Cyclists win police court battle!

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote on 10/07/2006 09:35 +0100:
>
> 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.

A hell of a lot of presumptions there, many of which are clearly wrong
and the rest have no evidence to support them. They are pedestrians
killed on the footway by motor vehicles (not including pedestrian
crossings which are not footways). Either the motor vehicles were
driving along the footway or failing to give way crossing the footway or
on the footway through a loss of control. Either way, even if you
assume that none of them drove on the footway, they still managed to
kill 280 times as many pedestrians on the footway as the cyclist you
accuse of deliberately cycling there (assuming they were not crossing
the footway too). That makes it even worse as the deliberate act of
cyclists is 280 less risk to pedestrians than the unintended
consequences of driving a motor vehicle.

--
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 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.

Only in immediate self-defence or immediate defence of one's family, as I'm
sure you will agree. Cyclists ought to be aware of the right of
self-defence by vulnerable pedestrians.

I am heartened that you agree that whatever drivers do (or are imagined to
be capable of doing) that is no justification for cycling along the
footway. We are making progress.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> 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.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo041111/text/41111w26.htm

Scrolling down the page will show a table of FPNs issued for cycling and
driving on the pavement during 1999 and 2000.

The totals are;

Cycling on the footpath
1999, 665
2000, 821

Driving on the footpath
1999, 377
2000, 788

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:
> JNugent wrote on 10/07/2006 09:35 +0100:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> A hell of a lot of presumptions there, many of which are clearly wrong
> and the rest have no evidence to support them.

Quote one of the "presumptions" you say is written above. There's a query
about very odd figures, a suspicion that the figures are being
mis-interpreted (which you have now managed to amplify) and a dismissal of
one of the possible causes (claimed by you as the major cause) on the basis
that it simply doesn't happen.

Not a "presumption" to be found. Not unless extrapolation of traffic
conditions in the South East of England - and London in particular) is
somehow wrong (and I don't think it is).

> They are pedestrians
> killed on the footway by motor vehicles (not including pedestrian
> crossings which are not footways). Either the motor vehicles were
> driving along the footway or failing to give way crossing the footway or
> on the footway through a loss of control.

Each of the claimed deaths must result from one of those. And it isn't the
first, as you well know, but seem to want to imply.

> Either way, even if you
> assume that none of them drove on the footway, they still managed to
> kill 280 times as many pedestrians on the footway as the cyclist you
> accuse of deliberately cycling there (assuming they were not crossing
> the footway too). That makes it even worse as the deliberate act of
> cyclists is 280 less risk to pedestrians than the unintended
> consequences of driving a motor vehicle.

Do learn to distinguish the consequences of intentional actions and
non-intentional actions.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> 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?

Which is an adequate demonstration of your view of the world.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> 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.

What makes you so certain that motor vehicles are not driven along
footpaths?

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote on 10/07/2006 09:36 +0100:

>
> 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.

I never knew you were the CEO of RoSPA. Well you learn something every
day. Pity you use such sloppy language in your policy statements such
as "driving on the pavement" when what you really meant was "not driving
on the pavement" or "pulling into your drive"

And as you say it never happens anyway and these people are delusional:
http://www.80mg.org.uk/jackson.html
http://tinyurl.com/h7l66
http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/index.asp?pgid=1615&mtype=print
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/G239
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/have_your_say/archive/tram_debate_07.shtml
http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/transport/roads/road_maintenance/pavement/parking_on_pavements.htm
http://www.mini-roundabout.com/calming/bovey.htm

Such delusional gems as:
" We had to put posts alongside the humps in Sonning to stop cars
driving along the pavement to minimise the impact of the humps."

"Of particular concern was the fact that cars were mounting and driving
along the pavement at times when children were being escorted to and
from school. The placing of bollards along a stretch of Mersey Road has
hopefully stopped this unacceptable practice."

"Jackson was later seen driving along the pavement of Willow Lane, where
the four women were walking. He squeezed the car through a gap between a
concrete lamp post and a wall before ploughing into them." (he killed
three of them by the way)

So there we have it, it never happens.

--
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]

Brimstone wrote:

> JNugent said:
>>Tony Raven wrote:
>>>JNugent wrote on 09/07/2006 22:55 +0100:
>>>>Tony Raven 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.

>>>>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.

> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo041111/text/41111w26.htm
> Scrolling down the page will show a table of FPNs issued for cycling and
> driving on the pavement during 1999 and 2000.
> The totals are;
> Cycling on the footpath
> 1999, 665
> 2000, 821
> Driving on the footpath
> 1999, 377
> 2000, 788

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?

I remember... oooh... thirty+ years ago, a good friend of mine, ever since
primary school, who was (and still is) a keen motor-cyclist, was reported
and summonsed for "riding on the footway" and he pleaded guilty by letter
and convicted (with a trivial fine imposed). His offence was scooting his
bike (with the engine running but in neutral and with him straddling the
machine) out from the off-road area in which he garaged it across a very
wide footway onto a main road. There was no "dropped kerb" or similar, and
therein lay his offence.

Was he doing wrong? Yes.

Was it dangerous? No more than it would have been had there been a dropped
kerb there (there were no peds around, save for the beat copper who as
approaching - unusually on foot - from some fifty yards away and who
signalled to him to stop).

Was he riding along the footway? No.

Was he riding on the footway? Yes.

Was this any more remarkable than similar actions by drivers reversing in
and out of their garages all the way along that same road (it is lined with
semis)? No.

But he got his fine and paid up.

No doubt it is still on the stats, as are similar actions today. And I have
no doubt that some choose to interpret that as though it were driving long
the footway.

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Tony Raven:
> So there we have it, it never happens.

From the recent report on the fatal accident during the DD on Sunday
morning:

"The reason the van had mounted the kerb was because he was attempting
to steer around us."


--
Mark, UK
"I've noticed that the press tends to be quite accurate, except when
they're writing on a subject I know something about."

 

[Huge]

On 2006-07-10, Tony Raven <[email protected]> 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.
>

Glad to see that cyclists numeracy skills are right up there with
their ability to compose a logical argument.

--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>>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.

> What makes you so certain that motor vehicles are not driven along
> footpaths?

The fact that I have never seen it, not in thirty-five-plus years of
driving - amounting to a figure approaching three-quarters of a million
miles - in all sorts of urban, suburban and rural driving miles as well as
in fifty-plus years as a pedestrian.

But I frequently see bikes being ridden along footways - even here, right
past my house in this village, every day.

My experiences (OK the mileage is relatively high) are normal. There are
some people (including some in this thread) who are attempting deceit, by
pretending that any action of a motor vehicle on a footway is equivalent to
driving along it.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:

>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo041111/text/41111w26.htm
>> Scrolling down the page will show a table of FPNs issued for cycling
>> and driving on the pavement during 1999 and 2000.
>> The totals are;
>> Cycling on the footpath
>> 1999, 665
>> 2000, 821
>> Driving on the footpath
>> 1999, 377
>> 2000, 788
>
> 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?
>
> I remember... oooh... thirty+ years ago, a good friend of mine, ever
> since primary school, who was (and still is) a keen motor-cyclist,
> was reported and summonsed for "riding on the footway" and he pleaded
> guilty by letter and convicted (with a trivial fine imposed). His
> offence was scooting his bike (with the engine running but in neutral
> and with him straddling the machine) out from the off-road area in
> which he garaged it across a very wide footway onto a main road.
> There was no "dropped kerb" or similar, and therein lay his offence.
>
> Was he doing wrong? Yes.
>
> Was it dangerous? No more than it would have been had there been a
> dropped kerb there (there were no peds around, save for the beat
> copper who as approaching - unusually on foot - from some fifty yards
> away and who signalled to him to stop).
>
> Was he riding along the footway? No.
>
> Was he riding on the footway? Yes.
>
> Was this any more remarkable than similar actions by drivers
> reversing in and out of their garages all the way along that same
> road (it is lined with semis)? No.
>
> But he got his fine and paid up.
>
> No doubt it is still on the stats, as are similar actions today. And
> I have no doubt that some choose to interpret that as though it were
> driving long the footway.

Keep going, you'll find the bottom of the sand eventually.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:

>> What makes you so certain that motor vehicles are not driven along
>> footpaths?
>
> The fact that I have never seen it, not in thirty-five-plus years of
> driving

So because you've never noticed someone do something it never happens?

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote on 10/07/2006 10:01 +0100:

>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> A hell of a lot of presumptions there, many of which are clearly wrong
>> and the rest have no evidence to support them.
>
> Quote one of the "presumptions" you say is written above. There's a
> query about very odd figures, a suspicion that the figures are being
> mis-interpreted (which you have now managed to amplify) and a dismissal
> of one of the possible causes (claimed by you as the major cause) on the
> basis that it simply doesn't happen.
>

The presumption that the collection of STATS19 data is so poorly managed
that the police don't know the difference between a footway, road and
pedestrian crossing. The presumption that any collisions _must_ happen
at footway crossings. The presumption that vehicles drive along the
footway is outrageously laughable (see below and other post with list of
examples of such an outrageously laughable thing actually occurring).....

>
> Each of the claimed deaths must result from one of those. And it isn't
> the first, as you well know, but seem to want to imply.

Here's just one example of where it is from the first, although I
suspect even a conviction for killing three people while driving along
the pavement will be sufficient to convince you it happens.
http://www.80mg.org.uk/jackson.html

>
> > Either way, even if you
>> assume that none of them drove on the footway, they still managed to
>> kill 280 times as many pedestrians on the footway as the cyclist you
>> accuse of deliberately cycling there (assuming they were not crossing
>> the footway too). That makes it even worse as the deliberate act of
>> cyclists is 280 less risk to pedestrians than the unintended
>> consequences of driving a motor vehicle.
>
> Do learn to distinguish the consequences of intentional actions and
> non-intentional actions.

And in the one intentional act above, a motorist achieved a death toll
it would take cyclists 12 years to match.


--
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]

Brimstone wrote:

> JNugent said:
>>Brimstone wrote:

>>>What makes you so certain that motor vehicles are not driven along
>>>footpaths?

>>The fact that I have never seen it, not in thirty-five-plus years of
>>driving

> So because you've never noticed someone do something it never happens?

I have absolutely no reason to even start to suspect that my everyday
experiences over that time are in any way different to those of the vast
majority - and other posts by those without an axe to grind support that.
If I saw motor vehicles being driven along the footway I would say so. I
can't think what advantage you imagine I would gain from denying the truth.

Perhaps in some extreme examples of urban sub-culture that I rarely or
never encounter (Tyneside council estates or Tayside grouse-shooting
country, for example), things are different. But I doubt even that.

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:

> JNugent wrote on 10/07/2006 10:01 +0100:

>>>> 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.

>>> A hell of a lot of presumptions there, many of which are clearly
>>> wrong and the rest have no evidence to support them.

>> Quote one of the "presumptions" you say is written above. There's a
>> query about very odd figures, a suspicion that the figures are being
>> mis-interpreted (which you have now managed to amplify) and a
>> dismissal of one of the possible causes (claimed by you as the major
>> cause) on the basis that it simply doesn't happen.

> The presumption that the collection of STATS19 data is so poorly managed
> that the police don't know the difference between a footway, road and
> pedestrian crossing. The presumption that any collisions _must_ happen
> at footway crossings. The presumption that vehicles drive along the
> footway is outrageously laughable

I agree. It's what I've been saying all along.

> (see below and other post with list of
> examples of such an outrageously laughable thing actually occurring).....

>> Each of the claimed deaths must result from one of those. And it isn't
>> the first, as you well know, but seem to want to imply.

> Here's just one example of where it is from the first, although I
> suspect even a conviction for killing three people while driving along
> the pavement will be sufficient to convince you it happens.
> http://www.80mg.org.uk/jackson.html

The report is of a driver losing control and mounting the kerb while
several times over the alcohol limit. There is no suggestion at all that he
was "driving along the footway".

As an "argument" on your part, that is *totally pathetic*.

Who (in their right minds) defends such drivers?

Certainly not I.

But he was not driving along the footway like a cyclist - as he?

>>> Either way, even if you
>>> assume that none of them drove on the footway, they still managed to
>>> kill 280 times as many pedestrians on the footway as the cyclist you
>>> accuse of deliberately cycling there (assuming they were not crossing
>>> the footway too). That makes it even worse as the deliberate act of
>>> cyclists is 280 less risk to pedestrians than the unintended
>>> consequences of driving a motor vehicle.

>> Do learn to distinguish the consequences of intentional actions and
>> non-intentional actions.

> And in the one intentional act above, a motorist achieved a death toll
> it would take cyclists 12 years to match.

There is not a single word in the report you cited (the most important
lines of which I have reproduced below) to suggest that the driver did what
he did intentionally - so you are totally wrong yet again.

STARTQUOTE:
A car dealer who killed three women pedestrians when he ploughed into them
while three times over the drink-driving limit was jailed for eight years
yesterday.

[ ... ]

Jackson was initially charged with three counts of manslaughter. That was
reduced to death by dangerous driving, which carries a maximum 10-year
sentence. Bradford Crown Court heard how his three-litre BMW mounted a
pavement before hitting four women who were walking home from a night out.
ENDQUOTE

A terrible thing. But not an example of "driving along the footway and very
far from it". Your claim is as bad as Hansen's, much earlier in the thread.

Keep it up.

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote on 10/07/2006 10:26 +0100:
>
>> Such delusional gems as: " We had to put posts alongside the humps
>> in Sonning to stop cars driving along the pavement to minimise the
>> impact of the humps."
>
> I don't excuse such behaviour. I am glad that the engineering methods
> discourage it.

Discourage what? You say it never happens so why would you excuse
behaviour and encourage engineering methods to prevent what never
happens from happening?

>
>> "Of particular concern was the fact that cars were mounting and
>> driving along the pavement at times when children were being
>> escorted to and from school. The placing of bollards along a
>> stretch of Mersey Road has hopefully stopped this unacceptable
>> practice."
>
> Parking (mums waiting for their children). And you know it. Trying to
> pretend that they are driving along the footway is absolutely
> pathetic.

Which bit of "driving along the footway" did you not understand. Hint:
"along" is not the same as "onto" or "across"

>
>> "Jackson was later seen driving along the pavement of Willow Lane,
>> where the four women were walking. He squeezed the car through a
>> gap between a concrete lamp post and a wall before ploughing into
>> them." (he killed three of them by the way)
>
> That sounds like a classic loss of control situation. Drink-driving?
> Certainly an accident. Care to post the whole context?

So being seen driving along the pavement, squeezing between a wall and a
lamp post and then hitting and killing pedestrians on the pavement is
not "driving along a pavement" but "losing control while driving on the
road and mounting the pavement"? I can see why we are having
difficulty. In Nugentworld driving along a pavement does not happen by
definition.

>
> Cue even more attempts to prove the untrue...

I am content to let others judge the truth now we seem to have got to
the bottom of the problem.



--
Tony

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

 

[Marc Brett]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:40:19 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:


>There is not a single word in the report you cited (the most important
>lines of which I have reproduced below) to suggest that the driver did what
>he did intentionally - so you are totally wrong yet again.

Perhaps you missed this:

"Jackson was later seen driving along the pavement of Willow Lane, where the
four women were walking. He squeezed the car through a gap between a concrete
lamp post and a wall before ploughing into them. "

Sounds identical to the actions of a pavement cyclist, except for the death
toll.

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote on 10/07/2006 10:40 +0100:
>
> The report is of a driver losing control and mounting the kerb while
> several times over the alcohol limit. There is no suggestion at all that
> he was "driving along the footway".
>
> As an "argument" on your part, that is *totally pathetic*.
>

I'm sorry, the sentence in the report that "Jackson was later seen
driving along the pavement of Willow Lane" got me all confused into
thinking it suggested "Jackson was later seen driving along the pavement
of Willow Lane" rather than "Jackson lost control and his car mounted
the kerb". Silly me! I should have known it suggested no such thing as
"Jackson was later seen driving along the pavement of Willow Lane"

>
> There is not a single word in the report you cited (the most important
> lines of which I have reproduced below) to suggest that the driver did
> what he did intentionally - so you are totally wrong yet again.
>

You forgot "Jackson was later seen driving along the pavement of Willow
Lane, where the four women were walking. He squeezed the car through a
gap between a concrete lamp post and a wall before ploughing into them."

--
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 10/07/2006 10:26 +0100:

>>> Such delusional gems as: " We had to put posts alongside the humps
>>> in Sonning to stop cars driving along the pavement to minimise the
>>> impact of the humps."

>> I don't excuse such behaviour. I am glad that the engineering methods
>> discourage it.

> Discourage what?

Minimising the impact of humps.

Keep up...

> You say it never happens so why would you excuse
> behaviour and encourage engineering methods to prevent what never
> happens from happening?

A predictable response from you. Driving along the footway means rather
more than moving upon it - doesn't it?

>>> "Of particular concern was the fact that cars were mounting and
>>> driving along the pavement at times when children were being
>>> escorted to and from school. The placing of bollards along a
>>> stretch of Mersey Road has hopefully stopped this unacceptable
>>> practice."

>> Parking (mums waiting for their children). And you know it. Trying to
>> pretend that they are driving along the footway is absolutely
>> pathetic.

> Which bit of "driving along the footway" did you not understand. Hint:
> "along" is not the same as "onto" or "across"

I know that (and never tire of emphasising it). Apparently, you know that.
It seems that some authors may not know it. When a vehicle is parked fully
or partly on a footway (which is lawfully allowed in some places), that
necessarily entails some movement on the footway. Sometimes that is along
the footway, sometimes across it (especially in typical grass-bounded
suburban main roads). Neither can be described as "driving along the
footway" - except by fanatics with a grudge.

FWIW, I recommend significant latitude for mums picking up their children
at school (providing that no vehicle is actually blocked in or blocked
out). The rest of us simply have to put up with the short period of
congestion. We all know it makes sense (even if some prefer not to admit that).

>>> "Jackson was later seen driving along the pavement of Willow Lane,
>>> where the four women were walking. He squeezed the car through a
>>> gap between a concrete lamp post and a wall before ploughing into
>>> them." (he killed three of them by the way)

>> That sounds like a classic loss of control situation. Drink-driving?
>> Certainly an accident. Care to post the whole context?

> So being seen driving along the pavement, squeezing between a wall and a
> lamp post and then hitting and killing pedestrians on the pavement is
> not "driving along a pavement" but "losing control while driving on the
> road and mounting the pavement"?

That's right, and the context of the full article (I posted my suggestions
before I had a chance to read it - but the implications were absolutely
obvious) supports that 100% - as you well know.

> I can see why we are having difficulty. In Nugentworld driving
> along a pavement does not happen by definition.

It *could* happen (after all, bikes are ridden along footways), but it
simply doesn't, for various reasons. Mounting a kerb on losing control is
not "driving along a footway". Neither is parking on the footway. "Driving
along the footway" means making progress along the footway as part of the
journey and not at either end of the journey" - you know, in the manner of
a cyclist.

Additionally, I understand there are laws against driving when drunk,
possibly in an attempt to minimise instances of lost control.

>> Cue even more attempts to prove the untrue...

> I am content to let others judge the truth now we seem to have got to
> the bottom of the problem

....which is that some prefer to fabricate "evidence" to the effect that a
drunk driver who loses control and mounts the kerb was "driving along the
footway" in the manner of a cyclist.

Still, you've been corrected now.