3 year old mown down on the pavement

On 07/06/2015 21:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 20:57:59 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 07/06/2015 20:43, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 20:30:41 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 07/06/2015 17:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

David Lang wrote:

[ ... ]

If their toddler is so ****ing stupid to run out of the gate
without
looking what's coming, she could do the same into the road. Which
will earn her a Darwin Award.

They have an absolute right to expect that their child could run
onto a
pedestrian only pavement safely.
The cyclists broke the law. Game over. The Fat Lady has sung.

What would be your opinion if a runner (who can go cycling speed)
did
the same thing to the stupid child?

Runners have more common sense than cyclists and would have been
able to
stop/swerve.

Not if a kid runs out of a gateway which is hidden by a hedge. And
if I
was that cyclist I'd have kicked the stupid little child for
injuring me
and/or damaging my bicycle.

It makes no difference whether you're travelling by car, lorry, van,
motor-bike, bicycle, wheelbarrow on foot, you have absolutely no
business proceeding into a space you cannot see at such a speed that
you
cannot stop as soon as an obstruction (eg, a child) is sighted.

It's called "negligence".

So you think it's wrong to run on a pavement?

No.

It's no less dangerous than cycling.

But I think that you have great difficulty in comprehending what you
read and you have managed to completely confirm that with your
non-sequitur response.

Many joggers (all of them actually) would disagree with you.

I dare say, and on many things. But not on this one. Well, not unless
they, like you, have a screw loose.

Joggers jog along pavements, at cycling speed.

The child was an invalid obstruction and was asking for a Darwin award.

Is it "invalid" to walk out of a garden gate onto a footway?

It is if they don't look first.


You must be so proud.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 23:30:13 +0100, Tony Dragon wrote:

On 07/06/2015 21:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 20:57:59 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 07/06/2015 20:43, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 20:30:41 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 07/06/2015 17:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

David Lang wrote:

[ ... ]

If their toddler is so ****ing stupid to run out of the gate
without
looking what's coming, she could do the same into the road. Which
will earn her a Darwin Award.

They have an absolute right to expect that their child could run
onto a
pedestrian only pavement safely.
The cyclists broke the law. Game over. The Fat Lady has sung.

What would be your opinion if a runner (who can go cycling speed)
did
the same thing to the stupid child?

Runners have more common sense than cyclists and would have been
able to
stop/swerve.

Not if a kid runs out of a gateway which is hidden by a hedge. And
if I
was that cyclist I'd have kicked the stupid little child for
injuring me
and/or damaging my bicycle.

It makes no difference whether you're travelling by car, lorry, van,
motor-bike, bicycle, wheelbarrow on foot, you have absolutely no
business proceeding into a space you cannot see at such a speed that
you
cannot stop as soon as an obstruction (eg, a child) is sighted.

It's called "negligence".

So you think it's wrong to run on a pavement?

No.

It's no less dangerous than cycling.

But I think that you have great difficulty in comprehending what you
read and you have managed to completely confirm that with your
non-sequitur response.

Many joggers (all of them actually) would disagree with you.

I dare say, and on many things. But not on this one. Well, not unless
they, like you, have a screw loose.

Joggers jog along pavements, at cycling speed.

The child was an invalid obstruction and was asking for a Darwin award.

Is it "invalid" to walk out of a garden gate onto a footway?

It is if they don't look first.


You must be so proud.

I'd teach my kids to look where they're going and/or fit a gate. Typical ****ty parents blaming the cyclist.

--
Gary's weather forecasting stone:
Stone is wet Rain
Stone is dry Not raining
Shadow on ground Sunny
White on top Snowing
Can't see stone Foggy
Swinging stone Windy
Stone jumping up and down Earthquake
Stone gone Tornado

On Monday, 8 June 2015 01:00:08 UTC+3, David Lang wrote:
On 07/06/2015 20:56, Alycidon wrote:
On Sunday, 7 June 2015 15:28:44 UTC+3, David Lang wrote:
On 06/06/2015 22:02, Alycidon wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 22:49:09 UTC+2, David Lang wrote:
On 06/06/2015 19:27, Alycidon wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 18:39:59 UTC+2, David Lang wrote:
On 06/06/2015 09:53, Alycidon wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 10:23:56 UTC+2, Adia wrote:

It could be that quite a few cyclists are still of the
opinion that they may ride on the footway provided they
do so considerately, and feel that in such
circumstances police officers should exercise their
discretion.

In the same way that many drivers believe it is
acceptable to drive along the footpath until they find a
nice parking spot which will then restrict access for
pedestrians, prams and disabled carriages. Luckily, spot
fines are a good deterrent for these law breakers.

Drivers don't drive along footpaths, idiot.

How did this get here then, idiot? Selfish gits.

http://www.wirralpedestrians.org.uk/...rking_news.jpg





Too dim to understand the difference between 'onto' and 'along'.

Did that car in the photo drive along the footway to get that
spot in which it totally blocks the footway forcing the mother
and child onto the road? Yes or no?
He drove 'onto' the footway, not 'along it. Cyclists frequently
pedal

So you imagine that the law breaking driver parallel parked and then
pressed a special button that acted like the "frogger" game and it
leapt clean sideways onto the footway in one move, blocking it? Or
did it drive along it to its resting place? Which was it?




Still too dim to understand the difference between 'onto' and 'along'.

Let me explain. Ask an adult to help with any long words.

Motorists occasionally drive "onto" pavements. Cyclists frequently
pedal "along" pavements for entire journeys.

Ah, so the criminal driver drove onto and therefore along the pavement and totally blocked it. Why did it take you so much wriggling if you were only going to admit it in the end?

On 08/06/2015 08:40, Alycidon wrote:
On Monday, 8 June 2015 01:00:08 UTC+3, David Lang wrote:
On 07/06/2015 20:56, Alycidon wrote:
On Sunday, 7 June 2015 15:28:44 UTC+3, David Lang wrote:
On 06/06/2015 22:02, Alycidon wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 22:49:09 UTC+2, David Lang wrote:
On 06/06/2015 19:27, Alycidon wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 18:39:59 UTC+2, David Lang wrote:
On 06/06/2015 09:53, Alycidon wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 10:23:56 UTC+2, Adia wrote:

It could be that quite a few cyclists are still of the
opinion that they may ride on the footway provided they
do so considerately, and feel that in such
circumstances police officers should exercise their
discretion.

In the same way that many drivers believe it is
acceptable to drive along the footpath until they find a
nice parking spot which will then restrict access for
pedestrians, prams and disabled carriages. Luckily, spot
fines are a good deterrent for these law breakers.

Drivers don't drive along footpaths, idiot.

How did this get here then, idiot? Selfish gits.

http://www.wirralpedestrians.org.uk/...rking_news.jpg





Too dim to understand the difference between 'onto' and 'along'.

Did that car in the photo drive along the footway to get that
spot in which it totally blocks the footway forcing the mother
and child onto the road? Yes or no?
He drove 'onto' the footway, not 'along it. Cyclists frequently
pedal

So you imagine that the law breaking driver parallel parked and then
pressed a special button that acted like the "frogger" game and it
leapt clean sideways onto the footway in one move, blocking it? Or
did it drive along it to its resting place? Which was it?




Still too dim to understand the difference between 'onto' and 'along'.

Let me explain. Ask an adult to help with any long words.

Motorists occasionally drive "onto" pavements. Cyclists frequently
pedal "along" pavements for entire journeys.

Ah, so the criminal driver drove onto and therefore along the pavement and totally blocked it. Why did it take you so much wriggling if you were only going to admit it in the end?


There is nothing to admit, retard. I see you couldn't find an adult to
help.

On Monday, 8 June 2015 21:36:13 UTC+3, David Lang wrote:

Motorists occasionally drive "onto" pavements. Cyclists frequently
pedal "along" pavements for entire journeys.

Ah, so the criminal driver drove onto and therefore along the pavement and totally blocked it. Why did it take you so much wriggling if you were only going to admit it in the end?


There is nothing to admit, retard. I see you couldn't find an adult to
help.

You would need a magician to explain to me how a parallel parked car could magic itself onto a pavement in order to totally block it without driving along it.

On Sat, 6 Jun 2015 01:53:06 -0700 (PDT), Alycidon wrote:

On Saturday, 6 June 2015 10:23:56 UTC+2, Adia wrote:

It could be that quite a few cyclists are still of the opinion that
they may ride on the footway provided they do so considerately, and
feel that in such circumstances police officers should exercise their
discretion.

In the same way that many drivers believe it is acceptable to drive along the footpath until they find a nice parking spot which will then restrict access for pedestrians, prams and disabled carriages. Luckily, spot fines are a good deterrent for these law breakers.


Should you not be posting in a different group: this group is all about
cycling.

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 09:40:27 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

On 06/06/2015 09:23, Adia wrote:
Rob Morley wrote:

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 17:46:10 +0100
Mrcheerful wrote:

What is particularly incredible is the claim that he did not know
that it was illegal to ride on the footway.

Indeed - what an idiot. But many people seem to think it's OK, or at
least preferable to using the road.

It could be that quite a few cyclists are still of the opinion that
they may ride on the footway provided they do so considerately, and
feel that in such circumstances police officers should exercise their
discretion. I don't think they appreciate how serious an issue this
can become, especially if they are involved in an accident with a
pedestrian.

Public education is required, a clampdown like those against unlit
bikes might be good.

There are still some mixed messages coming out, like this one from
last year:

http://road.cc/content/news/108119-t...-ride-pavement



Irrelevant, the law has not been changed.
The relevant information is all in the Highway Code (which can be read
free online), which everybody that leaves their home ought to be
familiar with.
It also has special sections of extra important information for every
type of road user, the section for cyclists includes:
Rule 64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
[Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129].
Note that there is no 'if you are frightened of the road it is OK' or
any other get out of jail free card.


And what Boateng is so often quoted as saying was in no way official guidance
any way.

Why will cyclists just not realise that it is against the law to cycle on
pavements and no quoting of letters to pressure groups by Ministers changes
that fact.

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 12:23:57 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

On 06/06/2015 10:46, Tarcap wrote:


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

On 06/06/2015 09:53, Alycidon wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 10:23:56 UTC+2, Adia wrote:

It could be that quite a few cyclists are still of the opinion that
they may ride on the footway provided they do so considerately, and
feel that in such circumstances police officers should exercise their
discretion.

In the same way that many drivers believe it is acceptable to drive
along the footpath until they find a nice parking spot which will then
restrict access for pedestrians, prams and disabled carriages.
Luckily, spot fines are a good deterrent for these law breakers.


Try to stay on topic, this is a cycling group.

They just can't help it. It's the cyclist's SOP.
Attempting to deflect any bad behaviour by cyclists towards motorists is
all they can do.
They should be pitied, not pilloried,

It just shows that although Simon has been away for a couple of years,
he has learnt nothing.


Are you saying that Alycidon is Numb Nuts Mason ?

Surely not: Mason buggered off because he was always losing arguments - I
suppose that "Alycidon" will bugger off now.

It's a pity because they were "both" such good value.

On Sat, 6 Jun 2015 06:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Alycidon wrote:

On Saturday, 6 June 2015 11:27:54 UTC+2, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 06/06/2015 09:53, Alycidon wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 10:23:56 UTC+2, Adia wrote:

It could be that quite a few cyclists are still of the opinion that
they may ride on the footway provided they do so considerately, and
feel that in such circumstances police officers should exercise their
discretion.

In the same way that many drivers believe it is acceptable to drive along the footpath until they find a nice parking spot which will then restrict access for pedestrians, prams and disabled carriages. Luckily, spot fines are a good deterrent for these law breakers.


Try to stay on topic, this is a cycling group.

Where EXACTLY in the *UK* was your "taking the lane fail" clip filmed as they were driving on the right? If it was not in the UK, it was off topic, so please mark it as such.


Oh dear : this is a cycling newsgroup for people in the UK. It is reasonable
that it is for discussing cycling matters which are of interest to people in
the UK irrespective of where in the world they happen .

It is certainly *not* for discussing motorists and driving: there are other
groups for that.

On Sat, 6 Jun 2015 12:22:07 -0700 (PDT), Alycidon wrote:

On Saturday, 6 June 2015 20:56:21 UTC+2, colwyn wrote:

In the same way that many drivers believe it is acceptable to drive
along the footpath until they find a nice parking spot which will
then restrict access for pedestrians, prams and disabled carriages.
Luckily, spot fines are a good deterrent for these law breakers.

Drivers don't drive along footpaths, idiot.

How did this get here then, idiot?
Selfish gits.

http://www.wirralpedestrians.org.uk/...rking_news.jpg


How do you get onto your drive?

If I remember - you are allowed to cross the pavement to access your
property, not park on the access.

Indeed - you are NOT permitted to block a public footway with a parked motor vehicle - a spot fine can follow as a few idiots down our street have found out.


"Street" is it?

I thought you were always trying to impress us that you live in a "lane".

Cue the jokes......