Demise of commuting cycling



C

Clive George

Guest
"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Clive George" <[email protected]> writes:
> |> >
> |> > Yes. It was deliberately understated.
> |>
> |> Thank you. Here is my third time of asking. This time I'll be less
> subtle
> |> about it. TELL US WHAT HAPPENED.
> |>
> |> Why are you being so shy? Are you afraid that your account won't meet
> up to
> |> the description you've given of it so far?
> |> As it is you appear like just another usenet kook.
>
> Now will you tell me precisely why I should publish such a report
> on Usenet?


Because you're trying to persuade us that something happened. At the moment
we have "A stagecoach bus deliberately ran me over and the police did
nothing about it". This is a serious allegation, and there's absolutely no
supporting evidence - not even your story. You really need to flesh the
facts behind your story somewhat, otherwise it remains incredible.

I don't mind whether you use your plod report about it, or write a new one.
Or maybe a link to a usenet post where you described the incident when it
first happened. Background on how the plod dealt with the case would be
interesting too. Is the case closed, or are investigations ongoing?

> At the very least, I would have to edit it to remove the names
> and addresses, for legal reasons.


Granted. Not hard, surely?

> Also, you would have no way
> of telling the truth of my statement unless you spoke to those
> witnesses.


It's usenet. I might be harvesting information in order to send out a hit on
you. We'll just have to live with that and trust each other.

> Why don't you publish your Email address? I might consider
> sending a copy by that route if you did.


Take away fsnet, and put in evil-c rather than the x's. I'd prefer to see it
in public though.

clive
 
A

Alan Braggins

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch wrote:
>Nick Maclaren wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Richard <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>>>I've found that drivers give me plenty of space when I look vaguely like
>>>a policeman. Odd, that.

>
>> I also thought of that. I wasn't any more optimistic that the plod
>> would allow it.

>
>There's impersonating, and looking "vaguely like". My dad used to
>commute into London by m/cycle. He found when he has a bike with a
>white fairing and wore a black Belstaff, white helmet and reflective Sam
>Brown he got quite a bit more respect than before...


A friend of a friend (who I spoke to myself, so the chain isn't
actually FOAFOAF...) found the same thing, but was told if he didn't
take the "POLITE" stickers off the panniers when asked nicely he would
charged with impersonating, even if he was polite. So he did.

http://www.niton999.co.uk has a fair amount of stuff that comes with
a choice of "Police" or "Security" badging.
 
R

Richard

Guest
Alan Braggins wrote:

> A friend of a friend (who I spoke to myself, so the chain isn't
> actually FOAFOAF...) found the same thing, but was told if he didn't
> take the "POLITE" stickers off the panniers when asked nicely he would
> charged with impersonating, even if he was polite. So he did.


Veering wildly off-topic, I recall a pulp detective novel where a
(non-police) good guy dressed up as a NY cop in LA, or vice versa, in
order to get a bad guy to come quietly. The bad guy's defence in court
relied in part on the fact that the good guy was dishonest in that he
was impersonating a police officer. The judge threw that defence out
since the supposed cop was out of jurisdiction and therefore it was the
defendant's own fault for going quietly. :cool:

R.
 
R

Robin Stevens

Guest
In cam.transport Negative Mr Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:

> Robin Stevens <[email protected]> writes:
> |> In cam.transport Negative Mr Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
> |>
> |> > Anyway, I am now a car commuter - a BIG car commuter.
> |>
> |> What's wrong with a small car? :)


> You can't get a lot of junk in it, which we sometimes need to do.
> And, because of the conspiracy between the government, the insurance
> companies and the motor industry in the UK, it isn't economically
> feasible to run a small one and hire (or even keep) a large one for
> occasional use.


And of course the Grand Anti-Maclaren conspiracy rules out all other
forms of transport for your commute, naturally.

--
Robin Stevens <[email protected]>
---- http://www.cynic.org.uk/ ----
 
P

Patrick Gosling

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
>I suggest that you reread what I posted. It is a common myth that
>balance is entirely a matter of middle-ear function - it is a
>combination of that, sight and touch. That is what I said.


I'd add joint and muscle proprioception to your three listed contributors.

-patrick.
 
N

Nick Maclaren

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Robin Stevens <[email protected]> wrote:
>In cam.transport Negative Mr Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>And of course the Grand Anti-Maclaren conspiracy rules out all other
>forms of transport for your commute, naturally.


There is no need to be more of a clot than you can help.

I live nearly opposite Scotsdales and work in the centre, and chose
to live there because I could cycle conveniently. Now, you have
all of the timetables, maps etc. at your disposal - YOU tell me a
decent way of getting into work, and returning when I often cannot
control the exact time and often have to do so after 6.15?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
N

Nick Maclaren

Guest
Now that you have come into the open, here is the meat of the report.
I had some further reasons to claim deliberation, but wanted the
police not to be prejudiced against me.

I wish to report case of assault, using a motor vehicle as a weapon.
This involved material damage and actual injury, and there are
witnesses. I have no reason to believe that the intent of the assault
was to injure me, and it was probably merely a case of intimidation that
went wrong. In the past, I have been told to report such things as
accidents, and they will be reclassified as accidents if the evidence
justifies it, but I know that this procedure is not followed.


At about 11.25 on Tuesday 10th September, I was cycling north through
Trumpington at about 15-20 MPH approaching Church Lane. At that point,
there is a dangerously narrow optional cycle lane, where the distance
between the white line and where the metalling falls away into the
gutter is actually less than the distance between my elbows. I was
riding at a safe distance out from the kerb for that speed of riding,
and was therefore riding largely outside it.

I was overtaken with about 2' to spare by a bus which pulled alongside
me, and then pulled sharply left, knocking me over. My bicycle was
damaged in several places, and had its handlebars twisted, my trousers
were damaged irreparably, and I was bruised on my arm and leg and my
foot was cut. My leg was very painful, and it was several days before I
was out of pain.

A motorist and a cyclist stopped to check that I was all right. The
motorist was *** and the cyclist was YYY.

The bus driver did not leave his bus until after I had started to take
the witnesses's details, and initially refused to give his name.
Eventually he said that it was ZZZ and his address was Stagecoach.
He told me that he was within his lane and
I was outside the cycle lane, which is why I am certain that he knew
that his action of pulling left was likely to knock me off my bicycle,
and he did so either recklessly or even deliberately.

I may be contacted at work on 000 from Thursday 19th September
onwards and, if not tied up, can reach Cambridge Police Station in about
10 minutes, so can fit in with available timeslots.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
wafflycat wrote:
>
> I have an additional musing on that. The motorist sees low-trike. Where
> does ye average bod see low trikes? Why, on TV doing the London
> Marathon... the disabled athletes in their racing machines! I reckon
> that, for some at least, they think trike = disabled person.



I would suggest another theory I have which is the more vulnerable you
look the more care they take. I found this when I stopped wearing a
helmet and immediately noticed how much more space and patience drivers
gave me.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
W

wafflycat

Guest
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> wafflycat wrote:
>>
>> I have an additional musing on that. The motorist sees low-trike. Where
>> does ye average bod see low trikes? Why, on TV doing the London
>> Marathon... the disabled athletes in their racing machines! I reckon
>> that, for some at least, they think trike = disabled person.

>
>
> I would suggest another theory I have which is the more vulnerable you
> look the more care they take. I found this when I stopped wearing a
> helmet and immediately noticed how much more space and patience drivers
> gave me.
>


Well I wear a lid whether I am on 'bent or upright, so that particular
factor is negated in my case.

Cheers, helen s
 
T

Terry

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Tony
Raven) wrote:

> wafflycat wrote:
> >
> > I have an additional musing on that. The motorist sees low-trike.
> > Where does ye average bod see low trikes? Why, on TV doing the London
> > Marathon... the disabled athletes in their racing machines! I reckon
> > that, for some at least, they think trike = disabled person.

>
>
> I would suggest another theory I have which is the more vulnerable you
> look the more care they take. I found this when I stopped wearing a
> helmet and immediately noticed how much more space and patience drivers
> gave me.


Many but by no means all of the cyclists I see shooting the lights are
wearing helmets and often have reflective coats, etc. Possibly they
imagine the safety gear makes them invulnerable, or maybe they're just
stupid or anti-social. It's a mystery.
 
M

Mike Causer

Guest
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:22:41 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:

> I would suggest another theory I have which is the more vulnerable you
> look the more care they take. I found this when I stopped wearing a
> helmet and immediately noticed how much more space and patience drivers
> gave me.


Apart from the ones that drive as close as they can while pointing to
their heads to demonstrate how hazardous it is not to wear a Martle-hat.


Mike
 
W

wafflycat

Guest
"Terry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

>
> Many but by no means all of the cyclists I see shooting the lights are
> wearing helmets and often have reflective coats, etc. Possibly they
> imagine the safety gear makes them invulnerable, or maybe they're just
> stupid or anti-social. It's a mystery.
>
>


Many but by no means all of the motorists I see shooting the lights possibly
imagine the metal box they are in makes them invulnerable, or maybe they're
just stupid or anti-social, as they smoke whilst answering their mobile
phones as they jump the red lights. It's a mystery. You get t*ss*rs using
all forms of transport :)

Cheers, helen s
 
C

Clive George

Guest
"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Now that you have come into the open, here is the meat of the report.
> I had some further reasons to claim deliberation, but wanted the
> police not to be prejudiced against me.


"into the open"?

<snip tale of being hit>

Thanks for that. What were your other reasons for claiming deliberation?

Did you put in a claim against his insurance for the trousers and for the
injuries suffered?

cheers,
clive
 
N

Nick Maclaren

Guest
In article <43f26675$0$3641$[email protected]>,
Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "into the open"?


Email address.

> Thanks for that. What were your other reasons for claiming deliberation?


He pulled left as soon as his cab was past me, which excludes
misjudging my speed. He also said so, but not when there was a
witness.

> Did you put in a claim against his insurance for the trousers and for the
> injuries suffered?


No, because I didn't realise that the injury was going to be permanent
until two years later. My interest was (and is) being able to cycle to
work, and not in revenge.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
C

Clive George

Guest
"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> "into the open"?

>
> Email address.


Oh. Does it really take that for you to believe I'm a person? I've been
posting here (ukrc) for quite a few years, had dealings with several people
on here, and nobody's doubted I'm real before...
FWIW the address above was a valid email account, and still would be if I'd
bothered to keep it alive.

>> Thanks for that. What were your other reasons for claiming deliberation?

>
> He pulled left as soon as his cab was past me, which excludes
> misjudging my speed. He also said so, but not when there was a
> witness.


What did he say? (sounds bad...)

>> Did you put in a claim against his insurance for the trousers and for the
>> injuries suffered?

>
> No, because I didn't realise that the injury was going to be permanent
> until two years later. My interest was (and is) being able to cycle to
> work, and not in revenge.


An insurance claim isn't revenge - it's compensating you for damage caused.
An insurance claim would have counted as a black mark against the driver -
even if informally. If it's happening a lot, their insurance company will
notice and their premiums will go up. The bus company understands money like
that a lot more than it understands letters of complaint.
By not making this claim, you've marked yourself down as somebody who
doesn't mind this sort of thing happening to them. Sorry, and I know
hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it's a good lesson - if somebody cocks
up in that way, especially if deliberate, it's important to follow through
with suitable action - and an insurance claim is nearly always such suitable
action.
The other thing is to be a member of CTC (this is general advice for people
in the future, not trying to help your specific case). They've got an
experienced legal department. Letters from solicitors carry a lot more
weight than letters from you - if you're trying to make the plod do
something, it will help.

cheers,
clive
 
R

Robin Stevens

Guest
In cam.transport Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:

> I live nearly opposite Scotsdales and work in the centre, and chose
> to live there because I could cycle conveniently. Now, you have
> all of the timetables, maps etc. at your disposal - YOU tell me a
> decent way of getting into work, and returning when I often cannot
> control the exact time and often have to do so after 6.15?


I take it all forms of two-wheeler, powered or otherwise, are out of the
question?

--
Robin Stevens <[email protected]>
---- http://www.cynic.org.uk/ ----
 
T

Terry

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com (wafflycat) wrote:

>
> "Terry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
> >
> > Many but by no means all of the cyclists I see shooting the lights are
> > wearing helmets and often have reflective coats, etc. Possibly they
> > imagine the safety gear makes them invulnerable, or maybe they're just
> > stupid or anti-social. It's a mystery.
> >
> >

>
> Many but by no means all of the motorists I see shooting the lights
> possibly imagine the metal box they are in makes them invulnerable, or
> maybe they're just stupid or anti-social, as they smoke whilst
> answering their mobile phones as they jump the red lights. It's a
> mystery. You get t*ss*rs using all forms of transport :)


Yes, we all know that car drivers do stupid stuff too, but that doesn't
mitigate stupid behaviour by cyclists. If I see a cyclist spitting in the
street I don't immediately think, "well, pedestrians do that too".

It's false justifications like that which car drivers use when they harass
or otherwise threaten cyclists. They justify their unlawful behaviour by
reference to unlawful behaviour by cyclists, and that, I'm sure we can
agree, is nonsense.
 
P

Pyromancer

Guest
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Nick
Maclaren <[email protected]> gently breathed:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>wafflycat <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:


>>A suggestion. A recumbent trike, see http://www.ice.hpv.co.uk/


>Sigh. I thought of that, but it obviously wouldn't help. As I posted,
>I had an essentially zero accident rate (including even trivial ones),
>which indicates that I could compensate for my loss of middle-ear
>function. And a tricycle of any sort would INCREASE the conflict
>(being wider and not able to use the so-called cycle path on that
>road), which would almost certainly increase the rate of assault.
>
>What is the betting that a StageRoach driver wouldn't run right over
>me on a recumbant tricycle, and then claim that it was unlit and he
>didn't see me? Lights tend not to work after being squashed, so it
>would be very hard to disprove.


If things really are that bad, then I'd suggest the following:

Get the recumbent trike. Install disguised video surveillance gear,
with rear and rear-3/4 view cameras. Record everything. Once you have
some serious evidence of wrong-doing, send copies of the tapes to the
BBC, the Prime Minister's Office, your MP, the MD of Stagecoach, the
local council, the local radio, TV and newspapers, the police, and just
about anyone else you can think of.

Using the evidence, mount a civil lawsuit against Stagecoach (assuming
the CPS don't go into full gear on receipt of their copy of the tape).

Nothing like a nice juicy David vs Goliath lawsuit with tons of juicy
picture evidence to keep the papers interested, and you should
presumably get hundreds of other cyclists backing you up with their own
tales of motorised woe. Contact the Govt's environment people and point
out how this kind of behaviour is having a negative effect on
environmentally sustainable transport.

The only real defence is attack, full on and all out. Nail the buggers.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>
 
P

Pyromancer

Guest
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Nick
Maclaren <[email protected]> gently breathed:
>
>In article <[email protected]>,
>"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> writes:
>|>
>|> I have an additional musing on that. The motorist sees low-trike.
>|>Where does
>|> ye average bod see low trikes? ...
>
>Look, this was StageRoach drivers - the last of whom, deliberately
>and with malice aforethought, used his vehicle as a weapon to
>knock me off my bicycle when I was doing 17 MPH. And then happily
>admitted in the presence of a witness that he had done it
>deliberately.
>
>Do you think that someone like that would give a tinker's toss
>whether he thought that the rider was disabled or not?


You get something like that on video, you can destroy that driver's
career (and rightly so). You can also drag his employers through the
kind of mud they'd need a Land Rover to get out of, and quite possibly
retire on the damages the courts will give you.

Not to mention the possibility of seeing the driver go down for
attempted murder if the CPS agree with your interpretation of the
events.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
wafflycat wrote:
>>
>> I would suggest another theory I have which is the more vulnerable you
>> look the more care they take. I found this when I stopped wearing a
>> helmet and immediately noticed how much more space and patience
>> drivers gave me.
>>

>
> Well I wear a lid whether I am on 'bent or upright, so that particular
> factor is negated in my case.
>


I know, but a bent looks more vulnerable to a driver, whether it is or
not, so they take more care (no I'm not trying to start a h****t
thread). A fully lycra'd cyclist head down on a racing bike probably
looks the least vulnerable.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham