Motorist drives along pavement

[Tom Crispin]

On 22 Mar 2006 01:19:24 +0800, [email protected]lid wrote:

>spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Cycling on the footway is also more dangerous than cycling on the road,
>> and causes distress to pedestrians. So don't do it.
>
>I don't see why all footpaths are not turned into cycle paths. You still
>have to give way to pedestrians on a cycle path, and so many cyclists
>ride on them anyway surely it would be better to educate people on how to
>share the space with peds instead of telling them they can't do it (which
>doesn't seem to work)

I certainly think that there's an excellent case for relaxing the
pavement cycling law for children of ten years and under.

The Royal Parks prohibit all cycling on footpaths, other than marked
cycle routes and roads, but their regulations allow for children of
ten years and under to ride on paths when learning to ride safely.

That seems very sensible.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

 

[Richard]

[email protected]lid wrote:
> spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Cycling on the footway is also more dangerous than cycling on the road,
>>and causes distress to pedestrians. So don't do it.
>
>
> I don't see why all footpaths are not turned into cycle paths.

You don't see why, despite having just been given a clear concise
summary of the evidence with references attached, should you choose to
follow the link?

> You still
> have to give way to pedestrians on a cycle path, and so many cyclists
> ride on them anyway surely it would be better to educate people on how to
> share the space with peds instead of telling them they can't do it (which
> doesn't seem to work)

Ah. www.makebankrobberieslegal.org.uk, anyone?

R.

 

[TheMgt]

elyob wrote:

<snip>

> trying to use it as an example whilst one schoolgirl is fighting for
> her life in hospital is just wrong.

Why?

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 21 Mar, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:

> Why "ha, ha"? Have you /ever/ heard of the police /not/ investigating
> even the most minor of injury incidents involving a motorist?

Yes. The time a motorist pulled out of a side road and catapulted me
across the bonnet of their car. I was injured (slightly) and had to
object loudly to get the police to even write down any details when I
reported it at my local police station. They investigated nothing,
and they pursued nothing, despite the driver failing to report the
accident in accordance with statutory requirements.

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

 

[Mr R@t \(2.30 zulu-india\)]

"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> I certainly think that there's an excellent case for relaxing the
> pavement cycling law for children of ten years and under.
>
> The Royal Parks prohibit all cycling on footpaths, other than marked
> cycle routes and roads, but their regulations allow for children of
> ten years and under to ride on paths when learning to ride safely.
>
> That seems very sensible.

And surely is a /de facto/ law anyway? Kids <10 years old are below the age
of criminal responsibility; nor have I heard of any parents ever being
prosecuted for permitting their young kids to ride on a pavement.

OTOH at age 10 I remember a bobby attending my primary school and giving us
all a lecture about stuff you should not do like shoplifting or cycling on
the pavement/in an anti social manner and that if you had an accident where
a ped was hurt or hurt somebody in any way *you* were liable and could even
end up at juvenile court.

The school also encouraged people to take a Cycling Proficiency Test around
age 10 and it was mentioned there about "legal responsibility".

We all also got shown round a Police station (including the cells) and told
that we would end up there if we did the aforementioned Bad Things, that our
parents/guardians would be most displeased when they had to pick us up and
our school would get notified as well,

I am not *that* old either; this was in West Berkshire in 1982.

Alex

--
Mr R@T / General Lighting
Ipswich, Suffolk, Untied Kingdom
http://www.partyvibe.com

 

[David Martin]

Mr R@t (2.30 zulu-india) wrote:
> "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!

You must be on Orkney or the Western Isles then. Everywhere else has
deciduous trees which drop rather a lot of dead, decaying plant matter
onto the roads every year. Or do you not ride your bike in the autumn?

...d

 

[ian henden]

"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.

No. It is NOT "driving" along the pavement. The car was apparently out of
control (for reasons which may well have been, but not necessarily, the
fault of the driver)

>
> 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.
>
True to form, certain cyclists choose misleading words in a miserable
attempt to advance their cause, They do themselves no favours.

Remember, the (majority of the) cyclists riding on the pavement do so
deliberately, and would claim to be "in control"....

> --
> 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

 

[Tony Raven]

David Martin wrote:
>
> You must be on Orkney or the Western Isles then. Everywhere else has
> deciduous trees which drop rather a lot of dead, decaying plant matter
> onto the roads every year.

Nah, they've all been chopped down so they can't leap out and hit poor
unsuspecting cars and their drivers.


--
Tony

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

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:34:05 -0000 someone who may be "Clive George"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>as I said twice, I
>think the sentence referred to the rail crash, not the car crash.

We will have to disagree.

>Face it, you're just getting all self-righteoously wound up about plod
>again - you do have a habit of doing this.

Excellent, the swerve into a personal attack.


--
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

 

[Mr R@t \(2.30 zulu-india\)]

"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> You must be on Orkney or the Western Isles then. Everywhere else has
> deciduous trees which drop rather a lot of dead, decaying plant matter
> onto the roads every year. Or do you not ride your bike in the autumn?
>

I honestly haven't noticed many major problems with leaf litter and I do
ride in autumn and sometimes semi-rural areas. There are some deciduous
trees about but a lot of the roads just have fenced farmland next to them
and comparatively few woods/trees.

Either the leaves are swept up by someone before they cause a problem; or
the woods are trimmed back / some distance behind a concrete
pavement/driveway/grass verge and most of the leaves land there and not as
many are blown on the road.

This load of flowers I nearly skidded on ( I had seen them and slowed down,
so perhaps there's at least some good to them) was on a route which switches
between country road /dual carriageway on the route of Reading to
Maidenhead - it was clearly the remains of a tribute to some RTC victims.
Most of the flowers had already been run over a few times (by cars) by the
look of it.

There are also loads of yellow signs put up by highways authority saying "nn
fatal accidents here" and (usually ignored) warnings to reduce drivers
speed.

Alex
--
Mr R@T / General Lighting
Ipswich, Suffolk, Untied Kingdom
http://www.partyvibe.com

 

[ian henden]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:34:05 -0000 someone who may be "Clive George"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>as I said twice, I
>>think the sentence referred to the rail crash, not the car crash.
>
> We will have to disagree.
>
>>Face it, you're just getting all self-righteoously wound up about plod
>>again - you do have a habit of doing this.
>
> Excellent, the swerve into a personal attack.
>
>
> --
> 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

And a commendable swerve at that.

Even your fellow cyclists think you are on a non-starter with this one, and
all credit to them for that.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:43:49 -0000, "Mr R@t \(2.30 zulu-india\)"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> I certainly think that there's an excellent case for relaxing the
>> pavement cycling law for children of ten years and under.
>>
>> The Royal Parks prohibit all cycling on footpaths, other than marked
>> cycle routes and roads, but their regulations allow for children of
>> ten years and under to ride on paths when learning to ride safely.
>>
>> That seems very sensible.
>
>And surely is a /de facto/ law anyway? Kids <10 years old are below the age
>of criminal responsibility; nor have I heard of any parents ever being
>prosecuted for permitting their young kids to ride on a pavement.

Presumably, then, children under the age of eleven don't have to pay
to travel on public transport. I know they don't in London, except on
most National Rail journeys, but London's an exception.

The way it works is that a parents, or a person in loco parentis,
/might/ be arrested on the child's behalf. Perhaps that's a good
reason for not paying for children on National Rail journeys. I can
have a nice warm cell and the police can take my class on a trip to
the Science Museum.

....I wonder if the penalty would be £50 or thirty lots of £50?
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

 

[p.k.]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:34:05 -0000 someone who may be "Clive George"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> as I said twice, I
>> think the sentence referred to the rail crash, not the car crash.
>
> We will have to disagree.


on other bbc sites the inital text is preserved:



#A man has been arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving.


The police have confirmed the injured girl was air-lifted to the Royal
London Hospital.

Police are still investigating what happened to the boys, who were killed by
the Stansted Express train while using a gated crossing in Edmonton, London.

Detective Chief Inspector Mick Southerton, who is investigating the deaths
said: "At the moment we are dealing with it as a very tragic accident but we
are not ruling anything out." #



pk

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:30:03 +0000 someone who may be Matt B
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Why "ha, ha"? Have you /ever/ heard of the police /not/ investigating
>even the most minor of injury incidents involving a motorist?

The assertion that the police will as usual spare no effort in an
attempt to convict a motorist of the most serious offence possible
can be given a reality check easily enough. Here is one example,
from this group in 2001. The threads are "Busy Day" and "Update on
Rob's Busy day..."

=======================================================================

"Last Wednesday Rob was shunted from behind by a car. Not serious,
no damage to trike or rider except that his foot was run over by the
departing car. Duly reported to the police, though unfortunately he
only got part of the registration number.

"This morning, the police came to his office and arrested him for
criminal damage on the car, claiming he'd smashed the windscreen and
sod knows what else... They kept him in a cell for two hours before
interviewing him. He is now out on bail."

=======================================================================

"To update on my recent posts about my husband Rob, who was recently
hit by a car while riding his trike and then arrested for alleged
criminal damage to the car that hit him, his bail expired today and
when he arrived at the police station he was charged and will appear
in court on Thursday.

"From what the police have told him, there is no evidence outside
the two conflicting statements, so I've no idea how they can make a
case of this. The driver is alleging that Rob did nearly £200 worth
of damage to the car (God knows what he's supposed to have done this
*with*....) which is apparently much more important than striking
someone with a motor vehicle and then driving off without checking
to see if they're hurt or not."

=======================================================================

The above is far from being an isolated case. It is typically only
those with the outlook of Daily Wail "journalists" who think that
the police are keen to investigate motorists.

The police are the usual blend of good bad and indifferent. As such
they deserve bouquets and brickbats as appropriate. Anyone who
defends them no matter what they do is not doing anyone a favour.




--
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

 

[Martin O'Loughlin]

On 2006-03-21 17:30:03 +0000, Matt B <[email protected]> said:

> David Hansen wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:45:54 +0000 someone who may be Matt B
>> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>
>>> The car driver will, as usual be spared no effort in an attempt to
>>> convict him of the most serious offence possible,
>>
>> Ha, ha.
>
> Why "ha, ha"? Have you /ever/ heard of the police /not/ investigating
> even the most minor of injury incidents involving a motorist?
>
> If anyone is seriously injured the scene is closed and treated as a
> potential crime scene (which, of course it is). The road will be
> closed for hours whilst every stone is turned. If there is /any/
> evidence found to support a charge you can be absolutely certain that
> one will be brought.
>
> OTOH, if all attempts to find evidence fail, what would /you/ like to
> happen? A kangaroo court? A lynching?

I will tell you a story about the police and drivers. My brother in
law, 4 years ago whilst cycling home from work was hit by a driver. My
brother in law was knocked off his bike and had his leg dragged up into
the wheel arch, shattering the lower leg and breaking the upper leg,
along with concusion, brusing, cuts etc. The driver attempted to drive
away which is partly why the injuries were as bad as they were. The
driver was stopped by crashing into a lamp-post. The police came along
and conducted a breathtest. the driver was 3 times over the limit,
however this is not enough for a court so the driver was taken for a
blood test, a test the police botched. The result no evidence that he
had been drink driving.

three and a half years later my brother in law takes the decision that
due to his leg not healing that an amputation would probably be the
only way to start over. this was done, but he has sinced developed a
clot and is on wolfrine(SP?) in an effort to prevent the clot migrating
and actually causing a problem or so i understand.

What did the driver get? a two year ban, oh yeah, he had already been
succesfully prosecuted for drink driving!

just to round this happy story off, they aren't entitled to any
benefits, i believe the little they have received has to be paid back
when the compensation is paid, and still haven't received any
compensation after 4 years.

What a wonderful legal system

MO

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:23:00 GMT someone who may be "ian henden"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>No. It is NOT "driving" along the pavement.

Given that the victims were on the pavement it is difficult to know
how else to describe it. Perhaps the car was levitated at the time
and thus some would claim it was not on the pavement.



--
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

 

[Mr R@t \(2.30 zulu-india\)]

"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Presumably, then, children under the age of eleven don't have to pay
> to travel on public transport. I know they don't in London, except on
> most National Rail journeys, but London's an exception.

<snip>

> The way it works is that a parents, or a person in loco parentis,
> /might/ be arrested on the child's behalf.

I think though (even with new laws) whether someone would be prosecuted for
anything a kid does depends on how proportionate the arrest would be.

Not paying fares causes a financial loss to the transport companies. I
didn't know about the London exemption, is this one of Red Ken's ideas?

I expect a 20something or late teens "parent" *encouraging* a chavlet to
ride at peoples knees under a working CCTV camera *would* be "cruising for
an asbo".

OTOH *young* children (primary school age) riding on the pavement appears to
have been accepted by society even in the "good old days". I have a couple
of cycling books from the 1950s which admonish would be adult cyclists
against riding on pavements; but deem it acceptable for a small child to do
so whilst learning. When said brat reaches 11 or thereabouts they are
supposed to ride on the road. (Of course the roads were clearer then)

Also in my teens there was a local bobby who *would* tick you off if he
caught you cycling on the pavement, or trying to do stunts in public places
etc...

Now I'm not the sort of person who always sees eye to eye with the cops or
restrictive legislation; but to be fair he explained how you could end up
hurting yourself or someone else by doing so; and the fact he was a cyclist
himself helped matters...

Alex
--
Mr R@T / General Lighting
Ipswich, Suffolk, Untied Kingdom
http://www.partyvibe.com

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:52:59 -0000, "Mr R@t \(2.30 zulu-india\)"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Not paying fares causes a financial loss to the transport companies. I
>didn't know about the London exemption, is this one of Red Ken's ideas?

Under 16s travel free on busses, the tube and Docklands' Light
Railway, and a few National Rail lines (I think). 14 - 16 must have an
exemption photocard, for older looking younger children photocards are
an option. Yep - it's down to Red Ken. He's coming to see my cycle
training project some time next term or in the Autumn Term.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:36:12 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "p.k."
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>on other bbc sites the inital text is preserved:
>
>Detective Chief Inspector Mick Southerton, who is investigating the deaths
>said: "At the moment we are dealing with it as a very tragic accident but we
>are not ruling anything out."

If the original story is as you claim then I misread 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

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

"Mr R@t \(2.30 zulu-india\)" <[email protected]>typed

> Not paying fares causes a financial loss to the transport companies. I
> didn't know about the London exemption, is this one of Red Ken's ideas?

Yup. AFAIK kids under 11 were exempt from fares last year.
This year it's under 16 (Photocards needed for those of over 14 in appearance)

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.