Cyclists win police court battle!



In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
says...
> 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?
>
One, maybe two.

Of course you'll now tell me I'm lying which merely indicates your
stupidity.



--
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
 
JNugent wrote:
> 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?

Since your argument seems to be based on your premise that cyclists
pose a danger to others, I would have thought some understanding of the
scale of the danger would be worthwhile. Except of course I can see
why you would not want to know because it would invalidate your case
and confirm that far and away the biggest danger to you as a pedestrian
on a pavement or crossing is from motor vehicles. But don't let the
facts get in the way of a good prejudice eh?

As for being antisocial, I suggest you write to your local councillors
and ask them to stop painting bicycle lanes on the pavements - they
seem to think its a good idea to encourage cycling there whereas most
cyclists here would rather they didn't bother and made the roads more
friendly for cyclists instead.

Tony
 
Tom Crispin wrote:

> 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.

Absolutely, YES!

When I start to see regular instances of a car, van, taxi, lorry or
delivery van being driven along the footway, scattering pedestrians as it
goes, or running straight through red lights past traffic that has already
stopped for the lights as though the lights had no significance, I might
have a basis for starting to change my mind. Many cyclists (I think it's
actually *most* cyclists, but I recognise that a significant and decent
minority of them do try to do things properly) have no intention whatever
of complying with the law when they set of on a journey. Their whole
approach to cycling is lawless from start to finish.

> We could go on to discuss defective lights,

Lights on a bike? What are they?

> seat belt laws, defective
> tyres, bus and cycle lane infringements, etc. ect. if you are still
> not convinced.

I think bikes are actually allowed in (non-contra-flow) bus-lanes, so you
probably can't lay too much of that one at their doors. I agree that they
look as though couldn't care less about construction and use issues as you
(rightly) say. You could have added compliance with one-way systems. Most
cyclists seem not to know what a one-way street is.
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>>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?

> Since your argument seems to be based on your premise that cyclists
> pose a danger to others, I would have thought some understanding of the
> scale of the danger would be worthwhile. Except of course I can see
> why you would not want to know because it would invalidate your case
> and confirm that far and away the biggest danger to you as a pedestrian
> on a pavement or crossing is from motor vehicles.

Rubbish. No car or van has ever brushed past me from behind when I am
walking along on the footway, minding my own business. No lorry-driver has
ever screamed at me to "get out of the f***ing way" when I was on a zebra
or pelicon crossing. Guess what sort of vehicle user *has* done those things?

> But don't let the
> facts get in the way of a good prejudice eh?

Are you REALLY trying to say that there is no reason why cyclists should
not ride on the footway?

SERIOUSLY?

I am only too well aware of the potential dangers on the roads - all of
them. I refuse to ignore them, especially not the most outrageous of them -
those posed to pedestrians (including my family and to me) in situations
where there just shouldn't be any conflict between pedestrian and vehicle -
that is, on footways and in pedestrianised areas.

> As for being antisocial, I suggest you write to your local councillors
> and ask them to stop painting bicycle lanes on the pavements - they
> seem to think its a good idea to encourage cycling there whereas most
> cyclists here would rather they didn't bother and made the roads more
> friendly for cyclists instead.

On that, I could not agree with you more. If it were up to me, we would
paint out all bicycle lanes and all bus lanes.
 
On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 17:04:09 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

Lets try something more sensible :

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

= 1 offense

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

= 1 offense

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

Nah, don't do that.

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

= 1 offense

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

Me in car, one, you on bike, two - and that's using your own made up examples
!

Thus, the question of "how do drivers justify their higher levels of rule
breaking" becomes nonsense - to require an explanation assumes that the
premise is correct, and using your own example there is nothing to justify.

When I was at uni I was able to observe the actions of a greater number of
cyclists than I do now - any suggestion that they broke the law less times
than a driver would be "stretching the bounds of reason" to say the least. On
one occasion I recall the authorities having a clampdown on illegally parked
cycles - all they did was to put a sticker on the saddle which the owner
would simply remove and drop on the ground (a second offense of littering !).
So all those offenses that never appear anywhere in the statistics because
they are never prosecuted.

Drivers however are forced to put identifying marks on their vehicles, thus
enabling highly automated enforcement of (in some cases highly dubious)
restrictions - hence proportionately higher figures.


And of course, just to round things off nicely, you seem to equate 'size' of
offense with seriousness - so a 'little' breach of the rules isn't serious.
I'll remember that next time people are arguing for people to be strung up
for doing 31 in a 30 zone !
 
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:47:38 +0100, jtaylor wrote
(in message <2%[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca>):

> Rights cannot normally be extinguished.

Yes they can, when Tony decides they should and his puppets vote for anything
he tells them to. The NERC bill passed in May (or was it April) removed the
right to drive on certain roads.
 
On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 14:56:17 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

>> 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.

You seem to be equating losing control and involuntarily mounting the
pavement with deliberately and willfully seeking to proceed along it as part
of the journey.

Obviously, it sounds better for your argument to misrepresent this incident
as being proof that motorists regularly drive along the pavement through a
wilful act, but that doesn't make it the case.

Now suppose you are riding along a cycleway which is separated from the
footway by only a white line, you hit a bump your hadn't spotted, wobble, and
fall onto the footway. Now suppose in doing so that you knock over a
pedestrian - presumably you would argue for that being a clear case of the
cyclist knocking over a pedestrian through deliberately riding on the footway
?
 
Simon Hobson wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:47:38 +0100, jtaylor wrote
> (in message <2%[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca>):
>
> > Rights cannot normally be extinguished.
>
> Yes they can, when Tony decides they should and his puppets vote for anything
> he tells them to. The NERC bill passed in May (or was it April) removed the
> right to drive on certain roads.

What is wrong with:

"The Act delivers our commitment to curtail the inappropriate use of
byways by motor vehicles by putting an end to claims for motor vehicle
access on the basis of historical use by horse-drawn vehicles. Some of
the worst damage is happening in our national parks, which is why we
have given National Park Authorities the power to make traffic
regulation orders."

As long as they don't ban cyclists.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".
 
iiiiDougiiii wrote:

>
> Simon Hobson wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:47:38 +0100, jtaylor wrote
>> (in message <2%[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca>):
>>
>> > Rights cannot normally be extinguished.
>>
>> Yes they can, when Tony decides they should and his puppets vote for
>> anything he tells them to. The NERC bill passed in May (or was it April)
>> removed the right to drive on certain roads.
>
> What is wrong with:
>
> "The Act delivers our commitment to curtail the inappropriate use of
> byways by motor vehicles by putting an end to claims for motor vehicle
> access on the basis of historical use by horse-drawn vehicles. Some of
> the worst damage is happening in our national parks, which is why we
> have given National Park Authorities the power to make traffic
> regulation orders."
>
> As long as they don't ban cyclists.
>
Why not?

They have wheels that cause ruts that encourage water movement that can
erode soft ground - as has been the case hereabouts where cyclists have
taken to bridleways impassable by motor vehicles.
 
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 0:43:28 +0100 someone who may be Simon Hobson
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>You seem to be equating losing control and involuntarily mounting the
>pavement with deliberately and willfully seeking to proceed along it as part
>of the journey.

I am looking at the danger posed to pedestrians on the pavement by
various groups of vehicle operators. Certain people claim that this
danger is posed almost exclusively by cyclists. However, that claim
is a false one. The crash reported by the BBC is an example that the
claim is a false one and also indicates some of the reasons why.

The fact that some protest too loudly about this example is
revealing.


--
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 wrote:


>
> Rubbish. No car or van has ever brushed past me from behind when I am
> walking along on the footway, minding my own business. No lorry-driver has
> ever screamed at me to "get out of the f***ing way" when I was on a zebra
> or pelicon crossing. Guess what sort of vehicle user *has* done those things?
>

But is being "brushed past" by a cyclist actually dangerous or are you
just thinking it is? Because cyclists have only killed on person on a
pavement in the past four years and injure about 70 a year while around
70 pedestrians are killed and 3,500 injured every year on the pavement
by cars. Its not recorded how many of those were on cycle lanes on the
pavements. As for pedestrian crossings, noboby has been killed by a
cyclist but around 60 a year are killed by motorists on crossings. So
whatever your perception of the risk, motor vehicles are a much much
greater danger.

> > But don't let the
> > facts get in the way of a good prejudice eh?
>
> Are you REALLY trying to say that there is no reason why cyclists should
> not ride on the footway?
>
> SERIOUSLY?

I personally don't like and don't support cycling on the pavement -
despite the council and many motorists telling me, some quite
aggressively, that that is where I should be cycling. However many
countries seem to manage quite well with pavements being shared between
cyclists and pedestrians without massive carnage occurring, so although
I don't support it I don't think it is particularly dangerous or worth
worrying about.

>
> On that, I could not agree with you more. If it were up to me, we would
> paint out all bicycle lanes and all bus lanes.

I've yet to come across a bus lane on the pavement ;-) I would like to
get rid of cycle lanes too and have recently written an article on
exactly that.
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/66/article8.html

Tony
 
David Hansen wrote:

> Simon Hobson <[email protected]> wrote:

>>You seem to be equating losing control and involuntarily mounting the
>>pavement with deliberately and willfully seeking to proceed along it as part
>>of the journey.

> I am looking at the danger posed to pedestrians on the pavement by
> various groups of vehicle operators. Certain people claim that this
> danger is posed almost exclusively by cyclists.

That is a lie. No-one has ever claimed that. There is always the (remote
and, for practical purposes, negligible) possibility that the driver of a
motor vehicle will lose control of the vehicle and mount the pavement. If
it happens, it is clearly an unhappy situation, but it is non-deliberate.
But when a selfish yob rides a bike on the footway, that is a *deliberate*
decision to pose a risk to pedestrians like me and unacceptable for that
reason.

> However, that claim is a false one.

No - it is your claim that such a claim had been made that is false.

> The crash reported by the BBC is an example that the
> claim is a false one and also indicates some of the reasons why.

You falsely claimed that the driver was "driving along the pavement".

Now that really WAS a lie - wasn't it?

> The fact that some protest too loudly about this example is
> revealing.

So why do you make this ridiculous protest by fabrication?

Who(m) did you think you were kidding (apart from yourself)?
 
JNugent wrote:
>
> When I start to see regular instances of a car, van, taxi, lorry or
> delivery van being driven along the footway, scattering pedestrians as it
> goes, or running straight through red lights past traffic that has already
> stopped for the lights as though the lights had no significance, I might
> have a basis for starting to change my mind.

I do see cars driving along the pavements and recently looked up to
find a truck driving towards me along the pavement - so he could park
on the pavement to unload where there were double yellow lines. Plus
don't forget many pavements are actually legal cycle paths although the
attributes that differentiate them from non-cycling pavements, other
than an occassional blue and white sign, are difficult to ascertain.

As for red lights, the difference is that the first car to stop blocks
all the others behind who are forced to stop which is not the case with
cyclists. So you tend to see more succeed with cyclists compared to
the number who would if they could. On dual carriageway lights I am
often stopped at a red light in one lane in my car or on my bike with
cars continuing on in the other lane against a red light. In London the
RAC found one in ten motorists and one in five bus drivers crossed a
red light more than three seconds after it had turned red. So I don't
believe the propensity is any less in car drivers, just the
opportunity.

Tony
 
On 2006-07-02, iiiiDougiiii <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Simon Hobson wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:47:38 +0100, jtaylor wrote
>> (in message <2%[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca>):
>>
>> > Rights cannot normally be extinguished.
>>
>> Yes they can, when Tony decides they should and his puppets vote for anything
>> he tells them to. The NERC bill passed in May (or was it April) removed the
>> right to drive on certain roads.
>
> What is wrong with:
>
> "The Act delivers our commitment to curtail the inappropriate use of
> byways by motor vehicles by putting an end to claims for motor vehicle
> access on the basis of historical use by horse-drawn vehicles.

Because it's a lie. And a badly-implemented lie, at that.

> Some of
> the worst damage is happening in our national parks, which is why we
> have given National Park Authorities the power to make traffic
> regulation orders."

The only good thing about it is going to be watching the faces of the
relevant people when motor vehicle access is withdrawn and it makes
not a blind bit of difference.

Except that another group of entirely innocent people will have been
punished for something which wasn't their fault.

We'll leave the issue of people who have lost access to their own homes
for another time, shall we?


--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
 
On 2006-07-01, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> But do you still think that cyclists spend a greater proportion of
>> their time law breaking than motorists.
>
> Absolutely, YES!
>
> When I start to see regular instances of a car, van, taxi, lorry or
> delivery van being driven along the footway, scattering pedestrians as it
> goes, or running straight through red lights past traffic that has already
> stopped for the lights as though the lights had no significance, I might
> have a basis for starting to change my mind. Many cyclists (I think it's
> actually *most* cyclists, but I recognise that a significant and decent
> minority of them do try to do things properly) have no intention whatever
> of complying with the law when they set of on a journey. Their whole
> approach to cycling is lawless from start to finish.
>
>> We could go on to discuss defective lights,
>
> Lights on a bike? What are they?
>
>> seat belt laws, defective
>> tyres, bus and cycle lane infringements, etc. ect. if you are still
>> not convinced.
>
> I think bikes are actually allowed in (non-contra-flow) bus-lanes, so you
> probably can't lay too much of that one at their doors. I agree that they
> look as though couldn't care less about construction and use issues as you
> (rightly) say. You could have added compliance with one-way systems. Most
> cyclists seem not to know what a one-way street is.

hear, hear. Couldn't agree more.


--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]
 
JNugent wrote:
>
> That is a lie. No-one has ever claimed that. There is always the (remote
> and, for practical purposes, negligible) possibility that the driver of a
> motor vehicle will lose control of the vehicle and mount the pavement. If
> it happens, it is clearly an unhappy situation, but it is non-deliberate.
> But when a selfish yob rides a bike on the footway, that is a *deliberate*
> decision to pose a risk to pedestrians like me and unacceptable for that
> reason.
>

If the risk from motor vehicles is "remote and, for practical purposes,
negligible", then the risk from cyclists must be non-existent given
that it is between 50 and several hundred time smaller.

So what are you complaining about?

Tony
 
In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> But when a selfish yob rides a bike on the
> footway, that is a *deliberate* decision to pose a risk to
> pedestrians like me and unacceptable for that reason.

Is a pensioner also a "selfish yob"?
 
On 2006-07-02 00:43:09 +0100, Simon Hobson
<[email protected]> said:

> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 17:04:09 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote
> (in message <[email protected]>):
>
> Lets try something more sensible :
>
>> 1 hr at > 70mph on the motorway on a 2 hr journey is 50% law breaking.
>
> = 1 offense
>
>> 6 secs traffic light infringement on a 15 min bike journey is 0.5% law
>> breaking.
>
> = 1 offense
>
>> 2 min mobile phone call on a 20 min trip to the hairdresser is 10% law
>> breaking.
>
> Nah, don't do that.
>
>> 30 seconds on the pavement to avoid queuing traffic on a 10 min ride
>> to the shops is 5% law breaking.
>
> = 1 offense
>
>> I do not condone any of the above, but cyclists' law breaking is much
>> less than motorists' law breaking.
>
> Me in car, one, you on bike, two - and that's using your own

It amazes me that people argue and try to defend the actions of
motorists and yet the same actions by cyclists are taken as law
breaking.

I have regularly seen motorists turning left against the flow of a one
way street to avoid the longer correct route.

Are mobile phones actually banned, stand by the side of a road and take
a look, i think the answer is no.

Speeding, what can you say!!!! find me a driver who doesn't speed and
you have found a pathological liar!

Parking, since when did double yellow mean park here,

Double white lines, do drivers know what they mean? my daily experience
of this is no.

Bus lanes, that will be car lanes then,

i will say that most drivers do seem to wear seat belts, i say most,
certainly not all.

Red lights, seems to be almost as ignored by car drivers as they are by
cyclists.

And before we move on to the motorists pay tax bollocks, Motorists pay
VED NOT Road Tax! Cyclists pay general taxation, that covers the roads.
in fact cyclists pay good money for motorways which they are denied
access to.

Martin
 
Brimstone wrote:

> JNugent said:

>>But when a selfish yob rides a bike on the
>>footway, that is a *deliberate* decision to pose a risk to
>>pedestrians like me and unacceptable for that reason.

> Is a pensioner also a "selfish yob"?

If behaving in a yobbish, selfish manner, of course.

Is there any rule that says selfish yobs can't grow old?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Oxford cyclists win again
Replies
20
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Andrew Chadwick
A
C
Oxford cyclists win again
Replies
20
Views
851
UK and Europe
Andrew Chadwick
A
Carlo Pancaldi
Shrine Of Madonna Del Ghisallo - The Patroness Of Cyclists
Replies
0
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Carlo Pancaldi
Carlo Pancaldi
Starfish
Calling all spinners & cyclists! Take on a 24 or 12 hour challenge!
Replies
0
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Starfish
Starfish
Tetiana
Help of cyclists from France and Austria needed!
Replies
0
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Tetiana
Tetiana
Top Bottom Back