Cyclists win police court battle!

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:49:48 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:


>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.
The police are not interested in anything these days they can't be
bothered to catch speeding vehicles they have to put up cameras to do
their job for them. Even when they do decide to do some work and
remember it is members of the public that are paying their wages they
always have to be asking the public for help . I wonder if when they
are off duty our local police would help me do my job if I wasn't
retired .

 

[John B]

JNugent wrote:

> 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.

The precise position will be passed to the police.

> >>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.

Yes.

> > I am calling in tomorrow when I pass it to collect children from an activity.
>
> Good. Keep us informed.

You will be able to call the police yourself if you wish.

> > 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).

They need them because the consideration that drivers give to pedestrians is so
poor, as shown by the numbers they kill, even when on crossings or on teh
pavement.

> >>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.

I hope so. However as you know only too well, that is very unlikely.
What is hoped is that greater levels of enforcement will be introduced by the
local traffic and community wardens.

> > Some signed the local campaign literature.
>
> Before or after?

After. Others have already signed.

> >>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.

Yes. Along with many others who have been driving along the same stretch of
pavement.

> I have never seen anyone drive along a footway (in the manner of a typical
> cyclist). I doubt that many people have.

I repeat you are either blind or a troll.
I think most will agree which one it is.

> OTOH, I drive across a footway
> several times every day. That is perfectly legitimate, as you are aware.

And completely irrelevant.
I hope you look out for pedestrians, although with your powers of observation I
somehow doubt it.

John B

 

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:53:16 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:


>But some prefer never to let the truth get in the way of a good story.
And some including myself like to "accidentally" nudge you has you
ride passed and you end up on your **** .

 

[JNugent]

John B wrote:
>
> JNugent wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> The precise position will be passed to the police.
>
>
>>>>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.
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>>I am calling in tomorrow when I pass it to collect children from an activity.
>>
>>Good. Keep us informed.
>
>
> You will be able to call the police yourself if you wish.
>
>
>>>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).
>
>
> They need them because the consideration that drivers give to pedestrians is so
> poor, as shown by the numbers they kill, even when on crossings or on teh
> pavement.
>
>
>>>>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.
>
>
> I hope so. However as you know only too well, that is very unlikely.
> What is hoped is that greater levels of enforcement will be introduced by the
> local traffic and community wardens.
>
>
>>>Some signed the local campaign literature.
>>
>>Before or after?
>
>
> After. Others have already signed.
>
>
>>>>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.
>
>
> Yes. Along with many others who have been driving along the same stretch of
> pavement.
>
>
>>I have never seen anyone drive along a footway (in the manner of a typical
>>cyclist). I doubt that many people have.
>
>
> I repeat you are either blind or a troll.
> I think most will agree which one it is.
>
>
>>OTOH, I drive across a footway
>>several times every day. That is perfectly legitimate, as you are aware.

> And completely irrelevant.
> I hope you look out for pedestrians, although with your powers of observation I
> somehow doubt it.

That is pathetic even by the pathetic standards of the "argument" that you
and others are trying (but failing) to make. That's what happens when you
try to equate mere being on a footway (which can be - and usually is -
quite lawful) with "driving along it". Drivers, whether of cars,vans, buses
or lorries, simply do not drive along footways and you and everyone else
knows it.

OTOH, with evidence of the quality you described in your allegation, there
should be no problem getting "your" case to court. Do let us know what - if
anything - happens there.

 

[JNugent]

[email protected] wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>But some prefer never to let the truth get in the way of a good story.

> And some including myself like to "accidentally" nudge you has you
> ride passed and you end up on your **** .

Whilst you would never get an opportunity to do that to me (for various
reasons), I suspect that there are some who quite badly need it done to
them. Accidentally of course. Heavens forfend that a pedestrian should
strike back in deliberate self-defence.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:19:15 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> 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.

I don't suppose there is a single judge or magistrate in the country
who would find a cyclist guilty of cycling on the footway for
diverting around that truck. Any policeman who nicked a cyclist in
such circumstances would be an idiot.

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote on 09/07/2006 22:53 +0100:
>
> 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?
>

But they still manage to kill 280 times as many people when doing 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

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote on 09/07/2006 22:53 +0100:
>
> When will the bike-riders ever realise that driving on the footway is
> per se simply not illegal?

So you are saying that RoSPA were campaigning for people not to cross
the pavement to park on their drive? That's a novel interpretation that
goes with you world view that cars land vertically on the pavement when
they park there.

--
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]

JNugent wrote on 09/07/2006 22:55 +0100:
> 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?
>

Life is too short. The local cycle campaign has been trying for years
to get the police to act on a clear transgression that occurs every day
with recorded evidence. The police, Councillors and MP know. Nothing
has happened. Maybe JohnB with a local campaign running will have more
success.

--
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]

JNugent wrote on 09/07/2006 23:03 +0100:
>
> Even parking on a footway (bad as it is) is nowhere near as
> dangerous as cycling along it, as I know you will agree.
>

So to what do you attribute the c70 pedestrian deaths a year caused by
motor vehicles on pavements and the c40 a year on pedestrian crossings then?

--
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]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Drivers,
> whether of cars,vans, buses or lorries, simply do not drive along
> footways and you and everyone else knows it.

Except of course, like cyclists, under tightly defined circumstances.

The most common circumstance being, natutally, when they need to.

 

[Tony Raven]

David Hansen wrote on 09/07/2006 23:10 +0100:
> 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.
>
>

Either that or its a Harrier jump lorry ;-)

--
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]

JNugent wrote on 09/07/2006 23:19 +0100:
>
> 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.

And as I'm sure you'll agree, unlawful as cycling on the pavement might
be, its not a good reason for any pedestrian to try to knock them off,
as you previously suggested in the negative.


--
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]

Tom Crispin wrote on 10/07/2006 07:04 +0100:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:19:15 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> I don't suppose there is a single judge or magistrate in the country
> who would find a cyclist guilty of cycling on the footway for
> diverting around that truck. Any policeman who nicked a cyclist in
> such circumstances would be an idiot.

Indeed, under ACPO guidance you would almost certainly win any case.
The provision there of a cycle lane is evidence that the local
government thinks cycling on the road there is intimidating for cyclists
and Govenment and ACPO guidance say that cycling on the pavement in such
circumstances is perfectly acceptable and should not be prosecuted.
Even an incompetent lawyer would win that one.

--
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:

> JNugent wrote on 09/07/2006 22:53 +0100:

>> 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?

> But they still manage to kill 280 times as many people when doing it.

....except that they they don't do it.

To claim that motor vehicles are driven along footways like bikes is the
most appalling nonsense - and you and all the others who try to claim it
know that.

Any collisions which occur between pedestrians and motor vehicles on
"footways" must happen mainly at footway crossings (FWIW, I don't think
that the priorities at cross-overs are properly understood) or as a result
of losing control and mounting the footway. I suspect that "failure to
accord precedence" at carriageway pedestrian crossings are added in there -
and that accidents allegedly caused by pedestrians diverting onto the
carriageway around parked vehicles are also being added in. The idea that
motor vehicles are being driven along footways into pedestrians would be
laughable id the suggestion were not so outrageous. Of all the vehicles
that are supposed to travel on the carriageway, it's only bikes that travel
along the footway.

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:
> JNugent wrote on 09/07/2006 22:53 +0100:
>
>>
>> When will the bike-riders ever realise that driving on the footway is
>> per se simply not illegal?

> So you are saying that RoSPA were campaigning for people not to cross
> the pavement to park on their drive? That's a novel interpretation that
> goes with you world view that cars land vertically on the pavement when
> they park there.

I am certain that they are not campaigning against cars being driven along
the "pavement" like bikes, because it simply doesn't happen and RoSPA would
not dream of wasting their money and effort tilting at such windmill.

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:
> JNugent wrote on 09/07/2006 22:55 +0100:
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> Life is too short. The local cycle campaign has been trying for years
> to get the police to act on a clear transgression that occurs every day
> with recorded evidence. The police, Councillors and MP know. Nothing
> has happened. Maybe JohnB with a local campaign running will have more
> success.

I wish him all the success in the world in his campaign against motor
vehicles being driven along the footway like bikes.

I think he must have been quite successful already.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote on 09/07/2006 22:53 +0100:
>
>>> 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?
>
>> But they still manage to kill 280 times as many people when doing it.
>
> ...except that they they don't do it.
>
> To claim that motor vehicles are driven along footways like bikes is
> the most appalling nonsense - and you and all the others who try to
> claim it know that.
>
> Any collisions which occur between pedestrians and motor vehicles on
> "footways" must happen mainly at footway crossings (FWIW, I don't
> think that the priorities at cross-overs are properly understood) or
> as a result of losing control and mounting the footway. I suspect
> that "failure to accord precedence" at carriageway pedestrian
> crossings are added in there - and that accidents allegedly caused by
> pedestrians diverting onto the carriageway around parked vehicles are
> also being added in. The idea that motor vehicles are being driven
> along footways into pedestrians would be laughable id the suggestion
> were not so outrageous. Of all the vehicles that are supposed to
> travel on the carriageway, it's only bikes that travel along the
> footway.

The ostrich tries to find the bottom of the sand.

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:

> JNugent wrote on 09/07/2006 23:03 +0100:

>> Even parking on a footway (bad as it is) is nowhere near as dangerous
>> as cycling along it, as I know you will agree.

> So to what do you attribute the c70 pedestrian deaths a year caused by
> motor vehicles on pavements and the c40 a year on pedestrian crossings
> then?

I'd want to know how such highly suspect "figures" were calculated in
respect of the footways - because the higher numbers quoted (even as
compared with pedestrian-crossing offences) seems ludicrously astronomical,
given that motor vehicles are not driven along the footway like bikes. As a
pedestrian (which I am most of the time), I have never in all of my many
years encountered or been threatened by a motor vehicle being driven along
the footway, but it happens several times a week with bikes (several times
an hour in Central London).

I readily accept that there is far too much failure to accord pedestrian
precedence on pedestrian crossings, by the drivers of motor vehicles as
well as by bike-riders. I am puzzled by the claim that fewer deaths are
claimed in such circumstances than in the non-existent circumstances of
motor-vehicles being "driven along the pavement". Something is very wrong
with those figures or very wrong with the way in which you are interpreting
the terms.

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:

> JNugent said:

>>Drivers,
>>whether of cars,vans, buses or lorries, simply do not drive along
>>footways and you and everyone else knows it.

> Except of course, like cyclists, under tightly defined circumstances.
> The most common circumstance being, natutally, when they need to.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. I always distinguish driving
along footways and across footways. Motor vehicles driven by me do one of
those things every day and never do the other one. I never see any other
motor vehicles driven along footways either. But it appears to be such a
common event according to some posters that - barring a hallucinogenic
explanation - there must be some video footage of it, surely?