Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
 

Clive George wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...

It certainly doesn't give a flying ****
about cycling, so we should simply ignore it and get back to the
real business of discussing Marmite.

I had some on crumpets this afternoon between fettling tandems. Mmmm.

How you can eat that stuff, with its nasty metallic artificial taste, I
cannot fathom.

Bovril: The Real Thing.

Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
 

JNugent wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Tony Dragon :

Guy says your daughter's injury is ignorable. As far as he's
concerned, she doesn't matter.
Let that be an end of it.

Oh look, an other lie. What I said was that injuries to pedestrians
caused by cyclists are, at a public policy level, ignorable.

Since these discussions are precisely *about* public policy (and about
views as to what that public policy should be), the quote above (which,
incidentally, was of my coinage) is identical to what you say.

Critics of footway cyclists are asking for a public policy of robust
enforcement of the law against cycling along the public footway.

Or indeed the laws about any vehicle traveling on the public footway.

You are saying (in effect, and I'm sorry if you don't like the perceived
effect of whay you say) that it doesn't matter.

Which is true,

There you go.

Horse's mouth and all that.

and is why no government has seen any need to do anything
about it. Want that changed? Write to your MP. I'd start by
lobbying to reduce road danger, so that cyclists did not feel
compelled to ride where they should not.

Why bother?

Why not just "start" by arresting footway cyclists, fining them
(heavily) and crushing their bikes?

That'd do the trick, sharpish.

Sounds good to me.


--
Tony the Dragon

Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
 

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:16:52 +0000, Señor Chris
wrote:

Tony Dragon wrote:

can you explain why none of my family have never had
a near miss with a car on the footway, but have had many with cyclists?


Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured by
motori

I look forward to you posting the evidence of this assertion.

Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
 

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:17:48 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:59:37 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

If you are correct, can you explain why none of my family have never had
a near miss with a car on the footway, but have had many with cyclists?

snip



Guy


Many thanks - in a nutshell you can't,

So in (another ) nutshell:

Whilst walking on the pavement you are more likely to be hit by
someone on a bike than you are to be hit by a motorist.

Is that fair Guy?

Do you not agree?


judith

--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.

Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
 

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:34:53 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

can you explain why none of my family have never had a near miss with
a car on the footway, but have had many with cyclists?

Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured by
motorists than cyclists ?

Here is a word you missed *footway*

Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured on
the footway by motorists than cyclists ?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:02:05 +0000, JNugent
said in
:

Why not just "start" by arresting footway cyclists, fining them (heavily) and
crushing their bikes?

For the same reason that you don't treat a runny nose by nasal
amputation. It's a symptom, and not even a serious one as far as
the available evidence goes.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
 

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:34:53 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

can you explain why none of my family have never had a near miss with
a car on the footway, but have had many with cyclists?

Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured by
motorists than cyclists ?

Here is a word you missed *footway*

Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured on
the footway by motorists than cyclists ?

Guy

In my experience, they aren't.
But I would imagine that most motorist caused injuries are reported,
probably not the same for cycle collisions. (My daughters injuries were
not reported)

--
Tony the Dragon

Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 08:51:52 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured on
the footway by motorists than cyclists ?

In my experience, they aren't.

Which does not actually change the documented fact that pedestrians
are far more likely to be injured on the footway by motorists than
cyclists. Nor does it change the fact that in an increasing number
of places cycling on the footway is legal and actively encouraged,
and neither does it change the fact that the problem is in any case
only another symptom of the danger posed by motor traffic, which is
the major killer of both pedestrians and cyclists.

Hence the suggestion that working on motor danger is a better bet
for public policy intervention; to only will this tackle the much
more significant source of danger to both pedestrians and motorists,
it will also reduce the incentive to ride on the footway (legally or
not). That's a result with which most of us here would be very
happy indeed.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
 

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:59:37 +0000 someone who may be Tony Dragon
wrote this:-

If you are correct, can you explain why none of my family have never had
a near miss with a car on the footway, but have had many with cyclists?

If you are correct, can you explain why I have been struck (and
knocked down) twice by motor vehicles being driven on the pavement,
but I have never been struck by a bike being ridden on the pavement?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 08:33:16 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" wrote this:-

Why not just "start" by arresting footway cyclists, fining them (heavily) and
crushing their bikes?

For the same reason that you don't treat a runny nose by nasal
amputation. It's a symptom, and not even a serious one as far as
the available evidence goes.

I wonder if the usual suspects would advocate that the driver of any
motor vehicle on the pavement was also arrested, heavily fined and
the motor vehicle crushed?



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54