Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Road running
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Does that mean it's illegal to cycle without a helmet? Rule 59 - "You should wear a cycle helmet".
Colin: From the introduction to the Highway Code:
"
Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."
I think the runner was spot on with his assessment of CM.
colin..whatever the law is or isn't..you were a right twat on this occassion........I am a cyclist and still think you are a total twat over this matter.....
and you sound like the car drivers that beep and gesticulate at me for riding my bike on the road trying to wipe me out because there is a cycle path nearby.as they are in a car and are therefore have more rights than me
care to answer this?
and 137 is about people blocking the road in a protest or such.
CM - was the runner "wilfully obstructing the free passage along the highway"? No. There was enough room for vehicles travelling in single file to pass him (I'm deducing this from the fact that there was enough room for you to cycle up the inside tunnel). Vehicles are not supposed to travel in double file - so really, it was you who was in the wrong.
If you weren't there, the runner could quite happily have continued up that tunnel without causing any disruption to the flow of the traffic.
Here's another thought. I wasn't there, so I can't verify it, but the runner was probably going to get out of your way regardless of you throwing your arms about at him etc. He could see how far away you were, how fast you were travelling and how fast he was running. Rather than run along the verge, he probably decided to just get out of the way last minute and called you an idiot for all your arm-waving nonsense.
I'm still wondering what your legal qualifications are?
CM - nobody disagrees that the guy should probably have used the path because there was a perfectly good path he could have used. It's the "against the law" nonsense that you're spouting.
My choices are to either run on the road, run on the treadmill in my shed, or drive somewhere to run on a path. I live in the country, so I run on the road. The vast majority of drivers/cyclists are courteous and are happy to give a runner in my neck of the woods (Aberdeenshire) enough room. If I see or hear a car approaching, I make myself aware of what's coming the other way (there usually isn't anything) so that I know whether or not the car will have enough room to pass me. If the car won't have enough room to pass me, I get off the road in plenty of time. If there's plenty of room to pass me, I stay on the road. You do get the odd nutcase who gives you about 1 inch of room and I get off the road to make sure I'm safe. If a car was to hit me on the road, it would be the car driver that was in the wrong (in the eyes of the law), regardless of whether I chose to get out of his way or not. I definitely should get out of the way of the car because I will always come off worse, but I wouldn't be guilty of a criminal offence by not getting out of the way.
As someone said very early on in this thread - roads were there before cars. Everyone has the right to use them.
There was a similar question that came up on a cycling forum I use. Most of the comments were along the lines of "Better to be tolerant" and "Ultimately we are all trying to share a limited amount of space. Courtesy from all parties is always appreciated, and usually returned."
The draftsman of Rule 1 of the Highway Code has adopted the construction of saying what you should do. The necessary implication is, you shouldn't do the opposite of what it says you should do. It doesn't need to be spelt out further.
Precisely , an implication.
And given rules to become legal need the words must/must not clearly passed you by no matter how many times it is repeated.
And despite looking over it many times, I still can't see where it says "it is expressly forbidden to run in the road" in rule 1
I did find rule 64 interesting though: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Police could have a field day...
Hallelujah, Allah Akbar, hooray; learning has taken place!!! Colin is quoting a primary source of law!!!
I am not sure that he has got beyond 'Wikipedia' level?
He is ignoring me because I am, "just a law student" (his words not mine!) interesting that he has the (insert word here) to challenge someone with your knowledge, qualifications and experience!
Like I said, his quotes are great value!
Looks like someone has applied 'Colin's principle' to cyclists
http://road.cc/content/news/84284-nofolk-bloodycyclists-twitter-story-hits-local-national-headlines-cyclists
She felt that cyclists should get out of her way because she was driving a car....
Ultimately, no matter how closely we follow the rules as a runner and/or cyclist, there will always be other road users that think we're in the wrong (and those who feel entitled enough to put everyone in danger for the sake of saving a few seconds on their journey time). Sigh.
I hope, for Colin's sake, that he's just an internet wind-up merchant.
A bit of a dull subject for a troll to select, but it seems to be working.
(you're surely not actually being serious are you Colin?)
I could cope with him chasing me, as long as he does not try his legal arguments on me!
If he is a wind up then he is truly first class!
But the driver is now saying that it was the cyclists fault and she only hit him with her wing mirror
A whole thread summed up in 1 sentence.
Happy reading folks!
Was Colin signalling at you with a fishtailing arm?
Running on the road shouldn't be an issue for either runner or driver. I think both parties should be respectful - drivers should take precautions when approaching a runner and the runner should be acting/wearing appropriate gear.
If a runner and a cyclist collide, both are at risk of injury, so it's just common sense to move out of the way and avoid the risk. Common courtesy goes a long way. I often run on roads, and will move to the side if a car / bike is coming, unless they've pulled out to avoid me, in which case I'll acknowledge with a wave. Never a problem.
I always thought that pedestrians had right of way on the roads, which makes sense to me. But if you put common sense to one side, and focus on the legalities, does a cyclist become a pedestrian when he puts his foot down at a junction? And if there's a path beside the road, why doesn't the cyclist use it?
Colin McL - I take my hat off to you - you are either a wind-up merchant extraordinaire or a total fuckwit, and I don't know which. The only thing I do know is that there are lots of people out there who might respond to your "fishtailing" or riding straight at them by thumping you. If you piss someone off badly enough or make them feel threatened, they may be less concerned with psuedo-legal debate, and you may find yourself left with a sore face.