IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 21st May 2023, 05:08 AM   #1601
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 53,496
Originally Posted by jeremyp View Post
It is an issue in a more general sense in that the council responsible for cycle paths and shared paths does not know if one of its paths is shared and any cyclists using it do not know if they are breaking the law or not.

This whole incident occurred because it wasn't obvious to Grey that the path was shared (or conversely, it wasn't obvious to Ward that the path was not shared). It doesn't excuse Grey's actions but this kind of ambiguity can sometimes led to dangerous confrontations. The council is incompetent and its lack of competence contributed to the death of a member of the public.
Yeah, but the verdict and sentence were still right.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2023, 05:51 AM   #1602
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 29,740
Originally Posted by jeremyp View Post
It is an issue in a more general sense in that the council responsible for cycle paths and shared paths does not know if one of its paths is shared and any cyclists using it do not know if they are breaking the law or not.
It would be tricky, to say the least, to make it crystal clear.

Many side roads meet that main road. To make the status of the pavement totally clear you'd need two 'shared path' signs at each junction, one each for cyclists/pedestrians turning left or right. A crossroads would mean 4 such signs.

My assumption has been that the 'shared path' status remains in effect until it's negated, like a 20mph sign that slows traffic down from 30 around schools. Yeah, that 'default' idea leaves things unclear but I can also see the council's
problem with installing so much signage.

Meanwhile, Grey is guilty as sin no matter what the status of the pavement.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2023, 05:54 AM   #1603
jeremyp
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 2,814
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Yeah, but the verdict and sentence were still right.
Yes. That's why I said "in a more general sense". If there had been "no cycling" signs every two metres, Grey's actions were still reckless and dangerous and illegal.
jeremyp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2023, 06:02 AM   #1604
jeremyp
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 2,814
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
It would be tricky, to say the least, to make it crystal clear.

Many side roads meet that main road. To make the status of the pavement totally clear you'd need two 'shared path' signs at each junction, one each for cyclists/pedestrians turning left or right. A crossroads would mean 4 such signs.
Simple repeater signs at regular intervals would have helped. You wouldn't have needed sign posts at every side road.
Quote:
My assumption has been that the 'shared path' status remains in effect until it's negated, like a 20mph sign that slows traffic down from 30 around schools. Yeah, that 'default' idea leaves things unclear but I can also see the council's
problem with installing so much signage.
Yes, and we know there was a signpost further back in the direction Ward came from, which would lead a reasonable person to assume that it was still a shared path. We don't know what signage there was from Grey's direction. Grey thought it was a pedestrian only path so the signage could have been better.

In fact the council that administers shared paths still can't say if it is a shared path or not, which is utterly incredible.

Quote:
Meanwhile, Grey is guilty as sin no matter what the status of the pavement.
Which has been my position since the tart of the thread. However, Grey's guilt does not mean nobody else could have done better
jeremyp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2023, 10:02 AM   #1605
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 37,090
Originally Posted by jeremyp View Post
It is an issue in a more general sense in that the council responsible for cycle paths and shared paths does not know if one of its paths is shared and any cyclists using it do not know if they are breaking the law or not.
Originally Posted by jeremyp View Post
In fact the council that administers shared paths still can't say if it is a shared path or not, which is utterly incredible.

Where do you get that from?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 21st May 2023 at 10:04 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2023, 12:13 PM   #1606
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 9,933
The final paragraph of the BBC story I just linked.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2023, 12:27 PM   #1607
Shrinker
Graduate Poster
 
Shrinker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,185
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
The final paragraph of the BBC story I just linked.
That doesn't appear to be new reporting...
Quote:
Cambridgeshire County Council said following Grey's conviction it might have to review its shared pavements policy, admitting it did not know whether this section was one.
Just a rehashing of a months-old BBC article from shortly after the conviction:
Quote:
Cambridgeshire County Council cannot categorically state if it was a shared-use path and will review the site.
...
The council, which has responsibility for highways, said it "cannot categorically say it is a shared use path as we could not find any legal records to evidence this".
It said it was reviewing the "location to see if there is any work required to make things clearer".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-64900815
Shrinker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2023, 01:53 PM   #1608
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 9,933
Originally Posted by Shrinker View Post
That doesn't appear to be new reporting...


Just a rehashing of a months-old BBC article from shortly after the conviction:
Has anything changed?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2023, 07:28 AM   #1609
jeremyp
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 2,814
Originally Posted by Shrinker View Post
That doesn't appear to be new reporting...


Just a rehashing of a months-old BBC article from shortly after the conviction:
Even if they have since determined the status of the path, it's still incredible that they did not know it at the time of the trial - the trial being the second trial of this case and the actual incident happening three years ago.
jeremyp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2023, 09:29 AM   #1610
Shrinker
Graduate Poster
 
Shrinker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,185
Originally Posted by jeremyp View Post
Even if they have since determined the status of the path, it's still incredible that they did not know it at the time of the trial - the trial being the second trial of this case and the actual incident happening three years ago.
I donít find it that incredible really. The council said thereís no evidence it was ever a shared path. If it was never designated as a shared path no amount of time is going to produce the missing records. The simplest explanation is that the sign was erected in the wrong place, and therefore thereís also no paperwork for why itís there.
Shrinker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:34 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.