View Single Post
  #41  
Old January 24th 09, 02:52 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:06:52 +0000, "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.



Ah - you mean that someone (must be a troll) posted a link which would
provide a starting point to a discussion on cycling on pavements and
the likely hood of being injured by a bike or a vehicle on a pavement
- then yes you are quite right.


eg

It has given you the opportunity to misrepresent facts and state that
you are at vastly greater risk from vehicles than push-bikes whilst
on a pavement. Which is of course a misrepresentation of the reality
- see below.


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.


And this of course depends on what this "greater risk" is.

If you mean that there is a greater risk of being killed by a motorist
than a cyclist then you are right.

If, however you are talking about a greater risk of being hit by a
bike than a vehicle whilst on a pavement - then you are totally wrong.

But - you of course know that - but you cannot bring yourself to
admit it.

The chance of anyone from this group being hit as a pedestrian on a
footpath by a motor vehicle is as good as negligible.

I do not know what the chance of being hit by someone on a bike whilst
on a footpath is - but it is orders of magnitude lower than that for
being hit by a car; and in some areas is almost a certainty.

snip

and that is
reflected in the prosecution guidelines



which is something you have clearly made up - unless you can
substantiate it? Or do we just add it to the list of Chapman lies. I
am not holding my breath.

snip

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.


Surely you mean - anyone who comes in to this group and hopes to have
a sensible discussion on such things - and their views go against
those of the clique - is surely trolling and must be ignored.


Looking forward to your comments.


Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home