Cyclists win police court battle!

JNugent · Jul 2, 2006

Martin O'Loughlin wrote:

> Simon Hobson <[email protected]> said:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:

>> 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.

Ooooh look - a claim that cyclists pay for the roads and that motorists
don't. We haven't seen such a claim for a while now (even Hansen doesn't
say it any more).

It shows how seriously the rest of the post can be taken.

Brimstone · Jul 2, 2006

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> 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?

So you don't know the etymology of "yob"?

Brimstone · Jul 2, 2006

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Martin O'Loughlin wrote:
>
>> Simon Hobson <[email protected]> said:
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Ooooh look - a claim that cyclists pay for the roads and that
> motorists don't. We haven't seen such a claim for a while now (even
> Hansen doesn't say it any more).

You have on a number of occasions distorted people's assertions, but this
one takes the biscuit.

>
> It shows how seriously the rest of the post can be taken.

It can be taken infinitely more seriously than many of your posts.

JNugent · Jul 2, 2006

Brimstone wrote:

> JNugent said:
>>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?

> So you don't know the etymology of "yob"?

I know both its etymology and its meaning.

Do you have a point to make?

Brimstone · Jul 2, 2006

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>
>> JNugent said:
>>> 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?
>
>> So you don't know the etymology of "yob"?
>
> I know both its etymology and its meaning.

So how can someone "grow old" and still be a "yob". The "selfish" part I'm
happy with.

Tony Raven · Jul 2, 2006

Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
> >
> > Is there any rule that says selfish yobs can't grow old?
>
> So you don't know the etymology of "yob"?

<pedant>
Orig. simply, a boy, a youth; in mod. use, a lout, a hooligan (OED)

So in modern use a yob can indeed be old. ;-)
</pedant>

Tony

Tom Crispin · Jul 2, 2006

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 23:47:54 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
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.

So what you do to come to your conclusions is look at the offences
some cyclists commit and compare them with motorists committing a
similar offence.

Why not compare all motoring offences with all cycling offences?

In 2004/2005 nearly 6,000,000 PCNs were issued by the London Boroughs
to motorists. This excludes much law breaking by motorists, including
PCNs issued by the Metropolitan police.

http://www.alg.gov.uk/doc.asp?doc=14121&cat=1046

In 2001 15 cyclists faced proscecution for cycling offences: 2 for a
traffic signal offence, 2 for lighting or reflector offences and 11
for footway cycling. (Of those 15, 13 were found guilty.)

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldhansrd/vo031006/text/31006w02.htm

So, it appears that 400,000 times as many motorists were deemed to
have committed a parking infringment alone than all cyclists'
offences.

And, I don't suppose the booking rate for parking offences is 400,000
times higher than the booking rate for cycling offences.

Do you want to modify your opinion?

Tom Crispin · Jul 2, 2006

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 10:00:11 +0100, "Brimstone" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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"?

And what about a young child. Would you force them to ride to primary
school on a busy road? Or do you think the parent is in the best
position to decide if they are competent enough to cycle on the road
or footway for any given section of their journey to school?

Brimstone · Jul 2, 2006

In news

[email protected],
Tom Crispin said:
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 10:00:11 +0100, "Brimstone" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> 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"?
>
> And what about a young child. Would you force them to ride to primary
> school on a busy road? Or do you think the parent is in the best
> position to decide if they are competent enough to cycle on the road
> or footway for any given section of their journey to school?

According to reports, no child cycles to school. They all get driven there
by Mummy (occasionally Daddy) in 4x4s.

JNugent · Jul 2, 2006

Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>>Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JNugent said:
>>>
>>>>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?
>>
>>>So you don't know the etymology of "yob"?
>>
>>I know both its etymology and its meaning.

> So how can someone "grow old" and still be a "yob". The "selfish" part I'm
> happy with.

You are mistaking the etymology for the meaning. They are distinct.

JNugent · Jul 2, 2006

Tony Raven wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>
>>In news:[email protected],
>>JNugent said:
>>
>>>Is there any rule that says selfish yobs can't grow old?
>>
>>So you don't know the etymology of "yob"?
>
>
> <pedant>
> Orig. simply, a boy, a youth; in mod. use, a lout, a hooligan (OED)
>
> So in modern use a yob can indeed be old. ;-)
> </pedant>
>
> Tony

Exactly.

JNugent · Jul 2, 2006

Tom Crispin wrote:

> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> 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"?

> And what about a young child. Would you force them to ride to primary
> school on a busy road?

I would never force anyone to ride a bike. They have to make their own
choices - within the law. Te law is there to protect them and others.
People may sometimes decide to waive their own protection, but they have no
right to waive it for others, especially not for that most-vulnerable
road-user, the pedestrian (which I am for a lot of the time).

> Or do you think the parent is in the best
> position to decide if they are competent enough to cycle on the road
> or footway for any given section of their journey to school?

Do I think that a parent should be empowered to authorise law-breaking by
their child?

No.

Where would that end?

If parents feel that their child is not competent to ride properly,
lawfully and safely, they should not allow them to go to school on a bike.
End of.

Is this difficult?

David Hansen · Jul 2, 2006

JNugent · Jul 2, 2006

Tom Crispin wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> 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.

> So what you do to come to your conclusions is look at the offences
> some cyclists commit and compare them with motorists committing a
> similar offence.

Not at all - cyclists commit offences very frequently. At just about every
red traffic light they come to for a start.

> Why not compare all motoring offences with all cycling offences?

What's the relevance? Does the fact that Tweedledee commits an offence make
it alright for Tweedledum to do the same?

> In 2004/2005 nearly 6,000,000 PCNs were issued by the London Boroughs
> to motorists. This excludes much law breaking by motorists, including
> PCNs issued by the Metropolitan police.
>
> http://www.alg.gov.uk/doc.asp?doc=14121&cat=1046

It's easy to prosecute drivers and vehicle-owners because they are
easily-traced.

It's next to impossible to trace and/or prosecute rogue cyclists, for
obvious reasons.

> In 2001 15 cyclists faced proscecution for cycling offences: 2 for a
> traffic signal offence, 2 for lighting or reflector offences and 11
> for footway cycling. (Of those 15, 13 were found guilty.)

>http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldhansrd/vo031006/text/31006w02.htm

Blimey, they were unlucky, weren't they?

Did plod get out of bed the wrong side that day? Or were they the ones
whose conscience was troubling them so badly that they gave themselves up?

You are being deceitfully disingenuous, aren't you? The complaint is
precisely THAT lawless cyclists get away with it. Don't take that fact that
they get away with it as evidence that they don't get away with it.

> So, it appears that 400,000 times as many motorists were deemed to
> have committed a parking infringment alone than all cyclists'
> offences.

No. It doesn't "seem" that at all; not to anyone with a brain, anyway. Not
even to you - you are just being evasive and (unsuccessfully) deceitful -
aren't you?

> And, I don't suppose the booking rate for parking offences is 400,000
> times higher than the booking rate for cycling offences.

> Do you want to modify your opinion?

That cyclists are, by and large (with honourable exceptions - I have always
accepted that), a bunch of lawless yobs?

No.

JNugent · Jul 2, 2006

Brimstone wrote:
> In news

[email protected],
> Tom Crispin said:
>
>>On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 10:00:11 +0100, "Brimstone" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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"?
>>
>>And what about a young child. Would you force them to ride to primary
>>school on a busy road? Or do you think the parent is in the best
>>position to decide if they are competent enough to cycle on the road
>>or footway for any given section of their journey to school?
>
>
> According to reports, no child cycles to school. They all get driven there
> by Mummy (occasionally Daddy) in 4x4s.

Much better than sending a child who cannot cycle safely and lawfully to
school on a bike. That would be a form of child abuse. I'm sure you agree.

JNugent · Jul 2, 2006

David Hansen wrote:

> Was not one of the first "on-the-spot" fines for pavement cycling
> given to a nurse in York who didn't fancy using the adjacent road
> with her young child in a child seat?

I don't know.

But if true, she could just have wheeled the bike, couldn't she?

And what does her occupation have to do with it?

JNugent · Jul 2, 2006

Tony Raven wrote:

> 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?

Of course it is dangerous. That it is dangerous is the very reason why
cyclists aren't allowed on footways.

> Because cyclists have only killed on person on a
> pavement in the past four years and injure about 70 a year

Oh, is that all?

Too trivial to bother with, obviously.

What *should* the number have been?

A. NIL
B. 70.
C. 1,000,000

Take your time.

> while around
> 70 pedestrians are killed and 3,500 injured every year on the pavement
> by cars.

Logical error.

See if you can work out what it is.

> 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.

I have never claimed otherwise. That does not mean that it is alright for
cyclists to impose more danger - does it?

A Yes
B. No

Take your time.

>>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.

Is that a yes or a no?

Paul Weaver · Jul 2, 2006

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?

None, until you tailend the car infront that's driving at 40mph

Tony Raven · Jul 2, 2006

David Hansen wrote:
>
> Was not one of the first "on-the-spot" fines for pavement cycling
> given to a nurse in York who didn't fancy using the adjacent road
> with her young child in a child seat?
>

And she should probably not have been prosecuted at all in that case.
The Home Office Minister, Paul Boeteng, gave the following guidance to
the Police on FPNs when they were introduced and similar guidance is
given to Community Support Officers:

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of
traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing
so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement,
acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people,
are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police
discretion is required."

> A quick skim of the BBC news web site produced 147 pages to do with
> cars and pavements. From just the first 15 of the 147 pages these
> stories are more than enough to demonstrate that motorists on the
> pavement pose a real danger to others. Note that I have not tried to
> eliminate duplicates thoroughly, so there might be a few duplicates.
>

And indeed this story just in today:

"A woman and her three children were injured when they were hit by a
car at a zebra crossing in Essex.

It happened as the 25-year-old woman and her children aged nine, three
and 18 months were crossing Ongar Road, in Brentwood, on Friday
afternoon.

All were taken to hospital with injuries and all but the 18-month-old
child were detained.

The 75-year-old car driver was not injured and Essex Police are
appealing for witnesses to the incident.

Essex Ambulance Service manager Alan Whitehead said: "A three-year-old
boy, who landed about 25ft away from the site of the collision,
suffered cuts, bumps and bruises.

"An 18-month-old baby in a pram received only a small bump to the head
despite an impact that bent the pram in half.

"A nine-year-old girl, who been thrown about 8ft following the
collision, had injuries to her leg and pelvis."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/5136142.stm

I notice by the way that JNugent in his replies has conveniently
bypassed my posts about the relative risks to pedestrians on pavements
and crossing from cyclists and motorists.

Tony

JNugent · Jul 2, 2006

Tony Raven wrote:

> 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?

At any given time, in any given place, the risk that the driver of a
passing motor vehicle will lose control and that the vehicle will mount the
footway is small. Not nil, but small. The results can be catastrophic, but
if it does happen, it will be non-deliberate. No-one will "decide" to do it.

The risk posed by footway cyclists is entirely deliberate and is casually
imposed on others for the benefit of the cyclist.

Can you not see the difference?

Cyclists win police court battle!

JNugent

Guest

Brimstone

Guest

Brimstone

Guest

JNugent

Guest

Brimstone

Guest

Tony Raven

Guest

Tom Crispin

Guest

Tom Crispin

Guest

Brimstone

Guest

JNugent

Guest

JNugent

Guest

JNugent

Guest

David Hansen

Guest

JNugent

Guest

JNugent

Guest

JNugent

Guest

JNugent

Guest

Paul Weaver

Guest

Tony Raven

Guest

JNugent

Guest

Similar threads

We value your privacy