Cyclists win police court battle!



Steve Firth wrote:

> Tony Raven wrote:

>>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.

> I support the prosecution of any motorist who drives along the pavement. I
> support the prosecution of any cyclist who rides along the pavement.
> I support the prosecution of any motorist who runs a red light.
> I support the prosecution of any cyclist who runs a red light.
> Go on, try and make out that this is somehow unjust.

That is my position also.

It *ought* to be everyone's position.

But is it?
 
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:19:38 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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?

At least it gets hard facts to counter your wild allegations.

>> 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.

Try using a notebook. You may find yourself pleasantly surprised.
 
In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> 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".

As has been pointed out, it only takes one car to stop those behind from
going through a red light and most junctions. We don't know how many would
keep going if that one hadn't stopped.

As an indication, when next held at a set of traffic lights at roadworkds
count how many cars come from the opposite direction after yours turn green.
 
In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> 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.

Perhaps because you don't have one?
 
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:04:55 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>>>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.

Given that the numbers were in a report I sent to Transport for London
on the effectiveness of cycle training in Primary Schools just last
week, it is hardly surprising.
 
In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> 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.

Yes they are. If cars were driven with consideration and respect for
cyclists (and everyone else), cyclists would feel comfortable riding in the
road. But, we have to live with reality.

>
> Perception that the road is "too dangerous" for cyclists simply
> because there is traffic on it (such vehicles being driven lawfully)
> is misperception.

Lawfully includes driving with due care and consideration for others.
Something sadly lacking amongst many car drivers.


> 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.

Why doesn't someone address the root cause of the problem? The cavalier
attitude of far too many car drivers.
 
In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Steve Firth wrote:
>
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
>> I support the prosecution of any motorist who drives along the
>> pavement. I support the prosecution of any cyclist who rides along
>> the pavement. I support the prosecution of any motorist who runs a red
>> light.
>> I support the prosecution of any cyclist who runs a red light.
>> Go on, try and make out that this is somehow unjust.
>
> That is my position also.
>
> It *ought* to be everyone's position.
>
> But is it?

The number of motoring convictions and the number of cyclists who feel
sufficiently unsafe that they need to ride on the footpath leads to only one
conclusion. That not everyone shares your view.
 
Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>>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".
>
>
> As has been pointed out, it only takes one car to stop those behind from
> going through a red light and most junctions. We don't know how many would
> keep going if that one hadn't stopped.
>
> As an indication, when next held at a set of traffic lights at roadworkds
> count how many cars come from the opposite direction after yours turn green.

That proves nothing. The vehicles are frequently prevented from moving
quickly through the open "channel". I've seen it happen loads of times -
enter the channel on green, get stopped halfway by stationary traffic and
emerge after the opposing flow has got the "green".
 
Brimstone wrote:

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

> Why doesn't someone address the root cause of the problem? The cavalier
> attitude of far too many car drivers.

It has *been* addressed.

DWDCAA or DWDCFORU is an (endorsable) offence.

But if the vehicles are not being driven without due care and attention or
without *due* consideration for "other road users" (a category which
includes pedestrians, BTW), there is no need for cyclists to perceive
"danger". And still less any reason for them to cycle on the footway.

Note the word "due".
 
In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> In news:[email protected],
>> JNugent said:
>>
>>> 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".
>>
>>
>> As has been pointed out, it only takes one car to stop those behind
>> from going through a red light and most junctions. We don't know how
>> many would keep going if that one hadn't stopped.
>>
>> As an indication, when next held at a set of traffic lights at
>> roadworkds count how many cars come from the opposite direction
>> after yours turn green.
>
> That proves nothing. The vehicles are frequently prevented from moving
> quickly through the open "channel". I've seen it happen loads of
> times - enter the channel on green, get stopped halfway by stationary
> traffic and emerge after the opposing flow has got the "green".

So you don't disagree that many motorists would keep going at a red light if
the car in front did.
 
In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>
>>> If the road is perceived by cyclists as "too dangerous" for them,
>>> they should go another way or by another mode.
>
>> Why doesn't someone address the root cause of the problem? The
>> cavalier attitude of far too many car drivers.
>
> It has *been* addressed.
>
> DWDCAA or DWDCFORU is an (endorsable) offence.
>
> But if the vehicles are not being driven without due care and
> attention or without *due* consideration for "other road users"

Which does nothing to prevent bad behaviour, merely punishes those who are
caught transgressing.

> (a
> category which includes pedestrians, BTW), there is no need for
> cyclists to perceive "danger". And still less any reason for them to
> cycle on the footway.

So if car drivers are not causing a danger to cyclists by their selfish
behaviour then the same applies to cyclists.
 
Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>>Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>>In news:[email protected],
>>>JNugent said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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".
>>>
>>>
>>>As has been pointed out, it only takes one car to stop those behind
>>>from going through a red light and most junctions. We don't know how
>>>many would keep going if that one hadn't stopped.
>>>
>>>As an indication, when next held at a set of traffic lights at
>>>roadworkds count how many cars come from the opposite direction
>>>after yours turn green.
>>
>>That proves nothing. The vehicles are frequently prevented from moving
>>quickly through the open "channel". I've seen it happen loads of
>>times - enter the channel on green, get stopped halfway by stationary
>>traffic and emerge after the opposing flow has got the "green".

> So you don't disagree that many motorists would keep going at a red light if
> the car in front did.

Eh?

I said that your suggestion is not capable of proving it, for the reasons I
gave.

Once again, you seem to live on a weird planet, where drivers only stop at
red traffic lights if another vehicle has stopped in front of them and
blocked their way (one wonders what on Earth can have made the first driver
stop).

Here on Earth, it is different. When I arrive at a red traffic light in a
motor vehicle, I stop irrespective of who may or may not already be there.
 
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:56:08 +0100 someone who may be JNugent
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

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

I have already indicated that there is at least one place in the UK
where cyclists are instructed to "use the footway" by signs erected
by the council.


--
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
 
Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>>Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>If the road is perceived by cyclists as "too dangerous" for them,
>>>>they should go another way or by another mode.
>>
>>>Why doesn't someone address the root cause of the problem? The
>>>cavalier attitude of far too many car drivers.
>>
>>It has *been* addressed.
>>
>>DWDCAA or DWDCFORU is an (endorsable) offence.
>>
>>But if the vehicles are not being driven without due care and
>>attention or without *due* consideration for "other road users"
>
>
> Which does nothing to prevent bad behaviour, merely punishes those who are
> caught transgressing.
>
>
>>(a
>>category which includes pedestrians, BTW), there is no need for
>>cyclists to perceive "danger". And still less any reason for them to
>>cycle on the footway.
>
>
> So if car drivers are not causing a danger to cyclists by their selfish
> behaviour then the same applies to cyclists.

Driving lawfully is not "selfish".

Riding illegally on the footway definitely *is* selfish.

Why on Earth are you trying to suggest that it's OK to ride a bike on the
footway?
 
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 22:47:25 +0100, Brimstone wrote:

>>
>> If the road is perceived by cyclists as "too dangerous" for them, they
>> should go another way or by another mode.
>
> Why doesn't someone address the root cause of the problem?

And issue all pedestrians with a 12 bore for dispensing summary justice to
idiot cyclists? Good idea.
 
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:13:23 +0100, Al C-F wrote:

> 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?

It must be the moronic attempts to justify pavement cycling.
 
In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> In news:[email protected],
>> JNugent said:
>>
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:[email protected],
>>>> JNugent said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As has been pointed out, it only takes one car to stop those behind
>>>> from going through a red light and most junctions. We don't know
>>>> how many would keep going if that one hadn't stopped.
>>>>
>>>> As an indication, when next held at a set of traffic lights at
>>>> roadworkds count how many cars come from the opposite direction
>>>> after yours turn green.
>>>
>>> That proves nothing. The vehicles are frequently prevented from
>>> moving quickly through the open "channel". I've seen it happen
>>> loads of times - enter the channel on green, get stopped halfway by
>>> stationary traffic and emerge after the opposing flow has got the
>>> "green".
>
>> So you don't disagree that many motorists would keep going at a red
>> light if the car in front did.
>
> Eh?
>
> I said that your suggestion is not capable of proving it, for the
> reasons I gave.
>
> Once again, you seem to live on a weird planet, where drivers only
> stop at red traffic lights if another vehicle has stopped in front of
> them and blocked their way (one wonders what on Earth can have made
> the first driver stop).
>
> Here on Earth, it is different. When I arrive at a red traffic light
> in a motor vehicle, I stop irrespective of who may or may not already
> be there.

You do, I've no doubt. But you've also agreed that some car driver's don't.
 
In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:

> Driving lawfully is not "selfish".

No one said it was.

> Riding illegally on the footway definitely *is* selfish.

Not in all cases.

> Why on Earth are you trying to suggest that it's OK to ride a bike on
> the footway?

Because in some situations it makes no difference to anyone except the
cyclist.

Try looking up the word "pragmatism".
 
David Hansen wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:58:22 +0100 someone who may be JNugent
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>That is (at least) 70 too many, though another poster thought those victims
>>didn't matter.
>
>
> Can't say I have noticed any poster making such a claim.

It was clear enough.
 
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