On 07/04/2024 09:39, Spike wrote:

The Highway Code, as it regards cyclists, needs some amendments. Cycling on
a footway should, in any legal proceedings, automatically count as failing
to acknowledge the rights of pedestrians.

So they have to walk their vehicles across a footway to the carriageway
or building at the start and end of journeys? And motorists too?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:

On 07/04/2024 09:39, Spike wrote:

The Highway Code, as it regards cyclists, needs some amendments. Cycling
on a footway should, in any legal proceedings, automatically count as
failing to acknowledge the rights of pedestrians.

So they have to walk their vehicles across a footway to the carriageway
or building at the start and end of journeys? And motorists too?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t laws already in place to cover motorists actions in the circumstances you describe?

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/04/2024 09:46 am, Nick Finnigan wrote:

On 07/04/2024 09:39, Spike wrote:

The Highway Code, as it regards cyclists, needs some amendments.
Cycling on a footway should, in any legal proceedings, automatically
count as failing to acknowledge the rights of pedestrians.

 So they have to walk their vehicles across a footway to the carriageway
or building at the start and end of journeys? And motorists too?

"On" is doing the work of two words in Spike's post.

There is "across", as you suggest.

But the offence (whether for a chav on a bike or a citizen driving or
riding a motor vehicle) would be travelling *along* a FOOTway for a
distance that cannot be construed as necessary for crossing the FOOTway.

This is because some driveways are not perpendicular to the carriageway,
though I add this merely to disarm any attempt at diversion - we all
know the difference between travelling across a FOOTway and travelling
along it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/04/2024 09:39 am, Spike wrote:

This should be compulsory reading for all cyclists.

<https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2024csoh39.pdf>

Perhaps one thing that comes out of this dismal account is that aerobars should be banned for use on bicycles used in public spaces. See, for
example:

<https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mGpls1pxGOA>

Another might be that when approaching an unsigned junction, treat it as a Give Way.

What effect would that have on chavs on bikes?

It wouldn't matter even if it had traffic lights!

The Highway Code, as it regards cyclists, needs some amendments. Cycling on
a footway should, in any legal proceedings, automatically count as failing
to acknowledge the rights of pedestrians.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 07/04/2024 09:39 am, Spike wrote:

This should be compulsory reading for all cyclists.

<https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2024csoh39.pdf>

Perhaps one thing that comes out of this dismal account is that aerobars
should be banned for use on bicycles used in public spaces. See, for
example:

<https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mGpls1pxGOA>

Another might be that when approaching an unsigned junction, treat it as a >> Give Way.

What effect would that have on chavs on bikes?

It wouldn't matter even if it had traffic lights!

One can only live in (ever-receding) hope…;-)

The Highway Code, as it regards cyclists, needs some amendments. Cycling on >> a footway should, in any legal proceedings, automatically count as failing >> to acknowledge the rights of pedestrians.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)