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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?