Nik lives in Essex, UK and works in London as the editor of MacUser magazine. The posts and comments on this site do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions of values of his employers.
send an email // view profile
I wrote to the paper and it got published on 7th August. This is what I said:
And in this week’s issue they printed a reply, thus:
Except that’s not what the Highway Code says at all. The actual law says:
When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. Take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room.
So there’s nothing about ‘passing pedestrians (on a cycle path)’ as he or she says. The brackets and the contents are all his or her own construction.
The question is, do I bother writing another letter pointing it out, or does that just make me a grumpy old man?
Related posts:
- Essex is an Oxlip, apparently
The charity Plantlife wants everyone in Britain to vote on the flower that should represent their home county. For Essex, the front runner is apparently... - Geneva
Oh, it's all getting very complicated. We're stuck on the wrong side of the Swiss border at the moment. Everyone is being very nice, but... - Spaz
Lunch with Vinnie today, where she outlined how the BBC's disability site, Ouch, conducted a survey to see how offended disabled and non-disabled people felt...
6 Responses to “I need to get a grip. Apparently.”
I was going to suggest that the other letter of yours in that top scan may have meant that you were in danger of becoming Disappointed of Chelmsford. (”Come on, The Highway Code…”)
And then I looked more closely and realised that, unless the paper thought your letter was very, very good, you had duped it yourself.
So yes, I think you should write back. If you wanted the moral high ground, you could always request that they forward it to S A Harman instead of printing it, but then people might think that he’s right.
• Posted at 9:29 am on September 1st, 2008 by Christopher Phin.Of course you should write back!
I once surprisingly found a letter of mine published in a council paper - I was moaning about the amount of dog poo on the streets near where I lived. I don’t think I ever thought it would be published…
• Posted at 12:55 pm on September 1st, 2008 by alex.I’d want to write back pointing out that his letter is misleading. I’d also want to write to him as well (complete home address could be looked up on 192.com) and let him know his doctoring of the truth didn’t go unnoticed.
• Posted at 2:27 pm on September 4th, 2008 by james.I think that the rights of the pedestrian need to be maintained in the face of the rights of anyone operating any type of vehicle be it car, cycle, mobility scooter etc. This is nothing to do with being green. A few hundred years ago there were worries about whether the horse was a more important user of the highway, the rich had them and the poor did not. The horse would have won hands down on the sustainability question. It is far easier to maintain the law if the onus is placed upon the operator of the vehicle or rider. As for the Highway Code, does one have to read it before venturing forth upon a pair of standard-issue feet?
• Posted at 9:49 am on September 6th, 2008 by caroline.Yes, I think you should write back and yes, it would make you a grumpy old man. That’s what being past 30 does to you…
You might find it interesting to know that in Iceland bike lanes are unheard of, although there are a few cyclist paths here and there along the seaside (for those braving it). People are supposed to use the pavements for their bikes.
Good thing you don’t live here, aye?
• Posted at 4:14 pm on September 7th, 2008 by kristÃn.Leave a Reply
Don’t frown on grumpy old man syndrome. Some old fellas have too much time on their hands and come out with some very strange stuff just to pad out a conversation, but they quite a bit of sense from time to time.
• Posted at 9:25 am on September 1st, 2008 by Al.