Cyclists win police court battle!

[jtaylor]

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

> >
> > I've seen a car drive along the pavement once, when someone used it as a
> > slip road to join a 40mph road. It was a sufficiently gobsmackingly rare
> > act of idiocy that it still sticks in my mind.
>
> Exactly.
>
> And would it have stuck in your mind had it been a push-bike?
>

40 mph on a pushbike, yes, that would most certainly be memorable.

 

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:36:21 +0100 someone who may be JNugent
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4827894.stm is about a
>motorist driving along a pavement, in the course of which he injured
>six people, one very badly.

Indeed and that was the case. As the report says, "A car is thought
to have mounted the pavement near Salisbury School."

>The trouble is, it didn't happen. The person who may be David Hansen simply
>made it up,

Incorrect. See above and below.

As you quoted from the report:

>Det Supt Glyn Jones said it appeared the car had gone on the wrong side of
>the road then, as it cut back, lost control, mounted the pavement and hit
>the pedestrians.

In other words the motorist drove along the pavement. Perhaps not
for very long, but he certainly drove along the pavement long enough
to strike people standing on it. Or perhaps you believe he was
passing the people on the pavement and suddenly his car shot
sideways onto the pavement and so struck them?

Implying that the motorist was not driving, because he had "lost
control", is revealing, but does not help the argument of those who
make the implication.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[JNugent]

David Hansen wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4827894.stm is about a
>>motorist driving along a pavement, in the course of which he injured
>>six people, one very badly.

Wrong.

The driver did not "drive along a pavement (footway)"; that would have made
him an honorary cyclist.

> Indeed and that was the case. As the report says, "A car is thought
> to have mounted the pavement near Salisbury School."

So far, so good.

>>The trouble is, it didn't happen. The person who may be David Hansen simply
>>made it up,

> Incorrect. See above and below.

There's no point in saying "incorrect" when the evidence you have posted
shows the opposite of what you have claimed and proves that you made up the
bit about "driving along a pavement" [sic].

> As you quoted from the report:

>>Det Supt Glyn Jones said it appeared the car had gone on the wrong side of
>>the road then, as it cut back, lost control, mounted the pavement and hit
>>the pedestrians.

Yes. That's right.

> In other words the motorist drove along the pavement.

No, he didn't.

Maybe - just maybe - it means that in Hansenese. In English, though, its
meaning is clear and it is NOT what you claimed.

> Perhaps not
> for very long, but he certainly drove along the pavement long enough
> to strike people standing on it. Or perhaps you believe he was
> passing the people on the pavement and suddenly his car shot
> sideways onto the pavement and so struck them?

That's what the report says.

Do you think he did it deliberately, like cyclists cycle along the footway?

> Implying that the motorist was not driving, because he had "lost
> control", is revealing, but does not help the argument of those who
> make the implication.

The fact that he had lost control and that all movements of the vehicle
after that loss of control were non-deliberate (and in any event, cannot be
construed as "driving along the pavement") certainly does prove your claims
to be wild and unfounded.

But what's new?

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 15:07:10 +0100 someone who may be JNugent
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

> > Perhaps not
> > for very long, but he certainly drove along the pavement long enough
> > to strike people standing on it. Or perhaps you believe he was
> > passing the people on the pavement and suddenly his car shot
> > sideways onto the pavement and so struck them?
>
>That's what the report says.

Incorrect.

Your attempts to imply that the car was moving along the road and
that it suddenly stopped this movement along the road (went to zero
velocity in this direction) and instead suddenly went sideways (went
from zero velocity to a higher velocity in a direction at 90 degrees
to the original direction) are mildly amusing, but don't help your
case.

You may have the last word on this for the moment, if you wish.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[JNugent]

David Hansen wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>Perhaps not
>>>for very long, but he certainly drove along the pavement long enough
>>>to strike people standing on it. Or perhaps you believe he was
>>>passing the people on the pavement and suddenly his car shot
>>>sideways onto the pavement and so struck them?

>>That's what the report says.

> Incorrect.

Wrong. It is exactly what the report says. Nothing in the report suggests
(even tangentially) that the vehicle was being driven along the footway.

> Your attempts to imply that the car was moving along the road and
> that it suddenly stopped this movement along the road (went to zero
> velocity in this direction) and instead suddenly went sideways (went
> from zero velocity to a higher velocity in a direction at 90 degrees
> to the original direction) are mildly amusing, but don't help your
> case.

> You may have the last word on this for the moment, if you wish.

Let's call it the last paragraph.

You were (spectacularly) wrong yet again, and the proof of that has been
produced. No-one in their right mind would say that an out of control
*mounting* the footway was being "driven along the pavement".

But you have said it.

 

[Paul Weaver]

iiiiDougiiii wrote:
> Conor wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Mark
> > Thompson says...
> > > > Thankyou for demonstrating that cyclists are unfit to be on the road. I
> > > > guess such lack of basic instruction explains why so many cyclists go
> > > > through red lights and ride on the pavement.
> > >
> > > With most schools not providing training, most/many/some are unfit to be on
> > > the road. We need better training for school kids. Hopefully we'll see an
> > > improvement when they get behind the wheel of a car too.
> > >
> > THe training is there...my son is currently doing a cycling proficiency
> > course at school. What there isn't is any interest from the kids and
> > their parents can't see why it is needed.
> >
> Yet another of blaming the (potential) victim.
>
> " Sorry mate that I run over and killed your kid but they weren't
> sufficiently trained and I was on my mobile at the time while gojng
> through red light at 40 mph in a 20 mph zone while drunk and drugged".
> Tough **** !

Yes, I saw that "cyclist" in shepherds bush last week. Unfortunatly the
bus missed him.

 

[Paul Weaver]

Conor wrote:
> > That still doesn't explain motor vehicle drivers' far more frequent
> > law breaking and parking regulations' infringments. How do you
> > explain it?
>
> Well as you're obviously an idiot try:
>
> 1) 26 million cars.
> 2) 12,000 miles per annum average per vehicle.
> 3) Registration system making automated policing easy (Speed Cameras,
> ANPR).

Indeed, sadly however the really bad ones (not the cash cows) are the
unregistered, uninsured unlicensed, and the reliance of cash^H^Hmeras
means they rarely get caught. Cameras don't catch the careless driving
either.

We need less cameras (and the ones left should be outside schools etc.
Not at the bottom of a hill on a dual carriageway), and more traffic
police, going after cars, buses (the worst offenders when it comes to
bad and inconsiderate driving) AND cyclists.

Never happen though.

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote:

>
> Don't blame the victims (people like me - pedestrian for a greater part of
> the time) for the transgressions of the offenders (cyclists who casually
> endanger victims for their own benefit).
>
> You don't "suspect" any of that at all. You know what everyone knows - the
> footway cyclists are just bloody selfish - happy to pose a danger to others.

Do you know:
a) how many pedestrians a year are killed on the pavement or verge by
i) cyclists and ii) motorists?

b) how many pedestrians a year are killed on pedestrian crossings by i)
cyclists and ii) motorists?

Tony

 

[Paul Weaver]

iiiiDougiiii wrote:
> But there are many more lawbreaking motorists than cyclists and drivers
> pose a much greater risk to other road users anyway.

There are many more motorists. %age of motorists who break the law vs
%age of cyclists who break the law would be more meaningful. Take into
account vehicle km and number of breakages of the law and you get
something a little better.

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>
>>Don't blame the victims (people like me - pedestrian for a greater part of
>>the time) for the transgressions of the offenders (cyclists who casually
>>endanger victims for their own benefit).
>>
>>You don't "suspect" any of that at all. You know what everyone knows - the
>>footway cyclists are just bloody selfish - happy to pose a danger to others.
>
>
> Do you know:
> a) how many pedestrians a year are killed on the pavement or verge by
> i) cyclists and ii) motorists?
>
> b) how many pedestrians a year are killed on pedestrian crossings by i)
> cyclists and ii) motorists?

Do I need to, in order to know that cycling on the footway is the action of
the anti-social yob with little/no concern for others but plenty for himself?

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 11:28:37 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Well as you're obviously an idiot try:
>
>1) 26 million cars.
>2) 12,000 miles per annum average per vehicle.
>3) Registration system making automated policing easy (Speed Cameras,
>ANPR).

1 hr at > 70mph on the motorway on a 2 hr journey is 50% law breaking.

6 secs traffic light infringement on a 15 min bike journey is 0.5% law
breaking.

2 min mobile phone call on a 20 min trip to the hairdresser is 10% law
breaking.

30 seconds on the pavement to avoid queuing traffic on a 10 min ride
to the shops is 5% law breaking.

I do not condone any of the above, but cyclists' law breaking is much
less than motorists' law breaking.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 11:30:47 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Then you must be blind. I see these daily. If you really want me to
>embarass you, I'll start keeping a video record.

How many speeding motorists do you think a dashbord mounted camera
would catch if I drove around the M25 at 70?

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
Tom Crispin said:
> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 11:28:37 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Well as you're obviously an idiot try:
>>
>> 1) 26 million cars.
>> 2) 12,000 miles per annum average per vehicle.
>> 3) Registration system making automated policing easy (Speed Cameras,
>> ANPR).
>
> 1 hr at > 70mph on the motorway on a 2 hr journey is 50% law breaking.
>
> 6 secs traffic light infringement on a 15 min bike journey is 0.5% law
> breaking.
>
> 2 min mobile phone call on a 20 min trip to the hairdresser is 10% law
> breaking.
>
> 30 seconds on the pavement to avoid queuing traffic on a 10 min ride
> to the shops is 5% law breaking.
>
> I do not condone any of the above, but cyclists' law breaking is much
> less than motorists' law breaking.

Where have these percentages come from and what are they a percentage of?

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> Tom Crispin said:
>
>>On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 11:28:37 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well as you're obviously an idiot try:
>>>
>>>1) 26 million cars.
>>>2) 12,000 miles per annum average per vehicle.
>>>3) Registration system making automated policing easy (Speed Cameras,
>>>ANPR).
>>
>>1 hr at > 70mph on the motorway on a 2 hr journey is 50% law breaking.
>>
>>6 secs traffic light infringement on a 15 min bike journey is 0.5% law
>>breaking.
>>
>>2 min mobile phone call on a 20 min trip to the hairdresser is 10% law
>>breaking.
>>
>>30 seconds on the pavement to avoid queuing traffic on a 10 min ride
>>to the shops is 5% law breaking.
>>
>>I do not condone any of the above, but cyclists' law breaking is much
>>less than motorists' law breaking.
>
>
> Where have these percentages come from and what are they a percentage of?

My question exactly...

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 17:41:32 +0100, "Brimstone" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In news:[email protected],
>Tom Crispin said:
>> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 11:28:37 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Well as you're obviously an idiot try:
>>>
>>> 1) 26 million cars.
>>> 2) 12,000 miles per annum average per vehicle.
>>> 3) Registration system making automated policing easy (Speed Cameras,
>>> ANPR).
>>
>> 1 hr at > 70mph on the motorway on a 2 hr journey is 50% law breaking.
>>
>> 6 secs traffic light infringement on a 15 min bike journey is 0.5% law
>> breaking.
>>
>> 2 min mobile phone call on a 20 min trip to the hairdresser is 10% law
>> breaking.
>>
>> 30 seconds on the pavement to avoid queuing traffic on a 10 min ride
>> to the shops is 5% law breaking.
>>
>> I do not condone any of the above, but cyclists' law breaking is much
>> less than motorists' law breaking.
>
>Where have these percentages come from and what are they a percentage of?

Time spent law breaking divided by trip time.

They are simply made up examples.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 11:30:47 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Then you must be blind. I see these daily. If you really want me to
>> embarass you, I'll start keeping a video record.
>
> How many speeding motorists do you think a dashbord mounted camera
> would catch if I drove around the M25 at 70?

Better add uk.rec.motorcycles to the crossposting then, because you wouldn't
manage that in a car.

A

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:

> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Tom Crispin said:

>>>1 hr at > 70mph on the motorway on a 2 hr journey is 50% law breaking.

>>>6 secs traffic light infringement on a 15 min bike journey is 0.5% law
>>>breaking.

>>>2 min mobile phone call on a 20 min trip to the hairdresser is 10% law
>>>breaking.

>>>30 seconds on the pavement to avoid queuing traffic on a 10 min ride
>>>to the shops is 5% law breaking.

>>>I do not condone any of the above, but cyclists' law breaking is much
>>>less than motorists' law breaking.
>>Where have these percentages come from and what are they a percentage of?

> ... They are simply made up examples.

Quite.

 

[Huge]

On 2006-07-01, Brimstone <[email protected]> wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> Tom Crispin said:
>> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 11:28:37 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Well as you're obviously an idiot try:
>>>
>>> 1) 26 million cars.
>>> 2) 12,000 miles per annum average per vehicle.
>>> 3) Registration system making automated policing easy (Speed Cameras,
>>> ANPR).
>>
>> 1 hr at > 70mph on the motorway on a 2 hr journey is 50% law breaking.
>>
>> 6 secs traffic light infringement on a 15 min bike journey is 0.5% law
>> breaking.
>>
>> 2 min mobile phone call on a 20 min trip to the hairdresser is 10% law
>> breaking.
>>
>> 30 seconds on the pavement to avoid queuing traffic on a 10 min ride
>> to the shops is 5% law breaking.
>>
>> I do not condone any of the above, but cyclists' law breaking is much
>> less than motorists' law breaking.
>
> Where have these percentages come from and what are they a percentage of?

Made up by a cyclist, of course.

>
>


--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 18:53:06 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Tom Crispin said:
>
>>>>1 hr at > 70mph on the motorway on a 2 hr journey is 50% law breaking.
>
>>>>6 secs traffic light infringement on a 15 min bike journey is 0.5% law
>>>>breaking.
>
>>>>2 min mobile phone call on a 20 min trip to the hairdresser is 10% law
>>>>breaking.
>
>>>>30 seconds on the pavement to avoid queuing traffic on a 10 min ride
>>>>to the shops is 5% law breaking.
>
>>>>I do not condone any of the above, but cyclists' law breaking is much
>>>>less than motorists' law breaking.
>>>Where have these percentages come from and what are they a percentage of?
>
>> ... They are simply made up examples.
>
>Quite.

But do you still think that cyclists spend a greater proportion of
their time law breaking than motorists.

We could go on to discuss defective lights, seat belt laws, defective
tyres, bus and cycle lane infringements, etc. ect. if you are still
not convinced.

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
says...
> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 11:28:37 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Well as you're obviously an idiot try:
> >
> >1) 26 million cars.
> >2) 12,000 miles per annum average per vehicle.
> >3) Registration system making automated policing easy (Speed Cameras,
> >ANPR).
>
> 1 hr at > 70mph on the motorway on a 2 hr journey is 50% law breaking.
>
> 6 secs traffic light infringement on a 15 min bike journey is 0.5% law
> breaking.
>
> 2 min mobile phone call on a 20 min trip to the hairdresser is 10% law
> breaking.
>
> 30 seconds on the pavement to avoid queuing traffic on a 10 min ride
> to the shops is 5% law breaking.
>
> I do not condone any of the above, but cyclists' law breaking is much
> less than motorists' law breaking.
>
What a load of bollocks the content of that post is.

--
Conor
Sig under construction. Please check back when Duke Nukem Forever ships
and/or Windows Vista is released.

Cashback on online purchases:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm