I was intimidated twice by terrorist cyclists today.

[PeterG]

Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
fast pedestrian, rarely exceeding 2mph, I may be more prone to it.

Incident one.

As I was crossing a side turning a cyclist rode straight off the main
road at
me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
allready being on the road, I was expected to give way to him.

Incident two.

At a major road junction the pedestrian lights turned green and I
proceeded
accross the road quite quickly, even for me. Nevertheless, a cyclist
coming from the side road decided to turn left against the lights and
rode
straight at me. I was forced to swerve left and then right around him
as he continued without braking. Again, I was expected to give way to
him because his machine is more lethal than me.

Clearly, on both occasions they could have resulted in a serious
crash. Although such events take place every day to thousands of
pedestrians, who are similarly intimidated and terrorised, the
incidents
are seldom if ever punished nor are they detailed in the Highway Code
with a 'MUST NOT', typically. There is plenty on what pedestrians are
supposed to conform to and next to nothing about how they should be
treated by more lethal cyclists.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

PeterG wrote:

> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> fast pedestrian, rarely exceeding 2mph, I may be more prone to it.
>
> Incident one.
>
> As I was crossing a side turning a cyclist rode straight off the main
> road at
> me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
> allready being on the road, I was expected to give way to him.
>
> Incident two.
>
> At a major road junction the pedestrian lights turned green and I
> proceeded
> accross the road quite quickly, even for me. Nevertheless, a cyclist
> coming from the side road decided to turn left against the lights and
> rode
> straight at me. I was forced to swerve left and then right around him
> as he continued without braking. Again, I was expected to give way to
> him because his machine is more lethal than me.
>
> Clearly, on both occasions they could have resulted in a serious
> crash. Although such events take place every day to thousands of
> pedestrians, who are similarly intimidated and terrorised, the
> incidents
> are seldom if ever punished nor are they detailed in the Highway Code
> with a 'MUST NOT', typically. There is plenty on what pedestrians are
> supposed to conform to and next to nothing about how they should be
> treated by more lethal cyclists.

Jeez, can't you run?

;)

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[DavidR[_2_]]

"PeterG" > wrote
> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> fast pedestrian, rarely exceeding 2mph, I may be more prone to it.
>
> Incident one.
>
> As I was crossing a side turning a cyclist rode straight off the main
> road at
> me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
> allready being on the road, I was expected to give way to him.

Not right obviously. Though I am curious as why the cyclist couldn't have
gone round you.

However, I bet you wouldn't have walked out if you had seen a motor vehicle
turning in. And if you had, a good proportion of drivers would intimidate
you just the same.

[Tony Dragon]

DavidR wrote:
> "PeterG" > wrote
>> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
>> fast pedestrian, rarely exceeding 2mph, I may be more prone to it.
>>
>> Incident one.
>>
>> As I was crossing a side turning a cyclist rode straight off the main
>> road at
>> me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
>> allready being on the road, I was expected to give way to him.
>
> Not right obviously. Though I am curious as why the cyclist couldn't have
> gone round you.
>
> However, I bet you wouldn't have walked out if you had seen a motor vehicle
> turning in. And if you had, a good proportion of drivers would intimidate
> you just the same.
>
>

Read what Peter posted, he was crossing a road when the cyclist rode off
the main road, the HC states (IIRC) that you should give way to
pedestrians already crossing a road that you turn into.
Just because a motorist might do it is no excuse for a cyclist to do it.

--
Tony Dragon

[DavidR[_2_]]

"Tony Dragon" > wrote
> DavidR wrote:
>> "PeterG" > wrote
>>> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
>>> fast pedestrian, rarely exceeding 2mph, I may be more prone to it.
>>>
>>> Incident one.
>>>
>>> As I was crossing a side turning a cyclist rode straight off the main
>>> road at
>>> me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
>>> allready being on the road, I was expected to give way to him.
>>
>> Not right obviously. Though I am curious as why the cyclist couldn't have
>> gone round you.
>>
>> However, I bet you wouldn't have walked out if you had seen a motor
>> vehicle turning in. And if you had, a good proportion of drivers would
>> intimidate you just the same.
>>
> Read what Peter posted, he was crossing a road when the cyclist rode off
> the main road, the HC states (IIRC) that you should give way to
> pedestrians already crossing a road that you turn into.

I did read and understand, thank you.

> Just because a motorist might do it is no excuse for a cyclist to do it.

That was not my justification. You completely missed my point that the
pedestrian's behaviour and expectations would be different in the two
circumstances.

[thirty-six]

On 3 June, 18:43, PeterG > wrote:
> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> fast pedestrian, rarely exceeding 2mph, I may be more prone to it.
>
> Incident one.
>
> As I was crossing a side turning a cyclist rode straight off the main
> road at
> me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
> allready being on the road, I was expected to give way to him.
>
> Incident two.
>
> At a major road junction the pedestrian *lights turned green and I
> proceeded
> accross the road quite quickly, even for me. Nevertheless, a cyclist
> coming from the side road decided to turn left against the lights and
> rode
> straight at me. I was forced to swerve left and then right around him
> as he continued without braking. Again, I was expected to give way to
> him because his machine is more lethal than me.
>
> Clearly, on both occasions they could have resulted in a serious
> crash. *Although such events take place every day to thousands of
> pedestrians, who are similarly intimidated and terrorised, the
> incidents
> are seldom if ever punished nor are they detailed in the Highway Code
> with a 'MUST NOT', typically.

Permission to mow down pedestrians was given to car drivers some time
in 1960's I believe. It seems that cyclists also now have realised
it also applies to them. At least you had a fighting chance and there
are ways as a pedestrian over a cyclist you can win rather than force
a draw.

> There is plenty on what pedestrians are
> supposed to conform to and next to nothing about how they should be
> treated by more lethal cyclists.

[Tony Dragon]

thirty-six wrote:
> On 3 June, 18:43, PeterG > wrote:
>> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
>> fast pedestrian, rarely exceeding 2mph, I may be more prone to it.
>>
>> Incident one.
>>
>> As I was crossing a side turning a cyclist rode straight off the main
>> road at
>> me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
>> allready being on the road, I was expected to give way to him.
>>
>> Incident two.
>>
>> At a major road junction the pedestrian lights turned green and I
>> proceeded
>> accross the road quite quickly, even for me. Nevertheless, a cyclist
>> coming from the side road decided to turn left against the lights and
>> rode
>> straight at me. I was forced to swerve left and then right around him
>> as he continued without braking. Again, I was expected to give way to
>> him because his machine is more lethal than me.
>>
>> Clearly, on both occasions they could have resulted in a serious
>> crash. Although such events take place every day to thousands of
>> pedestrians, who are similarly intimidated and terrorised, the
>> incidents
>> are seldom if ever punished nor are they detailed in the Highway Code
>> with a 'MUST NOT', typically.
>
> Permission to mow down pedestrians was given to car drivers some time
> in 1960's I believe. It seems that cyclists also now have realised
> it also applies to them. At least you had a fighting chance and there
> are ways as a pedestrian over a cyclist you can win rather than force
> a draw.
>
>> There is plenty on what pedestrians are
>> supposed to conform to and next to nothing about how they should be
>> treated by more lethal cyclists.
>

Indeed, I am told (of course I have not tried this & can not condone it)
that an umbrella through the front spokes can result in an interesting
flight of the cyclist concerned.

--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

DavidR wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" > wrote
>> DavidR wrote:
>>> "PeterG" > wrote
>>>> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
>>>> fast pedestrian, rarely exceeding 2mph, I may be more prone to it.
>>>>
>>>> Incident one.
>>>>
>>>> As I was crossing a side turning a cyclist rode straight off the main
>>>> road at
>>>> me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
>>>> allready being on the road, I was expected to give way to him.
>>> Not right obviously. Though I am curious as why the cyclist couldn't have
>>> gone round you.
>>>
>>> However, I bet you wouldn't have walked out if you had seen a motor
>>> vehicle turning in. And if you had, a good proportion of drivers would
>>> intimidate you just the same.
>>>
>> Read what Peter posted, he was crossing a road when the cyclist rode off
>> the main road, the HC states (IIRC) that you should give way to
>> pedestrians already crossing a road that you turn into.
>
> I did read and understand, thank you.
>
>> Just because a motorist might do it is no excuse for a cyclist to do it.
>
> That was not my justification. You completely missed my point that the
> pedestrian's behaviour and expectations would be different in the two
> circumstances.
>
>

OkDoky, but the pedestrian was already crossing the road, so the choice
is not the peds.

--
Tony Dragon

[OG]

I unequivocably deplore the inconsiderate behaviour of the cyclist in each
instance - jumping a red light against a pedestrian crossing is IMV
inexcusable; and all cyclists should be aware of the second point of Highway
Code rule 170 (as should all road users).

However, I'm not sure why you think that the adjective 'terrorist' is
appropriate in the title.

[PeterG]

On Jun 4, 1:09*am, "OG" > wrote:
> I unequivocably deplore the inconsiderate behaviour of the cyclist in each
> instance - *jumping a red light against a pedestrian crossing is IMV
> inexcusable; and all cyclists should be aware of the second point of Highway
> Code rule 170 (as should all road users).
>
> However, I'm not sure why you think that the adjective 'terrorist' is
> appropriate in the title.

Sorry for that, I just thought I'd use Dougs style of reporting.

[Derek C]

On Jun 4, 6:58*am, PeterG > wrote:
> On Jun 4, 1:09*am, "OG" > wrote:
>
> > I unequivocably deplore the inconsiderate behaviour of the cyclist in each
> > instance - *jumping a red light against a pedestrian crossing is IMV
> > inexcusable; and all cyclists should be aware of the second point of Highway
> > Code rule 170 (as should all road users).
>
> > However, I'm not sure why you think that the adjective 'terrorist' is
> > appropriate in the title.
>
> Sorry for that, I just thought I'd use Dougs style of reporting.

See Doug's thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/bf256e9ea28b4401/498ac6c75c8de870#498ac6c75c8de870

[al Mossah[_2_]]

On 4 June, 10:40, Derek C > wrote:
> On Jun 4, 6:58*am, PeterG > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 4, 1:09*am, "OG" > wrote:
>
> > > I unequivocably deplore the inconsiderate behaviour of the cyclist in each
> > > instance - *jumping a red light against a pedestrian crossing is IMV
> > > inexcusable; and all cyclists should be aware of the second point of Highway
> > > Code rule 170 (as should all road users).
>
> > > However, I'm not sure why you think that the adjective 'terrorist' is
> > > appropriate in the title.
>
> > Sorry for that, I just thought I'd use Dougs style of reporting.
>
> See Doug's thread:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/bf...

It's a fair post, and if I'd been the ped in each case I'd have been
furious; the phrase "inconsiderate tosser" might even have escaped my
lips.

I treat pedestrians with due care and attention; they are vulnerable
to me whether I'm on my bike or in my car. As a ped I expect such
consideration to be shown to me, and am always pleased when it is.

[Rob Morley]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 05:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
al Mossah > wrote:

> It's a fair post, and if I'd been the ped in each case I'd have been
> furious; the phrase "inconsiderate tosser" might even have escaped my
> lips.

I'm more likely to just get in their way as much as possible, but then
I'm large and stupid. :-)

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

DavidR wrote:
> "PeterG" > wrote
>> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
>> fast pedestrian, rarely exceeding 2mph, I may be more prone to it.
>>
>> Incident one.
>>
>> As I was crossing a side turning a cyclist rode straight off the main
>> road at
>> me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
>> allready being on the road, I was expected to give way to him.
>
> Not right obviously. Though I am curious as why the cyclist couldn't
> have gone round you.
>
> However, I bet you wouldn't have walked out if you had seen a motor
> vehicle turning in. And if you had, a good proportion of drivers
> would intimidate you just the same.

WHOOSH!


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

PeterG wrote:
> On Jun 4, 1:09 am, "OG" > wrote:
>> I unequivocably deplore the inconsiderate behaviour of the cyclist
>> in each instance - jumping a red light against a pedestrian crossing
>> is IMV inexcusable; and all cyclists should be aware of the second
>> point of Highway Code rule 170 (as should all road users).
>>
>> However, I'm not sure why you think that the adjective 'terrorist' is
>> appropriate in the title.
>
> Sorry for that, I just thought I'd use Dougs style of reporting.

I always thought cyc;ists were thick, but looking at how many took your
superb parody to heart - I gonna have to look for a better word than thick.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[PeterG]

On Jun 4, 7:37*pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> PeterG wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 1:09 am, "OG" > wrote:
> >> I unequivocably deplore the inconsiderate behaviour of the cyclist
> >> in each instance - jumping a red light against a pedestrian crossing
> >> is IMV inexcusable; and all cyclists should be aware of the second
> >> point of Highway Code rule 170 (as should all road users).
>
> >> However, I'm not sure why you think that the adjective 'terrorist' is
> >> appropriate in the title.
>
> > Sorry for that, I just thought I'd use Dougs style of reporting.
>
> I always thought cyc;ists were thick, but looking at how many took your
> superb parody to heart - I gonna have to look for a better word than thick.
>
> --
> Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
> viable form of transport.


Yes it was a parody on Doug's posting style, but it did happen, about
two weeks ago in West Wickham.

[DavidR[_2_]]

"Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
...
> DavidR wrote:
>> "Tony Dragon" > wrote
>>> DavidR wrote:
>>>> "PeterG" > wrote
>>>>> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
>>>>> fast pedestrian, rarely exceeding 2mph, I may be more prone to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incident one.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I was crossing a side turning a cyclist rode straight off the main
>>>>> road at
>>>>> me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
>>>>> allready being on the road, I was expected to give way to him.
>>>> Not right obviously. Though I am curious as why the cyclist couldn't
>>>> have gone round you.
>>>>
>>>> However, I bet you wouldn't have walked out if you had seen a motor
>>>> vehicle turning in. And if you had, a good proportion of drivers would
>>>> intimidate you just the same.
>>>>
>>> Read what Peter posted, he was crossing a road when the cyclist rode off
>>> the main road, the HC states (IIRC) that you should give way to
>>> pedestrians already crossing a road that you turn into.
>>
>> I did read and understand, thank you.
>>
>>> Just because a motorist might do it is no excuse for a cyclist to do it.
>>
>> That was not my justification. You completely missed my point that the
>> pedestrian's behaviour and expectations would be different in the two
>> circumstances.
>
> OkDoky, but the pedestrian was already crossing the road, so the choice is
> not the peds.

How do you know the ped would have started to cross had a car been coming?
My betting not and that's what I mean by pedestrian behaviour. As driver and
cyclist there is one difference that is very obvious - when driving, peds
tend to keep out of the way.

I bet many people like the OP would be far less likely to demonise a motor
vehicle driver for the same fault.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 3 June, 22:52, "DavidR" > wrote:
> "PeterG" > wrote
>
> > Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> > fast pedestrian, rarely exceeding 2mph, I may be more prone to it.
>
> > Incident one.
>
> > As I was crossing a side turning a cyclist rode straight off the main
> > road at
> > me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
> > allready being on the road, I was expected to give way to him.
>
> Not right obviously. Though I am curious as why the cyclist couldn't have
> gone round you.
>
> However, I bet you wouldn't have walked out if you had seen *a motor vehicle
> turning in. And if you had, a good proportion of drivers would intimidate
> you just the same.
>
Actually it didn't happen as described and he is therefore lying.

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
Drivers ram cyclists because they can.

[PeterG]

On Jun 6, 12:18*am, "DavidR" > wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > DavidR wrote:
> >> "Tony Dragon" > wrote
> >>> DavidR wrote:
> >>>> "PeterG" > wrote
> >>>>> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> >>>>> fast pedestrian, rarely exceeding 2mph, I may be more prone to it.
>
> >>>>> Incident one.
>
> >>>>> As I was crossing a side turning a cyclist rode straight off the main
> >>>>> road at
> >>>>> me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
> >>>>> allready being on the road, I was expected to give way to him.
> >>>> Not right obviously. Though I am curious as why the cyclist couldn't
> >>>> have gone round you.
>
> >>>> However, I bet you wouldn't have walked out if you had seen *a motor
> >>>> vehicle turning in. And if you had, a good proportion of drivers would
> >>>> intimidate you just the same.
>
> >>> Read what Peter posted, he was crossing a road when the cyclist rode off
> >>> the main road, the HC states (IIRC) that you should give way to
> >>> pedestrians already crossing a road that you turn into.
>
> >> I did read and understand, thank you.
>
> >>> Just because a motorist might do it is no excuse for a cyclist to do it.
>
> >> That was not my justification. You completely missed my point that the
> >> pedestrian's behaviour and expectations would be different in the two
> >> circumstances.
>
> > OkDoky, but the pedestrian was already crossing the road, so the choice is
> > not the peds.
>
> How do you know the ped would have started to cross had a car been coming?
> My betting not and that's what I mean by pedestrian behaviour. As driver and
> cyclist there is one difference that is very obvious - when driving, peds
> tend to keep out of the way.
>
> I bet many people like the OP would be far less likely to demonise a motor
> vehicle driver for the same fault.


The clue is at the start of my post 'As I was crossing a side
turning', I was already crossing the road.
If a vehicle (of any sort) was already turning (or had indicated he
was turning) then I would not have started to cross.
The cyclist did not stop & almost hit me.
Road users are required to give way to pedestrians crossings when
turning into other roads.

[PeterG]

On Jun 6, 7:10*am, Doug > wrote:
> On 3 June, 22:52, "DavidR" > wrote:
>
> > "PeterG" > wrote
>
> > > Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> > > fast pedestrian, rarely exceeding 2mph, I may be more prone to it.
>
> > > Incident one.
>
> > > As I was crossing a side turning a cyclist rode straight off the main
> > > road at
> > > me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
> > > allready being on the road, I was expected to give way to him.
>
> > Not right obviously. Though I am curious as why the cyclist couldn't have
> > gone round you.
>
> > However, I bet you wouldn't have walked out if you had seen *a motor vehicle
> > turning in. And if you had, a good proportion of drivers would intimidate
> > you just the same.
>
> Actually it didn't happen as described and he is therefore lying.
>
> --
> Critical Mass Londonhttp://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> Drivers ram cyclists because they can.

What part of "but it did happen, about
two weeks ago in West Wickham." did you not understand?

[roger merriman]

PeterG > wrote:

> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> fast pedestrian, rarely exceeding 2mph, I may be more prone to it.
>
> Incident one.
>
> As I was crossing a side turning a cyclist rode straight off the main
> road at
> me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
> allready being on the road, I was expected to give way to him.
>
> Incident two.
>
> At a major road junction the pedestrian lights turned green and I
> proceeded
> accross the road quite quickly, even for me. Nevertheless, a cyclist
> coming from the side road decided to turn left against the lights and
> rode
> straight at me. I was forced to swerve left and then right around him
> as he continued without braking. Again, I was expected to give way to
> him because his machine is more lethal than me.
>
> Clearly, on both occasions they could have resulted in a serious
> crash. Although such events take place every day to thousands of
> pedestrians, who are similarly intimidated and terrorised, the
> incidents
> are seldom if ever punished nor are they detailed in the Highway Code
> with a 'MUST NOT', typically. There is plenty on what pedestrians are
> supposed to conform to and next to nothing about how they should be
> treated by more lethal cyclists.

half term seemed to have brought out the fools, my commute takes in
shared paths, going under bridges so not being a fool, one slows to zero
or close to, to check for people.

last week, as I moved out to check, a man on a MTB shot out, he failed
to stop, and ended up beside me, another foot and he would of been in
the drink...

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Roger Merriman wrote:

>
> last week, as I moved out to check, a man on a MTB shot out, he failed
> to stop, and ended up beside me, another foot and he would of been in
> the drink...

Motor Torpedo Boat?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

PeterG wrote:
> On Jun 6, 7:10 am, Doug > wrote:

>>
>> Actually it didn't happen as described and he is therefore lying.
>>

>
> What part of "but it did happen, about
> two weeks ago in West Wickham." did you not understand?

Doug didn't film it on his 'special camera' and the cyclists did something
wrong - so it couldn't possibly have happened.



--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Tony Dragon]

The Medway Handyman wrote:
> PeterG wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 7:10 am, Doug > wrote:
>
>>> Actually it didn't happen as described and he is therefore lying.
>>>
>
>> What part of "but it did happen, about
>> two weeks ago in West Wickham." did you not understand?
>
> Doug didn't film it on his 'special camera' and the cyclists did something
> wrong - so it couldn't possibly have happened.
>
>
>

Would that be the 'special camera' that stops working when 'something
happens'?

--
Tony Dragon

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Tony Dragon wrote:
> The Medway Handyman wrote:
>> PeterG wrote:
>>> On Jun 6, 7:10 am, Doug > wrote:
>>
>>>> Actually it didn't happen as described and he is therefore lying.
>>>>
>>
>>> What part of "but it did happen, about
>>> two weeks ago in West Wickham." did you not understand?
>>
>> Doug didn't film it on his 'special camera' and the cyclists did
>> something wrong - so it couldn't possibly have happened.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Would that be the 'special camera' that stops working when 'something
> happens'?

It would. I think 'Q' gave it to him.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Tony Dragon]

The Medway Handyman wrote:
> Tony Dragon wrote:
>> The Medway Handyman wrote:
>>> PeterG wrote:
>>>> On Jun 6, 7:10 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>> Actually it didn't happen as described and he is therefore lying.
>>>>>
>>>> What part of "but it did happen, about
>>>> two weeks ago in West Wickham." did you not understand?
>>> Doug didn't film it on his 'special camera' and the cyclists did
>>> something wrong - so it couldn't possibly have happened.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Would that be the 'special camera' that stops working when 'something
>> happens'?
>
> It would. I think 'Q' gave it to him.
>
>

I thought 'Q' was on the motorist's side, after all his boss has given
us 'a licence to kill'

(or did you mean the one from the 'Q Continuum'?)

--
Tony Dragon

[roger merriman]

The Medway Handyman > wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> >
> > last week, as I moved out to check, a man on a MTB shot out, he failed
> > to stop, and ended up beside me, another foot and he would of been in
> > the drink...
>
> Motor Torpedo Boat?

heh no such thing, though do see MTB102 now and then lovely boat.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[DavidR[_2_]]

"PeterG" > wrote
On Jun 6, 12:18 am, "DavidR" > wrote:

> > I bet many people like the OP would be far less likely to demonise a
> > motor
> > vehicle driver for the same fault.

> The clue is at the start of my post 'As I was crossing a side
> turning', I was already crossing the road.

> If a vehicle (of any sort) was already turning (or had indicated he
> was turning) then I would not have started to cross.

The threshold of "starting to cross" is very much in the eye of the
beholder. You, like most pedestrians (see below) probably take more caution
with motor vehicles because you know very well, that if you analysed it,
that a large proportion of drivers would do the same. I don't defend the
cyclist but I object to the tone of your complaint - that you're picking out
the wrong doing by a cyclist but seemingly blind to similar, extremely
common, behaviour elsewhere.

> The cyclist did not stop & almost hit me.

Yesterday my mother in law was actually hit by a van driver in similar
circumstances. Your point is?

> Road users are required to give way to pedestrians crossings when
> turning into other roads.So, as I suggest.

The rule is that a "vehicle" user has no right to run over a pedestrian
under any circumstance. When driving, very few pedestrians venture into the
road, "right" or wrong, probably because they are either ignorant of
their rights or they realise that being right but to be inconvenienced by
the process of legal redress, injury or death is futile. When cycling (and
there are no motor vehicles to clear a path), caution drops and they're all
over the place. I don't object but that is why I suggest you would probably
have done things differently.

[PeterG]

On Jun 6, 7:50*pm, "DavidR" > wrote:
> "PeterG" > wrote
> On Jun 6, 12:18 am, "DavidR" > wrote:
>
> > > I bet many people like the OP would be far less likely to demonise a
> > > motor
> > > vehicle driver for the same fault.
> > The clue is at the start of my post 'As I was crossing a side
> > turning', I was already crossing the road.
> > If a vehicle (of any sort) was already turning (or had indicated he
> > was turning) then I would not have started to cross.
>
> The threshold of "starting to cross" is very much in the eye of the
> beholder. You, like most pedestrians (see below) probably take more caution
> with motor vehicles because you know very well, that if you analysed it,
> that a large proportion of drivers would do the same.

As I have said on many times, I was already crossing the side road, I
have also stated that I would not have started to cross if a vehicle
was turning or indicating to turn.
So my analysis was that it was safe to cross, are you suggesting that
I do not cross a side road if there is traffic on the main road?

> I don't defend the
> cyclist but I object to the tone of your complaint - that you're picking out
> the wrong doing by a cyclist

It seems entirly reasonable of me to pick out the type of vehicle that
was involved.

> but seemingly blind to similar, extremely
> common, behaviour elsewhere.

See above.

>
> > The cyclist did not stop & almost hit me.
>
> Yesterday my mother in law was actually hit by a van driver in similar
> circumstances. Your point is?

My point is the point I made, I reported an incident.

>
> > Road users are required to give way to pedestrians crossings when
> > turning into other roads.So, as I suggest.
>
> The rule is that a "vehicle" user has no right to run over a pedestrian
> under any circumstance. When driving, very few pedestrians venture into the
> road, "right" or wrong, probably because they are either ignorant of
> their rights or they realise that being right but to be inconvenienced by
> the process of legal redress, injury or death is futile. When cycling (and
> there are no motor vehicles to clear a path), caution drops and they're all
> over the place. I don't object but that is why I suggest you would probably
> have done things differently.

It what way should I have done things diferently?

PeterG

[Doug[_3_]]

On 6 June, 09:18, PeterG > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 7:10*am, Doug > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3 June, 22:52, "DavidR" > wrote:
>
> > > "PeterG" > wrote
>
> > > > Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
> > > > fast pedestrian, rarely exceeding 2mph, I may be more prone to it.
>
> > > > Incident one.
>
> > > > As I was crossing a side turning a cyclist rode straight off the main
> > > > road at
> > > > me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
> > > > allready being on the road, I was expected to give way to him.
>
> > > Not right obviously. Though I am curious as why the cyclist couldn't have
> > > gone round you.
>
> > > However, I bet you wouldn't have walked out if you had seen *a motor vehicle
> > > turning in. And if you had, a good proportion of drivers would intimidate
> > > you just the same.
>
> > Actually it didn't happen as described and he is therefore lying.
>
> > --
> > Critical Mass Londonhttp://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> > Drivers ram cyclists because they can.
>
> What part of "but it did happen, about
> two weeks ago in West Wickham." did you not understand?
>
Your attempt to satirise my thread as a means of demonising cyclists
was clearly a fabrication, liar.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[DavidR[_2_]]

"PeterG" > wrote

> As I have said on many times, I was already crossing the side road, I
> have also stated that I would not have started to cross if a vehicle
> was turning or indicating to turn.
> So my analysis was that it was safe to cross, are you suggesting that
> I do not cross a side road if there is traffic on the main road?

No. I am suggesting that your decision to cross is likely (as I relate from
experience) to have a dependance on the type of "vehicle" you see.

> It seems entirly reasonable of me to pick out the type of vehicle that
> was involved.

"A terrorist cyclist" to boot.

[Tony Dragon]

DavidR wrote:
> "PeterG" > wrote
>
>> As I have said on many times, I was already crossing the side road, I
>> have also stated that I would not have started to cross if a vehicle
>> was turning or indicating to turn.
>> So my analysis was that it was safe to cross, are you suggesting that
>> I do not cross a side road if there is traffic on the main road?
>
> No. I am suggesting that your decision to cross is likely (as I relate from
> experience) to have a dependance on the type of "vehicle" you see.
>
>> It seems entirly reasonable of me to pick out the type of vehicle that
>> was involved.
>
> "A terrorist cyclist" to boot.
>
>

You seem to have missed the point that he did not see a vehicle when he
started to cross.

--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 6 June, 09:18, PeterG > wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 7:10 am, Doug > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 3 June, 22:52, "DavidR" > wrote:
>>>> "PeterG" > wrote
>>>>> Some will probably be familiar with such incidents but as I am not a
>>>>> fast pedestrian, rarely exceeding 2mph, I may be more prone to it.
>>>>> Incident one.
>>>>> As I was crossing a side turning a cyclist rode straight off the main
>>>>> road at
>>>>> me and braked suddenly with mere inches to spare. Supposedly, despite
>>>>> allready being on the road, I was expected to give way to him.
>>>> Not right obviously. Though I am curious as why the cyclist couldn't have
>>>> gone round you.
>>>> However, I bet you wouldn't have walked out if you had seen a motor vehicle
>>>> turning in. And if you had, a good proportion of drivers would intimidate
>>>> you just the same.
>>> Actually it didn't happen as described and he is therefore lying.
>>> --
>>> Critical Mass Londonhttp://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
>>> Drivers ram cyclists because they can.
>> What part of "but it did happen, about
>> two weeks ago in West Wickham." did you not understand?
>>
> Your attempt to satirise my thread as a means of demonising cyclists
> was clearly a fabrication, liar.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Well it must be a lie, if it criticised cyclists.

--
Tony Dragon

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

>>
> Your attempt to satirise my thread as a means of demonising cyclists
> was clearly a fabrication, liar.

You are beyond satire you ****.

And don't try to make out that cyclists are little angels, they regularly
terrorise pedestrians.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[DavidR[_2_]]

"Tony Dragon" > wrote
> DavidR wrote:
>> "PeterG" > wrote
>>
>>> As I have said on many times, I was already crossing the side road, I
>>> have also stated that I would not have started to cross if a vehicle
>>> was turning or indicating to turn.
>>> So my analysis was that it was safe to cross, are you suggesting that
>>> I do not cross a side road if there is traffic on the main road?
>>
>> No. I am suggesting that your decision to cross is likely (as I relate
>> from experience) to have a dependance on the type of "vehicle" you see.
>>
>>> It seems entirly reasonable of me to pick out the type of vehicle that
>>> was involved.
>>
>> "A terrorist cyclist" to boot.
>>
>>
>
> You seem to have missed the point that he did not see a vehicle when he
> started to cross.

Did not see or not notice? No matter, pedestrians shouldn''t be obliged to
have eyes in the back of their heads and when a vehicle user is in the
process of entering or leaving a main road, pedestrians following the main
road should be given way to like any other traffic.

Anyway, the cyclist did actually stop and he still complains that the
cyclist performed some misdemeanor. I believe it is generally recognised
that a sin performed by a cyclist is more likely to draw attention than if
performed by a driver.