Would you do this .. ?

elyob said:

Which if the following would you have done ...

a/ Shouted out "Oy, get some lights"
b/ "Oy, get off the pavement"
c/ Both of the above
d/ Nothing (It's their lives, they're a bad example though)
e/ something different ... (please fill in below ... )

I went for d.

d.

Frankly, I'm sick of people whinging about cycling on pavements, cycling without lights or bells,
etc, etc, etc. There far more important or interesting things to worry about.

Quoted message said:

They're give an awful example to other cyclists, and these people make misery and ammunition for
non-cyclists.

Ammunition yes. Misery? Come off it.

~PB

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

elyob said:

Which if the following would you have done ...

a/ Shouted out "Oy, get some lights"
b/ "Oy, get off the pavement"
c/ Both of the above
d/ Nothing (It's their lives, they're a bad example though)
e/ something different ... (please fill in below ... )

I went for d.

d.

Frankly, I'm sick of people whinging about cycling on pavements, cycling without lights or bells,
etc, etc, etc. There far more important or interesting things to worry about.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again - there is a significant chance a bad cyclist will get
in a car and be a bad driver. Traffic laws must be enforced, regardless of which mode of transport
is being used.

As for "I'm sick of people whinging...", P**l S**th is sick of whinging about people speeding. I'm
sure you'll agree that this isn't a reason to ignore speeders.

<snip

Quoted message said:

Frankly, I'm sick of people whinging about cycling on pavements, cycling without lights or bells,
etc, etc, etc.

Cycling on pavements - Guilty. sometimes it's the only safe option. But without lights, no way. I
always have two rear lights in case one fails.

Floyd

technofreak.comtechnofreak.comOpen ↗

Nathaniel Porter said:

I've said this before, and I'll say it again - there is a significant chance a bad cyclist will
get in a car and be a bad driver.

Cyclists get blamed for a lot, but bad driving takes the biscuit! I really don't think getting away
with cycling on the pavement is to blame for bad driving. Apart from anything else, a great many
good car drivers will have been (or are) "bad" cyclists, and many bad drivers will have never (or
hardly ever) cycled in their lives.

Quoted message said:

Traffic laws must be enforced, regardless of which mode of transport is being used.

A society where ALL laws were enforced ALL the time would be hell.

And what about having more laws for how pedestrians travel? Speed limits, maximum pace length, no
dark clothing, acceleration limits, one foot on the ground at all times. All very reasonable!

Traffic laws are primarily designed for fat fast motor vehicles. The laws either need thoroughly
tuning up to properly account for the fundamental differences of bicycles, or we "must" carry on
with what we have now: descretion of what laws are enforced for each individual road (and pavement)
user and circumstance.

Quoted message said:

As for "I'm sick of people whinging...", P**l S**th is sick of whinging about people speeding. I'm
sure you'll agree that this isn't a reason to ignore speeders.

Speeding motorists kill a lot of people. THAT is the reason not to ignore speeders.

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

Traffic laws are primarily designed for fat fast motor vehicles.

They're designed for any 'vehicle' including the pony and trap. The earliest I recall was passed in
1835/7 and proscribed driving traps on pavements. Fat and fast would apply solely to buses on my
local road - they are a menace. Cars would escape by that definition.

"elyob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've had a nice day out today, a couple of laps of Richmond park and a

load

Quoted message said:

of general urban cycling. Weather was lovely, and my new glasses were

superb

Quoted message said:

(thanks SM).

Whilst my food is in the oven I decided to have a quick beer and grab some
milk. Totally useless information, but thought it added to help those who like to build a picture
in their minds eye 😉

Anyway, I wander across the road and see a slhouete of a bike about 150yds away with no lights. It
swings across the road onto the pavement I'm

aiming

Quoted message said:

for. My peripial vision now catches a second cyclist hacking along the pavement I've just left.
Now they're closer I see they're wearing matching lycra outfits, nice bikes, SPDs and seem
reasonably fit. It's possible to get caught a little late by the sunset, but it's 10pm. They
haven't even bothered getting some cheap LED's. Now to the question ...

Which if the following would you have done ...

a/ Shouted out "Oy, get some lights"
b/ "Oy, get off the pavement"
c/ Both of the above
d/ Nothing (It's their lives, they're a bad example though)
e/ something different ... (please fill in below ... )

I went for d.

They're give an awful example to other cyclists, and these people make misery and ammunition for
non-cyclists. If it was someone else I was cycling with, i'd say that they're crazy.

Nick

If I hadn't seen them until late because of no lights I'd have said (a)

If they'd nearly hit me on the pavement I'd have said (b)

If they'd nearly hit me on the pavement because of no lights I'd have said
(c)

If I'd seen them (as you did) and they were only a threat to themselves with no lights I'd have said
(d) as you did.

Tenex said:

Pete Biggs said:

Traffic laws are primarily designed for fat fast motor vehicles.

They're designed for any 'vehicle' including the pony and trap.

The "designers" hardly have cycles in mind when making the laws. I know they (nearly all) *apply* to
cycles, but that's not the point.

Quoted message said:

The earliest I recall was passed in 1835/7 and proscribed driving traps on pavements.

I'm not referring to ALL the laws but the bulk of modern traffic laws - and road & junction layouts,
for that matter.

Quoted message said:

Fat and fast would apply solely to buses on my local road
- they are a menace. Cars would escape by that definition.

How many times fatter and faster than a bicycle is a car?

~PB

Currrently the sun isn't setting until well after 9pm so it is possible they were just caught out a bit later than they had thought. Additionally, sometimes cycling on the footpath is the only reasonably safe course of events. I would rather see someone cycling on the footpath, when it's getting dark, than being out in traffic barely visible.

Had it been me, I would just have tutted in contempt and somehow been glad in the smug knowledge it's something I wouldn't doand pleased because I had something to complain about. Unfortunately that is true.

"elyob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've had a nice day out today, a couple of laps of Richmond park and a

load

Quoted message said:

of general urban cycling. Weather was lovely, and my new glasses were

superb

Quoted message said:

(thanks SM).

I'll send the dark ones when I go back to work next week. Simon

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Frankly, I'm sick of people whinging about cycling on pavements, cycling without lights or bells,
etc, etc, etc. There far more important or interesting things to worry about.

Surely you can say this about anything? For example, while there is starving in the 3rd world,
rampant AIDS in Africa and earthquakes in Algeria, shall we bother with cars parking on double
yellow lines as it's such a trivial matter in comparison?

We can't do anything about the above, but we can help to stop our own people getting killed if we
politely suggest they put some lights on.

--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W simonmason.karoo.netsimonmason.karoo.netOpen ↗

Pete Biggs said:

Tenex said:

Pete Biggs said:

Traffic laws are primarily designed for fat fast motor vehicles.

They're designed for any 'vehicle' including the pony and trap.

The "designers" hardly have cycles in mind when making the laws. I know they (nearly all) *apply*
to cycles, but that's not the point.

Quoted message said:

The earliest I recall was passed in 1835/7 and proscribed driving traps on pavements.

I'm not referring to ALL the laws but the bulk of modern traffic laws
- and road & junction layouts, for that matter.

Quoted message said:

Fat and fast would apply solely to buses on my local road
- they are a menace. Cars would escape by that definition.

How many times fatter and faster than a bicycle is a car?

~PB

Surely the point is we can't choose which laws to obey?

Otherwise I vote for scrapping all revenue laws before turning to bike unfriendly legislation. ;-)

e. Shoot them and burn the bodies.

Works every time.

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

Simon Mason said:

Quoted message said:

Frankly, I'm sick of people whinging about cycling on pavements, cycling without lights or bells,
etc, etc, etc. There far more important or interesting things to worry about.

Surely you can say this about anything? For example, while there is starving in the 3rd world,
rampant AIDS in Africa and earthquakes in Algeria, shall we bother with cars parking on double
yellow lines as it's such a trivial matter in comparison?

I don't mean the issue should be completely ignored, it's just that the amount and strength of
criticism and seems way over the top to me. "Bad" cycling is a minor problem compared to bad
motoring yet it gets several times more bashing (from all quaters) per miscreant.

Quoted message said:

We can't do anything about the above, but we can help to stop our own people getting killed if we
politely suggest they put some lights on.

That would be allright if it was polite with enuine and warranted concern, but I think people (in
general) often moan about this purely because they like to pick on others and feel superior.

~PB

Tenex said:

Surely the point is we can't choose which laws to obey?

A wonderfully British attitude!

Of course we can choose - and we do. It's called freedom. We have to take the consequences if we get
nicked, though, but my point is that it's not important to *always* enforce every law because the
law is so generalised.

~PB

"Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

e. Shoot them and burn the bodies.

Acid Bath?

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That would be allright if it was polite with enuine and warranted concern, but I think people (in
general) often moan about this purely because they like to pick on others and feel superior.

I didn't say a thing to them. I didn't moan or whinge, just asked here what everyone else would do.
I certainly wouldn't feel guilty if they knocked off or hit. But if they hit a pensioner just after
going past me, I'd feel guilty I did nothing. It's not the actions but the possible consequences
that are the dangerous part.

I think the bit that amazed me was they seemed to be particularly keen cyclists and old enough to
know different. They buy a bike and equipment but forgot to even have a back LED. I just don't get
it. If it's friends of mine, I'd buy some for them.

elyob said:

I didn't say a thing to them. I didn't moan or whinge

My comments were about the _general_ level of critism and not aimed at any individual persons or
posts here, fueled by the belief that the dangers of pavement cycling and no-lights are generally
greatly exagerated. The one more message on the subject was the final straw for me. Sorry about that
- my first reply was a whinge if ever there was one! :-)

Quoted message said:

, just asked here what everyone else would do. I certainly wouldn't feel guilty if they knocked off
or hit. But if they hit a pensioner just after going past me, I'd feel guilty I did nothing. It's
not the actions but the possible consequences that are the dangerous part.

I think the bit that amazed me was they seemed to be particularly keen cyclists and old enough to
know different. They buy a bike and equipment but forgot to even have a back LED. I just don't get
it. If it's friends of mine, I'd buy some for them.

They may have been out later than expected and didn't manage to attach clip-on lights in advance.
They are in the wrong but I'm not sure pointing it out to them would do any good as they probably
know full well what they're doing (and would most likely to be able to avoid pensioners without
relying on the pensioners to see them at all). Might be different with young kids where they might
be encouraged to get some lights if they'd never properly considered it before - but you'd have to
be very skillful with your tone.

~PB

"elyob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I didn't say a thing to them. I didn't moan or whinge, just asked here what everyone else would
do. I certainly wouldn't feel guilty if they knocked off or hit. But if they hit a pensioner just
after going past me, I'd feel guilty I did nothing. It's not the actions but the possible
consequences that are the dangerous part.

Here's an analogy for you. Would you consider shouting at every motorist you see driving whilst on
the phone or speeding etc etc etc? Would you feel guilty if you did nothing and see them run some
one down further down the road?

LN