Does the Daily Mail hates Cyclists?

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Dave Larrington wrote:
>1. redevelop all those neighbourhoods which predate the widespread adoption
>of the private car, or
>
>2. confiscate the cars of all those who have the poor judgement to live in
>such a neighbourhood?

Confiscation is slightly excessive, you would merely have to offer them the
choice of selling their cars or renting off-road parking some way away.

But it would be such a vote loser there's practically no chance of it
happening, even when the only other option is to have cars parked half
on the pavement on both sides of the road leaving not enough room for
a wheelchair or pushchair to pass them on the pavement.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Alan Braggins <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:
> In article <[email protected]>, Dave Larrington
> wrote:
>> 1. redevelop all those neighbourhoods which predate the widespread
>> adoption of the private car, or
>>
>> 2. confiscate the cars of all those who have the poor judgement to
>> live in such a neighbourhood?
>
> Confiscation is slightly excessive, you would merely have to offer
> them the choice of selling their cars or renting off-road parking
> some way away.

Round my way that would mean concreting over the park, the allotments,
Walthamstow Marshes, the lower end of Epping Forest...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
World Domination? Just find a world that's into that kind of
thing, then chain to the floor and walk up and down on it in
high heels.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:44:10 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>Round my way that would mean concreting over the park, the allotments,
>Walthamstow Marshes, the lower end of Epping Forest...

If it wasn't for the 'ouses in between...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[JNugent]

Squashme wrote:
> On 19 Jun, 08:26, JNugent <[email protected]> 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).
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6dz64t
>
> "The three-year-old was killed when a trials bike driven by her
> stepdad along a pavement hit a car emerging from a garage. She was
> allegedly sitting on the petrol tank of the 110cc machine.
>
> The bike's driver George Franklin, 22, was last night charged with
> causing death by dangerous driving."
>
> How normal was his speed, I wonder?

You're getting progressively more desperate. That is a terrible case to
pray in aid. It does you no favours at all.

 

[JNugent]

Squashme wrote:

> On 20 Jun, 11:23, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>> This may help:-
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/3zu8mr
>>>>> 19 June 2008
>>>>> "Calls have been made for action to tackle rat-running in a narrow
>>>>> residential road in Bath.
>>>>> People living in Greenway Lane, Bear Flat, have been concerned for
>>>>> years about the amount of traffic using it.
>>>>> They say they are living in constant fear that someone will be killed
>>>>> by speeding motorists who use the pavement as part of the road.
>>>>> Resident Jamie South, who says his seven-year-old son William was
>>>>> nearly hit by a car recently, said: "Something needs to be done
>>>>> urgently to stop motorists speeding down the road.
>>>>> "Cars use the pavements to get around each other and it shouldn't be
>>>>> allowed. My son was nearly run down because of cars driving along the
>>>>> pavement." "

>>>> See: <http://tinyurl.com/5dl6vw>
>>>> I know the area (to a limited extent). Greenway Lane is a useful route
>>>> from the cheap(ish) student accommodation around Bear Flat to the
>>>> University of Bath campus at Claverton Down. I'm sure it's useful for
>>>> other purposes too. I object to this churlish phrase "rat-running". The
>>>> road is a valuable through route of importance in the local network, not
>>>> a residential cul-de-sac. Alternatives are few and would be a longish
>>>> diversion via Combe Down (past even more people' houses, of course) or
>>>> through the crowded city centre and the permanently-congested A4/A36.
>>>> The real answer, of course, is not to obstruct it with parked vehicles.

>>> I see. So that causes the driving on pavements.

>> It certainly does, in areas like that where the road is significantly
>> obstructed. Of course, you've missed the point. No-one has said that you
>> never see a car or van (nor even a lorry) on a footway. The proposition
>> is that they do not drive along footways at normal travelling speeds as
>> an alternative to using the carriageway. Even you must see that there
>> are occasions when mounting the footway (at comparatively low speed) is
>> the only option other than staying put until the obstruction is removed
>> - I haven't said otherwise. This is another apples and oranges game.

>>> The locals only have themselves to blame for being motorists with cars to park.

>> Parking is best off-road. Additionally, parking simply ought not to be
>> allowed where it will seriously obstruct free passage along the highway
>> (double-yellow lines - remember why we have them?). I believe that there
>> is a strong case for restricting motor vehicle keeping only to addresses
>> where there is off-street parking - or where the keeper has an off-plot
>> off-street space nearby which he actually uses).

> Yes, cars were at their best when they were the preserve of the elite.
> The proles have spoiled it.Too too many and the wrong sort of people
> too. I believe that you have off-road parking.

I do. And I paid for it (anyone is allwowed to do so). I can't say I'm
exactly thrilled at being forced to also pay for (sometimes very
important) parts of the highway network which are pre-empted by people
leaving vehicles there for 110 hours a week.

>> Of course, many of the drivers bumping up onto the footway to get round
>> obstructions (and vehicles coming the other way in the narrower parts of
>> that road) will BE the very locals who are doing the complaining.
>> They're there more often than anyone else and their cars are just as
>> unable to fly over obstructions as anyone else's.

> Gosh, well they just have to do it, don't they? It's built into the
> situation. TINA - there is no alternative. Resistance is useless.

It's their complaint you took up.

You didn't have to.

>>> If you tried, you could probably defend pavement cyclists.

>> If they are simply getting around an obstruction (and travelling at a
>> low speed nowhere near the speeds that they usually do on the footway),
>> I can do that in the twinkle of an eye. No problem whatever. I hope you
>> find that reassuring.

> And if they ride on the pavement to ensure their safety in a busy
> urban environment, or to avoid massive detours, because the road
> system was designed to help motor vehicles and not cyclists? At
> minimal risk or obstructon to pedestrians? Much like cars? Would that
> be OK? (Not to me, I had better add).

No, you're veering well into the realm of the non-sequitur.

Rioding along the footway is not the only way for cyclists to be safe.
Basically, if they can't cycle safely on the roads, they shouldn't be
cycling at all - they should be seeking more training and skill.

>>> How about "The
>>> real answer, of course, is to make the roads safer, by motorists
>>> changing their behaviour, and, of course, decreasing their overall
>>> numbers"?
>> ???

> Trouble with that one? Does not compute, does not compute!!!

It doesn't.

>>> What about this one? Won't be the motorists fault, so who do we blame?
>>> http://www.cumberland-news.co.uk/news/1.112473
>>> "He said some motorists park on double yellow lines across the road
>>> and risk running through four lanes of traffic to reach the parade. Co-
>>> owner Kath Renucci added: “We’ve seen people getting hit by cars and
>>> bouncing off the bonnets. And we’ve seen motorists driving down the
>>> pavements.”Someone will probably end up getting killed in the end.”"

>> Parking on double yellow lines not the motorists' fault(s)?
>> It certainly is - it's illegal.
>> Did you SERIOUSLY think that I would defend it?

> No, but you seem to zero in on the double yellow lines as a get-out,
> and ignore "people getting hit by cars and bouncing off the bonnets.

Those would be the drivers who apparently leave their cars on a double
yellow lines four lanes of traffic away from the shops, then dash across
the road, with some of them being hit by passing vehicles?

What comment on that do you want, exactly?

> And we’ve seen motorists driving down the pavements." Blinkers on.
> Which is the more dangerous, yellow lines or barging pedestrians?

You've lost the connection to the story there. I have not claimed that
motor vehicles never move on footways. See above for what the
proposition actually is, because you've onviously forgotten it.

> See
> http://tinyurl.com/578j5w

> ""But in this accident the child was reported to be walking on the
> pavement, not dashing out in front of a car. It is a great concern.""

> How you going to excuse that one? I expect that you'd go for the "I
> doubt that the child was on the pavement" gambit.

No - tell me what the story is about. I bet it's not about a car being
driven along a footway at 30mph.

 

[Andy Morris]

JNugent wrote:
> Andy Morris 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 saw three in succession mount the pavement in Heckmondwike to pass
>> traffic waiting to turn right from the A638 onto the B6177 that had
>> backed up to the Cemetery Road turn.
>>
>> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&h...7397,-1.675369&spn=0.000927,0.001891&t=h&z=19
>>
>>
>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/4mjqen
>>
>> Not at full speed but faster than a lot of cyclists.
>
> You see what you did there?
>
> You agreed with what I posted.

Sorry

Not at full speed but still fast enough to kill someone.

Happy?

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

 

[Daniel Barlow]

JNugent <[email protected]> writes:

> 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).

Honestly it matters diddly whether the car is travelling at normal
speed _for a car_ or not: what matters is whether it's moving at or
near normal speed _for a pedestrian_. Even 10mph is a brisk pace
among pedestrians.


-dan

 

[JNugent]

Andy Morris wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Andy Morris 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 saw three in succession mount the pavement in Heckmondwike to pass
>>> traffic waiting to turn right from the A638 onto the B6177 that had
>>> backed up to the Cemetery Road turn.

>>> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&h...7397,-1.675369&spn=0.000927,0.001891&t=h&z=19

>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/4mjqen

>>> Not at full speed but faster than a lot of cyclists.

>> You see what you did there?
>> You agreed with what I posted.

> Sorry
> Not at full speed but still fast enough to kill someone.

1mph is quite fast enough to kill someone. I could, in theory, kill
someone (a pedestrian) whilst entering or exiting my driveway.

And this is absolutely not the issue. The issue is travel along footways
at normal travelling speed (which means the speed at which the same
vehicle would usually travel along the carriageway), IOW, using the
footway as a straightforward mainstream alternative to the carriageway.

But you know that, and are trying to compare apples and hand-grenades
for your own reasons.

 

[JNugent]

Daniel Barlow wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> writes:

>> 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).

> Honestly it matters diddly whether the car is travelling at normal
> speed _for a car_ or not: what matters is whether it's moving at or
> near normal speed _for a pedestrian_. Even 10mph is a brisk pace
> among pedestrians.

If you're saying that it could be dangerous for a pedestrian to be hit
at 10mph, I'm not going to disagree with you. In any event, it's a total
red herring, as you know.

 

[Andy Morris]

JNugent wrote:
> Andy Morris wrote:
>> Sorry
>> Not at full speed but still fast enough to kill someone.
>
> 1mph is quite fast enough to kill someone. I could, in theory, kill
> someone (a pedestrian) whilst entering or exiting my driveway.
>
> And this is absolutely not the issue. The issue is travel along footways
> at normal travelling speed (which means the speed at which the same
> vehicle would usually travel along the carriageway), IOW, using the
> footway as a straightforward mainstream alternative to the carriageway.
>

He was going faster than the traffic on the road, he was using the
pavement as an alternative to waiting a few moments on the road.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, JNugent wrote:
>
>1mph is quite fast enough to kill someone. I could, in theory, kill
>someone (a pedestrian) whilst entering or exiting my driveway.
>
>And this is absolutely not the issue. The issue is travel along footways
>at normal travelling speed (which means the speed at which the same
>vehicle would usually travel along the carriageway), IOW, using the
>footway as a straightforward mainstream alternative to the carriageway.
>
>But you know that, and are trying to compare apples and hand-grenades
>for your own reasons.

Also the cars aren't doing it on two wheels, so it doesn't count.
And even if they were, they are cars, so they don't count.

 

[JNugent]

Alan Braggins wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> 1mph is quite fast enough to kill someone. I could, in theory, kill
>> someone (a pedestrian) whilst entering or exiting my driveway.
>> And this is absolutely not the issue. The issue is travel along footways
>> at normal travelling speed (which means the speed at which the same
>> vehicle would usually travel along the carriageway), IOW, using the
>> footway as a straightforward mainstream alternative to the carriageway.
>> But you know that, and are trying to compare apples and hand-grenades
>> for your own reasons.

> Also the cars aren't doing it on two wheels, so it doesn't count.
> And even if they were, they are cars, so they don't count.

You are forgetting the main reason why it doesn't count - which is that
cars (and vans, and lorries) don't travel along footways like (some)
cyclists do.

All the rest of the "I saw a car park outside a shop and he travelled
ten feet onto the kerb" stuff is just a wriggle.

 

[Daniel Barlow]

JNugent <[email protected]> writes:

> And this is absolutely not the issue. The issue is travel along
> footways at normal travelling speed (which means the speed at which
> the same vehicle would usually travel along the carriageway)

Maybe it's *your* issue - perhaps there's some kind of pointless
usenet debate in which you feel it important to win this point (I
haven't really been keeping up).

I would suggest though that the issue of more general concern is
people (in or on whatever kind of vehicle) using the footway
inconsiderately or in manners which pose unnecessary danger to the
pedestrians they are sharing it with. Whether the vehicle is crossing
the pavement or travelling along it is not relevant to this issue.
Nor is whether its normal travelling speed is 15mph, 70mph or 200mph.


-dan

 

[Nigel Randell]

>
> Please treat "seriously injured" as meaning "life-threatening". I see
> no difference between them.
>

The experts in the field would seem to disagree with you.

http://www.trauma.org/archive/scores/ais.html

The AIS level of 3 is classed as "serious" with 4 and 5 being "severe and
critical". As a rating of 6 is unsurvivable it seems reasonable that "life
threatening" would usually describe a level 5 injury, or possibly a level 4.

--

Nigel

 

[Nigel Randell]

>
> That is one of the reasons why I found the recent allegation by a
> poster here that a driver shouted at him "I'm a ******* car" to be
> totally unbelievable. When one is making things up, care should be
> taken that the fabrication has the ring of truth about it. "I'm a ...
> car" is something that no-one would say.
>

I don't suppose that anyone has ever said that "we" weren't playing in the
Euro footie. "We" were never going to play in it even if the national team
had qualified.

--

Nigel

 

[JNugent]

Nigel Randell wrote:

>> Please treat "seriously injured" as meaning "life-threatening". I see
>> no difference between them.

> The experts in the field would seem to disagree with you.
> http://www.trauma.org/archive/scores/ais.html
> The AIS level of 3 is classed as "serious" with 4 and 5 being "severe and
> critical". As a rating of 6 is unsurvivable it seems reasonable that "life
> threatening" would usually describe a level 5 injury, or possibly a level 4.

I didn't realise that all usenet posts had to be vetted by a doctor.

 

[JNugent]

Nigel Randell wrote:

>> That is one of the reasons why I found the recent allegation by a
>> poster here that a driver shouted at him "I'm a ******* car" to be
>> totally unbelievable. When one is making things up, care should be
>> taken that the fabrication has the ring of truth about it. "I'm a ...
>> car" is something that no-one would say.

> I don't suppose that anyone has ever said that "we" weren't playing in the
> Euro footie. "We" were never going to play in it even if the national team
> had qualified.

???

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Nigel Randell wrote:
>>
>> That is one of the reasons why I found the recent allegation by a
>> poster here that a driver shouted at him "I'm a ******* car" to be
>> totally unbelievable. When one is making things up, care should be
>> taken that the fabrication has the ring of truth about it. "I'm a ...
>> car" is something that no-one would say.
>
>I don't suppose that anyone has ever said that "we" weren't playing in the
>Euro footie. "We" were never going to play in it even if the national team
>had qualified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy

Oh wait, that's JNugent you are quoting isn't it? He lives in his own
private world where drivers never jump red lights or drive on pavements,
so has trouble believing that they actually happen. Maybe this is just
another example.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:22:13 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alan Braggins wrote:
>
> > JNugent wrote:
>
> >> And this is absolutely not the issue. The issue is travel along
> >> footways at normal travelling speed (which means the speed at
> >> which the same vehicle would usually travel along the
> >> carriageway), IOW, using the footway as a straightforward
> >> mainstream alternative to the carriageway.
>
> > Also the cars aren't doing it on two wheels, so it doesn't count.
> > And even if they were, they are cars, so they don't count.
>
> You are forgetting the main reason why it doesn't count - which is
> that cars (and vans, and lorries) don't travel along footways like
> (some) cyclists do.

But that's an entirely artificial definition of 'counting' that you've
made up, for no reason other than to give yourself something to argue
about.

Must more sensible definitions would be driving along the pavement at
similar level of risk to pedestrians (but we know cars do many times
more to that measure already), or diving at similar speeds along
pavements (but that happens quite often). You have even (in this
thread) refused to count vehicles driving along the pavement _faster_
than they were able to drive along the carriageway.

Arbitrarily deciding that you'll only choose 'driving along the
pavement at identically the same speed as the mean speed of
equivalent vehicles in the carriageway alongside' has no sensible
basis.

Your definition boils down to 'cars don't drive along teh pavement in
situations where there is no perceived benefit for them in doing so'.
Big deal. However, you will find that cyclists don't ride along
pavements where there is no perceived benefit to them doing so. In
fact, most organisms don't do anything where there is no benefit to
them doing so.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Squashme]

On 22 Jun, 09:01, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:22:13 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Alan Braggins wrote:
>
> > > JNugent wrote:
>
> > >> And this is absolutely not the issue. The issue is travel along
> > >> footways at normal travelling speed (which means the speed at
> > >> which the same vehicle would usually travel along the
> > >> carriageway), IOW, using the footway as a straightforward
> > >> mainstream alternative to the carriageway.
>
> > > Also the cars aren't doing it on two wheels, so it doesn't count.
> > > And even if they were, they are cars, so they don't count.
>
> > You are forgetting the main reason why it doesn't count - which is
> > that cars (and vans, and lorries) don't travel along footways like
> > (some) cyclists do.
>
> But that's an entirely artificial definition of 'counting' that you've
> made up, for no reason other than to give yourself something to argue
> about.
>
> Must more sensible definitions would be driving along the pavement at
> similar level of risk to pedestrians (but we know cars do many times
> more to that measure already), or diving at similar speeds along
> pavements (but that happens quite often). You have even (in this
> thread) refused to count vehicles driving along the pavement _faster_
> than they were able to drive along the carriageway.
>
> Arbitrarily deciding that you'll only choose 'driving along the
> pavement at identically the same speed as the mean speed of
> equivalent vehicles in the carriageway alongside' has no sensible
> basis.
>
> Your definition boils down to 'cars don't drive along teh pavement in
> situations where there is no perceived benefit for them in doing so'.
> Big deal. However, you will find that cyclists don't ride along
> pavements where there is no perceived benefit to them doing so. In
> fact, most organisms don't do anything where there is no benefit to
> them doing so.
>

I think that it is mostly that cars don't drive along pavements
because their free passage is obstructed there. Remove all that
annoying clutter of lampposts, signposts, railings, trees and raised
kerbs, and you would see a big increase where vehicles found it
beneficial to use them, and their pavement speeds would rise too.

Perhaps, after this policy, pavements could be considered as a source
of extra vital road space?:-

"The M42 pilot.

The M42 pilot has given us valuable experience of installing and
operating a hard shoulder running system in the UK, and early results
indicate benefits in relation to traffic flow, journey time
reliability, emissions and compliance, at considerably lower cost than
widening schemes. We should look to learn from and build on this
experience in implementing similar schemes in the future.

Safety.

Results to date from the M42 pilot give no evidence to suggest that
safety has been compromised by the introduction of the hard shoulder
running scheme. The early results suggest an improvement, although
this cannot be confirmed until a much larger data set has been
gathered over a longer period of time. Initial safety levels observed
may also deteriorate over time." (DFT)