Cyclist hit and runs - what is the answer?

[David Martin]

James Annan wrote:
> 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.

Not true in Norway either where it has been legal since 1974, so long
as the cyclist slows down to walking pace in the presence of
pedestrians and gives way to pedestrians. It does however lead to a
perception that cyclists are pedestrians on wheels and they tend to
behave as randomly.

>
> 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.

In the UK it is more dangerous to do the smae thing because it is
illegal and therefore technically unexpected. Along with the arguement
about more cyclists making it safer to be on the road, the more on the
pavement the safer it becomes (if they behave correctly).

> 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!

It is all down to behaving with consideration for others.

...d

 

[James Annan]

David Martin wrote:

>
> In the UK it is more dangerous to do the smae thing because it is
> illegal and therefore technically unexpected.

It's illegal in Japan too. Obviously you need _more_ of them in the UK
to make it less unexpected.


> Along with the arguement
> about more cyclists making it safer to be on the road, the more on the
> pavement the safer it becomes (if they behave correctly).

Exactly!

> It is all down to behaving with consideration for others.

Yup. TBH when I first got here, I was a bit stroppy about the cyclists
on the pavement (some of whom do seem a bit pushy and fast at times),
and also those coming at me head-on on the wrong side of the road. But
I've come to realise that a bit of tolerance in both directions doesn't
cost anything and makes life pass more smoothly. Plus it has to be
better for one's blood pressure to just let them past without caring
than to fulminate about how dangerous/stupid/aggressive they all are.
Life's too short to care about such minutiae.

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

 

[p.k.]

James Annan wrote:
>Plus it has
> to be better for one's blood pressure to just let them past without
> caring than to fulminate about how dangerous/stupid/aggressive they
> all are. Life's too short to care about such minutiae.


Given the post that started this thread that is a peculair point of view:

"An 80 year old woman was knocked down and seriously injured, on the
pavement yesterday, in another cyclist hit and run incident[1]."

pk

 

[Tony W]

"p.k." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> James Annan wrote:
>>Plus it has
>> to be better for one's blood pressure to just let them past without
>> caring than to fulminate about how dangerous/stupid/aggressive they
>> all are. Life's too short to care about such minutiae.
>
>
> Given the post that started this thread that is a peculair point of view:
>
> "An 80 year old woman was knocked down and seriously injured, on the
> pavement yesterday, in another cyclist hit and run incident[1]."

To quote from your post in another thread -- "Another bike in collision with
a car..."

"Jounalists always write such stories from a personal interest perspective.
The completely neutral "The was a collision between cyclist and car in which
the cyclist was killed" is impersonal and comp[letely neutral but is bad and
boring journalism."

Maybe -- but the journo who wrote about the poor 80 year old was not so
squeamish.

A little consistence would be nice.

T

 

[p.k.]

Tony W wrote:
> "p.k." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> James Annan wrote:
>>> Plus it has
>>> to be better for one's blood pressure to just let them past without
>>> caring than to fulminate about how dangerous/stupid/aggressive they
>>> all are. Life's too short to care about such minutiae.
>>
>>
>> Given the post that started this thread that is a peculair point of
>> view: "An 80 year old woman was knocked down and seriously injured, on
>> the
>> pavement yesterday, in another cyclist hit and run incident[1]."
>
> To quote from your post in another thread -- "Another bike in
> collision with a car..."
>
> "Jounalists always write such stories from a personal interest
> perspective. The completely neutral "The was a collision between
> cyclist and car in which the cyclist was killed" is impersonal and
> comp[letely neutral but is bad and boring journalism."
>
> Maybe -- but the journo who wrote about the poor 80 year old was not
> so squeamish.
>
> A little consistence would be nice.


#
Consistency?

the pavement cyclist was breaking the law, fully liable for the criminal
injuries he/she caused and did a "runner".

we know nothing about the cyclist who died or the mororist who was involved
wrt balme or liability.

At least you appear to be consstent twith the prevailing "Two wheels good
all else bad" attitude that pervades so many posts in this group.

pk

 

[Tony W]

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

> Consistency?

Yes

> the pavement cyclist was breaking the law, fully liable for the criminal
> injuries he/she caused and did a "runner".

Fairy nuff -- again though we could quote examples where motorist have
driven off yet the cyclist was still 'in collision with'.

> we know nothing about the cyclist who died or the mororist who was
> involved wrt balme or liability.

And you criticise my spelling?

> At least you appear to be consstent twith the prevailing "Two wheels good
> all else bad" attitude that pervades so many posts in this group.

Hint: uk.rec.CYCLING

It is none too surprising that this group is pro cycling. As a general rule
it is also very pro cycling legally, properly and safely. Look back through
a few threads to find consistent condemnation of pavement cycling, red light
running, stealth cycling etc.

Certain members of the group favour three wheels, some have been known to
use just one -- but they are just showing off!

T

 

[p.k.]

Tony W wrote:
>
>> At least you appear to be consstent twith the prevailing "Two wheels
>> good all else bad" attitude that pervades so many posts in this
>> group.
>
> Hint: uk.rec.CYCLING


AH, so at least as far as you are concerned it is a reasonable observation?

pk

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> Tony W wrote:
>>
>>> At least you appear to be consstent twith the prevailing "Two wheels
>>> good all else bad" attitude that pervades so many posts in this
>>> group.
>>
>> Hint: uk.rec.CYCLING
>
> AH, so at least as far as you are concerned it is a reasonable
> observation?

It's a reasonable inference under the circumstances as reported in the
article. Firstly, the overwhelming majority of car/cyclist collisions
are the motorists fault, and secondly elderly women are not notorious
for being irresponsible or unduly aggressive road users; and thirdly
according to the report, the car had just come off a dual carriageway
section of the A47 onto a single carriageway section, a transition
through which motorists commonly speed.

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

IMHO, there aren't enough committed Christians, but that's care
in the community for you. -- Ben Evans

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Tony W <[email protected]> wrote:

> A little consistence would be nice.

I have no problem saying she was injured when struck by a cyclist. None
at all. To portray this as some kind of epidemic, as TrollB does, in
clear defiance of the previousy posted facts regarding the relative
frequency of pedestrian injuries on pavements by cars and bikes, and in
order to push a car-centric "solution" to the (plainly insignificant)
"problem" is trolling, especially when you remember how many times we've
told the little git precisely /why/ the propsed solution is completely
disporportionate, and why it has been applied uniquely to motor traffic
as a response to the unique dangers posed by motor traffic.

All tis is as you'd expect given that it was TrollB whio started the
thread.

--
Guy

 

[James Annan]

p.k. wrote:
> James Annan wrote:
> >Plus it has
> > to be better for one's blood pressure to just let them past without
> > caring than to fulminate about how dangerous/stupid/aggressive they
> > all are. Life's too short to care about such minutiae.
>
>
> Given the post that started this thread that is a peculair point of view:
>
> "An 80 year old woman was knocked down and seriously injured, on the
> pavement yesterday, in another cyclist hit and run incident[1]."

I think it proves my point admirably. How often do you see an 89-post
(and growing) usenet thread about someone being killed by a car, let
alone injured?

James

 

[Matt B]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Tony W <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>A little consistence would be nice.
>
> I have no problem saying she was injured when struck by a cyclist. None
> at all. To portray this as some kind of epidemic, as TrollB does, in
> clear defiance of the previousy posted facts regarding the relative
> frequency of pedestrian injuries on pavements by cars and bikes,

Here you go again, using the fact that more people are injured in
collisions involving motor vehicles, and particularly /cars/, than with
pedal cycles, in an attempt to sweep away the actual topic of this
thread - that of the increasing problem of collisions between bikes and
pedestrians.

You and your ilk are making it so much easier for the press to demand
action from the government.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> and in
> order to push a car-centric "solution" to the (plainly insignificant)
> "problem"

Who was pushing, and what solution was being pushed? I never saw any of
that. Please remind us or retract.

> is trolling,

His desire for me to satisfy his troll fetish is I am afraid futile.

> especially when you remember how many times we've
> told the little git

Always his stock answer when cornered - how many times "we've" already
told you. (Notice the use of the royal "we").

> precisely /why/ the propsed solution is completely
> disporportionate,

*What* proposed solution - and who's proposed it?


> and why it has been applied uniquely to motor traffic
> as a response to the unique dangers posed by motor traffic.

Motor traffic and its problems are completely off topic here so why
raise them?

> All tis is as you'd expect given that it was TrollB whio started the
> thread.

Notice how, despite his endless bragging about the sophisticated and
advanced techniques he deploys to avoid and isolate my posts he never
seems to miss one (albeit via the cunning ploy of second hand replies ;-)).

Also notice his predictable tactic of misrepresentation and personal
attack if his prejudices are challenged - in stark contrast to his
indignation and robust defence of the principles of intelligent debate
and logic when defending one of his diatribes.

--
Matt B

 

[calum]

"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snipped>

> the increasing problem of collisions between bikes and pedestrians.<

I'm still waiting to see your statistics on this.

Calum

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Matt B
('[email protected]') wrote:

<scythe/>

Time to update the killfile, I see.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks? To murder men and give God thanks?
Desist, for shame! Proceed no further: God won't accept your thanks for
murther
-- Roburt Burns, 'Thanksgiving For a National Victory'

 

[Matt B]

calum wrote:
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> <snipped>
>
>>the increasing problem of collisions between bikes and pedestrians.<
>
> I'm still waiting to see your statistics on this.

Did you miss my explanation of that? There are /no/ statistics because
these events don't get reported. That doesn't mean it isn't happening
though, and it won't stop the press making an issue of it when they need
a good campaign to flex their muscles over.

--
Matt B

 

[Jim Price]

Matt B wrote:
> calum wrote:
<snipped Matt B's bollix>
>> I'm still waiting to see your statistics on this.
>
> Did you miss my explanation of that?

No. You haven't managed to explain anything to date. George Bernard Shaw
would think you were making progress, though.

> There are /no/ statistics because these events don't get reported.

There have been links posted to newspaper articles which include such
statistics in this very newsgroup. Keep up at the back. See thread
entitled:
Lycra lout "killer" reply.
Warning: Contains reporting, damned reporting and statistics.

> That doesn't mean it isn't happening
^^^^ False premis - see above.

> though, and it won't stop the press making an issue of it when they need
> a good campaign to flex their muscles over.

YA a journalist, AICMFP.

As you seem unlikely to take being corrected on board, I feel it polite
to save you a little time when responding.

<plonk>

--
JimP
--
"We don't have a plan, so nothing can go wrong" - Spike Milligan

 

[Matt B]

Jim Price wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> calum wrote:
>
> <snipped Matt B's bollix>
>
>>> I'm still waiting to see your statistics on this.
>>
>> Did you miss my explanation of that?
>
> No. You haven't managed to explain anything to date. George Bernard Shaw
> would think you were making progress, though.

Eh? Did you read the posts?

>> There are /no/ statistics because these events don't get reported.
>
> There have been links posted to newspaper articles which include such
> statistics in this very newsgroup. Keep up at the back. See thread
> entitled:
> Lycra lout "killer" reply.
> Warning: Contains reporting, damned reporting and statistics.

I looked again, and still saw nothing. Give a link to the statistics if
there is one.

>> That doesn't mean it isn't happening
>
> ^^^^ False premis - see above.

If the incidents aren't reported saying so be untrue?

>> though, and it won't stop the press making an issue of it when they
>> need a good campaign to flex their muscles over.
>
> YA a journalist, AICMFP.

Hoho. LOL.

> As you seem unlikely to take being corrected on board, I feel it polite
> to save you a little time when responding.

Being corrected??? In what way am I mistaken?

--
Matt B

 

[Tony Raven]

Jim Price wrote:
>
> There have been links posted to newspaper articles which include such
> statistics in this very newsgroup. Keep up at the back. See thread
> entitled:
> Lycra lout "killer" reply.
>

I think this is the link you want:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040616/text/40616w02.htm
which shows a year on year decrease in all categories of casualties from
collisions with cyclists on the pavement, following the trends of
previous years also reported in Hansard. Note it does not say how these
casualties are split between cyclists and pedestrians.

--
Tony

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

 

[Matt B]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Jim Price wrote:
>
>> There have been links posted to newspaper articles which include such
>> statistics in this very newsgroup. Keep up at the back. See thread
>> entitled:
>> Lycra lout "killer" reply.
>
> I think this is the link you want:
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040616/text/40616w02.htm
>
> which shows a year on year decrease in all categories of casualties from
> collisions with cyclists on the pavement, following the trends of
> previous years also reported in Hansard. Note it does not say how these
> casualties are split between cyclists and pedestrians.

Which is, of course, nonsense as we all know because those figures do
not take account of the vast majority of accidents involving pedestrians
and cyclists which are unreported, so are worthless.

--
Matt B

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:

> Here you go again, using the fact that more people are injured in
> collisions involving motor vehicles, and particularly /cars/, than with
> pedal cycles, in an attempt to sweep away the actual topic of this
> thread - that of t

As it happens I am at my mother's computer right now, which does not
have the killfile from home, so I saw this reply.

So: the *fact* as documented by Howard and others is that the "problem"
as you put it is actually *decreasing*, not increasing, despite the
number of pavements designated as shared use in the last decade. So
your assertion is in direct opposition to the verifiable facts of the
case, and your continued use of that asseriton amounts to wilful
ignorance since not only have the correct figures been quoted, the
source for verification has also been cited.

The *fact* that the risk is massively higher from motor vehicles,
despite the widely-publicised tendency of cyclists to habitually ride on
the pavement, indicates that your suggestion that the "problem" be fixed
using a solution similar to that aplied to the danger posed by motor
vehicles is equally false. Again, you have been shown mamy times where
to find the figures which show that bicycles *do not* pose an unusual
risk to others, while motor vehicles do.

To post a false asseriton is simply clueless, most of us have done so at
least once. To continue to post this false assertion long after its
falsehood has been pointed out to you and reputable authorities cited,
is trolling.

The jury is in: you are a convicted troll. As to how individual group
members respond to this fact, that is up to the individuals concerned.
Poking trolls with a stick is a popular form of internet sport, if you
don't want to be poked with a stick you can either stop trolling or ****
off. I don't really care which.

--
Guy