Re: Pedestrian injured in hit and run incident(Doug Mode) [Archive]

Squashme

June 24th 10, 01:15 PM

On 24 June, 11:31, Adrian > wrote:
> Squashme > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
> ...>http://
>
> www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newsevents-pressreleases...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely punished.
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/3242048/Zebra-crossing-road-deaths-
> treble.html
>
> > "Low fines, the reluctance of motorists to stop and, in some cases, lax
> > design could be behind the rising death and injury toll, it is feared.
>
> > "We live in a society where everyone is in a rush and one where people
> > see the chances of getting caught as minimal," said Andrew Howard, head
> > of road safety at the AA."
>
> Yes, it's almost certainly the motorist's fault here...
>
> You cretin.

Just providing the usual necessary balance.

Inert coy U.

Adrian

June 24th 10, 01:20 PM

Squashme > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> >> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely punished.

>> > "Low fines, the reluctance of motorists to stop and, in some cases,
>> > lax design could be behind the rising death and injury toll, it is
>> > feared.
>> >
>> > "We live in a society where everyone is in a rush and one where
>> > people see the chances of getting caught as minimal," said Andrew
>> > Howard, head of road safety at the AA."

>> Yes, it's almost certainly the motorist's fault here...
>>
>> You cretin.

> Just providing the usual necessary balance.

It's certainly true that there seems to be an unwritten rule that says at
least one muppet needs to post a reply that shows that they haven't
actually bothered to read the article even in passing - but that had
already been met by NM.

mileburner

June 24th 10, 02:09 PM

Derek C wrote:

> The chances of getting caught are particularly minimal for cyclists,
> because they have no registration plates.

The logic does not follow.

If they had registration plates, someone would still need to make a note of
the number. How often do any witnesses note the make or model if the bike?
This is usually quite clearly displayed on the frame of the bike and would
narrow any suspect down quite considerably.

But no one seems to bother or it happens so quickly that they don't have
time to take notice.

On the same basis, registration plates are pretty useless for tracing hit
and run drivers too.

June 24th 10, 02:09 PM

"Squashme" > wrote in message
...
> On 24 June, 11:31, Adrian > wrote:
>> Squashme > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were saying:
>>
>> ...>http://
>>
>> www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newsevents-pressreleases...
>>
>> >> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely punished.
>> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/3242048/Zebra-crossing-road-deaths-
>> treble.html
>>
>> > "Low fines, the reluctance of motorists to stop and, in some cases, lax
>> > design could be behind the rising death and injury toll, it is feared.
>>
>> > "We live in a society where everyone is in a rush and one where people
>> > see the chances of getting caught as minimal," said Andrew Howard, head
>> > of road safety at the AA."
>>
>> Yes, it's almost certainly the motorist's fault here...
>>
>> You cretin.
>
> Just providing the usual necessary balance.

Your 'necessary balance' also states, "The AA believes that around 1,000
zebra crossings have vanished completely from the UK in recent years". Did
they vanish over night, or were they being used at the time perhaps?

Adrian

June 24th 10, 02:17 PM

"mileburner" > gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

> How often do any witnesses note the make or model if the
> bike? This is usually quite clearly displayed on the frame of the bike
> and would narrow any suspect down quite considerably.

Is it clearly displayed, front and rear, in letters 80mm x 50mm in a
deliberately clear font in a deliberately high-contrast colour scheme?

Squashme

June 24th 10, 02:46 PM

On 24 June, 13:20, Adrian > wrote:
> Squashme > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
> >> >> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely punished.
> >> > "Low fines, the reluctance of motorists to stop and, in some cases,
> >> > lax design could be behind the rising death and injury toll, it is
> >> > feared.
>
> >> > "We live in a society where everyone is in a rush and one where
> >> > people see the chances of getting caught as minimal," said Andrew
> >> > Howard, head of road safety at the AA."
> >> Yes, it's almost certainly the motorist's fault here...
>
> >> You cretin.
> > Just providing the usual necessary balance.
>
> It's certainly true that there seems to be an unwritten rule that says at
> least one muppet needs to post a reply that shows that they haven't
> actually bothered to read the article even in passing - but that had
> already been met by NM.

This muppet had read the article. What makes you think otherwise? Did
you not read my contribution?

Adrian

June 24th 10, 02:47 PM

Squashme > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> >> >> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely
>> >> >> punished.

>> >> > "Low fines, the reluctance of motorists to stop and, in some
>> >> > cases, lax design could be behind the rising death and injury
>> >> > toll, it is feared.
>>
>> >> > "We live in a society where everyone is in a rush and one where
>> >> > people see the chances of getting caught as minimal," said Andrew
>> >> > Howard, head of road safety at the AA."

>> >> Yes, it's almost certainly the motorist's fault here...
>>
>> >> You cretin.

>> > Just providing the usual necessary balance.

>> It's certainly true that there seems to be an unwritten rule that says
>> at least one muppet needs to post a reply that shows that they haven't
>> actually bothered to read the article even in passing - but that had
>> already been met by NM.

> This muppet had read the article. What makes you think otherwise? Did
> you not read my contribution?

Yes, I did. That's precisely why I thought otherwise.

Squashme

June 24th 10, 02:49 PM

On 24 June, 14:09, "GT" > wrote:
> "Squashme" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On 24 June, 11:31, Adrian > wrote:
> >> Squashme > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> >> were saying:
>
> >> ...>http://
>
> >>www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newsevents-pressreleases...
>
> >> >> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely punished.
> >> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/3242048/Zebra-crossing-road-deaths-
> >> treble.html
>
> >> > "Low fines, the reluctance of motorists to stop and, in some cases, lax
> >> > design could be behind the rising death and injury toll, it is feared.
>
> >> > "We live in a society where everyone is in a rush and one where people
> >> > see the chances of getting caught as minimal," said Andrew Howard, head
> >> > of road safety at the AA."
>
> >> Yes, it's almost certainly the motorist's fault here...
>
> >> You cretin.
>
> > Just providing the usual necessary balance.
>
> Your 'necessary balance' also states, "The AA believes that around 1,000
> zebra crossings have vanished completely from the UK in recent years". Did
> they vanish over night, or were they being used at the time perhaps?

The AA, that's Alcoholics Anonymous, isn't it? That explains it.

Oh no, I forgot, it's Roadaholics Unanimous, isn't it? Still they have
trouble seeing things too. Distracted by the bell, blinded by the sun,
important incoming call ...

Squashme

June 24th 10, 02:54 PM

On 24 June, 14:47, Adrian > wrote:
> Squashme > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>
>
> >> >> >> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely
> >> >> >> punished.
> >> >> > "Low fines, the reluctance of motorists to stop and, in some
> >> >> > cases, lax design could be behind the rising death and injury
> >> >> > toll, it is feared.
>
> >> >> > "We live in a society where everyone is in a rush and one where
> >> >> > people see the chances of getting caught as minimal," said Andrew
> >> >> > Howard, head of road safety at the AA."
> >> >> Yes, it's almost certainly the motorist's fault here...
>
> >> >> You cretin.
> >> > Just providing the usual necessary balance.
> >> It's certainly true that there seems to be an unwritten rule that says
> >> at least one muppet needs to post a reply that shows that they haven't
> >> actually bothered to read the article even in passing - but that had
> >> already been met by NM.
> > This muppet had read the article. What makes you think otherwise? Did
> > you not read my contribution?
>
> Yes, I did. That's precisely why I thought otherwise.

Goes to show how wrong you can be. Oh well, even Homer nods.

mileburner

June 24th 10, 04:05 PM

"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
> "mileburner" > gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
>
>> How often do any witnesses note the make or model if the
>> bike? This is usually quite clearly displayed on the frame of the bike
>> and would narrow any suspect down quite considerably.
>
> Is it clearly displayed, front and rear, in letters 80mm x 50mm in a
> deliberately clear font in a deliberately high-contrast colour scheme?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Adrian

June 24th 10, 04:15 PM

"mileburner" > gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>>> How often do any witnesses note the make or model if the bike? This is
>>> usually quite clearly displayed on the frame of the bike and would
>>> narrow any suspect down quite considerably.

>> Is it clearly displayed, front and rear, in letters 80mm x 50mm in a
>> deliberately clear font in a deliberately high-contrast colour scheme?

> Is that a rhetorical question?

Not at all.

Merely wondering if there was any comparison in legibility between the
make & model badging on a bike and registration plates.

Since it doesn't appear to be - nor is there any way to convert "A purple
Apollo PieceOfCrapBSO" (always assuming the bike bears a make and model
at all) to a name and address with any degree of reliability - it was a
bit of a silly point to raise, wasn't it?

JNugent[_7_]

June 24th 10, 04:51 PM

Adrian wrote:
> NM > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>>>>> http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newsevents-
>>>>> pressreleases/newsevents-pressreleases-item.htm?id=136875
>
>>>> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely punished.
>
>>> Indeed. The type of vehicle that the sociopathic scumbag uses is the
>>> least relevant factor.
>
>> Not true, the type of vehicle is a major factor, it was being used on
>> the pavement as cycles habitually are.
>
> "a 66-year-old pedestrian was crossing the road at the pedestrian
> crossing"

That's true, but there's no difference in legality between cycling along a
footway and failing to accord precedence to a pedestrian on a pedestrian
crossing.

June 24th 10, 05:14 PM

On 24 June, 13:20, Adrian > wrote:
> Squashme > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
> >> >> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely punished.
> >> > "Low fines, the reluctance of motorists to stop and, in some cases,
> >> > lax design could be behind the rising death and injury toll, it is
> >> > feared.
>
> >> > "We live in a society where everyone is in a rush and one where
> >> > people see the chances of getting caught as minimal," said Andrew
> >> > Howard, head of road safety at the AA."
> >> Yes, it's almost certainly the motorist's fault here...
>
> >> You cretin.
> > Just providing the usual necessary balance.
>
> It's certainly true that there seems to be an unwritten rule that says at
> least one muppet needs to post a reply that shows that they haven't
> actually bothered to read the article even in passing - but that had
> already been met by NM.

That's good, gives you something else to whinge about.

mileburner

June 24th 10, 05:52 PM

"Adrian" > wrote in message
...
> "mileburner" > gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
>
>>>> How often do any witnesses note the make or model if the bike? This is
>>>> usually quite clearly displayed on the frame of the bike and would
>>>> narrow any suspect down quite considerably.
>
>>> Is it clearly displayed, front and rear, in letters 80mm x 50mm in a
>>> deliberately clear font in a deliberately high-contrast colour scheme?
>
>> Is that a rhetorical question?
>
> Not at all.
>
> Merely wondering if there was any comparison in legibility between the
> make & model badging on a bike and registration plates.

Make and model badges are there for advertising, surely? Presumably the
manufacturer/importer wants the name to be seen. Pehaps it is just me being
a bit of a bike spotter but I tend to look at the bike to see what it is.

> Since it doesn't appear to be - nor is there any way to convert "A purple
> Apollo PieceOfCrapBSO" (always assuming the bike bears a make and model
> at all) to a name and address with any degree of reliability - it was a
> bit of a silly point to raise, wasn't it?

Is that a rhetorical question?

The point was, that even if you *could* convert the name and model of the
bike into an address, it would be pretty pointless if you did not bother to
note the name and model of the bike. However, tracing a person via a
registration name and address is not the only way to trace someone.
Registrations help, especially for petty matters, FPNs etc. as they speed up
the process, but for more serious crime (such as running over someone and
putting them in hospital) I would have thought that the police would be able
to track/trace and eventually apprehend a criminal without necessarily being
totally reliant on a registration plate to lead them there.

Unless that is, the police now *only* rely on registration plates to enable
them to nick villains.

What next? Registration plates for everyone including pedestrians? Kids
going to school? Blokes staggering home from the pub? Mobility scooters?
Dogs?

Iain[_2_]

June 24th 10, 06:08 PM

"Squashme" > wrote in message
...
> On 24 June, 10:37, "Brimstone" > wrote:
>> "Partac" > wrote in message
>>
>> /newsevents/newsevents-pressreleases...
>>
>> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely punished.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/3242048/Zebra-crossing-road-deaths-treble.html
>
> "Low fines, the reluctance of motorists to stop and, in some cases,
> lax design could be behind the rising death and injury toll, it is
> feared.
>
> "We live in a society where everyone is in a rush and one where people
> see the chances of getting caught as minimal," said Andrew Howard,
> head of road safety at the AA."

I would disagree with that. There is a very strong tendency now for
pedestrians not to take the necessary care even when using crossings. There
is very little discipline, ie. the old-fashioned 'Stop, look and listen'.
People seem to assume that the traffic will stop for them. This is very
noticeable particularly at pedestrian crossings.

Iain

Iain[_2_]

June 24th 10, 07:49 PM

"GT" > wrote in message
...
> "Iain" > wrote in message

>> I would disagree with that. There is a very strong tendency now for
>> pedestrians not to take the necessary care even when using crossings.
>> There is very little discipline, ie. the old-fashioned 'Stop, look and
>> listen'. People seem to assume that the traffic will stop for them. This
>> is very noticeable particularly at pedestrian crossings.
>
> Well, as most pedestrian crossings have traffic lights to stop the traffic
> (except for the few remaining Zebra crossings with orange beacons at the
> sides), I think its a fair assumption that the cars will have stopped at
> the red light - best to make sure though!

There are still a large number of zebra crossings in London - one almost
outside my door. It is not unusual to see someone walking up to the
kerb-edge and just walk straight onto the crossing; no pause to see if
there's an appropriate gap. I find that sometimes a couple of cars may go
by before one stops for me when I wait at the kerb. And a small waive of
acknowledgement or a mouthed 'Thanks' to the first car that stops does not
go amiss either. It certainly seems to be the younger age range (even
including school age) that do not bother to stop and at least pause.

Iain

Derek C

June 24th 10, 10:17 PM

On Jun 24, 5:52*pm, "mileburner" > wrote:
>>
> Unless that is, the police now *only* rely on registration plates to enable
> them to nick villains.
>
> What next? Registration plates for everyone including pedestrians? Kids
> going to school? Blokes staggering home from the pub? Mobility scooters?
> Dogs?- Hide quoted text -
>

When I looked at that statement the first time, I thought you had
written 'Doug' rather than 'Dogs'. However, as Doug seems to be a bit
of a wobbly menace on his illegal electric bike, maybe he should be
registered, or certified!

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

June 24th 10, 10:54 PM

Man at B&Q wrote:
> On Jun 24, 10:50 am, NM > wrote:
>> On 24 June, 10:44, Adrian > wrote:
>>
>>> "Brimstone" > gurgled happily, sounding much
>>> like they were saying:
>>
>>>>> http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newsevents-pressreleases/
>>
>>> newsevents-pressreleases-item.htm?id=136875
>>
>>>> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely punished.
>>
>>> Indeed. The type of vehicle that the sociopathic scumbag uses is the
>>> least relevant factor.
>>
>> Not true, the type of vehicle is a major factor, it was being used on
>> the pavement
>
> No it wasn't. Try reading the link given.

It was being used on a pedestrian crossing - thats all right then.

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

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

June 24th 10, 10:57 PM

Squashme wrote:
> On 24 June, 14:09, "GT" > wrote:
>> "Squashme" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 24 June, 11:31, Adrian > wrote:
>>>> Squashme > gurgled happily, sounding much like
>>>> they were saying:
>>
>>>>>> ...>http://
>>
>>>> www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newsevents-pressreleases...
>>
>>>>>> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely
>>>>>> punished.
>>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/3242048/Zebra-crossing-road-deaths-
>>>>> treble.html
>>
>>>>> "Low fines, the reluctance of motorists to stop and, in some
>>>>> cases, lax design could be behind the rising death and injury
>>>>> toll, it is feared.
>>
>>>>> "We live in a society where everyone is in a rush and one where
>>>>> people see the chances of getting caught as minimal," said Andrew
>>>>> Howard, head of road safety at the AA."
>>
>>>> Yes, it's almost certainly the motorist's fault here...
>>
>>>> You cretin.
>>
>>> Just providing the usual necessary balance.
>>
>> Your 'necessary balance' also states, "The AA believes that around
>> 1,000 zebra crossings have vanished completely from the UK in recent
>> years". Did they vanish over night, or were they being used at the
>> time perhaps?
>
> The AA, that's Alcoholics Anonymous, isn't it? That explains it.
>
> Oh no, I forgot, it's Roadaholics Unanimous, isn't it? Still they have
> trouble seeing things too. Distracted by the bell, blinded by the sun,
> important incoming call ...

And they still only cause a statistically irrelevant number of fatalities..
Amazing innit.

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

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

June 24th 10, 11:11 PM

mile****** wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
>
>> The chances of getting caught are particularly minimal for cyclists,
>> because they have no registration plates.
>
> The logic does not follow.

It does to anyone with a functioning brain. Which clearly excludes you.

> If they had registration plates, someone would still need to make a
> note of the number.

Yup. Happens with motor vehicles all the time. Not hard to remember a 7
string od numbers & letters. Unless you are a thick ****.

> How often do any witnesses note the make or model
> if the bike? This is usually quite clearly displayed on the frame of
> the bike and would narrow any suspect down quite considerably.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

Its a ****ing push bike. Normal people don't know or care about makes &
models of push bike.

> But no one seems to bother or it happens so quickly that they don't
> have time to take notice.

Lasy gits don't even get the frame number.

> On the same basis, registration plates are pretty useless for tracing
> hit and run drivers too.

Not in the real world, only in your twisted mind. Even a partial plate can
be traced especially if you have a make of vehicle.

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

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

June 24th 10, 11:14 PM

mileburner wrote:
> "Adrian" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "mileburner" > gurgled happily, sounding
>> much like they were saying:
>>
>>>>> How often do any witnesses note the make or model if the bike?
>>>>> This is usually quite clearly displayed on the frame of the bike
>>>>> and would narrow any suspect down quite considerably.
>>
>>>> Is it clearly displayed, front and rear, in letters 80mm x 50mm in
>>>> a deliberately clear font in a deliberately high-contrast colour
>>>> scheme?
>>
>>> Is that a rhetorical question?
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>> Merely wondering if there was any comparison in legibility between
>> the make & model badging on a bike and registration plates.
>
> Make and model badges are there for advertising, surely? Presumably
> the manufacturer/importer wants the name to be seen. Pehaps it is
> just me being a bit of a bike spotter but I tend to look at the bike
> to see what it is.

One step down the social scale from a train spotter. What a sad git you
are.

>> Since it doesn't appear to be - nor is there any way to convert "A
>> purple Apollo PieceOfCrapBSO" (always assuming the bike bears a make
>> and model at all) to a name and address with any degree of
>> reliability - it was a bit of a silly point to raise, wasn't it?
>
> Is that a rhetorical question?
>
> The point was, that even if you *could* convert the name and model of
> the bike into an address, it would be pretty pointless if you did not
> bother to note the name and model of the bike. However, tracing a
> person via a registration name and address is not the only way to
> trace someone. Registrations help, especially for petty matters, FPNs
> etc. as they speed up the process, but for more serious crime (such
> as running over someone and putting them in hospital) I would have
> thought that the police would be able to track/trace and eventually
> apprehend a criminal without necessarily being totally reliant on a
> registration plate to lead them there.
> Unless that is, the police now *only* rely on registration plates to
> enable them to nick villains.
>
> What next? Registration plates for everyone including pedestrians?
> Kids going to school? Blokes staggering home from the pub? Mobility
> scooters? Dogs?

Just dangerous law breaking cyclists.

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

Adrian

June 24th 10, 11:19 PM

"The Medway Handyman" > gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying:

>>> Not true, the type of vehicle is a major factor, it was being used on
>>> the pavement

>> No it wasn't. Try reading the link given.

> It was being used on a pedestrian crossing - thats all right then.

In the same way as your van gets used on pedestrian crossings.

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

June 25th 10, 12:00 AM

Adrian wrote:
> "The Medway Handyman" > gurgled
> happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
>>>> Not true, the type of vehicle is a major factor, it was being used
>>>> on the pavement
>
>>> No it wasn't. Try reading the link given.
>
>> It was being used on a pedestrian crossing - thats all right then.
>
> In the same way as your van gets used on pedestrian crossings.

Except that I don't run down little old ladies **** for brains.

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

Squashme

June 25th 10, 12:16 AM

On 25 June, 00:00, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
> > "The Medway Handyman" > gurgled
> > happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
> >>>> Not true, the type of vehicle is a major factor, it was being used
> >>>> on the pavement
>
> >>> No it wasn't. Try reading the link given.
>
> >> It was being used on a pedestrian crossing - thats all right then.
>
> > In the same way as your van gets used on pedestrian crossings.
>
> Except that I don't run down little old ladies **** for brains.
>
Why are you concerned about little old ladies, when they aren't
statistically relevent? They're not even dead.

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

June 25th 10, 12:18 AM

Squashme wrote:
> On 25 June, 00:00, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Adrian wrote:
>>> "The Medway Handyman" > gurgled
>>> happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>
>>>>>> Not true, the type of vehicle is a major factor, it was being
>>>>>> used on the pavement
>>
>>>>> No it wasn't. Try reading the link given.
>>
>>>> It was being used on a pedestrian crossing - thats all right then.
>>
>>> In the same way as your van gets used on pedestrian crossings.
>>
>> Except that I don't run down little old ladies **** for brains.
>>
> Why are you concerned about little old ladies, when they aren't
> statistically relevent? They're not even dead.

They are great customers, plenty of tea & biscuits.

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

Steve Firth

June 25th 10, 12:25 AM

Squashme > wrote:

> Oh no, I forgot, it's Roadaholics Unanimous, isn't it? Still they have
> trouble seeing things too. Distracted by the bell, blinded by the sun,
> important incoming call ...

Have you forgotten what the thread you are posting to is about? Or are
you just off on one of your insane and irrelevant rants?

Derek C

June 25th 10, 07:32 AM

On Jun 25, 12:16*am, Squashme > wrote:
> On 25 June, 00:00, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>
>
>
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > Adrian wrote:
> > > "The Medway Handyman" > gurgled
> > > happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
> > >>>> Not true, the type of vehicle is a major factor, it was being used
> > >>>> on the pavement
>
> > >>> No it wasn't. Try reading the link given.
>
> > >> It was being used on a pedestrian crossing - thats all right then.
>
> > > In the same way as your van gets used on pedestrian crossings.
>
> > Except that I don't run down little old ladies **** for brains.
>
> *Why are you concerned about little old ladies, when they aren't
> statistically relevent? They're not even dead.- Hide quoted text -
>
Several little old ladies have been knocked over and killed or
seriously injured by cyclists in my area. I bet that was statistically
significant (relevent) to them!

Derek C

mileburner

June 25th 10, 07:39 AM

"Iain" > wrote in message
...
> "GT" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Iain" > wrote in message
>
>>> I would disagree with that. There is a very strong tendency now for
>>> pedestrians not to take the necessary care even when using crossings.
>>> There is very little discipline, ie. the old-fashioned 'Stop, look and
>>> listen'. People seem to assume that the traffic will stop for them.
>>> This is very noticeable particularly at pedestrian crossings.
>>
>> Well, as most pedestrian crossings have traffic lights to stop the
>> traffic (except for the few remaining Zebra crossings with orange beacons
>> at the sides), I think its a fair assumption that the cars will have
>> stopped at the red light - best to make sure though!

There is a light controlled crossing near me where drivers regularly fail to
to at the red light and it is in a 40 mph limit (so traffic can be moving at
speeds up to about 50ish). I have consequently drummed into my kids to,
always check the traffic even if the man is green, especially since I had to
grab one of them to stop crossing the road when the man was green but a car
was approaching at speed and didn't stop anyway.

> There are still a large number of zebra crossings in London - one almost
> outside my door. It is not unusual to see someone walking up to the
> kerb-edge and just walk straight onto the crossing; no pause to see if
> there's an appropriate gap. I find that sometimes a couple of cars may go
> by before one stops for me when I wait at the kerb. And a small waive of
> acknowledgement or a mouthed 'Thanks' to the first car that stops does not
> go amiss either. It certainly seems to be the younger age range (even
> including school age) that do not bother to stop and at least pause.

There is also a crossing patrol "lolipop man" locally who sees it as his
duty to dart into the road completely unannounced and present his "Stop"
sign. He does not wait for a gap in the traffic, he does not even wait for
there to be somone wanting to cross the road. Instead he will jump in front
of cars and ask the pedestrians on the pavement if they want to cross. And
they do not always want to.

bod

June 25th 10, 07:41 AM

mileburner wrote:
> "Iain" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "GT" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Iain" > wrote in message
>>>> I would disagree with that. There is a very strong tendency now for
>>>> pedestrians not to take the necessary care even when using crossings.
>>>> There is very little discipline, ie. the old-fashioned 'Stop, look and
>>>> listen'. People seem to assume that the traffic will stop for them.
>>>> This is very noticeable particularly at pedestrian crossings.
>>> Well, as most pedestrian crossings have traffic lights to stop the
>>> traffic (except for the few remaining Zebra crossings with orange beacons
>>> at the sides), I think its a fair assumption that the cars will have
>>> stopped at the red light - best to make sure though!
>
> There is a light controlled crossing near me where drivers regularly fail to
> to at the red light and it is in a 40 mph limit (so traffic can be moving at
> speeds up to about 50ish). I have consequently drummed into my kids to,
> always check the traffic even if the man is green, especially since I had to
> grab one of them to stop crossing the road when the man was green but a car
> was approaching at speed and didn't stop anyway.
>
>> There are still a large number of zebra crossings in London - one almost
>> outside my door. It is not unusual to see someone walking up to the
>> kerb-edge and just walk straight onto the crossing; no pause to see if
>> there's an appropriate gap. I find that sometimes a couple of cars may go
>> by before one stops for me when I wait at the kerb. And a small waive of
>> acknowledgement or a mouthed 'Thanks' to the first car that stops does not
>> go amiss either. It certainly seems to be the younger age range (even
>> including school age) that do not bother to stop and at least pause.
>
> There is also a crossing patrol "lolipop man" locally who sees it as his
> duty to dart into the road completely unannounced and present his "Stop"
> sign. He does not wait for a gap in the traffic, he does not even wait for
> there to be somone wanting to cross the road. Instead he will jump in front
> of cars and ask the pedestrians on the pavement if they want to cross. And
> they do not always want to.
>
>
>
>
Is his name Doug, by any chance?

Bod

Matt B

June 25th 10, 08:01 AM

On 25/06/2010 01:07, Phil W Lee wrote:
> > considered Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:51:19
> +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Adrian wrote:
>>>
>>> "a 66-year-old pedestrian was crossing the road at the pedestrian
>>> crossing"
>>
>> That's true, but there's no difference in legality between cycling along a
>> footway and failing to accord precedence to a pedestrian on a pedestrian
>> crossing.
>
> Surely that depends on the type of crossing and the state of the
> lights (if present).
> There don't appear to be any zebra crossings along there, and there
> was no allegation that the cyclist had jumped any lights.
>
> It wouldn't be the first time that a pedestrian had relied only on
> their hearing when stepping out into the road.

Do believe that it is acceptable to drive or cycle across a
light-controlled crossing, on green, in such a way that you would be
unable to avoid a pedestrian, old or young, should they walk out
(perfectly legally) when their light is on red?

--
Matt B

Brimstone

June 25th 10, 08:41 AM

"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
...
> JNugent > considered Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:51:19
> +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>Adrian wrote:
>>> NM > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>> saying:
>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newsevents-
>>>>>>> pressreleases/newsevents-pressreleases-item.htm?id=136875
>>>
>>>>>> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely punished.
>>>
>>>>> Indeed. The type of vehicle that the sociopathic scumbag uses is the
>>>>> least relevant factor.
>>>
>>>> Not true, the type of vehicle is a major factor, it was being used on
>>>> the pavement as cycles habitually are.
>>>
>>> "a 66-year-old pedestrian was crossing the road at the pedestrian
>>> crossing"
>>
>>That's true, but there's no difference in legality between cycling along a
>>footway and failing to accord precedence to a pedestrian on a pedestrian
>>crossing.
>
> Surely that depends on the type of crossing and the state of the
> lights (if present).
> There don't appear to be any zebra crossings along there, and there
> was no allegation that the cyclist had jumped any lights.
>
> It wouldn't be the first time that a pedestrian had relied only on
> their hearing when stepping out into the road.

Are you now trying to blame the victim?

Brimstone

June 25th 10, 08:44 AM

"bod" > wrote in message
...
> mileburner wrote:

>> There is also a crossing patrol "lolipop man" locally who sees it as his
>> duty to dart into the road completely unannounced and present his "Stop"
>> sign. He does not wait for a gap in the traffic, he does not even wait
>> for there to be somone wanting to cross the road. Instead he will jump in
>> front of cars and ask the pedestrians on the pavement if they want to
>> cross. And they do not always want to.
>>
> Is his name Doug, by any chance?
>
Doug would never do anything so public spirited as becoming a "lollipop
man".

bod

June 25th 10, 08:53 AM

Brimstone wrote:
>
> "bod" > wrote in message
> ...
>> mileburner wrote:
>
>>> There is also a crossing patrol "lolipop man" locally who sees it as
>>> his duty to dart into the road completely unannounced and present his
>>> "Stop" sign. He does not wait for a gap in the traffic, he does not
>>> even wait for there to be somone wanting to cross the road. Instead
>>> he will jump in front of cars and ask the pedestrians on the pavement
>>> if they want to cross. And they do not always want to.
>>>
>> Is his name Doug, by any chance?
>>
> Doug would never do anything so public spirited as becoming a "lollipop
> man".
>
>

No, but he might do it out of spite, just to annoy motorists.

Bod

Derek C

June 25th 10, 08:53 AM

On Jun 25, 8:01*am, Matt B > wrote:
> On 25/06/2010 01:07, Phil W Lee wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > *considered Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:51:19
> > +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >> Adrian wrote:
>
> >>> "a 66-year-old pedestrian was crossing the road at the pedestrian
> >>> crossing"
>
> >> That's true, but there's no difference in legality between cycling along a
> >> footway and failing to accord precedence to a pedestrian on a pedestrian
> >> crossing.
>
> > Surely that depends on the type of crossing and the state of the
> > lights (if present).
> > There don't appear to be any zebra crossings along there, and there
> > was no allegation that the cyclist had jumped any lights.
>
> > It wouldn't be the first time that a pedestrian had relied only on
> > their hearing when stepping out into the road.
>
> Do believe that it is acceptable to drive or cycle across a
> light-controlled crossing, on green, in such a way that you would be
> unable to avoid a pedestrian, old or young, should they walk out
> (perfectly legally) when their light is on red?
>
Pedestrians should never step into the roadway without checking first
that it is safe to do so. I seem to remember that this was called the
Green Cross Code when I was at school. Otherwise they are committing
the offence of 'Jaywalking'. Pedestrians only have right of way at
light controlled crossings when their light is on green (but watch out
for RLJing cyclists).

Derek C

Derek C

Derek C

June 25th 10, 08:57 AM

On Jun 25, 8:01*am, Matt B > wrote:
> On 25/06/2010 01:07, Phil W Lee wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > *considered Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:51:19
> > +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >> Adrian wrote:
>
> >>> "a 66-year-old pedestrian was crossing the road at the pedestrian
> >>> crossing"
>
> >> That's true, but there's no difference in legality between cycling along a
> >> footway and failing to accord precedence to a pedestrian on a pedestrian
> >> crossing.
>
> > Surely that depends on the type of crossing and the state of the
> > lights (if present).
> > There don't appear to be any zebra crossings along there, and there
> > was no allegation that the cyclist had jumped any lights.
>
> > It wouldn't be the first time that a pedestrian had relied only on
> > their hearing when stepping out into the road.
>
> Do believe that it is acceptable to drive or cycle across a
> light-controlled crossing, on green, in such a way that you would be
> unable to avoid a pedestrian, old or young, should they walk out
> (perfectly legally) when their light is on red?
>
> --
Pedestrians should never step into the roadway without checking first
that it is safe to do so. I seem to remember that this was called the
Green Cross Code when I was at school. Otherwise they are committing
the offence of 'Jaywalking'. Pedestrians only have right of way at
light controlled crossings when their light is on green (but watch out
for RLJing cyclists).

Derek C

Adrian

June 25th 10, 09:11 AM

"Brimstone" > gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

> "Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
> ...
>> It wouldn't be the first time that a pedestrian had relied only on
>> their hearing when stepping out into the road.

> Are you now trying to blame the victim?

There's a certain irony, isn't there?

Matt B

June 25th 10, 09:40 AM

On 25/06/2010 08:53, Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 25, 8:01 am, Matt > wrote:
>> On 25/06/2010 01:07, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> > considered Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:51:19
>>> +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>>> Adrian wrote:
>>
>>>>> "a 66-year-old pedestrian was crossing the road at the pedestrian
>>>>> crossing"
>>
>>>> That's true, but there's no difference in legality between cycling along a
>>>> footway and failing to accord precedence to a pedestrian on a pedestrian
>>>> crossing.
>>
>>> Surely that depends on the type of crossing and the state of the
>>> lights (if present).
>>> There don't appear to be any zebra crossings along there, and there
>>> was no allegation that the cyclist had jumped any lights.
>>
>>> It wouldn't be the first time that a pedestrian had relied only on
>>> their hearing when stepping out into the road.
>>
>> Do believe that it is acceptable to drive or cycle across a
>> light-controlled crossing, on green, in such a way that you would be
>> unable to avoid a pedestrian, old or young, should they walk out
>> (perfectly legally) when their light is on red?
>>
> Pedestrians should never step into the roadway without checking first
> that it is safe to do so.

Common sense really, but not compulsory and drivers/riders certainly
can't bank on then doing so.

> I seem to remember that this was called the
> Green Cross Code when I was at school.

Brainwashing kids into believing that the vehicle user is king, and to
always kowtow to them. That, IMHO, is part of the cause of the problems
we now have on our roads. Generations of drivers and riders who were
taught from an early age that as such they can take de-facto priority
over pedestrians on the streets.

> Otherwise they are committing
> the offence of 'Jaywalking'.

There is no offence of "jaywalking" in the UK. All road users have
equal rights to use public roads (subject to a very few specific, and
local exceptions).

> Pedestrians only have right of way at
> light controlled crossings when their light is on green (but watch out
> for RLJing cyclists).

No, pedestrians always have right of way to use public roads, despite
what being taught the "green cross code" may have led them to believe.
That isn't to say that they shouldn't generally follow the sensible
advice laid down in the highway code.

--
Matt B

JNugent[_7_]

June 25th 10, 09:41 AM

Phil W Lee wrote:
> JNugent > considered Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:51:19
> +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Adrian wrote:
>>> NM > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>> saying:
>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newsevents-
>>>>>>> pressreleases/newsevents-pressreleases-item.htm?id=136875
>>>>>> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely punished.
>>>>> Indeed. The type of vehicle that the sociopathic scumbag uses is the
>>>>> least relevant factor.
>>>> Not true, the type of vehicle is a major factor, it was being used on
>>>> the pavement as cycles habitually are.
>>> "a 66-year-old pedestrian was crossing the road at the pedestrian
>>> crossing"
>> That's true, but there's no difference in legality between cycling along a
>> footway and failing to accord precedence to a pedestrian on a pedestrian
>> crossing.
>
> Surely that depends on the type of crossing and the state of the
> lights (if present).
> There don't appear to be any zebra crossings along there, and there
> was no allegation that the cyclist had jumped any lights.
>
> It wouldn't be the first time that a pedestrian had relied only on
> their hearing when stepping out into the road.

The clue was in the words "failing to accord precedence", which clearly and
inescapably implies a circumstance where precedence is with the pedestrian,
which, of course, is the case more of the time with a zebra than with a pelicon.

JNugent[_7_]

June 25th 10, 09:43 AM

Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 25, 8:01 am, Matt B > wrote:
>> On 25/06/2010 01:07, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> > considered Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:51:19
>>> +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>>> Adrian wrote:
>>>>> "a 66-year-old pedestrian was crossing the road at the pedestrian
>>>>> crossing"
>>>> That's true, but there's no difference in legality between cycling along a
>>>> footway and failing to accord precedence to a pedestrian on a pedestrian
>>>> crossing.
>>> Surely that depends on the type of crossing and the state of the
>>> lights (if present).
>>> There don't appear to be any zebra crossings along there, and there
>>> was no allegation that the cyclist had jumped any lights.
>>> It wouldn't be the first time that a pedestrian had relied only on
>>> their hearing when stepping out into the road.
>> Do believe that it is acceptable to drive or cycle across a
>> light-controlled crossing, on green, in such a way that you would be
>> unable to avoid a pedestrian, old or young, should they walk out
>> (perfectly legally) when their light is on red?
>>
> Pedestrians should never step into the roadway without checking first
> that it is safe to do so. I seem to remember that this was called the
> Green Cross Code when I was at school. Otherwise they are committing
> the offence of 'Jaywalking'.

What? In the United Kingdom?

June 25th 10, 09:56 AM

"mileburner" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Iain" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "GT" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Iain" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> I would disagree with that. There is a very strong tendency now for
>>>> pedestrians not to take the necessary care even when using crossings.
>>>> There is very little discipline, ie. the old-fashioned 'Stop, look and
>>>> listen'. People seem to assume that the traffic will stop for them.
>>>> This is very noticeable particularly at pedestrian crossings.
>>>
>>> Well, as most pedestrian crossings have traffic lights to stop the
>>> traffic (except for the few remaining Zebra crossings with orange
>>> beacons at the sides), I think its a fair assumption that the cars will
>>> have stopped at the red light - best to make sure though!
>
> There is a light controlled crossing near me where drivers regularly fail
> to to at the red light and it is in a 40 mph limit (so traffic can be
> moving at speeds up to about 50ish). I have consequently drummed into my
> kids to, always check the traffic even if the man is green, especially
> since I had to grab one of them to stop crossing the road when the man was
> green but a car was approaching at speed and didn't stop anyway.
>
>> There are still a large number of zebra crossings in London - one almost
>> outside my door. It is not unusual to see someone walking up to the
>> kerb-edge and just walk straight onto the crossing; no pause to see if
>> there's an appropriate gap. I find that sometimes a couple of cars may
>> go by before one stops for me when I wait at the kerb. And a small waive
>> of acknowledgement or a mouthed 'Thanks' to the first car that stops does
>> not go amiss either. It certainly seems to be the younger age range
>> (even including school age) that do not bother to stop and at least
>> pause.
>
> There is also a crossing patrol "lolipop man" locally who sees it as his
> duty to dart into the road completely unannounced and present his "Stop"
> sign. He does not wait for a gap in the traffic, he does not even wait for
> there to be somone wanting to cross the road. Instead he will jump in
> front of cars and ask the pedestrians on the pavement if they want to
> cross. And they do not always want to.

Then report him - he is supposed to stand at a the side with his lolly pop
sticking out into the road a little until the cars stop - then he should
walk into the middle and have people cross in front of him. I think you are
completely within your rights to run him down if he "darts into the road
completely unannounced"!

Brimstone

June 25th 10, 09:58 AM

"bod" > wrote in message
...
> Brimstone wrote:
>>
>> "bod" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> mileburner wrote:
>>
>>>> There is also a crossing patrol "lolipop man" locally who sees it as
>>>> his duty to dart into the road completely unannounced and present his
>>>> "Stop" sign. He does not wait for a gap in the traffic, he does not
>>>> even wait for there to be somone wanting to cross the road. Instead he
>>>> will jump in front of cars and ask the pedestrians on the pavement if
>>>> they want to cross. And they do not always want to.
>>>>
>>> Is his name Doug, by any chance?
>>>
>> Doug would never do anything so public spirited as becoming a "lollipop
>> man".
>
> No, but he might do it out of spite, just to annoy motorists.
>
An interesting thought and not one that occurred to me because it shows Doug
to be even more mean minded than we all know him to be. Well done.

Derek C

June 25th 10, 10:17 AM

On Jun 25, 9:40*am, Matt B > wrote:
> On 25/06/2010 08:53, Derek C wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 25, 8:01 am, Matt > *wrote:
> >> On 25/06/2010 01:07, Phil W Lee wrote:
>
> >>> > * *considered Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:51:19
> >>> +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >>>> Adrian wrote:
>
> >>>>> "a 66-year-old pedestrian was crossing the road at the pedestrian
> >>>>> crossing"
>
> >>>> That's true, but there's no difference in legality between cycling along a
> >>>> footway and failing to accord precedence to a pedestrian on a pedestrian
> >>>> crossing.
>
> >>> Surely that depends on the type of crossing and the state of the
> >>> lights (if present).
> >>> There don't appear to be any zebra crossings along there, and there
> >>> was no allegation that the cyclist had jumped any lights.
>
> >>> It wouldn't be the first time that a pedestrian had relied only on
> >>> their hearing when stepping out into the road.
>
> >> Do believe that it is acceptable to drive or cycle across a
> >> light-controlled crossing, on green, in such a way that you would be
> >> unable to avoid a pedestrian, old or young, should they walk out
> >> (perfectly legally) when their light is on red?
>
> > Pedestrians should never step into the roadway without checking first
> > that it is safe to do so.
>
> Common sense really, but not compulsory and drivers/riders certainly
> can't bank on then doing so.
>
> > I seem to remember that this was called the
> > Green Cross Code when I was at school.
>
> Brainwashing kids into believing that the vehicle user is king, and to
> always kowtow to them. *That, IMHO, is part of the cause of the problems
> we now have on our roads. *Generations of drivers and riders who were
> taught from an early age that as such they can take de-facto priority
> over pedestrians on the streets.
>
> > Otherwise they are committing
> > the offence of 'Jaywalking'.
>
> There is no offence of "jaywalking" in the UK. *All road users have
> equal rights to use public roads (subject to a very few specific, and
> local exceptions).
>
> > Pedestrians only have right of way at
> > light controlled crossings when their light is on green (but watch out
> > for RLJing cyclists).
>
> No, pedestrians always have right of way to use public roads, despite
> what being taught the "green cross code" may have led them to believe.
> That isn't to say that they shouldn't generally follow the sensible
> advice laid down in the highway code.
>
> --
Stepping into the path of a vehicle that is heavier and going faster
than you is not a sensible thing to do, hence the Green Cross Code.
Vehicles are required by law to travel on the roadway, not the
footpath, so that is where they are most likely to be. Pedestrians
have priority on the footpaths (despite what some cyclists seem to
think), but should exercise caution when entering the roadway. They
have no God given or legal rights to do this, and would be considered
legally negligent if they are injured or killed as a result of doing
so without taking due care and attention.

Derek C

mileburner

June 25th 10, 10:25 AM

Derek C wrote:
>>
> Pedestrians should never step into the roadway without checking first
> that it is safe to do so. I seem to remember that this was called the
> Green Cross Code when I was at school. Otherwise they are committing
> the offence of 'Jaywalking'.

No such offence in the UK. AIUI "Jaywalking" is an offence in the USA (or
parts of).

Pedestrians only have right of way at
> light controlled crossings when their light is on green (but watch out
> for RLJing cyclists).

Rights of way only determine who is to blame for litigation claims and
prosecution. It is unlikely that any claim or prosecution would be brought
against a pedestrian for crossing the road when the little man was red.

mileburner

June 25th 10, 10:33 AM

Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 25, 9:40 am, Matt B > wrote:
>> On 25/06/2010 08:53, Derek C wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 25, 8:01 am, Matt > wrote:
>>>> On 25/06/2010 01:07, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>
>>>>> > considered Thu, 24 Jun 2010
>>>>> 16:51:19 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>>>>> Adrian wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> "a 66-year-old pedestrian was crossing the road at the
>>>>>>> pedestrian crossing"
>>
>>>>>> That's true, but there's no difference in legality between
>>>>>> cycling along a footway and failing to accord precedence to a
>>>>>> pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing.
>>
>>>>> Surely that depends on the type of crossing and the state of the
>>>>> lights (if present).
>>>>> There don't appear to be any zebra crossings along there, and
>>>>> there was no allegation that the cyclist had jumped any lights.
>>
>>>>> It wouldn't be the first time that a pedestrian had relied only on
>>>>> their hearing when stepping out into the road.
>>
>>>> Do believe that it is acceptable to drive or cycle across a
>>>> light-controlled crossing, on green, in such a way that you would
>>>> be unable to avoid a pedestrian, old or young, should they walk out
>>>> (perfectly legally) when their light is on red?
>>
>>> Pedestrians should never step into the roadway without checking
>>> first that it is safe to do so.
>>
>> Common sense really, but not compulsory and drivers/riders certainly
>> can't bank on then doing so.
>>
>>> I seem to remember that this was called the
>>> Green Cross Code when I was at school.
>>
>> Brainwashing kids into believing that the vehicle user is king, and
>> to always kowtow to them. That, IMHO, is part of the cause of the
>> problems we now have on our roads. Generations of drivers and riders
>> who were taught from an early age that as such they can take
>> de-facto priority over pedestrians on the streets.
>>
>>> Otherwise they are committing
>>> the offence of 'Jaywalking'.
>>
>> There is no offence of "jaywalking" in the UK. All road users have
>> equal rights to use public roads (subject to a very few specific, and
>> local exceptions).
>>
>>> Pedestrians only have right of way at
>>> light controlled crossings when their light is on green (but watch
>>> out for RLJing cyclists).
>>
>> No, pedestrians always have right of way to use public roads, despite
>> what being taught the "green cross code" may have led them to
>> believe. That isn't to say that they shouldn't generally follow the
>> sensible advice laid down in the highway code.
>>
>> --
> Stepping into the path of a vehicle that is heavier and going faster
> than you is not a sensible thing to do, hence the Green Cross Code.
> Vehicles are required by law to travel on the roadway, not the
> footpath, so that is where they are most likely to be.

Pedestrians
> have priority on the footpaths (despite what some cyclists seem to
> think), but should exercise caution when entering the roadway. They
> have no God given or legal rights to do this, and would be considered
> legally negligent if they are injured or killed as a result of doing
> so without taking due care and attention.

Since it was pointed out that stepping onto the road is *not* a criminal
offence, you are now trying to claim that stepping on to the road is
negligent if a pedestrian is injured or killed as a result. That itself is a
huge leap of (mis) information and if you carry on like that by the end of
the day a pedestrian in the road will be entirely exempt from any blame
whatsoever.

mileburner

June 25th 10, 10:35 AM

bod wrote:
> mileburner wrote:
>> "Iain" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "GT" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Iain" > wrote in message
>>>>> I would disagree with that. There is a very strong tendency now
>>>>> for pedestrians not to take the necessary care even when using
>>>>> crossings. There is very little discipline, ie. the old-fashioned
>>>>> 'Stop, look and listen'. People seem to assume that the traffic
>>>>> will stop for them. This is very noticeable particularly at
>>>>> pedestrian crossings.
>>>> Well, as most pedestrian crossings have traffic lights to stop the
>>>> traffic (except for the few remaining Zebra crossings with orange
>>>> beacons at the sides), I think its a fair assumption that the cars
>>>> will have stopped at the red light - best to make sure though!
>>
>> There is a light controlled crossing near me where drivers regularly
>> fail to to at the red light and it is in a 40 mph limit (so traffic
>> can be moving at speeds up to about 50ish). I have consequently
>> drummed into my kids to, always check the traffic even if the man is
>> green, especially since I had to grab one of them to stop crossing
>> the road when the man was green but a car was approaching at speed
>> and didn't stop anyway.
>>> There are still a large number of zebra crossings in London - one
>>> almost outside my door. It is not unusual to see someone walking
>>> up to the kerb-edge and just walk straight onto the crossing; no
>>> pause to see if there's an appropriate gap. I find that sometimes
>>> a couple of cars may go by before one stops for me when I wait at
>>> the kerb. And a small waive of acknowledgement or a mouthed
>>> 'Thanks' to the first car that stops does not go amiss either. It
>>> certainly seems to be the younger age range (even including school
>>> age) that do not bother to stop and at least pause.
>>
>> There is also a crossing patrol "lolipop man" locally who sees it as
>> his duty to dart into the road completely unannounced and present
>> his "Stop" sign. He does not wait for a gap in the traffic, he does
>> not even wait for there to be somone wanting to cross the road.
>> Instead he will jump in front of cars and ask the pedestrians on the
>> pavement if they want to cross. And they do not always want to.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Is his name Doug, by any chance?

I don't know, I'll ask him.

Derek C

June 25th 10, 10:39 AM

On Jun 25, 10:33*am, "mileburner" > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 9:40 am, Matt B > wrote:
> >> On 25/06/2010 08:53, Derek C wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 25, 8:01 am, Matt > wrote:
> >>>> On 25/06/2010 01:07, Phil W Lee wrote:
>
> >>>>> > considered Thu, 24 Jun 2010
> >>>>> 16:51:19 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >>>>>> Adrian wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> "a 66-year-old pedestrian was crossing the road at the
> >>>>>>> pedestrian crossing"
>
> >>>>>> That's true, but there's no difference in legality between
> >>>>>> cycling along a footway and failing to accord precedence to a
> >>>>>> pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing.
>
> >>>>> Surely that depends on the type of crossing and the state of the
> >>>>> lights (if present).
> >>>>> There don't appear to be any zebra crossings along there, and
> >>>>> there was no allegation that the cyclist had jumped any lights.
>
> >>>>> It wouldn't be the first time that a pedestrian had relied only on
> >>>>> their hearing when stepping out into the road.
>
> >>>> Do believe that it is acceptable to drive or cycle across a
> >>>> light-controlled crossing, on green, in such a way that you would
> >>>> be unable to avoid a pedestrian, old or young, should they walk out
> >>>> (perfectly legally) when their light is on red?
>
> >>> Pedestrians should never step into the roadway without checking
> >>> first that it is safe to do so.
>
> >> Common sense really, but not compulsory and drivers/riders certainly
> >> can't bank on then doing so.
>
> >>> I seem to remember that this was called the
> >>> Green Cross Code when I was at school.
>
> >> Brainwashing kids into believing that the vehicle user is king, and
> >> to always kowtow to them. That, IMHO, is part of the cause of the
> >> problems we now have on our roads. Generations of drivers and riders
> >> who were taught from an early age that as such they can take
> >> de-facto priority over pedestrians on the streets.
>
> >>> Otherwise they are committing
> >>> the offence of 'Jaywalking'.
>
> >> There is no offence of "jaywalking" in the UK. All road users have
> >> equal rights to use public roads (subject to a very few specific, and
> >> local exceptions).
>
> >>> Pedestrians only have right of way at
> >>> light controlled crossings when their light is on green (but watch
> >>> out for RLJing cyclists).
>
> >> No, pedestrians always have right of way to use public roads, despite
> >> what being taught the "green cross code" may have led them to
> >> believe. That isn't to say that they shouldn't generally follow the
> >> sensible advice laid down in the highway code.
>
> >> --
> > Stepping into the path of a vehicle that is heavier and going faster
> > than you is not a sensible thing to do, hence the Green Cross Code.
> > Vehicles are required by law to travel on the roadway, not the
> > footpath, so that is where they are most likely to be.
>
> Pedestrians
>
> > have priority on the footpaths (despite what some cyclists seem to
> > think), but should exercise caution when entering the roadway. They
> > have no God given or legal rights to do this, and would be considered
> > legally negligent if they are injured or killed as a result of doing
> > so without taking due care and attention.
>
> Since it was pointed out that stepping onto the road is *not* a criminal
> offence, you are now trying to claim that stepping on to the road is
> negligent if a pedestrian is injured or killed as a result. That itself is a
> huge leap of (mis) information and if you carry on like that by the end of
> the day a pedestrian in the road will be entirely exempt from any blame
> whatsoever.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In the UK pedestrians have the right to enter roadways, except
motorways. Otherwise we would not be able to cross the road, or to
travel on foot on those country roads that do not have footpaths.
However you are still expected to exercise this right in a responsible
manner.

Derek C

Adrian

June 25th 10, 10:40 AM

"mileburner" > gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>> Is his name Doug, by any chance?

> I don't know, I'll ask him.

If he denies being Doug Bollen, then he quite probably is.

mileburner

June 25th 10, 10:42 AM

GT wrote:
> "mileburner" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Iain" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "GT" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Iain" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> I would disagree with that. There is a very strong tendency now
>>>>> for pedestrians not to take the necessary care even when using
>>>>> crossings. There is very little discipline, ie. the old-fashioned
>>>>> 'Stop, look and listen'. People seem to assume that the traffic
>>>>> will stop for them. This is very noticeable particularly at
>>>>> pedestrian crossings.
>>>>
>>>> Well, as most pedestrian crossings have traffic lights to stop the
>>>> traffic (except for the few remaining Zebra crossings with orange
>>>> beacons at the sides), I think its a fair assumption that the cars
>>>> will have stopped at the red light - best to make sure though!
>>
>> There is a light controlled crossing near me where drivers regularly
>> fail to to at the red light and it is in a 40 mph limit (so traffic
>> can be moving at speeds up to about 50ish). I have consequently
>> drummed into my kids to, always check the traffic even if the man is
>> green, especially since I had to grab one of them to stop crossing
>> the road when the man was green but a car was approaching at speed
>> and didn't stop anyway.
>>> There are still a large number of zebra crossings in London - one
>>> almost outside my door. It is not unusual to see someone walking
>>> up to the kerb-edge and just walk straight onto the crossing; no
>>> pause to see if there's an appropriate gap. I find that sometimes
>>> a couple of cars may go by before one stops for me when I wait at
>>> the kerb. And a small waive of acknowledgement or a mouthed
>>> 'Thanks' to the first car that stops does not go amiss either. It
>>> certainly seems to be the younger age range (even including school
>>> age) that do not bother to stop and at least pause.
>>
>> There is also a crossing patrol "lolipop man" locally who sees it as
>> his duty to dart into the road completely unannounced and present
>> his "Stop" sign. He does not wait for a gap in the traffic, he does
>> not even wait for there to be somone wanting to cross the road.
>> Instead he will jump in front of cars and ask the pedestrians on the
>> pavement if they want to cross. And they do not always want to.
>
> Then report him - he is supposed to stand at a the side with his
> lolly pop sticking out into the road a little until the cars stop -
> then he should walk into the middle and have people cross in front of
> him. I think you are completely within your rights to run him down if
> he "darts into the road completely unannounced"!

[1] I have reported him, at the police station. The following day he had a
supervisor with him.

[2] Again today he nipped out from behind a (tall) car coming in the
opposite direction.

[3] I nearly did run him over once, got out of the car and tried to have a
poilite word with him.

I thought they are supposed to hold the lollipop upside down when not
commanding the traffic to stop, and to show the sign before marching into
the road. They had a campaign some time ago "Stop Means Stop" (which is fair
enough). This guy seems to think if he runs in front of cars unannounced
they will stop. They do. One day though, one day...

Man at B&Q

June 25th 10, 10:48 AM

On Jun 24, 10:54*pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Man at B&Q wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 10:50 am, NM > wrote:
> >> On 24 June, 10:44, Adrian > wrote:
>
> >>> "Brimstone" > gurgled happily, sounding much
> >>> like they were saying:
>
> >>>>>http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newsevents-pressreleases/
>
> >>> newsevents-pressreleases-item.htm?id=136875
>
> >>>> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely punished.
>
> >>> Indeed. The type of vehicle that the sociopathic scumbag uses is the
> >>> least relevant factor.
>
> >> Not true, the type of vehicle is a major factor, it was being used on
> >> the pavement
>
> > No it wasn't. Try reading the link given.
>
> It was being used on a pedestrian crossing - thats all right then.

Yes, it is. An accident happened that shouldn't have. There are no
witness accounts in the OPs link so we simply don't know who was at
fault.

Had the accident happened on the pavement, then I would say there's a
very good chance the cyclist was at fault.

Do you see now how the location of the accident is relevant, or does
your blinkered attitude towards cyclist preclude any rational debate
of an accident involving a cyclist?

MBQ

Adrian

June 25th 10, 10:58 AM

"Man at B&Q" > gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

> There are no witness accounts in the OPs link so we simply don't know
> who was at fault.

Very true - however it's only natural to wonder why an innocent person
would bugger off leaving an elderly lady lying on the floor injured...

Brimstone

June 25th 10, 11:00 AM

"Man at B&Q" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 24, 10:54 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Man at B&Q wrote:
>> > On Jun 24, 10:50 am, NM > wrote:
>> >> On 24 June, 10:44, Adrian > wrote:
>>
>> >>> "Brimstone" > gurgled happily, sounding much
>> >>> like they were saying:
>>
>> >>>>>http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newsevents-pressreleases/
>>
>> >>> newsevents-pressreleases-item.htm?id=136875
>>
>> >>>> People who do this kind of thing should be very severely punished.
>>
>> >>> Indeed. The type of vehicle that the sociopathic scumbag uses is the
>> >>> least relevant factor.
>>
>> >> Not true, the type of vehicle is a major factor, it was being used on
>> >> the pavement
>>
>> > No it wasn't. Try reading the link given.
>>
>> It was being used on a pedestrian crossing - thats all right then.
>
> Yes, it is. An accident happened that shouldn't have. There are no
> witness accounts in the OPs link so we simply don't know who was at
> fault.
>
> Had the accident happened on the pavement, then I would say there's a
> very good chance the cyclist was at fault.
>
> Do you see now how the location of the accident is relevant, or does
> your blinkered attitude towards cyclist preclude any rational debate
> of an accident involving a cyclist?
>
He's got the same attitude as Doug. The only thing that's important in any
collision is the type of vehicle being used. With Doug, it's the car driver
that's always wrong and with TMH it's always the cyclist.

mileburner

June 25th 10, 11:15 AM

Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 25, 10:33 am, "mileburner" > wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:
>>> On Jun 25, 9:40 am, Matt B > wrote:
>>>> On 25/06/2010 08:53, Derek C wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jun 25, 8:01 am, Matt > wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/06/2010 01:07, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> > considered Thu, 24 Jun 2010
>>>>>>> 16:51:19 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>>>>>>> Adrian wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> "a 66-year-old pedestrian was crossing the road at the
>>>>>>>>> pedestrian crossing"
>>
>>>>>>>> That's true, but there's no difference in legality between
>>>>>>>> cycling along a footway and failing to accord precedence to a
>>>>>>>> pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing.
>>
>>>>>>> Surely that depends on the type of crossing and the state of the
>>>>>>> lights (if present).
>>>>>>> There don't appear to be any zebra crossings along there, and
>>>>>>> there was no allegation that the cyclist had jumped any lights.
>>
>>>>>>> It wouldn't be the first time that a pedestrian had relied only
>>>>>>> on their hearing when stepping out into the road.
>>
>>>>>> Do believe that it is acceptable to drive or cycle across a
>>>>>> light-controlled crossing, on green, in such a way that you would
>>>>>> be unable to avoid a pedestrian, old or young, should they walk
>>>>>> out (perfectly legally) when their light is on red?
>>
>>>>> Pedestrians should never step into the roadway without checking
>>>>> first that it is safe to do so.
>>
>>>> Common sense really, but not compulsory and drivers/riders
>>>> certainly can't bank on then doing so.
>>
>>>>> I seem to remember that this was called the
>>>>> Green Cross Code when I was at school.
>>
>>>> Brainwashing kids into believing that the vehicle user is king, and
>>>> to always kowtow to them. That, IMHO, is part of the cause of the
>>>> problems we now have on our roads. Generations of drivers and
>>>> riders who were taught from an early age that as such they can take
>>>> de-facto priority over pedestrians on the streets.
>>
>>>>> Otherwise they are committing
>>>>> the offence of 'Jaywalking'.
>>
>>>> There is no offence of "jaywalking" in the UK. All road users have
>>>> equal rights to use public roads (subject to a very few specific,
>>>> and local exceptions).
>>
>>>>> Pedestrians only have right of way at
>>>>> light controlled crossings when their light is on green (but watch
>>>>> out for RLJing cyclists).
>>
>>>> No, pedestrians always have right of way to use public roads,
>>>> despite what being taught the "green cross code" may have led them
>>>> to believe. That isn't to say that they shouldn't generally follow
>>>> the sensible advice laid down in the highway code.
>>
>>>> --
>>> Stepping into the path of a vehicle that is heavier and going faster
>>> than you is not a sensible thing to do, hence the Green Cross Code.
>>> Vehicles are required by law to travel on the roadway, not the
>>> footpath, so that is where they are most likely to be.
>>
>> Pedestrians
>>
>>> have priority on the footpaths (despite what some cyclists seem to
>>> think), but should exercise caution when entering the roadway. They
>>> have no God given or legal rights to do this, and would be
>>> considered legally negligent if they are injured or killed as a
>>> result of doing so without taking due care and attention.
>>
>> Since it was pointed out that stepping onto the road is *not* a
>> criminal offence, you are now trying to claim that stepping on to
>> the road is negligent if a pedestrian is injured or killed as a
>> result. That itself is a huge leap of (mis) information and if you
>> carry on like that by the end of the day a pedestrian in the road
>> will be entirely exempt from any blame whatsoever.- Hide quoted text
>> -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> In the UK pedestrians have the right to enter roadways, except
> motorways. Otherwise we would not be able to cross the road, or to
> travel on foot on those country roads that do not have footpaths.
> However you are still expected to exercise this right in a responsible
> manner.

Wow, the shift is now complete in going from incorrect information to what
is reasonable and correct.

Matt B

June 25th 10, 11:37 AM

On 25/06/2010 10:17, Derek C wrote:
>>
> Stepping into the path of a vehicle that is heavier and going faster
> than you is not a sensible thing to do, hence the Green Cross Code.

It's only not sensible where people don't do it and so drivers/riders
aren't expecting it to happen there.

There are places where it is the norm and perfectly sensible, and where
the roads are safer as a consequence.

The way we kowtowed to vehicular traffic in the middle decades of the
20th century and initiatives such as the green cross code have led to
the number of places where it is not sensible increasing and thus to the
roads becoming less safe.

> Vehicles are required by law to travel on the roadway, not the
> footpath, so that is where they are most likely to be.

On the roads where there is a separate footpath, yes. And this may well
be how the whole problem started, by pedestrians giving de-facto
priority to vehicles on the roadway where there were also footways.

Having been virtually granted it, and taught from a young age that
drivers/riders must have it, they do, of course, take it for granted.

> Pedestrians
> have priority on the footpaths (despite what some cyclists seem to
> think), but should exercise caution when entering the roadway.

Yes, where there is a footpath this has unfortunately been the consequence.

> They
> have no God given or legal rights to do this,

They have exactly the same right to use the roadway as drivers/riders do.

> and would be considered
> legally negligent if they are injured or killed as a result of doing
> so without taking due care and attention.

They also, as drivers/riders do, have the duty to use the roads
responsibly and with due care. That is of course if they are old enough
and capable of understanding that duty.

Of course it isn't only pedestrians (compos mentis or otherwise) that
might unexpectedly enter the road into the path of traffic, and
drivers/riders need to be able to avoid collisions with them too.

--
Matt B

Derek C

June 25th 10, 02:11 PM

On Jun 25, 10:25*am, "mileburner" > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
>
> > Pedestrians should never step into the roadway without checking first
> > that it is safe to do so. I seem to remember that this was called the
> > Green Cross Code when I was at school. Otherwise they are committing
> > the offence of 'Jaywalking'.
>
> No such offence in the UK. AIUI "Jaywalking" is an offence in the USA (or
> parts of).
>
> Pedestrians only have right of way at
>
> > light controlled crossings when their light is on green (but watch out
> > for RLJing cyclists).
>
> Rights of way only determine who is to blame for litigation claims and
> prosecution. It is unlikely that any claim or prosecution would be brought
> against a pedestrian for crossing the road when the little man was red.

Rules for pedestrians:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108

Derek C

Derek C

June 25th 10, 02:15 PM

On Jun 25, 11:37*am, Matt B > wrote:
> On 25/06/2010 10:17, Derek C wrote:
>
>
>
> > Stepping into the path of a vehicle that is heavier and going faster
> > than you is not a sensible thing to do, hence the Green Cross Code.
>
> It's only not sensible where people don't do it and so drivers/riders
> aren't expecting it to happen there.
>
> There are places where it is the norm and perfectly sensible, and where
> the roads are safer as a consequence.
>
> The way we kowtowed to vehicular traffic in the middle decades of the
> 20th century and initiatives such as the green cross code have led to
> the number of places where it is not sensible increasing and thus to the
> roads becoming less safe.
>
> > Vehicles are required by law to travel on the roadway, not the
> > footpath, so that is where they are most likely to be.
>
> On the roads where there is a separate footpath, yes. *And this may well
> be how the whole problem started, by pedestrians giving de-facto
> priority to vehicles on the roadway where there were also footways.
>
> Having been virtually granted it, and taught from a young age that
> drivers/riders must have it, they do, of course, take it for granted.
>
> > Pedestrians
> > have priority on the footpaths (despite what some cyclists seem to
> > think), but should exercise caution when entering the roadway.
>
> Yes, where there is a footpath this has unfortunately been the consequence.
>
> > They
> > have no God given or legal rights to do this,
>
> They have exactly the same right to use the roadway as drivers/riders do.
>
> > and would be considered
> > legally negligent if they are injured or killed as a result of doing
> > so without taking due care and attention.
>
> They also, as drivers/riders do, have the duty to use the roads
> responsibly and with due care. *That is of course if they are old enough
> and capable of understanding that duty.
>
> Of course it isn't only pedestrians (compos mentis or otherwise) that
> might unexpectedly enter the road into the path of traffic, and
> drivers/riders need to be able to avoid collisions with them too.
>
> --

Rules for pedestrians:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108

Derek C

mileburner

June 25th 10, 02:30 PM

Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 25, 10:25 am, "mileburner" > wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:
>>
>>> Pedestrians should never step into the roadway without checking
>>> first that it is safe to do so. I seem to remember that this was
>>> called the Green Cross Code when I was at school. Otherwise they
>>> are committing the offence of 'Jaywalking'.
>>
>> No such offence in the UK. AIUI "Jaywalking" is an offence in the
>> USA (or parts of).
>>
>> Pedestrians only have right of way at
>>
>>> light controlled crossings when their light is on green (but watch
>>> out for RLJing cyclists).
>>
>> Rights of way only determine who is to blame for litigation claims
>> and prosecution. It is unlikely that any claim or prosecution would
>> be brought against a pedestrian for crossing the road when the
>> little man was red.
>
> Rules for pedestrians:
>
> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108

I am quite familiar with the advice offerered in the Highway code although I
do not see any references in there relating to litigation/prosecution which
pedestrians my be subjected to apart from the rules applying to motorways
and level crossings.

I also note that the occurence of the words "Jaywalking" and "Jay-walking"
or the combination "Jay" and "walking" shows 0 times in this publication.

HTH

mileburner

June 25th 10, 02:39 PM

"mileburner" > wrote in message
...
> Derek C wrote:
>>
>> Rules for pedestrians:
>>
>> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108
>
> I am quite familiar with the advice offerered in the Highway code although
> I do not see any references in there relating to litigation/prosecution
> which pedestrians my be subjected to apart from the rules applying to
> motorways and level crossings.
>
> I also note that the occurence of the words "Jaywalking" and "Jay-walking"
> or the combination "Jay" and "walking" shows 0 times in this publication.

Oh I get you now...

You think that "Rules for pedestrians" in the Highway Code means that these
are "Laws" which pedestrians must obey. They are not. The "rules" in the
Highway Code are in fact Rules of the Code (not rules enshrined in law).

Where a Highway Code rule *is* a legal requirement it is denoted by the
words MUST/MUST NOT in the rule.

Otherwise, the Highway Code is just that, a code.

Matt B

June 25th 10, 02:45 PM

On 25/06/2010 14:15, Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 25, 11:37 am, Matt > wrote:
>> On 25/06/2010 10:17, Derek C wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Stepping into the path of a vehicle that is heavier and going faster
>>> than you is not a sensible thing to do, hence the Green Cross Code.
>>
>> It's only not sensible where people don't do it and so drivers/riders
>> aren't expecting it to happen there.
>>
>> There are places where it is the norm and perfectly sensible, and where
>> the roads are safer as a consequence.
>>
>> The way we kowtowed to vehicular traffic in the middle decades of the
>> 20th century and initiatives such as the green cross code have led to
>> the number of places where it is not sensible increasing and thus to the
>> roads becoming less safe.
>>
>>> Vehicles are required by law to travel on the roadway, not the
>>> footpath, so that is where they are most likely to be.
>>
>> On the roads where there is a separate footpath, yes. And this may well
>> be how the whole problem started, by pedestrians giving de-facto
>> priority to vehicles on the roadway where there were also footways.
>>
>> Having been virtually granted it, and taught from a young age that
>> drivers/riders must have it, they do, of course, take it for granted.
>>
>>> Pedestrians
>>> have priority on the footpaths (despite what some cyclists seem to
>>> think), but should exercise caution when entering the roadway.
>>
>> Yes, where there is a footpath this has unfortunately been the consequence.
>>
>>> They
>>> have no God given or legal rights to do this,
>>
>> They have exactly the same right to use the roadway as drivers/riders do.
>>
>>> and would be considered
>>> legally negligent if they are injured or killed as a result of doing
>>> so without taking due care and attention.
>>
>> They also, as drivers/riders do, have the duty to use the roads
>> responsibly and with due care. That is of course if they are old enough
>> and capable of understanding that duty.
>>
>> Of course it isn't only pedestrians (compos mentis or otherwise) that
>> might unexpectedly enter the road into the path of traffic, and
>> drivers/riders need to be able to avoid collisions with them too.
>>
>> --
>
> Rules for pedestrians:
>
> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108

Yes, but what point are you making? They reinforce what I said - don't
they? Was I wrong about something? Do you disagree with something I
wrote? You'll notice that there are only 3 or 4 *MUST NOT*s, and none
of them relate to what we were discussing; they are the only ones that
are legally enforceable. The rest are "common sense" advice, some of
which I believe has led to the problems that we have today.

--
Matt B

Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]

June 25th 10, 05:49 PM

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:32:46 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>Several little old ladies have been knocked over and killed or
>seriously injured by cyclists in my area. I bet that was statistically
>significant (relevent) to them!

No, statistically significant has a very specific meaning, and that is
not it. It may well have been relevant but it was not /statistically/
significant.

I am no fan of pavement cycling, by the way, and avoid it where
practicable. I have been harassed off one route altogether by drivers
trying to "educate" me about the excellence of pavements as a place to
cycle, in one case by attempting to side-swipe we with a 38T truck. I
avoided it by the very narrowest of margins. And yes it bloody well
was deliberate. So I think it's time to stop preaching to the choir
and work on the real culprits: councils with their Magic White Paint
(TM).

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

Squashme

June 25th 10, 06:08 PM

On 25 June, 00:25, (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Squashme > wrote:
> > Oh no, I forgot, it's Roadaholics Unanimous, isn't it? Still they have
> > trouble seeing things too. Distracted by the bell, blinded by the sun,
> > important incoming call ...
>
> Have you forgotten what the thread you are posting to is about? Or are
> you just off on one of your insane and irrelevant rants?

Err, B, I think.

Squashme

June 25th 10, 06:27 PM

On 25 June, 10:58, Adrian > wrote:
> "Man at B&Q" > gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
> > There are no witness accounts in the OPs link so we simply don't know
> > who was at fault.
>
> Very true - however it's only natural to wonder why an innocent person
> would bugger off leaving an elderly lady lying on the floor injured...

Perhaps the cyclist never hit her, or, having hit her, didn't notice
the fact. Perhaps the cyclist was distracted.
Perhaps "the person responsible for that outcome is of exemplary
character,." and doesn't want to lose that reputation.

Adrian

June 25th 10, 06:32 PM

Squashme > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> > There are no witness accounts in the OPs link so we simply don't know
>> > who was at fault.

>> Very true - however it's only natural to wonder why an innocent person
>> would bugger off leaving an elderly lady lying on the floor injured...

> Perhaps the cyclist never hit her, or, having hit her, didn't notice the
> fact. Perhaps the cyclist was distracted. Perhaps "the person
> responsible for that outcome is of exemplary character,." and doesn't
> want to lose that reputation.

Mmm. If it was a car instead of a bicycle, would you let alone of those
lame excuses go with **** un-taken? No, thought not.

Doesn't matter what the vehicle was. The person in charge of it was a
****wit who buggered off, leaving an elderly lady on the floor injured.

Squashme

June 25th 10, 06:33 PM

On 25 June, 07:32, Derek C > wrote:
> On Jun 25, 12:16*am, Squashme > wrote:
>
> > On 25 June, 00:00, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>
> > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Adrian wrote:
> > > > "The Medway Handyman" > gurgled
> > > > happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>
> > > >>>> Not true, the type of vehicle is a major factor, it was being used
> > > >>>> on the pavement
>
> > > >>> No it wasn't. Try reading the link given.
>
> > > >> It was being used on a pedestrian crossing - thats all right then.
>
> > > > In the same way as your van gets used on pedestrian crossings.
>
> > > Except that I don't run down little old ladies **** for brains.
>
> > *Why are you concerned about little old ladies, when they aren't
> > statistically relevent? They're not even dead.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Several little old ladies have been knocked over and killed or
> seriously injured by cyclists in my area. I bet that was statistically
> significant (relevent) to them!
>

You must be mistaken. Check with TMH. He believes that motorists
"still only cause a statistically irrelevant number of fatalities.. "

These cyclist-killed old ladies in your area - any chapter and verse?

Derek C

June 26th 10, 01:29 AM

On Jun 25, 2:39*pm, "mileburner" > wrote:
> "mileburner" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Derek C wrote:
>
> >> Rules for pedestrians:
>
> >>http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070108
>
> > I am quite familiar with the advice offerered in the Highway code although
> > I do not see any references in there relating to litigation/prosecution
> > which pedestrians my be subjected to apart from the rules applying to
> > motorways and level crossings.
>
> > I also note that the occurence of the words "Jaywalking" and "Jay-walking"
> > or the combination "Jay" and "walking" shows 0 times in this publication.

June 26th 10, 02:19 AM

"NM" > wrote in message
...
> On 24 June, 10:44, Adrian > wrote:
>> "Brimstone" > gurgled happily, sounding much like
>> they were saying:
>>
>> >>http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newsevents-pressreleases/
>>
>> newsevents-pressreleases-item.htm?id=136875
>>
>> > People who do this kind of thing should be very severely punished.
>>
>> Indeed. The type of vehicle that the sociopathic scumbag uses is the
>> least relevant factor.
>
> Not true, the type of vehicle is a major factor, it was being used on
> the pavement as cycles habitually are.

No it wasn't

Do you habitually lie?

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

June 26th 10, 09:38 AM

Derek C wrote:
A few weeks ago I had to follow a group of drunken
> pedestrians staggering along the middle of the main A501 road in
> London at about 2 mph. A polite request for them to move back onto the
> footpath was met by the predictable two finger salutes and a torrent
> of abuse. I can therefore only think that they must have been cyclists
> in normal life!

Think it through Derek.. Cyclists don't have normal lives.

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

June 26th 10, 10:42 AM

On 26 June, 02:19, "OG" > wrote:
> "NM" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 24 June, 10:44, Adrian > wrote:
> >> "Brimstone" > gurgled happily, sounding much like
> >> they were saying:
>
> >> >>http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newsevents-pressreleases/
>
> >> newsevents-pressreleases-item.htm?id=136875
>
> >> > People who do this kind of thing should be very severely punished.
>
> >> Indeed. The type of vehicle that the sociopathic scumbag uses is the
> >> least relevant factor.
>
> > Not true, the type of vehicle is a major factor, it was being used on
> > the pavement as cycles habitually are.
>
> No it wasn't
>
> Do you habitually lie?

Probably, don't you? A ped crossing is pavement in this instance, are
you habitually stupid?

Squashme

June 26th 10, 01:24 PM

On 25 June, 18:32, Adrian > wrote:
> Squashme > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
> >> > There are no witness accounts in the OPs link so we simply don't know
> >> > who was at fault.
> >> Very true - however it's only natural to wonder why an innocent person
> >> would bugger off leaving an elderly lady lying on the floor injured...
> > Perhaps the cyclist never hit her, or, having hit her, didn't notice the
> > fact. Perhaps the cyclist was distracted. Perhaps "the person
> > responsible for that outcome is of exemplary character,." and doesn't
> > want to lose that reputation.
>
> Mmm. If it was a car instead of a bicycle, would you let alone of those
> lame excuses go with **** un-taken? No, thought not.

If it was a car insted of a bicycle, would she be lying on the floor
injured. No, thought not.

> Doesn't matter what the vehicle was.

To the surviving victim it does.

>The person in charge of it was a
> ****wit who buggered off, leaving an elderly lady on the floor injured.

Indeed.
"Hit and run: Nearly 1 in every 5 reported pedestrian casualties (19
per cent) occurs in a 'hit and run' accident" (2008). And the vast
majority are by motor vehicles, I believe.

mileburner

June 27th 10, 09:40 PM

Derek C wrote:
>
> If there is not an offence of jaywalking in the UK, there damn well
> should be! A few weeks ago I had to follow a group of drunken
> pedestrians staggering along the middle of the main A501 road in
> London at about 2 mph. A polite request for them to move back onto the
> footpath was met by the predictable two finger salutes and a torrent
> of abuse. I can therefore only think that they must have been cyclists
> in normal life!

Ah, so this is a shift from it *is* against the law to it *should* be
against the law.

Presumably walking in the road should be against the law so as not to hold
up all those important motorists and to also hold them to blame when they
get hit by cars.

I'll bet you read the Daily Mail and vote Tory too :-)

The Medway Handyman[_2_]

June 27th 10, 11:00 PM

mileburner wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
>>
>> If there is not an offence of jaywalking in the UK, there damn well
>> should be! A few weeks ago I had to follow a group of drunken
>> pedestrians staggering along the middle of the main A501 road in
>> London at about 2 mph. A polite request for them to move back onto
>> the footpath was met by the predictable two finger salutes and a
>> torrent of abuse. I can therefore only think that they must have
>> been cyclists in normal life!
>
> Ah, so this is a shift from it *is* against the law to it *should* be
> against the law.

Not at all ****wit. Drunk & disorderly is already an offence.

> Presumably walking in the road should be against the law so as not to
> hold up all those important motorists and to also hold them to blame
> when they get hit by cars.

Which part of 'drunken pedestrians' are you too thick to comprehend?
>
> I'll bet you read the Daily Mail and vote Tory too :-)

I'll bet you will use any jibe your feeble mind can come up with to try &
score a point.

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