Cyclists win police court battle!

[DavidR]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
> David Hansen 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.

The person riding their bike on a pavement is trying to get fom one place
to another by the means that to them is perceived as being safest.. The
added risk (neglible) to pedestrians is a function of riding on the
pavement. To suggest there is a decision to pose a risk to pedestrians is
completely riduculous.

 

[JNugent]

DavidR wrote:

> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
>>David Hansen 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.

> The person riding their bike on a pavement is trying to get fom one place
> to another by the means that to them is perceived as being safest.

Of what possible relevance are their desires or their perception?

Are they empowered to make the decisions as to where they may or may not
cycle? What about the safety of those who use (or wish to use) the footway
for *legitimate* purposes?

> The added risk (neglible) to pedestrians is a function of riding on the
> pavement. To suggest there is a decision to pose a risk to pedestrians is
> completely riduculous.

I accept that there is (probably) no direct intention to harm others, but
there is a recklessness - and a lack of concern - as to whether others are
harmed.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:

> I accept that there is (probably) no direct intention to harm others,
> but there is a recklessness - and a lack of concern - as to whether
> others are harmed.

YAASJAICMFP

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

JNugent wrote:
> 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.

So you've conceded some ground, then.

 

[JNugent]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> So you've conceded some ground, then.

There was none to concede. It has never been my position that driving a
motor vehicle along the footway is either lawful or or in any way
"undangerous".

It is because it is dangerous that it is illegal, same as it is for bikes
and for the same reason.

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>
>>I accept that there is (probably) no direct intention to harm others,
>>but there is a recklessness - and a lack of concern - as to whether
>>others are harmed.
>
>
> YAASJAICMFP

Society of Jesus member?

Wrong (but in a way, close).

 

[Jim Ley]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 13:28:41 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

In fact in at least one case someone so unfit as they couldn't pull
thr brakes would have a struggle not breaking.

Jim.

 

[Steve Firth]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 23:18:26 +0100, Brimstone wrote:

> 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".

So in the same situations, it's OK to ride a motorcycle or car down the
pavement?

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin

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

At an indicated 74mph on the speedo, my GPS reads 70. In my previous car
the speedo read a little over 75 at 70 by GPS.

--
Steve Walker

 

[iiiiDougiiii]

Steve Firth wrote:
> 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.
>
More incitement to violence from a road raging 4x4 user.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 23:02:46 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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.

Perhaps it's time you dusted off that notebook to get some of those
hard facts you so deride.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 01:40:27 +0100, Steve Walker
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>My friend is sure that she maintained an indicated speed between 65
>>and 70 mph.
>
>At an indicated 74mph on the speedo, my GPS reads 70. In my previous car
>the speedo read a little over 75 at 70 by GPS.

I've already stated that I accept that a few of the vehicles which
passed us were doing so within the law, otherwise the law breaking
rate would have been over 70%.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 23:07:06 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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?

Because as cyclists we are very often *instructed* to ride on
footways.

As a pedestrian I have rarely, if ever, felt threatened by pavement
cyclists. As a cyclist I have only ever seen pavement cyclists on
footways which have had few pedestrians, except in the case of shared
use paths. My daily commute includes a short 5m section where I am
required to use the footway.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 01:25:38 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
wrote:

>So in the same situations, it's OK to ride a motorcycle or car down the
>pavement?

Unless the signage allows, no.

It's not OK to ride a bike on the footway unless the signage allows,
however, it is a far lesser crime than to drive a motor vehicle of the
footway. Indeed, in most cases I would describe it as a petty
nuisance rather than a crime, and in the special case of young
children, morally acceptable.

 

[Tony Raven]

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

ITYM "law abiding road users"

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote:
> 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.

As is dropping litter or playing your car stereo too loud.

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

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

But its not 3,500 too many which is what motorists achieve on the
pavement. Which one should we start with?

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

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

Can you explain what are the attributes other than the occassional blue
sign and maybe some white paint, that differentiate a shared path from
a footway. Because I struggle to see any difference that would make
any difference to their suitability and safety. Yet clearly you think
there is a significant difference. In addition, since it is so hard to
spot the difference, how do you know the cyclist you are complaining
about are not cycling legally on the pavement?

Tony

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 01:25:38 +0100 someone who may be Steve Firth
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote this:-

>So in the same situations, it's OK to ride a motorcycle or car down the
>pavement?

In the same situations, unlikely.

A motorcycle is very much heavier than a bicycle. That means it is
more difficult to control at the slow speeds necessary to operate
with pedestrians. Thus it is more likely to hit pedestrians and when
it does it will cause more damage.

A car is very much wider than a bicycle. Thus it is likely to block
the whole width of the pavement. It is also very much heavier, in
addition to immediate damage to pedestrians it is likely to cause
damage to the surface of the pavement and so a trip hazard.

There are some situations where both can be operated responsibly
amongst pedestrians. Many so-called pedestrian areas are an example,
as are Home Zones.


--
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, 02 Jul 2006 23:40:53 +0100 someone who may be JNugent
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I accept that there is (probably) no direct intention to harm others, but
>there is a recklessness - and a lack of concern - as to whether others are
>harmed.

You can read the minds of all those who cycle on the pavement?
Fascinating.


--
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