Cyclists win police court battle!

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:

> 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.

I have addressed that "point" entirely properly - it is totally irrelevant.

Two wrongs do not make a right - as I had expected you must have already known.

But apparently not.

 

[Al C-F]

JNugent wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>

>
>
>> 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.
>

If it is so dangerous, please will you explain the existance of
shared-use (cyclist and pedestrian) paths?

 

[Brimstone]

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

I agree that parents should teach their children to use a bicycle safely and
lawfully, but since many of them have a cavalier attitude to road safety
that's unlikely to happen.

 

[Al C-F]

JNugent wrote:

>
>
> 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 and results are both reduced if cars are driven carefully and
with consideration. The number of incidences tends to suggest that
rather too many drivers are neither careful nor considerate.
>
> The risk posed by footway cyclists is entirely deliberate and is
> casually imposed on others for the benefit of the cyclist.
>

The benefit to cyclists of cycling on the pavement is that of being
further away from the careless and inconsiderate motorists mentioned above.

Whilst it is true that there are some inconsiderate pavement cyclists,
there are many who cycle on the pavement because they perceive sharing
the roads with motor vehicles to be unsafe.

 

[Brimstone]

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

A nurse is a member of a supposed "caring profession".

 

[Huge]

On 2006-07-02, Tony Raven <[email protected]> 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? 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.

You are, of course, going to adjust those figures by the relevant
number of passenger-miles in each mode?




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

 

[Huge]

On 2006-07-02, Brimstone <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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"?

Bingo. You can always tell when someone's lost the argument when they
start yammering about semantics or TV licenses.

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

 

[JNugent]

Al C-F wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:

>>> 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.

> If it is so dangerous, please will you explain the existance of
> shared-use (cyclist and pedestrian) paths?

I can't.

Like David Hansen (and several cyclists who post here), I think that policy
is exceptionally misguided. We might have different reasons for thinking
that. Mine is based on the desirability of pedestrian safety. Others would
have to answer for themselves.

 

[Tony Raven]

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

Except they are and the Councils put down white paint and put up signs
to say that they are and in fact are positively encouraged to cycle
there. And even the Home Office has said its OK where there is no
white paint as long as you ride considerately.

But I can see that you are the type of hunter who, when faced by an ant
and a starving lion, with just a single bullet left, will use your
bullet to stop the ant.

> > 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.
>

In the overall scale of priorities, yes especially given that in many
places cycling on the pavement is perfectly legal and motorists kill
280 times as many and injure 50 times as many pedestrians on the
pavement as cyclists. Start with the biggest risk first.

> What *should* the number have been?
>
> A. NIL
> B. 70.
> C. 1,000,000

Well 0.25 persons killed and 70 injured per annum puts it in the same
risk category as a tea cosy (~40 hospitalisations a year)
..
>
> 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.

Do tell. And what do you think those numbers should be for motorists?
The same as they are now, the same as for cyclists or NIL?


>
> 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.

When that "more danger" is equivalent to the risk posed by a tea cosy I
think the answer is its not important in the overall scale of things so
No (i.e it does mean it is alright). Did you know that about 2000
people a year are injured walking into trees? Is it alright for trees
to impose that danger to pedestrians or should they all be cut down?
Yes or No?

>
> Is that a yes or a no?

Already answered. Do you think tea cosies should be banned? Yes or
No?

Tony

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:

>>>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.

> I agree that parents should teach their children to use a bicycle safely and
> lawfully, but since many of them have a cavalier attitude to road safety
> that's unlikely to happen.

I fear you are right.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 11:12:43 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> 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.

6,000,000 exceeds the entire adult population of urban London.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/h.asp

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

The same could be said of people who drop litter.

>> 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.

What proportion of those who contravene parking regulations get away
with it? Or those who speed?

>> 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.

So do you think the booking rate for parking offences is 400,000 times
higher than for all 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?

And you think that motorists, by and large, always obey speed
restrictions and always obey parking regulations? The figure of
nearly 6,000,000 PCNs issued in London alone suggests otherwise.

 

[JNugent]

Al C-F wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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 and results are both reduced if cars are driven carefully and
> with consideration.

Absolutely.

> The number of incidences tends to suggest that
> rather too many drivers are neither careful nor considerate.

One would be one too many. You are right.

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

> The benefit to cyclists of cycling on the pavement is that of being
> further away from the careless and inconsiderate motorists mentioned above.

Not relevant. They are not allowed to just pass the danger to others. They
are not forced to cycle at all.

> Whilst it is true that there are some inconsiderate pavement cyclists,
> there are many who cycle on the pavement because they perceive sharing
> the roads with motor vehicles to be unsafe.

That's er... inconsiderate (as well as illegal). They are not forced by law
to cycle at all, still less on the footway. If they think it's too
dangerous, they should re-think the journey or go by a different route or mode.

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:

> JNugent said:
>>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?

> A nurse is a member of a supposed "caring profession".

???

Shouldn't she care about pedestrians?

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 11:28:38 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

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

If walking along a footway, what would you prefer to encounter:

1. A cyclist under control deliberately on the footway

2. A motorist out of control inadvertently on the footway

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 10:55:04 +0100, "Brimstone" <[email protected]>
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.

Two weeks ago I counted 54 bikes in the bike sheds at the inner London
primary school where I teach.

On a cold December day there were 37.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=120403782&size=l

3 belong to staff.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>
>> JNugent said:
>>> 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?
>
>> A nurse is a member of a supposed "caring profession".
>
> ???
>
> Shouldn't she care about pedestrians?

We don't know that she didn't.

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I have addressed that "point" entirely properly - it is totally irrelevant.
>
> Two wrongs do not make a right - as I had expected you must have already known.
>
> But apparently not.

Two wrongs do not make a right but since one of those wrongs has
massively larger consequences than the other why do you spend all your
time focussing on the minor wrong? Tell us what you think about the
major wrong? Should motorists be allowed to get away with driving in a
manner such that they lose control of their vehicle and kill their
passengers and pedestrians (at the rate for children of a Soham every
other day)? And by the way the pedestrians deaths are by no means all
loss of control. A major proportion are due to driving on the pavement
or across a pavement or pedestrian crossing without looking out for
pedestrians already using the pavement or crossing.

I look forward to what you think should be done about the this major
wrong. Or do you think that police time should be concentrated on
arresting those who drop litter and they should ignore all the serious
crimes?

Tony

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

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

> Except they are

They aren't.

> and the Councils put down white paint and put up signs
> to say that they are and in fact are positively encouraged to cycle
> there.

That is a different case - a so-called "shared path".

If you set so much store by the judgment of councils in these matters
(there's no end to the naivety of some people), you must accept that where
is no "white paint", the route is a purely pedestrian one - and it is
footways (not "shared paths") of which we were speaking.

To take any other line would mean that because some "shared paths" exist,
all footways are shared paths. But they aren't - are they?

> And even the Home Office has said its OK where there is no
> white paint as long as you ride considerately.

That's odd. Parliament has not changed the law. Riding "considerately"
requires (as part of its definition) that the riding is done lawfully (eg,
not on footways).

> But I can see that you are the type of hunter who, when faced by an ant
> and a starving lion, with just a single bullet left, will use your
> bullet to stop the ant.

Gawd, you're getting desperate.

>>> 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.

> In the overall scale of priorities, yes

What a self-serving prat you are.

<rest snipped>

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote:
>
> > The benefit to cyclists of cycling on the pavement is that of being
> > further away from the careless and inconsiderate motorists mentioned above.
>
> Not relevant. They are not allowed to just pass the danger to others. They
> are not forced to cycle at all.
>

Neither are motorists forced to drive. Are you suggesting that
motorists should be banned en masse from driving until they can
demonstrate that they will kill or injure fewer people than cyclists?

Tony

 

[Huge]

On 2006-07-02, Al C-F <[email protected]> wrote:
>

> The benefit to cyclists of cycling on the pavement is that of being
> further away from the careless and inconsiderate motorists mentioned above.
>

And the benefit to pedestrians of having cyclists on the footpath? Can
you not see that you are treating the pedestrians in the same way that
you are complaining that the car drivers treat you?

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