Cyclists win police court battle!

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:

> The question is too wide.

Already discussed and not accepted.

> The answer might well be different in
> different circumstances.

Unlikely, but I'm not going to argue about it.

> In general though, I take my family's safety
> (including my own) perhaps more seriously than most.

Thus you are likely (in the vast majority of cases) to put your personal
safety ahead of others. (Still excluding family.)

Therefore I put it to you that, if you rode a bicycle, whilst preferring to
remain on the road but felt endangered by the behavour of the drivers of
motor vehicles you would retreat to a place of comparative safety, i.e the
footpath.

(Although I accept that you would probably try to conduct yourself in such a
manner so as to not endanger others.)

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:

> JNugent said:

>>The question is too wide.

> Already discussed and not accepted.

It's a fact, so "not accepted" is hardly relevant.

>>The answer might well be different in
>>different circumstances.

> Unlikely, but I'm not going to argue about it.

Different levels of danger would produce vastly different outcomes.

>>In general though, I take my family's safety
>>(including my own) perhaps more seriously than most.

> Thus you are likely (in the vast majority of cases) to put your personal
> safety ahead of others. (Still excluding family.)

Within reason.

> Therefore I put it to you that, if you rode a bicycle, whilst preferring to
> remain on the road but felt endangered by the behavour of the drivers of
> motor vehicles you would retreat to a place of comparative safety, i.e the
> footpath.

No. It's a point of principle.

> (Although I accept that you would probably try to conduct yourself in such a
> manner so as to not endanger others.)

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:10:35 +0100 someone who may be JNugent
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>The best you can say for it (not that it's much) is that dual-use areas
>seem to be mainly to found where you don't actually encounter all that many
>pedestrians. Or all that many bikes.

They are not pavements, but a number of dual use off-road cycle
paths in towns are very busy with pedestrians and cyclists.


--
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

 

[Al C-F]

JNugent wrote:
> 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.

Except when it is accepted.
>
> So unacceptably dangerous that it is an offence.

Except when it is not.
>
>> What is the risk to pedestrians from cyclists on the pavement,
>
>
> Too much to accept.

Except when it is accepted.
>
> > 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.

Or dependent on the opinion of a Local Authority, or similar.
>
> Such an approach has certain obvious fundamental flaws.

As seen on the roads, every day.

 

[Al C-F]

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...

Actually, the motorists whose behaviour creates the perception amongst
some cyclists that it is too dangerous to cycle on the roads

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

 

[ian henden]

"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 17:40:37 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> I have several. A Paramo, a fake North Face from China, a Mountain
> Equipment Paclite and a Berghaus.
>
>>He has got a dogtooth check sports jacket with leather patches on the
>>elbows.
>
> No I don't.
>
>>Standard uniform issue in the trade.
>
> Perhaps for secondary schools.

)

Ian

 

[Steve Firth]

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:33:46 +0100, Al C-F 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...
>
> Actually, the motorists whose behaviour creates the perception amongst
> some cyclists that it is too dangerous to cycle on the roads

Errm, no, because the motorists are not responsible for the paranoia and
arrogance of the pavement cyclists. I don't even swallow the lie that
pavement cycling is caused by a fear of cars, it's the result of laziness,
indifference and arrogance.

Try challenging a pavement cyclist to see what response you get.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Steve Firth wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:33:46 +0100, Al C-F 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...
>>
>> Actually, the motorists whose behaviour creates the perception
>> amongst some cyclists that it is too dangerous to cycle on the roads
>
> Errm, no, because the motorists are not responsible for the paranoia
> and arrogance of the pavement cyclists. I don't even swallow the lie
> that pavement cycling is caused by a fear of cars, it's the result of
> laziness, indifference and arrogance.

I think you're right there.

I won't try challenging a pavement cyclist if you don't mind. Many of the
ones round my way are a bit agressive looking for me.

A

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 22:19:28 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
wrote:

>Errm, no, because the motorists are not responsible for the paranoia and
>arrogance of the pavement cyclists. I don't even swallow the lie that
>pavement cycling is caused by a fear of cars, it's the result of laziness,
>indifference and arrogance.
>
>Try challenging a pavement cyclist to see what response you get.

It's odd that it's the motorists' newsgroup, and not the pedestrians'
newsgroup that kicks up most fuss about pavement cyclists. I can't
recall it ever being highlighted as an issue on uk.rec.walking.

I wonder why this might be.

 

[JNugent]

David Hansen wrote:

> JNugent 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.

Indeed, I would have no difficulty in identifying the poster concerned. But
clearly, you have not read the thread - it's all there on Google Groups if
you can be bothered to read it.

 

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:35:03 +0100 someone who may be JNugent
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> 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.
>
>Indeed, I would have no difficulty in identifying the poster concerned. But
>clearly, you have not read the thread

Incorrect.

I note that you have still failed to identify the poster.


--
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]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:35:03 +0100 someone who may be JNugent
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>>Indeed, I would have no difficulty in identifying the poster concerned. But
>>clearly, you have not read the thread
>
>
> Incorrect.
>
> I note that you have still failed to identify the poster.

Wouldn't want to embarrass him.

I'll send you a link by email if you need one.

 

[Simon Hobson]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 17:51:33 +0100, [email protected] wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> the car Speedo had jammed at 80

So in fact, assuming that the speedo jammed at it's prior reading, he could
well have been doing considerably less. In fact, based on my observations of
speedo accuracy, it is likely he was doing closer to 72.7 than 80. I know
that in one of my vehicles, I'd be doing 73, in the other I'd be doing 74 -
courtesy of a few million quids worth of navigation satellites.

But of course you make the same false connection used by other clueless
idiots in assuming that the speed was the causal factor. The difference in
outcome between hitting a solid (concrete ?) object at 70 or 80 is likely to
be minimal. It may be that the speed was not a contributary factor in the
accident - there are plenty of accidents that are at least as likely to
happen if you drive at 70 as if you drive at 80. It could have been some
blind clueless f***wit cutting into his lane just as he was alongside them -
you just DO NOT KNOW.

Unless you know ALL the facts then you CANNOT say with any fairness that the
driver deserved to even have an accident, let alone be killed in it - and
lets not forget that you are accusing someone who is not able to defend
themselves.

 

[Simon Hobson]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 15:27:11 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> 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.

So 88 vehicles passed you while you were doing anything from zero to 11.5 MPH
below the speed limit, and at times were doing NOT LESS than 5 mph below the
limit. Point is ?

Now, if you were measuring your speed by GPS AND you did 70mph all the time
then we could take you seriously.

 

[Simon Hobson]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 12:55:52 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> 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.

Only if you have the figures to hand for deaths caused by driving on the
pavement and they are higher (by some measure).

 

[Simon Hobson]

Martin O'Loughlin wrote:

>> It amazes me that people argue and try to defend the actions of
>> motorists and yet the same actions by cyclists are taken as law breaking.

I made no such argument. ISTM that it's the other way around - apologists for
the cyclists arguing that it's OK to ignore red lights, ignore mandatory stop
& dismount signs, ride on the pavement, etc on the grounds that they've
assessed the risks and decided it's OK.

So for cyclists it seems to be a case of "the law is for everyone else, I'll
choose which I'll obey".

The ONLY motoring law I regularly break is that relating to speeding. I do it
on the basis that the speed limits are ARBITRARY numbers - there is nothing
magical that makes the danger to anyone take a step change between 60 and
60.1 MPH, even the TRRL said at the time of there introduction that they
should be considered as guidance. I learned to drive when part of the
instruction was to LOOK through that expensive bit of glass and assess the
conditions - shock horror, I spend a lot more time driving below the speed
limit without something in front slowing me down than I do driving above it.
And of course, doing 75 on a motorway is zero risk to any law abiding cyclist
or pedestrian because they won't be there will they.

Yet these very same apologists who claim that it's OK for cyclists to pick
and choose which laws they obey, get all "holier than thou" when it comes to
motorists.

> I have regularly seen motorists turning left against the flow of a one
> way street to avoid the longer correct route.

Did I ever suggest that there aren't some bad drivers ?

> Are mobile phones actually banned, stand by the side of a road and take
> a look, i think the answer is no.

Did I ever suggest that there aren't some bad drivers ?

> Parking, since when did double yellow mean park here,

Did I ever suggest that there aren't some bad drivers ?

> Double white lines, do drivers know what they mean? my daily experience
> of this is no.

Did I ever suggest that there aren't some bad drivers ?

> Bus lanes, that will be car lanes then,

Did I ever suggest that there aren't bad drivers ?

> Red lights, seems to be almost as ignored by car drivers as they are by
> cyclists.

Not in my experience

 

[Tony Raven]

Simon Hobson wrote on 09/07/2006 19:36 +0100:
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 12:55:52 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote
> (in message <[email protected]>):
>
>> 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.
>
> Only if you have the figures to hand for deaths caused by driving on the
> pavement and they are higher (by some measure).
>

We've already done them - they are 280 times higher.

--
Tony

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

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:

> Simon Hobson wrote on 09/07/2006 19:36 +0100:
>> 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.

>> Only if you have the figures to hand for deaths caused by driving on
>> the pavement and they are higher (by some measure).

> We've already done them - they are 280 times higher.

Rubbish.

Don't try Hansen's deceitful (but unsuccessful) "trick" of trying to pass
off mounting of the footway following loss of control with "driving along
the pavement".

Since "driving along the pavement" is simply never seen (if, indeed, it
were possible), your "statistic" is self-evidently nonsense - isn't it?

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote on 09/07/2006 20:56 +0100:
>
> Since "driving along the pavement" is simply never seen (if, indeed, it
> were possible), your "statistic" is self-evidently nonsense - isn't it?

I've seen plenty of it.

--
Tony

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

 

[John B]

JNugent wrote:

> Since "driving along the pavement" is simply never seen (if, indeed, it
> were possible), your "statistic" is self-evidently nonsense - isn't it?

Oh FFS. You do like flogging a dead horse.
Just this morning I witnessed a driver used the drop kerb of a zebra
crossing to drive up onto the pavement then proceeded along it scattering
Sunday strollers for 40m so he could reach the paper shop for his rag and
fags.
You live in a completely different world Nugent. That or you are so blind
you shouldn't be a road user.

John B