CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
Erm. No. That's not what I was saying... Just that something you said was illegal is legal...
Just to be straight here and not misinterpreted.
I think it's fine to copy for personal use as it's legal; it's not fine to copy to sell as that's illegal.
I think it's fine to ride on dual use pavements as that's legal; it's not fine to ride on non-dual use pavements as that's illegal...
"...in certain circumstances..."
Presumably circumstances different in some way to the other circumstances.
In Lincoln on the road approaching Pelham Bridge from the south there's one of those tidal lane-swap sign things, causing the middle lane to be north-ish-bound in the mornings and south-ish-bound in the evenings. Only a small change in circumstances, but an important one. This example is only used as an example of how small changes in circumstances may bring about large changes in expectations of situations likely to be encountered and I am not attempting to compare the physical or legal ramifications of driving the wrong way down the carriageway of an A-road at rush hour with the ramifications of copying recorded music.
Arguing with Dave is like arguing that growing a beard is like murdering children.
I say that similes are like planting daffodils, its all well and good until someone loses an eye.
@Min - been reading too many EEN posts, perchance?
Robert
Haha, I actually thought that when I went back to the main page and saw the title of the rugby scrum thread!
Talking of pavement cycling...
Cycle Messenger Championships
Lucas Brunelle is coming to film event
Here's an early cut of the EMC video (done locally - not by Brunelle) - some interesting bike positions. http://www.naden.de/blog/bbvideo-bbpress-video-plugin -->
| [+] Embed the video | ECMC video - down Cowgate way.... " target="_blank">Video Download | Get the Video Plugin |
"Erm. No. That's not what I was saying... Just that something you said was illegal is legal..."
I'm not sure this is true, the latest I can find is that in August 2011, the government said it intended to implement the recommendations of the Hargreaves report, but if it's done so, I can't find it.
However, if it helps with the analogy, imagine we're having this conversation a few months ago, when ripping a CD was certainly illegal (I'm getting the feeling that I should have chosen a less popular law to contrast with murder?)
In which case people shouldn't do it. And if it is still illegal then I'll stop doing it.
I'll have a look at the legislation site when I have a moment to see if the statutory implement has been put in place to make the law law yet. It's annoying me not knowing.
But I think a different analogy, where lots of people are doing something that everyohne knows for absolute certain is illegal, is needed... :P
The reason why the comparison between ripping a CD for personal use and pavement cycling falls down is because it is not becuase they are both illegal but one is socially approved of, its because one directly can put fear into vulnerable or otherwise pedestrians and the other potentially reduces the profits to be made from selling people the same music over and over again in different formats.
Ah. Interesting.
Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 is our relevant legislation. Copying of a work, no matter whether for personal use or not, is an infringement which gives the copyright owner a right of remedy (and thecourt, in awarding damages will take into account how 'flagrant' the infringement was, and also how much money the copier made from the act of copying (so personal use you'll likely simply be told to stop).
This is a civil remedy, so not an illegal act.
The criminal acts (in s.107) all essentially relate to selling and dealing in goods which have been copied through infringement.
So by exception copying for personal use is not illegal, but it is civilly actionable (if, for example, Elton John found me listening to one of his songs on my phone and took exception to me having taken it from a CD I bought, and not bought another copy on iTunes).
@mgj - that's just your subjective opinion. One might as well argue that pavement cycling is a net benefit to society because it transfers a serious threat to cyclists (X hundred killed each year) into a relatively minor one for pedestrians (1 every couple of years, I believe?), while piracy has cost a large number of people their jobs, leading to house repossession, suicides, etc.
It's not an argument I am actually making. But the point is that there is certainly an argument there.
I'd say "social approval" basically *is* the difference, as you can see whenever you ask somebody to compare lawbreaking they do themselves with lawbreaking they hate (for drivers, I'd compare it with doing 31mph, etc).
Right, so we're all a bit right(?)
Of course this makes some of the arguments even more difficult because of the simplicity of understanding what people understand to be illegal - and whether they think/believe/assume they might be breaking the law.
Not that ignorance of the law is any defence...
Presume it isn't actually illegal to watch YouTube clips were you 'know' the copyright doesn't belong to the uploader(?)
"Right, so we're all a bit right(?)"
Pretty much. Some are more right than others... ;)
I think it's just the person who breaches the copyright that infringes, so watching the YouTube thing should be okay.
What we've also go to remember is that social approval, while being an explanation for people getting away with/avoidigin censure for certain acts, does not actually render those acts legal/right.
Dave, it was not subjective when my 8 year old had to be pulled out of the way of a 20 year old on a road bike last night. I was afraid and so was she. And I'm sorry but you are wrong, your arguments are just stupid and aimed at the wrong target if you want to improve life for cyclists (lets do more of what annoys everyone else...). You clearly live in a very different location to me, with very different priorities. When I'm walking along the street on the pavement, I dont expect to have to get out of the way of vehicles; your argument could equally apply to driving on the pavement.
Easy folks, I don't think anyone is advocating inconsiderate cycling, and such has been criticised at length here. Even if cycling is permitted, children should not have to be pulled out of the way...
Robert
"Dave, it was not subjective when my 8 year old had to be pulled out of the way of a 20 year old on a road bike last night. I was afraid and so was she. And I'm sorry but you are wrong, your arguments are just stupid and aimed at the wrong target if you want to improve life for cyclists (lets do more of what annoys everyone else...)."
Nevertheless I'm sure that a lawyer would be able to make the case that one pedestrian death every second year is a lesser evil than a few hundred cyclist deaths on the road.
I don't think arguing specifics is very productive, but it's never clear how many incidents would still have happened if the pavement was designated shared use, as an increasing number are, regardless of suitability.
Pavement or road or hillside or shopping centre, however people get about there are always people who don't do it with the grace and care that we might like. Just try walking along Princes St on a weekend shopping day!
My own views on pavement cycling are pretty clear, but I think it's pointless trying to ignore the obvious truth that people do it because taking everything into consideration including your kids, they still think it's a better option than cycling on the road.
The solution is never going to be to moan about it or try to enforce it (impossible) but to make the road the preferred place for people to be. Put it this way - however fast someone cycles on the pavement, they are explicitly accepting a huge reduction in speed and convenience, since they could get around a lot faster and with a lot less effort if they didn't.
Therefore it's my opinion that the only way we can contribute to the solution is to focus on the cause (the roads) rather than the symptom ("educate cyclists so they know it's illegal" / " fine them all!!")
Unfortunately, too many people get fixated on the symptom than the cause, IMO.
"You clearly live in a very different location to me, with very different priorities. When I'm walking along the street on the pavement, I dont expect to have to get out of the way of vehicles; your argument could equally apply to driving on the pavement."
Unless you don't live in Edinburgh, I'm pretty sure we live in the same place. I don't expect to have to get out of the way of anyone, from grannies to JCBs. It happens though ;-)
Was looking for 'spotted' but it's gone AWOL again...
Walking back from Argyle Bar and about to cross Melville Drive
Not sure what it proves... facing oncoming traffic is recommended when out walking on a road with no pavement. Of course if she was continental then most cycleways are two way on either side of the road so you don't have to cross over!
Looked risky to me...
If we had been closer I think I would have offered advice!
Wonder if the cyclist that went by said anything printible.
"Nevertheless I'm sure that a lawyer would be able to make the case that one pedestrian death every second year is a lesser evil than a few hundred cyclist deaths on the road."
However I would be stunned if a court was to accept such an argument. Because, quite frankly, it's ridiculous for quite a number of reasons it's too dull to type out on a phone.
"Was looking for 'spotted' but it's gone AWOL again..."
It hides out in the 'Questions/Support/Help' thread for some reason.
I blame recombodna.
@wingpig Large road users need all the practise they can get in dealing with the presence of squishables.
I can't argue with that. I've done my RLO as my little teeny bit of cycling activism; showing that even when it's obvious that I should jump, not all cyclists do, but the practice angle will make it easier for me.
@Roibeard. Seconded. Settle down, folks; this is CCE, not the internet!
"this is CCE, not the internet"
You say the nicest things.
Used my somewhat annoyed Paddington hard stare on a roadie (team colours, cap, etc.) who was cycling on the pavement outside Waverley Market. Attempting to circumvent the Princes St tram works without unclipping, no doubt. He was being quite careful, lots of track standing, that's why I didn't escalate to an extremely annoyed or furious Paddington hard stare.
I was on foot, pushing the wee 'Bucking Bronco' folder in the opposite direction. Evening rush hour, place mobbed with peds. For goodness sake, just get off and push for less than a minute.
@chdot: I mused some time ago, shortly after joining here, if I recall correctly, that the civilised atmosphere here is due to the posters knowing the person they are aggravated by does almost by definition live within a handful of minutes travel away, unlike the rest of the interweb where they're probably in a different time zone.
Then I looked at the EEN comments and watched that theory, like so many of mine, go on fire and then sink.
So I guess you're doing something right. Good work.
Weird, isn't it?
@anth - the point wasn't that you'd have a legal defence and get off... only that people make a rational and carefully reasoned decision to use the pavement (IMO). We might not like the outcome of their choice-making process and it might be illegal in some locations*, but I don't think it's thoughtless or random - mainly because, as I said, it's slower and less convenient than *not* riding on the pavement.
People are just not inherently wired up to do something inconvenient (and possibly risk aggro from strangers, or possibly even a fine) unless the reward seriously outweighs these downsides. In this way it's fundamentally different to, say, speeding or mobile phone driving, which are *more* convenient at the expense of danger.
Pavement cyclists are really putting themselves out. The heart of the whole debate should be what we need to change about the road to get the balance sorted so they ride on it.
* sometimes obviously the pavement is in fact dual use, but that doesn't suddenly mean you should ride over peds, which is most people's complaint, rather than the pedantry of legal signage.
So "Nevertheless I'm sure that a lawyer would be able to make the case that one pedestrian death every second year is a lesser evil than a few hundred cyclist deaths on the road" actually meant "people make a rational and carefully reasoned decision to use the pavement" and not that a lawyer would be able to make a legal case?
[edited to add- yes, I used 'a lawyer' as representative of 'someone who was interested in making the argument' to distinguish myself from the hypothetical holder of such an opinion, rather than 'I think there would be a legal defence that...' - I see now this was another leap too far for CCE!]
To ramble on further - generally people are interested in bashing pavement cyclists, harsh enforcing pavement cycling law, criticising imaginary groupings because they once saw someone cycle on the pavement, or often, just redesignating a pavement as dual use ("giving in"), they never say "man, we really need to get a 20 limit on that street and deal with the rediculous double parking so that all these guys are dying to get off the clunky pavement and onto the tarmac!"
The ultimate example of this is in London where people avoid some dangerously-driven junctions by riding on the pavement, traffic police actually conduct stakeouts with a policy that no dangerous driving will be picked up, instead they'll chase the cyclists, when in fact, the cyclists wouldn't be bothering with the pavement at all if only somebody stopped angry and careless people driving into them.
I give up - ta ra for now.
O wad some pow'r the giftie gie us, tae see oursels as ithers see us
obvioulsy that is smug and self congratulatory but at times it is also rather contrary and indeed over detailed devotees of a non-argument
Meanwhile in the real world [rather than in hypothetical scenarios postulated to assist in some recondite argument] - if a cyclist on a pavement hit a child they would be detained and handled roughly by the general public and the argument that the roads are dangerous and statistically best to cycle on the pavement would not hold.
Regardless of stats or ins and outs of the logic of the argument the cyclist would still be wrong and the general public is as rigid in its beliefs as we are when we post on this site in our little internet bubble.
ooh I am up in a bad mood this morning...
Of course, we can just sit around in Daily Wail mode and rant about people who do things we don't like. That's been real effective at reducing the 50+% of people who admit to regular speeding, for example, and I'm sure it will have a measurable effect on pavement cycling over the next thousand years or so ;-)
I came up with a really good speeding analogy on the way in this morning but I'm going to save it for the next pavement moan thread instead of wasting it here. It's a great thought experiment.
"I'm going to save it for the next pavement moan thread instead of wasting it here"
Fine.
Away from point scoring, the bigger picture is that allowing everyone to cycle on all pavements isn't a particularly good idea (don't bother to argue) and advocating it at a time when there might actually be some small bits of progress about 'safety' ON roads is a distraction.
Most 'cyclists' don't have it very high on their lists of demands or 'good ideas' and non-cyclists certainly don't.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts