Pavement cyclist kills OAP

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:08:19 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 13/06/2014 09:49, Peter Keller wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:25:00 +0100, Judith wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:28:12 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

The death toll is mounting, when will this menace be stopped?

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...jun/11/police-
hunt-pavement-cyclist-who-killed-81-year-old-woman-in-oldham


It is time there was a real effort by the police to clamp down on
cyclists on footpaths - with a large fine.

Not ours.
They are too busy nicking bicyclists without helmets.
Now how does a bicyclist wearing a helmet save a knocked down OAP?

There is the issue of instilling a respect for law and the rioghts of
others - even if only a grudging one - in the lawless.

Nicking bicyclists for not wearing helmets is not designed to instill
respect for the law.
Nicking bicyclists for behaviour increasing the chances of serious injury
to others is another matter.

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:14:54 +0100, Big Les Wade wrote:

Peter Keller posted
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:25:00 +0100, Judith wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:28:12 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

The death toll is mounting, when will this menace be stopped?

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...jun/11/police-
hunt-pavement-cyclist-who-killed-81-year-old-woman-in-oldham


It is time there was a real effort by the police to clamp down on
cyclists on footpaths - with a large fine.

Not ours.
They are too busy nicking bicyclists without helmets.
Now how does a bicyclist wearing a helmet save a knocked down OAP?

Evidently you are not in the UK?

Shows how ****ed up some countries are.

On 14/06/2014 09:05, Peter Keller wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:08:19 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 13/06/2014 09:49, Peter Keller wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:25:00 +0100, Judith wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:28:12 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

The death toll is mounting, when will this menace be stopped?

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...jun/11/police-
hunt-pavement-cyclist-who-killed-81-year-old-woman-in-oldham


It is time there was a real effort by the police to clamp down on
cyclists on footpaths - with a large fine.

Not ours.
They are too busy nicking bicyclists without helmets.
Now how does a bicyclist wearing a helmet save a knocked down OAP?

There is the issue of instilling a respect for law and the rioghts of
others - even if only a grudging one - in the lawless.

Nicking bicyclists for not wearing helmets is not designed to instill
respect for the law.
Nicking bicyclists for behaviour increasing the chances of serious injury
to others is another matter.


It is the broken window syndrome, ignore one bit of lawbreaking and the
scale will escalate.

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:11:31 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

On 14/06/2014 09:05, Peter Keller wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:08:19 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 13/06/2014 09:49, Peter Keller wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:25:00 +0100, Judith wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:28:12 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

The death toll is mounting, when will this menace be stopped?

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...jun/11/police-
hunt-pavement-cyclist-who-killed-81-year-old-woman-in-oldham


It is time there was a real effort by the police to clamp down on
cyclists on footpaths - with a large fine.

Not ours.
They are too busy nicking bicyclists without helmets.
Now how does a bicyclist wearing a helmet save a knocked down OAP?

There is the issue of instilling a respect for law and the rioghts of
others - even if only a grudging one - in the lawless.

Nicking bicyclists for not wearing helmets is not designed to instill
respect for the law.
Nicking bicyclists for behaviour increasing the chances of serious injury
to others is another matter.


It is the broken window syndrome, ignore one bit of lawbreaking and the
scale will escalate.

So you would encourage the police to have zero tolerance to all road
traffic offences, including cyclists on the footway and speeding
motorists?

On 14/06/2014 09:05, Peter Keller wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 13/06/2014 09:49, Peter Keller wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:25:00 +0100, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:28:12 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

The death toll is mounting, when will this menace be stopped?

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...jun/11/police-
hunt-pavement-cyclist-who-killed-81-year-old-woman-in-oldham

It is time there was a real effort by the police to clamp down on
cyclists on footpaths - with a large fine.

Not ours.
They are too busy nicking bicyclists without helmets.
Now how does a bicyclist wearing a helmet save a knocked down OAP?

There is the issue of instilling a respect for law and the rioghts of
others - even if only a grudging one - in the lawless.

Nicking bicyclists for not wearing helmets is not designed to instill
respect for the law.

Nevertheless, it is a side effect.

Nicking bicyclists for behaviour increasing the chances of serious injury
to others is another matter.

Much traffic law is aimed at preventing injury to road-users in general,
including the prevention of injury solely to the offender.

On 14/06/2014 09:11, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 14/06/2014 09:05, Peter Keller wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:08:19 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 13/06/2014 09:49, Peter Keller wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:25:00 +0100, Judith wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:28:12 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

The death toll is mounting, when will this menace be stopped?

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...jun/11/police-
hunt-pavement-cyclist-who-killed-81-year-old-woman-in-oldham


It is time there was a real effort by the police to clamp down on
cyclists on footpaths - with a large fine.

Not ours.
They are too busy nicking bicyclists without helmets.
Now how does a bicyclist wearing a helmet save a knocked down OAP?

There is the issue of instilling a respect for law and the rioghts of
others - even if only a grudging one - in the lawless.

Nicking bicyclists for not wearing helmets is not designed to instill
respect for the law.
Nicking bicyclists for behaviour increasing the chances of serious injury
to others is another matter.

It is the broken window syndrome, ignore one bit of lawbreaking and the
scale will escalate.

Exactly.

Zero tolerance has worked well where attempted.

On 14/06/2014 11:27, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:11:31 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

On 14/06/2014 09:05, Peter Keller wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:08:19 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 13/06/2014 09:49, Peter Keller wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:25:00 +0100, Judith wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:28:12 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

The death toll is mounting, when will this menace be stopped?

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...jun/11/police-
hunt-pavement-cyclist-who-killed-81-year-old-woman-in-oldham


It is time there was a real effort by the police to clamp down on
cyclists on footpaths - with a large fine.

Not ours.
They are too busy nicking bicyclists without helmets.
Now how does a bicyclist wearing a helmet save a knocked down OAP?

There is the issue of instilling a respect for law and the rioghts of
others - even if only a grudging one - in the lawless.

Nicking bicyclists for not wearing helmets is not designed to instill
respect for the law.
Nicking bicyclists for behaviour increasing the chances of serious injury
to others is another matter.


It is the broken window syndrome, ignore one bit of lawbreaking and the
scale will escalate.

So you would encourage the police to have zero tolerance to all road
traffic offences, including cyclists on the footway and speeding
motorists?

As has been observed before, cycling along the footway is an offence
which is easily identified. If the cyclist is cycling along, and he's
cycling along a footway reserved for pedestrians, he's breaking the law.
There are no other considerations - it's absolute.

"Offences" of gradation, eg, moving along a 30mph carriageway at 30.1
mph, are rather more difficult to detect, even for the driver
information equipment of the vehicle concerned. For that reason, a
certain amount of marginal leeway is allowed as a matter of legal
expediency - and as a matter of justice. Driving along Colchester High
Street at 29.9mph is permissible, doing the same at 30.1 is
theoretically not, but only those with a screw loose would claim that it
ought to be punished or even that any effort be made to detect it.

No such leeway is needed with absolute offences such as:

- driving with a defective tyre, or
- driving with no insurance, or
- driving with no road tax, or
- driving with no MOT certificate, or
- cycling along a footway, or
- cycling the wrong way along a one-way street, or
- driving or cycling through a red traffic light, or
- driving or cycling at night without use of mandated vehicle lights.

There are no measurement difficulties with these offences. If they have
been witnessed, they have been committed. And the driving offences
mentioned in that list - absolute offences - are the correct comparators
for "cycling along the footway" (a particularly mean-spirited,
self-centred, anti-social and absolute offence).

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:11:32 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 14/06/2014 11:27, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:11:31 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

On 14/06/2014 09:05, Peter Keller wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:08:19 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 13/06/2014 09:49, Peter Keller wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:25:00 +0100, Judith wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:28:12 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

The death toll is mounting, when will this menace be stopped?

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...jun/11/police-
hunt-pavement-cyclist-who-killed-81-year-old-woman-in-oldham


It is time there was a real effort by the police to clamp down on
cyclists on footpaths - with a large fine.

Not ours.
They are too busy nicking bicyclists without helmets.
Now how does a bicyclist wearing a helmet save a knocked down OAP?

There is the issue of instilling a respect for law and the rioghts of
others - even if only a grudging one - in the lawless.

Nicking bicyclists for not wearing helmets is not designed to instill
respect for the law.
Nicking bicyclists for behaviour increasing the chances of serious injury
to others is another matter.


It is the broken window syndrome, ignore one bit of lawbreaking and the
scale will escalate.

So you would encourage the police to have zero tolerance to all road
traffic offences, including cyclists on the footway and speeding
motorists?

As has been observed before, cycling along the footway is an offence
which is easily identified. If the cyclist is cycling along, and he's
cycling along a footway reserved for pedestrians, he's breaking the law.
There are no other considerations - it's absolute.

"Offences" of gradation, eg, moving along a 30mph carriageway at 30.1
mph, are rather more difficult to detect, even for the driver
information equipment of the vehicle concerned. For that reason, a
certain amount of marginal leeway is allowed as a matter of legal
expediency - and as a matter of justice. Driving along Colchester High
Street at 29.9mph is permissible, doing the same at 30.1 is
theoretically not, but only those with a screw loose would claim that it
ought to be punished or even that any effort be made to detect it.

It is not very kind of you to suggest that MrCheerful might have a
screw loose.

No such leeway is needed with absolute offences such as:

- driving with a defective tyre, or
1.61mm of tread is OK whereas 1.59 is not...
- driving with no insurance, or
- driving with no road tax, or
- driving with no MOT certificate, or
- cycling along a footway, or
What about mounting the kerb and driving on the footway when turning?
- cycling the wrong way along a one-way street, or
What is a legally allowed distance to reverse into a parking space on
a one way street?
- driving or cycling through a red traffic light, or
- driving or cycling at night without use of mandated vehicle lights.

There are no measurement difficulties with these offences. If they have
been witnessed, they have been committed. And the driving offences
mentioned in that list - absolute offences - are the correct comparators
for "cycling along the footway" (a particularly mean-spirited,
self-centred, anti-social and absolute offence).

On 14/06/2014 14:21, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:11:32 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 14/06/2014 11:27, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:11:31 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

On 14/06/2014 09:05, Peter Keller wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:08:19 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 13/06/2014 09:49, Peter Keller wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:25:00 +0100, Judith wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:28:12 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

The death toll is mounting, when will this menace be stopped?

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...jun/11/police-
hunt-pavement-cyclist-who-killed-81-year-old-woman-in-oldham


It is time there was a real effort by the police to clamp down on
cyclists on footpaths - with a large fine.

Not ours.
They are too busy nicking bicyclists without helmets.
Now how does a bicyclist wearing a helmet save a knocked down OAP?

There is the issue of instilling a respect for law and the rioghts of
others - even if only a grudging one - in the lawless.

Nicking bicyclists for not wearing helmets is not designed to instill
respect for the law.
Nicking bicyclists for behaviour increasing the chances of serious injury
to others is another matter.


It is the broken window syndrome, ignore one bit of lawbreaking and the
scale will escalate.

So you would encourage the police to have zero tolerance to all road
traffic offences, including cyclists on the footway and speeding
motorists?

As has been observed before, cycling along the footway is an offence
which is easily identified. If the cyclist is cycling along, and he's
cycling along a footway reserved for pedestrians, he's breaking the law.
There are no other considerations - it's absolute.

"Offences" of gradation, eg, moving along a 30mph carriageway at 30.1
mph, are rather more difficult to detect, even for the driver
information equipment of the vehicle concerned. For that reason, a
certain amount of marginal leeway is allowed as a matter of legal
expediency - and as a matter of justice. Driving along Colchester High
Street at 29.9mph is permissible, doing the same at 30.1 is
theoretically not, but only those with a screw loose would claim that it
ought to be punished or even that any effort be made to detect it.

It is not very kind of you to suggest that MrCheerful might have a
screw loose.

I suggested nothing of the kind with the above. My reference was very
clearly to whoever wrote: "So you would encourage the police to have
zero tolerance to all road traffic offences, including ... speeding
motorists?".

Many writers lose perspective on that issue and start comparing apples
with oranges.

No such leeway is needed with absolute offences such as:

- driving with a defective tyre, or
1.61mm of tread is OK whereas 1.59 is not...

The defect may ne one of a number of things.

- driving with no insurance, or
- driving with no road tax, or
- driving with no MOT certificate, or
- cycling along a footway, or

What about mounting the kerb and driving on the footway when turning?

Is that an offence?

- cycling the wrong way along a one-way street, or

What is a legally allowed distance to reverse into a parking space on
a one way street?

Whatever is reasonably necessary. It's provided for in law, as you
probably know.

Why are you trying to scrape the bottom of a bone-dry barrel? Surely you
are not being so stupid as to try to claim that because a driver may
reverse a few feet or yards into a parking space, that means it's
acceptable for a cyclist to cycle the wrong way in a one-way street?

- driving or cycling through a red traffic light, or
- driving or cycling at night without use of mandated vehicle lights.

There are no measurement difficulties with these offences. If they have
been witnessed, they have been committed. And the driving offences
mentioned in that list - absolute offences - are the correct comparators
for "cycling along the footway" (a particularly mean-spirited,
self-centred, anti-social and absolute offence).

I'm glad you agree.

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:05:25 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
wrote:

snip


Nicking bicyclists for not wearing helmets is not designed to instill
respect for the law.
Nicking bicyclists for behaviour increasing the chances of serious injury
to others is another matter.


It looks like what laws a cyclist chooses to obey is also optional in NZ.