Cyclists win police court battle!

[Mark Thompson]

> About 20 - 25 mph?

I'm shagged after a short trip at 20mph, 20mph is evens in a time trial if
you can keep it up!

Your average sort of cyclist is a variation on a trundly. On road the fast
ones do up to 17, fastish 15, but most in the 10-12mph bracket. Pavement
cyclists always seem slower than road cyclists.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> "It" is a vehicle being driven at normal road speed along a footway.
>
> Bikes - frequent.
>
> Cars/vans/lorries, etc - vanishingly rare to never (not even in the
> example quoted).

"Normal" road speeds? Don't be silly. "It" should be vehicles driven
along the footway, FULL STOP. You have not previously excused people
riding their bicycles slowly on the footway, why excuse them now?

I think you need to think whether a bicycle can be ridden on the
pavement/shared use path safely, then change your slighly bizarre position,
which seems to say 'pavement cycling produces carnage, er, shared use is
fine thobut'

 

[John B]

JNugent wrote:

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

The police are taking the matter of driving along pavements seriously.
They will be visiting the driver concerned, along with several others who have also
been witnessed driving along pavements in the area.

John B

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:

> JNugent wrote on 11/07/2006 20:05 +0100:
>> Tony Raven wrote:

>>>> That, of course - as you know full well - is not "it".
>>>> "It" is a vehicle being driven at normal road speed along a footway.

>> Is a bike not a vehicle?

> Bicycles are not driven despite you attempt to claim it meant bicycles
> all along.

I had already acknowledged that I should have added the word "ridden", so
that is not a point.

>>>> I don't accept that drivers deliberately drive (at travelling speed)
>>>> along the footway.

>> And what's more, no-one else does either.

> FSVO no-one that excludes the many people here who have repeatedly told
> you of observing exactly that, Steve Bosman being the latest example of
> what you continue to deny

Cars, vans or lorries being driven at 30mph along the footway?

Come off it

>> No... many of those will be "out of control" incidents, or the result
>> of drunken driving like the "celebrated case" that someone fondly
>> imagined would prove that drivers drive along footways like cyclists.

> So "drivers" in your definition excludes any driver that drives on the
> pavement illegally or kills pedestrians on the pavement?

Of course it doesn't, in principle. But it would certainly exclude anything
not directly comparable to a cyclist making normal-speed progress along the
highway, but using the footway instead of the carriageway.

I know that is too awkward for you to accept (since it blows your support
for selfish yobs riding bikes on the footway out of the water), but surely
it isn't too difficult for you to *understand*?

Perhaps it is...

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:58:56 +0100, Simon Hobson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [Snip - loads of daft ideas]
>
>
>>Yep, since us motorists have to put up with all this, I don't see why
>>cyclists shouldn'd have to !
>
>
> And wheelchair users? And micro scooter users? And skaters? And
> pedestrians?
>
> Where does it stop?

Just after cyclists.

The statement of the PP was clear.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:

> Cars, vans or lorries being driven at 30mph along the footway?

You're the only one who makes reference to speed.

Unless otherwise signposted or designated to that effect, there is a total
prohibition on driving motor vehicles along footways. Speed is irrelevant.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> Perhaps you'd prefer the question phrased as: "What gives the average
> cyclist the impression that it's OK to endanger pedestrians by illegally
> riding on the footway?".

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

 

[JNugent]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:05:58 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>If a driver drives *along* the footway (at any speed),
>
>
> for any distance?
>
>
>>that would not meet
>>and has not met with any support from me.

I couldn't flat-footedly support the word "any" - some driveways and other
footway crossings are not at 90 degrees to the footway, for instance. There
may be examples of them being parallel. It's a situation where one would
instinctively be able to recognise the rights and wrong of the situation
when it was seen.

The comparator is bikes being ridden by yobs along the footway. If a motor
vehicle was driven in that manner, I would condemn it. I would expect
anybody to condemn it, just like footway cycling (along the footway).

 

[JNugent]

Mark Thompson wrote:
>>About 20 - 25 mph?
>
>
> I'm shagged after a short trip at 20mph, 20mph is evens in a time trial if
> you can keep it up!
>
> Your average sort of cyclist is a variation on a trundly. On road the fast
> ones do up to 17, fastish 15, but most in the 10-12mph bracket. Pavement
> cyclists always seem slower than road cyclists.

OK, I'm not as good as you are at estimating the speed of a bike ridden by
selfish yob along a footway.

That doesn't make the selfish yob's actions acceptable.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:

> The comparator is bikes being ridden by yobs along the footway.

Is everyone who rides a bicycle along the footpath a "yob"?

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Mark Thompson wrote:
>>> About 20 - 25 mph?
>>
>>
>> I'm shagged after a short trip at 20mph, 20mph is evens in a time
>> trial if you can keep it up!
>>
>> Your average sort of cyclist is a variation on a trundly. On road
>> the fast ones do up to 17, fastish 15, but most in the 10-12mph
>> bracket. Pavement cyclists always seem slower than road cyclists.
>
> OK, I'm not as good as you are at estimating the speed of a bike
> ridden by selfish yob along a footway.
>
> That doesn't make the selfish yob's actions acceptable.

Is everyone who rides a bicycle along a footpath a "yob"?

 

[JNugent]

Mark Thompson wrote:

>>"It" is a vehicle being driven at normal road speed along a footway.
>>
>>Bikes - frequent.
>>
>>Cars/vans/lorries, etc - vanishingly rare to never (not even in the
>>example quoted).
>
>
> "Normal" road speeds? Don't be silly. "It" should be vehicles driven
> along the footway, FULL STOP. You have not previously excused people
> riding their bicycles slowly on the footway, why excuse them now?

> I think you need to think whether a bicycle can be ridden on the
> pavement/shared use path safely, then change your slighly bizarre position,
> which seems to say 'pavement cycling produces carnage, er, shared use is
> fine thobut'

I do not say that "shared use" is OK and have been at pains to point out
that I don't agree with it. IMHO, it is most definitely *not* "fine", and
is a PC-imposed "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist. Bikes, like
motor vehicles, should be used on the carriageway only, and their
excursions onto the footway should be limited to footway crossings into
private premises, etc. Pedestrians should be able to feel safe on the
footway and not to have to come into conflict with any vehicle (subject to
the point about footway crossings for access to private premises).

 

[JNugent]

John B wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>>John B wrote:

>>>>>>>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.

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

> The police are taking the matter of driving along pavements seriously.
> They will be visiting the driver concerned, along with several others who have also
> been witnessed driving along pavements in the area.

Let us know if it ever comes to anything.

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote on 12/07/2006 09:20 +0100:
>
>> FSVO no-one that excludes the many people here who have repeatedly
>> told you of observing exactly that, Steve Bosman being the latest
>> example of what you continue to deny
>
> Cars, vans or lorries being driven at 30mph along the footway?
>
> Come off it
>

You've reintroduced your 30mph criterion again. Make your mind up. One
minute its only cars driven at 30mph on the pavement that count then the
next you are saying any speed until someone produces an example when
suddenly 30mph pops back up.

Forgetting for a moment the speed at which they do it, do you or do you
not accept that cars, vans and lorries are driven along the footway?

--
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:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>
>>Cars, vans or lorries being driven at 30mph along the footway?
>
>
> You're the only one who makes reference to speed.
>
> Unless otherwise signposted or designated to that effect, there is a total
> prohibition on driving motor vehicles along footways. Speed is irrelevant.

The same for bikes. Doesn't seem to stop the yobs.

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>
>>The comparator is bikes being ridden by yobs along the footway.
>
>
> Is everyone who rides a bicycle along the footpath a "yob"?

I think it's a good description. Other words could be as descriptive but no
more complimentary.

 

[Adrian]

Tony Raven ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

> Forgetting for a moment the speed at which they do it, do you or do you
> not accept that cars, vans and lorries are driven along the footway?

I do not accept it.

I presume you're now going to pop up and raise the issue of vehicles
crossing the footway to driveways etc, and parking on the footway. That is,
as I'm sure you're perfectly well aware, a very different kettle of fish
from routinely travelling along the footway - whatever the mode of
transport.

FWIW, I don't use shared-use cycle-footways whilst cycling, because I
bloody hate them as a ped. They're a stupid idea, utterly counterproductive
in that they utterly reinforce completely the wrong message, in exactly the
same way as focussing entirely on "Speed Kills" does.
Bad Driving Kills, regardless of the speed.
Cycles should be on the road, and if a small minority of drivers don't like
it, they should be educated not pandered to.

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:

> JNugent wrote on 12/07/2006 09:20 +0100:

>>> FSVO no-one that excludes the many people here who have repeatedly
>>> told you of observing exactly that, Steve Bosman being the latest
>>> example of what you continue to deny

>> Cars, vans or lorries being driven at 30mph along the footway?

>> Come off it

> You've reintroduced your 30mph criterion again. Make your mind up.

It isn't a criterion. It's an example. It is meant to distinguish making
normal progress along a footway (like a typical urban cyclist) from
low-speed manoeuvring. The exact speed is not critical - the context is.
But you know this and are simply looking for another nit to pick.

> One
> minute its only cars driven at 30mph on the pavement that count then the
> next you are saying any speed until someone produces an example when
> suddenly 30mph pops back up.

You are reduced to grasping at straws because you cannot either deny the
fact of selfish yobs riding bikes on the footway or justify it.

> Forgetting for a moment the speed at which they do it, do you or do you
> not accept that cars, vans and lorries are driven along the footway?

I assume you are distinguishing "driving along the footway" from low-speed
manoeuvring connected with parking, deliveries, etc, or with footway
crossing at entrances to private land. I've never seen it in a driving
career of something like 750,000 miles.

I have seen it claimed here by people of whom there is reasonable cause to
suspect a bit of a vested interest. Even if they are right (and I accept
that they might be) it's rare - very rare.

Yobs riding bikes on footways is (unfortunately) not rare at all.

 

[Marc Brett]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:27:28 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>Marc Brett wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:05:58 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>If a driver drives *along* the footway (at any speed),
>>
>> for any distance?
>>
>>>that would not meet
>>>and has not met with any support from me.
>
>I couldn't flat-footedly support the word "any" -

Then why be so flat-footed about *any* instance of pavement cycling?

>some driveways and other footway crossings

Give up on the driveway canard; it's getting boring.

>are not at 90 degrees to the footway, for instance. There
>may be examples of them being parallel

Driveways parallel to the pavement!?!?! Do tell us more about life in your part
of the universe!

>The comparator is bikes being ridden by yobs along the footway. If a motor
>vehicle was driven in that manner, I would condemn it. I would expect
>anybody to condemn it, just like footway cycling (along the footway).

But driving slowly along a pavement for just a few yards is A-OK by you, eh?

 

[JNugent]

Mark Thompson wrote:

>>Perhaps you'd prefer the question phrased as: "What gives the average
>>cyclist the impression that it's OK to endanger pedestrians by illegally
>>riding on the footway?".

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

It might be partly to blame (though cyclists used to do it before those
came into being).

"Shared use" is a thoroughly bad idea for various reasons.