They go for runners too!

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

It's not just cyclists who are the are the targets for 4-wheel-drive-man. Runners are vulnerable
too - and it's another hit-and-run case.

See news.bbc.co.uk2793127.stmOpen ↗

Ha! They won't get me this way unless they can get their 4WDs up the fells.

It does make you wonder if some people bother using their full set of mirrors.

Colin

"Colin Blackburn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:MPG.18c438e517abef8c9897d1@localhost...

Quoted message said:

Ha! They won't get me this way unless they can get their 4WDs up the fells.

Wot -- take it off road. It would get muddy.

Colin Blackburn said:

It does make you wonder if some people bother using their full set of mirrors.

Of course - those are for the ones you miss with the bull bars :-/

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

[email hidden] (wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

It's not just cyclists who are the are the targets for 4-wheel-drive-man. Runners are vulnerable
too - and it's another hit-and-run case.

See news.bbc.co.uk2793127.stmOpen ↗

What worries me is this quote from the police:
| A police spokesman said: "This vehicle was forced to move out to pass the runners, and in doing so
| the trailer has hit at least three of them.

Who "forced" the driver to move out? An armed hijacker in the car? The police? This sums up a
driver attitude that I encounter daily: stopping and waiting "until it is safe to pass" seems not
to be an option. Mostly, this endangers the driver in question and anyone coming the other way, as
they cross a solid white line on a blind bend. And invariably, they end up at a junction or lights
seconds later.

Rory said:

Who "forced" the driver to move out? An armed hijacker in the car? The police?

What's just as bizarre is the fact that this took place during a large organised road roace on a
three lap course. If the roads aren't closed (often are) then there must have been adequate signage
and separation.

Not wanting to reduce the responsibility of the driver I do have to ask whether the orgainsers and
police took adequate measures to protect the runners.

--
Michael MacClancy

CLogicRogerC said:

Getting road closure for races is getting harder and harder.

Further evidence of the hegemony of the motorist. I'm a runner, too, and I was aware of this
problem. Is it something that has got worse since supermarkets started opening on Sundays? I wasn't
living in the UK at the time this started. Do cycle racers have the same problems?
--
Michael MacClancy

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

CLogicRogerC said:

Getting road closure for races is getting harder and harder.

Further evidence of the hegemony of the motorist. I'm a runner, too, and I was aware of this
problem. Is it something that has got worse since supermarkets started opening on Sundays? I
wasn't living in the UK at the time this started. Do cycle racers have the same problems?

From what I've seen here a lot of road cycling events are not races, ie time trials, audaxes, etc.
and so don't fall under the same rules. I've never seen a running time trial on the road!

I don't run races on the roads much at all and the few I have done have had no closures just
marshals at crossing points. There have been notable individual problems, the Morpeth to Newcastle
half marathon has moved from Jan 1st to mid-Jan as the police couldn't provide the staff on new
year's day. Talking to other runners there does seem to be an increasing problem with road
events---most of which are obviously much lower-key that the London Marathong, GNR, etc. I stick to
orienteering, fell-running and mountain marathons, that way it's just land-owners to be persuaded!

Colin

"CLogicRogerC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think the police have a lot on their plate and this makes them

reluctant to

Quoted message said:

support smallish sporting events - a great shame. I guess that the footy

clubs

Quoted message said:

pay for policing - and race organisers would have to do the same. Not easy

if

Quoted message said:

its a small event.

Race organisers do have to pay. You would be amazed at what the Met can charge just to put out some
cones (I can't remember the amount but for the price I would have expected a Bobbie every few yards
-- not just a cone.)

T

In message id <[email hidden]> on 25 Feb 2003 11:01:58 GMT,
CLogicRogerC wrote in uk.rec.cycling :

Quoted message said:

I think the police have a lot on their plate and this makes them reluctant to support smallish
sporting events - a great shame. I guess that the footy clubs pay for policing - and race
organisers would have to do the same. Not easy if its a small event.

Football clubs do pay for policing yet the police also have the power to refuse a fixture being
moved if it clashes with some other event where resources need to be deployed. Events such as
Notting Hill Carnival in a small area in West London caused such a drain on police resources that
they refused to cover football matches in London on August Bank holiday and that date has been
dropped from the football calendar. Marches are also having the same effect nowadays.

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:09:02 +0000 someone who may be John Blake <[email hidden]>
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Marches are also having the same effect nowadays.

It was fascinating to see the number of officers the police threw around the Armadillo in Glasgow a
few weekends ago. No doubt a scheme to boost their pay with lots of overtime, most of them were
entirely unnecessary.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.