Cyclists win police court battle!



On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:44:51 +0100, John B <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>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.
>


Hey Sloop. what vehicle was he riding/driving?

>John B
>
 
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:05:50 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> 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.


So have I.

Mr Nugent's huffing and puffing changes nothing, but is mildly
amusing.


--
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
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> 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.


Careful - your nose will get longer.
 
David Hansen wrote on 09/07/2006 22:09 +0100:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:05:50 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>> 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.

>
> So have I.
>
> Mr Nugent's huffing and puffing changes nothing, but is mildly
> amusing.
>


I wonder how this truck got there?
http://cycling.raven-family.com/York.jpg

--
Tony

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

> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:44:51 +0100, John B <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >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.
> >

>
> what vehicle was he riding/driving?


Car - you know, one of those vehicles that kills pedestrians on pavements at
an alarming rate.

John B
 
John B wrote:

> 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.


Where?

What time?

What was the registration number? Marque? Model? Colour?

Remember that motor vehicles are registered and licensed for a reason.

What did the police say when you reported it?

You DID report it, didn't you?

What were the names of the other witnesses (the "Sunday strollers")? How
many of them were there? They must have been pretty shaken to have been
"scattered" over an alleged distance of 40m, so they will definitely have
been at least as determined to report the matter as a good conscientious
citizen like you will have been.

Which paper and what brand of "fags" did the alleged offender buy? I ask
that question because you clearly followed him into the shop in order to
know what he bought - and you seem very sure about it, don't you?

> You live in a completely different world Nugent. That or you are so blind
> you shouldn't be a road user.


If I were ever to see what you claim you have seen above, I would be able
to answer (lore or less) every question above, including what the police
said when I reported it.
 
In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> John B wrote:
>
>> 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.

>
> Where?
>
> What time?
>
> What was the registration number? Marque? Model? Colour?
>
> Remember that motor vehicles are registered and licensed for a reason.
>
> What did the police say when you reported it?
>
> You DID report it, didn't you?
>
> What were the names of the other witnesses (the "Sunday strollers")?
> How many of them were there? They must have been pretty shaken to
> have been "scattered" over an alleged distance of 40m, so they will
> definitely have been at least as determined to report the matter as a
> good conscientious citizen like you will have been.
>
> Which paper and what brand of "fags" did the alleged offender buy? I
> ask that question because you clearly followed him into the shop in
> order to know what he bought - and you seem very sure about it, don't
> you?
>> You live in a completely different world Nugent. That or you are so
>> blind you shouldn't be a road user.

>
> If I were ever to see what you claim you have seen above, I would be
> able to answer (lore or less) every question above, including what
> the police said when I reported it.


So are you suggesting that because he took no details and didn't report it
that it didn't happen?

Not everyone has a natural inclination to go running to the bizzies every
five minutes.
 
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:44:51 +0100 someone who may be John B
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>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.


If you get a reply I suspect you will either be told that you are
lying, or that this wasn't driving along the pavement, or perhaps
that this was really a cyclist in disguise. Hopefully I will be
proved wrong.


--
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 wrote on 09/07/2006 22:13 +0100:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> 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.

>
> Careful - your nose will get longer.


So will RoSPA's then. Funny they should specifically mention in their
General Driving Policy Statement an act you deny happens.

"Parking and/or driving vehicles on the pavement causes inconvenience
and danger to pedestrians. Vehicles obstructing the pavement sometimes
force pedestrians to walk on the road, particularly parents who are
pushing prams or pushchairs and wheelchair users. Frequent driving and
parking on the pavement is also likely to cause damage to the pavement
surface which in turn has the potential to cause pedestrians to trip,
fall and injure themselves."
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/driving/general_policy.htm

--
Tony

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

> JNugent said:
>>John B wrote:
>>>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.


>>Where?
>>What time?
>>What was the registration number? Marque? Model? Colour?
>>Remember that motor vehicles are registered and licensed for a reason.
>>What did the police say when you reported it?
>>You DID report it, didn't you?
>>What were the names of the other witnesses (the "Sunday strollers")?
>>How many of them were there? They must have been pretty shaken to
>>have been "scattered" over an alleged distance of 40m, so they will
>>definitely have been at least as determined to report the matter as a
>>good conscientious citizen like you will have been.
>>Which paper and what brand of "fags" did the alleged offender buy? I
>>ask that question because you clearly followed him into the shop in
>>order to know what he bought - and you seem very sure about it, don't
>>you?
>>If I were ever to see what you claim you have seen above, I would be
>>able to answer (lore or less) every question above, including what
>>the police said when I reported it.


> So are you suggesting that because he took no details and didn't report it
> that it didn't happen?


I am suggesting nothing. I am waiting for the answer.

> Not everyone has a natural inclination to go running to the bizzies every
> five minutes.


Perhaps not.

But Mr B clearly came to very close quarters with that alleged offender -
so close that he knows what he bought in the shop (given the order in which
thing allegedly happened, Mr B simply *must* have followed him into that
shop). There must have been many annoyed "Sunday strollers" in the area as
well - Mr B and they will have done the right thing, I'm sure of that. And
we will all eventually read about the court case.

Had I been the one to (allegedly) witness this appalling (alleged)
incident, I would have reported it, conscious as I am of the need for
pedestrian safety (after all, we are all pedestrians for far more of the
time than we cycle or drive). I pay you the compliment of thinking that you
would do the same. It's the right thing to do - and it is the very reason
why motor vehicles are registered (and why bikes should be).
 
JNugent wrote on 09/07/2006 22:45 +0100:
>
> Had I been the one to (allegedly) witness this appalling (alleged)
> incident, I would have reported it, conscious as I am of the need for
> pedestrian safety (after all, we are all pedestrians for far more of the
> time than we cycle or drive). I pay you the compliment of thinking that
> you would do the same. It's the right thing to do - and it is the very
> reason why motor vehicles are registered (and why bikes should be).


A few years ago I was almost hit by someone driving out of a one way
street the wrong way. I phoned the police with numberplate,
description, witness name etc. They were not interested.

--
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 wrote:

> John B wrote:
>
> > 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.

>
> Where?


Half a mile from where I live.

> What time?


0850

> What was the registration number? Marque? Model? Colour?


D408 Dxx. Hatchback. curved back - no I don't know the make.

> Remember that motor vehicles are registered and licensed for a reason.


You don't say.

> What did the police say when you reported it?


Police station closed.
I am calling in tomorrow when I pass it to collect children from an activity.

> You DID report it, didn't you?


Of course I will. Why not? We presently have a local campaign going because
pavement driving and parking is causing so much danger to pedestrians and to
children walking to school.
The standard of driving is so low we even have to have a school crossing
patrol on the zebra crossing as so many drivers ignore it.

> What were the names of the other witnesses (the "Sunday strollers")? How
> many of them were there?


2 names taken. About ten witnessed the moron.

> They must have been pretty shaken to have been
> "scattered" over an alleged distance of 40m, so they will definitely have
> been at least as determined to report the matter as a good conscientious
> citizen like you will have been.


Some signed the local campaign literature.

> Which paper and what brand of "fags" did the alleged offender buy? I ask
> that question because you clearly followed him into the shop in order to
> know what he bought - and you seem very sure about it, don't you?


Yes I entered the shop as my son works there.
No I don't know what weeds he bought,
He also paid his paper bill.

> > You live in a completely different world Nugent. That or you are so blind
> > you shouldn't be a road user.

>
> If I were ever to see what you claim you have seen above, I would be able
> to answer (lore or less) every question above, including what the police
> said when I reported it.


As we have a local campaign underway, I know they will log the offence.

Your state of denial is incredible.
You are either blind or a troll if you've never seen anyone drive along a
pavement.

John B
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> JNugent wrote on 09/07/2006 22:13 +0100:
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>> 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.


>> Careful - your nose will get longer.


> So will RoSPA's then. Funny they should specifically mention in their
> General Driving Policy Statement an act you deny happens.


> "Parking and/or driving vehicles on the pavement causes inconvenience
> and danger to pedestrians.


Dear me... the old chestnuts are the best, eh?

Parking on the footway is bad (you won't get me to defend it - except where
it is allowed) - but it is NOT "driving along the footway".

Pathetic!

> Vehicles obstructing the pavement sometimes
> force pedestrians to walk on the road, particularly parents who are
> pushing prams or pushchairs and wheelchair users.


Yes - it's bad and people shouldn't do it. But at least they're not bowling
along the footway at normal travelling speed (not even normal
bike-on-footway travelling speed), eh?

When will the bike-riders ever realise that driving on the footway is per
se simply not illegal? I do it every time I go out (and come home) and it's
perfectly legal. It's driving (more usually riding) ALONG the footway that
is illegal.

But some prefer never to let the truth get in the way of a good story.
 
In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>
>> JNugent said:
>>> John B wrote:
>>>> 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.

>
>>> Where?
>>> What time?
>>> What was the registration number? Marque? Model? Colour?
>>> Remember that motor vehicles are registered and licensed for a
>>> reason. What did the police say when you reported it?
>>> You DID report it, didn't you?
>>> What were the names of the other witnesses (the "Sunday strollers")?
>>> How many of them were there? They must have been pretty shaken to
>>> have been "scattered" over an alleged distance of 40m, so they will
>>> definitely have been at least as determined to report the matter as
>>> a good conscientious citizen like you will have been.
>>> Which paper and what brand of "fags" did the alleged offender buy? I
>>> ask that question because you clearly followed him into the shop in
>>> order to know what he bought - and you seem very sure about it,
>>> don't you?
>>> If I were ever to see what you claim you have seen above, I would be
>>> able to answer (lore or less) every question above, including what
>>> the police said when I reported it.

>
>> So are you suggesting that because he took no details and didn't
>> report it that it didn't happen?

>
> I am suggesting nothing. I am waiting for the answer.
>
>> Not everyone has a natural inclination to go running to the bizzies
>> every five minutes.

>
> Perhaps not.
>
> But Mr B clearly came to very close quarters with that alleged
> offender - so close that he knows what he bought in the shop (given
> the order in which thing allegedly happened, Mr B simply *must* have
> followed him into that shop). There must have been many annoyed
> "Sunday strollers" in the area as well - Mr B and they will have done
> the right thing, I'm sure of that. And we will all eventually read
> about the court case.
> Had I been the one to (allegedly) witness this appalling (alleged)
> incident, I would have reported it, conscious as I am of the need for
> pedestrian safety (after all, we are all pedestrians for far more of
> the time than we cycle or drive). I pay you the compliment of
> thinking that you would do the same. It's the right thing to do - and
> it is the very reason why motor vehicles are registered (and why
> bikes should be).


Supposing for a moment that you had gone directly to nearest police station
and attempted to report it. What do you suppose would have been the reaction
of the person you spoke to?
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> JNugent wrote on 09/07/2006 22:45 +0100:


>> Had I been the one to (allegedly) witness this appalling (alleged)
>> incident, I would have reported it, conscious as I am of the need for
>> pedestrian safety (after all, we are all pedestrians for far more of
>> the time than we cycle or drive). I pay you the compliment of thinking
>> that you would do the same. It's the right thing to do - and it is the
>> very reason why motor vehicles are registered (and why bikes should be).


> A few years ago I was almost hit by someone driving out of a one way
> street the wrong way. I phoned the police with numberplate,
> description, witness name etc. They were not interested.


What did they say in answer to your written complaint?

What did your local (county-level) councillor say?

What did your MP say?

I could understand it if it were a bike - after all, there's no way to
trace it.
 
John B wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>>John B wrote:
>>>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.


>>Where?


> Half a mile from where I live.


That's not very precise. You didn't need to relate it to your home address
at all.

>>What time?


> 0850


Now we're getting somewhere.

>>What was the registration number? Marque? Model? Colour?


> D408 Dxx. Hatchback. curved back - no I don't know the make.


Did you get the full index? You had plenty of time.

>>Remember that motor vehicles are registered and licensed for a reason.


> You don't say.


>>What did the police say when you reported it?


> Police station closed.
> I am calling in tomorrow when I pass it to collect children from an activity.


Good. Keep us informed.

>>You DID report it, didn't you?


> Of course I will. Why not? We presently have a local campaign going because
> pavement driving and parking is causing so much danger to pedestrians and to
> children walking to school.
> The standard of driving is so low we even have to have a school crossing
> patrol on the zebra crossing as so many drivers ignore it.


Almost every school has one of those (but I accept that child pedestrian
safety is important).

>>What were the names of the other witnesses (the "Sunday strollers")? How
>>many of them were there?


> 2 names taken. About ten witnessed the moron.


Good. ll the more reason why we should eventually get the full details when
the case comes to court.

>>They must have been pretty shaken to have been
>>"scattered" over an alleged distance of 40m, so they will definitely have
>>been at least as determined to report the matter as a good conscientious
>>citizen like you will have been.


> Some signed the local campaign literature.


Before or after?

>>Which paper and what brand of "fags" did the alleged offender buy? I ask
>>that question because you clearly followed him into the shop in order to
>>know what he bought - and you seem very sure about it, don't you?


> Yes I entered the shop as my son works there.
> No I don't know what weeds he bought,
> He also paid his paper bill.


You have his identity available to you. Even more reason why we should
eventually hear rather more about the case when it gets to court.

>>>You live in a completely different world Nugent. That or you are so blind
>>>you shouldn't be a road user.


>>If I were ever to see what you claim you have seen above, I would be able
>>to answer (lore or less) every question above, including what the police
>>said when I reported it.


> As we have a local campaign underway, I know they will log the offence.


Good.

> Your state of denial is incredible.
> You are either blind or a troll if you've never seen anyone drive along a
> pavement.


I have never seen anyone drive along a footway (in the manner of a typical
cyclist). I doubt that many people have. OTOH, I drive across a footway
several times every day. That is perfectly legitimate, as you are aware.
Even parking on a footway (bad as it is) is nowhere near as dangerous as
cycling along it, as I know you will agree.

Please keep us informed about the progress of the court case, with rather
more precise details.
 
Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>>Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JNugent said:
>>>
>>>>John B wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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.

>>
>>>>Where?
>>>>What time?
>>>>What was the registration number? Marque? Model? Colour?
>>>>Remember that motor vehicles are registered and licensed for a
>>>>reason. What did the police say when you reported it?
>>>>You DID report it, didn't you?
>>>>What were the names of the other witnesses (the "Sunday strollers")?
>>>>How many of them were there? They must have been pretty shaken to
>>>>have been "scattered" over an alleged distance of 40m, so they will
>>>>definitely have been at least as determined to report the matter as
>>>>a good conscientious citizen like you will have been.
>>>>Which paper and what brand of "fags" did the alleged offender buy? I
>>>>ask that question because you clearly followed him into the shop in
>>>>order to know what he bought - and you seem very sure about it,
>>>>don't you?
>>>>If I were ever to see what you claim you have seen above, I would be
>>>>able to answer (lore or less) every question above, including what
>>>>the police said when I reported it.

>>
>>>So are you suggesting that because he took no details and didn't
>>>report it that it didn't happen?

>>
>>I am suggesting nothing. I am waiting for the answer.
>>
>>
>>>Not everyone has a natural inclination to go running to the bizzies
>>>every five minutes.

>>
>>Perhaps not.
>>
>>But Mr B clearly came to very close quarters with that alleged
>>offender - so close that he knows what he bought in the shop (given
>>the order in which thing allegedly happened, Mr B simply *must* have
>>followed him into that shop). There must have been many annoyed
>>"Sunday strollers" in the area as well - Mr B and they will have done
>>the right thing, I'm sure of that. And we will all eventually read
>>about the court case.
>>Had I been the one to (allegedly) witness this appalling (alleged)
>>incident, I would have reported it, conscious as I am of the need for
>>pedestrian safety (after all, we are all pedestrians for far more of
>>the time than we cycle or drive). I pay you the compliment of
>>thinking that you would do the same. It's the right thing to do - and
>>it is the very reason why motor vehicles are registered (and why
>>bikes should be).

>
>
> Supposing for a moment that you had gone directly to nearest police station
> and attempted to report it. What do you suppose would have been the reaction
> of the person you spoke to?


I have no idea (never having seen such a thing). That's why I asked.
 
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:14:59 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I wonder how this truck got there?
>http://cycling.raven-family.com/York.jpg


A big spring suddenly pushed the lorry sideways onto the pavement,
surprising the poor innocent driver.

I suspect that this or a similar explanation might be advanced for
all those other instances I listed earlier.


--
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
 
David Hansen wrote:

> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:


>>I wonder how this truck got there?
>>http://cycling.raven-family.com/York.jpg


> A big spring suddenly pushed the lorry sideways onto the pavement,
> surprising the poor innocent driver.


> I suspect that this or a similar explanation might be advanced for
> all those other instances I listed earlier.


The driver of that van is highly nickable, isn't he?

His causing of his vehicle to wait on the so-called "cycle lane" (not, I
think, legally on the footway), unlawful as it might be, is not good reason
for any cyclist to ride a bike on the pedestrian footway, either there or
anywhere else, as I am sure you agree.