Another anti-cycling letter in a local newspaper



Status
Not open for further replies.
"<-- Wide Load -->" <apsw07048<nospam>@blueyonder.co.uk>typed

> No way! You can't tell me that me running into a pedestrian with my bike will kill them.. I've
> heard of cyclists being kicked by horses and dying, but cyclists killing peds?

About 3 per year nationally, actually.

Ride into little old lady who falls and breaks her hip. If she dies within a few weeks of the
incident, this might be deemed to be due to
it.

GET OFF THE PAVEMENT, PLEASE!

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected] Edgware.
 
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 17:02:59 +0100, Daniel Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ah yes I remember that classic well. It was Balkan rules in the Tito Golden Jubilee variant
>> played IIRC in 1995. Mornington Crescent it is then.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>
>Hooray!

Although I've heard of Mornington Crescent, I have no idea what it's all about - I'm a FPS player
myself. Can I just stick with a pair of HE36 "earrings", sans pins? Heh-heh.

Gary

--------------------------------------------------
Reply to gary <at> data <dot> mildenhall <dot> com
--------------------------------------------------
 
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 16:38:08 +0100, "Stephen \(aka steford\)"
<[email protected]> wrote:

...snip...

>But why should someone behind me at a red say, when I go through it, be annoyed. OK if I went
>through and a car comes out from the side street and has to brake, swerve etc then fair enough ( I
>don't do this!!), but the only reason me going through a red would infuriate the car behind me is
>that he can't. Of course he does go through when the lights *just* change to red (probably with 2
>or 3 others). The only thing infuruating to the cars behind in this case is that they didn't make
>it through - no blame of the car drivers themselves as going through reds in those circumstances
>seems to be standard.

Because if you do it, then someone else may do it, then another, then eventually drivers start
ignoring the reds because "everybody else does it", then we have total chaos as people go when they
shouldn't & bail when they could go and you end up with slippery red all over the place instead of
safe driving/cycling/walking.

...snip...

>Not illegal to cycle on pavement I believe although there are various minor laws which could be
>brought into play although not specifically for that. I got told by a copper to get off and push on
>Acton High St the other day with one half of it dug up and not a sole in sight on the pavement. I
>very, very nearly ignored him but thought better of it as there were cops everywhere. It was very
>petty on his part I thought.
>

Most areas have some bylaw or other that prohibits cycling on footpaths. Sometimes the powers that
be forget that when they create cycle paths & ways that also use footpaths that these bylaws do not
apply to them. It causes confusion.

Most of the police I know cycle themselves and know what it can be like so unless it's a
****'ead-on-a-bike or somewhere that could be problematic, they tend to ignore cycles on any paths
round here.

Typical examples - long 8' wide path joining most of the estate round here with the industrial area
- nobody gives a rat's, even though there is a sign citing the no cycling bylaw. Mildenhall high
street, any weekday, if they think nobody is looking, they may kick you into the road.

The difference is that there is a completely clear view on the path but lots of sharp corners & some
alleyways in town. If you go tootlin' up the high street pathway, you are more likely to hit someone
walking around a corner or find a coach making a wider than expected turn out of a narrow side
street and all over your front wheel.

Gary

--------------------------------------------------
Reply to gary <at> data <dot> mildenhall <dot> com
--------------------------------------------------
 
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 18:45:34 +0100, Pyromancer <[email protected]> wrote:

>Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as "Stephen (aka steford)"
><[email protected]> breathed:
>
>>Because I think it's pretty much OK to ride on the pavement in some circumstances, it's not
>>enforced (largely) and I don't consider it hazardous.
>
>Aha - just like all the people in uk.transport who believe speed cameras only exist to raise
>revenue and that speeding is perfectly safe? They tend to use almost exactly the same arguments you
>do, especially the "I don't consider it hazardous" one.

Aah, but they're right, didn't ya know. It is perfectly safe to drive at any speed you want on the
road. The rest of us are supposed to work out in advance where and how fast Mr. Tosspot is going to
be driving so we can avoid inconveniencing him by having to be picked out of the grillework later.

I keep hearing about how the militant minority are going around smashing up the cameras because
they're just a government revenue device. Okay. If that's all they are, maybe they should stop
driving like "Unpleasant Persons" and deny the government their £££. If they don't speed, they can't
get charged.

Gary

--------------------------------------------------
Reply to gary <at> data <dot> mildenhall <dot> com
--------------------------------------------------
 
"Gary Sinnott" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

>
> Typical examples - long 8' wide path joining most of the estate round here with the industrial
> area - nobody gives a rat's, even though there is a sign citing the no cycling bylaw.

Assuming this provides a useful short cut, this sounds like a classic example of where shared use
does make sense.

I am sure we all know of examples of paths and cuts that have no cycling signs (typically signed by
the Town Clerk in 1923) which could, usefully and reasonably safely be converted to dual use (which
would probably only reflect the actual status quo.

T
 
"Gary Sinnott" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:p[email protected]...

snip

>
> I keep hearing about how the militant minority are going around smashing up the cameras because
> they're just a government revenue device. Okay. If that's all they are, maybe they should stop
> driving like "Unpleasant Persons" and deny the government their £££. If they don't speed, they
> can't get charged.

Err -- could you run that argument past me one more time? I'm sorry, I don't understand the concept
'don't speed'.

Tosspot
 
Gary Sinnott wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 18:45:34 +0100, Pyromancer <[email protected]> wrote:
:
>>
>>> Because I think it's pretty much OK to ride on the pavement in some circumstances, it's not
>>> enforced (largely) and I don't consider it hazardous.
>>
>> Aha - just like all the people in uk.transport who believe speed cameras only exist to raise
>> revenue and that speeding is perfectly safe? They tend to use almost exactly the same arguments
>> you do, especially the "I don't consider it hazardous" one.
>
> Aah, but they're right, didn't ya know. It is perfectly safe to drive at any speed you want on
> the road. The rest of us are supposed to work out in advance where and how fast Mr. Tosspot is
> going to be driving so we can avoid inconveniencing him by having to be picked out of the
> grillework later.

And of course it is perfectly safe to cycle at any speed you want on the pavement. The rest of us
are supposed to work out in advance where and how fast Mr Soap is going to be cycling so we can
avoid inconveniencing him by having to be picked up off the ground later.

pk
 
"<-- Wide Load --> @blueyonder.co.uk>" <apsw07048<removespam> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> OK, Thanks, Will endevour not to **** people off.

Bottom posted in plain text - well done!

A small extract from the proto-faq, offered in the spirit of friendship:

Etiquette and style
-------------------
This is a text-only newsgroup: please do not post HTML, MIME or binaries to this group. Most servers
won't carry binary content anyway. If you use Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express be aware that by
default it does or encourages three things which seriously irritate many people:

- html / MIME posting
- top posting
- untrimmed quoting

In general when you are replying you should trim from the quoted text anything which is irrlevant to
the point you are making, and any signatures. You should reply below the text to which you are
replying, using a standard quote delimiter (> is the most common).

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/writing-style/part1/ is worth a read.

Test messages (to see if your newsreader / server are working) should go to uk.test or your ISP's
tech support group.
 
Roos Eisma wrote:

> One reason is that statistics by definition apply to large groups and not to individuals. I can
> accept that statistics show that in the NL separate bike lanes have more accidents than cycling on
> the road, but these numbers are averaged over all types of cyclists and all sorts of roads. If I
> apply it to me and my situation the odds may be somewhat different (probably not hugely different,
> but then we're not talking an enormous difference).

Would a fair summary be you have to assess each situation individually to some extent? I think
that's right too, and will be found using cycle paths where they add to my idea of safety. However,
the main point I'm trying to get across is you can't just take a blanket assumption that the roads
*are* dangerous and that pavements *are* safe (or even saf*er*). While statistics can be misleading
in individual cases if you take a blanket conclusion, taking the blanket conclusion and reversing it
isn't too clever either!

> And there is the non-rational element of enjoyment. If the odds are not hugely different (like it
> is very safe to do one thing and very dangerous to do another) I make choices based on all sorts
> of reasons. I like cycling on separate lanes better. I like the view from the Riverside bikepath.
> I may not be in a hurry. Safety is just one of the factors.

Also true, and certainly why I use the Riverside path (I *especially* like the slow detour past the
hotel gym so I can regally wave to the folk sweating on indoor machines from the comfort of the
'bent). However, given a typical road and a pavement right next to it with the same view I'll
usually be on the road. Still exceptions: I'd use the A9 bike path through Drumochter, for example,
unencumbered with side roads and much pedestrian traffic etc. that the A9 is. And lets not forget
that a primary reason given for pavement use in this general exchange wasn't non-rational elements,
but very specifically safety.

> For my previous commute I chose the longer route because it was so much more scenic and enjoyable,
> and safety didn't play a large role. I probably was less safe on those dark narrow country lanes
> than I would have been on the little bikepath next to the dual carriageway (and possibly on the
> dual carriageway itself?).

The bike path from Tayport to the bridge is a good case in point of enjoyment vs. speed and safety.
The track has a much poorer surface and some "interesting" wee corners, plus a gate or two. And
people walking dogs along it. It's nice for a trundly meander, but it doesn't make enough sense on a
commute type run for me to use it rather than the good, fast road.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"Roos Eisma" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Tony W" <[email protected]> writes:

> statistics by definition apply to large groups and not to individuals.

Not all statistics - for example, it is statistically certain that riding on the pavement is illegal
for 100% of cyclists 100% of the time, unless the pavement has been designated as a cycle lane ;-)

> Being less concentrated between intersections, and slowing down and being extra alert at
> intersections fits my type of cycling better than staying continuously alert on the road.

But the danger at junctions in pedestrian mode is an order of magnitude greater, which makes the
level of concentration moot.

> Or, more recently: I may be riding a 'bent which I don't have fully under control yet, so I may
> feel safer staying away from traffic on a separate lane, and walking intersections. (and I agree
> that perceived safety isn't always the same as objective safety)

I would never ride my recumbent on the pavement - that chainring would cause major damage to any
hapless ped who stepped out in front of me, and the 'bent is even less manouevrable than a wedgie.
Recumbents are definitely much better on the road, and you get extra space due to the "WTF?" factor.

> And tonight I will have a drink though statistics tell me that it's safer not to :)

Make it red wine and the stats will be in your favour ;-)

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Not all statistics - for example, it is statistically certain that riding
on
> the pavement is illegal for 100% of cyclists 100% of the time, unless the pavement has been
> designated as a cycle lane ;-)

Or you are a child.

T
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message | I would never ride my
recumbent on the pavement - that chainring would cause
| major damage to any hapless ped who stepped out in front of me, and the 'bent is even less
| manouevrable than a wedgie. Recumbents are definitely much better on the road, and you get extra
| space due to the "WTF?" factor.

'WTF factor' Liked that one, funny.. ;D
 
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message | I think you now need to tell us
which part of the West of Scotland
| you are referring to.

You won't come round and kick my head in will you?
 
" <-- Wide Load --> wrote:

> OK, Thanks, Will endevour not to **** people off.

You have access to a time machine?

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>>I think you now need to tell us which part of the West of Scotland you are referring to.

> SmithWorld (TM)?

I realise it's a surreal enough place that east may be west (well, fast is slow, after all), but
Inverness and environs on the west of Scotland takes some interesting continental drift
possibilities to organise!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> I would never ride my recumbent on the pavement - that chainring would cause major damage to any
> hapless ped who stepped out in front of me

The Streetmachine does have a chainwheel guard, so at least you wouldn't be perforated, but even so
I wouldn't like to get hit by it. Closest call to a nasty accident I've had was doing about 25 mph
down into the back of town and a ped stepped off the pavement in front of me[1] without looking.
Lucky I wasn't hugging the kerb... *Inches* to spare when I'd swerved, I'd say, and if I'd hit him
I'd have had some pretty horrible gravel rash. But I'd think it would have been quite likely I'd
have broken a few things on him, at least.

Pete.

[1] probably someone who no amount of facts could have persuaded he wasn't completely safe at
crossing roads. After all, *I* missed him...

--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.