As forcing cyclists off the pavement results in many extra deaths
each year why are the government fining cyclists for cycling on the
pavement?
Would be it possible to charge the government with murder?
UK and Europe · Public discussion
Why fine cyclists for cycling on the pavement?
Thread navigation
Jump through the discussion
Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.
Thread details
What we know about this thread
- Original section
- UK and Europe
- Published
- 27 January 2008
- Last activity
- 27 February 2008
- Original author
- Lord Turkey Cough
- Posts
- 183
- Discussion status
- Public discussion
- Total views
- 4,352
- Views / 30 days
- 0
The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.
-
-
Mr Cough said:
As forcing cyclists off the pavement results in many extra deaths
each year why are the government fining cyclists for cycling on the
pavement?Cycling in the road is safer than on the pavement, and forcing cyclists
to cycle in the road will result in fewer deaths. Of course you knew
that already.Quoted message said:
Would be it possible to charge the government with murder?
Only if they bring in a mandatory helmet law for cyclists.
-
"Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Mr Cough said:
As forcing cyclists off the pavement results in many extra deaths
each year why are the government fining cyclists for cycling on the
pavement?Cycling in the road is safer than on the pavement, and forcing cyclists to
cycle in the road will result in fewer deaths. Of course you knew that
already.No I didn't you liar.
Where are your figures.
How many cyclists were killed on the pavement last year.
How many were killed on the roads?You are wrong Of course you knew that already.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Would be it possible to charge the government with murder?
Only if they bring in a mandatory helmet law for cyclists.
-
Lord Turkey Cough said:
As forcing cyclists off the pavement results in many extra deaths
each year why are the government fining cyclists for cycling on the
pavement?To rob them, what else?
Quoted message said:
Would be it possible to charge the government with murder?
They've been getting away with it for years, so I doubt it.
-
"Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Mr Cough said:
As forcing cyclists off the pavement results in many extra deaths
each year why are the government fining cyclists for cycling on the
pavement?Cycling in the road is safer than on the pavement, and forcing cyclists to
cycle in the road will result in fewer deaths. Of course you knew that
already.146 cyclists killed on the roads last year.
0 cyclists killed on pavements.
0 pedestrians killed by cyclists on pavements.
(approximate figures as the government do not make the data available,
as it is afraid of the truth getting out).
146 unnecesary deaths."Oi! Get off the pavement and get yourself killed!!!
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Would be it possible to charge the government with murder?
Only if they bring in a mandatory helmet law for cyclists.
-
Monsieur Cough said:
"Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Mr Cough said:
As forcing cyclists off the pavement results in many extra deaths
each year why are the government fining cyclists for cycling on the
pavement?
Cycling in the road is safer than on the pavement, and forcing cyclists to
cycle in the road will result in fewer deaths. Of course you knew that
already.146 cyclists killed on the roads last year.
If this is the 2006 data then,
12 in single accident collisions, one killed by another cyclist,
Quoted message said:
0 cyclists killed on pavements.
But how many of those killed in the road, were killed because they had
just been cycling on the footpath, and rode out into the path of a motor
vehicle?Quoted message said:
0 pedestrians killed by cyclists on pavements.
3 Pedestrians killed by cyclists, 600 pedestrians killed by motorists.
Quoted message said:
(approximate figures as the government do not make the data available,
as it is afraid of the truth getting out).
146 unnecesary deaths.Last years data is not due out till september.
Quoted message said:
"Oi! Get off the pavement and get yourself killed!!!
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Would be it possible to charge the government with murder?
Only if they bring in a mandatory helmet law for cyclists. -
Lord Turkey Cough said:
"Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Mr Cough said:
As forcing cyclists off the pavement results in many extra deaths
each year why are the government fining cyclists for cycling on the
pavement?Cycling in the road is safer than on the pavement, and forcing
cyclists to cycle in the road will result in fewer deaths. Of course
you knew that already.146 cyclists killed on the roads last year.
0 cyclists killed on pavements.
0 pedestrians killed by cyclists on pavements.This link makes a mockery of your stats.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm
If you got that one wrong, how can anyone trust your other quoted stats? -
"Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Monsieur Cough said:
"Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Mr Cough wrote:
> As forcing cyclists off the pavement results in many extra deaths
> each year why are the government fining cyclists for cycling on the
> pavement?
Cycling in the road is safer than on the pavement, and forcing cyclists
to cycle in the road will result in fewer deaths. Of course you knew
that already.146 cyclists killed on the roads last year.
If this is the 2006 data then,
12 in single accident collisions, one killed by another cyclist,
Quoted message said:
0 cyclists killed on pavements.
But how many of those killed in the road, were killed because they had
just been cycling on the footpath, and rode out into the path of a motor
vehicle?Very few I would imagine.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
0 pedestrians killed by cyclists on pavements.
3 Pedestrians killed by cyclists, 600 pedestrians killed by motorists.
The pedestrians were on the road so they weer not killed by
cyclists on the pavement.Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
(approximate figures as the government do not make the data available,
as it is afraid of the truth getting out).
146 unnecesary deaths.Last years data is not due out till september.
Quoted message said:
"Oi! Get off the pavement and get yourself killed!!!
Quoted message said:
> Would be it possible to charge the government with murder?
Only if they bring in a mandatory helmet law for cyclists. -
"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Lord Turkey Cough said:
"Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Mr Cough wrote:
> As forcing cyclists off the pavement results in many extra deaths
> each year why are the government fining cyclists for cycling on the
> pavement?Cycling in the road is safer than on the pavement, and forcing
cyclists to cycle in the road will result in fewer deaths. Of course
you knew that already.146 cyclists killed on the roads last year.
0 cyclists killed on pavements.
0 pedestrians killed by cyclists on pavements.This link makes a mockery of your stats.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm
If you got that one wrong, how can anyone trust your other quoted stats?
What did he get wrong? -
"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Lord Turkey Cough said:
"Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Mr Cough wrote:
> As forcing cyclists off the pavement results in many extra deaths
> each year why are the government fining cyclists for cycling on the
> pavement?Cycling in the road is safer than on the pavement, and forcing
cyclists to cycle in the road will result in fewer deaths. Of course
you knew that already.146 cyclists killed on the roads last year.
0 cyclists killed on pavements.
0 pedestrians killed by cyclists on pavements.This link makes a mockery of your stats.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm
If you got that one wrong, how can anyone trust your other quoted stats?No it does not it is the exception which proves the rule, a very rare case
which is why it made the headlines, another pedestrian death would not
not have made the local paper, bar a couple of lines perhaps.Find me one for 2006, and 2005, and 2004.......
And clearly the cyclist on that occasion was mentally ill and it could
not really be called an accident rather a deleberate attempt to cause harm.Quoted message said:
-
Nick said:
"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Lord Turkey Cough said:
"Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Mr Cough wrote:
>> As forcing cyclists off the pavement results in many extra deaths
>> each year why are the government fining cyclists for cycling on
>> the pavement?
>
> Cycling in the road is safer than on the pavement, and forcing
> cyclists to cycle in the road will result in fewer deaths. Of
> course you knew that already.146 cyclists killed on the roads last year.
0 cyclists killed on pavements.
0 pedestrians killed by cyclists on pavements.This link makes a mockery of your stats.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm
If you got that one wrong, how can anyone trust your other quoted
stats? What did he get wrong?A clue.
He said no pedestrians were killed by cyclists on pavements last year.
Peter Messen Killed Gary Green last year when he struck him with the bike he
was riding on the pavement.
That means at least one pedestrian was killed by a cyclist riding on the
pavement.
That's very different to the zero that he claimed. -
"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Nick said:
"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
> "Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> Mr Cough wrote:
>>> As forcing cyclists off the pavement results in many extra deaths
>>> each year why are the government fining cyclists for cycling on
>>> the pavement?
>>
>> Cycling in the road is safer than on the pavement, and forcing
>> cyclists to cycle in the road will result in fewer deaths. Of
>> course you knew that already.
>
>
> 146 cyclists killed on the roads last year.
> 0 cyclists killed on pavements.
> 0 pedestrians killed by cyclists on pavements.This link makes a mockery of your stats.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm
If you got that one wrong, how can anyone trust your other quoted
stats? What did he get wrong?A clue.
He said no pedestrians were killed by cyclists on pavements last year.
Peter Messen Killed Gary Green last year when he struck him with the bike
he was riding on the pavement.
That means at least one pedestrian was killed by a cyclist riding on the
pavement.
That's very different to the zero that he claimed.This was the bit of my claim you carefully omitted:-
(*approximate figures* as the government do not make the data available,
as it is afraid of the truth getting out).Quoted message said:
-
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
|| As forcing cyclists off the pavement results in many extra deaths
|| each year why are the government fining cyclists for cycling on the
|| pavement?Well why not, why should motorists pay for everything? Look on it as a sort
of voluntary tax contribution. Unless you want to ban them from the roads,
that might be even better for them.|| Would be it possible to charge the government with murder?
Nah. They're exempt from any criminal responsibility for their actions.
--
Rob -
"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Nick said:
"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
> "Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> Mr Cough wrote:
>>> As forcing cyclists off the pavement results in many extra deaths
>>> each year why are the government fining cyclists for cycling on
>>> the pavement?
>>
>> Cycling in the road is safer than on the pavement, and forcing
>> cyclists to cycle in the road will result in fewer deaths. Of
>> course you knew that already.
>
>
> 146 cyclists killed on the roads last year.
> 0 cyclists killed on pavements.
> 0 pedestrians killed by cyclists on pavements.This link makes a mockery of your stats.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm
If you got that one wrong, how can anyone trust your other quoted
stats? What did he get wrong?A clue.
He said no pedestrians were killed by cyclists on pavements last year.
Peter Messen Killed Gary Green last year when he struck him with the bike
he was riding on the pavement.
That means at least one pedestrian was killed by a cyclist riding on the
pavement.
That's very different to the zero that he claimed.
Last year was 2007. Messen hit Gary Green on a pavement in the village of
Stenalees in March 2006. -
There are two roads in my home town that I consider so dangerous
because of traffic that I cycle on the pavement. If ever asked to
account for myself in front of a magistrate I would answer stating the
above. I have a duty to stay alive for the sake of my son and my
family - so I make that decision. No doubt he/she would fine me - the
following day I would ride on the same pavement. -
There are two roads in my home town that I consider so dangerous
because of traffic that I cycle on the pavement. If ever asked to
account for myself in front of a magistrate I would answer stating the
above. I have a duty to stay alive for the sake of my son and my
family - so I make that decision. No doubt he/she would fine me - the
following day I would ride on the same pavement. -
citizen142 said:
There are two roads in my home town that I consider so dangerous
because of traffic that I cycle on the pavement. If ever asked to
account for myself in front of a magistrate I would answer stating the
above. I have a duty to stay alive for the sake of my son and my
family - so I make that decision. No doubt he/she would fine me - the
following day I would ride on the same pavement.
Riding on the pavement can cause problems. Surveys has shown that it
does lead to increased accidents to the cyclists when they move off the
pavement on to the road. Often the don't look properly and the cars do
not give them the room they would if they were on the road.Secondly there are always idiots who will ride their bikes too fast and
endanger pedestrians. -
Lord Turkey Cough said:
146 cyclists killed on the roads last year.
0 cyclists killed on pavements.The figures for cyclists killed on the roads includes those who were
crossing a road to get from one pavement to another.Generally it is more dangerous to cross a road in this way than to negotiate
a junction in the normal way when cycling on the roads properly.~PB
-
"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Nick said:
"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...
> Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
>> "Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:[email hidden]...
>>> Mr Cough wrote:
>>>> As forcing cyclists off the pavement results in many extra deaths
>>>> each year why are the government fining cyclists for cycling on
>>>> the pavement?
>>>
>>> Cycling in the road is safer than on the pavement, and forcing
>>> cyclists to cycle in the road will result in fewer deaths. Of
>>> course you knew that already.
>>
>>
>> 146 cyclists killed on the roads last year.
>> 0 cyclists killed on pavements.
>> 0 pedestrians killed by cyclists on pavements.
>
> This link makes a mockery of your stats.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm
> If you got that one wrong, how can anyone trust your other quoted
> stats? What did he get wrong?A clue.
He said no pedestrians were killed by cyclists on pavements last year.
Peter Messen Killed Gary Green last year when he struck him with the bike
he was riding on the pavement.
That means at least one pedestrian was killed by a cyclist riding on the
pavement.
That's very different to the zero that he claimed.
Last year was 2007. Messen hit Gary Green on a pavement in the village of
Stenalees in March 2006.Yes I was just about to say that.
Quoted message said:
-
"Lord Turkey Cough" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:
Lord Turkey Cough said:
146 cyclists killed on the roads last year.
0 cyclists killed on pavements.The figures for cyclists killed on the roads includes those who were
crossing a road to get from one pavement to another.Generally it is more dangerous to cross a road in this way than to
negotiate a junction in the normal way when cycling on the roads
properly.Cyclists have to pass road junctions anyway doinig it on the
road makes no difference. 3/4 of road deatths occur at junctions.
It does appear to be more dangerous from the pavement. This is one of the
major objections cyclists have to pavement cycle paths.
Active in the last 60 minutes
Active in this thread
0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total
No signed-in users are active right now.
No known search crawlers active right now.