|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Pavement cyclist kills OAP
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:45:58 +0100, JNugent
wrote: 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? You need to ask? - 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. Is reversing 2m ok? what about 2.01m? 3.59m? 10.67m? 40.154m? You get the idea? 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? Perhaps it depends how far? - 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. I felt I'd proved the converse already. But perhaps you can answer my questions above. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Pavement cyclist kills OAP
Judith wrote:
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. What happened to that ratbag poster that used to go on about pavement motorists? has he carked it? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Pavement cyclist kills OAP
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...g/2014/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. Not proven. Crime rates in New York were already declining before the Broken Window policy came into force. http://bit.ly/1iQVTBc |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Pavement cyclist kills OAP
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:50:03 +0100, Judith wrote:
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. What do you expect from a ****witted country like that? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Pavement cyclist kills OAP
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:58:58 +0100, JNugent wrote:
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...g/2014/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. It might bludgeon long-suffering people into obeying stupid laws. It does not instill respect. 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. So let us have rules which have a good effect aof preventing injury to the offender, such as -- Stop at red lights -- Always be able to stop without hitting something -- etc. A pudding bowl does not have nearly as good an effect as real measures do. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Pavement cyclist kills OAP
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:22:13 +1000, F Murtz wrote:
Judith wrote: 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. What happened to that ratbag poster that used to go on about pavement motorists? has he carked it? Probably tried to stop a pavement motorist. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Pavement cyclist kills OAP
On 15/06/2014 09:22, F Murtz wrote:
Judith wrote: 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. What happened to that ratbag poster that used to go on about pavement motorists? has he carked it? You mean Doug. The answer is that no-one knows. But I hope not. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Pavement cyclist kills OAP
On 14/06/2014 18:58, Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote: On 14/06/2014 14:21, Bertie Wooster wrote: JNugent wrote: Bertie Wooster wrote: [ ... ] 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? You need to ask? I do, since driving on the footway is not uniformly lawful or unlawful as between local authority areas. I mount the footway when turning several times a day. Completely lawful, and pedestrians using the footway lawfully have to give way to me, as do cyclists using it illegally. - 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. Is reversing 2m ok? what about 2.01m? 3.59m? 10.67m? 40.154m? Offhand, I would say that any of those except the last, depending on the exact circumstances. 10 metres is less than the length of a stationary lorry or bus, for instance. Forty metres, or, as the British call it, 131 feet 9 inches, seems less likely, except in peculiar circumstances, to be viewable as "reasonable". It's not out of the question, though, I have reversed further than that in a one way street, with the permission of a police officer on the scene. You get the idea? Of course I do. You are trying to make the weasel case that because drivers are allowed to reverse park in one way streets, it's OK for cyclists to disregard one-way working completely. I said that last time. 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? Perhaps it depends how far? Maybe. But whether one is parking, or just trying to evade the rules (like a cyclist) will be crystal clear to an observer. - 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. I felt I'd proved the converse already. But perhaps you can answer my questions above. You claim not only that cycling along a footway is NOT a particularly mean-spirited, self-centred, anti-social and absolute offence, but also that you have proven that assertion? What colour is your local star? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Pavement cyclist kills OAP
On 15/06/2014 09:47, Peter Keller wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:58:58 +0100, JNugent wrote: 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...g/2014/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. It might bludgeon long-suffering people into obeying stupid laws. It does not instill respect. If scofflaw chavs on bikes won't respect the law (and the rights of others), bludgeoning them into compliance, whilst not the ideal, is still an acceptable substitute, as I'm sure you'll agree. 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. So let us have rules which have a good effect aof preventing injury to the offender, such as -- Stop at red lights -- Always be able to stop without hitting something -- etc. A pudding bowl does not have nearly as good an effect as real measures do. We have those rules in the UK. I am sorry to hear that they have not yet reached the Antipodes. Speak to your MP? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Pavement cyclist kills OAP
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:38:10 +0100, JNugent
wrote: On 14/06/2014 18:58, Bertie Wooster wrote: JNugent wrote: On 14/06/2014 14:21, Bertie Wooster wrote: JNugent wrote: Bertie Wooster wrote: [ ... ] 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? You need to ask? I do, since driving on the footway is not uniformly lawful or unlawful as between local authority areas. I mount the footway when turning several times a day. Completely lawful, and pedestrians using the footway lawfully have to give way to me, as do cyclists using it illegally. - 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. Is reversing 2m ok? what about 2.01m? 3.59m? 10.67m? 40.154m? Offhand, I would say that any of those except the last, depending on the exact circumstances. 10 metres is less than the length of a stationary lorry or bus, for instance. Forty metres, or, as the British call it, 131 feet 9 inches, seems less likely, except in peculiar circumstances, to be viewable as "reasonable". It's not out of the question, though, I have reversed further than that in a one way street, with the permission of a police officer on the scene. You get the idea? Of course I do. You are trying to make the weasel case that because drivers are allowed to reverse park in one way streets, it's OK for cyclists to disregard one-way working completely. Not my point at all. I said that last time. 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? Perhaps it depends how far? Maybe. But whether one is parking, or just trying to evade the rules (like a cyclist) will be crystal clear to an observer. - 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. I felt I'd proved the converse already. But perhaps you can answer my questions above. You claim not only that cycling along a footway is NOT a particularly mean-spirited, self-centred, anti-social and absolute offence, but also that you have proven that assertion? What colour is your local star? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pavement bus-driver kills man. | Doug[_10_] | UK | 2 | April 2nd 12 07:55 AM |
Yet another pavement motorist kills. | Doug[_10_] | UK | 15 | March 23rd 12 08:25 PM |
Pavement cyclist kills himself in front of children | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 7 | September 5th 11 09:24 PM |
Yet another pavement motorist kills. | Doug[_3_] | UK | 38 | April 29th 11 10:31 PM |
Another pavement motorist kills | Doug[_3_] | UK | 29 | April 6th 10 12:16 PM |