Cycling on the pavement

A well thought out article.
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress...-the-pavement/

On 05/12/2011 16:53, Bertie Wooster wrote:

A well thought out article.
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress...-the-pavement/

Disingenuous, rather than well thought-out (though I don't deny that some
thought went into it).

That writer is , of course, trying to pull the wool over the reader's eyes.
This becomes very apparent in the very first paragraph when he complains
about an article written by a councillor attacking footway cycling. He
describes the councillor's article as "...an article that, for some reason,
decided to focus entirely on the dangers of ‘selfish cyclists’ who are using
pedestrianised areas in Horsham, and which simultaneously managed to ignore
completely the (acknowledged) dangers of reckless driving".

Of course, what he fails to mention is that that is not in any way a fault or
deficiency in the attack on footway cycling. One might as well complain that
articles attacking bad driving are deficient because they ignore the threat
of tsunami, earthquake, nuclear war and asteroid-strike. Or just imagine a
shoplifter attempting to justify himself by arguing that the person who has
apprehended him is ignoring the murder rate, not to mention genocide in
Rwanda or mass-murders in Syria.

When he says "In this companion piece, I’d like to revisit that article, and
take a closer look at why cyclists are using pavements and pedestrianised
areas in Horsham", he is missing the point by an astronomical unit. It simply
doesn't matter "why", any more than do the reasons proffered by drug dealers,
drunk drivers or vandal spray-painters for their anti-social behaviour.

The truth is that "the dangers of reckless driving" (whether acknowledged or
not) are nothing to do with the self-centred antics of footway cyclists and
one topic can only be connected with the other in a simplistic and
unintelligent way. And that is a better characterisation of the article than
calling it "well thought out".

On Dec 5, 5:26*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 05/12/2011 16:53, Bertie Wooster wrote:

A well thought out article.
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress...ling-on-the-pa...

Disingenuous, rather than well thought-out (though I don't deny that some
thought went into it).

Actually, it's very well thought out, you're making the fundamental
error of criticising from a driver's and pedestrian's point of view.
I'm not familiar with Horsham but similar layouts are found in dozens
of small towns, where the road network was redesigned in the sixties/
seventies to cater for increased volumes of motor traffic and the core
streets later pedestrianised. The combination marginalises the cyclist
who has to choose between a circuitous, unpleasant and possibly
dangerous road, and coming into conflict with pedestrians.

On 07/12/2011 11:39, NorthWalesYorkie wrote:

On Dec 5, 5:26 pm, wrote:
On 05/12/2011 16:53, Bertie Wooster wrote:

A well thought out article.
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress...ling-on-the-pa...

Disingenuous, rather than well thought-out (though I don't deny that some
thought went into it).

Actually, it's very well thought out, you're making the fundamental
error of criticising from a driver's and pedestrian's point of view.

Looking at it from the point of view of the vast majority who expect some
effort to comply with the law (especially law to protect pedestrians on
footways), you mean?

I'm not familiar with Horsham but similar layouts are found in dozens
of small towns, where the road network was redesigned in the sixties/
seventies to cater for increased volumes of motor traffic and the core
streets later pedestrianised. The combination marginalises the cyclist
who has to choose between a circuitous, unpleasant and possibly
dangerous road, and coming into conflict with pedestrians.

"Conflict with pedestrians" could mean almost anything (so it means nothing).

Cycling on the footway, or the wrong way along a one-way street, is an
offence, which is conflict with the law and an affront to the civilised norms
of society.

Be wary of admitting to uncivilised behaviour.

And it's not as though you can do it inadvertently.

On Dec 7, 12:34*pm, JNugent wrote:

"Conflict with pedestrians" could mean almost anything (so it means nothing).

dictionary.com can help you out here.

Cycling on the footway, or the wrong way along a one-way street, is an
offence, which is conflict with the law and an affront to the civilised norms
of society.

Which is why the needs of cyclists have to be accommodated along with
those of pedestrians and motorists.

Empathy with other road users isn't your strong point.

On 07/12/2011 14:12, NorthWalesYorkie wrote:

On Dec 7, 12:34 pm, wrote:

"Conflict with pedestrians" could mean almost anything (so it means nothing).

dictionary.com can help you out here.

Language isn't your strong point, clearly.

Cycling on the footway, or the wrong way along a one-way street, is an
offence, which is conflict with the law and an affront to the civilised norms
of society.

Which is why the needs of cyclists have to be accommodated along with
those of pedestrians and motorists.

Empathy with other road users isn't your strong point.

If you mean sympathy with people who can't understand and so disregard the
needs of pedestrians and who are only concerned with themselves, I agree.

On 07/12/2011 12:34, JNugent wrote:
On 07/12/2011 11:39, NorthWalesYorkie wrote:

On Dec 5, 5:26 pm, wrote:
On 05/12/2011 16:53, Bertie Wooster wrote:

A well thought out article.
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress...ling-on-the-pa...


Disingenuous, rather than well thought-out (though I don't deny that
some
thought went into it).

Actually, it's very well thought out, you're making the fundamental
error of criticising from a driver's and pedestrian's point of view.

Looking at it from the point of view of the vast majority who expect
some effort to comply with the law (especially law to protect
pedestrians on footways), you mean?

I'm not familiar with Horsham but similar layouts are found in dozens
of small towns, where the road network was redesigned in the sixties/
seventies to cater for increased volumes of motor traffic and the core
streets later pedestrianised. The combination marginalises the cyclist
who has to choose between a circuitous, unpleasant and possibly
dangerous road, and coming into conflict with pedestrians.

"Conflict with pedestrians" could mean almost anything (so it means
nothing).

Cycling on the footway, or the wrong way along a one-way street, is an
offence, which is conflict with the law and an affront to the civilised
norms of society.

Be wary of admitting to uncivilised behaviour.

And it's not as though you can do it inadvertently.

Oh please! Pavement cycling may well be illegal but is hardly serious
crime, when it is done courteously and respectfully.


--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

"Simon Weaseltemper" wrote in message
...
On 07/12/2011 12:34, JNugent wrote:
On 07/12/2011 11:39, NorthWalesYorkie wrote:

On Dec 5, 5:26 pm, wrote:
On 05/12/2011 16:53, Bertie Wooster wrote:

A well thought out article.
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress...ling-on-the-pa...


Disingenuous, rather than well thought-out (though I don't deny that
some
thought went into it).

Actually, it's very well thought out, you're making the fundamental
error of criticising from a driver's and pedestrian's point of view.

Looking at it from the point of view of the vast majority who expect
some effort to comply with the law (especially law to protect
pedestrians on footways), you mean?

I'm not familiar with Horsham but similar layouts are found in dozens
of small towns, where the road network was redesigned in the sixties/
seventies to cater for increased volumes of motor traffic and the core
streets later pedestrianised. The combination marginalises the cyclist
who has to choose between a circuitous, unpleasant and possibly
dangerous road, and coming into conflict with pedestrians.

"Conflict with pedestrians" could mean almost anything (so it means
nothing).

Cycling on the footway, or the wrong way along a one-way street, is an
offence, which is conflict with the law and an affront to the civilised
norms of society.

Be wary of admitting to uncivilised behaviour.

And it's not as though you can do it inadvertently.

Oh please! Pavement cycling may well be illegal but is hardly serious
crime, when it is done courteously and respectfully.

I agree, it can be done very safely. The problem is that many cyclists (1)
fail to slow down when passing pedestrians (2) fail to warn of their
approach using a bell or otherwise, especially when approaching from behind
the pedestrians.

You could equally argue that it is safe for a driver to break the speed
limit when done carefully. But I believe that the laws should be obeyed.

On 07/12/2011 14:22, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 07/12/2011 12:34, JNugent wrote:
On 07/12/2011 11:39, NorthWalesYorkie wrote:

On Dec 5, 5:26 pm, wrote:
On 05/12/2011 16:53, Bertie Wooster wrote:

A well thought out article.
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress...ling-on-the-pa...


Disingenuous, rather than well thought-out (though I don't deny that
some
thought went into it).

Actually, it's very well thought out, you're making the fundamental
error of criticising from a driver's and pedestrian's point of view.

Looking at it from the point of view of the vast majority who expect
some effort to comply with the law (especially law to protect
pedestrians on footways), you mean?

I'm not familiar with Horsham but similar layouts are found in dozens
of small towns, where the road network was redesigned in the sixties/
seventies to cater for increased volumes of motor traffic and the core
streets later pedestrianised. The combination marginalises the cyclist
who has to choose between a circuitous, unpleasant and possibly
dangerous road, and coming into conflict with pedestrians.

"Conflict with pedestrians" could mean almost anything (so it means
nothing).

Cycling on the footway, or the wrong way along a one-way street, is an
offence, which is conflict with the law and an affront to the civilised
norms of society.

Be wary of admitting to uncivilised behaviour.

And it's not as though you can do it inadvertently.

Oh please! Pavement cycling may well be illegal but is hardly serious crime,
when it is done courteously and respectfully.

"Serious crime"?

Where does that string occur in my post?

I said it was [in] coflict with the law (the PP apparently doesn't like
conflict) and an affront to the civilised norms of society.

Which of those is in any way inaccurate?

On Dec 7, 12:34*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 07/12/2011 11:39, NorthWalesYorkie wrote:

On Dec 5, 5:26 pm, *wrote:
On 05/12/2011 16:53, Bertie Wooster wrote:
A well thought out article.
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress...ling-on-the-pa....

Disingenuous, rather than well thought-out (though I don't deny that some
thought went into it).
Actually, it's very well thought out, you're making the fundamental
error of criticising from a driver's and pedestrian's point of view.

Looking at it from the point of view of the vast majority who expect some
effort to comply with the law (especially law to protect pedestrians on
footways), you mean?

I'm not familiar with Horsham but similar layouts are found in dozens
of small towns, where the road network was redesigned in the sixties/
seventies to cater for increased volumes of motor traffic and the core
streets later pedestrianised. The combination marginalises the cyclist
who has to choose between a circuitous, unpleasant and possibly
dangerous road, and coming into conflict with pedestrians.

"Conflict with pedestrians" could mean almost anything (so it means nothing).

Cycling on the footway, or the wrong way along a one-way street, is an
offence, which is conflict with the law and an affront to the civilised norms
of society.

Be wary of admitting to uncivilised behaviour.

And it's not as though you can do it inadvertently.

OTOH motoring on pavements is sometimes quite legal, despite it being
anti-social and sometimes dangerous, but we seldom hear about pavement
motoring on this NG, despite it being widespread and more numerous
than pavement cycling. The reason for this is not far to seek. In this
country we have a majority motoring mob who dominate every aspect of
society, including government, the justice system and police, etc.
That is why motorists are allowed to cross pavements with their highly
dangerous machines and often drive onto, along and park on pavements,
to the detriment of pedestrian and cyclist convenience and safety.

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