Another letter

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

Quoted message said:

"Frank" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You cannot make sweeping statement such as *it is no safer to ride on pavements* this is a gross
generalisation based on the skimpiest

statistics,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

flying in the face of common sense, worthy of Paul Smith. Many times

(not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

all, or even most, but many) you are much safer on the pavement. The

trick

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is to understand when, where and why.

Justifying illegal and anti-social behaviour by reference to superior skill and experience. That's
not reminiscent of Paul Smith, is it?

I'm not justifying illegal and anti-social behaviour, I'm saying something that is clearly,
logically true.

Improving safety and awareness are good things even if Paul does support them?

Pavement cycling is still part of traffic safety in this country and is quite legal in many places I
think understanding when it is dangerous and when it is safe is generally a good thing?

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

This isn't true there are many instance where it is both much safer and quicker to ride on the
pavement.

I am sure there are. However, I understand statistics suggest a shared

use

Quoted message said:

pavement path is at least twice as dangerous as the road so I doubt that illegal pavement cycling
is safer.

What! I point out that you should be careful about what you say and you come out with *twice as
dangerous* what does that mean?. How many people were killed on share use pavement path last year? I
would guess it was ~120 on the road.

The trick was I used the word many *instances* not universal statements? Like a 2 meter pavement
that avoids going round a 2 lane busy round about?

Quoted message said:

It can only be faster if you are using the pavement to avoid long road diversions. I can happily
travel at 15 mph on the road. Such a speed

would

Quoted message said:

be difficult and certainly irresponsible on a pavement.

Quoted message said:

I'm not saying I support rushing past the coffin dodgers from behind.

Now, I am not that old -- though I have, fairly recently, had the

experience

Quoted message said:

of nursing a very frail and terminally ill relative so perhaps have gained

a

Quoted message said:

bit more of an understanding of the needs and the fears of the elderly. Somehow, this sentance
says it all. You clearly have a lack of concern

for

Quoted message said:

or any undersanding of 'coffin dodgers'.

No, it just shows poor taste nothing else.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not saying I don't understand that pavement cycling can introduce extra danger when crossing
roads. You may disagree with Councils misguidedly trying to force cyclists onto pavements with
shared use paths. But many, many cyclists do use pavements very safely and responsibly.

Sorry, this is oxymoron. Pavements are for pedestrians. It cannot be responsible to be where you
are specificly excluded by law. You will be defending cager's calls to abolish speed limits next.

No its not people do cycle on the pavement (paved areas) it is not an oxymoron. I would not defend
cager's calls to abolish speed limits, that is just an insult?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The trick is to understand when, where and why.

No trick. Never, nowhere and because it is inconsiderate to pedestrians

and

Quoted message said:

illegal.

Again saying something that is clearly wrong, it is not illegal in many places, as you admit
yourself in your first paragraph. Please be more careful, how can we even discuss higher concepts
such as saftey if you keep making statements that are obviously exaggerations and untrue.

On 11 Mar 2003 10:29:26 GMT, Frank scrawled: ) No, I'm not going to get into a statistical argument,
however I do believe ) pedestrians, on the pavement, are far more likely to be killed or seriously )
injured by a car (or Bus as happened yesterday in the town where I went to ) college) than by a
pavement cyclist.

Well, faith moves in mysterious ways. I don't know how much it moves in vehicular accidents, though.

J-P
--
TV presenter Phillipa Forrester, holding up a T-shirt printed with a child's body, said: "Wearing a
T-shirt like this the paedophile can disguise himself as a child."

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

Quoted message said:

What! I point out that you should be careful about what you say and you

come

Quoted message said:

out with *twice as dangerous* what does that mean?. How many people were killed on share use
pavement path last year? I would guess it was ~120 on the road.

I am being careful. Let's start with some definitions.

Pedestrian pavement - the footpath along the side of an urban (and some rural) road for the sole use
of pedestrians.

Shared use pavement - as above but cyclists are allowed to use it.

I am not talking about paths -- pedestrian, clycle or shared -- not adjacent to the road.

Now it may be counter intuitive, but there are reputable studies (and when I find the references I
will post them) in this country and others showing that cycling on an shared use pavement is more
dangerous than cycling in the road by a factor of two or more.

There are good reasons for this -- largely to do with being more vulnerable to side swipe accidents
when crossing side roads, driveways and other entrances.

Quoted message said:

The trick was I used the word many *instances* not universal statements? Like a 2 meter pavement
that avoids going round a 2 lane busy round about?

That's a judgement call. Of course you are putting yourself where the motorist is not expecting you
to be so it may not be as safe as you imagine.

Quoted message said:

No, it just shows poor taste nothing else.

If you say so.

Quoted message said:

Again saying something that is clearly wrong, it is not illegal in many places, as you admit
yourself in your first paragraph. Please be more careful, how can we even discuss higher concepts
such as saftey if you

keep

Quoted message said:

making statements that are obviously exaggerations and untrue.

I suspect you are mixing pedestrian pavement and shared use. I assure you I am not making stuff up,
exagerating or telling porkies.

I was as unconvinced as you when first confronted with the safety data on shared use pavements.
Amazingly they are relatively more dangerous than the road.

Tony

Frank said:

What! I point out that you should be careful about what you say and you come out with *twice as
dangerous* what does that mean?. How many people were killed on share use pavement path last year?
I would guess it was ~120 on the road.

I suggest you read the bibliography prepared by John Franklin (he of Cyclecraft). The overwhelming
majority of research points to pavements being much less safe than roads. You can read the
bibliography at lesberries.co.ukresearch.htmlOpen ↗

Tony

--
raven-family.comraven-family.comOpen ↗

"I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them
their job."

Samuel Goldwyn

Simon Mason said:

One thing puzzles me and that is I can't think of the area where he was fined. Although I commute
past the same spot myself, I don't know what "small public space" he is referring to. I shall go
out today and photograph it if I can find it.

One thing occurred to me Simon - it would be an interesting conversation to have with your senior
policeman friend. Did it happen, was the officers action legal in view of my comments on fixed
penalty notice validity and what is the police policy in light of the clear steer the Home Office
Minister gave at the time of its introduction. I suspect it was a policeman exceeding his policy
guidelines and legal authority.

Tony

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

Quoted message said:

I suggest you read the bibliography prepared by John Franklin (he of Cyclecraft). The overwhelming
majority of research points to pavements being much less safe than roads. You can read the
bibliography at lesberries.co.ukresearch.htmlOpen ↗

Thanks, Tony. Exactly what I was trying to find.

T

Frank said:

No, I'm not going to get into a statistical argument, however I do believe pedestrians, on the
pavement, are far more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a car (or Bus as happened
yesterday in the town where I went to college) than by a pavement cyclist.

You are right in relation to total numbers killed or seriously injured but when normalised for the
amount of traffic e.g. per vehicle on the highway, per journey mile or per journey hour it is not
true. Simply put more pedestrians are killed by motor vehicles because there are many more motor
vehicles than any other kind moving around.

Tony

--
raven-family.comraven-family.comOpen ↗

"I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them
their job."

Samuel Goldwyn

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

Quoted message said:

Frank said:

What! I point out that you should be careful about what you say and you come out with *twice as
dangerous* what does that mean?. How many people were killed on share use pavement path last
year? I would guess it was ~120 on the road.

I suggest you read the bibliography prepared by John Franklin (he of Cyclecraft). The overwhelming
majority of research points to pavements being much less safe than roads. You can read the
bibliography at lesberries.co.ukresearch.htmlOpen ↗

Yep, I suggest you read what I have said. Which bit of John's report contradicts anything I have
said? I knew I would get a knee jerk reaction so I explained That I understood that pavement use
introduced risks, I explained that I understood it was not safer to always (or even mostly) ride on
the pavement. The only small claim I made was that there were instances when it was.

The point I was making is that you should not generalise John's and others findings to mean that it
is *Never* safer to ride on the pavement. I took the trouble to point out that I did understand that
were additional risks involved in pavement cycling, I even pointed that people should understand
what these risks were. Even in the two seconds I have spent looking John says *25% safer on the
pavements between junctions*, Ok I admit I do work involved in probability and risk so perhaps I am
pedantic but people are misinterpreting these results. They may indicate that generally riding on
pavements with subsequent problems at junctions causes more accidents, but this is not the same as
thing as saying you are always safer on the road.

So what is it you think I don't understand? Do you think someone (a kid or OAP) who rides slowly and
carefully on a wide empty pavement to avoid a dangerous road system should be prosecuted?

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

Quoted message said:

Simon Mason said:

One thing puzzles me and that is I can't think of the area where he was fined. Although I
commute past the same spot myself, I don't know what "small public space" he is referring to. I
shall go out today and photograph it if I can find it.

One thing occurred to me Simon - it would be an interesting conversation

to

Quoted message said:

have with your senior policeman friend. Did it happen, was the officers action legal in view of my
comments on fixed penalty notice validity and what is the police policy in light of the clear
steer the Home Office Minister gave at the time of its introduction. I suspect it was a

policeman

Quoted message said:

exceeding his policy guidelines and legal authority.

Yes, I will try and remember to ask him next time I see him, although now he is chief of policing
in the city, he might not talk to lowly people like me anymore ;-) I've just been to the place
where the cyclist was fined to take some photos (film). I must have been past this spot thousands
of times and not noticed it before.

It is a strange place indeed, it's an ex cemetery that has been grassed over, fenced off with
railings and there is one path in and another path out. It has numerous benches and a sort of
"Denkmal" figure at one end where a bloke was sitting contemplating life and death. There was even a
dog walker (maybe the Doberman in the letter). I must say, the police must have been desperate to
fine the cyclist in that area.
--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W simonmason.karoo.netsimonmason.karoo.netOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

One thing puzzles me and that is I can't think of the area where he was fined. Although I commute
past the same spot myself, I don't know what "small public space" he is referring to. I shall go
out today and photograph it if I can find it.

It would be very interesting if you could. As someone else pointed out, not all footpaths are
illegal to cycle on. I wonder if a miscarriage of justice has occurred? Not in Britain, surely? :-)

--
Dave...

Simon Mason said:

It is a strange place indeed, it's an ex cemetery that has been grassed over, fenced off with
railings and there is one path in and another path out. It has numerous benches and a sort of
"Denkmal" figure at one end where a bloke was sitting contemplating life and death. There was even
a dog walker (maybe the Doberman in the letter). I must say, the police must have been desperate
to fine the cyclist in that area.

Not only desperate but definitely acting outside their powers then. Perhaps a letter to the paper?

Tony

--
raven-family.comraven-family.comOpen ↗

"I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them
their job."

Samuel Goldwyn

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

Quoted message said:

No, I'm not going to get into a statistical argument, however I do believe pedestrians, on the
pavement, are far more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a car (or Bus as happened
yesterday in the town where I went to college) than by a pavement cyclist.

I'm sure this is true. However, it does not excuse pavement cycling. Even if pavement cyclists
seldom kill pedestrians they do cause considerable inconvenience and annoyance, and they damage the
reputation of all cyclists.

Having said that, in addition to the "respectable" pavement plodders wearing helmets and reflective
Sam Browne belts, convinced they're doing the right thing, I've seen some dreadful pavement antics
that could easily result in the death of a toddler or fragile old person. Remember that old people
can easily break bones when they fall, leading to life-threatening complications.

--
Dave...

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Justifying illegal and anti-social behaviour by reference to superior skill and experience.
That's not reminiscent of Paul Smith, is it?

I'm not justifying illegal and anti-social behaviour, I'm saying something that is clearly,
logically true.

Isn't that what Paul says?

Quoted message said:

Improving safety and awareness are good things even if Paul does support them?

Yes, and that's what he says too. I've no problem with improving safety and awareness, but I don't
accept that's where your argument is leading.

--
Dave...

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:11:58 -0000 someone who may be "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]>
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I suspect it was a policeman exceeding his policy guidelines

Quite possibly.

Quoted message said:

and legal authority.

Unlikely. Down south the police can fine any cyclist they encounter on a pavement. There is no legal
defence. All highly East German and typical of Mr Straw (who introduced this nonsense to show that
he was being "tough"😉.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

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

Quoted message said:

It is a strange place indeed, it's an ex cemetery that has been grassed over, fenced off with
railings and there is one path in and another path out. It has numerous benches and a sort of
"Denkmal" figure at one end where a bloke was sitting contemplating life and death. There was even
a dog walker (maybe the Doberman in the letter). I must say, the police must have been desperate
to fine the cyclist in that area.

Is there a no cycling sign?

--
Dave...

David Hansen said:

Unlikely. Down south the police can fine any cyclist they encounter on a pavement. There is no
legal defence.

Under what legal authority are they acting? Fixed penalty notices are authorised under the Road
Traffic Offenders Act 1988 with cycling added under the Fixed Penalty Notices Order 1999. That
refers to "(c) driving on the footway contrary to section 72 of the Highways Act 1835[4] or section
129(5) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984[5]."

For England Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 defines the offence as ""shall wilfully ride upon
any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of
foot-passengers or shall wilfully lead or drive any carriage of any description upon any such
footpath or causeway " and was extended under Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888 to include
"bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines". (for those who wondered how bicycles
got into an 1835 Act).

In England if its not by the side of a road its not an offence and the police are acting outside the
law if they fine you for it. For Scotland you will have to look up the relevant act yourself.

I'm not aware of any other legislation that changes this conclusion but if you do I would be
interested to know.

Tony

raven-family.comraven-family.comOpen ↗

"I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them
their job."

Samuel Goldwyn

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

Quoted message said:

"Simon Mason" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is a strange place indeed, it's an ex cemetery that has been grassed over, fenced off with
railings and there is one path in and another path out. It has numerous benches and a sort of
"Denkmal" figure at one end

where

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a bloke was sitting contemplating life and death. There was even a dog walker (maybe the
Doberman in the letter). I must say, the police must

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

been desperate to fine the cyclist in that area.

Is there a no cycling sign?

No. I'll put up some photos of the area soon.
--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W simonmason.karoo.netsimonmason.karoo.netOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is there a no cycling sign?

No. I'll put up some photos of the area soon.

Then it sounds as though the fine may well have been unlawful. Someone ought to let the letter
writer know. I just tried 192.com but couldn't locate him. The newspaper should still have his full
address, or would probably print a letter pointing this out.

--
Dave...

(Dave Kahn) said:

Simon Mason said:

One thing puzzles me and that is I can't think of the area where he was fined. Although I commute
past the same spot myself, I don't know what "small public space" he is referring to. I shall go
out today and photograph it if I can find it.

It would be very interesting if you could. As someone else pointed out, not all footpaths are
illegal to cycle on. I wonder if a miscarriage of justice has occurred? Not in Britain, surely? :-)

Hi Dave

Miscarriage of justice? You jest, surely? :-)

My own view on pavement cycling is quite simple. I have no objection at all to young children, when
accompanied by an adult, cycling on a pavement. However, once those children grow a little, I do
object. If asked to come up with non-pavement-riding age, I'd say anyone over 10 should ride on the
correct bit of tarmac: the road.

Of course, the real menaces are teenagers and young adults, especially if it's dark and they are
wearing black clothing and don't have any lights. But they're invulnerable, right?

James

--
A credit limit is NOT a target.