Jonathan62

As you wrongly stated that statements were law; and could be subject to JR you gave the impression that laws could be subject to the same.

Ministerial statements are a means for providing an account to Parliament; they may also clarify, or indeed change, administrative rules and procedures but they are not laws. Judicial Review cannot be done against legislation passed by parliament, but is allowable on decisions taken by public bodies.

Re policy is law etc. This is utter rubbish; a ministerial statement is a statement of fact, normally with the intent to provide clarification, it is not law. Nor is failure to follow policy, in of itself, grounds for judicial review.

Some did tell Charing Cross Road, that's why there are hardly any book shops left there nowadays.

jonsuissy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > a fish Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Today's @$$holes. Number 2 nearly clipped me, > and > > is cycling past a sign saying 'cyclists > dismount'. > > Nobody around - seems safe enough to me. > > I do think this thread has been going on long > enough, surely these pictures are a sign we need > to stop. > > On to more interesting topics I think. > > Now, how is that M&S coming on at Iceland site???? Hi, if want to talk about M&S try the thread about that. As to your other comment - should cars speed or jump red lights if there is no one around?

> Is this thread about pavement cycling in ED, or > cycling on the pavement in general (in which case > Admin, please lounge it)? Can anyone honestly say > that they regularly see people cycling on the > pavement in ED? If so, please try and quantify it- > weekly, monthly, once a year? It has been quantified, eg I cited three examples in a 10 minute walk to Peckham Rye station one morning.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is this thread about pavement cycling in ED, or > cycling on the pavement in general (in which case > Admin, please lounge it)? Can anyone honestly say > that they regularly see people cycling on the > pavement in ED? If so, please try and quantify it- > weekly, monthly, once a year? It has been quantified, eg I cited three examples in a 10 minute walk to Peckham Rye station one morning.

Hi, is it just me or was the latest BooHoo advert filmed in Franks?

Hi, its not that difficult or expensive to do this your self.......hic!

LadyD - so, an empty road, no traffic or pedestrians waiting to step off the pavement - is it alright for a motorist to break the speed limit? A traffic junction on red, no other vehicles around, do I really have to wait for the light to turn green before I drive across?

LadyD - the legality, or otherwise of cycling on the pavement is not moot. It is illegal. The judgement you cited on another thread was that a cyclists duty to protecting themselves at a moment of life threatening danger superseded their legal responsibility to not cycle on the pavement. However, since I've not personally heard a judge say that then shouldn't your point by anecdotal? In any case here's some more anecdotal evidence: 0745 cyclist wearing a white helmet with stars jumps the lights at the corner of Peckham Rye and East Dulwich Road, illegally turning right and riding across the pavement as they do. 0749 cyclist wearing a black hoodie and big earphones cycles on the pavement along Peckham Rye. 0751 cyclist wearing a helmet and fluorescent waistcoat comes out of a house on Peckham Rye, gets on their bike and cycles on the pavement, past the bus stop. In none of these situations was was the traffic bad or life threatening. All this in a walk from Barry Road to Peckham Rye station.

Fair point, I should have said adult, as I did on another thread I started on this topic. For info, my examples both involved adults.

I find it hard to take seriously some one who thinks a group she is a member of should be able to break the law whilst other groups should be subject to more laws. The same argument that supports cyclists illegally, and dangerously, riding on a pavement supports other road users doing the same. Thus there is no justification except in absolute, life threatening extremis. Everyone brings their own experience to these debates, mine is that I have nearly been hit twice this week by cyclists - one riding on a pavement and the other riding across a pedestrian crossing whilst it was green. Oddly enough no other motorists have done that.

To Penguin68, still doesn't make it right - you've bought something its your responsibility to sort out disposing of it properly.

Hi, Why do some cyclists think it's okay to ride on the pavement? For very young kids I could see there being a reason, but adults?