yet another OAP mown down by a pavement cycle weapon.

This old lady will be unlikely to effectively recover from this, and the
young cyclist did not even give his name. Cyclists of any age should not be
on the pavement, end of.

http://www.halesowennews.co.uk/news/...child_cyclist/

Mrcheerful wrote:
This old lady will be unlikely to effectively recover from this, and the
young cyclist did not even give his name. Cyclists of any age should not be
on the pavement, end of.

You're an idiot. End of.

BugBear

bugbear wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
This old lady will be unlikely to effectively recover from this, and
the young cyclist did not even give his name. Cyclists of any age
should not be on the pavement, end of.

You're an idiot. End of.

BugBear

what? for mentioning this totally unnecessary crippling of an old lady? she
was walking on a pavement, she should not have been mown down by a cyclist.
Cyclists of any age are not permitted to ride on the pavement, nor to crash
into people.

Do you really think it is OK for cyclists to be on the pavement? if not,
then why rudeness against me for mentioning it? Don't judge the messenger,
judge the genre of people that are causing the trouble: cyclists in general.

On 24/03/2011 14:59, Mrcheerful wrote:
bugbear wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
This old lady will be unlikely to effectively recover from this, and
the young cyclist did not even give his name. Cyclists of any age
should not be on the pavement, end of.

You're an idiot. End of.

what? for mentioning this totally unnecessary crippling of an old lady?
...
judge the genre of people that are causing the trouble: cyclists in general.

No, for i) trying to pass off an accident apparently caused by a "boy, aged
about nine" (from the referenced article) as being representative of "cyclists
in general" and ii) suggesting that even the youngest, e.g. pre-school, cyclists
should be cycling out in the road.

According to http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cy...nd_the_law.php
children under 10 can't be prosecuted for cycling on the pavement.


--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk

On 24/03/2011 15:47, Graham Nye wrote:

On 24/03/2011 14:59, Mrcheerful wrote:
bugbear wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:

This old lady will be unlikely to effectively recover from this, and
the young cyclist did not even give his name. Cyclists of any age
should not be on the pavement, end of.

You're an idiot. End of.

What a silly thing to say.

what? for mentioning this totally unnecessary crippling of an old lady?

Apparently so.

judge the genre of people that are causing the trouble: cyclists in general.

No, for i) trying to pass off an accident apparently caused by a "boy, aged
about nine" (from the referenced article) as being representative of "cyclists
in general"

You aren't trying to suggest that no cyclists over the age of nine cycle
along footways, are you?

and ii) suggesting that even the youngest, e.g. pre-school, cyclists
should be cycling out in the road.

If he's too young to be cycling on the carriageway (and he very well might
well be), he's too young to be cycling.

The footway is for pedestrians. They should be safe there.

According to http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cy...nd_the_law.php
children under 10 can't be prosecuted for cycling on the pavement.

Does that mean its alright to kill and injure pedestrians - your aged mum or
aunt, perhaps?

Graham Nye wrote:
On 24/03/2011 14:59, Mrcheerful wrote:
bugbear wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
This old lady will be unlikely to effectively recover from this,
and the young cyclist did not even give his name. Cyclists of any
age should not be on the pavement, end of.

You're an idiot. End of.

what? for mentioning this totally unnecessary crippling of an old
lady? ...
judge the genre of people that are causing the trouble: cyclists in
general.

No, for i) trying to pass off an accident apparently caused by a
"boy, aged about nine" (from the referenced article) as being
representative of "cyclists in general" and ii) suggesting that even
the youngest, e.g. pre-school, cyclists should be cycling out in the
road.

According to http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cy...nd_the_law.php
children under 10 can't be prosecuted for cycling on the pavement.

the age of ten is the age of legal responsibility and therefore the child
cannot face legal proceedings, that does not give them any right or carte
blanche to break any laws.
Parents are responsible for the actions of their children and should not
allow their children to ride bicycles on the pavement, it should be possible
to sue the parents for damages in this case.
There is no magic age up or down where it is acceptable to ride on the
pavement, nor to mow people down.

On Mar 24, 2:59*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
bugbear wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
This old lady will be unlikely to effectively recover from this, and
the young cyclist did not even give his name. *Cyclists of any age
should not be on the pavement, end of.

You're an idiot. End of.

* BugBear

what? for mentioning this totally unnecessary crippling of an old lady? *she
was walking on a pavement, she should not have been mown down by a cyclist.

On 24/03/2011 16:43, Mrcheerful wrote:
Graham Nye wrote:
On 24/03/2011 14:59, Mrcheerful wrote:
bugbear wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
This old lady will be unlikely to effectively recover from this,
and the young cyclist did not even give his name. Cyclists of any
age should not be on the pavement, end of.

You're an idiot. End of.

what? for mentioning this totally unnecessary crippling of an old
lady? ...
judge the genre of people that are causing the trouble: cyclists in
general.

No, for i) trying to pass off an accident apparently caused by a
"boy, aged about nine" (from the referenced article) as being
representative of "cyclists in general" and ii) suggesting that even
the youngest, e.g. pre-school, cyclists should be cycling out in the
road.

According to http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cy...nd_the_law.php
children under 10 can't be prosecuted for cycling on the pavement.

the age of ten is the age of legal responsibility and therefore the child
cannot face legal proceedings, that does not give them any right or carte
blanche to break any laws.
Parents are responsible for the actions of their children and should not
allow their children to ride bicycles on the pavement, it should be possible
to sue the parents for damages in this case.
There is no magic age up or down where it is acceptable to ride on the
pavement, nor to mow people down.

A lot of parents do encourage their children to ride on the pavement. A
lot of drivers prefer cyclists on the pavement. Pedestrians want
cyclists off the pavement. As a half-hearted in-between cycle path/lanes
are created in places but they are usually crap for everyone. I am not
sure how this all squares up so perhaps someone might explain where a
child is supposed to ride.

Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 24/03/2011 16:43, Mrcheerful wrote:
Graham Nye wrote:
On 24/03/2011 14:59, Mrcheerful wrote:
bugbear wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
This old lady will be unlikely to effectively recover from this,
and the young cyclist did not even give his name. Cyclists of
any age should not be on the pavement, end of.

You're an idiot. End of.

what? for mentioning this totally unnecessary crippling of an old
lady? ...
judge the genre of people that are causing the trouble: cyclists in
general.

No, for i) trying to pass off an accident apparently caused by a
"boy, aged about nine" (from the referenced article) as being
representative of "cyclists in general" and ii) suggesting that even
the youngest, e.g. pre-school, cyclists should be cycling out in the
road.

According to
http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cy...nd_the_law.php children
under 10 can't be prosecuted for cycling on the pavement.

the age of ten is the age of legal responsibility and therefore
the child cannot face legal proceedings, that does not give them any
right or carte blanche to break any laws.
Parents are responsible for the actions of their children and should not
allow their children to ride bicycles on the pavement, it
should be possible to sue the parents for damages in this case.
There is no magic age up or down where it is acceptable to ride on
the pavement, nor to mow people down.

A lot of parents do encourage their children to ride on the pavement.
A lot of drivers prefer cyclists on the pavement. Pedestrians want
cyclists off the pavement. As a half-hearted in-between cycle
path/lanes are created in places but they are usually crap for
everyone. I am not sure how this all squares up so perhaps someone
might explain where a child is supposed to ride.

Perhaps we could cull the OAP population and teach riding skills at the same
time. Death Race 2000 springs to mind, perhaps we could even get it into
the Olympics 2012.
Pavements are not the place to learn to ride, public roads are not the place
either.
Motorcyclists are no longer allowed to ride completely untrained on the
road, so offroad facilities do already exist.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 24/03/2011 17:58, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 24/03/2011 16:43, Mrcheerful wrote:
Graham Nye wrote:
On 24/03/2011 14:59, Mrcheerful wrote:
bugbear wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
This old lady will be unlikely to effectively recover from this,
and the young cyclist did not even give his name. Cyclists of any
age should not be on the pavement, end of.

You're an idiot. End of.

what? for mentioning this totally unnecessary crippling of an old
lady? ...
judge the genre of people that are causing the trouble: cyclists in
general.

No, for i) trying to pass off an accident apparently caused by a
"boy, aged about nine" (from the referenced article) as being
representative of "cyclists in general" and ii) suggesting that even
the youngest, e.g. pre-school, cyclists should be cycling out in the
road.

According to http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cy...nd_the_law.php
children under 10 can't be prosecuted for cycling on the pavement.

the age of ten is the age of legal responsibility and therefore the
child
cannot face legal proceedings, that does not give them any right or
carte
blanche to break any laws.
Parents are responsible for the actions of their children and should not
allow their children to ride bicycles on the pavement, it should be
possible
to sue the parents for damages in this case.
There is no magic age up or down where it is acceptable to ride on the
pavement, nor to mow people down.

A lot of parents do encourage their children to ride on the pavement. A
lot
of drivers prefer cyclists on the pavement. Pedestrians want cyclists off
the
pavement. As a half-hearted in-between cycle path/lanes are created in
places
but they are usually crap for everyone. I am not sure how this all
squares up
so perhaps someone might explain where a child is supposed to ride.

Easy.

On the road (the carriageway).

Or on private land.


To be blunt as cyclists are considered to be equal to motorists.
They should not be allowed to cycle on the road until they have achieved the
age required to hold a driving licence.
They should then have to take a test as motorists are required to do.
If cyclists do not agree with this, they cannot be considered to be equal to
motorists.