DM at it again...
Comments
-
The local police in my village actually suggest that primary school kids use the pavements for cycling. There is a local idiot who keeps complaining to anyone that will listen (council, police, newspapers, community council, etc) that the (very quiet) pavements should not, under any circumstances, be used by any people on bikes (I hate to use the term cyclist in this context) as they have the (pretty busy) road to use.
The primary school has gained recognition for promoting cycling, walking and (honestly) riding to school rather than the over use of cars.
I think the police are being sensible.
-Spider-0 -
jim453 wrote:PeteMadoc wrote:spen666 wrote:
By all means change the laws re pavment riding- until then it is illegal and selfish on the part of the cyclist to break the law for his / her convenience- simialrily with breaking other laws
What do I tell my 4 year old daughter?
Tell her she's not riding on the pavement today because it is both illegal and dangerous.
Then tell her you're off to the park or the designated cycle trail or wherever to safely learn how to play on her bike, like all the other children with responsible parents.
This debate has just got a bit ridiculous. People who can't see past black and white are one of the problems of this country. Usually these people work for the local council and stop anything exciting or fun because it might break some health and safety rule or insurance or something.
Again what ever happened to courtesy and common sense?
To suggest that a 4 year old riding a bike on the pavement is illegal or dangerous is simply idiotic.0 -
I accept the legality is perhaps in question or certainly unenforceable, and since even the policemen on here don't appear to know one way or the other then let's leave that to one side.
It is unquestionably a little dangerous for the kids though don't you think? All trundling along the pavement to school in their organic baby clothes with their fathers 'dad jogging' alongside bathing in the middle class beauty of it all.
What of the pavements closer to the school (which promotes and encourages pavement riding)? Going to get a bit congested there isn't it? what with Oliver and Maisy et al, all closing in on their target at the same time with their satchels bursting with dried apricots, pomegranate juice and Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall wall charts. And Dad struggling to keep up in his Birkenstocks.
You're right it is getting a little ridiculous isn't it.
I'm off to look through the rule book to see if their are any more interesting laws I'm allowed to break if the notion takes my fancy.0 -
Sorry, you're arguing it's unquestionably a bit dangerous for young kids to cycleto school on the pavement? Yes, it is, unquestionably, a bit dangerous. But then surely having them cycle to school on the road is, unquestionably, a bit more than a bit dangerous, no?Cannondale Synapse 105, Giant Defy 3, Giant Omnium, Giant Trance X2, EMC R1.0, Ridgeback Platinum, On One Il Pompino...0
-
jim453 wrote:
It is unquestionably a little dangerous for the kids though don't you think?
Ah, so the safer alternative is to ride on the road?
Gotcha."That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
Ride on the road if it's safe. Ride on the pavement if it isn't safe on the road, but don't ride on the pavement if it isn't safe to do so. Use your judgement, but if your judgement is seriously wrong, expect to be treated according to how wrong you got it.
Always ride courteously, wherever you are riding.
It really isn't difficult.0 -
jim453 wrote:I accept the legality is perhaps in question or certainly unenforceable, and since even the policemen on here don't appear to know one way or the other then let's leave that to one side.
It is unquestionably a little dangerous for the kids though don't you think? All trundling along the pavement to school in their organic baby clothes with their fathers 'dad jogging' alongside bathing in the middle class beauty of it all.
What of the pavements closer to the school (which promotes and encourages pavement riding)? Going to get a bit congested there isn't it? what with Oliver and Maisy et al, all closing in on their target at the same time with their satchels bursting with dried apricots, pomegranate juice and Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall wall charts. And Dad struggling to keep up in his Birkenstocks.
You're right it is getting a little ridiculous isn't it.
I'm off to look through the rule book to see if their are any more interesting laws I'm allowed to break if the notion takes my fancy.
Jim
This seems to be some kind of personal attack on me and the lifestyle I lead of which you know nothing about. I think most of the "middle class" parents you speak of probably drive their kids 100yds to school in a Mercedes M class.
I agree that riding a bike to school could be classed as "dangerous" but then walking is too.0 -
Penalty for riding on the pavement = £30 fine.spen666 wrote:There is a problem with riding on the pavement - it is illegal
Its a bit like saying there is no problem driving at 70mph in a 30 zone - there's only a problem with people driving at 70 mph anti-socially in a 30 zone
Penalty for driving at 70mph in a 30 zone = disqualification for more than 56 days plus a fine of 100% or more of your take home pay. You may also be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving.
You'd expect the penalties to be the same, after all both people have broken the law, the poor driver being hit by stealth taxes again.
A child under the age of 10 can’t commit a criminal offence, so can ride on the pavement. (Children and Young Persons Act 1933, s. 50)jim453 wrote:I accept the legality is perhaps in question or certainly unenforceable0 -
The reason I brought this up is simply that there needs to be a littler perspective and a common sense when it comes to discussing what can and can't happen on the pavement.
Banning all bicycles from pavements is clearly throwing the baby out with the bath water and so a more nuanced rule needs to be given - say - putting dangerous cycling on the path under a 'dangerous cycling' rule which has varying shades of punishment.
That way, riders who are safer on the pavement, and who don't cause a danger to anyone else, can do so, and people who are clearly being silly can be done too.
It's all about judgement and different shades of grey. There's no need for a total BAN on most things.
Only the other day I was chatting to my friend about the French ban on covering your face up in public. We wondered about female mourners who like to weir a drak veil, or indeed, beekeepers, or motorcyclists etc etc.0 -
MaxwellBygraves wrote:jim453 wrote:
It is unquestionably a little dangerous for the kids though don't you think?
Ah, so the safer alternative is to ride on the road?
Gotcha.
Well obviously not.
If a child is not safe or competent enough to ride on the road then they should walk. On the pavement. Or get the bus.
Easy.
Actually, I don't really care at all either way to be honest. Where I live there aren't any pavements anyway.
I'm off to prepare some cous cous.0 -
I hope that all those who think kids shouldnt ride on the pavement because its against the law and we shouldnt pick and chose the laws we want to follow didnt have Christmas pudding or mince pies on Christmas day.0
-
jim453 wrote:I accept the legality is perhaps in question or certainly unenforceable, and since even the policemen on here don't appear to know one way or the other then let's leave that to one side.
It is unquestionably a little dangerous for the kids though don't you think? All trundling along the pavement to school in their organic baby clothes with their fathers 'dad jogging' alongside bathing in the middle class beauty of it all.
What of the pavements closer to the school (which promotes and encourages pavement riding)? Going to get a bit congested there isn't it? what with Oliver and Maisy et al, all closing in on their target at the same time with their satchels bursting with dried apricots, pomegranate juice and Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall wall charts. And Dad struggling to keep up in his Birkenstocks.
You're right it is getting a little ridiculous isn't it.
I'm off to look through the rule book to see if their are any more interesting laws I'm allowed to break if the notion takes my fancy.
What a completely pointless and bitter post.
WTF has class got to do with it? I can't believe someone would not think it sensible for children to ride on the pavement. I agree it should be done with consideration for others and even that pedestrians should have the right of way, but to say not allowed at all is ridiculous.
Who else do you want to ban from the pavements? Children on scooters? My daughter got some roller-skates for her birthday I guess there a no-no too? What about joggers? Do you consider this to be the pedestrian equivalent of speeding?
:roll:0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
We wondered about female mourners who like to weir a drak veil, or indeed, beekeepers, or motorcyclists etc etc.
Never heard of terrorist beekeeprs though.0 -
jim453 wrote:
If a child is not safe or competent enough to ride on the road then they should walk. On the pavement. Or get the bus.
how does a 4 yr old get the skill to cycle on the road? cycling proficiency test? where do they practice? as for the class war, how about the working class 4 yr old chimney sweeps you employ, how can they be expected to get to your 50 Acres (I assume you teach your 4yr olds cycling skills on your expansive lands) on time for you to pay them tuppence ha'penny for a days hard graft?
Before you say it, it's not me that's being ridiculous.FCN 120 -
jim453 wrote:PeteMadoc wrote:spen666 wrote:
By all means change the laws re pavment riding- until then it is illegal and selfish on the part of the cyclist to break the law for his / her convenience- simialrily with breaking other laws
What do I tell my 4 year old daughter?
Tell her she's not riding on the pavement today because it is both illegal and dangerous.
Then tell her you're off to the park or the designated cycle trail or wherever to safely learn how to play on her bike, like all the other children with responsible parents.
What a load of utter rubbish! I taught at least two of my kids to ride on the pavement outside my house. It was, as it almost always is, completely deserted of pedestrians. And it was separated from the road by a good three meters of grass. And that makes me an irresponsible parent?
I must confess, generally I'm an advocate of 'obey it or campaign to change it' when it comes to laws. But sometimes things can get a bit silly: would anyone care to argue for enforcement of the law that Welshmen are banned from the city of Chester between dusk and dawn?0 -
RichardSwt wrote:jim453 wrote:I accept the legality is perhaps in question or certainly unenforceable, and since even the policemen on here don't appear to know one way or the other then let's leave that to one side.
It is unquestionably a little dangerous for the kids though don't you think? All trundling along the pavement to school in their organic baby clothes with their fathers 'dad jogging' alongside bathing in the middle class beauty of it all.
What of the pavements closer to the school (which promotes and encourages pavement riding)? Going to get a bit congested there isn't it? what with Oliver and Maisy et al, all closing in on their target at the same time with their satchels bursting with dried apricots, pomegranate juice and Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall wall charts. And Dad struggling to keep up in his Birkenstocks.
You're right it is getting a little ridiculous isn't it.
I'm off to look through the rule book to see if their are any more interesting laws I'm allowed to break if the notion takes my fancy.
What a completely pointless and bitter post.
WTF has class got to do with it? I can't believe someone would not think it sensible for children to ride on the pavement. I agree it should be done with consideration for others and even that pedestrians should have the right of way, but to say not allowed at all is ridiculous.
Who else do you want to ban from the pavements? Children on scooters? My daughter got some roller-skates for her birthday I guess there a no-no too? What about joggers? Do you consider this to be the pedestrian equivalent of speeding?
:roll:
Just amusing myself mate. Do try not to take things so seriously. I'm not.
And yes, scooters are out too.
Like I said, there are no pavements near me so I couldn't give one either way.
To be honest I only got involved because of the wholly unreasonable reply to Spens initial assertion that riding on the pavement is actually a problem, it being illegal and all. A matter that seems not to have been cleared up even with the help of a new and more specific thread.
I've just been enjoying myself since then.
Your Mum looks rather nice by the way. Bit seventies but I don't mind that.
See, fun isn't it?0 -
BarryBonds wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:We wondered about female mourners who like to weir a drak veil, or indeed, beekeepers, or motorcyclists etc etc.
Never heard of terrorist beekeeprs though.
But you've also never heard of anyone in a motorbike helmet committing a crime?
You sound like a bigotted tw^t to me.0 -
jim453 wrote:Just amusing myself mate. Do try not to take things so seriously. I'm not.
And yes, scooters are out too.
Like I said, there are no pavements near me so I couldn't give one either way.
To be honest I only got involved because of the wholly unreasonable reply to Spens initial assertion that riding on the pavement is actually a problem, it being illegal and all. A matter that seems not to have been cleared up even with the help of a new and more specific thread.
I've just been enjoying myself since then.
Your Mum looks rather nice by the way. Bit seventies but I don't mind that.
See, fun isn't it?
This is a Internet Forum, this is no place to enjoy yourself. It is very serious bussiness.
I'll tell my Mum you say "Hi".0 -
With relation to kids I couldn't give two hoots if it is illegal or not, I would do what I think is safest for my children and others around them.
Rules are there to control people who are unable to consider those around them. If you are considerate of others/circumstances in my experiance you will never find yourself pulled up due to rules.
Would anyone on here really obay a rule that they thought put them or others in significantly more danger/risk than if they broke it?
Nothing is black and white and the rules can't cover every scenario, we shouldn't lose our skill of common sense.0 -
Would anyone want this on their consciesnce, although you would deserve nothing less?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13036619I disapprove of what you say but will defend....your right to say it. Francois-Marie Arouet Voltaire08 Cotic Soda-deceased!10 Bianchi 928 c2c23 Marin Nicasio20 -
thesquireofbanwell wrote:Would anyone want this on their consciesnce, although you would deserve nothing less?
What? If you ride with your kids on the pavement to the park & nothing happens, you should feel the same remorse, regret as though you were involved in an accident that killed a 17 year old? Really?0 -
This article seems to cover it:
http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycli ... he_law.php
So, the new fixed penalty cannot be issued to anyone under 16.
Anyone riding on the pavement is breaking the law - irrespective of age - but anyone under the age of criminal responsibility cannot be prosecuted.
The fact that you cannot be prosecuted shouldn't be an invitation to break the law, but in this case, it is not being done to deliberately break the law - and, reading between the lines, the guidelines concerning the fixed penalty is kind of saying that children riding on the pavement is OK.
I'll not be stopping my daughter from riding on the pavement if it's the safer option - and anyone who thinks it shouldn't be done simply because it's "illegal" should stop ironing their underpants and get a reality check.0
