Cyclists win police court battle!

[JNugent]

Marc Brett wrote:

> 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.

So all those footway cyclists are blind drunk, are they? You live and learn.

That was a description of a part of the actions of a drunk driver who was
obviously not in control of his vehicle (as the rest of the context makes
clear).

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:

> 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"

The phrase "driving along" is being misinterpreted (and is in any case a
suspect description of what a blind drunk driver may have been doing).

Unless it is your "point" that all cyclists travelling along the footway
are drunk all the time - or alternatively/additionally, that most drivers
are blind drunk most of the time, what relevance can you possibly imagine
the story has as to whether it is alright for cyclists to ride their bikes
along the footway?

>> 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."

Are you claiming that this blind drunk driver was in proper control of his
vehicle and capable of the required standard of driving?

If so, you will no doubt be thinking of campaigning for an end to
breathalyser laws, which you must think are very oppressive.

Don't expect much support from sensible people.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, John B wrote:
>JNugent wrote:
>
>> 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.

He could be both, and (one hopes) lying about being a driver.

 

[Marc Brett]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:47:32 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>Marc Brett wrote:

>> "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.
>
>So all those footway cyclists are blind drunk, are they? You live and learn.

You may be on to something. When I did a cycling tour of Ireland, one of the
locals told me I'd be safe on the roads, as all the motorists figure that
cyclists are drunkards who have lost their license and give them a wide berth(!)
I never had any near misses there.

>That was a description of a part of the actions of a drunk driver who was
>obviously not in control of his vehicle (as the rest of the context makes
>clear).

How do you "squeeze a car through a gap between a concrete lamp post and a wall"
accidentally? He was clearly in control.

 

[John B]

JNugent wrote:

> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>
> > 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".

When I read it it seems to clearly state:
"Jackson was later seen driving along the pavement of Willow Lane..."

Funny its not in the version you read.

> A terrible thing. But not an example of "driving along the footway and very
> far from it".
>
> Keep it up.

Are you going for Troll of the Year or are you just exceptionnalyy thick?

John B

 

[JNugent]

Alan Braggins wrote:

> John B wrote:
>>JNugent wrote:

>>>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.

> He could be both, and (one hopes) lying about being a driver.

So many people with such vivid imaginations...

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
John B said:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 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".
>
> When I read it it seems to clearly state:
> "Jackson was later seen driving along the pavement of Willow Lane..."
>
> Funny its not in the version you read.
>
>> A terrible thing. But not an example of "driving along the footway
>> and very far from it".
>>
>> Keep it up.
>
> Are you going for Troll of the Year or are you just exceptionnalyy
> thick?

Are those two mutually exclusive?

 

[JNugent]

Marc Brett wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:47:32 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Marc Brett wrote:

>>>"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.

>>So all those footway cyclists are blind drunk, are they? You live and learn.

> You may be on to something. When I did a cycling tour of Ireland, one of the
> locals told me I'd be safe on the roads, as all the motorists figure that
> cyclists are drunkards who have lost their license and give them a wide berth(!)
> I never had any near misses there.

>>That was a description of a part of the actions of a drunk driver who was
>>obviously not in control of his vehicle (as the rest of the context makes
>>clear).

> How do you "squeeze a car through a gap between a concrete lamp post and a wall"
> accidentally? He was clearly in control.

Not at all necessarily. The world of accident reporting abounds with such
tales.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Alan Braggins wrote:
>
>> John B wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>
>> He could be both, and (one hopes) lying about being a driver.
>
> So many people with such vivid imaginations...

None more so that the sole inhabitant of Nugentworld.

 

[JNugent]

John B wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>>Tony Raven wrote:

>>>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".

> When I read it it seems to clearly state:
> "Jackson was later seen driving along the pavement of Willow Lane..."

> Funny its not in the version you read.

>>A terrible thing. But not an example of "driving along the footway and very
>>far from it".

>>Keep it up.

> Are you going for Troll of the Year or are you just exceptionnalyy thick?

Which bit of "three times over the drink-driving limit" is failing to
register with you?

Are you insisting that he was fit to be in control of a vehicle and/or that
he was in control of it? Are you insisting that he was in control of the
vehicle when it mounted the kerb?

Are you trying to claim that anything about the case informs everyday
road-use or that it has anything (sensible and relevant) to say about it?

Or are you trying to say that any of the disgraceful actions of that
criminally-drunk driver justify cyclists riding on the footway?

 

[Tony Raven]

John B wrote on 10/07/2006 12:13 +0100:
>
> JNugent wrote:
>
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 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".
>
> When I read it it seems to clearly state:
> "Jackson was later seen driving along the pavement of Willow Lane..."
>
> Funny its not in the version you read.
>

John, as JNugent has expounded at length, it doesn't mean what it says
as is obvious to any JNugent that reads it. As for the rest of the
world that reads it as it is written, well, we're just outrageously thick.


--
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:
> John B wrote on 10/07/2006 12:13 +0100:
>
>>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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".
>>
>>
>> When I read it it seems to clearly state:
>> "Jackson was later seen driving along the pavement of Willow Lane..."
>>
>> Funny its not in the version you read.
>>
>
> John, as JNugent has expounded at length, it doesn't mean what it says
> as is obvious to any JNugent that reads it. As for the rest of the
> world that reads it as it is written, well, we're just outrageously thick.

You know your own business best.

Even if it transpired that that drunk driver *was* intentionally "driving
along the footway" as a productive part of his journey (which it plainly
was not), how would that justify cycling along the footway?

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote on 10/07/2006 12:36 +0100:
>
> Even if it transpired that that drunk driver *was* intentionally
> "driving along the footway" as a productive part of his journey (which
> it plainly was not), how would that justify cycling along the footway?

We're not discussing cycling on the footway in this sub-thread but the
death and injury caused by motor vehicles to pedestrians on the footway
and whether motor vehicles driving along the footway actually occurs.
Your stance seems to be that it doesn't and whenever someone has written
"driving along the pavement" they didn't actually mean "driving along
the pavement" but "lost control and mounted the kerb" or somesuch
despite plenty of accounts, court cases and details of the measures
councils have had to take to stop people "driving on the pavement"

--
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:
> John B wrote:
>> Are you going for Troll of the Year or are you just exceptionnalyy
>> thick?
>
> Which bit of "three times over the drink-driving limit" is failing to
> register with you?

Where does it say he was drunk? The only references I can find are to the
fact that he had excessive alcohol in his blood and had been using cocaine.

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> Even if it transpired that that drunk driver *was* intentionally
>> "driving along the footway" as a productive part of his journey (which
>> it plainly was not), how would that justify cycling along the footway?

> We're not discussing cycling on the footway in this sub-thread but the
> death and injury caused by motor vehicles to pedestrians on the footway
> and whether motor vehicles driving along the footway actually occurs.
> Your stance seems to be that it doesn't and whenever someone has written
> "driving along the pavement" they didn't actually mean "driving along
> the pavement" but "lost control and mounted the kerb"

That's correct. That's what your desperate "example" was.

> or somesuch
> despite plenty of accounts, court cases

One court case, which did not address the issue in any way.

> and details of the measures
> councils have had to take to stop people "driving on the pavement"

The issue has never - despite the efforts of some to misrepresent it - been
"driving on the footway". It is "driving *along* the footway. And just to
be clear, that means driving - or, rather more likely, riding - along the
footway as a productive part of the journey and not as part of either end
of the journey (eg, as part of a parking manoeuvre, where moving a vehicle
- whether a motor vehicle or a bike- on the footway is perfectly lawful).
You know... like cyclists *intentionally* ride *along* the footway.

Cue more attempts at diversion and/or subject-changing.

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>>John B wrote:
>>
>>>Are you going for Troll of the Year or are you just exceptionnalyy
>>>thick?
>>
>>Which bit of "three times over the drink-driving limit" is failing to
>>register with you?
>
>
> Where does it say he was drunk? The only references I can find are to the
> fact that he had excessive alcohol in his blood and had been using cocaine.

I've always admired the way you can introduce a note of levity just at the
right moment.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> In news:[email protected],
>> JNugent said:
>>
>>> John B wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you going for Troll of the Year or are you just exceptionnalyy
>>>> thick?
>>>
>>> Which bit of "three times over the drink-driving limit" is failing
>>> to register with you?
>>
>>
>> Where does it say he was drunk? The only references I can find are
>> to the fact that he had excessive alcohol in his blood and had been
>> using cocaine.
>
> I've always admired the way you can introduce a note of levity just
> at the right moment.

So you accept that he was not necessarily under the influence of drink or
drugs?

 

[Simon Jester]

X-No-Archive:yes


> John B wrote:

> Oh FFS. You do like flogging a dead horse.


Somebody once descibed these car-vs-bike threads as
"A group of people jumping up and down on a greasy
spot on the floor that used to be a dead horse"

 

[Mike Sales]

----- Original Message -----
From: "JNugent"

> 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".
>

I don't quite grasp why motorists put so much importance on this
distinction. If a driver is so incompetent that he cannot make his car go
where it should, then whereabouts he intended to drive it is not really very
relevant to anything . If he cannot stay on the road then he is driving on
the bloody pavement.
The fact is that the danger motorists inflict on us is not confined to
the roadway. Motorists use the pavement as an emergency extension to the
road often enough to kill many more pedestrians than cyclists do.

Mike Sales

 

[JNugent]

Mike Sales wrote:

> From: "JNugent"

>>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".

> I don't quite grasp why motorists put so much importance on this
> distinction.

Because it is fundamental. Offences have to be knowingly and deliberately
committed. What one does whilst one is unconscious or during a heart attack
is a different question.

> If a driver is so incompetent that he cannot make his car go
> where it should, then whereabouts he intended to drive it is not really very
> relevant to anything.

Exactly. That is why there is a law against driving whilst under the
influence of (too much) alcohol.

> If he cannot stay on the road then he is driving on
> the bloody pavement.

Think about that one.

> The fact is that the danger motorists inflict on us is not confined to
> the roadway.

Of course it isn't. No-one has ever claimed that it is.

> Motorists use the pavement as an emergency extension to the
> road often enough to kill many more pedestrians than cyclists do.

That's where we part company. I don't accept that drivers deliberately
drive (at travelling speed) along the footway. Neither do you, really,
because you know it isn't true.

Now, does that mean that motor vehicles aren't dangerous? No.

Does it mean that drivers aren't under a duty to do all that they can to
retain control? No.

But even if it were, by some miracle, possible to produce an example of a
driver driving along a footway at (say) 30mph - just supposing - would it
make it alright for cyclists to ride their bikes along the footway?

Put the other way, does the indisputable fact that far too many cyclists
ride their bikes on the footway (I've seen several doing it today, BTW, and
probably, so have you) make it OK for drivers of cars to do the same?