View Single Post
  #39  
Old July 5th 19, 02:19 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Cyclist riding on a promenade gets her come-uppance

On 05/07/2019 00:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 23:31, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 17:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:32, JNugent wrote:

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.


The owners / operators of the land don't know anything. They're just
applying a widely held belief.


So they're wrong to specify what may and may not be done by people using
their property and cyclists who disagree and ride roughshod over every
rule are always right?

I see.

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).


You're still justifying the perpetrator's action.


I am criticising the cyclist because her behaviour was not blameless. If
there were a civil case against the culprits with the rope (assuming
they could be traced*), a considered judgment would be that she was x%
responsible, where x is a figure greater than 0 and smaller than 50.

And in any event, since your own mantra is always that two wrongs make a
right, you might want to reconsider that.

[* I suspect there's about as much chance of that as there is of tracing
a cyclist who rides on the footway, disobeys traffic lights or goes the
wrong way in a one-way street.]

Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home