authority for this proposition?

Would that be Sec 72 Highways Act 1835?
Damn those pesky new laws!

Haven't you previously mentioned that the law of the land is such that if an activity isn't specifically legislated against then it is legal.

But if it's not adjacent to a road then it might still be covered by a local by-law. A pedestrian subway would probably have such a by-law or may even still be considered to be part of the highway.

spen666

richardast wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I though someone earlier on in the thread pointed out that where the footway does not run parallel to the road, it is NOT illegal to cycle on it?

Doesn't the underpass route fall into this category?

What's the legal authority for this proposition?

Would that be Sec 72 Highways Act 1835?
Damn those pesky new laws!

Haven't you previously mentioned that the law of the land is such that if an activity isn't specifically legislated against then it is legal.

But if it's not adjacent to a road then it might still be covered by a local by-law. A pedestrian subway would probably have such a by-law or may even still be considered to be part of the highway.

S72 states something subtly different

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.

NOTES: [ this is not part of the Act!!!]

(i) A footpath is part of a highway, if it is beside a road.
(ii) The section only extends to the wilful obstructions specified.
(iii) Proceeding may be instituted by anyone and is not confined exclusively to the Highway Authority.
(iv) "Wilful" under this section means "purposely"

The legislation talks about beside a road, not parallel to a road. There is I think a very important difference here. That is why I was puzzled re legislation.


You are right that in English Law, that unless something is prohibited, it is generally permissible to do said action. However the prohibition may be contained in legislation other than expressly forbidding the act

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

I imagine the crown prosecution service, acting on behalf of her majesty's government.

Someone mentioned it on a thread. I thought this thread. However now that our resident lawyer has arrived, there's no point in discussing it.

The CPS merely conduct cases, they do not make the law and cannot therefore provide the authority for something to be an offence. The CPS do not have the power to make laws.

Like it or not, but if it is S172 of the Highways Act you are referring to , then it most certainly makes it an offence to use the underpass to cycle on ( unless designated a cycle path) as it is obviously BESIDE a road

richardast

spen666 wrote:

The legislation talks about beside a road, not parallel to a road. There is I think a very important difference here. That is why I was puzzled re legislation.

:roll:
Maybe like the difference between ass and mule. Or picky and pedantic.
I think we all know what he meant and it was, in essence, correct. We're not in court now.

spen666

richardast wrote:

spen666 wrote:

The legislation talks about beside a road, not parallel to a road. There is I think a very important difference here. That is why I was puzzled re legislation.

:roll:
Maybe like the difference between ass and mule. Or picky and pedantic.
I think we all know what he meant and it was, in essence, correct. We're not in court now.

picky & pedantic to ask what the legislation is because I didn't understand?


If its picky & pedantic to clarify what someone is referring to ratherthan spout nonsense - then I'm guilty


The difference is between something being legal and illegal Hardly pedantic to avoid breaking the law is it? The underpass is BESIDE a road and is therefore covered by the Act, it is not parallel to the road.

If you use the wrong definition, then you will be acting in breach of the law by thinking you are ok to cycle on the underpass as its not parallel to the road. Also, many footpaths are not parallel to the road- they may be a fraction of a degree away from being parallel and on that bais, many many footpaths would be able to be legally cycled on

richardast

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I imagine the crown prosecution service, acting on behalf of her majesty's government.

Someone mentioned it on a thread. I thought this thread. However now that our resident lawyer has arrived, there's no point in discussing it.

The CPS merely conduct cases, they do not make the law and cannot therefore provide the authority for something to be an offence. The CPS do not have the power to make laws.

Like it or not, but if it is S172 of the Highways Act you are referring to , then it most certainly makes it an offence to use the underpass to cycle on ( unless designated a cycle path) as it is obviously BESIDE a road

[pedantic mode]Sec 72, not 172. If 172 ever existed it has probably long since been repealed.
You failed to specify whether the subway was part of the footpath beside the road making up the highway. Can we confirm that said subway is not part of a totally separate system, for example a bridleway or public footpath, in which case the Highways Act 1835 would not necessarily cover it.[/pedantic mode]

Surf-Matt

Always Tyred wrote:

I though someone earlier on in the thread pointed out that where the footway does not run parallel to the road, it is NOT illegal to cycle on it?

Doesn't the underpass route fall into this category?

There is a very short section alongside the road (otherwise it's onto a dual carriageway and certain death) but most is as you describe.

If that's the case then I'm pretty pleased. As mentioned, I've ridden past several police (walking) and they have never said a word to me. I do slightly overdo the courteousness though!

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I imagine the crown prosecution service, acting on behalf of her majesty's government.

Someone mentioned it on a thread. I thought this thread. However now that our resident lawyer has arrived, there's no point in discussing it.

The CPS merely conduct cases, they do not make the law and cannot therefore provide the authority for something to be an offence. The CPS do not have the power to make laws.

Like it or not, but if it is S172 of the Highways Act you are referring to , then it most certainly makes it an offence to use the underpass to cycle on ( unless designated a cycle path) as it is obviously BESIDE a road

I'm not referring to s172 of the highways act, I'm clearly and unambiguously referring to a previous post on this forum.

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I imagine the crown prosecution service, acting on behalf of her majesty's government.

Someone mentioned it on a thread. I thought this thread. However now that our resident lawyer has arrived, there's no point in discussing it.

The CPS merely conduct cases, they do not make the law and cannot therefore provide the authority for something to be an offence. The CPS do not have the power to make laws.

Like it or not, but if it is S172 of the Highways Act you are referring to , then it most certainly makes it an offence to use the underpass to cycle on ( unless designated a cycle path) as it is obviously BESIDE a road

By the way, are you such a sh1t lawyer that you get kicked about at work a lot and come here to at least demonstrate to yourself that you know more about the law than people not trained in law?

Just curious.

Surf-Matt

Watch out lads - she's about to blow!



Most successful lawyer I know lives in St Georges Hill (almost next to my uncle), is obscenely rich and has a silly house and collection of Astons but is the dullest guy I have ever met and has a wife that hates him and tries to pull other blokes at every opportunity while spending his money.

The second most successful one is about 5 stone overweight, works 14 hour days and won't live to see 50.

Yet I find lawyers always seem to find the need to flash their superiority.
Feeding off people's misfortune - how very satisfying :roll:

iainment

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I imagine the crown prosecution service, acting on behalf of her majesty's government.

Someone mentioned it on a thread. I thought this thread. However now that our resident lawyer has arrived, there's no point in discussing it.

The CPS merely conduct cases, they do not make the law and cannot therefore provide the authority for something to be an offence. The CPS do not have the power to make laws.

Like it or not, but if it is S172 of the Highways Act you are referring to , then it most certainly makes it an offence to use the underpass to cycle on ( unless designated a cycle path) as it is obviously BESIDE a road

By the way, are you such a sh1t lawyer that you get kicked about at work a lot and come here to at least demonstrate to yourself that you know more about the law than people not trained in law?

Just curious.

He's not that busy really is he, so I think you may be right.

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I imagine the crown prosecution service, acting on behalf of her majesty's government.

Someone mentioned it on a thread. I thought this thread. However now that our resident lawyer has arrived, there's no point in discussing it.

The CPS merely conduct cases, they do not make the law and cannot therefore provide the authority for something to be an offence. The CPS do not have the power to make laws.

Like it or not, but if it is S172 of the Highways Act you are referring to , then it most certainly makes it an offence to use the underpass to cycle on ( unless designated a cycle path) as it is obviously BESIDE a road

By the way, are you such a sh1t lawyer that you get kicked about at work a lot and come here to at least demonstrate to yourself that you know more about the law than people not trained in law?

Just curious.

No, but its far better if peopole are given the correct legal advice rsather than wrong "advice" from people who haven't a clue.

Its no defence to a criminal charge to say but "Always Tyred" told me it was ok to do this

spen666

iainment wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I imagine the crown prosecution service, acting on behalf of her majesty's government.

Someone mentioned it on a thread. I thought this thread. However now that our resident lawyer has arrived, there's no point in discussing it.

The CPS merely conduct cases, they do not make the law and cannot therefore provide the authority for something to be an offence. The CPS do not have the power to make laws.

Like it or not, but if it is S172 of the Highways Act you are referring to , then it most certainly makes it an offence to use the underpass to cycle on ( unless designated a cycle path) as it is obviously BESIDE a road

By the way, are you such a sh1t lawyer that you get kicked about at work a lot and come here to at least demonstrate to yourself that you know more about the law than people not trained in law?

Just curious.

He's not that busy really is he, so I think you may be right.

As YOU are paying me to do very little in this cosy job I have, then i'm happy to spend all day on here and on other sites

Thank you for giving me so little to do

Surf-Matt

Public sector lawyer then.

The real elite of the law world...

spen666

Surf-Matt wrote:

Public sector lawyer then.

The real elite of the law world...

Not as such - not employed as a lawyer currently - am wearing my solicitor AND my accountants hats at the same time

dondare

I've started a new thread just for you two.

downfader

Surf-Matt wrote:

Anyone else notice that on the big BBC news stations, they were talking about cyclists wanting to be able to jump red lights and go the wrong way up one way streets?!

Suprise suprise, take the radical (and stupid) view of a tiny number of cyclists and "forget" all the perfectly reasonable suggestions like better cycle lanes.

Hi there, been reading this thread and a lot of interesting debate.

Ref the BBC. I was quite angry on saturday morning as the presenter appeared to suggest that all of us were like it. So much for unbiased and impartial reporting. :roll: :x Surpisingly my comments were neither aired or printed on the website.

AndyManc

Who's pinched my post :shock: , and why is the clock in here an hour behind.

Who is the mod in here ... Robert Mugabe , I bet I know who it is. :evil:

karl j

Surf-Matt wrote:

Karl - I'm not holding my breath - did you stick to the road or subway it?

I head for the middle of town (Burger King road!) then under the viaduct and up the valley towards Coosegarn, almost to Threemilestone and back- just for some morning exercise.

Leaving before 8 and school holiday make it SO much easier!

Hi again Matt, well when i worked in Tesco's i stayed on the road until the little cut-through, through the flower beds. but when i got a job down Malpas marina i just went straight over the roundabout (aka. dicing with death) twice a day.

as a matter of interest, and rather OT i know, does chicken george still play that electric organ under the subway ? . (for the uninitiated chicken george is / was the worst busker ever in the history of the universe, a right scruffy old sod who couldn't play music for toffees but he did, to his credit, carry the tools of his trade on an old original raleigh Chopper)