Cyclists win police court battle!

[Brimstone]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

Who said anything about the speed of the offending vehicles?

BTW - non-travelling speed is zero. HTH

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>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.

> Who said anything about the speed of the offending vehicles?

I did.

It's what too many cyclists do on the footway - travel along at their
chosen normal journey speed, just as if they were entitled to do it.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> 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.
>
>> Who said anything about the speed of the offending vehicles?
>
> I did.
>
> It's what too many cyclists do on the footway - travel along at their
> chosen normal journey speed, just as if they were entitled to do it.

Ah, thank you clarifying the fact that it was just another attempt at a
diversion.

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>>Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>>"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>>Who said anything about the speed of the offending vehicles?
>>
>>I did.
>>
>>It's what too many cyclists do on the footway - travel along at their
>>chosen normal journey speed, just as if they were entitled to do it.
>
>
> Ah, thank you clarifying the fact that it was just another attempt at a
> diversion.

Trying to distract attention from footway cycling certainly would be a
diversion. No matter what lengths some have gone to, nothing justifies it -
does it?

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:

> Trying to distract attention from footway cycling certainly would be a
> diversion. No matter what lengths some have gone to, nothing
> justifies it - does it?

I trust you take pride in your ability to twist and turn to avoid answering
the point, your tutor surely would.

 

[Mike Sales]

"JNugent" wrote in message
> 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.

I notice you look at the event ( motorist hits ped. on pavement ) from one
side, I expect you are right to do so.
>
> > 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.

Interesting offence to choose.
>
> > 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.

Where did that deliberately come from. My point was that it doesn't really
matter whether the driver did it deliberately or not. From some points of
view. Obviously not yours.
>
> Now, does that mean that motor vehicles aren't dangerous? No.

No kidding?

>
> 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?

I get it, "driving" stops when you leave the road.

> 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?

Here I agree with you a bit, for the first time. I may well dislike pavement
riders more than you. I make a point of riding legally. I dislike cycle
paths much more than motorists do. I say this to establish my own position
on this road.
I've been cycling for a long time and I have seen many changes in normal
behaviour, from cars and bikes. I would suggest that the changes have been
brought about by the increasing volume of traffic, or rather, motorised
trafffic. You may perhaps blame an epidemic of moral turpitude amongst
cyclits. As I keep saying, you do have a rather narrow view through your
windscreen.
Mike Sales

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:

> JNugent said:

>>Trying to distract attention from footway cycling certainly would be a
>>diversion. No matter what lengths some have gone to, nothing
>>justifies it - does it?

> I trust you take pride in your ability to twist and turn to avoid answering
> the point, your tutor surely would.

Eh?

What "point"?

What "twists and turns"?

I thought I was the one asking the question: "what gives the average
cyclist the impression that it's OK to endanger pedestrians by riding on
the footway?".

 

[DavidR]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Do learn to distinguish the consequences of intentional actions and
> non-intentional actions.

Do learn to apply your own logic.
Motor vehicles never function without intention.

 

[JNugent]

DavidR wrote:

> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote

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

> Do learn to apply your own logic.
> Motor vehicles never function without intention.

....except when the driver is ill, or dead, or under the influence of
alcohol, or under the influence of drugs, you mean?

[I assume you didn't mean to anthropomorphise machines.]

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote on 11/07/2006 00:09 +0100:
>
> I thought I was the one asking the question: "what gives the average
> cyclist the impression that it's OK to endanger pedestrians by riding on
> the footway?".

And not answering the question, what gives the average motorist the
impression that it is OK to kill 70 pedestrians a year on the footway
and another 40 on pedestrian crossings through failing to pay proper
attention, and keep control and breaking the law while driving on the
roads (and pavements)? Lets start with the bloody big beam in your eye
before we deal with the mote in the cyclist's eye. Remember motorists
kill 280 times as many pedestrians on the pavement as cyclists do.

--
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 11/07/2006 00:09 +0100:

>> I thought I was the one asking the question: "what gives the average
>> cyclist the impression that it's OK to endanger pedestrians by riding
>> on the footway?".

> And not answering the question, what gives the average motorist the
> impression that it is OK to kill 70 pedestrians a year on the footway
> and another 40 on pedestrian crossings through failing to pay proper
> attention, and keep control and breaking the law while driving on the
> roads (and pavements)?

Absolutely *nothing*, as far as I know. All those things are very wrong and
should never happen. No-one is seeking to justify them for any reason.
Sometimes (by no means all the time) there is an explanation which is
non-criminal, but that does not mean that any of it is right.

Now... about my question...

What gives the average cyclist the impression that it's OK to endanger
pedestrians by riding on the footway?

Is the answer:

A. "absolutely *nothing*, as far as I know - cycling on the footway wrong
and should never happen", or

B. "cyclists can do just as they effing-well like", or

C. [insert alternative issue-dodging "answer" of choice]?

> Lets start with the bloody big beam in your eye
> before we deal with the mote in the cyclist's eye.

Absolutely no need. Any driver driving along the footway is doing something
terrible. No-one has ever denied that. And no amount of reckless, selfish
endangerment of pedestrians by yobbish footway cyclists (sorry about the
tautology) could ever be taken to justify any road injuries or deaths
involving motor vehicles.

Is that clear enough?

Now... about *my* question...

 

[Steve Bosman]

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?

If you were to make enough journeys on new john street west in
birmingham
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.s...=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf
for long enough you would eventually (on a busy day) see someone mount
the kerb drive along the path and drop back down onto hospital street -
it doesn't happen very often (and not as often as cyclists riding like
nutters on pavements), but it does happen.

Steve

 

[JNugent]

Steve Bosman 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?

> If you were to make enough journeys on new john street west in
> birmingham
> http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.s...=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf
> for long enough you would eventually (on a busy day) see someone mount
> the kerb drive along the path and drop back down onto hospital street -
> it doesn't happen very often (and not as often as cyclists riding like
> nutters on pavements), but it does happen.

I appreciate your point. I accept that one will occasionally see low-speed
mounting of the kerb (eg, to get round an obstruction like a refuse-lorry).
And of course, I drive across the footway outside my house dozens of times
a week (as does every other member of the household). When bikes do those
things as well, I have no complaint (why should I?).

But these things are not the comparator, which is straightforward
travelling along the footway at normal speeds as though the footway were a
cycle track. That is unique to bikes, though you'd never guess it from the
antics of some.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Steve Bosman 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?
>
>> If you were to make enough journeys on new john street west in
>> birmingham
>> http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.s...=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf
>> for long enough you would eventually (on a busy day) see someone
>> mount the kerb drive along the path and drop back down onto hospital
>> street - it doesn't happen very often (and not as often as cyclists
>> riding like nutters on pavements), but it does happen.
>
> I appreciate your point. I accept that one will occasionally see
> low-speed mounting of the kerb (eg, to get round an obstruction like
> a refuse-lorry). And of course, I drive across the footway outside my
> house dozens of times a week (as does every other member of the
> household). When bikes do those things as well, I have no complaint
> (why should I?).
> But these things are not the comparator, which is straightforward
> travelling along the footway at normal speeds as though the footway
> were a cycle track. That is unique to bikes, though you'd never guess
> it from the antics of some.

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

Scrolling down that 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]

Brimstone wrote:

> JNugent said:
>>Steve Bosman 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?

>>>If you were to make enough journeys on new john street west in
>>>birmingham
>>>http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.s...=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf
>>>for long enough you would eventually (on a busy day) see someone
>>>mount the kerb drive along the path and drop back down onto hospital
>>>street - it doesn't happen very often (and not as often as cyclists
>>>riding like nutters on pavements), but it does happen.

>>I appreciate your point. I accept that one will occasionally see
>>low-speed mounting of the kerb (eg, to get round an obstruction like
>>a refuse-lorry). And of course, I drive across the footway outside my
>>house dozens of times a week (as does every other member of the
>>household). When bikes do those things as well, I have no complaint
>>(why should I?).
>>But these things are not the comparator, which is straightforward
>>travelling along the footway at normal speeds as though the footway
>>were a cycle track. That is unique to bikes, though you'd never guess
>>it from the antics of some.

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

There is a massive disclaimer attached to those figures (big enough to make
them more or less meaningless):

" Caroline Flint: The regular collection of data on fixed penalties for
motoring offences does not identify separately offences peculiar to driving
a motor vehicle on a footpath (section 72 of the Highways Act 1835), from
other motoring offences of neglect of pedestrian rights."

Many of those tickets will therefore have been for parking on, or partly
on, the footway (which, of course, I do not condone). It's a safe bet that
none of them will have been for driving along the footway like a cyclist.

But you knew that.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>
>> JNugent said:
>>> Steve Bosman 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?
>
>>>> If you were to make enough journeys on new john street west in
>>>> birmingham
>>>> http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.s...=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf
>>>> for long enough you would eventually (on a busy day) see someone
>>>> mount the kerb drive along the path and drop back down onto
>>>> hospital street - it doesn't happen very often (and not as often
>>>> as cyclists riding like nutters on pavements), but it does happen.
>
>>> I appreciate your point. I accept that one will occasionally see
>>> low-speed mounting of the kerb (eg, to get round an obstruction like
>>> a refuse-lorry). And of course, I drive across the footway outside
>>> my house dozens of times a week (as does every other member of the
>>> household). When bikes do those things as well, I have no complaint
>>> (why should I?).
>>> But these things are not the comparator, which is straightforward
>>> travelling along the footway at normal speeds as though the footway
>>> were a cycle track. That is unique to bikes, though you'd never
>>> guess it from the antics of some.
>
>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo041111/text/41111w26.htm
>> Scrolling down that 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
>
> There is a massive disclaimer attached to those figures (big enough
> to make them more or less meaningless):
>
> " Caroline Flint: The regular collection of data on fixed penalties
> for motoring offences does not identify separately offences peculiar
> to driving a motor vehicle on a footpath (section 72 of the Highways
> Act 1835), from other motoring offences of neglect of pedestrian
> rights."
> Many of those tickets will therefore have been for parking on, or
> partly on, the footway (which, of course, I do not condone). It's a
> safe bet that none of them will have been for driving along the
> footway like a cyclist.

Your firm, unassailable evidence being?

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>>Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JNugent said:
>>>
>>>>Steve Bosman 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?
>>
>>>>>If you were to make enough journeys on new john street west in
>>>>>birmingham
>>>>>http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.s...=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf
>>>>>for long enough you would eventually (on a busy day) see someone
>>>>>mount the kerb drive along the path and drop back down onto
>>>>>hospital street - it doesn't happen very often (and not as often
>>>>>as cyclists riding like nutters on pavements), but it does happen.
>>
>>>>I appreciate your point. I accept that one will occasionally see
>>>>low-speed mounting of the kerb (eg, to get round an obstruction like
>>>>a refuse-lorry). And of course, I drive across the footway outside
>>>>my house dozens of times a week (as does every other member of the
>>>>household). When bikes do those things as well, I have no complaint
>>>>(why should I?).
>>>>But these things are not the comparator, which is straightforward
>>>>travelling along the footway at normal speeds as though the footway
>>>>were a cycle track. That is unique to bikes, though you'd never
>>>>guess it from the antics of some.
>>
>>>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo041111/text/41111w26.htm
>>>Scrolling down that 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

>>There is a massive disclaimer attached to those figures (big enough
>>to make them more or less meaningless):

>>" Caroline Flint: The regular collection of data on fixed penalties
>>for motoring offences does not identify separately offences peculiar
>>to driving a motor vehicle on a footpath (section 72 of the Highways
>>Act 1835), from other motoring offences of neglect of pedestrian
>>rights."
>>Many of those tickets will therefore have been for parking on, or
>>partly on, the footway (which, of course, I do not condone). It's a
>>safe bet that none of them will have been for driving along the
>>footway like a cyclist.

> Your firm, unassailable evidence being?

....the fact that the minister cannot say they were for anything else and is
careful to make the point that she doesn't know (any more than you do) what
they were issued for. She also (very correctly) uses the word "on" and not
the word "along".

None of what you quoted is evidence of anyone having driven a motor vehicle
along a footway like a cyclist.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> What gives the average cyclist the impression that it's OK to endanger
> pedestrians by riding on the footway?

The same thing that gives the average driver the impresson that it's ok to
endanger people by driving along the road? The same thing that gives the
average cyclist the impresson that it's ok to endanger people by cycling
along the road? The same thing that gives the average cyclist the
impresson that it's ok to endanger people by cycling along a shared use
path?

 

[Steve Bosman]

JNugent wrote:
> Steve Bosman wrote:
>
> > If you were to make enough journeys on new john street west in
> > birmingham
> > http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.s...=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf
> > for long enough you would eventually (on a busy day) see someone mount
> > the kerb drive along the path and drop back down onto hospital street -
> > it doesn't happen very often (and not as often as cyclists riding like
> > nutters on pavements), but it does happen.
>
> I appreciate your point. I accept that one will occasionally see low-speed
> mounting of the kerb (eg, to get round an obstruction like a refuse-lorry).

Yes I do that more often than I would like when starting a
afternoon+evening support shift since my leaving seems to clash on a
Tuesday with the bin men, but what I see is IMO far more serious since
it involves driving fully onto the pavement and then round a corner
(past a safety barrier) and then back onto another road.

> And of course, I drive across the footway outside my house dozens of times
> a week (as does every other member of the household). When bikes do those
> things as well, I have no complaint (why should I?).

Naturally

> But these things are not the comparator, which is straightforward
> travelling along the footway at normal speeds as though the footway were a
> cycle track. That is unique to bikes, though you'd never guess it from the
> antics of some.

It was the absolutist stance of your statement I was objecting to
['Since "driving along the pavement" is simply never seen (if, indeed,
it were possible), your "statistic" is self-evidently nonsense - isn't
it?' ] since in my example I would say fully mounting the pavement and
driving for approximately 100 metres is "driving along the pavement" -
the distances involved aren't the same as your average pavement riding
cyclist, but the illegality is. I accept the car drivers are definitely
not doing normal speeds my guess would be somewhere in the 5-10mph
region.

Steve

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote on 11/07/2006 08:43 +0100:
>
> > Lets start with the bloody big beam in your eye
>> before we deal with the mote in the cyclist's eye.
>
> Absolutely no need. Any driver driving along the footway is doing
> something terrible. No-one has ever denied that. And no amount of
> reckless, selfish endangerment of pedestrians by yobbish footway
> cyclists (sorry about the tautology) could ever be taken to justify any
> road injuries or deaths involving motor vehicles.
>
> Is that clear enough?
>

Re-read it. I wasn't talking about motorists driving *along* the
pavement, just motorists driving who manage to kill 70 pedestrians on
the footway and another 40 on pedestrian crossings. Once you can tell
me what motorists plan to do to reduce the 3,500 people a year killed by
them to a more acceptable number I might start to think about what
cyclists should do about the cyclists that kill 2 or 3 people a year.

Is that clear enough?


--
Tony

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