On 04/07/2019 17:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:32, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 12:36, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 12:28, TMS320 wrote:

On 03/07/2019 15:58, Modesty wrote:
MrCheerful wrote:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/02/cycli...rank-10104973/

What 'come-uppance' did this 63 year old lady deserve? Promenades
often have cycle lanes.

This one actually has a restriction. But it's up to the authorities
to enforce it, not up to vigilantes to attempt murder.

That is a euphemistic way of saying that whilst cycling is indeed
not allowed on that pedestrian way but cyclists disobey that rule
(how unusual!), they have a right to get away with it.

When drivers routinely get away with speeding and bad parking...

What's the connection?

Every connection imaginable.

It is ABSOLUTELY clear that the cycling ban in the place in question
is there to protect pedestrians (all of us).

It is never absolutely clear that getting off to walk a bike is better
for pedestrians.

So you (think you) know better than the owners / operators of the land
in question.

It's quite different when a driver (however wrongly and illegally)
passes a keep left bollard on the wrong side. In such a case it's
apparently perfectly permissible for a vigilante on a bike to
obstruct the road (an offence in itself) in order to "enforce" the
rules.

What a completely stupid comparison. Stringing a rope across a path
is like dropping bricks onto a motorway.

They are both vigilantism.

People putting their bodies in front of cyclists (often where cycling is
legal), is a familiar experience to most.

So what?

Do two wrongs, widely separated by time, distance and the parties
involved, make a right?

Not always unintentional (we have a poster here that admits as much).

If the vigilante blocks a cyclist with their own body, then you have
a reasonable equivalent.

They are both illegal and I don't support either of them.

Going back to my earlier remarks, though,Â* the cyclist's injuries, as
terrible and frightful as they were, would have been totally avoided
had she not been cycling along a pedestrian path with a "No Cycling"
rule, wouldn't they? It seems reasonable to assume that it was
cyclists the person(s) setting the trap had in mind.

You're justifying the perpetrator's action.

Not at all, as you have seen below.

I have seen this sort of "trap" with my own eyes, by the way,
including a steel wire stretched across a suburban road (not a
pedestrian path - a road) just after dusk. A friend drove his vehicle
into that all-but-invisible ligature, causing severe and expensive
damage, albeit of a cosmetic type.

Then the cyclist following behind was extremely lucky.

I thoroughly condemn this sort of irresponsible vigilantism - all of
it - and hope you do too.

What you said above does not tell us this.

I have just told you it in plain English.

The cyclist was still partly the author of her own misfortune. Had she
obeyed the signage, it wouldn't have happened. I don't see how you can
deny that. Not if you want to make sense anyway (I readily accept that
you don't always even want to make sense).