Mike Sales wrote:
> "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.
Absolutely.
>>> 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.
You think so?
>>>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.
Accidental or inadvertent behaviour (eg, during loss of control immediately
after an accident or medical emergency) is in a different category from
deliberate actions. Accident and inadvertence can be only imperfectly
legislated against.
> 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.
It won't make any difference to the victim. However, it must make a
difference to the law, when a decision has to be made as to any further
action. Intention is central to notions of justice.
>>Now, does that mean that motor vehicles aren't dangerous? No.
> No kidding?
Unfortunately, there are some posters around who seem to think that any
attack on footway-riding yobs on bikes is some sort of promotion of
dangerous behaviour by other road-users. For some reason.
>>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.
It certainly can do (see above) - but that's a red herring. Just when I
thought you were trying to be constructive as well...
>>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.
Good.
> 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.
I speak on this subject as the pedestrian I am for most of the time.
"Moral turpitude"?
Not bad.
You left out the "Gross".
