Pushbikes on pavements

[bullerboY]

Ha Ha I saw it all today in Retford,whilst waiting for my wife on the main shopping street,there was a Town enforcement officer of sorts stood having a fag when a cyclist rode slowly past her and directly opposite her was a large sign stating NO CYCLING.Either she or the cyclist couldn't read or they wern't bothered.

[happymummy24]

why should we pay tax or insurance where not poluting the air,or causing traffic jams or any of the bad side of driving,where doing nothing different to walking,i have to ride on a pavement i dont fancy killing my child on a very busy road

[SUPERDREAM]

As has been pointed out more times than I can be bothered to count, the highway code is just that a code, a guide, not necessarily the law.

 

But, if you want to see how this code affects cycles and motorists, it says:

 

163

 

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should

 

give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215)

 

204

 

The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is particularly important to be aware of children, older and disabled people, and learner and inexperienced drivers and riders.

 

212

 

When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162-167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.

 

Yep, just a code.......

The Law. Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words MUST / MUST NOT. In addition the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the 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 Traffic Acts to establish liability.

 

Knowing and applying the rules contained in The Highway Code could significantly reduce road accident casualties. Cutting the number of deaths and injuries that occur on our roads every day is a responsibility we all share. The Highway Code can help us discharge that responsibility.

 

Wow, thats some code.

Glad that youve pointed out how insignificant it is. They must be kidding us about the highway code and when they say we might be prosecuted or sent to jail if we ignore their silly rules within it, they are only joking because it means nothing, and stuff printed in cycle training mags and pamphlets is more serious.

Sorry to be so flippant, buts thats excactly how it sounds.

[Tony]

D- for comprehension.

 

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

[SUPERDREAM]

Its like wading through treacle.

[denlin]

The last time i checked the Highway code ,driving through a puddle was NOT driving without due care and attention. :loopy:

 

I am no way in favour of cyclists on footpaths but you can be prosecuted if you are proved to deliberately drive though a puddle and soak someone. It is classed as driving without due care and attention

[altus]

Lets end with this,

 

The LawMany of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words MUST / MUST NOT. In addition the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

Rules 168 and 169 which you quoted earlier do not contain the words MUST or MUST NOT. This means, going by the passage above, the rules you quoted are not law. They don't even contain the advisory qualifiers should/should not and do/do not mentioned later in the highway code introduction.

 

You've gone from wrongly claiming that the highway code defines the law to wrongly saying that everything in the highway code is the law.

 

You still haven't provided a reference to the relevant legislation for this claim you made earlier:

If it says your causing a tailback, PULL IN, because that is the law

 

I can only conclude that you did make it up.

[Pidgeon]

Maybe if drivers didn't treat them like targets they might not feel forced to ride the pavement.

[splodgeyAl]

Sorry to be so flippant, buts thats excactly how it sounds.

That's how your interpretation sounds here too

[Bassman62]

I heard on the news this morning that accidents re Push bikes have gone up so much they are suggesting 3rd party insurance be taken out by cyclists, about time.

And not before time as well, they'll also be made to be aware in the policy that they're not covered for illegaly riding on the pavements.