Pedestrians put cyclists at risk too.

Still being hit by a pedestrian isn't as bad as being hit by a car is
it? That is why pavements are safer for cyclists than roads, except
when cars crash onto pavements of course.

"...Beyond driving, one in six (17%) cell-owning adults say they have
physically bumped into another person or an object because they were
distracted by talking or texting on their phone. That amounts to 14%
of all American adults who have been so engrossed in talking, texting
or otherwise using their cell phones that they bumped into something
or someone..."

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08...nnocent-suv-dr

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Aug 17, 6:21*am, Doug wrote:
Still being hit by a pedestrian isn't as bad as being hit by a car is
it? That is why pavements are safer for cyclists than roads, except
when cars crash onto pavements of course.

"...Beyond driving, one in six (17%) cell-owning adults say they have
physically bumped into another person or an object because they were
distracted by talking or texting on their phone. That amounts to 14%
of all American adults who have been so engrossed in talking, texting
or otherwise using their cell phones that they bumped into something
or someone..."

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08...kers-are-threa...

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

So not content with slagging off all motorists, you are now slagging
off pedestrians as well Doug!

On Aug 17, 6:21*am, Doug wrote:
Still being hit by a pedestrian isn't as bad as being hit by a car is
it? That is why pavements are safer for cyclists than roads, except
when cars crash onto pavements of course.

"...Beyond driving, one in six (17%) cell-owning adults say they have
physically bumped into another person or an object because they were
distracted by talking or texting on their phone. That amounts to 14%
of all American adults who have been so engrossed in talking, texting
or otherwise using their cell phones that they bumped into something
or someone..."

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08...kers-are-threa...

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Is there any group of people you dont have a go at, pedestrians,
cyclists, motorists, OPT users.
Is it that you think that you are the only perfect person in the
world?

And dont bother nto come back with the usual tired old rubbish, you
know :-

As a cyclist I am better than you a motorist.
Cars kill cyclists not the other way round
etc.

On 17 Aug, 07:39, Derek C wrote:
On Aug 17, 6:21*am, Doug wrote:



Still being hit by a pedestrian isn't as bad as being hit by a car is
it? That is why pavements are safer for cyclists than roads, except
when cars crash onto pavements of course.

"...Beyond driving, one in six (17%) cell-owning adults say they have
physically bumped into another person or an object because they were
distracted by talking or texting on their phone. That amounts to 14%
of all American adults who have been so engrossed in talking, texting
or otherwise using their cell phones that they bumped into something
or someone..."

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08...kers-are-threa...

So not content with slagging off all motorists, you are now slagging
off pedestrians as well Doug!

Only those who claim cyclists are a threat to pedestrians while
cycling on pavements and who never mention motorists on pavements.
That's what cyclists are always told to do when presented by a threat
from drivers isn't it, take sole responsibility for their own safety?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:

Derek C wrote:
Doug wrote:

Still being hit by a pedestrian isn't as bad as being hit by a car is
it? That is why pavements are safer for cyclists than roads, except
when cars crash onto pavements of course.
"...Beyond driving, one in six (17%) cell-owning adults say they have
physically bumped into another person or an object because they were
distracted by talking or texting on their phone. That amounts to 14%
of all American adults who have been so engrossed in talking, texting
or otherwise using their cell phones that they bumped into something
or someone..."
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08...kers-are-threa...

So not content with slagging off all motorists, you are now slagging
off pedestrians as well Doug!

Only those who claim cyclists are a threat to pedestrians while
cycling on pavements and who never mention motorists on pavements.

I'm sure that *any* poster here, given a credible example of a motor-vehicle
being *driven* along a footway (in the manner of a cycle being ridden by a
cyclist) would immediately condemn it without reservation. Examples, though,
are hard to find, as I'm sure you will agree. So hard to find are they that I
do not recall ever being presented with one. I don't expect you have, either.

I am not, of course, to refering to limited incursions onto or across a
footway for parking purposes as clearly permitted and envisaged by the law.
Neither am I referring to involuntary paths taken by vehicles after control
has been lost - a situation which may well be blameworthy for other, separate
and distinct, reasons.

That's what cyclists are always told to do when presented by a threat
from drivers isn't it, take sole responsibility for their own safety?

You slag people off as a safety measure?

How does that work?

On 18 Aug, 18:45, JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:
Derek C wrote:
Doug wrote:
Still being hit by a pedestrian isn't as bad as being hit by a car is
it? That is why pavements are safer for cyclists than roads, except
when cars crash onto pavements of course.
"...Beyond driving, one in six (17%) cell-owning adults say they have
physically bumped into another person or an object because they were
distracted by talking or texting on their phone. That amounts to 14%
of all American adults who have been so engrossed in talking, texting
or otherwise using their cell phones that they bumped into something
or someone..."
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08...kers-are-threa...
So not content with slagging off all motorists, you are now slagging
off pedestrians as well Doug!
Only those who claim cyclists are a threat to pedestrians while
cycling on pavements and who never mention motorists on pavements.

I'm sure that *any* poster here, given a credible example of a motor-vehicle
being *driven* along a footway (in the manner of a cycle being ridden by a
cyclist) would immediately condemn it without reservation. Examples, though,
are hard to find, as I'm sure you will agree. So hard to find are they that I
do not recall ever being presented with one. I don't expect you have, either.

Actually I have seen it and more than once. Of course the point you
are missing is that all the motorists here do not start threads which
are anti-motorist, just threads that are anti-cyclist.

I am not, of course, to refering to limited incursions onto or across a
footway for parking purposes as clearly permitted and envisaged by the law.
Neither am I referring to involuntary paths taken by vehicles after control
has been lost - a situation which may well be blameworthy for other, separate
and distinct, reasons.

I have seen drivers using the footway to escape a traffic jam. I have
also seen vehicles being driven along pavements to a parking spot.

That's what cyclists are always told to do when presented by a threat
from drivers isn't it, take sole responsibility for their own safety?

You slag people off as a safety measure?

How does that work?

What? Cyclists are always advised to make every effort in the
interests of their own safety but they are not allowed to do so when
it conflicts with the needs of drivers, pedestrians or the law. Maybe
its time that drivers should be advised to make every effort in the
interests of other people's safety instead of always flouting the law
and putting everyone at risk, bearing in mind that they are much more
dangerous than cyclists.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On 18 Aug, 18:45, JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:
Derek C wrote:
Doug wrote:
Still being hit by a pedestrian isn't as bad as being hit by a car is
it? That is why pavements are safer for cyclists than roads, except
when cars crash onto pavements of course.
"...Beyond driving, one in six (17%) cell-owning adults say they have
physically bumped into another person or an object because they were
distracted by talking or texting on their phone. That amounts to 14%
of all American adults who have been so engrossed in talking, texting
or otherwise using their cell phones that they bumped into something
or someone..."
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08...kers-are-threa...
So not content with slagging off all motorists, you are now slagging
off pedestrians as well Doug!
Only those who claim cyclists are a threat to pedestrians while
cycling on pavements and who never mention motorists on pavements.

I'm sure that *any* poster here, given a credible example of a
motor-vehicle
being *driven* along a footway (in the manner of a cycle being ridden by
a
cyclist) would immediately condemn it without reservation. Examples,
though,
are hard to find, as I'm sure you will agree. So hard to find are they
that I
do not recall ever being presented with one. I don't expect you have,
either.

Actually I have seen it and more than once. Of course the point you
are missing is that all the motorists here do not start threads which
are anti-motorist, just threads that are anti-cyclist.

I am not, of course, to refering to limited incursions onto or across a
footway for parking purposes as clearly permitted and envisaged by the
law.
Neither am I referring to involuntary paths taken by vehicles after
control
has been lost - a situation which may well be blameworthy for other,
separate
and distinct, reasons.

I have seen drivers using the footway to escape a traffic jam. I have
also seen vehicles being driven along pavements to a parking spot.

That's what cyclists are always told to do when presented by a threat
from drivers isn't it, take sole responsibility for their own safety?

You slag people off as a safety measure?

How does that work?

What? Cyclists are always advised to make every effort in the
interests of their own safety but they are not allowed to do so when
it conflicts with the needs of drivers, pedestrians or the law. Maybe
its time that drivers should be advised to make every effort in the
interests of other people's safety instead of always flouting the law
and putting everyone at risk, bearing in mind that they are much more
dangerous than cyclists.

make every effort, but not if it involves law breaking.

On 21 Aug, 12:33, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...



On 18 Aug, 18:45, JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:
Derek C wrote:
Doug wrote:
Still being hit by a pedestrian isn't as bad as being hit by a car is
it? That is why pavements are safer for cyclists than roads, except
when cars crash onto pavements of course.
"...Beyond driving, one in six (17%) cell-owning adults say they have
physically bumped into another person or an object because they were
distracted by talking or texting on their phone. That amounts to 14%
of all American adults who have been so engrossed in talking, texting
or otherwise using their cell phones that they bumped into something
or someone..."
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08...kers-are-threa...
So not content with slagging off all motorists, you are now slagging
off pedestrians as well Doug!
Only those who claim cyclists are a threat to pedestrians while
cycling on pavements and who never mention motorists on pavements.

I'm sure that *any* poster here, given a credible example of a
motor-vehicle
being *driven* along a footway (in the manner of a cycle being ridden by
a
cyclist) would immediately condemn it without reservation. Examples,
though,
are hard to find, as I'm sure you will agree. So hard to find are they
that I
do not recall ever being presented with one. I don't expect you have,
either.

Actually I have seen it and more than once. Of course the point you
are missing is that all the motorists here do not start threads which
are anti-motorist, just threads that are anti-cyclist.

I am not, of course, to refering to limited incursions onto or across a
footway for parking purposes as clearly permitted and envisaged by the
law.
Neither am I referring to involuntary paths taken by vehicles after
control
has been lost - a situation which may well be blameworthy for other,
separate
and distinct, reasons.

I have seen drivers using the footway to escape a traffic jam. I have
also seen vehicles being driven along pavements to a parking spot.

That's what cyclists are always told to do when presented by a threat
from drivers isn't it, take sole responsibility for their own safety?

You slag people off as a safety measure?

How does that work?

What? Cyclists are always advised to make every effort in the
interests of their own safety but they are not allowed to do so when
it conflicts with the needs of drivers, pedestrians or the law. Maybe
its time that drivers should be advised to make every effort in the
interests of other people's safety instead of always flouting the law
and putting everyone at risk, bearing in mind that they are much more
dangerous than cyclists.

make every effort, but not if it involves law breaking.

But what if the law endangers cyclists? For example it is sometimes
safer for a cyclist to go through a red light to avoid becoming
enmeshed in a mass of dangerous traffic and it is certainly safer for
a cyclist to ride on pavements to avoid such traffic. Another example
is a cyclist stopping ahead of the white line at junctions when
drivers are illegally stopped in ASLs. Then there are the questions of
the primary position and the door zone, etc.

The fact is that most of the laws are designed, quite rightly, to
apply to drivers because they present a much greater danger than
cyclists but cyclists are caught up in them too.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.

On Aug 23, 6:48*am, Doug wrote:
On 21 Aug, 12:33, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message

....

On 18 Aug, 18:45, JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:
Derek C wrote:
Doug wrote:
Still being hit by a pedestrian isn't as bad as being hit by a car is
it? That is why pavements are safer for cyclists than roads, except
when cars crash onto pavements of course.
"...Beyond driving, one in six (17%) cell-owning adults say they have
physically bumped into another person or an object because they were
distracted by talking or texting on their phone. That amounts to 14%
of all American adults who have been so engrossed in talking, texting
or otherwise using their cell phones that they bumped into something
or someone..."
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08...kers-are-threa...
So not content with slagging off all motorists, you are now slagging
off pedestrians as well Doug!
Only those who claim cyclists are a threat to pedestrians while
cycling on pavements and who never mention motorists on pavements.

I'm sure that *any* poster here, given a credible example of a
motor-vehicle
being *driven* along a footway (in the manner of a cycle being ridden by
a
cyclist) would immediately condemn it without reservation. Examples,
though,
are hard to find, as I'm sure you will agree. So hard to find are they
that I
do not recall ever being presented with one. I don't expect you have,
either.

Actually I have seen it and more than once. Of course the point you
are missing is that all the motorists here do not start threads which
are anti-motorist, just threads that are anti-cyclist.

I am not, of course, to refering to limited incursions onto or across a
footway for parking purposes as clearly permitted and envisaged by the
law.
Neither am I referring to involuntary paths taken by vehicles after
control
has been lost - a situation which may well be blameworthy for other,
separate
and distinct, reasons.

I have seen drivers using the footway to escape a traffic jam. I have
also seen vehicles being driven along pavements to a parking spot.

That's what cyclists are always told to do when presented by a threat
from drivers isn't it, take sole responsibility for their own safety?

You slag people off as a safety measure?

How does that work?

What? Cyclists are always advised to make every effort in the
interests of their own safety but they are not allowed to do so when
it conflicts with the needs of drivers, pedestrians or the law. Maybe
its time that drivers should be advised to make every effort in the
interests of other people's safety instead of always flouting the law
and putting everyone at risk, bearing in mind that they are much more
dangerous than cyclists.

make every effort, but not if it involves law breaking.

But what if the law endangers cyclists? For example it is sometimes
safer for a cyclist *to go through a red light

So thta's OK then, it's safer for the cyclist, bugger everybody else.

to avoid becoming
enmeshed in a mass of dangerous traffic and it is certainly safer for
a cyclist to ride on pavements to avoid such traffic.

So thta's OK then, it's safer for the cyclist, bugger everybody else

Another example
is a cyclist stopping ahead of the white line at junctions when
drivers are illegally stopped in ASLs.

It's not illegal to stop in ASL's

Then there are the questions of
the primary position and the door zone, etc.

The fact is that most of the laws are designed, quite rightly, to
apply to drivers because they present a much greater danger than
cyclists but cyclists are caught up in them too.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.

Thats ok, got it, the cyclists don't have to obey the laws they don't
like.
There is lots of laws I don't like,is it ok if I ignore them?

On 23 Aug, 15:56, francis wrote:
On Aug 23, 6:48*am, Doug wrote:



On 21 Aug, 12:33, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message

....

On 18 Aug, 18:45, JNugent wrote:
Doug wrote:
Derek C wrote:
Doug wrote:
Still being hit by a pedestrian isn't as bad as being hit by a car is
it? That is why pavements are safer for cyclists than roads, except
when cars crash onto pavements of course.
"...Beyond driving, one in six (17%) cell-owning adults say they have
physically bumped into another person or an object because they were
distracted by talking or texting on their phone. That amounts to 14%
of all American adults who have been so engrossed in talking, texting
or otherwise using their cell phones that they bumped into something
or someone..."
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08...kers-are-threa...
So not content with slagging off all motorists, you are now slagging
off pedestrians as well Doug!
Only those who claim cyclists are a threat to pedestrians while
cycling on pavements and who never mention motorists on pavements.

I'm sure that *any* poster here, given a credible example of a
motor-vehicle
being *driven* along a footway (in the manner of a cycle being ridden by
a
cyclist) would immediately condemn it without reservation. Examples,
though,
are hard to find, as I'm sure you will agree. So hard to find are they
that I
do not recall ever being presented with one. I don't expect you have,
either.

Actually I have seen it and more than once. Of course the point you
are missing is that all the motorists here do not start threads which
are anti-motorist, just threads that are anti-cyclist.

I am not, of course, to refering to limited incursions onto or across a
footway for parking purposes as clearly permitted and envisaged by the
law.
Neither am I referring to involuntary paths taken by vehicles after
control
has been lost - a situation which may well be blameworthy for other,
separate
and distinct, reasons.

I have seen drivers using the footway to escape a traffic jam. I have
also seen vehicles being driven along pavements to a parking spot.

That's what cyclists are always told to do when presented by a threat
from drivers isn't it, take sole responsibility for their own safety?

You slag people off as a safety measure?

How does that work?

What? Cyclists are always advised to make every effort in the
interests of their own safety but they are not allowed to do so when
it conflicts with the needs of drivers, pedestrians or the law. Maybe
its time that drivers should be advised to make every effort in the
interests of other people's safety instead of always flouting the law
and putting everyone at risk, bearing in mind that they are much more
dangerous than cyclists.

make every effort, but not if it involves law breaking.

But what if the law endangers cyclists? For example it is sometimes
safer for a cyclist *to go through a red light

So thta's OK then, it's safer for the cyclist, bugger everybody else.

Not everybody. Motorists are not at risk from cyclists but motorists
do put at risk pedestrians as well as cyclists.

to avoid becoming
enmeshed in a mass of dangerous traffic and it is certainly safer for
a cyclist to ride on pavements to avoid such traffic.

So thta's OK then, it's safer for the cyclist, bugger everybody else

Not everybody. Motorists are not at risk from cyclists but motorists
do put at risk pedestrians as well as cyclists.

Another example
is a cyclist stopping ahead of the white line at junctions when
drivers are illegally stopped in ASLs.

It's not illegal to stop in ASL's

Yes it is.

"178

Advanced stop lines. Some signal-controlled junctions have advanced
stop lines to allow cycles to be positioned ahead of other traffic.
Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line
reached if the lights are amber or red and should avoid blocking the
way or encroaching on the marked area at other times, e.g. if the
junction ahead is blocked. If your vehicle has proceeded over the
first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you MUST stop
at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area.
Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal
shows."

Note the HC use of the word 'MUST'. Unfortunately the police rarely if
ever enforce this law, probably because they are drivers too and hate
cyclists just as much as most of the motorist posters to this cycling
newsgroup.

Then there are the questions of
the primary position and the door zone, etc.

The fact is that most of the laws are designed, quite rightly, to
apply to drivers because they present a much greater danger than
cyclists but cyclists are caught up in them too.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.

Thats ok, got it, the cyclists don't have to obey the laws they don't
like.
There is lots of laws I *don't like,is it ok if I ignore them?

Depends how much of a danger to others you present. We know that a
majority of motorists ignore the law on speeding which is highly
dangerous, compared with which they are often allowed to park on
pavements and on public roads, which should strictly speaking always
be illegal but there you go, one law for some but not others.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.