This should please Doug

"nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here wrote:

The killer of a vulnerable road user, who lost control of his dangerous
machine on the highway gets banged up, although not for very long:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8197430.stm

An absolutely derisory sentence, seven months and out in half that, or
less if time was spent on remand. There really is little justice in that
sentence and it hands out an "it's OK to kill pensioners if you're on a
cycle" message.

I had a wonderful example of the cyclist at his best this evening. I
went round to help out a friend on his far, because I can drive a
tractor I come in handy from time to time. It's harvest and everything
is very busy, epspecially because most of the grain is going to dryers.
When I'd finished I headed home, taking a route via the village of
Upham. Where I encountered some cyclists, the lycra variety. They were
riding down the road four to five abreast completely blocking it in both
directions. I hung back thinking that they would see sense and form a
single file - no they continued like that for the next three miles.

They seemed to think this was very funny. They also forced oncoming
vehicles to leave the road and enter farm gates while they passed. They
seemed to find that funny as well. What a wonderful example of "primary
position" that was, eh? What a charming bunch of individuals.

I spotted them later, loading their cycles on to the backs of their MPVs
and cars, most of which had logos from garages in a large city about 15
miles to the north. So, a bunch of townies make their way to the country
and think it's really funny to hold up the people who live here trying
to peacefully make their way home. What a charming bunch of individuals.

Steve Firth wrote:

The killer of a vulnerable road user, who lost control of his dangerous
machine on the highway gets banged up, although not for very long:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8197430.stm

An absolutely derisory sentence, seven months and out in half that, or
less if time was spent on remand. There really is little justice in that
sentence and it hands out an "it's OK to kill pensioners if you're on a
cycle" message.

See the "Cyclist jailed for pavemant death" (original spelling) in
uk.rec.cycling. The consensus seems to be that a charge of manslaughter
would have been more appropriate (I agree) - as it was, they had to
resort to a charge intended to catch people who drove their horses like
maniacs.

Whatever kind of vehicle you drive, if you drive it with wanton fury and
hurt someone you'll be treated more lightly by the law than if the
weapon you were wantonly furious with were your fists, or (God forbid)
your cutlery.

I hope that as cycling becomes more popular, doing it on the pavement
will become as unacceptable as doing it on your motorbike or in your
car.

It's amazing how many people seem to think that the pavement is for
cycling on, whether they're cyclists or not. Recently on my way home
from work there was a furious hooting as I stopped at the lights. A
passenger in the car that pulled up alongside was red in the face with
anger, and screamed at me why I wasn't riding on the pavement where I
was supposed to. I didn't say anything because I was out of breath, but
also because I was lost for words.

Daniele
--
Wanted: TEAC A-2300SX, Akai GX-4000D

D.M. Procida wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:

snip


It's amazing how many people seem to think that the pavement is for
cycling on, whether they're cyclists or not. Recently on my way home
from work there was a furious hooting as I stopped at the lights. A
passenger in the car that pulled up alongside was red in the face with
anger, and screamed at me why I wasn't riding on the pavement where I
was supposed to. I didn't say anything because I was out of breath, but
also because I was lost for words.

Daniele

If you can't think of a suitable reply, I am sure that many here
(motorists & cyclists) would be able to furnish you with a variety of
retorts & gestures that would get your point across.
I am assuming that you were not deliberately getting in the way.
--

Tony Dragon

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
"nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here wrote:

The killer of a vulnerable road user, who lost control of his dangerous
machine on the highway gets banged up, although not for very long:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8197430.stm

An absolutely derisory sentence, seven months and out in half that, or
less if time was spent on remand. There really is little justice in that
sentence and it hands out an "it's OK to kill pensioners if you're on a
cycle" message.

I had a wonderful example of the cyclist at his best this evening. I
went round to help out a friend on his far, because I can drive a
tractor I come in handy from time to time. It's harvest and everything
is very busy, epspecially because most of the grain is going to dryers.
When I'd finished I headed home, taking a route via the village of
Upham. Where I encountered some cyclists, the lycra variety. They were
riding down the road four to five abreast completely blocking it in both
directions. I hung back thinking that they would see sense and form a
single file - no they continued like that for the next three miles.

They seemed to think this was very funny. They also forced oncoming
vehicles to leave the road and enter farm gates while they passed. They
seemed to find that funny as well. What a wonderful example of "primary
position" that was, eh? What a charming bunch of individuals.

I spotted them later, loading their cycles on to the backs of their MPVs
and cars, most of which had logos from garages in a large city about 15
miles to the north. So, a bunch of townies make their way to the country
and think it's really funny to hold up the people who live here trying
to peacefully make their way home. What a charming bunch of individuals.

Here's a thing. I live in the country and drive and ride about. Many
roads round here are wide enough for 1 car. Those that are wider a wide
enough for 2. And, I mean that literally, there isn't space for anything
else. When the buses meet that have to practically stop and force
themselves into the banks to get by. On the roads wide enough for 1 car
there simply isn't room to overtake a gnat, much less a bike. When two
vehicles meet, 1 goes into the farm gate. It doesn't matter if the
cyclists are 1 or 2 abreast (I'm a Billy-no-mates) there simply isn't space
for a car to overtake. And, don't get me started about single file lines
of bikes strung out with no space between them so that they take up more
length than a lorry - there's no piece of road straight enough to overtake
even though they're only doing 10mph. Farm tractors - set up their own
private one-way systems "you can't go down here, there's another tractor
(with a load)just behind me" is something regular at the moment.

"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...
Steve Firth wrote:

The killer of a vulnerable road user, who lost control of his dangerous
machine on the highway gets banged up, although not for very long:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8197430.stm

An absolutely derisory sentence, seven months and out in half that, or
less if time was spent on remand. There really is little justice in that
sentence and it hands out an "it's OK to kill pensioners if you're on a
cycle" message.

See the "Cyclist jailed for pavemant death" (original spelling) in
uk.rec.cycling. The consensus seems to be that a charge of manslaughter
would have been more appropriate (I agree) - as it was, they had to
resort to a charge intended to catch people who drove their horses like
maniacs.

Whatever kind of vehicle you drive, if you drive it with wanton fury and
hurt someone you'll be treated more lightly by the law than if the
weapon you were wantonly furious with were your fists, or (God forbid)
your cutlery.

I hope that as cycling becomes more popular, doing it on the pavement
will become as unacceptable as doing it on your motorbike or in your
car.

It's amazing how many people seem to think that the pavement is for
cycling on, whether they're cyclists or not. Recently on my way home
from work there was a furious hooting as I stopped at the lights. A
passenger in the car that pulled up alongside was red in the face with
anger, and screamed at me why I wasn't riding on the pavement where I
was supposed to. I didn't say anything because I was out of breath, but
also because I was lost for words.

As a cyclist and a motorist, I think that the *ideal* situation would be for
all roads to have both a pavement for pedestrians and a cycle track, so
cyclists are segregated from motorists and don't cause an obstruction to
them, but are also segregated from pedestrians.

But it's not an ideal world. Reluctantly, cyclists riding on the road is
probably the lesser of two evils.

But if cyclists are to use the road, they need to be held accountable for
their actions in the same way as motorists are, and the law should be
strengthened to make the penalties for offences committed while cycling
(going through red lights, speeding, causing injury/death by dangerous
cycling, drunk riding) the same as for those offences commited as a
motorist - both legally and morally. There seems to be an attitude, both
amongst some cyclists and even amongst some police, that "they are only
cyclists" and therefore their offences should be treated as being less
serious. A car being driven safely for the conditions but a few mph over the
limit is seen as more serious than a cyclist who ignores red lights and
zebra crossings as if these do not apply to cyclists.

When I'm cycling, I'm well aware that if a road is narrow, I will be causing
drivers to drive much slower than they would like to, and I will usually
stop every few hundred yards to let traffic past. But so many cyclists seem
to think that their right to use the road extends to being a right to cause
an obstruction. I'm not that selfish!

D.M. Procida wrote:

A passenger in the car that pulled up alongside was red in the face with
anger, and screamed at me why I wasn't riding on the pavement where I was
supposed to. I didn't say anything because I was out of breath, but also
because I was lost for words.

****ing in his open mouth would seem to be an appropriate response.

On 12 Aug, 22:21, Tony Dragon wrote:
D.M. Procida wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:

snip



It's amazing how many people seem to think that the pavement is for
cycling on, whether they're cyclists or not. Recently on my way home
from work there was a furious hooting as I stopped at the lights. A
passenger in the car that pulled up alongside was red in the face with
anger, and screamed at me why I wasn't riding on the pavement where I
was supposed to. I didn't say anything because I was out of breath, but
also because I was lost for words.

Daniele

If you can't think of a suitable reply, I am sure that many here
(motorists & cyclists) would be able to furnish you with a variety of
retorts & gestures that would get your point across.
I am assuming that you were not deliberately getting in the way.

"passenger in the car that pulled up alongside"

On 12 Aug, 20:59, (Steve Firth) wrote:
"nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here wrote:

The killer of a vulnerable road user, who lost control of his dangerous
machine on the highway gets banged up, although not for very long:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8197430.stm

An absolutely derisory sentence, seven months and out in half that, or
less if time was spent on remand.

No, derisory is some penalty points, discretionary disqualification
and a fine. (when motorists kill cyclists)

There really is little justice in that
sentence and it hands out an "it's OK to kill pensioners if you're on a
cycle" message.

Which matches the same message for motorists killing cyclists, or
indeed motorists killing anybody who is no longer around to put their
side of the story.


I had a wonderful example of the cyclist at his best this evening. I
went round to help out a friend on his far, because I can drive a
tractor I come in handy from time to time. It's harvest and everything
is very busy, epspecially because most of the grain is going to dryers.
When I'd finished I headed home, taking a route via the village of
Upham. Where I encountered some cyclists, the lycra variety. They were
riding down the road four to five abreast completely blocking it in both
directions. I hung back thinking that they would see sense and form a
single file - no they continued like that for the next three miles.

They seemed to think this was very funny. They also forced oncoming
vehicles to leave the road and enter farm gates while they passed. They
seemed to find that funny as well. What a wonderful example of "primary
position" that was, eh? What a charming bunch of individuals.

I spotted them later, loading their cycles on to the backs of their MPVs
and cars, most of which had logos from garages in a large city about 15
miles to the north. So, a bunch of townies make their way to the country
and think it's really funny to hold up the people who live here trying
to peacefully make their way home. What a charming bunch of individuals.

They are motorists.

"Mortimer" wrote in message
news .....
As a cyclist and a motorist, I think that the *ideal* situation would be
for all roads to have both a pavement for pedestrians and a cycle track,
so cyclists are segregated from motorists and don't cause an obstruction
to them, but are also segregated from pedestrians.

My Local Authority must have spent a lot of money building that along a
couple of miles of road, mostly 60mph, some 40mph and only just about wide
enough to qualify for a central white line. At busy times there can be a
constant stream of traffic in each direction. About one cyclist in three
still rides along the road..

Colin Bignell

GutterCyclist wrote:

They are motorists.

And you're a knuckle-dragging arsehole. Your point being?