Motorist drives along pavement

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by David Hansen, Mar 21, 2006.

  1. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    The unacceptable face of motoring (and some pedestrian groups who
    are not au fait with the real dangers those they claim to represent
    face) often imply that only cyclists ride along pavements.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4827894.stm is about a
    motorist driving along a pavement, in the course of which he injured
    six people, one very badly.

    True to form the police appear to have already gone out of their way
    to excuse the motorist. Other groups in the motoring lobby will no
    doubt follow their lead.


    --
    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
     
    Tags:


  2. elyob

    elyob Guest

    "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > The unacceptable face of motoring (and some pedestrian groups who
    > are not au fait with the real dangers those they claim to represent
    > face) often imply that only cyclists ride along pavements.


    The car mounted the pavement. There is zero relationship between this and
    cyclists riding along pavements.

    > True to form the police appear to have already gone out of their way
    > to excuse the motorist.


    They arrested him and have released him on bail until May while inquiries
    continue. They have not excused anyone.

    This has got FA to do with cycling and trying to use it as an example whilst
    one schoolgirl is fighting for her life in hospital is just wrong.
     
  3. p.k.

    p.k. Guest

    David Hansen wrote:
    > The unacceptable face of motoring (and some pedestrian groups who
    > are not au fait with the real dangers those they claim to represent
    > face) often imply that only cyclists ride along pavements.
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4827894.stm is about a
    > motorist driving along a pavement, in the course of which he injured
    > six people, one very badly.
    >
    > True to form the police appear to have already gone out of their way
    > to excuse the motorist. Other groups in the motoring lobby will no
    > doubt follow their lead.


    Why do you persist in such laughable distortions?

    The issue wrt cyclists is DELIBERATE cycling on the pavement. the tragic
    incident you link to was a traffic "accident" the driver did not intend to
    drive on the pavement.

    pk
     
  4. PhilD

    PhilD Guest

    David Hansen wrote:
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4827894.stm is about a
    > motorist driving along a pavement, in the course of which he injured
    > six people, one very badly.




    Many, many moons ago (about 25 years, I guess), there was an incident
    outside my school. There were lots of cars parked outside (you know,
    little darling can't walk home), plus queues, and a reasonable number
    of parents walking, too. One parent decided to overtake the queue by
    driving her Mini along the pavement and push in further along. She was
    on the pavement for about 20-25 vehicle lengths.

    Fortunately, no-one was hurt, other than thousands of jaws dropping and
    hitting the pavement.

    PhilD

    --
    <><
     
  5. MichaelB

    MichaelB New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    1
    You make an excellent point. ONE school girl. The other 10 people who will actually be killed today wont get a look in.
     
  6. elyob

    elyob Guest

    "MichaelB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > elyob Wrote:
    >>
    >> This has got FA to do with cycling and trying to use it as an example
    >> whilst
    >> one schoolgirl is fighting for her life in hospital is just wrong.

    >
    > You make an excellent point. ONE school girl. The other 10 people who
    > will actually be killed today wont get a look in.
    >


    Thanks, but I really don't understand your point in regards to the subject.
    Are you talking about 10 other people who will be killed on the roads today,
    or something? If so, it has nothing to do with the subject of this story or
    my response.
     
  7. Clive George

    Clive George Guest

    "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > The unacceptable face of motoring (and some pedestrian groups who
    > are not au fait with the real dangers those they claim to represent
    > face) often imply that only cyclists ride along pavements.
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4827894.stm is about a
    > motorist driving along a pavement, in the course of which he injured
    > six people, one very badly.
    >
    > True to form the police appear to have already gone out of their way
    > to excuse the motorist. Other groups in the motoring lobby will no
    > doubt follow their lead.


    Can you tell me where it says the police have gone out of their way to
    excuse the motorist?

    clive
     
  8. Pyromancer

    Pyromancer Guest

    David Hansen wrote:

    > The unacceptable face of motoring (and some pedestrian groups who
    > are not au fait with the real dangers those they claim to represent
    > face) often imply that only cyclists ride along pavements.
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4827894.stm is about a
    > motorist driving along a pavement, in the course of which he injured
    > six people, one very badly.
    >
    > True to form the police appear to have already gone out of their way
    > to excuse the motorist. Other groups in the motoring lobby will no
    > doubt follow their lead.


    Tragic, but hardly a case of a motorist deliberately driving on the
    pavement. If anything, this incident should lead to calls for an end
    for the obsession with leaving decomposing flowers and soggy teddybears
    at the site of every accident. ISTR a few years ago someone was very
    nearly run down by a train while attempting to place flowers on the
    actual railway track where someone else (who was trespassing) had been
    run down and killed the day before.

    All the funds that are squandered on rotting roadside "memorials"
    should instead be collected and given to the surviving relatives to
    help cover the (often quite steep) funeral expenses.
     
  9. spindrift

    spindrift Guest

    The motorist had been involved in an altercation with another driver at
    the Hertford Road lights. He then drove at speed past a school , veered
    onto the wrong side of the road, swerved back, mounted the pavement,
    and smashed into a group of people commemorating their dead school
    colleagues.

    And David Hansen suggests it is the schoolchildrens' behaviour which
    should be modified, rather than selfish twunts speeding past schools?

    Beyond belief.
     
  10. spindrift

    spindrift Guest

    Apologies, Pyromancer was the poster who thinks memorials should be
    banned in case motorists accidently lose control at speed and crash
    into them.
     
  11. "Pyromancer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:1[email protected]

    > Tragic, but hardly a case of a motorist deliberately driving on the
    > pavement. If anything, this incident should lead to calls for an end
    > for the obsession with leaving decomposing flowers and soggy teddybears
    > at the site of every accident.


    There are a *lot* of these blackspots in the Thames Valley, particularly in
    the areas where suburbs and semi-rural areas meet.

    Although the cops sometimes remove the flowers, I have found that the soggy
    remains eventually get blown across the road actually create a further road
    hazard - I have nearly skidded on them at least once and I try *not* to ride
    in the gutter, and would not want to trash someones memorial either by
    deliberately riding over it..

    ISTR cops also mentioning that there was another risk of rubberneckers
    and/or do-gooders in cars stopping in appropriate places to add further
    flowers to the memorial!

    Alex
    --
    Mr [email protected] / General Lighting
    Ipswich, Suffolk, Untied Kingdom
    http://www.partyvibe.com
     
  12. davek

    davek Guest

    Pyromancer wrote:
    > All the funds that are squandered on rotting roadside "memorials"
    > should instead be collected and given to the surviving relatives to
    > help cover the (often quite steep) funeral expenses.


    There's just such a shrine directly across the road from me that I have
    to look at every time I leave my house. It has been there over a year
    now, and as far as I can tell, it is the surviving relatives who seem
    intent on squandering their money on endless supplies of flowers and
    tacky tributes to a person who, frankly, got what he deserved for
    driving drunk at high speed while drunk around a sharp bend over a blind
    summit.

    Maybe he expected the telegraph pole to move out of his way, maybe it
    was a tragic "accident". I don't know, but I certainly don't mourn his
    loss from the gene pool. I'm just glad he took himself out before he
    took someone else - especially since that someone else might have been me.

    d.
     
  13. davek wrote:
    > Pyromancer wrote:
    >> All the funds that are squandered on rotting roadside "memorials"
    >> should instead be collected and given to the surviving relatives to
    >> help cover the (often quite steep) funeral expenses.

    >
    > There's just such a shrine directly across the road from me


    There was a MASSIVE one in Margate for months. Why some people feel it's
    appropriate to commemorate the place where someone copped it is totally
    beyond me. It's far better to remember lost loved-ones in happier moments,
    or peacefully at rest, than in agony dying by some grimy roadside; that's
    some people for you.

    Odd that no-one feels it appropriate to leave commemorative flowers at the
    scene of industrial accidents, or in hospital wards. Perhaps because these
    aren't public spaces, there's no appreciative audience for their grief. It's
    rampant Diana Syndrome; attention-seeking and morose.
     
  14. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    Mr [email protected] (2.30 zulu-india) wrote:

    > Although the cops sometimes remove the flowers, I have found that the soggy
    > remains eventually get blown across the road actually create a further road
    > hazard - I have nearly skidded on them at least once and I try *not* to ride
    > in the gutter, and would not want to trash someones memorial either by
    > deliberately riding over it..


    Goodness me, dead plants in the countryside. Who'd have thought it.
    Something must be done..

    ...d
     
  15. spindrift

    spindrift Guest

    Children standing outside school gates, ban them now.
     
  16. "David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > Goodness me, dead plants in the countryside. Who'd have thought it.
    > Something must be done..


    AFAIK most dead (wild) plants die where they were planted or are trimmed /
    removed / harvested. Decomposing vegetable matter is no longer normally
    thrown or left at the side of the road - at least in the areas where I live!

    Nor do schoolkids normally lie in the road when I am cycling, unless they
    have *really* been at the after school binge-drinking or have taken to
    snorting ketamine.. even if dressed in dark clothing you can spot them by
    the white bits on the draw cords of their hoodies [1]

    I've never been particularly fond of chopping plants to pieces to get
    flowers anyway. I'm not particulary green fingered but would rather buy
    someone a present of a whole plant in a pot rather than chopped flowers.

    I can understand some of the mentality behind this as I've lost a number of
    friends due to RTCs/overdoses/violence etc over the years, but if these
    people want to create tributes to deceased friends/relatives would it not be
    far better to put a big *living* plant of some sort in a safer place?

    Alex

    [1] not to be mistaken for badgers.
    --
    Mr [email protected] / General Lighting
    Ipswich, Suffolk, Untied Kingdom
    http://www.partyvibe.com
     
  17. Nobody Here

    Nobody Here Guest

    Simon Bennett <[email protected]> wrote:
    > davek wrote:
    >> Pyromancer wrote:
    >>> All the funds that are squandered on rotting roadside "memorials"
    >>> should instead be collected and given to the surviving relatives to
    >>> help cover the (often quite steep) funeral expenses.

    >>
    >> There's just such a shrine directly across the road from me

    >
    > There was a MASSIVE one in Margate for months. Why some people feel it's
    > appropriate to commemorate the place where someone copped it is totally
    > beyond me. It's far better to remember lost loved-ones in happier moments,
    > or peacefully at rest, than in agony dying by some grimy roadside; that's
    > some people for you.


    I tend to agree with all the anti sentiments but I do wonder if they
    serve as a bit of a warning to others - I suspect not, or not
    much, but perhaps they do.

    > Odd that no-one feels it appropriate to leave commemorative flowers at the
    > scene of industrial accidents, or in hospital wards. Perhaps because these
    > aren't public spaces, there's no appreciative audience for their grief. It's
    > rampant Diana Syndrome; attention-seeking and morose.


    Quite.


    --
    Nobby Anderson
     
  18. In article <[email protected]>, Clive
    George ([email protected]) wrote:
    > "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > The unacceptable face of motoring (and some pedestrian groups who
    > > are not au fait with the real dangers those they claim to represent
    > > face) often imply that only cyclists ride along pavements.
    > >
    > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4827894.stm is about a
    > > motorist driving along a pavement, in the course of which he injured
    > > six people, one very badly.
    > >
    > > True to form the police appear to have already gone out of their way
    > > to excuse the motorist. Other groups in the motoring lobby will no
    > > doubt follow their lead.

    >
    > Can you tell me where it says the police have gone out of their way to
    > excuse the motorist?


    Or indeed where it says he drove *along* the pavement?

    (Contemplates insertion of Edmonton joke. Decides against it)

    --
    Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
    und keine Eie.
     
  19. Matt B

    Matt B Guest

    David Hansen wrote:
    > The unacceptable face of motoring (and some pedestrian groups who
    > are not au fait with the real dangers those they claim to represent
    > face) often imply that only cyclists ride along pavements.


    Are you implying that cyclists only do it accidentally, or that the
    motorist was doing it deliberately?

    I would venture to suggest that, in fact, most times a motorist does it
    dangerously (as in this case) it is accidental, whereas most times
    cyclists do it dangerously, which is all day everyday in some places, it
    is deliberate.

    --
    Matt B
     
  20. Yorkie

    Yorkie Guest

    p.k. wrote:
    > The issue wrt cyclists is DELIBERATE cycling on the pavement. the tragic
    > incident you link to was a traffic "accident" the driver did not intend to
    > drive on the pavement.



    How do you know it was an accident, and how do you know the drivers
    intentions? You may be correct, but we don't know yet.

    It's also interesting how cars are seemingly only ever involved in
    "accidents", yet other forms of transports have "crashes" and
    "disasters" instead.

    All car crashes are, apparently, automatically classsed as "accidents"
    by some.
     
Loading...
Loading...