Cyclists win police court battle!

[Steve Firth]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 17:45:33 +0100, Conor wrote:

> Racing on the Public Highway is illegal yet this weekend, I saw dozens
> of lycra louts doing just that.

Heck, were you on the A31 Bentley bypass as well?

Several hundred of the fools, wobbling over the entire width of a dual
carriageway.

 

[Steve Firth]

On 3 Jul 2006 07:46:44 GMT, Huge wrote:

> 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.

This evening returning from Kent to Hampshire, I sat waiting for the lights
in East Grinstead, watching cyclist after cyclist mount the pavement, race
along the pavement at about 20-25mph, ignoring the pedestrians who had to
leap out of the way, then using the pedestrian crossings to cross the road
(not pushing or carrying the bicycle as is required by law) and then
proceeding on the pavement on the other side of the road. All done to avoid
having to wait for the lights to change.

It's not as if this is an unusual sight.

 

[Steve Firth]

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 17:44:58 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

> Some cyclists break the law some of the time.

Most cyclists break the law.

 

[Steve Firth]

On 3 Jul 2006 02:07:15 -0700, iiiiDougiiii wrote:

> What about *adult* pavement motorists? I've seen them driving along
> pavements to get to a filling station in a hurry when there was a
> traffic jam. Do you justify that?

Do you have problems reading?

 

[Steve Firth]

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 17:59:30 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

> None of us condone adults cycling on pavements - we see it as a petty
> annoyance,

Then you are wrong, it's selfish, dangerous criminal behaviour.

> like motorists parking on footways or stopping in advance
> stop areas. The police treat both minor offences equally.

Oh dear, is logical fallacy the only form of argument known to cyclists?

 

[Steve Firth]

On 3 Jul 2006 02:04:08 -0700, iiiiDougiiii wrote:

> You obviously do not know the meaning of the word 'hypocrisy'.

Oh, the irony.

 

[Steve Firth]

On 3 Jul 2006 02:02:01 -0700, iiiiDougiiii wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Liar!

Indeed you are, see above for proof.

 

[Steve Firth]

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:47:38 +0100, Al C-F wrote:

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

Among cyclists.

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
says...

> >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 -

Same as 3500-ish fatalities for all the billions of miles travelled by
cars per year.

--
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

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, Steve Firth
says...
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 17:45:33 +0100, Conor wrote:
>
> > Racing on the Public Highway is illegal yet this weekend, I saw dozens
> > of lycra louts doing just that.
>
> Heck, were you on the A31 Bentley bypass as well?
>
> Several hundred of the fools, wobbling over the entire width of a dual
> carriageway.
>
It was worse. Sunday morning smack in the middle of holiday traffic
rush hour on a not very wide single carriage A road which is the major
holiday route from the M62 to Scarborough and Bridlington.

--
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

 

[Tony Raven]

Huge wrote on 03/07/2006 08:46 +0100:
>
> 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.
>

Not at all. We just think its hypocritical of motorists to complain
about cyclists when motorists are at least as bad at keeping within the
law and the consequences of their infringing is dramatically worse.
Clean up your own act and then you might have a leg to stand on. Glass
houses, stones etc.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Tony Raven]

Huge wrote on 03/07/2006 08:51 +0100:
>
> Ignoring the fact that this is a strawmam, I certainly don't. I want
> cyclists treated like the vast majority of other road users, as
> they've repeatedly requested; I want them registered, tested (both
> for competence and roadworthyness), to bear registration plates, to
> have compulsory specific insurance, the law applied rigorously and
> for them to be bled white in taxes.
>

At which point we will probably all abandon cycling, take to cars and
create loads of extra congestion for you with all the extra traffic. Is
that really what you want?

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Tony Raven]

Huge wrote on 03/07/2006 10:21 +0100:
> On 2006-07-03, Tony Raven <[email protected]> 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?
>
> Well, if you're going to pick random irrelevant statistics, I should think
> there are many other things we'd be better off "starting" with.
>

In what way is it random and in what way is it irrelevant? 3,500 is the
approximate number of pedestrians killed and seriously injured on the
footway per annum by motor vehicles while 70 is the equivalent number
for cyclists. So which one do you think we should start with to reduce
pedestrian death and injuries on the pavement - motorists or cyclists -
and why?

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Tony Raven]

Conor wrote on 03/07/2006 17:40 +0100:
> In article <[email protected]>, Al C-F says...
>
>> If it is so dangerous, please will you explain the existance of
>> shared-use (cyclist and pedestrian) paths?
>>
> Big wide path. Clearly defined areas.
>

Thus instantly proving your lack of knowledge of shared used paths!


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[jtaylor]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> It is because it is dangerous that it is illegal, same as it is for bikes
> and for the same reason.

No, it is illegal because there is a law against it.

Ascribing intent to the wording of statute is moot.

 

[jtaylor]

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:43:03 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 23:11:10 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>> 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.


>
> And I say again, address the criminal behaviour of adult cyclists first
> then we can move on to the minorities.


By this we can assume you think that the number of people who disobey the
law while cycling exceeds the number who do so while driving a motorcar?

 

[iiiiDougiiii]

Steve Firth wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2006 02:02:01 -0700, iiiiDougiiii wrote:
>
> > Steve Firth wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > Liar!
>
> Indeed you are, see above for proof.

You have no proof, liar.

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

 

[ian henden]

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

Then you should pay them more... the poor dears can't afford a car....

)

 

[ian henden]

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

No it doesn't.

TC has responsibility for what goes on in his school. Conscientiosly, he
notes (probably among many other things) cycle numbers - helps when one gets
necked, perhaps. These noted numbers may well be written down in a diary?

I don't totally agree with his pro-cycle bias, but do please be fair!!!

IanH

 

[Huge]

On 2006-07-03, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> Huge wrote on 03/07/2006 08:46 +0100:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Not at all.

They let blind people cycle? Perhaps that accounts for your behaviour?


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