Cyclists win police court battle!



On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 18:42:42 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
wrote:

>As a pedestrian, it's pavement cyclists that generate the dangers.
>Fortunately I have found that an umbrella through the spokes works wonders.
>And it's amazing how one can "accidentally" smack a pavement cyclist in the
>teeth with an elbow.

Perhaps you will enlighten us to the danger these two pavement
cyclists outside City Hall today posed?

http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/cityhall2.JPG

Or this rabble of yobs on a shared use path.

http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/40.JPG

And if you want to know why children have to be taught to ride a bike
off road at all, have a look at this lovely quiet road in Greenwich
Park and explain why cycling is banned.

http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/bower.jpg
 
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
says...
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 18:42:42 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >As a pedestrian, it's pavement cyclists that generate the dangers.
> >Fortunately I have found that an umbrella through the spokes works wonders.
> >And it's amazing how one can "accidentally" smack a pavement cyclist in the
> >teeth with an elbow.
>
> Perhaps you will enlighten us to the danger these two pavement
> cyclists outside City Hall today posed?
>
> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/cityhall2.JPG
>
> Or this rabble of yobs on a shared use path.
>
Ask a blind person.


--
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
 
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 19:35:24 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
>says...
>> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 18:42:42 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >As a pedestrian, it's pavement cyclists that generate the dangers.
>> >Fortunately I have found that an umbrella through the spokes works wonders.
>> >And it's amazing how one can "accidentally" smack a pavement cyclist in the
>> >teeth with an elbow.
>>
>> Perhaps you will enlighten us to the danger these two pavement
>> cyclists outside City Hall today posed?
>>
>> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/cityhall2.JPG

>Ask a blind person.

So you can't enlighten us?
 
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 18:43:20 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 18:42:42 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>As a pedestrian, it's pavement cyclists that generate the dangers.
>>Fortunately I have found that an umbrella through the spokes works wonders.
>>And it's amazing how one can "accidentally" smack a pavement cyclist in the
>>teeth with an elbow.
>
> Perhaps you will enlighten us to the danger these two pavement
> cyclists outside City Hall today posed?
>
> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/cityhall2.JPG

Oh dear we're back to "it's for the chillddrruuuuuunnnnnn."

> Or this rabble of yobs on a shared use path.
>
> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/40.JPG

You appear top have an unhealthy obsession with children. However I see no
room on that path for pedestrians.

> And if you want to know why children have to be taught to ride a bike
> off road at all, have a look at this lovely quiet road in Greenwich
> Park and explain why cycling is banned.
>
> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/bower.jpg

Why should cycling be permitted in a public park which is a place for
relaxation and enjoyment of people walking?

And why are you incapable of addressing the hazard posed to pedestrians by
*adult* cyclists?
 
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:19:50 +0100, Al C-F wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
>> 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.
>
> So the accusations from the residents of uk.t that I cycle on the
> pavement were mere figments of my imagination. Glad to get that cleared up.

Do you cycle on footpaths?
 
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
says...
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 19:35:24 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
> >says...
> >> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 18:42:42 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >As a pedestrian, it's pavement cyclists that generate the dangers.
> >> >Fortunately I have found that an umbrella through the spokes works wonders.
> >> >And it's amazing how one can "accidentally" smack a pavement cyclist in the
> >> >teeth with an elbow.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you will enlighten us to the danger these two pavement
> >> cyclists outside City Hall today posed?
> >>
> >> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/cityhall2.JPG
>
> >Ask a blind person.
>
> So you can't enlighten us?
>
No more than the blatantly obvious, i.e disabled, elderly.

--
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 ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

>>> >As a pedestrian, it's pavement cyclists that generate the dangers.
>>> >Fortunately I have found that an umbrella through the spokes works
>>> >wonders. And it's amazing how one can "accidentally" smack a
>>> >pavement cyclist in the teeth with an elbow.

>>> Perhaps you will enlighten us to the danger these two pavement
>>> cyclists outside City Hall today posed?
>>>
>>> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/cityhall2.JPG

>>Ask a blind person.

> So you can't enlighten us?

Whoosh.

Oh, and http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm#54
 
Steve Firth wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:19:50 +0100, Al C-F wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>So the accusations from the residents of uk.t that I cycle on the
>>pavement were mere figments of my imagination. Glad to get that cleared up.
>
>
> Do you cycle on footpaths?

Never when forbidden by law. Seldom when permitted, unless the
short-cut saves enough time to warrant slowing down and negotiating the
extra hazards. I also never cycle in the gutter, even when it has been
painted red.

I find personally that cycling amongst the rest of the traffic, adopting
the primary or secondary positions as appropriate, to be the most
effective way of getting around.

However, I can understand why less confident cyclists may feel safer on
the pavement, judging by the behaviour of a small but vociferous
minority of motorists.
 
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:00:30 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 18:43:20 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 18:42:42 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>As a pedestrian, it's pavement cyclists that generate the dangers.
>>>Fortunately I have found that an umbrella through the spokes works wonders.
>>>And it's amazing how one can "accidentally" smack a pavement cyclist in the
>>>teeth with an elbow.
>>
>> Perhaps you will enlighten us to the danger these two pavement
>> cyclists outside City Hall today posed?
>>
>> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/cityhall2.JPG
>
>Oh dear we're back to "it's for the chillddrruuuuuunnnnnn."
>
>> Or this rabble of yobs on a shared use path.
>>
>> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/40.JPG
>
>You appear top have an unhealthy obsession with children.

I work with children. What is your implication?

>However I see no
>room on that path for pedestrians.

Look again.

>> And if you want to know why children have to be taught to ride a bike
>> off road at all, have a look at this lovely quiet road in Greenwich
>> Park and explain why cycling is banned.
>>
>> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/bower.jpg
>
>Why should cycling be permitted in a public park which is a place for
>relaxation and enjoyment of people walking?

Is that a park's exclusive use?

>And why are you incapable of addressing the hazard posed to pedestrians by
>*adult* cyclists?

I have no responsibility over other adults' actions.
 
On 04 Jul 2006 19:05:47 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Crispin ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
>sounding much like they were saying :
>
>>>> >As a pedestrian, it's pavement cyclists that generate the dangers.
>>>> >Fortunately I have found that an umbrella through the spokes works
>>>> >wonders. And it's amazing how one can "accidentally" smack a
>>>> >pavement cyclist in the teeth with an elbow.
>
>>>> Perhaps you will enlighten us to the danger these two pavement
>>>> cyclists outside City Hall today posed?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/cityhall2.JPG
>
>>>Ask a blind person.
>
>> So you can't enlighten us?
>
>Whoosh.
>
>Oh, and http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm#54

Cycling is permitted on much of the Thames Path through London.

Can you explain why, on two otherwise identical footways, cycling is
permitted on one and not the other?
 
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On 04 Jul 2006 19:05:47 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Tom Crispin ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
>>sounding much like they were saying :
>>
>>
>>>>>>As a pedestrian, it's pavement cyclists that generate the dangers.
>>>>>>Fortunately I have found that an umbrella through the spokes works
>>>>>>wonders. And it's amazing how one can "accidentally" smack a
>>>>>>pavement cyclist in the teeth with an elbow.
>>
>>>>>Perhaps you will enlighten us to the danger these two pavement
>>>>>cyclists outside City Hall today posed?
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/cityhall2.JPG
>>
>>>>Ask a blind person.
>>
>>>So you can't enlighten us?
>>
>>Whoosh.
>>
>>Oh, and http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm#54
>
>
> Cycling is permitted on much of the Thames Path through London.
>
> Can you explain why, on two otherwise identical footways, cycling is
> permitted on one and not the other?

Because of politicised (in)correctness.

You are right to query the discrepancy - cycling should not be allowed on
any footway.
 
Tom Crispin ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

> Cycling is permitted on much of the Thames Path through London.

I'm very happy for you.
It's not a pavement, then. It's "shared use".

> Can you explain why, on two otherwise identical footways, cycling is
> permitted on one and not the other?

Because it is. If you don't like it, write to the council.
 
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 17:04:36 +0100 someone who may be Conor
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> Incorrect. They are instructed to ride along what the Council calls
>> the footway for a distance of several km.
>>
>Proof.

Visit the location and look at the signs.

Note that if a cyclist was not to follow the instructions on the
signs then they would be cycling the wrong way along a one-way
street.


--
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
 
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:25:00 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

>>
>>You appear top have an unhealthy obsession with children.
>
> I work with children. What is your implication?

That you appear obsessed with children to the exclusion of all else.

>>However I see no
>>room on that path for pedestrians.
>
> Look again.

I see no room on that path for pedestrians. Other than as bollards for
children to ride around.

>>> And if you want to know why children have to be taught to ride a bike
>>> off road at all, have a look at this lovely quiet road in Greenwich
>>> Park and explain why cycling is banned.
>>>
>>> http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/images/bower.jpg
>>
>>Why should cycling be permitted in a public park which is a place for
>>relaxation and enjoyment of people walking?
>
> Is that a park's exclusive use?

No. However if the by laws say no cycling then cycling is not one of the
permitted uses.

>>And why are you incapable of addressing the hazard posed to pedestrians by
>>*adult* cyclists?
>
> I have no responsibility over other adults' actions.

You have no responsibility over children's actions either.
 
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:23:32 +0100, Al C-F wrote:

[He doesn't cycle on footpaths]

Well done. Not that I believe any cyclist denying the use of footpaths,
because it's rather like being told that a snowball will last for a week at
today's temperatures.

> However, I can understand why less confident cyclists may feel safer on
> the pavement, judging by the behaviour of a small but vociferous
> minority of motorists.

As a pedestrian I'd feel safer on the pavement without the behaviour of a
large and vociferous majority of cyclists. I'd like to cross the road on a
pelican crossing with the lights at red without the danger of being hit by
a cyclist.

Someday you can tell me why my fears as a pedestrian are always answered by
cyclists pointing at motorists, when I've never had a motorist drive past
me on a crossing and I've never encountered a motorist driving furiously
along the pavement shouting obscenities at me. It's a daily occurrence with
cyclists.
 
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 21:59:26 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

> Note that if a cyclist was not to follow the instructions on the
> signs then they would be cycling the wrong way along a one-way
> street.

Sorry, what is unusual or noteworthy about that? Cycling the wrong way
along a one way street is a national pastime among the lycra brigade.
 
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:03:16 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

> I note that the trolls were unable to counter your points.

Which trolls, which points?
 
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 22:14:09 +0100 someone who may be Steve Firth
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote this:-

>Someday you can tell me why my fears as a pedestrian are always answered by
>cyclists pointing at motorists, when I've never had a motorist drive past
>me on a crossing

You need to take off those special glasses that only allow through
the wrong things cyclists do. Most pedestrians I know have seen
motorists and cyclists pass them on crossings.

>and I've never encountered a motorist driving furiously
>along the pavement shouting obscenities at me.

So far I have been run over twice by motorists driving along the
pavement, who then shouted obscenities at me. I have yet to be run
over by a cyclist.

>It's a daily occurrence with cyclists.

Perhaps you have that effect on them.


--
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" <[email protected]> wrote
> 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?

I am refuting your claim that there is "a *deliberate* decision to pose a
risk to pedestrians ". Don't change the subject.

> 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.

Some probably are. Most are merely annoying rather than actually reckless.
 
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