A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Children injured on pavement by motorist.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old September 27th 09, 10:33 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Mike P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 182
Default Children injured on pavement by motorist.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:26:52 -0700, Doug wrote:

It's only possible for you to say that because you are knowingly and
intentionally comparing two completely different sets of things (one set
deliberate and one set involuntary) and pretending that they are either

the
same thing or that they are somehow related to each other. They aren't.


If a car is on a pavement for any reason it has been driven there. How
is the distance travelled on the pavement in any way important? The
cyclist doesn't intend to collide with a pedestrian and neither does a
motorist but the harm done by the latter is much greater. So why do we
always hear rants about cycling on pavements and seldom about driving
on pavements?


Doug, the big difference is that when a car collides with someone on the
pavement, it is almost always because the driver has lost control of the
vehicle *on the road* and ended up on the pavement *involuntarily*. In
all the cases I've heard of cyclist crashing into pedestrians, the
cyclist has been on the pavement already *out of choice*. There is a
massive difference.

Mike P
Ads
  #32  
Old September 27th 09, 11:35 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Tony Dragon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,715
Default Children injured on pavement by motorist.

Mike P wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:26:52 -0700, Doug wrote:

It's only possible for you to say that because you are knowingly and
intentionally comparing two completely different sets of things (one set
deliberate and one set involuntary) and pretending that they are either

the
same thing or that they are somehow related to each other. They aren't.


If a car is on a pavement for any reason it has been driven there. How
is the distance travelled on the pavement in any way important? The
cyclist doesn't intend to collide with a pedestrian and neither does a
motorist but the harm done by the latter is much greater. So why do we
always hear rants about cycling on pavements and seldom about driving
on pavements?


Doug, the big difference is that when a car collides with someone on the
pavement, it is almost always because the driver has lost control of the
vehicle *on the road* and ended up on the pavement *involuntarily*. In
all the cases I've heard of cyclist crashing into pedestrians, the
cyclist has been on the pavement already *out of choice*. There is a
massive difference.

Mike P


Doug, can you tell us, do you cycle on the footway, a yes or no answer
would be ok.

--

Tony Dragon
  #33  
Old September 27th 09, 11:44 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
GutterCyclist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default Children injured on pavement by motorist.

On 26 Sep, 09:19, "Bill" wrote:
"PeterG" wrote in message

...
On Sep 26, 8:16 am, Doug wrote:



A bicycle on a pavement could not possibly cause as much carnage as
this car and yet cycling on pavements is all we ever hear about.


"Seven children were being treated in hospital after a car ploughed
into a school group in a village.


A 40-year-old woman was arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving
following the incident in Worlingham, Suffolk, this afternoon.


A police spokeswoman said two of the children, were seriously injured,
with one having two broken legs.
8 children injured after car hit them in Worlingham


The youngsters, aged nine or ten, were hit by the car as they stood
outside All Saints' Church in the village shortly before 2pm. A 21-
year-old man going to a funeral at the time of the incident was also
hurt...


...School headteacher Mike Croft said the youngsters were year five
pupils on a supervised walk aimed at introducing them to the local
area.


He said around 20 pupils - plus a female teacher and female teaching
assistant - were walking past the village church on a pavement when
the accident happened shortly before 2pm..."


Read
mohttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hildren-injure...


--
UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.


So you are saying that the motorist delibratly drove on the pavement?

PeterG

On the Anglia News last night that suggestion was made. *The accident
occured outside a church where a funeral was taking place and it was mooted
that she mounted the pavement to get round the funeral vehicles. *I can't
say it for a fact, but I am sure that more details will eventually come out.

Bill


Apparently the funeral itself was for a road crash victim. So it goes.

Of course, if the school had taken the children around the village in
a couple of cars they would have avoided all this, err, wouldn't they?
It makes yer think.

  #34  
Old September 27th 09, 12:17 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
GutterCyclist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default Children injured on pavement by motorist.

On 27 Sep, 10:33, Mike P wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:26:52 -0700, Doug wrote:
It's only possible for you to say that because you are knowingly and
intentionally comparing two completely different sets of things (one set
deliberate and one set involuntary) and pretending that they are either

the
same thing or that they are somehow related to each other. They aren't.
If a car is on a pavement for any reason it has been driven there. How
is the distance travelled on the pavement in any way important? The
cyclist doesn't intend to collide with a pedestrian and neither does a
motorist but the harm done by the latter is much greater. So why do we
always hear rants about cycling on pavements and seldom about driving
on pavements?


Doug, the big difference is that when a car collides with someone on the
pavement, it is almost always because the driver has lost control of the
vehicle *on the road* and ended up on the pavement *involuntarily*. In
all the cases I've heard of cyclist crashing into pedestrians, the
cyclist has been on the pavement already *out of choice*. There is a
massive difference.


So you mean:-

"Lost control" â‰* "out of choice" = not the motorist's fault
"Involuntarily" â‰* "out of choice" = not the motorist's fault

It must be comforting to the victims, and to motorists, of course.



  #35  
Old September 27th 09, 12:41 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Mike P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 182
Default Children injured on pavement by motorist.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 04:17:33 -0700, GutterCyclist wrote:

On 27 Sep, 10:33, Mike P wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:26:52 -0700, Doug wrote:
It's only possible for you to say that because you are knowingly and
intentionally comparing two completely different sets of things (one
set deliberate and one set involuntary) and pretending that they are
either

the
same thing or that they are somehow related to each other. They
aren't.
If a car is on a pavement for any reason it has been driven there. How
is the distance travelled on the pavement in any way important? The
cyclist doesn't intend to collide with a pedestrian and neither does a
motorist but the harm done by the latter is much greater. So why do we
always hear rants about cycling on pavements and seldom about driving
on pavements?


Doug, the big difference is that when a car collides with someone on
the pavement, it is almost always because the driver has lost control
of the vehicle *on the road* and ended up on the pavement
*involuntarily*. In all the cases I've heard of cyclist crashing into
pedestrians, the cyclist has been on the pavement already *out of
choice*. There is a massive difference.


So you mean:-

"Lost control" â‰* "out of choice" = not the motorist's fault
"Involuntarily" â‰* "out of choice" = not the motorist's fault


That's clearly not what I meant.

It must be comforting to the victims, and to motorists, of course.


You are apparently as much of a ****wit as Bollen.

Mike P
  #36  
Old September 27th 09, 12:46 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Tony Dragon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,715
Default Children injured on pavement by motorist.

GutterCyclist wrote:
On 27 Sep, 10:33, Mike P wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:26:52 -0700, Doug wrote:
It's only possible for you to say that because you are knowingly and
intentionally comparing two completely different sets of things (one set
deliberate and one set involuntary) and pretending that they are either

the
same thing or that they are somehow related to each other. They aren't.
If a car is on a pavement for any reason it has been driven there. How
is the distance travelled on the pavement in any way important? The
cyclist doesn't intend to collide with a pedestrian and neither does a
motorist but the harm done by the latter is much greater. So why do we
always hear rants about cycling on pavements and seldom about driving
on pavements?

Doug, the big difference is that when a car collides with someone on the
pavement, it is almost always because the driver has lost control of the
vehicle *on the road* and ended up on the pavement *involuntarily*. In
all the cases I've heard of cyclist crashing into pedestrians, the
cyclist has been on the pavement already *out of choice*. There is a
massive difference.


So you mean:-

"Lost control" â‰* "out of choice" = not the motorist's fault
"Involuntarily" â‰* "out of choice" = not the motorist's fault

It must be comforting to the victims, and to motorists, of course.




Would you say there is a difference in a cyclist deciding to ride on the
footway & a cyclist who hit a pothole & while regaining control rode on
the footway?

--

Tony Dragon
  #37  
Old September 27th 09, 03:51 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
JNugent[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,985
Default Children injured on pavement by motorist.

GutterCyclist wrote:
On 27 Sep, 10:33, Mike P wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:26:52 -0700, Doug wrote:
It's only possible for you to say that because you are knowingly and
intentionally comparing two completely different sets of things (one set
deliberate and one set involuntary) and pretending that they are either

the
same thing or that they are somehow related to each other. They aren't.
If a car is on a pavement for any reason it has been driven there. How
is the distance travelled on the pavement in any way important? The
cyclist doesn't intend to collide with a pedestrian and neither does a
motorist but the harm done by the latter is much greater. So why do we
always hear rants about cycling on pavements and seldom about driving
on pavements?

Doug, the big difference is that when a car collides with someone on the
pavement, it is almost always because the driver has lost control of the
vehicle *on the road* and ended up on the pavement *involuntarily*. In
all the cases I've heard of cyclist crashing into pedestrians, the
cyclist has been on the pavement already *out of choice*. There is a
massive difference.


So you mean:-
"Lost control" â‰* "out of choice" = not the motorist's fault
"Involuntarily" â‰* "out of choice" = not the motorist's fault


A court might decide that the loss of control was the driver's fault
(especially and obviously if it occurred due to a blameworthy defect in the
vehicle or due to blameworthy incapacity on the part of the driver, such as
being under the influence of drink or drugs), but there would not usually be
any question of the vehicle's being on the footway deliberately. Or there
might be no blame attached to the driver (eg, if he was suddenly injured in a
crash or hit by a missile, was faced with having to serve to avoid something
suddenly appearing in his path or his vehicle was deflected from its intended
path by a collision).

But you already know all this.

It must be comforting to the victims, and to motorists, of course.


Trying to pretend that black is white and vice-versa is obviously comforting
to arrogant footway cyclists; that much is certain.
  #38  
Old September 27th 09, 04:36 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Doug[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,927
Default Children injured on pavement by motorist.

On 27 Sep, 11:44, GutterCyclist wrote:
On 26 Sep, 09:19, "Bill" wrote:



"PeterG" wrote in message


....
On Sep 26, 8:16 am, Doug wrote:


A bicycle on a pavement could not possibly cause as much carnage as
this car and yet cycling on pavements is all we ever hear about.


"Seven children were being treated in hospital after a car ploughed
into a school group in a village.


A 40-year-old woman was arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving
following the incident in Worlingham, Suffolk, this afternoon.


A police spokeswoman said two of the children, were seriously injured,
with one having two broken legs.
8 children injured after car hit them in Worlingham


The youngsters, aged nine or ten, were hit by the car as they stood
outside All Saints' Church in the village shortly before 2pm. A 21-
year-old man going to a funeral at the time of the incident was also
hurt...


...School headteacher Mike Croft said the youngsters were year five
pupils on a supervised walk aimed at introducing them to the local
area.


He said around 20 pupils - plus a female teacher and female teaching
assistant - were walking past the village church on a pavement when
the accident happened shortly before 2pm..."


Read
mohttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hildren-injure...


--
UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.


So you are saying that the motorist delibratly drove on the pavement?


PeterG


On the Anglia News last night that suggestion was made. *The accident
occured outside a church where a funeral was taking place and it was mooted
that she mounted the pavement to get round the funeral vehicles. *I can't
say it for a fact, but I am sure that more details will eventually come out.


Bill


Apparently the funeral itself was for a road crash victim. So it goes.

Of course, if the school had taken the children around the village in
a couple of cars they would have avoided all this, err, wouldn't they?
It makes yer think.

No children can be killed inside cars as well as outside them. In
fact, transporting children at high speeds in an inadequately
controlled car is a highly dangerous practice.

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

  #39  
Old September 27th 09, 05:08 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
GutterCyclist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default Children injured on pavement by motorist.

On 27 Sep, 12:46, Tony Dragon wrote:
GutterCyclist wrote:
On 27 Sep, 10:33, Mike P wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:26:52 -0700, Doug wrote:
It's only possible for you to say that because you are knowingly and
intentionally comparing two completely different sets of things (one set
deliberate and one set involuntary) and pretending that they are either
the
same thing or that they are somehow related to each other. They aren't.

  #40  
Old September 27th 09, 05:11 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
GutterCyclist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default Children injured on pavement by motorist.

On 27 Sep, 15:51, JNugent wrote:
GutterCyclist wrote:
On 27 Sep, 10:33, Mike P wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:26:52 -0700, Doug wrote:
It's only possible for you to say that because you are knowingly and
intentionally comparing two completely different sets of things (one set
deliberate and one set involuntary) and pretending that they are either
the
same thing or that they are somehow related to each other. They aren't.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Two pavement deaths by killer motorist who also destroyed a wall Doug[_3_] UK 31 February 27th 09 06:25 PM
[OT] Pavement rage. Martin[_2_] UK 1 August 27th 08 03:28 AM
Pavement motorist admits offence David Hansen UK 14 September 14th 07 04:21 PM
Motorist drives along pavement David Hansen UK 96 April 6th 06 06:45 PM
Get on the pavement! Just zis Guy, you know? UK 49 June 26th 05 09:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.