Boats moving about

[Blue Sunray]

I must agree, we have shopping to delivery to in-laws which involves a trip down the A12, and there have been some loons on that the last couple of weeks

Good to hear that normality continues in one place at least.

 

[alandalus11]

Agree wholeheartedly. I did write “prudently” and “for a short distance”and”at pinch points”. My point is that my experience is that those few motorists who are about are unusually cavalier: maybe expressing their frustrations of the lockdown by releasing their aggression through the accelerator.

I agree with Gladys on this. It is regretful that there seems to be a huge surge in this sort of activity where I live, which puts pedestrians at risk from serious injury. Although the following
Pedestrian Knocked Down By Cyclist Receives Compensation | Irwin Mitchell Solicitors

was not as a result of a cyclist cycling on the pavement, compensation was still awarded against the cyclist as a strong case was built against the cyclist.

This also highlights another example of injuries where cyclist was held responsible
Cyclist 'left bankrupt' after crash — should insurance be compulsory?

Cycling on the pavement is selfish and arrogant and shows a total disregard of pedestrian safety. I would love to see a cyclists argument in getting out of a prosecution for cycling on a pavement and seriously injuring a pedestrian when he or she is faced against a clever barrister.

I have nearly been hit 4 times in the past two weeks when I have been out for my daily excercise and I for one would not hesitate to ensure that if my wife or children were ever injured by a cyclist cycling on the pavement, that that cyclist was prosecuted and further action taken for compensation. Even if it meant making them bankrupt or losing their home. If a cyclist wants to break the law then they need to face the consequences if the worst happened.

The law specifically forbids this and according to the DfT figures, 531 pedestrians were hit by cyclists in 2017.

Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835 prohibits ‘wilfully riding’ on footpaths, which refers to the path at the side of a carriageway. The original law from 1835 doesn’t refer to bicycles or cyclists (as bicycles weren’t in such common use in England as they are today) and it doesn’t mention pavements - as this is a modern word. However, the interpretation is clear - it’s not legal for a cyclist to ride their bike on the pavement. The Highway Code also states: “You must not cycle on a pavement.”

The offence of riding a bike on the pavement is punishable by an on-the-spot fine, a fixed penalty notice of £30. This is charged under Schedule 3 and Section 51 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

 

[Blue Sunray]

I agree with Gladys on this. It is regretful that there seems to be a huge surge in this sort of activity where I live, which puts pedestrians at risk from serious injury. Although the following
Pedestrian Knocked Down By Cyclist Receives Compensation | Irwin Mitchell Solicitors

was not as a result of a cyclist cycling on the pavement, compensation was still awarded against the cyclist as a strong case was built against the cyclist.

This also highlights another example of injuries where cyclist was held responsible
Cyclist 'left bankrupt' after crash — should insurance be compulsory?

Cycling on the pavement is selfish and arrogant and shows a total disregard of pedestrian safety. I would love to see a cyclists argument in getting out of a prosecution for cycling on a pavement and seriously injuring a pedestrian when he or she is faced against a clever barrister.

I have nearly been hit 4 times in the past two weeks when I have been out for my daily excercise and I for one would not hesitate to ensure that if my wife or children were ever injured by a cyclist cycling on the pavement, that that cyclist was prosecuted and further action taken for compensation. Even if it meant making them bankrupt or losing their home. If a cyclist wants to break the law then they need to face the consequences if the worst happened.

The law specifically forbids this and according to the DfT figures, 531 pedestrians were hit by cyclists in 2017.

Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835 prohibits ‘wilfully riding’ on footpaths, which refers to the path at the side of a carriageway. The original law from 1835 doesn’t refer to bicycles or cyclists (as bicycles weren’t in such common use in England as they are today) and it doesn’t mention pavements - as this is a modern word. However, the interpretation is clear - it’s not legal for a cyclist to ride their bike on the pavement. The Highway Code also states: “You must not cycle on a pavement.”

The offence of riding a bike on the pavement is punishable by an on-the-spot fine, a fixed penalty notice of £30. This is charged under Schedule 3 and Section 51 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Sadly my experience in of cyclists recent weeks has not been good, mountain bikers seem to have taken over the country paths around here and think that they have the right to drive foot users into the hedges, presumably in pursuit of that all important Strava segment time.

 

[johnalison]

The law about cycling on pavements and footpaths is quite clear but seldom enforced. There is 'permissive' cycle use of a section of the river path near us, which has been slightly widened and generally causes no trouble, though care needs to be taken at a narrower section. Unfortunately, cyclists have increasingly taken to using a non-designated section which is in regular use by walkers and which is narrow. We have even been shouted at to get out of the way by a cyclist at a narrow section in the woods where there is no verge enabling one to do this. Of course not all cyclists are hooligans, but those who choose to cycle on footpaths are knowingly breaking the law.

I feel less prescriptive in relation to pavements because many roads have become dangerous for cyclists, but I have often cycled on pavement cycle paths, mostly abroad and I know how it is easy to slip into one's own world when on a bike and ignore others. The absolute rule on pavements should be that pedestrians must not be inconvenienced, let alone put at risk, which means that speeds have to be kept down except on empty sections with good visibility. Unfortunately a significant minority of cyclists (and pedestrians) are careless of others' rights and I see only enforcement and punitive costs in police and cicil actions as anything of an answer.

 

[alandalus11]

The absolute rule on pavements should be that pedestrians must not be inconvenienced, let alone put at risk, which means that speeds have to be kept down except on empty sections with good visibility. Unfortunately a significant minority of cyclists (and pedestrians) are careless of others' rights and I see only enforcement and punitive costs in police and cicil actions as anything of an answer.

There is no absolute rule about pedestrians not being inconvenienced. It is against the law and that is that. Pedestrians are not careless of cyclists rights because the cyclist should not be on the pavement full stop. Justify that in a court when a cyclist has injured or killed a person and they were breaking the law.
As I said, should one of my loved ones be killed or injured then I would make sure my barrister went for everything they had in compensation. Savings, home and the boat.

Again another story of a cyclist imprisoned for killing a woman, not on the pavement but on the road. If he had been on the pavement I suspect the judge would have given him a greater sentence.
Cyclist Charlie Alliston jailed for 18 months over death of pedestrian

 

[johnalison]

There is no absolute rule about pedestrians not being inconvenienced. It is against the law and that is that. Pedestrians are not careless of cyclists rights because the cyclist should not be on the pavement full stop. Justify that in a court when a cyclist has injured or killed a person and they were breaking the law.
As I said, should one of my loved ones be killed or injured then I would make sure my barrister went for everything they had in compensation. Savings, home and the boat.

Again another story of a cyclist imprisoned for killing a woman, not on the pavement but on the road. If he had been on the pavement I suspect the judge would have given him a greater sentence.
Cyclist Charlie Alliston jailed for 18 months over death of pedestrian

I entirely agree that it is illegal and shouldn't be done but I would not be happy about a child of mine cycling around where I live. I don't cycle myself but I generally feel indulgent towards the occasional cyclist on paths if they are being sensible. When I said 'rule' I meant in terms of its moral rather than legal sense. I feel less indulgent towards cyclists on footpaths, where their safety is not an issue. The occasional death of a pedestrian is an appalling matter, but invariably the result of criminally reckless behaviour, not that of the merely careless or inattentive.

 

[alandalus11]

Very true, but behaviour doesn't have to be criminally reckless to be hauled through the courts either criminal or civil action. Lets say there is a child in their front garden. That child is playing with a ball and the ball goes out into the road. Let's say that child runs out onto the pavement. That child has been taught not to run into the road because its dangerous. However, that road has now moved and the new road is the pavement outside that child's house because a careless or inattentive cyclist is breaking the law and is treating that pavement as the road. Child runs out of the front gate and bang, skull split open, serious internal organ damage and ends up in critical care. Cyclist may have been inattentive but could end up fighting a civil case against him/her for damages.

Another true story I remember going back to the mid 2000's concerning a local sunday match football referee. A child was injured during the match as a result of a poor tackle and ended with serious injuries. The referee was hauled up before the courts in a civil action by the child's parents for negligence. The referee was left with legal fees of of well over £100K in trying to defend himself. Talking to a friend who runs a Sunday team for the local village, he says the liability insurances that have to be in place in case anything happens are astounding.

The point I am trying to make is that whether it's criminally reckless or merely careless or inattentive, it's against the law and some clever solicitor or barrister will try and put you away or get as much compensation for the victim as is possible. I tried to find the case of the Sunday football ref on Google and the number of ambulance chasers advertising was unbelievable. It's not worth the risk of a criminal action, let alone a civil action.

 

[Kurrawong_Kid]

Very true, but behaviour doesn't have to be criminally reckless to be hauled through the courts either criminal or civil action. Lets say there is a child in their front garden. That child is playing with a ball and the ball goes out into the road. Let's say that child runs out onto the pavement. That child has been taught not to run into the road because its dangerous. However, that road has now moved and the new road is the pavement outside that child's house because a careless or inattentive cyclist is breaking the law and is treating that pavement as the road. Child runs out of the front gate and bang, skull split open, serious internal organ damage and ends up in critical care. Cyclist may have been inattentive but could end up fighting a civil case against him/her for damages.

Another true story I remember going back to the mid 2000's concerning a local sunday match football referee. A child was injured during the match as a result of a poor tackle and ended with serious injuries. The referee was hauled up before the courts in a civil action by the child's parents for negligence. The referee was left with legal fees of of well over £100K in trying to defend himself. Talking to a friend who runs a Sunday team for the local village, he says the liability insurances that have to be in place in case anything happens are astounding.

The point I am trying to make is that whether it's criminally reckless or merely careless or inattentive, it's against the law and some clever solicitor or barrister will try and put you away or get as much compensation for the victim as is possible. I tried to find the case of the Sunday football ref on Google and the number of ambulance chasers advertising was unbelievable. It's not worth the risk of a criminal action, let alone a civil action.

Point taken. Legal position understood. If impatient car drivers followed the Highway Code and drove safely there would be no need for cycles to take to the pavement. I agree with Johnalison concerning cyclists on footpaths. They only have the right to ride on bridleways as I understand it. Incidentally some pavements are signed for both cyclists and pedestrians-are they legal?

 

[Triassic]

Very true, but behaviour doesn't have to be criminally reckless to be hauled through the courts either criminal or civil action. ...snip

The point I am trying to make is that whether it's criminally reckless or merely careless or inattentive, it's against the law and some clever solicitor or barrister will try and put you away or get as much compensation for the victim as is possible. I tried to find the case of the Sunday football ref on Google and the number of ambulance chasers advertising was unbelievable. It's not worth the risk of a criminal action, let alone a civil action.

Has it perhaps occurred to you that this very culture is driven by the very attitude your are displaying.

"As I said, should one of my loved ones be killed or injured then I would make sure my barrister went for everything they had in compensation. Savings, home and the boat.".

I have never quite understood the link between loss of a loved one and compensation. Are you saying their life had a financial value to you? I get it if a partner is killed or incapacitated and there are dependants who would have relied upon their income but it seems to me that the "where there is blame there is a claim" culture is driven by pure greed, not but a need for financial compensation. It has created an entire industry from ambulance chasers through to barristers and in the end we all pay for it, either financially through increased premiums or through a loss of opportunity to enjoy life.

There is such a thing as proportionality in life you know. We are all capable of making small mistakes at some point.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Has it perhaps occurred to you that this very culture is driven by the very attitude your are displaying.

"As I said, should one of my loved ones be killed or injured then I would make sure my barrister went for everything they had in compensation. Savings, home and the boat.".

I have never quite understood the link between loss of a loved one and compensation. Are you saying their life had a financial value to you? I get it if a partner is killed or incapacitated and there are dependants who would have relied upon their income but it seems to me that the "where there is blame there is a claim" culture is driven by pure greed, not but a need for financial compensation. It has created an entire industry from ambulance chasers through to barristers and in the end we all pay for it, either financially through increased premiums or through a loss of opportunity to enjoy life.

There is such a thing as proportionality in life you know. We are all capable of making small mistakes at some point.

But there is also the aspect of retributive punishment. A death caused by a cyclist or anyone else for that matter may fall below the bar for criminal prosecution (lack of witnesses, lack of material evidence) but still be eligible for a civil claim for damages, which requires a lower level of evidence. Consider the case of OJ Simpson in the USA! In some cases (and I don't dispute your ambulance-chasing comments) people may seek civil damages as a means of punishing the perpetrator, in cases where criminal prosecution is not possible.

We need to be careful about statements like "life cannot be valued" because this leads all too easily to "life has no value".

 

[alandalus11]

There is such a thing as proportionality in life you know. We are all capable of making small mistakes at some point.

True, and I've made my fair share of mistakes in my lifetime but we all know the difference between what is right and what is wrong unless one is completely stupid and left out when brains were being handed out or lack common sense. The problem is we all think we can push the envelope that little bit too far. That extra 5 or 10 miles over the speed limit or in this case, cycling on the pavement. Those aren't mistakes. They are conscious decisions we make. Sooner or later it goes wrong leaving others to pick up the pieces.

 

[Triassic]

As I said, should one of my loved ones be killed or injured then I would make sure my barrister went for everything they had in compensation. Savings, home and the boat.

Compensation should be proportional to the loss suffered, not the ability of someone to pay. That is why I took issue with the comment above.

But there is also the aspect of retributive punishment. A death caused by a cyclist or anyone else for that matter may fall below the bar for criminal prosecution (lack of witnesses, lack of material evidence) but still be eligible for a civil claim for damages, which requires a lower level of evidence.

So what you are in effect saying is there is insufficient evidence to establish guilt in a criminal court, but we think they're guilty anyhow so we're go for them in a civil case? That is wide open to abuse, and we've seen that all to readily lately with a long string of "victims" coming forward to make compensation claims for incidents that happened many years ago, in some cases against individuals who are in no position to defend themselves, or their reputation. As soon as financial reward becomes the motivator rather than the rule of law greed takes over, no matter how you try to disguise it as a nobel cause.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Compensation should be proportional to the loss suffered, not the ability of someone to pay. That is why I took issue with the comment above.



So what you are in effect saying is there is insufficient evidence to establish guilt in a criminal court, but we think they're guilty anyhow so we're go for them in a civil case? That is wide open to abuse, and we've seen that all to readily lately with a long string of "victims" coming forward to make compensation claims for incidents that happened many years ago, in some cases against individuals who are in no position to defend themselves, or their reputation. As soon as financial reward becomes the motivator rather than the rule of law greed takes over, no matter how you try to disguise it as a nobel cause.

It's not "insufficient evidence", it's about burden of proof. Criminal law sets the bar of "beyond reasonable doubt"; civil law works on balance of probabilities. And there are many cases where the former is impossible, but where there is little doubt that the person concerned caused the damage done. And I'm not trying to dress it up as a noble cause; I'm recognizing that sometimes we have to go for second best if the best is not attainable. Ideally, everyone guilty of a criminal act would be punished by the criminal courts - but sometimes that can't happen, because the burden of proof cannot be met. Then the fall-back is the civil courts.

I'm also, like you, against ambulance chasing and against the compensation culture. But sometimes, awarding damages is the only way a person who has caused life-changing injuries can be held responsible for their actions.

 

[Triassic]

What you are doing is producing a two tier justice system. Those that have something to lose can be held to account without the safeguards our legal system puts in place, those that do not are not? I know many people think there is one rule for the rich and another for the poor but that's what you're advocating.

What in your mind is the difference between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "but where there is little doubt".

Civil law was never intended to try criminal allegations but that is what it is now being used for.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

What you are doing is producing a two tier justice system. Those that have something to lose can be held to account without the safeguards our legal system puts in place, those that do not are not? I know many people think there is one rule for the rich and another for the poor but that's what you're advocating.

What in your mind is the difference between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "but where there is little doubt".

Civil law was never intended to try criminal allegations but that is what it is now being used for.

I think that part of the problem is that the "beyond reasonable doubt" criteria have moved from being "beyond doubt to the person on the Clapham Omnibus" to "beyond any doubt at all". But both have problems, and short of being omniscient, we do the best we can.

 

[Old Harry]

Any boats moving about

 

[jordanbasset]

What you are doing is producing a two tier justice system. Those that have something to lose can be held to account without the safeguards our legal system puts in place, those that do not are not? I know many people think there is one rule for the rich and another for the poor but that's what you're advocating.

What in your mind is the difference between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "but where there is little doubt".

Civil law was never intended to try criminal allegations but that is what it is now being used for.

You can argue the other way, redress in civil courts can be very expensive and is often only open to those that have money to take people to court. For example how many have people of limited means have been vilified by the press and have been unable to take action to clear their name.

As to the wider point, claims for damages in civil courts go back centuries and has always had a lower burden of proof.

 

[Triassic]

You can argue the other way, redress in civil courts can be very expensive and is often only open to those that have money to take people to court. For example how many have people of limited means have been vilified by the press and have been unable to take action to clear their name.

As to the wider point, claims for damages in civil courts go back centuries and has always had a lower burden of proof.

It is a good point that the better off are more able to afford taking a case to court, but then that has to be balanced against what they have to lose, and what their reputation is worth. Accusing a celebrity of doing something is far more profitable than making an allegation against somebody less well known.

 

[penberth3]

.....Incidentally some pavements are signed for both cyclists and pedestrians-are they legal?

Yes, the blue signs are official/legal. Two types, either cycleway/footway divided by a painted line and sometimes a different colour surface, I've only seen these used where the footway is wider than the standard 2 metres. Other type is combined use with pedestrians and cyclists sharing the same space.

 

[johnalison]

Yes, the blue signs are official/legal. Two types, either cycleway/footway divided by a painted line and sometimes a different colour surface, I've only seen these used where the footway is wider than the standard 2 metres. Other type is combined use with pedestrians and cyclists sharing the same space.

One comes across pedestrian/cycle paths occasionally. On the whole they are unsatisfactory, at least in this country. I have used them often abroad, where cycling is part of everyone's daily experience and seldom had trouble, though it is easy to jay-walk into the cycle zone and risk starting a war with the Netherlands. Over here, few of us cycle regularly, so pedestrians are not attuned to the idea, and the intersection of cycle lanes and roads is a major cause of risk to cyclists, something not unknown abroad either.