Cyclists win police court battle!

[Steve Firth]

On 02 Jul 2006 18:06:05 GMT, Andy Leighton wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 18:44:51 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 13:24:46 +0100, Al C-F wrote:
>>
>>> It is possible to cycle safely amongst pedestrians if
>>> one is sufficiently civil.
>>
>> If one ignores the illegality
>
> This is the same Steve Firth who not long ago boasts about assaulting
> pavement cyclists. Now I am not one to defend pavement cyclists but
> when it comes to illegality I think you are being a tad hypocritical.

Aww bless, look you cried all over my shoulder and made it damp.

 

[JNugent]

Al C-F wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> 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.

> They are, on many.

They aren't, on any.

I am talking of footways, such as exist in ordinary streets in towns, not
of "shared paths".

The physical difference between those here they are
> and those where they aren't extend, in many cases, to the existance of a
> small blue sign.

No. No signs in evidence or relevant. Footways, not cycle paths.

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

> Inditstinguishable from a footway, except for a small sign.

Dear me.

> I.e. no
> physical difference making the shared path 'safer' than the footway.

I agree. Shared paths are an abomination.

>> 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.

> There is not always a dividing line on a shared path, so the
> no-white-paint version may, or may not be, shared.

Have no doubt that I am talking of ordinary footways on ordinary streets,
roads, avenues, ways, crescents, closes, etc. Not "shared paths".

>> 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).

> Evidently not according to Mr Boateng.

....who seems not to understand how law works (which is odd). Parliament
does not specify how law is to be interpreted. That's the job of the
police/CPS (in the first instance) and the courts thereafter. Boateng knows
that - he's a lawyer by trade. That he says otherwise indicates that he is
trying to pull the wool over the eyes of someone.

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>>Al C-F wrote:
>
>
>>>And your line on those who generate the dangers?
>>
>>The cyclists?
>>
>>I think I've made that clear enough.
>
>
> Surely if that were true it would be reflected in the figures for injuries
> to pedestrians caused by cyclists riding on the footpath?

It is.

Someone else said that 70 persons are injured (seriously enough for the
matter to be reported to the police) annually. There must be several times
that who just rub their bruises or stick a plaster on their cuts and who
don't report the injuries.

That is (at least) 70 too many, though another poster thought those victims
didn't matter.

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>>Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Is cycling on the footway "caring about pedestrians"?
>
>
> That depends on the manner in which she commited the act. Upon approaching
> pedestrians (assuming there were any) did she give ample warning of her
> approach and slow to a speed at which she could take avoiding action?
>
> To suggest that cycling on a footway on which cycling is forbidden is
> automatically dangerous to pedestrians is preposterous.

Is it?

Then why is it illegal?

Can't a pedestrian emerge from a garden - or direct from front door in
some locations - straight into the path of a cyclist on the footway?

Can the cyclist possibly know when that is going to happen? Or when a
vehicle will emerge from a driveway?

How dangerous must something be before it is recognised as a danger by the
myopic?

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> In news:[email protected],
>> JNugent said:
>>
>>> Al C-F wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> And your line on those who generate the dangers?
>>>
>>> The cyclists?
>>>
>>> I think I've made that clear enough.
>>
>>
>> Surely if that were true it would be reflected in the figures for
>> injuries to pedestrians caused by cyclists riding on the footpath?
>
> It is.
>
> Someone else said that 70 persons are injured (seriously enough for
> the matter to be reported to the police) annually. There must be
> several times that who just rub their bruises or stick a plaster on
> their cuts and who don't report the injuries.
>
> That is (at least) 70 too many, though another poster thought those
> victims didn't matter.

Whislt I agree that 70 is 70 too many, the way in which you've been ranting
on the subject would lead any reasonable person to think that thousands had
been killed with many more seriously injured requiring one or more nights in
hospital.

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:

> 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.

....but just as illegal and selfish.

 

[JNugent]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> 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.

???

Not I, sir. T'was someone called Crispin.

 

[Al C-F]

Paul Weaver wrote:
> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>
>>All the applicable speed limits for cyclists in this country are easily
>>broken by any moderately fit cyclist.
>
>
> Raises the question if it's legal to ride in public parks without a
> calibrated speedo, the situation if your speedo is not corectly
> calibrated etc.
>

Of course it's legal. There's no requirement for a speedo on a bicycle.

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> 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?

Since you clearly know what causes seasonal variation in the numbers...
yes. That you can remember the numbers just like that on a Sunday morning
beggars belief.

 

[Al C-F]

JNugent wrote:
:
[Boateng]
>
> ...who seems not to understand how law works (which is odd).

> Boateng
> knows that - he's a lawyer by trade.

And JNugent's qualification in this matter is that of being an officious
bystander.

 

[JNugent]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> 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.

We seem to be in some measure of agreement.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:

> Can't a pedestrian emerge from a garden - or direct from front door
> in some locations - straight into the path of a cyclist on the
> footway?

Does every footpath have such gardens, doors etc? No they don't.

> Can the cyclist possibly know when that is going to happen? Or when a
> vehicle will emerge from a driveway?
>
> How dangerous must something be before it is recognised as a danger
> by the myopic?

Because circumstances alter cases.

Only the myopic would have one rule with no flexibility for all situations.

 

[JNugent]

Al C-F wrote:

> 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.

They aren't the "dangers" that are being passed on to the pedestrians.

Perception that the road is "too dangerous" for cyclists simply because
there is traffic on it (such vehicles being driven lawfully) is
misperception. OTOH, perception of danger caused by unacceptably close
approaches to pedestrians by vehicles in an area where vehicles have no
business to be proceeding is not a misperception.

If the road is perceived by cyclists as "too dangerous" for them, they
should go another way or by another mode.

 

[JNugent]

Steve Walker wrote:

> 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.

You have the patience of a saint. I had no intention of dignifying the PP's
totally asinine "point" with a response.

 

[Al C-F]

Steve Firth wrote:
> On 2 Jul 2006 11:06:18 GMT, 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?
>
>
> Of course not because he's a selfish pavement cycling moron.

How do you come to that conclusion?

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:

[ ... ]


> ... the original point though that the propensity of
> cyclists to jump red lights is no greater than that for motorists

Since that is not even remotely true, one should not dignify it with the
description "point".

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 14:47:09 +0100, "Gizmo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>>Now take into account risk and impact of each of the above.
>
>
> 1 pedestrian killed by a pavement cyclist every 4 years.
>
> Several pedestrians killed by motorists on their phones every year.

Mobile phones, one assumes.

Any idea of the power-to-weight ratios?

 

[Al C-F]

JNugent wrote:
> Al C-F wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> They aren't the "dangers" that are being passed on to the pedestrians.
>
> Perception that the road is "too dangerous" for cyclists simply because
> there is traffic on it (such vehicles being driven lawfully) is
> misperception.

The perception that the roads are too dangerous is due to the careless
and inconsiderate manner in which some motorists behave around cyclists.
Were the cars universally to be driven lawfully, there would be no
perceived danger.


OTOH, perception of danger caused by unacceptably close
> approaches to pedestrians by vehicles in an area where vehicles have no
> business to be proceeding is not a misperception.
>
> If the road is perceived by cyclists as "too dangerous" for them, they
> should go another way or by another mode.

They do. They use the pavements. Many of them do so carefully, if
illegally.

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:

> A happy chance took me between juction 2 and 5 of the M25 today. I
> asked my friend to be careful not to exceed 70 mph, and I counted the
> number of cars, vans and motorbikes which we overtook and which
> overtook us.

> My friend is sure that she maintained an indicated speed between 65
> and 70 mph.

> 88 cars, vans and motorbikes passed us and we passed 37.

You and your notebooks, eh?

> I am perfectly happy to accept that a few of the vehicles which passed
> us did so within the law, but even so, it seems that at least two
> thirds of motorists on that sample of road at that time were breaking
> the law.

> I think that you'd be hard pressed to find that level of law breaking
> amoung cyclists, even in the most notorious places.

Try Central London. You'd be hard pressed to find a couple of law-abiding
cyclists per day.

 

[JNugent]

jtaylor wrote:
> "Al C-F" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Huge wrote:
>>
>>>On 2006-07-02, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>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?
>>>
>>
>>Wouldn't it be more appropriate to adjust for time, rather than distance?
>
>
> No.
>
> Much better to estimate the probability of a pedestrian being injured or
> killed by a cyclist versus the driver of a motorcar, as that is where the
> danger lies.

Ssshhh... you'll confuse them.