Re: Cyclist kills pedestrian

[Alex Heney]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:38:58 +0100, JNugent
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:55:28 +0100, JNugent
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Alex Heney wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:36:32 +0100, JNugent
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>Is riding on the footway automatically illegal? Yes (and no
>>>>>qualification needed).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Except that it isn't.
>>>
>>>Cycling along a footway (a paved route reserved for pedestrians) is
>>>always illegal. That you don't know that should surprise me. But it
>>>somehow doesn't.
>>
>>
>> If you want to redefine "footway" to mean only those reserved for
>> pedestrians, then you would indeed be correct (obviously).
>>
>> But that isn't the definition of "footway". Many "footways" are shared
>> use.
>
>But not many in Central London, which seems to be the focus of the
>recent ire.
>
>I don't argue against cycling use of "shared paths" where they exist
>(there'd be no point in that), but I do take the view that such things
>should be scrapped - totally and as soon as possible. Their existence
>confuses the issue elsewhere. The footway is supposed to be a safe
>place for pedestrians.

I understand your argument, but I'm not sure I agree with it. So long
as there are plenty of signs and markings so that both pedestrians and
cyclists are fully aware of the mixed presence, it *shouldn't* be
dangerous.

Where it is dangerous, that is mainly down to the inconsiderate
actions of a few (mainly cyclists), and this type of dangerous usage
should be clamped down on by the authorities.

Although as a cyclist, I almost always prefer to use the road anyhow.

But regardless of whether you or I think they are a good idea, the
authorities clearly think they are, because far from being scrapped,
they are proliferating hugely of late.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
When I was a kid, I was an imaginary playmate.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

 

[Alex Heney]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:47:23 +0100, JNugent
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Marc Brett wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:44:23 +0100, JNugent
<snip>

>
>Can I be the only one who finds it absolutely bizarre that a
>government department issues guidance authorising breach of the law?
>

Probably you are, yes.


>What next? The DoT issuing guidance that it's ok to exceed speed
>limits in some circumstances (judged by the individual driver)?

Well the ACPO guidelines already say not to prosecute if the driver
was within 10%+2mph of the limit, so that is effectively already
there.


>Or by
>the DWP to the effect that benefit fraud is OK as long as it's not too
>much?

No, that would lose them money, and that is something no government
could possibly condone :-(


--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Plan to be more spontaneous.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

 

[[email protected]]

JNugent wrote:
> Marc Brett wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:41:26 +0100, JNugent
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> There is no irony at all in observing that cycling along the
>>>>> footway is not only illegal, but also stupid and inconsiderate.
>>>
>>>> That's garbage. If the conditions dictate it is right and proper a
>>>> bicycle
>>>> on a pavement is no more dangerous than a pram.
>>>
>>> That's not for you to judge.
>>
>> So who is in a position to judge, then?
>
> No-one.
>
> It's illegal to cycle on the footway.

Except on shared-use paths, as previously noted. But the mere fact of
its illegality does not necessarily make it stupid and inconsiderate,
which is what you originally asserted ("observed").

It doesn't matter how hard you work your "if you'll pardon the
tautology" catchphrase, argument by assertion is not a legitimate way to
prove a point.

> You (or the PP) might as well claim that since it's safe to drive on an
> empty motorway at 120mph (and it is) that no prosecution should take
> place in such circumstances.

It may be safe, but it's still illegal. Does that make it stupid and
inconsiderate?


-dan

 

[Clive George]

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

>>>It's not as though pedestrians are entitled to expect not to encounter
>>>bicycles travelling along the footway at 25mph (or any speed), is it?
>>
>> Any speed?????
>
> Yes - ANY speed.
>
> Which bit of "it's illegal" is too hard for you to understand?

Y'know, I get the distinct feeling if Mr Nugent saw one of these

http://www.pedalcarsandretro.com/store/files/images/small/t_306.jpg

being ridden along the pavement, he'd tell the owner they should be on the
road. After all, it's illegal.

clive

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> JNugent wrote:.
> >
> > It's illegal to cycle on the footway.
>
> Except on shared-use paths, as previously noted.

Actually its only illegal on "footways alongside the road set aside for
the use of foot passengers" which means its only on non-shared use
footways next to the road that its illegal. The rest are legal to
cycle.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Jon]

On 11 Oct, 18:44, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> since it's safe to drive on an empty motorway at 120mph (and it is)>

Is it? What is the design max. safe speed for standard tyres?

(ISTR the ones on the last car I owned were rated for up to 90mph)

Jon

 

[Alex]

At 17:32:34 on 11/10/2007, Marc Brett delighted uk.legal by announcing:

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:41:26 +0100, JNugent
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > There is no irony at all in observing that cycling along the
> > > > footway is not only illegal, but also stupid and inconsiderate.
> >
> >> That's garbage. If the conditions dictate it is right and proper a
> bicycle >> on a pavement is no more dangerous than a pram.
> >
> > That's not for you to judge.
>
> So who is in a position to judge, then? The framers of the original
> "no cycling on pavemet" law, now almost two centuries old?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that a footpath* is a section of road
set aside for the exclusive use of pedestrians. It is not an
anti-cycling measure, but an anti-vehicle measure.

*shared facilities aside

 

[Alex]

At 10:36:52 on 12/10/2007, Jon delighted uk.legal by announcing:

> On 11 Oct, 18:44, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > since it's safe to drive on an empty motorway at 120mph (and it
> > is)>
>
> Is it? What is the design max. safe speed for standard tyres?

What's a 'standard' tyre? The safe speed for the tyre will exceed the
performance of the vehicle.

> (ISTR the ones on the last car I owned were rated for up to 90mph)

And mine are rated >149mph for a claimed max speed of 125mph. How fast
did your car actually go?

 

[Alex]

At 20:22:47 on 11/10/2007, Marc Brett delighted uk.legal by announcing:

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:38:18 +0100, JNugent
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > The footway is supposed to be a safe place for pedestrians.
>
> > It's not as though pedestrians are entitled to
> > expect not to encounter bicycles travelling along the footway at
> > 25mph (or any speed), is it?
>
> Any speed?????

Yes.

> I think we'd all agree that pedestrians don't have any problems
> encountering bikes travelling along the footway at 0 mph.

How does one travel at 0mph? Or is this some kind of zen?

 

[Alex]

At 02:24:19 on 12/10/2007, Clive George delighted uk.legal by
announcing:

> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > > > It's not as though pedestrians are entitled to expect not to
> > > > encounter bicycles travelling along the footway at 25mph (or
> > > > any speed), is it?
> > >
> > > Any speed?????
> >
> > Yes - ANY speed.
> >
> > Which bit of "it's illegal" is too hard for you to understand?
>
> Y'know, I get the distinct feeling if Mr Nugent saw one of these
>
> http://www.pedalcarsandretro.com/store/files/images/small/t_306.jpg
>
> being ridden along the pavement, he'd tell the owner they should be
> on the road.

Presumably he'd actually tell them they should be on private property,
if he told them anything at all. What makes you think that it's got to
be a choice of road or footpath?

 

[Roger Merriman]

Jon <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 11 Oct, 18:44, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > since it's safe to drive on an empty motorway at 120mph (and it is)>
>
> Is it? What is the design max. safe speed for standard tyres?
>
> (ISTR the ones on the last car I owned were rated for up to 90mph)
>
> Jon

as most cars can reach 90+ most tires would be fair bit higher, my
little old car has T rated tires so rated to 118mph.

less the high speed running more the cornering and acceleration and such
that will stress the tires.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[[email protected]]

On 12 Oct, 11:32, "Alex" <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 20:22:47 on 11/10/2007, Marc Brett delighted uk.legal by announcing:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:38:18 +0100, JNugent
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > The footway is supposed to be a safe place for pedestrians.
>
> > > It's not as though pedestrians are entitled to
> > > expect not to encounter bicycles travelling along the footway at
> > > 25mph (or any speed), is it?
>
> > Any speed?????
>
> Yes.
>
> > I think we'd all agree that pedestrians don't have any problems
> > encountering bikes travelling along the footway at 0 mph.
>
> How does one travel at 0mph? Or is this some kind of zen?

Mr Nugent stands still and lets the world revolve around him?

--
x If you have been, did it save energy?
/|\

 

[David Lloyd]

On 12 Oct, 11:32, "Alex" <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 20:22:47 on 11/10/2007, Marc Brett delighted uk.legal by announcing:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:38:18 +0100, JNugent
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > The footway is supposed to be a safe place for pedestrians.
>
> > > It's not as though pedestrians are entitled to
> > > expect not to encounter bicycles travelling along the footway at
> > > 25mph (or any speed), is it?
>
> > Any speed?????
>
> Yes.
>
> > I think we'd all agree that pedestrians don't have any problems
> > encountering bikes travelling along the footway at 0 mph.
>
> How does one travel at 0mph? Or is this some kind of zen?

If I see someone actually travelling at 0mph, I'll clap them with one
hand. ;P

David Lloyd

 

[Lord Turkey Cough]

>
> You (or the PP) might as well claim that since it's safe to drive on an
> empty motorway at 120mph (and it is) that no prosecution should take place
> in such circumstances.

No your wrong motors were designed with a maximum speed limit of
70 mph, driving at 120mph is inherently stupid and dangerous
and wase full of fuel.

 

[®i©ardo]

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
>> You (or the PP) might as well claim that since it's safe to drive on an
>> empty motorway at 120mph (and it is) that no prosecution should take place
>> in such circumstances.
>
> No your wrong motors were designed with a maximum speed limit of
> 70 mph, driving at 120mph is inherently stupid and dangerous
> and wase full of fuel.
>
>
Are you sure that they were his wrong motors?

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[[email protected]]

On 12 Oct, 23:33, "Lord Turkey Cough" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You (or the PP) might as well claim that since it's safe to drive on an
> > empty motorway at 120mph (and it is) that no prosecution should take place
> > in such circumstances.
>
> No your wrong motors were designed with a maximum speed limit of
> 70 mph, driving at 120mph is inherently stupid and dangerous
> and wase full of fuel.

Do they "wase" more fuel if the motor-cars have widescreen TVs in the
back, or does that make no difference?

--
x If you have been, were you car-sick?
/|\

 

[JNugent]

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

>>You (or the PP) might as well claim that since it's safe to drive on an
>>empty motorway at 120mph (and it is) that no prosecution should take place
>>in such circumstances.

> No your wrong motors were designed with a maximum speed limit of
> 70 mph, driving at 120mph is inherently stupid and dangerous
> and wase full of fuel.

(a) What on Earth is a "wrong motor"?

(b) Please explain this strange concept of a vehicle being designed
with "a maximum speed limit of 70mph". Do you have an example in mind?

(c) Explain how driving at 120mph on a motorway where legal (and it is
completely legal in at least one EEC country) is "stupid" (inherently
or otherwise - in fact, I'd love to know why you use the word
"inherently" at all there - it makes no sense). What is "stupid" about
travelling at a speed faster than one of which Lord Turkey Cough
happens to approve?

(d) "Wase full" [sic] of fuel? Well, that has to be a matter of
opinion and weighed against other factors. I fully accept that you may
well value other peoples' time at nil, but even you must surely
understand that people are likely to value their time more highly than
you do. The world, of course, does not revolve around you and your
opinions, which must be a disappointment.

(e) "Dangerous"? Nonsense. If driving at 12mph were inherently
dangerous every racing driver in the world would be dead several times
over (not to mention just about every big Merc, BMW and Porsche owner
in Germany).

[See what I did there? I used the word "inherently" in its proper sense.]

 

[JNugent]

JNugent wrote:
> Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
>
>>> You (or the PP) might as well claim that since it's safe to drive on
>>> an empty motorway at 120mph (and it is) that no prosecution should
>>> take place in such circumstances.
>
>
>> No your wrong motors were designed with a maximum speed limit of
>> 70 mph, driving at 120mph is inherently stupid and dangerous
>> and wase full of fuel.
>
>
> (a) What on Earth is a "wrong motor"?
>
> (b) Please explain this strange concept of a vehicle being designed with
> "a maximum speed limit of 70mph". Do you have an example in mind?
>
> (c) Explain how driving at 120mph on a motorway where legal (and it is
> completely legal in at least one EEC country) is "stupid" (inherently or
> otherwise - in fact, I'd love to know why you use the word "inherently"
> at all there - it makes no sense). What is "stupid" about travelling at
> a speed faster than one of which Lord Turkey Cough happens to approve?
>
> (d) "Wase full" [sic] of fuel? Well, that has to be a matter of opinion
> and weighed against other factors. I fully accept that you may well
> value other peoples' time at nil, but even you must surely understand
> that people are likely to value their time more highly than you do. The
> world, of course, does not revolve around you and your opinions, which
> must be a disappointment.
>
> (e) "Dangerous"? Nonsense. If driving at 12mph were inherently dangerous
> every racing driver in the world would be dead several times over (not
> to mention just about every big Merc, BMW and Porsche owner in Germany).
>
> [See what I did there? I used the word "inherently" in its proper sense.]

Oops!

For "12mph", please read "120mph".

Sorry...

 

[JNugent]

[email protected] wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Marc Brett wrote:
>>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>>> There is no irony at all in observing that cycling along the
>>>>>> footway is not only illegal, but also stupid and inconsiderate.

>>>>> That's garbage. If the conditions dictate it is right and proper a
>>>>> bicycle on a pavement is no more dangerous than a pram.

>>>> That's not for you to judge.

>>> So who is in a position to judge, then?

>> No-one.
>> It's illegal to cycle on the footway.

> Except on shared-use paths, as previously noted. But the mere fact of
> its illegality does not necessarily make it stupid and inconsiderate,
> which is what you originally asserted ("observed").

> It doesn't matter how hard you work your "if you'll pardon the
> tautology" catchphrase, argument by assertion is not a legitimate way to
> prove a point.

>> You (or the PP) might as well claim that since it's safe to drive on
>> an empty motorway at 120mph (and it is) that no prosecution should
>> take place in such circumstances.

> It may be safe, but it's still illegal. Does that make it stupid and
> inconsiderate?

You've rather spectacularly missed the point. I don't argue that
drivers doing 120 should not be prosecuted.

In fact, I would assert that exceeding a speed limit by 50mph (or 71%)
in a country like the UK - obsessed as the authorities are with their
"speed kills" mantra ) - is so short-sighted as to be stupid. It
doesn't matter a jot that it was perfectly legal to drive at that
speed within easy living memory. As safe as it may be (and it must be
just as safe at dead of night on the M45 as it is on the German A45),
the government is determined to detect and make examples of those not
prepared to make a pretence of tugging the forelock.

It's all very different on a footway passing front doors and garden
gates within waking hours, with pedestrian traffic (and motor and
cycle traffic legitimately crossing the footway) actually *likely*,
isn't it?

Drivers can't drive at 120, and cyclists can't ride on the footway.

Neither proposition seems difficult to understand.

 

[[email protected]]

JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> There is no irony at all in observing that cycling along the
>>>>>>> footway is not only illegal, but also stupid and inconsiderate.

[ much snippage ]

>>> You (or the PP) might as well claim that since it's safe to drive on
>>> an empty motorway at 120mph (and it is) that no prosecution should
>>> take place in such circumstances.
>
>> It may be safe, but it's still illegal. Does that make it stupid and
>> inconsiderate?
>
> You've rather spectacularly missed the point. I don't argue that drivers
> doing 120 should not be prosecuted.

I've - spectacularly or otherwise - responded to the point that you
made. To be specific, your assertion that "cycling along the
footway is [...] stupid and inconsiderate."

If that wasn't germane to whatever point you were trying to make,
perhaps in the interest of more effective communication you should have
refrained from saying it.

[driving on an empty motorway at 120mph is]
> all very different on a footway passing front doors and garden
> gates within waking hours, with pedestrian traffic (and motor and cycle
> traffic legitimately crossing the footway) actually *likely*, isn't it?

Well, yes. And a camel is very different from a halibut, but one would
be a fool to assume that it survives in the desert simply because it has
more legs. For the purpose of the comparison, driving on an empty
motorway at 120mph in the dead of night is more like, say, cycling on an
empty footway at a similar time of night.


-dan