Cyclists win police court battle!

[JNugent]

Steve Walker wrote:

> 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.

I am never sure about this (mainly because my car odometers have always
read consistently with road mileage signs and I assume that the speedo and
odometer are part of the same system), but that very point has been made
many times before in this NG - often by lorry drivers who drive vehicles
with calibrated instruments.

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:

> 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.

I think I'll leave it up to you to dig it out of whichever pocket of your
anorak you keep it in.

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> 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.

It isn't "lesser" at all.

> 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.

Do you?

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> 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.

If you were *instructed* to put your hand on a hot electric cooker ring,
what would you do?

> As a pedestrian I have rarely, if ever, felt threatened by pavement
> cyclists.

You are hopelessly biased.

> As a cyclist I have only ever seen pavement cyclists on
> footways which have had few pedestrians

You've obviously not been to London in recent years (especially Central
London), or you are not being truthful. One of those must be true.

> except in the case of shared
> use paths. My daily commute includes a short 5m section where I am
> required to use the footway.

Rubbish. You can use the carriageway. Ask John B if you don't believe it.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 23:22:27 +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.

Then you should have no trouble in identifying the poster and their
posting. Otherwise some may conclude that it is yet another of your
distortions.


--
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

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:
> 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"

No, I don't mean that.

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven 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.

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

Absolutely correct.

 

[Huge]

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

To quoque. Irrelevant.

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

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:

> 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?

Both.

The law against driving along the footway is very well complied with - and
drivers are likely to be prosecuted if reported. In any event, one rarely
(in my case, never) sees a motor vehicle being driven along a footway, as
you well know.

Several bikes a day (in peak hours, several per minute) pass my house on
the footway. And everyone already knows how chaotic and anarchic the
situation has become in Inner and Central London with respect to footway
cycling.

 

[Steve Firth]

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:53:47 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

> 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.

Thanks for demonstrating that your argument is founded entirely on
hypocrisy.

 

[Huge]

On 2006-07-02, 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?
>
>> 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.

It's utterly irrelevant, anyway. Cyclists seem welded to this argument
that because other people break the law, it's OK for them to do so, also.
I guess that's because they know, in their heart of hearts, that you and
I are perfectly correct; the vast majority of cyclists routinely break
the law all the time.






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

 

[Al C-F]

Steve Firth wrote:
> 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.

Being able to understand why some cyclists use the pavement does not
indicate to you how I choose to cycle.

Though making unfounded accusations about an individual's conduct and
then berating him for it seems a fairly consistent approach to argument
in uk.transport

 

[Steve Firth]

On 2 Jul 2006 21:03:10 -0700, iiiiDougiiii wrote:

> 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.

More ******** from a misanthropic, benefit scrounging, lentil muncher.

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:

> 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.

No, I can't.

I don't agree with "shared paths" and I am not going to try to justify them.

I am, of course, not speaking of those in any event. I am speaking of
footways, not shared paths. Please don't ask that same silly question
again. I have made the position exceptionally clear.

> Because I struggle to see any difference that would make
> any difference to their suitability and safety.

Same here. Cycling should never be allowed along any surface used by
pedestrians.

> Yet clearly you think
> there is a significant difference.

I don't and have not said so.

> 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?

Because I know the difference between a footway in an ordinary street and a
"shared footway". The footways in (for instance) Cannon Street or
Threadneedle Street, or Shaftesbury Avenue or Charing Cross Road are not
shared paths, yet all of them carry large numbers of selfish yobs on bikes.

 

[Huge]

On 2006-07-02, Brimstone <[email protected]> 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.

So now you're reduced to *pretending* that motorists would jump red
lights if they could. Pathetic.


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

 

[JNugent]

David Hansen wrote:
> 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.

No clairvoyance required. The law frequently calls for no distinction to be
drawn between deliberate and reckless acts. Perhaps you don't understand
what "reckless" means.

 

[Al C-F]

Steve Walker wrote:
> 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.
>
GPS systems smooth the track followed, and will therefore read 'low'.

 

[Huge]

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

Given the number of passenger-miles travelled by bicycles, I suspect a
KSI figure of 70 makes them more dangerous than cars.

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

 

[Huge]

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

Ad hominem.

It's *got* to be the heat and the polystyrene crash helmets.


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

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> It isn't "lesser" at all.
>

So you rate all crimes as equal? Murder and rape are equally serious
as two former convicts shopping together in a supermarket? And the
offence of driving a motor vehicle on the pavement which kills 70
people a year is as serious as cycling on a pavement, many of which are
shared used anyway, which kills one person every four years?

I see.

Tony