Why do they do it

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/8177179./

"Marie" wrote in message
...
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/8177179./

Why? Perhaps it is because they are too scared to use the roads. ISTM a daft
idea to go cycling through busy pedestrianised areas when there are plenty
of proper roads to use.

On Sun, 23 May 2010 20:32:51 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"Marie" wrote in message
...
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/8177179./

Why? Perhaps it is because they are too scared to use the roads. ISTM a daft
idea to go cycling through busy pedestrianised areas when there are plenty
of proper roads to use.

What if they want to access a shop in a busy pedestrian area?

It seems absurd that motor vehicles are permitted to access shops in
busy pedestrian areas but not mounted cyclists.

Vehicles routinely permitted to access shops in busy pedestrian areas
include:
Post office vans;
Builders' vans;
Cash collection vehicles;
Police vehicles on non-emergency calls;
Certain tradesmen's vans;
Council vehicles.

If it is too dangerous for cyclists to use busy pedestrian areas,
surely it is too dangerous for these vehicles to use the busy
pedestrian area during peak times. Perhaps they could be restricted to
2am to 5am if vehicular access is required.

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 20:32:51 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"Marie" wrote in message
...
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/8177179./

Why? Perhaps it is because they are too scared to use the roads.
ISTM a daft idea to go cycling through busy pedestrianised areas
when there are plenty of proper roads to use.

What if they want to access a shop in a busy pedestrian area?

It seems absurd that motor vehicles are permitted to access shops in
busy pedestrian areas but not mounted cyclists.

Vehicles routinely permitted to access shops in busy pedestrian areas
include:
Post office vans;
Builders' vans;
Cash collection vehicles;
Police vehicles on non-emergency calls;
Certain tradesmen's vans;
Council vehicles.

If it is too dangerous for cyclists to use busy pedestrian areas,
surely it is too dangerous for these vehicles to use the busy
pedestrian area during peak times. Perhaps they could be restricted to
2am to 5am if vehicular access is required.

motorised vehicles make a noise and at low speeds will not hurt very much,
cycles are invariably pointy, silent and ridden too fast in pedestrian
areas.

Tom Crispin wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 20:32:51 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"Marie" wrote in message
...
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/8177179./

Why? Perhaps it is because they are too scared to use the roads. ISTM a daft
idea to go cycling through busy pedestrianised areas when there are plenty
of proper roads to use.

What if they want to access a shop in a busy pedestrian area?

It seems absurd that motor vehicles are permitted to access shops in
busy pedestrian areas but not mounted cyclists.

Vehicles routinely permitted to access shops in busy pedestrian areas
include:
Post office vans;
Builders' vans;
Cash collection vehicles;
Police vehicles on non-emergency calls;
Certain tradesmen's vans;
Council vehicles.

If it is too dangerous for cyclists to use busy pedestrian areas,
surely it is too dangerous for these vehicles to use the busy
pedestrian area during peak times. Perhaps they could be restricted to
2am to 5am if vehicular access is required.

you can just walk the bike. after all even mounted you'll be at walking
pace or slower any way.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On Sun, 23 May 2010 21:13:52 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Sun, 23 May 2010 20:32:51 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"Marie" wrote in message
...
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/8177179./

Why? Perhaps it is because they are too scared to use the roads. ISTM a daft
idea to go cycling through busy pedestrianised areas when there are plenty
of proper roads to use.

What if they want to access a shop in a busy pedestrian area?


Get off and walk would be much too easy.

I see it is mainly kids : I blame the teachers - low standards of,
etc
--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.

The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)

Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Sun, 23 May 2010
21:58:04 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 20:32:51 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"Marie" wrote in message
...
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/8177179./

Why? Perhaps it is because they are too scared to use the roads.
ISTM a daft idea to go cycling through busy pedestrianised areas
when there are plenty of proper roads to use.

What if they want to access a shop in a busy pedestrian area?

It seems absurd that motor vehicles are permitted to access shops in
busy pedestrian areas but not mounted cyclists.

Vehicles routinely permitted to access shops in busy pedestrian
areas include:
Post office vans;
Builders' vans;
Cash collection vehicles;
Police vehicles on non-emergency calls;
Certain tradesmen's vans;
Council vehicles.

If it is too dangerous for cyclists to use busy pedestrian areas,
surely it is too dangerous for these vehicles to use the busy
pedestrian area during peak times. Perhaps they could be restricted
to 2am to 5am if vehicular access is required.

motorised vehicles make a noise and at low speeds will not hurt very
much, cycles are invariably pointy, silent and ridden too fast in
pedestrian areas.

That would explain why so many more pedestrians are killed and
seriously injured by bicycles than cars then?

Unfortunately for what passes for logic in the thing you fondly
imagine to be a mind, the reverse is true.

For any one too thick to understand it: My comment was regarding delivery
type vehicles in a pedestrian area and why they are not regarded as a great
danger.

On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:27:19 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Sun, 23 May 2010
21:58:04 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 20:32:51 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"Marie" wrote in message
...
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/8177179./

Why? Perhaps it is because they are too scared to use the roads.
ISTM a daft idea to go cycling through busy pedestrianised areas
when there are plenty of proper roads to use.

What if they want to access a shop in a busy pedestrian area?

It seems absurd that motor vehicles are permitted to access shops in
busy pedestrian areas but not mounted cyclists.

Vehicles routinely permitted to access shops in busy pedestrian
areas include:
Post office vans;
Builders' vans;
Cash collection vehicles;
Police vehicles on non-emergency calls;
Certain tradesmen's vans;
Council vehicles.

If it is too dangerous for cyclists to use busy pedestrian areas,
surely it is too dangerous for these vehicles to use the busy
pedestrian area during peak times. Perhaps they could be restricted
to 2am to 5am if vehicular access is required.

motorised vehicles make a noise and at low speeds will not hurt very
much, cycles are invariably pointy, silent and ridden too fast in
pedestrian areas.

That would explain why so many more pedestrians are killed and
seriously injured by bicycles than cars then?

Unfortunately for what passes for logic in the thing you fondly
imagine to be a mind, the reverse is true.

For any one too thick to understand it: My comment was regarding delivery
type vehicles in a pedestrian area and why they are not regarded as a great
danger.

Have you any figures to back that up?

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:27:19 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Phil W Lee wrote:
"Mrcheerful" considered Sun, 23 May 2010
21:58:04 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 23 May 2010 20:32:51 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"Marie" wrote in message
...
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/8177179./

Why? Perhaps it is because they are too scared to use the roads.
ISTM a daft idea to go cycling through busy pedestrianised areas
when there are plenty of proper roads to use.

What if they want to access a shop in a busy pedestrian area?

It seems absurd that motor vehicles are permitted to access shops
in busy pedestrian areas but not mounted cyclists.

Vehicles routinely permitted to access shops in busy pedestrian
areas include:
Post office vans;
Builders' vans;
Cash collection vehicles;
Police vehicles on non-emergency calls;
Certain tradesmen's vans;
Council vehicles.

If it is too dangerous for cyclists to use busy pedestrian areas,
surely it is too dangerous for these vehicles to use the busy
pedestrian area during peak times. Perhaps they could be
restricted to 2am to 5am if vehicular access is required.

motorised vehicles make a noise and at low speeds will not hurt
very much, cycles are invariably pointy, silent and ridden too
fast in pedestrian areas.

That would explain why so many more pedestrians are killed and
seriously injured by bicycles than cars then?

Unfortunately for what passes for logic in the thing you fondly
imagine to be a mind, the reverse is true.

For any one too thick to understand it: My comment was regarding
delivery type vehicles in a pedestrian area and why they are not
regarded as a great danger.

Have you any figures to back that up?

I don't need figures (Doug)

On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:17:43 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

For any one too thick to understand it: My comment was regarding
delivery type vehicles in a pedestrian area and why they are not
regarded as a great danger.

Have you any figures to back that up?

I don't need figures (Doug)

In that case I will claim that, mile for mile, motor vehicles driven
in pedestrian areas are more likely to cause death or serious injury
than bicycles.