tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36939759.post3011917734310666885..comments2024-01-17T07:03:57.842+00:00Comments on The Mad Ranter: Parking LawsFlipChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09449939046593105926noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36939759.post-69971089132353242262009-10-09T08:54:04.740+01:002009-10-09T08:54:04.740+01:00A fair point, it comes down to that subtle definit...A fair point, it comes down to that subtle definition of public highway that is reminiscent of the difference between parking and waiting.FlipChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09449939046593105926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36939759.post-56045438193282351212009-10-08T18:12:22.652+01:002009-10-08T18:12:22.652+01:00There's an extra little tidbit about driving o...There's an extra little tidbit about driving on the footpath: technically, a paved area that doesn't adjoin a public highway is not a footpath, so by default it is OK to ride a bike on one. This includes all those little back alleys leading between streets. Often these back alleys have a "no cycling" sign, which is the result of a Traffic Restriction Order banning cycling thereon.<br /><br />OK, this is beginning to sound a bit subtle. What's the real difference? First, that unless there's a sign prohibiting you, it's OK to cycle along a paved area that isn't alongside a road. Second, that driving or riding along the footpath can earn you a Fixed Penalty Notice from a police officer, but breaching a TRO needs to go to the magistrates' court.<br /><br />In Cambridge there are dozens of cases recorded a year of people cycling along alleys incorrectly being given FPN's for footpath cycling, and a handful for cases where the cyclist was within their rights (because there is no TRO for that alley).<br /><br />The first of those is questionable: people who are breaking the law should be punished, but for the law they're breaking, not some trumped-up charge. The second is clearly out of line.Dan Hhttp://surreal.istic.org/noreply@blogger.com