Does the Daily Mail hates Cyclists?

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:42:34 +0100 someone who may be "PK"
wrote this:-

, the fact that there was
apparently a workman standing on it


There was nothing to suggest the workman was *on* the footway - I took the
report to mean the workman was in the open doorway working on the buzzer

Unless the house has some space at the front working on the pavement
and working in the doorway will amount to the same thing. If the
workman was working in the doorway how did the child get out, push
past him?




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:01:12 -0400 someone who may be NewRiderPS
wrote this:-

Seriously, how often do we see 'life threatening' injuries from
collisions with cyclists? In fact, how often do we see cyclists
injuriously colliding with pedestrians? It's rare enough that it makes
the news. Cars do it a lot more frequently and we never hear about it
because those that venture into the street 'deserve to be hit' (or so
they say).

"They" also speak of cars and cyclists, either deliberately or
accidentally. It would be better to speak of cars and bikes, or
motorists and cyclists.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:

NewRiderPS wroteL

Seriously, how often do we see 'life threatening' injuries from
collisions with cyclists? In fact, how often do we see cyclists
injuriously colliding with pedestrians? It's rare enough that it makes
the news. Cars do it a lot more frequently and we never hear about it
because those that venture into the street 'deserve to be hit' (or so
they say).

"They" also speak of cars and cyclists, either deliberately or
accidentally. It would be better to speak of cars and bikes, or
motorists and cyclists.

Absolutely. That sort of linguistic imprecision* annoys me too.

That is one of the reasons why I found the recent allegation by a poster
here that a driver shouted at him "I'm a ******* car" to be totally
unbelievable. When one is making things up, care should be taken that
the fabrication has the ring of truth about it. "I'm a ... car" is
something that no-one would say.

[* However, I suggest that "drivers" is better than "motorists", that
latter term, for me, always conjuring up an image of a rakishly-clad,
moustachioed person in a British Racing Green MG about it.]

In ,
JNugent tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
herring).

Horse. I see it almost daily, when the impatient drive over the pavement in
order to cut across Kwik-Fit's forecourt and onto the A406, merely so they
don't have to wait a few second for the lights at the Crooked Billet
roundabout.

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
Tip of the Day: 20%

Dave Larrington wrote:

JNugent tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
herring).

Horse. I see it almost daily, when the impatient drive over the pavement in
order to cut across Kwik-Fit's forecourt and onto the A406, merely so they
don't have to wait a few second for the lights at the Crooked Billet
roundabout.

A. It is lawful to cross a footway to gain access to land adjacent to
the highway (think about it).

B. The maneouvre you describe - even if it were as unlawful as you seem
to think - is not done at normal travelling speed.

0/10.

You know full well that what you describe is not comparable to the
cynical disregard of pedestrian safety exhibited by some (only some,
certainly not all) cyclists.

On Jun 19, 9:35*am, JNugent wrote:
Dave Larrington wrote:
JNugent tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
herring).
Horse. *I see it almost daily, when the impatient drive over the pavement in
order to cut across Kwik-Fit's forecourt and onto the A406, merely so they
don't have to wait a few second for the lights at the Crooked Billet
roundabout.

A. It is lawful to cross a footway to gain access to land adjacent to
the highway (think about it).

B. The maneouvre you describe - even if it were as unlawful as you seem
to think - is not done at normal travelling speed.

0/10.

You know full well that what you describe is not comparable to the
cynical disregard of pedestrian safety exhibited by some (only some,
certainly not all) cyclists.


Forty people a year are killed by cars mounting the pavement.


You're living in cuckoo-land.

spindrift wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Dave Larrington wrote:
JNugent :

You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
herring).

Horse. I see it almost daily, when the impatient drive over the pavement in
order to cut across Kwik-Fit's forecourt and onto the A406, merely so they
don't have to wait a few second for the lights at the Crooked Billet
roundabout.

A. It is lawful to cross a footway to gain access to land adjacent to
the highway (think about it).

B. The maneouvre you describe - even if it were as unlawful as you seem
to think - is not done at normal travelling speed.

0/10.

You know full well that what you describe is not comparable to the
cynical disregard of pedestrian safety exhibited by some (only some,
certainly not all) cyclists.

Forty people a year are killed by cars mounting the pavement.

Why do you think I wrote:

"...(let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles which are out of
control - that's a different, if well-used, red herring)..."?

You're living in cuckoo-land.

Actually, that would be anyone who can't tell the difference between a
deliberate (and cynical) act and an involuntary one - or who pretends
that there is no difference between them when they know full well that
they are completely different.

Drivers and riders should never lose control of their vehicles. But
sometimes they do. Sometimes, it's their own fault that they have lost
control. Sometimes it isn't.

But whatever blame can or cannot be attributed in such cases, and even
if the number of people killed by vehicles "mounting the pavement" were
ten times higher than it is, that would not be a reason to cycle along
the footway - would it?

On 17 Jun, 10:20, Dan Gregory
wrote:
PK wrote:
The key issue, is whether the cyclist was on the pavement.

If it was on the pavement why is the photographer on the pavement taking
photos of the accident scene on the road??

The forensic photographer will photograph anything that could possibly
be of interest, this includes any debris that may have come from the
accident, blood spatter etc. For an incident like this its not hard to
imagine an FP photographing quite a wide area so don't infer anything
from the direction the FP's camera was pointing when the press
photographer got the shot for the paper....

On Jun 19, 9:55*am, JNugent wrote:
spindrift wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Dave Larrington wrote:
JNugent :
You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal
travelling speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles
which are out of control - that's a different, if well-used, red
herring).
Horse. *I see it almost daily, when the impatient drive over the pavement in
order to cut across Kwik-Fit's forecourt and onto the A406, merely so they
don't have to wait a few second for the lights at the Crooked Billet
roundabout.
A. It is lawful to cross a footway to gain access to land adjacent to
the highway (think about it).
B. The maneouvre you describe - even if it were as unlawful as you seem
to think - is not done at normal travelling speed.
0/10.
You know full well that what you describe is not comparable to the
cynical disregard of pedestrian safety exhibited by some (only some,
certainly not all) cyclists.
Forty people a year are killed by cars mounting the pavement.

Why do you think I wrote:

"...(let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles which are out of
control - that's a different, if well-used, red herring)..."?

You're living in cuckoo-land.

Actually, that would be anyone who can't tell the difference between a
deliberate (and cynical) act and an involuntary one - or who pretends
that there is no difference between them when they know full well that
they are completely different.

Drivers and riders should never lose control of their vehicles. But
sometimes they do. Sometimes, it's their own fault that they have lost
control. Sometimes it isn't.

But whatever blame can or cannot be attributed in such cases, and even
if the number of people killed by vehicles "mounting the pavement" were
ten times higher than it is, that would not be a reason to cycle along
the footway - would it?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

An instance, please , of a car going out of control that wasn't the
drivers' fault.

JNugent wrote:
You *never* see a car being driven along a footway at normal travelling
speed (let's not digress onto the subject of vehicles which are out of
control - that's a different, if well-used, red herring).

I had to jump out of one's way the other day. The pavement near my work
is wide enough for a Transit van to pull up onto, so they do.
--
Robin Johnson