Cyclists win police court battle!

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 12:47:31 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Brimstone wrote:
>> In news:[email protected],
>> JNugent said:
>>
>>>Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The same could be said of people who drop litter.
>>>
>>>Indeed it could.
>>>
>>>But what would be the relevance of saying it (other than that it is
>>>another offence committed by selfish yobs, I mean)? At least it isn't
>>>usually dangerous, unlike cycling on the footway, eh?

I think that we've established that, with one fatality in four years,
cycling on the pavement is substantially less dangerous than driving
on the pavement.

>> I wonder how many people trip or slip on inconsiderately discarded
>> packaging, including fruit skins etc, and are hurt compared to the number
>> hurt by cyclists on the footpath. Has any research been done?
>
>I KNEW that someone would start diverting onto that.

And you answer is?

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 12:38:04 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> 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
>
>Do the victims get that sort of choice?

No. Are you going to answer the question? A simple 1 or 2 will
suffice.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 12:39:23 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> 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.
>
><sharp intake of breath>
>
>I don't often indulge in this sort of thing (as ukt regulars will know) -
>but have you ever thought of getting a life?

What's that supposed to mean? That counting bikes to monitor the
effectiveness or otherwise of providing cycle training to young
children is a worthless activity?

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

JNugent wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> In news:[email protected],
>> JNugent said:
>>
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> The same could be said of people who drop litter.
>>>
>>> Indeed it could.
>>>
>>> But what would be the relevance of saying it (other than that it is
>>> another offence committed by selfish yobs, I mean)? At least it
>>> isn't usually dangerous, unlike cycling on the footway, eh?
>>
>>
>> I wonder how many people trip or slip on inconsiderately discarded
>> packaging, including fruit skins etc, and are hurt compared to the
>> number hurt by cyclists on the footpath. Has any research been done?
>
> I KNEW that someone would start diverting onto that.

I thought that you were the one who diverted onto that.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

JNugent wrote:
> 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.

I suspect there is >0.25 fatalities a year from motor vehicles driving into
pedestrians while intentionally driving on the pavement, but I lack the
motivation to find evidence of that happening.

> 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.

Exactly. It's selfish yobs who ride bikes on the pavement. Last time I
remonstrated (I think I said "Oy, there's a road for that!") with someone
who brushed past me on the pavement, I very quickly realised that that was a
mistake and that the way he turned round and looked at me needed a very
quick assertive but not threatening apology otherwise things could well
escalate.

There's other categories of people who cycle on the pavement, but I don't
think there's many of those who are being addressed in this idiotic
crosspost that iiiDougiii started.

A

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Huge wrote:
> 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?

I don't think Mr Chumley Fanshawe actually rides his bike on the pavement.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

JNugent wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>> 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.
>
> <sharp intake of breath>
>
> I don't often indulge in this sort of thing (as ukt regulars will
> know) - but have you ever thought of getting a life?

It's possible it's part of his job.

 

[Al C-F]

JNugent wrote:
> Al C-F wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But they are allowed 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> Simply that no-one is free to pass perceived dangers to themselves
>>> onto others by breaking the law.
>>>
>>> That's not too hard to understand, is it?
>>
>>
>>
>> And your line on those who generate the dangers?
>
>
> The cyclists?
>
The motorists. The ones that generate the dangers that cyclists perceive.

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>, Tony
Raven <[email protected]> writes

>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.

That's like saying that cyclists only obey speed limits because mostly
they can't pedal fast enough to break them. True, but irrelevant.

--
Steve Walker

 

[Al C-F]

Huge wrote:
> 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?
>
Not necessarily. It is possible to cycle safely amongst pedestrians if
one is sufficiently civil.

It is true, however, that there are yobs on bikes on the pavement and
yobs in cars on the roads.

 

[jtaylor]

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

True, but such is

a) not normal
b) not relevant to the issue, which is:

at present, people have a right to use the Queen's highways via bicycle, but
require permission to do so via motorcar.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Steve Walker wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>,
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes
>
>> 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.
>
> That's like saying that cyclists only obey speed limits because mostly
> they can't pedal fast enough to break them. True, but irrelevant.

All the applicable speed limits for cyclists in this country are easily
broken by any moderately fit cyclist.

 

[Tony Raven]

Huge wrote:
> >
> > And she should probably not have been prosecuted at all in that case.
> > The Home Office Minister, Paul Boeteng,
>
> Am man whose mouth I would not **** in were his teeth on fire.
>

Maybe but you are confusing the messenger with the message which is
that the official Government position (and ACPO guidance) is that
cycling on the pavement should only be prosecuted if done
inconsiderately, irrespective of its legality. I presume though that
you support prosecution of motorists that go 1mph over the speed limit
and not the ACPO guidelines of not prosecuting for less than 10% over.

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

Steve Walker wrote:
>
> That's like saying that cyclists only obey speed limits because mostly
> they can't pedal fast enough to break them. True, but irrelevant.
>

Untrue actually. Speed limits don't apply to cyclists except in Royal
Parks. The law specifically states that they only apply to motor
vehicles on the public highways.

Tony

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>, Tony
Raven <[email protected]> writes
>
>Steve Walker wrote:
>>
>> That's like saying that cyclists only obey speed limits because mostly
>> they can't pedal fast enough to break them. True, but irrelevant.
>>
>
>Untrue actually. Speed limits don't apply to cyclists except in Royal
>Parks. The law specifically states that they only apply to motor
>vehicles on the public highways.

And you imagine that they would obey the limits were they brought within
that law?

--
Steve Walker

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 13:24:46 +0100 someone who may be Al C-F
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Not necessarily. It is possible to cycle safely amongst pedestrians if
>one is sufficiently civil.

Indeed. This may mean cycling at walking pace at times, perfectly
possible for the right rider with the right bike and stopping at
other times.

If the cyclist got off and walked they would be more difficult for
pedestrians to pass as cyclist pushing bike is wider then cyclist on
bike.


--
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

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 13:23:20 +0100 someone who may be Steve Walker
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>That's like saying that cyclists only obey speed limits because mostly
>they can't pedal fast enough to break them. True,

It is untrue, because speed limits on public roads apply only to
motor vehicle drivers.

There are some speed limits, on private roads, that do apply to
cyclists. However, all of them can be exceeded by most cyclists.


--
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

 

[Tony Raven]

Steve Walker wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Tony
> Raven <[email protected]> writes
> >
> >Steve Walker wrote:
> >>
> >> That's like saying that cyclists only obey speed limits because mostly
> >> they can't pedal fast enough to break them. True, but irrelevant.
> >>
> >
> >Untrue actually. Speed limits don't apply to cyclists except in Royal
> >Parks. The law specifically states that they only apply to motor
> >vehicles on the public highways.
>
> And you imagine that they would obey the limits were they brought within
> that law?
>

Taking aside the issue of whether they have the opportunity to exceed
the speed limit, then certainly some would exceed the limits but I
suspect a lot less than do in motor vehicles (which is some 90% IIRC).

Which brings us back to the main point which is there are people on
bikes and people in cars and a proportion of both break the law.
However the consequences of the latter's transgression are many times
greater and more serious than the former.

Tony

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 13:45:49 +0100 someone who may be Steve Walker
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>Untrue actually. Speed limits don't apply to cyclists except in Royal
>>Parks. The law specifically states that they only apply to motor
>>vehicles on the public highways.
>
>And you imagine that they would obey the limits were they brought within
>that law?

Given that we are comparing two groups, the question is whether they
would obey them more than motorists?

http://www.rac.co.uk/web/knowhow/owning_a_car/rac_report_on_motoring_2005/summary
says, "Although 84% of our sample considered themselves to be
law-abiding, 55% admit to exceeding the speed limit a little every
day."

Note that is the number who admitted breaking the law, not the
number actually breaking the law.


--
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

 

[David Hansen]

On 2 Jul 2006 06:05:42 -0700 someone who may be "Tony Raven"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Which brings us back to the main point which is there are people on
>bikes and people in cars and a proportion of both break the law.
>However the consequences of the latter's transgression are many times
>greater and more serious than the former.

AOL.

Presumably that is why some appear desperate to divert attention
away from those who actually cause a lot of danger towards those who
cause little danger.


--
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