Cyclists win police court battle!

[Al C-F]

JNugent wrote:

> Cycling on the footway is dangerous to pedestrians

not universally true.

> (it's also dangerous
> for cyclists, but that - I have to admit - is not the major concern
> here). Deliberate decisions to ride a bike on the footway are deliberate
> decisions to cause danger to any pedestrians who may be encountered.

therefore, neither is this.

>
> End of story.
>
> There isn't anything to add.
>

 

[Al C-F]

JNugent wrote:

>
> It is not merely my opinion that cycling on the footway is dangerous to
> pedestrians - it is also the settled opinion of Parliament and the law -
> which is why it's (still) an offence.
>

Yet is contradicted by otherwise identical paths being rendered safe for
cyclists and pedestrians to use together by the simple addition of a
small blue sign.

 

[Al C-F]

JNugent wrote:
> Mark Thompson wrote:
>
>>> A pedestrian may emerge from a hidden position onto a footway at any
>>> moment (particularly in residential areas). To ride on the footway in
>>> such circumstances is to ride recklessly as to the safety of those
>>> innocent others.
>
>
>> It is pf course perfectly possible to take this into account, and ride
>> accordingly.
>
>
> Of course it is - "accordingly" means on the carriageway.
>

Or at a speed consistent with what you can see to be clear. Rather as
one is supposed to drive.

 

[Al C-F]

JNugent wrote:

> I have never had a single bike riding lesson in my life, but when I ride
> a bike, I manage to remember to stay off the footway, to stop at red
> traffic lights and to take proper notice of "give way" and "no entry"
> signs. I have managed that since about the age of 11. Training is
> clearly not essential to the observance of those rules - is it?

So did you learn the laws that apply, or are you just fortunate that
your opinions happen to match the law's requirements?
>
> The poster's comments (some of them just plain silly) speak for
> themselves as to his professionalism. He keeps making excuses for
> dangerous, anti-social, behaviour. That's not what professionals do.

It is only your opinion that such behaviour is dangerous or antisocial.
Ohters see it differently.

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, David Hansen
says...
> 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.
>
I would but you fail to tell me where it is.


--
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

 

[John B]

Steve Firth wrote:

> 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.
>

Perhaps posters looking for *your* interests might be enlightened by reading
see some of your posts on other ngs.

John B

 

[jtaylor]

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

>
> Cycling on the footway is dangerous to pedestrians (it's also dangerous
for
> cyclists, but that - I have to admit - is not the major concern here).

"Dangerous" is not a binary term.

How dangerous is it?

What is the risk to pedestrians from cyclists on the pavement, and is that
figure sufficiently large that we should consider that activity to be
"dangerous" in the same way that hang-gliding or scuba-diving or
motorcycling are?

 

[Daniel Barlow]

JNugent <[email protected]> writes:

> > 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.

The same could be said for crawling on all fours instead of walking,
or for peeing in ones nappy. Yet we tolerate both of these behaviours
in children insufficiently developed to do otherwise, and it seldom
seems to lead to habits they can't break in later life.


-dan

--
http://coruskate.blogspot.com/ why skate when you can talk about it instead?

 

[JNugent]

Al C-F wrote:

> As previously said, some cyclists take to the pavements out of fear of
> badly driven motor vehicles.

> Fix the root cause of the problem...

....cyclists who seem to think that their interests take precedence over
everyone else's...

> ...and then you can deal with the
> ingrained habits and other delinquencies.

 

[JNugent]

Al C-F wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>> Cycling on the footway is dangerous to pedestrians

> not universally true.

So what?

You could say the same about driving a lorry along footways (which happens
for certain official purposes - and even for collecting/delivering cash).

It doesn't have to be dangerous on every last conceivable occasion or time
of day in order to be dangerous enough to be banned. And it *is* banned. Is
that too hard to understand?

>> (it's also dangerous for cyclists, but that - I have to admit - is not
>> the major concern here). Deliberate decisions to ride a bike on the
>> footway are deliberate decisions to cause danger to any pedestrians
>> who may be encountered.
>> End of story.
>> There isn't anything to add.

 

[JNugent]

Al C-F wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>> Mark Thompson wrote:
>>
>>>> A pedestrian may emerge from a hidden position onto a footway at any
>>>> moment (particularly in residential areas). To ride on the footway in
>>>> such circumstances is to ride recklessly as to the safety of those
>>>> innocent others.
>>
>>
>>
>>> It is pf course perfectly possible to take this into account, and
>>> ride accordingly.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course it is - "accordingly" means on the carriageway.
>>
>
> Or at a speed consistent with what you can see to be clear. Rather as
> one is supposed to drive.

No - "accordingly" means on the carriageway.

 

[JNugent]

jtaylor wrote:

> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Cycling on the footway is dangerous to pedestrians (it's also dangerous
>>for cyclists, but that - I have to admit - is not the major concern here).

> "Dangerous" is not a binary term.

???

> How dangerous is it?

Unacceptably dangerous.

So unacceptably dangerous that it is an offence.

> What is the risk to pedestrians from cyclists on the pavement,

Too much to accept.

> and is that
> figure sufficiently large that we should consider that activity to be
> "dangerous" in the same way that hang-gliding or scuba-diving or
> motorcycling are?

You seem to be suggesting that things are only dangerous if the offender
thinks and is prepared to admit that they are dangerous.

Such an approach has certain obvious fundamental flaws.

 

[JNugent]

Daniel Barlow wrote:
> JNugent <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> The same could be said for crawling on all fours instead of walking,
> or for peeing in ones nappy. Yet we tolerate both of these behaviours
> in children insufficiently developed to do otherwise, and it seldom
> seems to lead to habits they can't break in later life.

Those other things aren't illegal, are they?

These days, of course, you never know.

 

[iiiiDougiiii]

JNugent wrote:
> Al C-F wrote:
>
> > As previously said, some cyclists take to the pavements out of fear of
> > badly driven motor vehicles.
>
> > Fix the root cause of the problem...
>
> ...cyclists who seem to think that their interests take precedence over
> everyone else's...
>
Its the most vulnerable road users who should take precedence and the
pampered motorists are way down the list, with their crumple zones,
airbags, special child seats and seat belts.

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

 

[JNugent]

iiiiDougiiii wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>>Al C-F wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As previously said, some cyclists take to the pavements out of fear of
>>>badly driven motor vehicles.
>>
>>>Fix the root cause of the problem...
>>
>>...cyclists who seem to think that their interests take precedence over
>>everyone else's...
>>
>
> Its the most vulnerable road users who should take precedence

.... pedestrians ... I agree.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:16:01 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> The same could be said for crawling on all fours instead of walking,
>> or for peeing in ones nappy. Yet we tolerate both of these behaviours
>> in children insufficiently developed to do otherwise, and it seldom
>> seems to lead to habits they can't break in later life.
>
>Those other things aren't illegal, are they?

Given that children under the age of 11 are below the age of criminal
responsibility for the vast majority of crimes, it is questionable
that a young child cycling on the pavement is illegal, certainly by
some definitions of the word.

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>The same could be said for crawling on all fours instead of walking,
>>>or for peeing in ones nappy. Yet we tolerate both of these behaviours
>>>in children insufficiently developed to do otherwise, and it seldom
>>>seems to lead to habits they can't break in later life.

>>Those other things aren't illegal, are they?

> Given that children under the age of 11 are below the age of criminal
> responsibility for the vast majority of crimes, it is questionable
> that a young child cycling on the pavement is illegal, certainly by
> some definitions of the word.

Those other things aren't illegal, even when done by an adult, are they?

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 17:19:21 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>The same could be said for crawling on all fours instead of walking,
>>>>or for peeing in ones nappy. Yet we tolerate both of these behaviours
>>>>in children insufficiently developed to do otherwise, and it seldom
>>>>seems to lead to habits they can't break in later life.
>
>>>Those other things aren't illegal, are they?
>
>> Given that children under the age of 11 are below the age of criminal
>> responsibility for the vast majority of crimes, it is questionable
>> that a young child cycling on the pavement is illegal, certainly by
>> some definitions of the word.
>
>Those other things aren't illegal, even when done by an adult, are they?

I never suggested they were. And your point is?

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

[in response to:]
>>>>>The same could be said for crawling on all fours instead of walking,
>>>>>or for peeing in ones nappy. Yet we tolerate both of these behaviours
>>>>>in children insufficiently developed to do otherwise, and it seldom
>>>>>seems to lead to habits they can't break in later life.

>>>>Those other things aren't illegal, are they?

>>>Given that children under the age of 11 are below the age of criminal
>>>responsibility for the vast majority of crimes, it is questionable
>>>that a young child cycling on the pavement is illegal, certainly by
>>>some definitions of the word.

>>Those other things aren't illegal, even when done by an adult, are they?

> I never suggested they were. And your point is?

....that they are in no relevant way comparable with things which ARE illegal?

To be fair, IIRC, it wasn't you who initially suggested we should tolerate
footway-cycling (which is illegal) because we tolerate nappy soiling (which
isn't), but you made an even sillier "point" by suggesting that offences
committed by those too young to be prosecuted aren't illegal. One wonders
whether you would extend that argument to shoplifting, window-breaking or
assault with (say) a knife.

 

[ian henden]

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

He hasn't *got* an anorak.

He has got a dogtooth check sports jacket with leather patches on the
elbows.

Standard uniform issue in the trade.

)

IanH