|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrians put cyclists at risk too.
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! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrians put cyclists at risk too.
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrians put cyclists at risk too.
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrians put cyclists at risk too.
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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrians put cyclists at risk too.
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrians put cyclists at risk too.
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrians put cyclists at risk too.
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrians put cyclists at risk too.
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? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrians put cyclists at risk too.
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
when will cyclists learn that pedestrian crossings are for .....pedestrians, not cyclists | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 7 | August 12th 10 07:08 AM |
Its not only cyclists and pedestrians who are put at serious risk bymotorists. | Doug[_3_] | UK | 4 | July 25th 10 09:28 AM |
OT cyclists do not hurt pedestrians | Marie | UK | 0 | May 23rd 10 08:25 PM |
pedestrians and cyclists | Tamyka Bell | Australia | 88 | November 29th 04 10:59 AM |
Priority to be given to pedestrians and cyclists over cars? | Richard Bates | UK | 23 | October 30th 03 11:11 PM |