Does the Daily Mail hates Cyclists?



"Robin Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'll admit to being a bit of an airhead as a pedestrian sometimes, but
> why shouldn't I be? I don't expect to encounter Transit vans


an folks as pedestrians don't expect to encounter fast moving cyclists on
the pavement either. but I regularly have to avoid such.

pk
 
PK wrote:
> "Robin Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
>>> travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
>>> which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
>>> herring).

>>
>> I had to jump out of one's way the other day. The pavement near my
>> work is wide enough for a Transit van to pull up onto, so they do.

>
> pull up on, not travel intentionally from a to b at speed.


The words look like "driven along" to me; that's what it was doing. If
it hits me, I don't particularly care how far it was planning to go.

The driver had assumed that the pavement was a sensible place for him to
park, and had not even waited for a gap in the pedestrians before
driving onto and along the pavement; we were to get out of his way. It
seems like a good example of what Nugent is claiming never happens.

I had to squeeze between the shop fronts and another, or possibly the
same, van in the same place today. I didn't actually see that one being
driven on the pavement, but I don't know how else it could have got
there.
--
Robin Johnson
 
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:59:22 +0100 someone who may be "Dave
Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Not only do they cross the pavement to reach Kwik-fit's forecourt, but they
>frequently drive a significant distance /along/ it, as the road is full of
>stationary motor vehicles queueing at the lights.


I have seen this too, in a number of places. However, some continue
to stick their fingers in their ears and claim this never happens.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
JNugent wrote:

> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal travelling
> speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles which are out of
> control - that's a different, if well-used, red herring).
>

Since pedantry seems to have taken over here....
Yes I have seen a car driven at normal driving speed along the pavement
.. This was in a residential area. The nitwit at the wheel took the car
about a hundred metres in this way at about 25-30 mph. I think that they
were upset about waiting for the traffic lights to change. nobody else
thought that it was a good idea and followed him.
Of course this doesn't prove anything, and especially it does not excuse
pavement cycling by adults at speed, but maybe we can stop quibbling
about 'pulling in' and driving onto driveways and forecourts.

Roger Thorpe
 
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:08:53 +0100 someone who may be "PK"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>an folks as pedestrians don't expect to encounter fast moving cyclists on
>the pavement either. but I regularly have to avoid such.


I don't. Perhaps I emit some invisible force field that keeps them
away from me. I do pass slow moving cyclists on pavements sometimes.
They seem to pose less danger to me than other pedestrians and
drivers of invalid carriages. However, many in uk.rec.cycling
dislike pavement cyclists under any circumstances and disagree with
my relaxed attitude to them.

I was once told that things are different in London and if I went
there I would be mown down by high speed pavement cyclists screaming
at me to get out of their way. As it happened I was making one of my
rare trips to London the next day. I looked out for these high speed
pavement cyclists and listened for them screaming at me, but
saw/heard none. I did encounter one cyclist on the pavement, taking
a creative route around the junctions outside Kings Cross station.
He posed little danger to me, certainly far less danger than the
nuts driving taxis.

While not all taxi drivers are nuts too many of them are, including
the two who ran me over as I was walking along the pavement. They
were not "just" parking on the pavement either, they were driving on
it.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
Dave Larrington wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>> Dave Larrington wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>>>> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
>>>> travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
>>>> which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
>>>> herring).
>>> Horse. I see it almost daily, when the impatient drive over the
>>> pavement in order to cut across Kwik-Fit's forecourt and onto the
>>> A406, merely so they don't have to wait a few second for the lights
>>> at the Crooked Billet roundabout.

>> A. It is lawful to cross a footway to gain access to land adjacent to
>> the highway (think about it).
>>
>> B. The maneouvre you describe - even if it were as unlawful as you
>> seem to think - is not done at normal travelling speed.
>>
>> 0/10.
>>
>> You know full well that what you describe is not comparable to the
>> cynical disregard of pedestrian safety exhibited by some (only some,
>> certainly not all) cyclists.

>
> http://www.shipmentoffail.com/fails/2007/12/your-shipment-of-fail-has-been-delivered/
>
> Not only do they cross the pavement to reach Kwik-fit's forecourt, but they
> frequently drive a significant distance /along/ it, as the road is full of
> stationary motor vehicles queueing at the lights.


Tell the police. It's illegal and it should be trivially easy to catch
them. Even of they don't get stopped, they can be traced. That's if it
happens as you describe it.

But even if two hundred cars an hour were proceeding at normal trafic
speed along that footway, it *still* wouldn't justify anyone cycling
along the footway - would it?
 
Robin Johnson wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Robin Johnson wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:


>>>> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
>>>> travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
>>>> which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
>>>> herring).


>>> I had to jump out of one's way the other day. The pavement near my
>>> work is wide enough for a Transit van to pull up onto, so they do.


>> "Pull up onto"?


>> What does that mean?


> Park on. I didn't want you to say parked vehicles aren't moving.


It's not necessarily agaisnt the law to park on the "pavement". There
are places where it's encouraged.

>> I don't do that at normal travelling speed (which would be 30ish along
>> this road), but I asume this Transit must have been doing that sort of
>> speed for you to consider that the case is one of a vehicle being
>> driven along the footway at normal travelling speed.


> It was certainly above normal travelling speed for a pavement.


What speed do you say it was, out of interest? Anywhere near the normal
running speed for a vehicle along the carriageway just there? Or much
slower than that (commensurate with what is usually a relatively
low-speed maneouvre)?

And you are aware that it is not an offence to cause a vehicle simply to
move on a footway, aren't you? And you are also aware that parking a
vehicle and cycling along a footway are in two completely different
categories, aren't you?

> > It must have been a sight
>> to see. No wonder you claim you "had" to "jump out of the way".


> I'll admit to being a bit of an airhead as a pedestrian sometimes, but
> why shouldn't I be? I don't expect to encounter Transit vans.


Frequently when this topic comes up, someone conveniently pops up and
claims to have had to "jump out of the way recently" when a motor
vehicle was driven along (or on) the footway. If you don't mind, I'll
treat your assertion with the usual pinch of salt or two, since I have
never, in a relatively long life (so far), seen or experienced anything
of the sort.

It is lawful to drive on the footway (at an appropriately low speed) for
the purposes of gaining access to a parking space. It's even lawful to
cycle on the footway (in the same manner) for the same purpose. I make
no complaint about cyclists doing things which are lawful.
 
Robin Johnson wrote:
> PK wrote:
>> "Robin Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
>>>> travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
>>>> which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
>>>> herring).
>>>
>>> I had to jump out of one's way the other day. The pavement near my
>>> work is wide enough for a Transit van to pull up onto, so they do.

>>
>> pull up on, not travel intentionally from a to b at speed.

>
> The words look like "driven along" to me; that's what it was doing. If
> it hits me, I don't particularly care how far it was planning to go.
>
> The driver had assumed that the pavement was a sensible place for him to
> park, and had not even waited for a gap in the pedestrians before
> driving onto and along the pavement; we were to get out of his way. It
> seems like a good example of what Nugent is claiming never happens.


So if you hadn't "jumped out of the way", he'd have hit you? Is that
what you're seriously trying to claim?

What did the police say about this attempted nurder?
 
Roger Thorpe wrote:

> JNugent wrote:


>> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
>> travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles which
>> are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red herring).


> Since pedantry seems to have taken over here....
> Yes I have seen a car driven at normal driving speed along the pavement
> . This was in a residential area. The nitwit at the wheel took the car
> about a hundred metres in this way at about 25-30 mph. I think that they
> were upset about waiting for the traffic lights to change. nobody else
> thought that it was a good idea and followed him.
> Of course this doesn't prove anything, and especially it does not excuse
> pavement cycling by adults at speed, but maybe we can stop quibbling
> about 'pulling in' and driving onto driveways and forecourts.


If you've seen that you should report it to the police and to the local
authority (the LA might be in a better position to do something about
it). It doesn't sound like the action of a typical qualified driver -
perhaps he was a twoccer.

But thanks for the agreement that one thing does not justify the other.

What we need next is a condemnation of those faint-hearted cyclists who
proffer the excuse that they endanger us as pedestrians because they
feel frightened of the big bad traffic on "the road".
 
David Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:08:53 +0100 someone who may be "PK"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> an folks as pedestrians don't expect to encounter fast moving cyclists on
>> the pavement either. but I regularly have to avoid such.

>
> I don't. Perhaps I emit some invisible force field that keeps them
> away from me. I do pass slow moving cyclists on pavements sometimes.
> They seem to pose less danger to me than other pedestrians and
> drivers of invalid carriages. However, many in uk.rec.cycling
> dislike pavement cyclists under any circumstances and disagree with
> my relaxed attitude to them.
>
> I was once told that things are different in London and if I went
> there I would be mown down by high speed pavement cyclists screaming
> at me to get out of their way. As it happened I was making one of my
> rare trips to London the next day. I looked out for these high speed
> pavement cyclists and listened for them screaming at me, but
> saw/heard none. I did encounter one cyclist on the pavement, taking
> a creative route around the junctions outside Kings Cross station.
> He posed little danger to me, certainly far less danger than the
> nuts driving taxis.
>
> While not all taxi drivers are nuts too many of them are, including
> the two who ran me over as I was walking along the pavement. They
> were not "just" parking on the pavement either, they were driving on
> it.


I'm sorry to hear of it.

When did you get out of hospital? Your injuries must have been horrific
if you were run over by two taxis. They are heavy, solidly-built,
beasts. You were indeed very lucky to survive. Perhaps they only ran
over a particularly dense part of your body.
 
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:59:22 +0100 someone who may be "Dave
> Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>Not only do they cross the pavement to reach Kwik-fit's forecourt, but
>>they
>>frequently drive a significant distance /along/ it, as the road is full of
>>stationary motor vehicles queueing at the lights.

>
> I have seen this too, in a number of places. However, some continue
> to stick their fingers in their ears and claim this never happens.
>
>
> --
> David Hansen, Edinburgh
> I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:59:22 +0100 someone who may be "Dave
> Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>Not only do they cross the pavement to reach Kwik-fit's forecourt, but
>>they
>>frequently drive a significant distance /along/ it, as the road is full of
>>stationary motor vehicles queueing at the lights.

>
> I have seen this too, in a number of places. However, some continue
> to stick their fingers in their ears and claim this never happens.
>


The place I see it most frequently in Naarch, is on the Dereham Road at a
set of traffic lights. LH lane is for straight on and left. The junction is
controlled by traffic lights. Many is the time I've seen motorised
scallywags decide to ignore waiting in the queue at the lights to turn left,
but instead mount the pavement, drive along it and then over the small
forecourt in front of the florist shop on the corner, then back over the
next pavement to make the left turn intead of waiting for the red traffic
light to change to a green one. Usually during the rush hour when there's
folk walking on the pavement too. Such cheeky chappies! Of course, they
must be cyclists in disguise as any fule noe it's only cyclists wot break
the rules when the poor, beleaguered, law-abiding, put-upon, British
motorist (... carried on at page 296: Ed.) Indeed, when driving though
Naarch, it's more often that I see motorists jumping red lights, rather than
cyclists, and I'm looking for them!
 
JNugent <[email protected]> writes:

> What we need next is a condemnation of those faint-hearted cyclists
> who proffer the excuse that they endanger us as pedestrians because
> they feel frightened of the big bad traffic on "the road".


I have no problem at all with condemning cyclists who endanger us as
pedestrians, whatever justification they use.

I would find it equally worthy of condemnation whether they were
illegally cycling on the footway, legally cycling on a shared path, or
legally crossing the footway to gain access to a parking place.
Endangering road users is not acceptable in any of these
circumstances.

You will observe that I have avoided condemning cyclists who illegally
ride on the footway *without* endangering anybody. This was
deliberate on my part and you need not follow up to point it out.


-dan
 
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:12:02 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Roger Thorpe wrote:
> > JNugent wrote:

>
> >> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
> >> travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
> >> which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
> >> herring).

> >
> > Since pedantry seems to have taken over here....
> > Yes I have seen a car driven at normal driving speed along the
> > pavement . This was in a residential area. The nitwit at the wheel
> > took the car about a hundred metres in this way at about 25-30
> > mph. I think that they were upset about waiting for the traffic
> > lights to change.

>
> If you've seen that you should report it to the police and to the
> local authority (the LA might be in a better position to do
> something about it). It doesn't sound like the action of a typical
> qualified driver - perhaps he was a twoccer.


FWIW, I've seen it and there wasn't even the excuse of a wait for
traffic lights. He then came back in the opposite direction on the
other pavement before stopping outside a house and going in. I
photographed the car (it was completely blocking the pavement) then
called the police.

While I was talking on the phone the driver reappeared, so I told him
he shouldn't drive on the pavement. He swore at me and got in his
car. I repeated my assertion and he revved wildly then drove off,
again along the pavement, but had to swerve violently back into the
road to avoid the pole of a pelican crossing traffic light.

FWIW, the pelican in question is placed where it is because it is
across the road at the pedestrian entrance to a primary school, though
this was during the day at a weekend, and no young pedestrians were
actually on the pavement.

I never heard anything from the police, they never asked for the
photographs.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:12:02 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
>>>> travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
>>>> which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
>>>> herring).
>>> Since pedantry seems to have taken over here....
>>> Yes I have seen a car driven at normal driving speed along the
>>> pavement . This was in a residential area. The nitwit at the wheel
>>> took the car about a hundred metres in this way at about 25-30
>>> mph. I think that they were upset about waiting for the traffic
>>> lights to change.

>> If you've seen that you should report it to the police and to the
>> local authority (the LA might be in a better position to do
>> something about it). It doesn't sound like the action of a typical
>> qualified driver - perhaps he was a twoccer.

>
> FWIW, I've seen it and there wasn't even the excuse of a wait for
> traffic lights. He then came back in the opposite direction on the
> other pavement before stopping outside a house and going in. I
> photographed the car (it was completely blocking the pavement) then
> called the police.
>
> While I was talking on the phone the driver reappeared, so I told him
> he shouldn't drive on the pavement. He swore at me and got in his
> car. I repeated my assertion and he revved wildly then drove off,
> again along the pavement, but had to swerve violently back into the
> road to avoid the pole of a pelican crossing traffic light.
>
> FWIW, the pelican in question is placed where it is because it is
> across the road at the pedestrian entrance to a primary school, though
> this was during the day at a weekend, and no young pedestrians were
> actually on the pavement.
>
> I never heard anything from the police, they never asked for the
> photographs.


You still did the right thing. That others may not have done the right
thing is not your fault.
 
JNugent wrote:
> NewRiderPS wrote:
>
>> Seriously, how often do we see 'life threatening' injuries from
>> collisions with cyclists?

>
> *Too* often.
>


once every 4-5 years?
 
Marc wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> NewRiderPS wrote:


>>> Seriously, how often do we see 'life threatening' injuries from
>>> collisions with cyclists?


>> *Too* often.


> once every 4-5 years?


No.

But even if it were, would that be too infrequent for you?
 
JNugent wrote:
> Marc wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> NewRiderPS wrote:

>
>>>> Seriously, how often do we see 'life threatening' injuries from
>>>> collisions with cyclists?

>
>>> *Too* often.

>
>> once every 4-5 years?

>
> No.


Your turn then, how often?
 
Marc wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>> Marc wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> NewRiderPS wrote:

>>
>>>>> Seriously, how often do we see 'life threatening' injuries from
>>>>> collisions with cyclists?

>>
>>>> *Too* often.

>>
>>> once every 4-5 years?

>>
>> No.

>
> Your turn then, how often?


Let's play it your way ...

If, every five years, a UK pedestrian was killed by a law-breaking
cyclist riding along the footway, would that amount to:

(a) too few pedestrians being killed by cyclists?

(b) about the right number of pedestrians being killed by cyclists?

(c) one too many?
 
JNugent <[email protected]> writes:
> If, every five years, a UK pedestrian was killed by a law-breaking
> cyclist riding along the footway, would that amount to:
>
> (a) too few pedestrians being killed by cyclists?
>
> (b) about the right number of pedestrians being killed by cyclists?
>
> (c) one too many?


"If it saves just one life ..."

Please, won't somebody think of the children?


-dan
 

Similar threads