[email protected] wrote:
> "Steve Firth" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think you have your stats in a spin there. There's a difference
>> (IMO) between a car out of control mounting the pavement and a deliberate decision to ride on the
>> pavement.
> Certainly. . I don't know what motivates cyclists to ride on the pavement, maybe perceived dangers
> of the road, convenience, thoughtlessness etc.
...or possibly having lost control of the bike (obviously only of application in cases where the
cyclist wasn't deliberately on the footway to begin with)...
> Now what causes cars to get out of control and mount the pavement? There's a clue there somewhere
> I think...ah yes, "out of control", I think this implies the car is no longer in control but wait,
> a car has no control other than the driver, so what is implied is that the driver has arrived at a
> situation where they are incapable of controlling the car, who's fault is that then?
Insufficient data to provide an answer.
Losing control could be caused by inattention or lack of competence on the part of the driver.
Or it could be caused by illness (eg, a sudden heart attack - and don't laugh, it happens [one of
the reasons why epileptics are not allowed to drive]), or by the sudden appearance of an obstacle
which *must* be avoided.
Examples of such an obstacle (this is not an exhaustive list) could include:
- another vehicle on one's own side of the road, in order to avoid an almost-certainly-fatal head-on
collision, or
- an obstacle which will not necessarily present a deadly risk to the car's occupant(s) but which
still ought to be avoided (eg, a cyclist who has swerved into the car's path or who has emerged
from a side turn without giving way - or through a red traffic light, or
- a pedestrian who has run out into the carriageway (not as uncommon as it ought to be), or
- (least important of all) an animal which has run into the carriageway (and it's easy to condemn
the evasive swerve if itis an Aberdeen Terrier, less so if it is, for instance, a Suffolk Punch).
> True, the driver may be taking evasive action to avoid an errant ped or cyclist but all the cases
> I can recall were down to vehicle defects, inappropiate speed or in some cases a deliberate
> attempt to maim or cause fear that has gone wrong.
Yes, but you cannot recall all acidents in all relevant places at all relevant times during any
relevant period, can you?
> And don't think I'm sympathic to pavement cyclists because I'm certainly not having nearly been
> cleared up by them, having my wife nearly cleared up by one and the fact they bring cyclists into
> disrepute but at the end of the day we're still more at risk from "out of control" cars mounting
> the pavement and the motor vehicles running red lights at pelican crossings when walking and all
> kinds of motorised idiots when cycling and driving so let's keep a sense of perspective.
Indeed.
Let us start by restating the obvious: one cannot legislate against error, illness or adverse sudden
incident; one *can* legislate (and enforce the law) against deliberate, selfish, endangerment of
others with a view only to one's own convenience.
We all know whch of those two arises from out-of-control motor vehicles and which from footway
cyclists, don't we?
BTW, if I ever hear of a case of a motor vehicle being driven *on* and *along* a footway, in
preference to being on the adjacent or parallel carriageway, with all wheels on the footway, at
*normal travelling speed for the vehicle*, not merely crossing the footway or moving onto a parking
bay (ie, travelling along a footway in the same way that some cyclists do, rather than merely having
a tyre on the kerb at 1mph or something), and then hitting a pedestrian legitimately using the
footway, I shall start to take apologists for footway cycling a little more seriously.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (
http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/04
