Cyclist hit and runs - what is the answer?

[Matt B]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 22 Dec 2005 11:36:54 -0800, [email protected] said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>Ah ha! The man's true agenda becomes clear...
>
> How can you possibly say that? After all, motorists kill at most a
> few thousand people every year, whereas only five years ago one
> pedestrian died in collision with a cyclist (fault not recorded,
> mind).

Your characteristically smug and OT reply, designed, not to further the
discussion, but simply to smear the OP, may bring a conceited smirk to
your own face, and temporarily divert attention from the main point, but
the grin will be on the other side of your physiognomy when, due to your
complacency wrt bicycling law breakers, and contempt for the plight of
the hapless non-bicycling road user, you are required to join the queue
at the post office to register your bike, and are condemned to having
your every move logged and traceable via a compulsory number plate.

The reason that that may become a reality is nothing to do with
motorists, or even most cyclists, but because of the denialist attitude
of yourself and a few others around here like you. The papers will get
hold of a tragic story where the villain is a cyclist, and combine it
with that "cyclists are above the law" attitude, and before you can say
"knee-jerk" it will be fait accompli - as it was for the 1965 motorway
speed limit law you are so fond of referring us back to.

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

Matt B wrote:

> the grin will be on the other side of your physiognomy when, due to your
> complacency wrt bicycling law breakers, and contempt for the plight of
> the hapless non-bicycling road user, you are required to join the queue
> at the post office to register your bike, and are condemned to having
> your every move logged and traceable via a compulsory number plate.
>

Given that half the country seems to be glued to their mobile phones,
and so every move they make is already logged and traceable, I don't
see how the recording of the whereabouts of bicycles (or cars come to
that) will really make much difference..

 

[vernon levy]

> Your characteristically smug and OT reply, designed, not to further the
> discussion, but simply to smear the OP, may bring a conceited smirk to
> your own face, and temporarily divert attention from the main point, but
> the grin will be on the other side of your physiognomy when, due to your
> complacency wrt bicycling law breakers, and contempt for the plight of the
> hapless non-bicycling road user, you are required to join the queue at the
> post office to register your bike, and are condemned to having your every
> move logged and traceable via a compulsory number plate.
>
> The reason that that may become a reality is nothing to do with motorists,
> or even most cyclists, but because of the denialist attitude of yourself
> and a few others around here like you. The papers will get hold of a
> tragic story where the villain is a cyclist, and combine it with that
> "cyclists are above the law" attitude, and before you can say "knee-jerk"
> it will be fait accompli - as it was for the 1965 motorway speed limit law
> you are so fond of referring us back to.
>
To borrow from the Americans:

The deployent of ten dollar sentences does little to solve fifty cent
problems

Besides, I''ve no objection to folk knowing where I've been. *I've* got
nothing to hide ;-)

Surveillance can prove innocence as well as guilt.........

 

[Tim Dunne]

"p.k." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> Wrong answer!
>
> The cyclist should not be on the pavement in the first place

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or just particularly stupid?

Tim


--
Sent from Birmingham, UK timdunne at blueyonder.co.uk
'God's electrician sparked up the heavens once again, heading northbound
on the 7:10. And the lord said let there be commuters...' - Thea Gilmore
Look, mum, an anorak on a bike! Check out www.nervouscyclist.org

 

[Tony W]

"p.k." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> For the same reason you have to take extra care when cycling not to be
>> hit by a car. Because some people are twunts who don't look where
>> they are going.
>
> Wrong answer!
>
> The cyclist should not be on the pavement in the first place

Does this mean you leave you house unlocked and your valuables on show as
the burglar should not be in your house in the first place?

Would you care to publish your address and test the hypothesis?

Twunts do not respect the law or others. Therefore it is simple self
preservation to allow that, even if the law says they should not exist,
practical experience says they do.

T

 

[p.k.]

Tim Dunne wrote:
>
>> Wrong answer!
>>
>> The cyclist should not be on the pavement in the first place
>
> Are you being deliberately obtuse, or just particularly stupid?
>
> Tim

Tony W wrote:


> Does this mean you leave you house unlocked and your valuables on
> show as the burglar should not be in your house in the first place?
>
> Would you care to publish your address and test the hypothesis?
>
> Twunts do not respect the law or others. Therefore it is simple self
> preservation to allow that, even if the law says they should not
> exist, practical experience says they do.



If you are happy to fail to condemn the pavement cyclist then you have no
right to feel wronged when you classed with them as pillocks on bikes.

So often here, there is equivocation and dissebembling about criticising
anything any cyclist does.

It is time for some of you to get real! Some cyclists are twats who give the
rest of us a bad name and through their actions promote attitudes in other
road users that put all of us at greater risk. The "Two wheels good,
everything else bad" that permeates many posts here does no service to
anyone.

pk

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:24:48 +0000 (UTC), "p.k."
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>>> my point was: I am deliberately observant and considerate of
>>> cyclists and pedestrians, be I motorist, cyclist or pedestrian. Why
>>> should I regularly have to take special care on pavements to avoid
>>> being hit by cyclists?

>> For the same reason you have to take extra care when cycling not to be
>> hit by a car. Because some people are twunts who don't look where
>> they are going.

>Wrong answer!
>The cyclist should not be on the pavement in the first place

Tell that to the councils who love painting white lines on the
pavement to give the impression that it's really a great place to
ride.

Of course, cars shouldn't be on the pavement either. And they hardly
ever are, but they still manage to kill a couple of hundred times more
pedestrians on the pavement than cyclists do.

Of course, as any Hitch-Hiker will tell you, the last thing one can
afford to have is a sense of perspective...

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, p.k.
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:57:24 +0000 (UTC), "p.k."
>> <[email protected]> said in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> my point was: I am deliberately observant and considerate of
>>> cyclists and pedestrians, be I motorist, cyclist or pedestrian. Why
>>> should I regularly have to take special care on pavements to avoid
>>> being hit by cyclists?
>>
>> For the same reason you have to take extra care when cycling not to be
>> hit by a car. Because some people are twunts who don't look where
>> they are going.
>
> Wrong answer!
>
> The cyclist should not be on the pavement in the first place

Yes, we all agree. But seeing that some (not us) are, and that those
cyclists who do cycle on the pavement are typically the least careful
and considerate, it's still a good idea for people to beware of them,
even though we agree they should not be there.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

There are no messages. The above is just a random stream of
bytes. Any opinion or meaning you find in it is your own creation.

 

[p.k.]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> Of course, cars shouldn't be on the pavement either. And they hardly
> ever are, but they still manage to kill a couple of hundred times more
> pedestrians on the pavement than cyclists do.


I suspect that cars on pavements killing people do not intend to be there :
Cyclists on pavements do intend to be there.

Being at risk of being killed by a car on the pavement in Wimbledon town
centre is a non issue. Having to avoid cyclists on the pavement in Wimbledon
town centre (as they choose the pavement rather than following the one way
road system) is an every day issue.

People who cycle on pavements are pillocks. People who equivocate, dissemble
and deflect while failing to condemn are pillocks too. Are you happy to wear
that hat?



pk

 

[John Hearns]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:28:20 +0000, p.k. wrote:

>
>
> Being at risk of being killed by a car on the pavement in Wimbledon town
> centre is a non issue. Having to avoid cyclists on the pavement in
> Wimbledon town centre (as they choose the pavement rather than following
> the one way road system) is an every day issue.

Perhaps then you have to examine the root cause of the pavement cycling.
Maybe something should be done - for example having a crossing which
allows cyclists to go straight ahead at a couple of key junctions, which
means they cut out the one-way system. One way systems are intimidating
for cyclists, as you often have to swing into the right hand lane to
continue to your destination.
For an example of such a crossing, there is a bus-only crossing at the
Surrey Quays one-way system. 199 buses can use it to cut out a loop of the
one-way. (To make it clear, this is NOT for bicycles).
And at the other end there is a gap which emergency services can take to
make a shortcut. I've seen cars use this - quite illegally.


For what its worth, very much IMHO a lot of the one-way systems in London
are useless to motor vehicles also. I always say that if the one-way is
jammed up at Surrey Quays it is because the roads further down are
congested. The one-way does nothing to help.
And the one in Greenwich, again IMHO, would be just as easy, if not
easier, to get round in a car if the northern loop around Greenwich Market
was pedestrianised and the other road was two-way, as it would have been
in the past. Just my opinion.

 

[James Annan]

p.k. wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>>Of course, cars shouldn't be on the pavement either. And they hardly
>>ever are, but they still manage to kill a couple of hundred times more
>>pedestrians on the pavement than cyclists do.
>
>
>
> I suspect that cars on pavements killing people do not intend to be there :
> Cyclists on pavements do intend to be there.
>


I'm sure the dead people are grateful for this distinction.


James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

 

[John Hearns]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:28:20 +0000, p.k. wrote:


> Being at risk of being killed by a car on the pavement in Wimbledon town
> centre is a non issue. Having to avoid cyclists on the pavement in
> Wimbledon town centre (as they choose the pavement rather than following
> the one way road system) is an every day issue.

Maybe a counter example is in order.
IMHO, the cycle facility crossing Hyde Park Corner is a success.
You come up Constitution Hill, either on the road or on the cycle path
along the edge of the park.
At the lights you can try to reach up to the button intended for horse
riders Then across through the arch and over to the lights on the
other side. Into Hyde Park and off again on a cycle path through the park.
You avoid jousting with traffic on an extremely busy gyratory.

Maybe Wimbledon needs some lateral thinking. Not shared use paths along
the pavements, but some sensible recognition of what a popular journey
would be across the town centre, and some appropriate cycle crossings and
a bit of engineering. If you get th engineering right, maybe you could
disciurage people riding through pedestrianised areas, by making it more
attractive to take the cycle route.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, p.k.
('[email protected]') wrote:

> People who cycle on pavements are pillocks. People who equivocate,
> dissemble and deflect while failing to condemn are pillocks too. Are
> you happy to wear that hat?

Nobody in this discussion has defended cycling on the pavement. Nobody in
this discussion has equivocated, dissembled or deflected. Cycling on the
pavement is wrong, and people who do it, as others on this thread have
already pointed out, are 'pillocks' and 'twunts', and generally
irresponsible louts. However, they're still not as irresponsible as

> I suspect that cars on pavements killing people do not intend to
> be there

People who drive one ton lumps of metal without sufficient care and
attention to avoid the pavement. 'Do not intend to be there', forsooth!
What sort of a half arsed equivocation is that!

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; IE 3 is dead, but Netscape 4 still shambles about the earth,
;; wreaking a horrific vengeance upon the living
;; anonymous

 

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, p.k.
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> People who cycle on pavements are pillocks. People who equivocate,
>> dissemble and deflect while failing to condemn are pillocks too. Are
>> you happy to wear that hat?
>
> Nobody in this discussion has defended cycling on the pavement. Nobody in
> this discussion has equivocated, dissembled or deflected. Cycling on the
> pavement is wrong, and people who do it, as others on this thread have
> already pointed out, are 'pillocks' and 'twunts', and generally
> irresponsible louts. However, they're still not as irresponsible as
>

I defend cycling on pavements......but only those with the magic white
paint that miraculously converts them from unsuitable and illegal to
suitable and legal (of which this is a fine example:
http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/index.htm).
I don't agree with it but I do defend it.

I wonder what p.k. thinks of the people that approve the application of
the white paint as they are not equivocating, dissembling or deflecting
but positively encouraging cycling on pavements.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:28:20 +0000 (UTC), "p.k."
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>> Of course, cars shouldn't be on the pavement either. And they hardly
>> ever are, but they still manage to kill a couple of hundred times more
>> pedestrians on the pavement than cyclists do.

>I suspect that cars on pavements killing people do not intend to be there :
>Cyclists on pavements do intend to be there.

Exactly. And even then the cars pose massively more danger. Which
suggests that as problems go, pavement cycling is possibly not so
large as people make out.

>Being at risk of being killed by a car on the pavement in Wimbledon town
>centre is a non issue. Having to avoid cyclists on the pavement in Wimbledon
>town centre (as they choose the pavement rather than following the one way
>road system) is an every day issue.

So you say, but the figures are against you.

>People who cycle on pavements are pillocks. People who equivocate, dissemble
>and deflect while failing to condemn are pillocks too. Are you happy to wear
>that hat?

Ah, proof by assertion I see. I refer the hon. gentleman to my
previous answer:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Pavement_Cycling

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Jack Ouzzi]

Matt B wrote:

>
> Yes, I agree completely. I'd add "roadmanship" to the national
> curriculum. It has got to be one of the fundamental "life skills".
> With the option to carry it through to a full driving licence.

Would it make any difference ........ would the majority care or
bother... NO

Who gives a toss about anyone else, as soon as I can ride my bike in a
straightish line without too many wobbles I'm a cyclist ..... as soon
as I pass my driving test (is it?) I am a driver. A week later I am a
good cyclist and a good driver, so no need for any further training.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

John Hearns wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:28:20 +0000, p.k. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Being at risk of being killed by a car on the pavement in Wimbledon
>> town centre is a non issue. Having to avoid cyclists on the pavement
>> in Wimbledon town centre (as they choose the pavement rather than
>> following the one way road system) is an every day issue.
>
> Perhaps then you have to examine the root cause of the pavement
> cycling.

I'm fairly sure that the route cause of cycling on pavements is much more to
do with people thinking the bike is a lesser mode of transport and not
worthy of obeying rules while using, rather than actual fear of motor
traffic.

At least, the way that I see bikes ridden on pavements (equally on busy and
quiet roads) round here suggests that to me.

--
Ambrose

 

[Tony Raven]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>
> I'm fairly sure that the route cause of cycling on pavements is much
> more to do with people thinking the bike is a lesser mode of transport
> and not worthy of obeying rules while using, rather than actual fear of
> motor traffic.
>

I think its more to do with the very confusing messages that people get
about pavement cycling. They are being encouraged all the time to cycle
on the pavement and not on the "dangerous roads" through the application
of white paint and blue signs. Is it any surprise that people then come
to think that cycling on the pavement is the norm and continue to do so
even where there is no white paint?

To add to the confusion they then have motorists shouting at them to get
on the pavement and pedestrians shouting at them to get off the pavement.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
('[email protected]') wrote:

> I defend cycling on pavements......but only those with the magic white
> paint that miraculously converts them from unsuitable and illegal to
> suitable and legal (of which this is a fine example:
>
http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/index.htm).

That is indeed a spectacularly fine example. I wonder how much /that/
cost the 'cycling promotion' budget?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing left for us to do
but pick up the pieces.

 

[James Annan]

Simon Brooke wrote:

>
> Nobody in this discussion has defended cycling on the pavement.

I will!

> Nobody in
> this discussion has equivocated, dissembled or deflected.

I will! Well actually, I'll simply disagree.

> Cycling on the
> pavement is wrong, and people who do it, as others on this thread have
> already pointed out, are 'pillocks' and 'twunts', and generally
> irresponsible louts.

So you say. It may be true in general, in some countries. It's not true
in Japan.

I cycle short distances on the pavement when it is more convenient and
safe than the alternative road. That excludes pavements with lots of
pedestrians on, although I occasionally ride past one or two. In
practive it means I take a couple of shortcuts round nasty junctions on
my regular commute, and roll along the pavement a short way to and from
a parking spot in town. My behaviour would be no more dangerous if I
were to do it in the UK.

I simply don't see what the fuss is about. It seems less offensive than
whistling tunelessly or showing a builder's crack. You don't get
Japanese people doing those things. You don't find them ramming you with
shopping trolleys either. What is the answer to the "rising tide" of
shopping trolley injuries in the UK? Let's have licenses for shopping!
More bobbies in the aisles! Is no-one going to think of the children?
Something Must Be Done!


James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/