Not entirely disbelieving you, but most lawyers I know can spell prat

 

Cheap shot.

 

As far as I'm aware being a lawyer does not make you invulnerable from hitting an extra key on a keyboard.

 

 

BUT there is is another clause somewhere which suggests that some articles in the highway code which are not law per se but if you are in an accident which is caused in part by not obeying one of the articles then the court can take that as a contributing factor.

 

Anything in the highway code that states "you MUST" is mandatory and will have a specific traffic violation/law supporting it.

 

Anything that states "you SHOULD" is advisory - if you don't do it you would not be contravention a specific law but not following an advisory though can open you up to a charge of driving without due care and attention etc.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Shropshire | Cyclist wins road blocking appeal

Police said cars were having to illegally cross double white lines to overtake him. He was fined £100.

Incidentally I wonder if the coppers ticketed the motorists they say were acting illegally.

Did you know a cyclist cannot be done for speeding but he can be done for "Furious Cycling". Put it on your new years resolutions list to be stuck on for "Furious Cyling". I will even pay your fine, but it must say Furious Cyling on the ticket. I think it is a town law from 1847 or somewhere around there.

I've tried, I went though a speed trap the other day doing over 10mph over the limit and when I saw it I pedalled as fast as I could but they took no notice of me.

Cheap shot.

 

As far as I'm aware being a lawyer does not make you invulnerable from hitting an extra key on a keyboard.

 

True, but to do it twice on the same thread points less towards a typo and more towards a misspelling.

Incidentally I wonder if the coppers ticketed the motorists they say were acting illegally.

 

They were in all likelyhood acting legally:-

 

Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26]

"

Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.

[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26]"

 

That's interesting because I travel at about 15mph, and every day lines of cars overtake me on double white lines at pretty high speed, sometimes I wince because they do it on blind bends.

Following on from the "Furious cycling" discussion I came across the following link:

 

Criminal Solicitors UK - your online network of expert criminal law solicitors

 

This included the following:

 

"The bike should only be under power by means of a switch biased to the off position. The height of the saddle should be more than 635mm above ground level."

 

Doesn't this make electric recumbent illegal ?

My recumbent doesn't have a saddle, it has a seat.

Nigel

I'd never heard this part either before:

 

"The bike should only be under power by means of a switch biased to the off position"

Throttles fitted to E-bikes must not have a friction device to hold them in the open position, when released, they must return to the off position under spring pressure.

 

Pedelec devices, either rotation sensors or pedal shaft torque sensors are naturally biased to 'off', if you stop pedalling the electric assistance stops.

My recumbent doesn't have a saddle, it has a seat.

Nigel

Ah, then you'll have a seat belt fitted as well.

Following on from the "Furious cycling" discussion I came across the following link:

 

Criminal Solicitors UK - your online network of expert criminal law solicitors

 

This included the following:

 

"The bike should only be under power by means of a switch biased to the off position. The height of the saddle should be more than 635mm above ground level."

 

Doesn't this make electric recumbent illegal ?

 

Looks like it. This is the trouble with so much modern law vis a vis the complexities of the modern world, it inadvertantly makes so so many things unintentionally illegal. Representations to the DfT can and often do subsequently bring quotable wavers to cope with those, but for the most part we are able to rely on the common sense and/or lack of knowledge of the average police officer.

I wonder if Sir Clive Sinclair got such a waiver many years ago?

I wonder if Sir Clive Sinclair got such a waiver many years ago?

 

Good point, yes he did. That will make assisted recumbents legal too, assuming there's no motor power limit or speed restriction stopping that. I mention speed restriction since the C5 assist limit was I'm sure set at 12 mph, this being the same as the original e-bike assist limit in Britain in the 1980s. There's therefore just the possibility that the rise in th e-bike assist limit to 15 mph might not have applied to the C5 and in consequence, other assisted recumbents.

Not entirely disbelieving you, but most lawyers I know can spell prat - it is right there in the job description after all. Not entirely disagreeing with you either - my point would be that sometimes prattishness is called for in challenging authority and it is healthy for police officers to meet a well-informed prat occasionally.

 

prat/pratt/idiot-all three are correct.And just after riding through a red light is probably not the best time to be taking the moral high-ground

Hmm

What is the point of these cycle lanes eh?

Small children perched above rear wheels in child seats or towed in trailers do indeed look vulnerable, to the point where we might fear for their safety.

 

But is there any evidence that they do in any way suffer accidents and injury?

 

I think not. In all my cycling years and with trade associated knowledge, I've never heard of a single accident involving them. That's probably due to road users taking additional care when they see children in these vulnerable circumstances.

 

Once again this may be an example of how we have become overly obsessive about child safety and protection.

 

Children often far prefer alternative transport to boring cars as I well know from the many young kids on the local estates who've begged rides in my large goods trailer on my return trips from recycling. In Holland and Denmark babies and small children are carried in a wide variety of manners on bikes, goods trikes and recumbents, often perched quite precariously or in open goods trailers without restraints, their enjoyment frequently self-evident. Adult safety obsessions all too often deprive children of experiences they are entitled to, and there's little doubt that today's children have impoverished lives compared with those of much older generations.

 

Life is only worthwhile if it has value, and the wider the experience, the more value a life has.

 

In principle I totally agree with you Flecc, in order to develop children have to be allowed a degree of freedom which I think is probably denied to a lot of them nowadays, certainly compared to my own childhood when my brother and I were free to roam unsupervised all day on our bikes.There are far too many daft rules nowadays , eg kids not being allowed to play conkers in the playground, but I think that it is a matter of degree and knowing where to draw the line. We certainly can't live risk free lives -we take risks every time we step foot outside the front door (and even when we don't)but there are degrees of risk and I think that the toddler I saw being towed behind his dad along a busy main road was being put at unacceptable risk. It may well be the case that on the continent there is more of a culture of children being towed or carried but that in itself may mean that the risk is less as motorists will be used to it and therefore possibly drive more carefully when passing.

The risk is certainly there, but I cannot agree that it is an unacceptable risk when I'm unaware that there has ever been a recorded UK accident of a motor vehicle running into an occupied child trailer.

 

I think you'll agree that with the modern media, the anti-cycling majority motorists and hysteria about child safety, such an accident would have been shouted from the rooftops and we'd all have been aware of it.

I think you're right about the lack of accidents Flecc but I think that could be to do with the fact that cycling with children on board , at least on public roads, is not a particularly common practice in this country

That's perfectly true, but recumbent trikes are even more rare on British roads and I am aware of some collisions between them and motor vehicles*. I think that there hasn't been any corresponding child trailer accident that I've heard of highlights the extreme care drivers take in the vicinity of child trailers. This is my sole point, the actuality against the high perceived risk of the very real vulnerability.

 

*Very unusually, on one of those the trike rider was subsequently fined for a "road rage" offence against the motor vehicle driver. Not something we normally expect!

I shudder every time I see a very young child being carried on a bike in traffic -last week I saw one who looked no more than 2 being towed behind his father's bike on a really busy main road. As cyclists we are totally vulnerable regardless of how good we are, that's something I accept- if I have an accident so be it. I have no right though to expose a child to that risk and would not dream of doing so. I'm talking here of public roads, not cycle paths.

 

Not a trailer but how about this cycling photo, three up on high without helmets, plus one helmetless with stabilisers alongside! (In Oxford)

.

Edited November 21, 201114 yr by flecc

Beautiful scene flecc. What a strong girl she must be too.

 

My only concern: rear tyre appears to need topping up.

Edited November 21, 201114 yr by hihihi

I wouldn't advise cycling in flip flops either