Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:47:04 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:

This is a country road. I don't understand why any cyclists would do
this, even allowing for the fact that motorists drive like lemmings
out of hell on them. ("the high death toll on rural roads, where, in
2007, 69% of car crash fatalities took place.")

Because the have a misplaced sense of danger and a misunderstanding of risk.

Perhaps - but in that case the law has a misplaced sense of justice.

A driver who kills a cyclist who is riding correctly on the road is
likely to be charged with causing death by careless driving; a driver
who kills a cyclist who is riding incorrectly on the pavement is
likely to be charged with causing death by dangerous driving. The
latter is a far more serious offence and is likely to lead to a
custodial sentence.

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:47:04 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:

This is a country road. I don't understand why any cyclists would do
this, even allowing for the fact that motorists drive like lemmings
out of hell on them. ("the high death toll on rural roads, where, in
2007, 69% of car crash fatalities took place.")

Because the have a misplaced sense of danger and a misunderstanding of
risk.

Perhaps - but in that case the law has a misplaced sense of justice.

A driver who kills a cyclist who is riding correctly on the road is
likely to be charged with causing death by careless driving;

Fair enough.

a driver
who kills a cyclist who is riding incorrectly on the pavement is
likely to be charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

Not so fair enough, at least not in all situations. Lets say I am turning a
car into an access road or driveway and need to cross the pavement/footpath.
I indicate, I slow down, I check carefully for pedestians coming either way
(including runners with a maximum expected speed of about 8mph). Lets also
say the visibility is obscured by trees or parked vehicles, I proceed
cautiously (****ing off the driver behind) and wham! A psycho pavement
cyclist whacks into the wing, goes over the bonnet and breaks his neck on
landing.

Not necessarily dangerous driving when I have taken all reasonable steps to
avoid any collision.

The
latter is a far more serious offence and is likely to lead to a
custodial sentence.

In the above scenario? I don't think so. I would be appalled if it was.

Paul - xxx wrote:

In my view, the illegality of riding on the path and the apparent
arroganceof the cyclists doing so don't do any cyclists any favours
and bring us all into disrepute.

To clarify what I posted a tad ...

By saying "bring us all into disrepute" I meant that any cyclists using
the pathway and being discouteous as reported, simply makes
none-cyclists think we're all like that and gives them some ammunition
to use against us.


--
Paul - xxx

'96/97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
'96/97 Dyna-Tech Cro mo comp

mileburner wrote:

Not so fair enough, at least not in all situations. Lets say I am turning a
car into an access road or driveway and need to cross the pavement/footpath.
I indicate, I slow down, I check carefully for pedestians coming either way
(including runners with a maximum expected speed of about 8mph). Lets also
say the visibility is obscured by trees or parked vehicles, I proceed
cautiously (****ing off the driver behind) and wham! A psycho pavement
cyclist whacks into the wing, goes over the bonnet and breaks his neck on
landing.

Not necessarily dangerous driving when I have taken all reasonable steps to
avoid any collision.



And what if that pavement turned out to be a totally legal shared used
cycle facility but you hadn't noticed (its often pretty hard to spot
them from the road). Do you not proceed cautiously and look far enough
up and down in each direction as you would if crossing another
carriageway just in case?

Tony

"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...
mileburner wrote:

Not so fair enough, at least not in all situations. Lets say I am turning
a car into an access road or driveway and need to cross the
pavement/footpath. I indicate, I slow down, I check carefully for
pedestians coming either way (including runners with a maximum expected
speed of about 8mph). Lets also say the visibility is obscured by trees
or parked vehicles, I proceed cautiously (****ing off the driver behind)
and wham! A psycho pavement cyclist whacks into the wing, goes over the
bonnet and breaks his neck on landing.

Not necessarily dangerous driving when I have taken all reasonable steps
to avoid any collision.



And what if that pavement turned out to be a totally legal shared used
cycle facility but you hadn't noticed (its often pretty hard to spot them
from the road). Do you not proceed cautiously and look far enough up and
down in each direction as you would if crossing another carriageway just
in case?

I do yes.

But I also think that if the cyclist is using a shared use cycle facility,
they should not be belting along it. If they want to ride fast, they should
stay off shared paths and use the road.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:32:05 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

snip


No doubt you can "understand" cyclists breaking other laws as well.

Yes - and I have posted details of such circumstances before. Even
official guidance allows for cyclists to use the footway under certain
circumstances:


Rubbish - there is no such "official guidance" for cyclists to use
footways unless there are clear signs that that is the case.



"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of
traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing
so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement,
acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young
people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use
of police discretion is required."
Former Home Office Minister Paul Boateng




That was *never* ever official guidance.

It was in a letter to another MP - who chose to publish it.

If you have any evidence that that was how the Home Office wanted the
law to be interpreted and he told the Chief Constables that that was
the case - feel free to post it here.

I am not even aware that the Home Office *can* give guidance that the
law of the land is to be ignored.

If it was Parliament's intention that cyclists could pick and chose
when to obey that law then they would have made it clear in the
legislation.

On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:27:29 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?t=k&z=...86.77,,1,13.45

Yeuk.

On the side where the house is, no problem - cyclists on road, drivers use
hatching to pass.

On the other side, they've cunningly made it illegal to give enough space
to be safe when overtaking any cyclist doing over 10 mph.

When will transport planners be required to consider the possibility that
bikes might use their roads?

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 23:13:58 +0100, "Colin McKenzie"
wrote:




and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.



Still spouting two lots of ******** there I see.

--

Per billion passenger kilometres

Car KSI 18
Cycle KSI 541
Pedestrian 358

(KSI : Killed or Seriously Injured)
Dft 2008 FIgures

Who says cycling is safer than walking?

On 25/10/2010 23:11, JMS wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:32:05 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

snip


No doubt you can "understand" cyclists breaking other laws as well.

Yes - and I have posted details of such circumstances before. Even
official guidance allows for cyclists to use the footway under certain
circumstances:


Rubbish - there is no such "official guidance" for cyclists to use
footways unless there are clear signs that that is the case.



"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of
traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing
so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement,
acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young
people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use
of police discretion is required."
Former Home Office Minister Paul Boateng

That was *never* ever official guidance.
Quite.

And "former" says all you need to know.

It was in a letter to another MP - who chose to publish it.

And in any case, what possible "consideration" is being shown to footway (not
"pavement") users exiting their homes directly onto the footway by cyclists
speeding past?

Colin McKenzie wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:27:29 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?t=k&z=...86.77,,1,13.45

Yeuk.

On the side where the house is, no problem - cyclists on road,
drivers use hatching to pass.

On the other side, they've cunningly made it illegal to give enough
space to be safe when overtaking any cyclist doing over 10 mph.

When will transport planners be required to consider the possibility
that bikes might use their roads?

When the sponging freeloading cyclists pay to use the roads?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.