Cycling wrong way up one way street

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 15:57:31 +0100, Nick <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Adrian wrote:
>> TimB <[email protected]> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>> "Thank you for bringing to my attention the two PCSO's riding on the
>>> footpath in Marsh Street on the 11th May.
>>
>>> I am pleased to see
>>> that you observed the officers riding at a leisurely pace and did not
>>> appear to be in a hurry to get anywhere which comes from their training
>>> of safe cycling, safety before speed.
>>
>> <rolls eyes>
>> "They weren't speeding, so they must have been safe..."
>>
>Well it is the speed that normally causes the danger. What do you think
>the danger from officers riding at a leisurely pace comes from?

Say someone comes out of a shop and straight in to 2 cops on bikes
,not expecting to find cyclists on the pavement .

 

[Cynic]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:44:00 +0100, [email protected] wrote:

>Say someone comes out of a shop and straight in to 2 cops on bikes
>,not expecting to find cyclists on the pavement .

If they are cycling slowly that is no more likely than coming out of a
shop and walking into a pedestrian on the pavement.

--
Cynic

 

[Alex Heney]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 18:16:00 +0100, Me <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <7432cbb8-2c9f-47bc-ada1-06bfbea52408
>@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>> On May 28, 4:33 pm, Me <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Well, you could always arrest them and call the Police. Community
>> > Support Offices (and the Police) actually, IIRC, have little powers more
>> > than we do.
>>
>> Citizen's arrest? I think you'll find pavement cycling doesn't
>> qualify.
>>
>Um, my understanding is that a citizen's arrest has the same legality as
>a Police arrest. But, and a big but, you must call the Police to take
>over.

Your understanding is not quite correct.

For a citizen's arrest to be lawful, (Simplified) said citizen must
know or have reasonable grounds for suspicion that an *indictable*
offence is being committed (or has been committed).

A policeman can arrest for any offence, not only indictable ones.

Indictable means triable at crown court, not an offence that can only
be tried by magistrates courts.

Cycling on the footpath is not an indictable offence.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Bad breath is better than no breath.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

 

[Alex Heney]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 19:21:41 +0100, Alasdair <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Wed, 28 May 2008 10:05:43 -0700 (PDT), dkahn400
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Citizen's arrest? I think you'll find pavement cycling doesn't
>>qualify.
>
>I thought *all* offences were now arrestable.

By police constables, yes.

By anybody else, no.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
You're not losing more hair, you're gaining more scalp.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

 

[Me]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 18:16:00 +0100, Me <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <7432cbb8-2c9f-47bc-ada1-06bfbea52408
> >@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> >> On May 28, 4:33 pm, Me <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Well, you could always arrest them and call the Police. Community
> >> > Support Offices (and the Police) actually, IIRC, have little powers more
> >> > than we do.
> >>
> >> Citizen's arrest? I think you'll find pavement cycling doesn't
> >> qualify.
> >>
> >Um, my understanding is that a citizen's arrest has the same legality as
> >a Police arrest. But, and a big but, you must call the Police to take
> >over.
>
> Your understanding is not quite correct.
>
> For a citizen's arrest to be lawful, (Simplified) said citizen must
> know or have reasonable grounds for suspicion that an *indictable*
> offence is being committed (or has been committed).
>
> A policeman can arrest for any offence, not only indictable ones.
>
> Indictable means triable at crown court, not an offence that can only
> be tried by magistrates courts.
>
> Cycling on the footpath is not an indictable offence.
>
Thank you.

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:48:53 +0100, Cynic <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:44:00 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Say someone comes out of a shop and straight in to 2 cops on bikes
>>,not expecting to find cyclists on the pavement .
>
>If they are cycling slowly that is no more likely than coming out of a
>shop and walking into a pedestrian on the pavement.

If you walk in to the front wheel of a bike are you not more likely to
end up face first on the ground than if you walk in to someone who is
the same height as yourself .?

 

[Rob Morley]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:48:53 +0100
Cynic <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:44:00 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Say someone comes out of a shop and straight in to 2 cops on bikes
> >,not expecting to find cyclists on the pavement .
>
> If they are cycling slowly that is no more likely than coming out of a
> shop and walking into a pedestrian on the pavement.
>
So they can sidestep? Remember we're talking plastic plod here, not
proper cyclists.

 

[Colin McKenzie]

The Luggage wrote:
> On 21 May, 14:48, "Jeremy Parker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Cycle tracks, of course, have such a bad reputation that people have
>>started resorting to euphemisms to avoid referring to them, such as
>>"protected (hah!) lanes". Every traffic engineer seems to know that
>>tracks are bad, even if they don't know enough about traffic
>>engineering to know why.
> So why do they still inflict them on us???

Because they want to keep us out of the way of motor traffic.
Unfortunately a lot of people who cycle, and a lot of parents, think
this is a good idea too.

Colin McKenzie



--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

 

[Nick]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:48:53 +0100, Cynic <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:44:00 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Say someone comes out of a shop and straight in to 2 cops on bikes
>>> ,not expecting to find cyclists on the pavement .
>> If they are cycling slowly that is no more likely than coming out of a
>> shop and walking into a pedestrian on the pavement.
>
> If you walk in to the front wheel of a bike are you not more likely to
> end up face first on the ground than if you walk in to someone who is
> the same height as yourself .?

Not particularly. More likely the wheel will move out of your way. I
actually think it is safer to ride slowly with a bike on the pavement
than walk. If you walk you have to be very careful people don't hit
their shins on the pedals.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> tweaked the
Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> If you walk in to the front wheel of a bike are you not more likely to
> end up face first on the ground than if you walk in to someone who is
> the same height as yourself .?

If you walk into a copper, whether on a bike or on foot, you're more likely
to end up firstly face first on the ground and later in Belmarsh married to
the person with the most cigarettes.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Give the anarchist a cigarette.

 

[®i©ardo]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 15:57:31 +0100, Nick <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Adrian wrote:
>>> TimB <[email protected]> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>> saying:
>>>
>>>> "Thank you for bringing to my attention the two PCSO's riding on the
>>>> footpath in Marsh Street on the 11th May.
>>>> I am pleased to see
>>>> that you observed the officers riding at a leisurely pace and did not
>>>> appear to be in a hurry to get anywhere which comes from their training
>>>> of safe cycling, safety before speed.
>>> <rolls eyes>
>>> "They weren't speeding, so they must have been safe..."
>>>
>> Well it is the speed that normally causes the danger. What do you think
>> the danger from officers riding at a leisurely pace comes from?
>
> Say someone comes out of a shop and straight in to 2 cops on bikes
> ,not expecting to find cyclists on the pavement .

The person coming out of the shop would have to wait for a real plod to
arrive, and if that occured within 30 minutes, he/she could be arrested
for obstruction.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[Cynic]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:04:07 +0100, [email protected] wrote:

>>If they are cycling slowly that is no more likely than coming out of a
>>shop and walking into a pedestrian on the pavement.

>If you walk in to the front wheel of a bike are you not more likely to
>end up face first on the ground than if you walk in to someone who is
>the same height as yourself .?

If you are doing either of those things, you need to get a better
trained guide dog.

--
Cynic

 

[Cynic]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:05:22 +0100, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> If they are cycling slowly that is no more likely than coming out of a
>> shop and walking into a pedestrian on the pavement.
>>
>So they can sidestep? Remember we're talking plastic plod here, not
>proper cyclists.

The person leaving the shop should avoid walking into the path of
either pedestrians or cyclists. It only becomes an issue if the
cyclist is riding fast and so is not seen by person leaving the shop
in sufficient time to avoid walking into its path.

--
Cynic

 

[John Pitcock]

"Cynic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:05:22 +0100, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> The person leaving the shop should avoid walking into the path of
> either pedestrians or cyclists. It only becomes an issue if the
> cyclist is riding fast and so is not seen by person leaving the shop
> in sufficient time to avoid walking into its path.
>
> --
> Cynic

My wife stepped out of a shop into the path of a speeding pavement cyclist:
a collision was narrowly averted, but the cyclist shouted abuse at her.

 

[Cynic]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:35:27 +0100, "John Pitcock"
<j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com> wrote:

>
>"Cynic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:05:22 +0100, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> The person leaving the shop should avoid walking into the path of
>> either pedestrians or cyclists. It only becomes an issue if the
>> cyclist is riding fast and so is not seen by person leaving the shop
>> in sufficient time to avoid walking into its path.
>>
>> --
>> Cynic
>
>My wife stepped out of a shop into the path of a speeding pavement cyclist:
>a collision was narrowly averted, but the cyclist shouted abuse at her.

Oh dear. All part of the rich tapestry of life, I'm afraid.

--
Cynic

 

[Brimstone]

Cynic wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:35:27 +0100, "John Pitcock"
> <j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Cynic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:05:22 +0100, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The person leaving the shop should avoid walking into the path of
>>> either pedestrians or cyclists. It only becomes an issue if the
>>> cyclist is riding fast and so is not seen by person leaving the shop
>>> in sufficient time to avoid walking into its path.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cynic
>>
>> My wife stepped out of a shop into the path of a speeding pavement
>> cyclist: a collision was narrowly averted, but the cyclist shouted
>> abuse at her.
>
> Oh dear. All part of the rich tapestry of life, I'm afraid.

And a stick placed carefully in the spokes of the speeding cyclist can add
another apect of life to that tapestry.

 

[Tony Dragon]

Brimstone wrote:
> Cynic wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:35:27 +0100, "John Pitcock"
>> <j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Cynic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:05:22 +0100, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The person leaving the shop should avoid walking into the path of
>>>> either pedestrians or cyclists. It only becomes an issue if the
>>>> cyclist is riding fast and so is not seen by person leaving the shop
>>>> in sufficient time to avoid walking into its path.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cynic
>>> My wife stepped out of a shop into the path of a speeding pavement
>>> cyclist: a collision was narrowly averted, but the cyclist shouted
>>> abuse at her.
>> Oh dear. All part of the rich tapestry of life, I'm afraid.
>
> And a stick placed carefully in the spokes of the speeding cyclist can add
> another apect of life to that tapestry.
>
>
Best to put the stick in the front wheel, you could then score the
resulting somersault.

--
Tony the Dragon

 

[Brimstone]

Tony Dragon wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Cynic wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:35:27 +0100, "John Pitcock"
>>> <j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Cynic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:05:22 +0100, Rob Morley
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The person leaving the shop should avoid walking into the path of
>>>>> either pedestrians or cyclists. It only becomes an issue if the
>>>>> cyclist is riding fast and so is not seen by person leaving the
>>>>> shop in sufficient time to avoid walking into its path.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cynic
>>>> My wife stepped out of a shop into the path of a speeding pavement
>>>> cyclist: a collision was narrowly averted, but the cyclist shouted
>>>> abuse at her.
>>> Oh dear. All part of the rich tapestry of life, I'm afraid.
>>
>> And a stick placed carefully in the spokes of the speeding cyclist
>> can add another apect of life to that tapestry.
>>
>>
> Best to put the stick in the front wheel, you could then score the
> resulting somersault.

That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry than
putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.

 

[Nick]

Brimstone wrote:
> Tony Dragon wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Cynic wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:35:27 +0100, "John Pitcock"
>>>> <j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Cynic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:05:22 +0100, Rob Morley
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The person leaving the shop should avoid walking into the path of
>>>>>> either pedestrians or cyclists. It only becomes an issue if the
>>>>>> cyclist is riding fast and so is not seen by person leaving the
>>>>>> shop in sufficient time to avoid walking into its path.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cynic
>>>>> My wife stepped out of a shop into the path of a speeding pavement
>>>>> cyclist: a collision was narrowly averted, but the cyclist shouted
>>>>> abuse at her.
>>>> Oh dear. All part of the rich tapestry of life, I'm afraid.
>>> And a stick placed carefully in the spokes of the speeding cyclist
>>> can add another apect of life to that tapestry.
>>>
>>>
>> Best to put the stick in the front wheel, you could then score the
>> resulting somersault.
>
> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry than
> putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>
>
Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?

 

[Periander]

Nick <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

....
>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>
>>
> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?

If they were on the pavement endangering pedistrians why not?

--

Regards or otherwise,

Periander