|
|
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
A grandmother suffered broken bones and a bloody face after she was
hit by a cyclist riding on the pavement. Amanda Sewell, 64, suffered shattered bones in her hand and a black eye when a teenager on a mountain bike ploughed into her. The incident happened on Monday at about 3.30pm in Marine Parade, Brighton. Mrs Sewell, a grandmother of one, said: "I was crossing the pavement, almost at the railings overlooking the beach, when he hit me. "I was knocked to the ground and had blood pouring from my mouth. "It was dazzling sunlight and I can only think he didn't see me. He was about 19 years old. "He stopped but then told me it was my fault and I shouldn t have been there. I was so angry. "I told him I had every right to be there because it was a pavement for pedestrians and told him he must be much more careful in future because he could hit a child, but he just cycled off." Mrs Sewell, from Kemp Town, went to the Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton and was treated for her injuries. http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/40640...avement_crash/ judith -- Cyclists have been known to ride on the pavement and this occasionally brings them into conflict with pedestrians. This conflict has been known to cause injury and even, in very rare cases, death. (Guy Chapman) |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
|
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:31:17 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote: On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:21:21 +0000, wrote: A grandmother suffered broken bones and a bloody face after she was hit by a cyclist riding on the pavement. Perhaps she should have worn a helmet. As has been claimed repeatedly, helmets protect against head and upper facial injury. Ho,ho, ho - very funny - mind it may become true as more and more ****wit cyclists think it is OK to ride on pavements/run in to pedestrians. PS - You never did explain why you published the names and addresses of the restaurants owned by the Vietnamese guy who hit the cyclist? Did you have a good reason to do so - surely you weren't encouraging vigilantes? judith -- Many of the facts below in an article seem, on the face of it, to suggest that helmets are not worthwhile. This could not be further from the truth; helmets are an excellent idea. Children in particular should wear them every time they get on a bike. The point is, although there is no guarantee that a helmet will save your life if you come off, it's 100% certain that your helmet won't save your life if you're not wearing it. - Guy Chapman |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
On 22 Jan, 22:55, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:31:17 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote: On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:21:21 +0000, wrote: A grandmother suffered broken bones and a bloody face after she was hit by a cyclist riding on the pavement. Perhaps she should have worn a helmet. *As has been claimed repeatedly, helmets protect against head and upper facial injury. Ho,ho, ho - very funny - mind it may become true as more and more ****wit cyclists think it is OK to ride on pavements/run in to pedestrians. More and more? Evidence of increaseing proportion of pavement cyclists? I was stuck behind a car today that had issues overtaking another car that had driven onto the pavement. PS - You never did explain why you published the names and addresses of the restaurants owned by the Vietnamese guy who hit the cyclist? Did you have a good reason to do so - surely you weren't encouraging vigilantes? That would surely drum up business |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
N Ron Hubbard wrote:
How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every year? How many by cyclists? RCGB 2007 shows that "Vehicle travelling along pavement" was a contributory factor in 4 fatal, 63 serious and 331 slight "accidents" in 2007. It doesn't give the split by vehicle type. -- Matt B |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
Matt B wrote:
N Ron Hubbard wrote: How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every year? How many by cyclists? RCGB 2007 shows that "Vehicle travelling along pavement" was a contributory factor in 4 fatal, 63 serious and 331 slight "accidents" in 2007. It doesn't give the split by vehicle type. RCGB 2007 (table 32) shows 44 pedestrians killed on the footway and 522 seriously hurt. In total 646 pedestrians were killed on the roads in 2007 (table 32), of which 3 were in accidents involving a pedal cycle (parliamentary written answer). The cyclist concerned is a twunt, but from the comments, he was using a "shared use facility", not a pavement which many in local government seem to promote. The government should get its act together and tell cyclists to use the road, not these stupid facilities that endanger pedestrians and cyclists. |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
N Ron Hubbard wrote:
Hello, troll. How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every year? And how many of those motorists are not on the footway because they have lost control of the vehicle (for whatever reason)? How many by cyclists? And how many of those cyclists are not on the footway because they have made a conscious decision to "protect" themselves by putting pedestrians at risk? |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:26:12 +0000, JNugent
wrote: How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every year? And how many of those motorists are not on the footway because they have lost control of the vehicle (for whatever reason)? Are you implying that an out-of-control motorist on the footway poses less of a danger than a cyclist there on purpose, or that being out-of-control on a footway is somehow an acceptable if you are a motorist? |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
Martin wrote:
Matt B wrote: N Ron Hubbard wrote: How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every year? How many by cyclists? RCGB 2007 shows that "Vehicle travelling along pavement" was a contributory factor in 4 fatal, 63 serious and 331 slight "accidents" in 2007. It doesn't give the split by vehicle type. RCGB 2007 (table 32) shows 44 pedestrians killed on the footway and 522 seriously hurt. No it doesn't, it very specifically says footway _or_ verge. It doesn't distinguish. Either way, from table 4b, which I quoted in my original post, it is clear that deliberate pavement driving is _not_ a factor in the vast majority of those casualties. -- Matt B |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:26:12 +0000, JNugent wrote: How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every year? And how many of those motorists are not on the footway because they have lost control of the vehicle (for whatever reason)? Are you implying that an out-of-control motorist on the footway poses less of a danger than a cyclist there on purpose, or that being out-of-control on a footway is somehow an acceptable if you are a motorist? Are you implying that an out-of-control aeroplane in a river is somehow /unacceptable/. Should pilots be trained, and expected, to keep them in the air in all circumstances? -- Matt B |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:18:11 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote: On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:55:43 +0000, wrote: On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:31:17 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote: On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:21:21 +0000, wrote: A grandmother suffered broken bones and a bloody face after she was hit by a cyclist riding on the pavement. Perhaps she should have worn a helmet. As has been claimed repeatedly, helmets protect against head and upper facial injury. Ho,ho, ho - very funny Perhaps now you know why everyone laughs at your continued diatribe. Oh - really - I thought I was in everyone's kill-file. If I'm not feel free to point out any errors I make in my posts - mind it may become true as more and more ****wit cyclists think it is OK to ride on pavements/run in to pedestrians. PS - You never did explain why you published the names and addresses of the restaurants owned by the Vietnamese guy who hit the cyclist? Yes I did. Use Google. Funny I must have missed it at the time - and now perhaps Google have taken it out of the archive because I still can't find it You wouldn't happen to have a bit more information such as date of posting and subject would you? |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:15:59 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote: On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:26:12 +0000, JNugent wrote: How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every year? And how many of those motorists are not on the footway because they have lost control of the vehicle (for whatever reason)? Are you implying that an out-of-control motorist on the footway poses less of a danger than a cyclist there on purpose, or that being out-of-control on a footway is somehow an acceptable if you are a motorist? Perhaps he is suggesting that the only reason the motorist is on the footway is because they have lost control for whatever reason. Cyclists on the pathway have chosen to be there. judith -- Cyclists have been known to ride on the pavement and this occasionally brings them into conflict with pedestrians. This conflict has been known to cause injury and even, in very rare cases, death. (Guy Chapman) |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
Martin wrote:
The cyclist concerned is a twunt, but from the comments, he was using a "shared use facility", not a pavement which many in local government seem to promote. The government should get its act together and tell cyclists to use the road, not these stupid facilities that endanger pedestrians and cyclists. I think it really a pavement. Careful googling reveals this, from 11th Sep 2007: (ref http://www.bricycles.org.uk/index.ph...nload&gid= 94 ) Brighton & Hove City Cycling Forum .. .. PB – Marine Parade. The road surface on Marine Parade is very poor and the a cycle track should be provided on the wide southern pavement. I infer that there is presently no cycle facility in Marine Parade, although I admit the evidence is not conclusive. BugBear |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
Paul Weaver wrote:
On 22 Jan, 22:55, wrote: On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:31:17 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote: On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:21:21 +0000, wrote: A grandmother suffered broken bones and a bloody face after she was hit by a cyclist riding on the pavement. Perhaps she should have worn a helmet. As has been claimed repeatedly, helmets protect against head and upper facial injury. Ho,ho, ho - very funny - mind it may become true as more and more ****wit cyclists think it is OK to ride on pavements/run in to pedestrians. More and more? Evidence of increaseing proportion of pavement cyclists? Well my evidence is my own eyes, there are more & more of them. I was stuck behind a car today that had issues overtaking another car that had driven onto the pavement. If he was completely on the pavement then there would be no problems overtaking him PS - You never did explain why you published the names and addresses of the restaurants owned by the Vietnamese guy who hit the cyclist? Did you have a good reason to do so - surely you weren't encouraging vigilantes? That would surely drum up business -- Tony the Dragon |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
Martin wrote:
Matt B wrote: N Ron Hubbard wrote: How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every year? How many by cyclists? RCGB 2007 shows that "Vehicle travelling along pavement" was a contributory factor in 4 fatal, 63 serious and 331 slight "accidents" in 2007. It doesn't give the split by vehicle type. RCGB 2007 (table 32) shows 44 pedestrians killed on the footway and 522 seriously hurt. In total 646 pedestrians were killed on the roads in 2007 (table 32), of which 3 were in accidents involving a pedal cycle (parliamentary written answer). The cyclist concerned is a twunt, but from the comments, he was using a "shared use facility", not a pavement which many in local government seem to promote. The government should get its act together and tell cyclists to use the road, not these stupid facilities that endanger pedestrians and cyclists. Where do you get the idea he was using a shared use facility, & even if it was, he was not using the diligence that he should have been. -- Tony the Dragon |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:26:12 +0000, JNugent wrote: How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every year? And how many of those motorists are not on the footway because they have lost control of the vehicle (for whatever reason)? Are you implying that an out-of-control motorist on the footway poses less of a danger than a cyclist there on purpose, or that being out-of-control on a footway is somehow an acceptable if you are a motorist? As you very well know he meant that most cyclists who are on the pavement intend to be there & are not there by accident. -- Tony the Dragon |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:27:27 +0000 someone who may be Tony Dragon
wrote this:- As you very well know he meant that most cyclists who are on the pavement intend to be there & are not there by accident. The same is true of most motorists who are on the pavement. Next. -- 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
David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:27:27 +0000 someone who may be Tony Dragon wrote this:- As you very well know he meant that most cyclists who are on the pavement intend to be there & are not there by accident. The same is true of most motorists who are on the pavement. Next. But there are more cyclists on the pavements that motorists. (By the way good clipping of the post) -- Tony the Dragon |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
Tony Dragon wrote:
But there are more cyclists on the pavements that motorists. (By the way good clipping of the post) Walking to work this morning I encountered several vehicles parked on the pavement (they must have got their somehow...) and no cyclists on the pavement. It depends where you are, in other words. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:26:12 +0000, JNugent wrote: How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every year? And how many of those motorists are not on the footway because they have lost control of the vehicle (for whatever reason)? Are you implying that an out-of-control motorist on the footway poses less of a danger than a cyclist there on purpose, or that being out-of-control on a footway is somehow an acceptable if you are a motorist? I wasn't implying anything. I was inviting the PP to consider the common sets of circumstances - and in particular, the differences in intention. |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
Peter Clinch wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote: But there are more cyclists on the pavements that motorists. (By the way good clipping of the post) Walking to work this morning I encountered several vehicles parked on the pavement (they must have got their somehow...) and no cyclists on the pavement. Had every one of them collided with a pedestrian - or (as far as you know) none of them? |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
... Tony Dragon wrote: But there are more cyclists on the pavements that motorists. (By the way good clipping of the post) Walking to work this morning I encountered several vehicles parked on the pavement (they must have got their somehow...) and no cyclists on the pavement. It depends where you are, in other words. this thread is quite interesting, A cyclist was clearly at fault and injures pedestrian and the gist of the thread is to defend cyclists. I posted the other day about a grossly irresponsible cyclist who came within milli seconds of causing me (and himself) serious injury, and that was met with a resounding silence from the assembled masses. Two wheels good & everything else bad? pk |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
pk wrote:
A cyclist was clearly at fault and injures pedestrian and the gist of the thread is to defend cyclists. The gist of my post was simply not to go about specifically attacking them without a bit of context. "Cyclists" are a diverse group and suggesting they're all good or all bad is dopey. I posted the other day about a grossly irresponsible cyclist who came within milli seconds of causing me (and himself) serious injury, and that was met with a resounding silence from the assembled masses. Well what was I expected to say? Silence isn't an attack on you, or a defence of someone bad. Two wheels good & everything else bad? That is reading /far/ more into reactions than I think is reasonable. In fact it's going rather in the opposite direction. I think you've rather over-egged your attempts at "honest broker" impartiality with that last little rant-ette. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
"pk" wrote in message
... "Peter Clinch" wrote in message ... Tony Dragon wrote: But there are more cyclists on the pavements that motorists. (By the way good clipping of the post) Walking to work this morning I encountered several vehicles parked on the pavement (they must have got their somehow...) and no cyclists on the pavement. It depends where you are, in other words. this thread is quite interesting, A cyclist was clearly at fault and injures pedestrian and the gist of the thread is to defend cyclists. And are "cyclists" the ones who are at fault? The defence is against attacks on all cyclists, including people like you. Can you see people defending the particular cyclist? I posted the other day about a grossly irresponsible cyclist who came within milli seconds of causing me (and himself) serious injury, and that was met with a resounding silence from the assembled masses. It needed comment? ISTR Guy commenting. Two wheels good & everything else bad? Don't think so. Looks to me like it's you assuming how everybody else is thinking. |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
pk wrote:
I posted the other day about a grossly irresponsible cyclist who came within milli seconds of causing me (and himself) serious injury, and that was met with a resounding silence from the assembled masses. AOL doesn't support Usenet any more, and as I have never used AOL , I'm not in the habit of typing " Me too LOL". If someone very quickly replies with a comment that would closely mirror my own ie "Stupid Twunt!" , then I won't bother adding my own. That doesn't meant that I support the behaviour. |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
pk wrote:
this thread is quite interesting, A cyclist was clearly at fault and injures pedestrian and the gist of the thread is to defend cyclists. I posted the other day about a grossly irresponsible cyclist who came within milli seconds of causing me (and himself) serious injury, and that was met with a resounding silence from the assembled masses. Two wheels good & everything else bad? In the context of injuries resulting from road accidents, yes. |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
Señor Chris writes:
In the context of injuries resulting from road accidents, yes. I dunno. I'd rather be hit by a windcheetah than a pan european -dan |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:45:27 +0000, Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote: Paul Weaver considered Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:12:50 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: On 22 Jan, 22:55, wrote: On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:31:17 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote: On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:21:21 +0000, wrote: A grandmother suffered broken bones and a bloody face after she was hit by a cyclist riding on the pavement. Perhaps she should have worn a helmet. *As has been claimed repeatedly, helmets protect against head and upper facial injury. Ho,ho, ho - very funny - mind it may become true as more and more ****wit cyclists think it is OK to ride on pavements/run in to pedestrians. More and more? Evidence of increaseing proportion of pavement cyclists? Of course - more and more councils are applying Magic Paint to pavements to encourage the misconception that cyclists belong there. Noun - Psycholist Pronunciation Key : psy·cho·list. Origin: based on the outbursts of a rabid Psycholist called Guy Chapman A cyclist who is one of a small group who frequent the news group uk.rec.cycling they have invented their own "language" to justify their views: Examples: ..... 4) "Magic paint" - only used by the most inflicted psycholists. Used to describe signage to cyclist on pavements. Origin unknown. |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:45:43 +0000, Peter Clinch
wrote: pk wrote: A cyclist was clearly at fault and injures pedestrian and the gist of the thread is to defend cyclists. The gist of my post was simply not to go about specifically attacking them without a bit of context. "Cyclists" are a diverse group and suggesting they're all good or all bad is dopey. I posted the other day about a grossly irresponsible cyclist who came within milli seconds of causing me (and himself) serious injury, and that was met with a resounding silence from the assembled masses. Well what was I expected to say? Silence isn't an attack on you, or a defence of someone bad. Two wheels good & everything else bad? That is reading /far/ more into reactions than I think is reasonable. In fact it's going rather in the opposite direction. I think you've rather over-egged your attempts at "honest broker" impartiality with that last little rant-ette. Pete. It is however most interesting that pk has spotted the traits which most other newcomers have also experienced. I wonder why that is? How long before he is to be called a troll - we can't have disagreement and alternative points of view in urc now can we. -- Noun - Psycholist Pronunciation Key : psy·cho·list. Origin: based on the outbursts of a rabid Psycholist called Guy Chapman A cyclist who is one of a small group who frequent the news group uk.rec.cycling they have invented their own "language" to justify their views: Examples: 1) "cycle helmet" - they would rather pretend that such devices do not exist; they will try and overcome their problem by using the alternative "h*l*et" - or just "h". 2) They cannot bring themselves to use the word: "facility" in the context of a "cycling facility". Whatever the facility - they must try and ridicule it as they will not be able to fully comprehend the benefits as seen for all road users. This is achieved by using the alternative "farcility". 3) "Cager" is used provocatively instead of the word "motorist", in the hope that it irritates motorists; it doesn't - it makes them laugh at the psycholist's inadequacies. 4) "Magic paint" - only used by the most inflicted psycholists. Used to describe signage to cyclist on pavements. Origin unknown. 5) The word "troll" is in common usage in Usenet. However, the psycholists have adopted it for their own use to apply to anyone who disagrees with their ingrained and irrational views. This enables them to say "ignore him - he is a troll" when faced with facts which are too unpalatable for the psycholist to contemplate - never mind discuss in a sensible fashion Not everyone who frequents the group URC is a "psycholist". Psycholists are not very bright in general and are obliged to demonstrate that they lack common sense; they are very good at this. A common pseudonym for a "psycholist" is "****wit". |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:11:50 -0000, "pk" said
in : A cyclist was clearly at fault and injures pedestrian and the gist of the thread is to defend cyclists. Up to a point, Lord Copper. What actually happened was that a mission poster trolled the group, causing some people (for perfectly good reasons) to become defensive. The original case is a simple matter of the fallacy of "false vividness" - one of a tiny number of cases picked up on by those desperate to find a stick with which to beat cyclists, in order to "prove" how dangerous pavement cycling is. In reality, of course, pavement cycling is mainly dangerous to the cyclist - a fact which is not known to change with the application of Magic White Paint (TM). The fact that you are at vastly greater risk from motor vehicles on the footway than from cyclists *even though* it is asserted that pavement cycling is a plague of epidemic proportions, is a perfect indication that these few cases are essentially ignorable at the public policy level. They are as rare as the falling boulder that flattened some poor woman's shed last week. Do we run around crying for action to end the shed boulder menace? The leading cause of injury to pedestrians on the footway is trips and falls, which account for half of all injury hospitalisations in the UK; and the leading recorded cause of fatal injury to pedestrians, be it on the footway or elsewhere, is motor traffic. Other causes are orders of magnitude less numerous, despite the assertion that pavement cycling is endemic. The level of fatalities per mile travelled on the footway is surely many hundreds of times greater in the case of motor traffic - and yes, motor vehicles do habitually trespass on the footway, which is why so many places need to install bollards to prevent this. A final piece of irony: those trips and falls are usually caused by broken paving slabs, and guess what is the leading cause of broken paving slabs? It seems to be our old friend the motor vehicle. Usually goods vehicles. That *does not* make pavement cycling right. It does not make it risk-free, for us or for the pedestrians. It*does* mean that it is not the huge problem that some people make it out to be, and that is reflected in the prosecution guidelines, which also explicitly acknowledge that pavement cycling is largely a response to the perceived danger of motor traffic. So we could make pedestrians safer from the major source of danger (motor traffic) and the nearly insignificant source of danger (cyclists) by controlling the source of major danger. Shared space and other measures designed to drastically reduce motor traffic danger in places where people live, walk and go about their business, would have a double bonus value: it would remove the major source of danger, and it would remove the perceived danger which is the cause of the nearly insignificant danger. I guess the mission posters will be looking for unequivocal condemnation of the cyclist, in isolation. They can **** off. I am reminded of the Israeli government demanding unequivocal condemnation of attacks by Hamas - sure, Hamas should not launch rockets at Israel, but there is a difference in character between shooting home-made rockets knocked up in garden sheds at someone who is occupying your country, and using some of the most advanced weapons that modern industrialised warfare has to offer against people who are struggling even to reach subsistence levels on the land you have left them after stealing the bits you want. Well, perhaps that is a contentious way of stating the example, but I think you see what I mean. Anyone who comes to this group and expects us to condemn pavement cycling, red light jumping or any of the other transgressions of the cyclist, with absolutely no strings attached, is basically trolling and should simply be ignored. Do we support these things? Of course not. Should we stand together as fellow-members of that "out group" and firmly reject being targeted? Hell yes. Is that "us" v "them"? Well, yes. Even if the "us" in question does not cycle illegally on the footway (note illegally; it's quite legal in a lot of places) and rather wishes others would not. And we may well wish that "chav on a BMX" did not translate into "cyclist" on the way between Planet Reality and the Daily Mail, and believe me that one really does **** me off because most of those types I would cheerfully consign to National Service at least until they have learned to pull their ****ing trousers up, but it is hardly a surprise to find that people who love cycling and consider being a cyclist as some kind of defining characteristic become just a /teensy/ bit defensive when someone comes to uk.rec.cycling, the cycling newsgroup where cyclists talk about cycling and hope to get away from the insane petrolhead-dominated nonsense that prevails in most places, and try to make out that All Cyclist Are Evil because This Bad Thing Happened QED IDT INDT. You want people to condemn pavement cycling? I will happily condemn it, and the councils that encourage it, and most especially the drivers who scare people into doing it, and I will happily stand up for measures that will plausibly fix the problem at source, provided that they are sane and proportionate. And that should be good enough, I would have thought. 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 in message
... On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:11:50 -0000, "pk" said in : A cyclist was clearly at fault and injures pedestrian and the gist of the thread is to defend cyclists. Up to a point, Lord Copper. Yawn! Do you really think people have or take the time to read turgid reams of guff like that? If you can't make your point more succinctly, are you sure your point has value? slow down, distill to the essence and you may have more success. pk |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:11:50 -0000, "pk" said in : A cyclist was clearly at fault and injures pedestrian and the gist of the thread is to defend cyclists. Up to a point, Lord Copper. What actually happened was that a mission poster trolled the group, causing some people (for perfectly good reasons) to become defensive. The original case is a simple matter of the fallacy of "false vividness" - one of a tiny number of cases picked up on by those desperate to find a stick with which to beat cyclists, in order to "prove" how dangerous pavement cycling is. In reality, of course, pavement cycling is mainly dangerous to the cyclist - a fact which is not known to change with the application of Magic White Paint (TM). The fact that you are at vastly greater risk from motor vehicles on the footway than from cyclists *even though* it is asserted that pavement cycling is a plague of epidemic proportions, is a perfect indication that these few cases are essentially ignorable at the public policy level. They are as rare as the falling boulder that flattened some poor woman's shed last week. Do we run around crying for action to end the shed boulder menace? The leading cause of injury to pedestrians on the footway is trips and falls, which account for half of all injury hospitalisations in the UK; and the leading recorded cause of fatal injury to pedestrians, be it on the footway or elsewhere, is motor traffic. Other causes are orders of magnitude less numerous, despite the assertion that pavement cycling is endemic. The level of fatalities per mile travelled on the footway is surely many hundreds of times greater in the case of motor traffic - and yes, motor vehicles do habitually trespass on the footway, which is why so many places need to install bollards to prevent this. A final piece of irony: those trips and falls are usually caused by broken paving slabs, and guess what is the leading cause of broken paving slabs? It seems to be our old friend the motor vehicle. Usually goods vehicles. That *does not* make pavement cycling right. It does not make it risk-free, for us or for the pedestrians. It*does* mean that it is not the huge problem that some people make it out to be, and that is reflected in the prosecution guidelines, which also explicitly acknowledge that pavement cycling is largely a response to the perceived danger of motor traffic. So we could make pedestrians safer from the major source of danger (motor traffic) and the nearly insignificant source of danger (cyclists) by controlling the source of major danger. Shared space and other measures designed to drastically reduce motor traffic danger in places where people live, walk and go about their business, would have a double bonus value: it would remove the major source of danger, and it would remove the perceived danger which is the cause of the nearly insignificant danger. I guess the mission posters will be looking for unequivocal condemnation of the cyclist, in isolation. They can **** off. I am reminded of the Israeli government demanding unequivocal condemnation of attacks by Hamas - sure, Hamas should not launch rockets at Israel, but there is a difference in character between shooting home-made rockets knocked up in garden sheds at someone who is occupying your country, and using some of the most advanced weapons that modern industrialised warfare has to offer against people who are struggling even to reach subsistence levels on the land you have left them after stealing the bits you want. Well, perhaps that is a contentious way of stating the example, but I think you see what I mean. Anyone who comes to this group and expects us to condemn pavement cycling, red light jumping or any of the other transgressions of the cyclist, with absolutely no strings attached, is basically trolling and should simply be ignored. Do we support these things? Of course not. Should we stand together as fellow-members of that "out group" and firmly reject being targeted? Hell yes. Is that "us" v "them"? Well, yes. Even if the "us" in question does not cycle illegally on the footway (note illegally; it's quite legal in a lot of places) and rather wishes others would not. And we may well wish that "chav on a BMX" did not translate into "cyclist" on the way between Planet Reality and the Daily Mail, and believe me that one really does **** me off because most of those types I would cheerfully consign to National Service at least until they have learned to pull their ****ing trousers up, but it is hardly a surprise to find that people who love cycling and consider being a cyclist as some kind of defining characteristic become just a /teensy/ bit defensive when someone comes to uk.rec.cycling, the cycling newsgroup where cyclists talk about cycling and hope to get away from the insane petrolhead-dominated nonsense that prevails in most places, and try to make out that All Cyclist Are Evil because This Bad Thing Happened QED IDT INDT. You want people to condemn pavement cycling? I will happily condemn it, and the councils that encourage it, and most especially the drivers who scare people into doing it, and I will happily stand up for measures that will plausibly fix the problem at source, provided that they are sane and proportionate. And that should be good enough, I would have thought. Guy Well I got bored reading all this. Allthough you will call this anecdotal, I have not had to dodge out of the way of motorist driving on the pavement for as long as I can remember. But I often have to dodge a pavement cyclist & just before Christmas my daughter was knocked over by a pavement cyclist. Therefore to me pavement cyclists are a greater danger than pavement motorists. -- Tony the Dragon |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
"pk" wrote in message
... "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:11:50 -0000, "pk" said in : A cyclist was clearly at fault and injures pedestrian and the gist of the thread is to defend cyclists. Up to a point, Lord Copper. Yawn! Do you really think people have or take the time to read turgid reams of guff like that? What, a whole minute? If you can't make your point more succinctly, are you sure your point has value? slow down, distill to the essence and you may have more success. I thought it wasn't that bad a post. Bit ranty, but it covered the important points well. Read it (well, skip the paragraph about the middle east if you like, it's not that relevant), and you'll discover it does answer your implied questions. |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:31:23 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in : Allthough you will call this anecdotal, I have not had to dodge out of the way of motorist driving on the pavement for as long as I can remember. But I often have to dodge a pavement cyclist & just before Christmas my daughter was knocked over by a pavement cyclist. And as the figures show, you are many times more likely to be killed or injured on the footway by a motor vehicle than by a cyclist. So yes, your anecdote indicates another outlier. Or perhaps people are so obsessed by pavement cycling that they go out of their way to remember it. At the public policy level it is ignorable. 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 00:23:28 -0000, "pk" said
in : Do you really think people have or take the time to read turgid reams of guff like that? Seems to me that attempts to render complex situations into soundbytes don't actually illuminate the subject in any meaningful way and tend to favour the zealots not those who would explore the issue in depth, but then I grew up reading Tolkein so anything on Usenet looks short to me. 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 00:31:23 +0000, Tony Dragon said in : Allthough you will call this anecdotal, I have not had to dodge out of the way of motorist driving on the pavement for as long as I can remember. But I often have to dodge a pavement cyclist & just before Christmas my daughter was knocked over by a pavement cyclist. And as the figures show, you are many times more likely to be killed or injured on the footway by a motor vehicle than by a cyclist. So yes, your anecdote indicates another outlier. Or perhaps people are so obsessed by pavement cycling that they go out of their way to remember it. At the public policy level it is ignorable. Guy It is difficult not to obsessed by something when you are driving to the hospital to pick up your daughter from A & E. -- Tony the Dragon |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:31:23 +0000, Tony Dragon said in : Allthough you will call this anecdotal, I have not had to dodge out of the way of motorist driving on the pavement for as long as I can remember. But I often have to dodge a pavement cyclist & just before Christmas my daughter was knocked over by a pavement cyclist. And as the figures show, you are many times more likely to be killed or injured on the footway by a motor vehicle than by a cyclist. What figures? I hope you are not "jumping to conclusions" from the pedestrian casualty figures by collision location in RCGB 2007 (table 32), which does NOT distinguish between "footway" and "verge". -- Matt B |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:49:18 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:23:28 -0000, "pk" said in : Do you really think people have or take the time to read turgid reams of guff like that? Seems to me that attempts to render complex situations into soundbytes don't actually illuminate the subject in any meaningful way and tend to favour the zealots not those who would explore the issue in depth, but then I grew up reading Tolkein so anything on Usenet looks short to me. Guy and of course - I believe I am right in saying that you are considered a thought-leader on usenet etc? Care to explain to those who don't know? judith -- Many of the facts below in an article seem, on the face of it, to suggest that helmets are not worthwhile. This could not be further from the truth; helmets are an excellent idea. Children in particular should wear them every time they get on a bike. The point is, although there is no guarantee that a helmet will save your life if you come off, it's 100% certain that your helmet won't save your life if you're not wearing it. - Guy Chapman |
Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:44:21 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:31:23 +0000, Tony Dragon said in : Allthough you will call this anecdotal, I have not had to dodge out of the way of motorist driving on the pavement for as long as I can remember. But I often have to dodge a pavement cyclist & just before Christmas my daughter was knocked over by a pavement cyclist. And as the figures show, you are many times more likely to be killed or injured on the footway by a motor vehicle than by a cyclist. So yes, your anecdote indicates another outlier. Or perhaps people are so obsessed by pavement cycling that they go out of their way to remember it. At the public policy level it is ignorable. Guy Any chance of an answer to these question - Guy? How often do you see vehicles being driven along pavements where there is a danger of them hitting a pedestrian? How often do you see bikes riding along pavements where there is a danger of hitting a pedestrian? Do you think for the average pedestrian walking on a footpath - they are more likely to be hit by a bike than by a vehicle? Your problem is that you will only present or acknowledge "facts" which back up your assertions. You know very well that cyclists ride on pavements intentionally and sometimes hit pedestrians. The figures which the DfT use for motor vehicles hitting/killing pedestrians include those where a driver loses control and then hits someone on the pavement *and* the verge. You are not comparing like with like. You will not acknowledge this case - and you insist that you are more likely to be hit by a car on the pavement than by a bike. Of course if I have misunderstood your position, and you would answer the questions above then I am more than happy to accept that I am wrong in what I have said about you. As it is - you continue to come over as someone who is very deceitful. judith -- Cyclists have been known to ride on the pavement and this occasionally brings them into conflict with pedestrians. This conflict has been known to cause injury and even, in very rare cases, death. (Guy Chapman) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com