Cyclists win police court battle!

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, David Hansen
says...
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 0:43:28 +0100 someone who may be Simon Hobson
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >You seem to be equating losing control and involuntarily mounting the
> >pavement with deliberately and willfully seeking to proceed along it as part
> >of the journey.
>
> I am looking at the danger posed to pedestrians on the pavement by
> various groups of vehicle operators. Certain people claim that this
> danger is posed almost exclusively by cyclists. However, that claim
> is a false one.

Really? How many cars proceed at an average speed along the pavement
for hundreds of yards?


--
Conor
Sig under construction. Please check back when Duke Nukem Forever ships
and/or Windows Vista is released.

Cashback on online purchases:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:47:57 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

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

That rules out a great many country lanes, then.

 

[JNugent]

Clive George wrote:
> "Huge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> On 2006-07-03, Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "Huge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> Actually, it's entertainment. Watching cyclists knees jerking
>>>> holds a certain morbid fascination.
>>>
>>>
>>> Aren't you a cyclist?
>>
>>
>> An interesting question. I own a bicycle, but I only ever use it
>> to cycle round race courses I've not competed at before (aka
>> "walking the course" so I would say, no, I am not a cyclist.
>
>
> Didn't you use it to get to the station sometimes?
>
> Anyway you use a bike, therefore you are a cyclist. Maybe not a keen
> one, maybe not a regular one, but you are one nonetheless.

I am one too.

I just haven't got a bike at the moment - but I'm getting another soon (for
exercise purposes - it'll address none of my transport needs).

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:
> In news[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>>Brimstone wrote:
>
>
>>>No, it's main purpose in life is scaremongering, and corrupting the
>>>minds of impressionable people.
>>
>>Is that why you read it?
>
>
> An interesting assertion given that there is no evidence to even spark the
> thought let alone substantiate it.

Remember the difference between an assertion and a question.

You MUST read it, else you would not know that (in your opinion), "it's
main purpose in life is scaremongering, and corrupting the minds of
impressionable people".

I'm not in a position to give you an argument on it because I wouldn't be
seen dead buying a red-top (not unless they're giving away a DVD anyway,
and even then the paper goes in the bin unread except for the headlines).

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:34:37 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> Or would you prefer they are driven to school, clogging up
>> the roads at 8.45, or they cycle on busy roads before their parents
>> feel confident with them cycling in motor traffic.
>
>If that is what the parents prefer, that is what should happen. It's lawful
>and it's safer than footway cycling.

Have you figures to support that?

How is the child cycling on the footway going to be killed? Presumably
by their friend's mum mounting the kerb to park her car. The cause of
death isn't cycling on the pavement, it's being squished under the
wheels of a 4x4.

And how many eight year old cyclists *cause* death or serious injury
each year by cycling on the footway?

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:37:00 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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?

Yes. So do the police and PCSOs. They are specifically advised to
use a great deal of discretion when dealing with children cycling on
pavements.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> In news[email protected],
>> JNugent said:
>>
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> No, it's main purpose in life is scaremongering, and corrupting the
>>>> minds of impressionable people.
>>>
>>> Is that why you read it?
>>
>>
>> An interesting assertion given that there is no evidence to even
>> spark the thought let alone substantiate it.
>
> Remember the difference between an assertion and a question.

I do.

>
> You MUST read it,

Wrong.

>
> I'm not in a position to give you an argument on it because I
> wouldn't be seen dead buying a red-top

Good, I'm glad we agree on something.

> (not unless they're giving
> away a DVD anyway, and even then the paper goes in the bin unread
> except for the headlines).

Not even then in my case. Easily swayed are you?

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:34:37 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Or would you prefer they are driven to school, clogging up
>>>the roads at 8.45, or they cycle on busy roads before their parents
>>>feel confident with them cycling in motor traffic.
>>
>>If that is what the parents prefer, that is what should happen. It's lawful
>>and it's safer than footway cycling.
>
>
> Have you figures to support that?

Do you doubt that it's safer for the pedestrians?

> How is the child cycling on the footway going to be killed?

Several ways can be easily envisaged. Most obviously, a pedestrian emerging
from a garden gate onto the footway would be struck by the cycle, the
cyclist falls off into the carriageway, and is hit (read "crushed") by a
passing bus.

> Presumably by their friend's mum mounting the kerb to park her car.

If exercising your weird prejudices gives you pleasure, be my guest.

> The cause of
> death isn't cycling on the pavement, it's being squished under the
> wheels of a 4x4.

If you say so.

> And how many eight year old cyclists *cause* death or serious injury
> each year by cycling on the footway?

Who knows? It's certainly a habit best not acquired, whether at eight or
any other age.

I would not have let my children out on bikes at eight years old, but then,
I was concerned with their safety and not with campaigning against 4x4s and
in favour of law-breaking.

 

[Clive George]

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

> I would not have let my children out on bikes at eight years old, but
> then, I was concerned with their safety and not with campaigning against
> 4x4s and in favour of law-breaking.

Fortunately my parents weren't as blinkered as you - I was out on my bike as
soon as I could ride (a depressingly late 6 years old).

Are you saying my parents weren't concerned with my safety?

clive

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:39:46 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

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

What makes you say that?

>> 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.

<Splort>

I live in Inner London and I cycled into Central London yesterday and
will do so tomorrow with two primary school children to meet with
London's Mayor, Ken Livingstone, the cyclists' champion. ;-)

I'm sure you'll be delighted to learn that Cuddly Ken is presenting us
with an award partly/mainly for my work on cycling with young
children.

> > 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.

No. The cycle route goes past a barrier which prevents me from
staying on the carriageway.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:34:37 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Or would you prefer they are driven to school, clogging up
>>>> the roads at 8.45, or they cycle on busy roads before their parents
>>>> feel confident with them cycling in motor traffic.
>>>
>>> If that is what the parents prefer, that is what should happen.
>>> It's lawful and it's safer than footway cycling.
>>
>>
>> Have you figures to support that?
>
> Do you doubt that it's safer for the pedestrians?
>
>> How is the child cycling on the footway going to be killed?
>
> Several ways can be easily envisaged. Most obviously, a pedestrian
> emerging from a garden gate onto the footway would be struck by the
> cycle,

Why should they be? It's by no means a foregone conclusion. More
scaremongering.

> the cyclist falls off into the carriageway, and is hit (read
> "crushed") by a passing bus.

Whose to say that there's a bus route along that road. More scaremongering.

>
>> Presumably by their friend's mum mounting the kerb to park her car.
>
> If exercising your weird prejudices gives you pleasure, be my guest.

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to lead a masterclass in prejudice, it's your
speciality.

>
>> The cause of
>> death isn't cycling on the pavement, it's being squished under the
>> wheels of a 4x4.
>
> If you say so.
>
>> And how many eight year old cyclists *cause* death or serious injury
>> each year by cycling on the footway?
>
> Who knows? It's certainly a habit best not acquired, whether at eight
> or any other age.
>
> I would not have let my children out on bikes at eight years old, but
> then, I was concerned with their safety and not with campaigning
> against 4x4s and in favour of law-breaking.

Quite. Too idle to do anything, inlcuding teaching his kids to ride a bike
properly.

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:

> JNugent said:
>>Brimstone wrote:
>>>JNugent said:
>>>>Brimstone wrote:

[ref The Sun]

>>>>>No, it's main purpose in life is scaremongering, and corrupting the
>>>>>minds of impressionable people.

>>>>Is that why you read it?

>>>An interesting assertion given that there is no evidence to even
>>>spark the thought let alone substantiate it.

>>Remember the difference between an assertion and a question.

> I do.

Really? It doesn't look like it.

>>You MUST read it,

> Wrong.

How do you know what it's like then?

>>I'm not in a position to give you an argument on it because I
>>wouldn't be seen dead buying a red-top

> Good, I'm glad we agree on something.

>>(not unless they're giving
>>away a DVD anyway, and even then the paper goes in the bin unread
>>except for the headlines).

> Not even then in my case. Easily swayed are you?

DVDs of classic movies and other stuff for between 40p and £1.30?

I should say so.

I have (all given away with newspapers):

Daily Telegraph / Sunday Telegraph:
Brighton Rock
Macbeth (RSC)
Prime Suspect (a TV episode)
Whistle Down The Wind ("Tiger? You can't call a kitten Tiger!)
Great Expectations (David Lean)
Death Of A Salesman
The Famous Five (audio CDs)

Daily Mirror / Sunday Mirror:
Educating Rita (I saw the original in the theatre)
Brassed Off

The Independent / The Independent On Sunday:
Swimming With Sharks
The Return Of Martin Guerre

Daily Mail / Mail On Sunday:
The Bounty (the Robert Bolt version with Antony Hopkins and Mel Gibson)
Far From The Madding Crowd (superb)
Under Suspicion
Kind Hearts And Coronets
Around the World in Eighty Days (double DVD - with Steve Coogan)
The French Lieutenant's Woman
Ring Of Bright Water (well, it was free)
Mrs Dallaway (just last Saturday)
The BFG (see "Ring Of Bright Water")

The Times / Sunday Times:
The Secret Garden
Metropolis (the Fritz Lang film - need to make time to watch it)
Take The Money And Run (Woody Allen)
Rebecca (Hitchcock)
The African Queen
Paris, Texas (Wim Wenders)
Notorious (Hitchcock)
A Private Function
Gordon Ramsay Cooks Christmas (somehow, I've managed not to watch it)


The Sun / News Of The World:
Poirot (a TV episode)
Prime Suspect (a TV episode)
Cracker (a TV episode)
Inspector Morse (a TV episode)
A Touch Of Frost (a TV episode)
Last Orders
The Jigsaw Man
The 1966 World Cup Final (BBC)
The Office (a TV episode)
Fawlty Towers (a TV episode)
Porridge (a TV episode)
Yes Minister (a TV episode)
The Fast Show (a TV episode)

The Guardian:
The Madness Of King George (must make time to watch that)

Daily Express / Sunday Express:
Carry On Christmas 1973 (Thames TV)

Not bad for free.

The Times - my usual paper - does the best offers (but you'd expect that).

 

[JNugent]

Clive George wrote:
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> I would not have let my children out on bikes at eight years old, but
>> then, I was concerned with their safety and not with campaigning
>> against 4x4s and in favour of law-breaking.

> Fortunately my parents weren't as blinkered as you - I was out on my
> bike as soon as I could ride (a depressingly late 6 years old).

> Are you saying my parents weren't concerned with my safety?

Perhaps you are a fair bit older than my children and didn't live in a busy
spot.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>
>> JNugent said:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> JNugent said:
>>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>
> [ref The Sun]
>
>>>>>> No, it's main purpose in life is scaremongering, and corrupting
>>>>>> the minds of impressionable people.
>
>>>>> Is that why you read it?
>
>>>> An interesting assertion given that there is no evidence to even
>>>> spark the thought let alone substantiate it.
>
>>> Remember the difference between an assertion and a question.
>
>> I do.
>
> Really? It doesn't look like it.
>
>>> You MUST read it,
>
>> Wrong.
>
> How do you know what it's like then?

One sees headlines in the newsagents and hears headlines on the radio. A few
people post articles on forums I read.

>
>>> I'm not in a position to give you an argument on it because I
>>> wouldn't be seen dead buying a red-top
>
>> Good, I'm glad we agree on something.
>
>>> (not unless they're giving
>>> away a DVD anyway, and even then the paper goes in the bin unread
>>> except for the headlines).
>
>> Not even then in my case. Easily swayed are you?
>
> DVDs of classic movies and other stuff for between 40p and £1.30?
>
> I should say so.
>
> I have (all given away with newspapers):

<list snipped>

As I said, easily swayed.

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

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

>>You are hopelessly biased.

> What makes you say that?

The fact that you claim that (your) safety is not threatened by cyclists,
sorry... I mean selfish yobs riding bikes on the footway. You just don't
want to admit that it's dangerous because you have a vested interest.

>>>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.

> <Splort>

> I live in Inner London and I cycled into Central London yesterday and
> will do so tomorrow with two primary school children to meet with
> London's Mayor, Ken Livingstone, the cyclists' champion. ;-)

> I'm sure you'll be delighted to learn that Cuddly Ken is presenting us
> with an award partly/mainly for my work on cycling with young
> children.

In that case, the other option applies - you are not being truthful,
because Central London sees many instances of cycling on footways (and
failure by cyclists to comply with traffic lights) every day. One could
observe hundreds of offences per day without moving from a given spot. If
you say you're not aware of these things, it's er... hard to accept what
you say.

Thanks for clearing it up and letting us know which of those two
possibilities was the correct one.

>>>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.

> No. The cycle route goes past a barrier which prevents me from
> staying on the carriageway.

Don't use it then. Just say "no". Stay on the carriageway, where bikes belong.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:15:39 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> And how many eight year old cyclists *cause* death or serious injury
>> each year by cycling on the footway?
>
>Who knows? It's certainly a habit best not acquired, whether at eight or
>any other age.
>
>I would not have let my children out on bikes at eight years old, but then,
>I was concerned with their safety and not with campaigning against 4x4s and
>in favour of law-breaking.

I work professionally for two half days a week with parents and with
children learning to cycle. Until a child has proper on-road cycle
training and been assessed I will not advise parents that their child
should be on roads unescorted. It is a choice for parents to make. I
do advise that for all cyclists, including children, cycling on the
pavement is illegal, but I also point out that under 11s cannot be
arrested, and besides, there are few people who would object to young
children cycling on the pavement.

I am professionally and genuinely interested in your views of children
cycling to school on the pavement before their parents feel they are
safe on roads, and if you have any justified concerns.

In a great many countries children below a certain age are *not*
permitted to cycle on roads. And in some children between certain
ages are only permitted on roads once they have passed a test or
received training. This seems very sensible to me.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:50:30 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>As a pedestrian I have rarely, if ever, felt threatened by pavement
>>>>cyclists.
>
>>>You are hopelessly biased.
>
>> What makes you say that?
>
>The fact that you claim that (your) safety is not threatened by cyclists,
>sorry... I mean selfish yobs riding bikes on the footway. You just don't
>want to admit that it's dangerous because you have a vested interest.

One fatality in four years prove it not to be dangerous - certainly no
more so that sitting under a palm tree with the danger of a coconut
falling on your head.

>>>>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.
>
>> <Splort>
>
>> I live in Inner London and I cycled into Central London yesterday and
>> will do so tomorrow with two primary school children to meet with
>> London's Mayor, Ken Livingstone, the cyclists' champion. ;-)
>
>> I'm sure you'll be delighted to learn that Cuddly Ken is presenting us
>> with an award partly/mainly for my work on cycling with young
>> children.
>
>In that case, the other option applies - you are not being truthful,
>because Central London sees many instances of cycling on footways (and
>failure by cyclists to comply with traffic lights) every day. One could
>observe hundreds of offences per day without moving from a given spot. If
>you say you're not aware of these things, it's er... hard to accept what
>you say.

OK, I admit it. I was at City Hall. There were plenty of cyclists on
the footway, me included. None of us were doing anything illegal.

>Thanks for clearing it up and letting us know which of those two
>possibilities was the correct one.
>
>>>>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.
>
>> No. The cycle route goes past a barrier which prevents me from
>> staying on the carriageway.
>
>Don't use it then. Just say "no". Stay on the carriageway, where bikes belong.

Impossible. The carriageway is obstructed.

 

[Huge]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.transport.]
On 2006-07-03, Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Huge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 2006-07-03, Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Huge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> Actually, it's entertainment. Watching cyclists knees jerking
>>>> holds a certain morbid fascination.
>>>
>>> Aren't you a cyclist?
>>
>> An interesting question. I own a bicycle, but I only ever use it
>> to cycle round race courses I've not competed at before (aka
>> "walking the course" so I would say, no, I am not a cyclist.
>
> Didn't you use it to get to the station sometimes?

Not for the last 13 years. It's too far, too hilly (especially coming
home at the end of a long day), I already have a 2.5 hour commute I
am reluctant to add to and it's too dangerous. The morons on the
main road already kill too many of each other. Besides, I work
at home 3 days a week now, so I have the best commute of all - a
30 seond stroll into the office.

>
> Anyway you use a bike, therefore you are a cyclist. Maybe not a keen one,
> maybe not a regular one, but you are one nonetheless.

Not on the public highway. Would that all cyclists were like this.

>
> (which flavour race course?)

This flavour;

http://www.ukmotorsport.com/uk_speed.html


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

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:15:39 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>And how many eight year old cyclists *cause* death or serious injury
>>>each year by cycling on the footway?
>>
>>Who knows? It's certainly a habit best not acquired, whether at eight or
>>any other age.
>>
>>I would not have let my children out on bikes at eight years old, but then,
>>I was concerned with their safety and not with campaigning against 4x4s and
>>in favour of law-breaking.
>
>
> I work professionally for two half days a week with parents and with
> children learning to cycle. Until a child has proper on-road cycle
> training and been assessed I will not advise parents that their child
> should be on roads unescorted. It is a choice for parents to make. I
> do advise that for all cyclists, including children, cycling on the
> pavement is illegal, but I also point out that under 11s cannot be
> arrested, and besides, there are few people who would object to young
> children cycling on the pavement.
>
> I am professionally and genuinely interested in your views of children
> cycling to school on the pavement before their parents feel they are
> safe on roads, and if you have any justified concerns.
>
> In a great many countries children below a certain age are *not*
> permitted to cycle on roads. And in some children between certain
> ages are only permitted on roads once they have passed a test or
> received training. This seems very sensible to me.

And to me.

In fact, it should apply to adults as well (the training bit).

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
says...
> On 3 Jul 2006 07:46:44 GMT, Huge <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> No. We look at the comparative risks, gather *real* data when we can
> and look at the reasons why some cyclists my pass lights on red or use
> the footway.
>
Irrelevent. It's illegal.

--
Conor
Sig under construction. Please check back when Duke Nukem Forever ships
and/or Windows Vista is released.

Cashback on online purchases:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm