A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Doug, was this you?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 17th 09, 11:14 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling
Matt B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,927
Default Doug, was this you?

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:09:33 +0100, John Wright
wrote:

Cars don't drive on pavements unless something is seriously amiss or
there is a legal arrangement in place for them to drive over the pavement.


I think you'll find on investigation that that is what is technically
known as "complete ********".

The most common reason for car drivers using the pavement is to park
on it, but they also use it to get round queues at traffic lights and
in other situations. That's whe there are bollards on the pavement
edge near my house, and bollards up the pavement along the North
Circular Road, to name just two locations.

Ask your council what is the main cause of damage to pavements.


And they'll inevitably say "cars" - rather than admit the true reason.
The real reason is usually poor installation.

The evidence is that they are /also/ damaged in places where cars cannot
physically get. Take a look next time you are walking on one. There
will be cracked and uneven slabs behind telephone boxes, in-between the
two poles of road signs, behind bollards, up steps, behind and between
planters, under benches...

To blame cars is to attempt to create a scapegoat for bad workmanship
and poor maintenance.

--
Matt B
Ads
  #2  
Old September 19th 09, 01:23 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling
BrianW[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default Doug, was this you?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...pensioner.html
  #3  
Old September 19th 09, 01:51 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling
Judith M Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,735
Default Doug, was this you?

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT), BrianW
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...pensioner.html



Are you *sure* you are not obsessed with him?

What is it - a sexual attraction?

--
The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK. Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.
  #4  
Old September 19th 09, 06:04 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling
Tom Crispin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,229
Default Doug, was this you?

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT), BrianW
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...pensioner.html


What can't a charge of manslaughter be considered where a death has
been caused by negligent behaviour be it by motor vehicle driver,
motorcyclist, cyclist, mobility scooter driver, or even a runner.

All that should be need to be proved is that the standard of care for
others' safety fell far below that which could be considered
reasonable.
  #5  
Old September 19th 09, 06:26 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling
BrianW[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default Doug, was this you?

On 19 Sep, 18:04, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT), BrianW

wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...andorder/62070...


What can't a charge of manslaughter be considered where a death has
been caused by negligent behaviour be it by motor vehicle driver,
motorcyclist, cyclist, mobility scooter driver, or even a runner.

All that should be need to be proved is that the standard of care for
others' safety fell far below that which could be considered
reasonable.


It can. However, it requires that the negligence was gross - an
"ordinary" level of negligence (such as that required in a civil
action) does not suffice. It is an issue for the jury to decide, but
it is quite a large hurdle for the prosecution to overcome.

I note that in this case, the prosecution sought to bring a charge of
"careless", rather than "dangerous" driving. That would suggest that
the gross negligence threshold would not have been satisfied.
  #6  
Old September 20th 09, 06:59 AM posted to uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling
Doug[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,927
Default Doug, was this you?

On 19 Sep, 13:51, Judith M Smith wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT), BrianW

wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...andorder/62070...


Are you *sure* you are not obsessed with him?

What is it - a sexual *attraction?

Blackhead is blinded by obsessive love turned sour. So much so in his
confused state he has targeted the wrong person! There must be a
sexual component there surely?

Anyway, back on topic, I have been posting elsewhere about
discrimination against disabled cyclists and this case clearly
illustrates my point. Cars and mobility scooters on pavements are much
more dangerous that bicycles but all we seem to hear about is cycling
on pavements.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
  #7  
Old September 20th 09, 10:30 AM posted to uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling
BrianW[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,005
Default Doug, was this you?

On 20 Sep, 06:59, Doug wrote:
On 19 Sep, 13:51, Judith M Smith wrote: On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT), BrianW

wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...andorder/62070....


Are you *sure* you are not obsessed with him?


What is it - a sexual �attraction?


Blackhead is blinded by obsessive love turned sour. So much so in his
confused state he has targeted the wrong person! There must be a
sexual component there surely?


Yup, I'm in lurve with this old turd:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8737107@N04/3742475633/

Next time you see him, Doug, would you tell him?
  #8  
Old September 20th 09, 02:09 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling
John Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default Doug, was this you?

Doug wrote:
On 19 Sep, 13:51, Judith M Smith wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT), BrianW

wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...andorder/62070...

Are you *sure* you are not obsessed with him?

What is it - a sexual attraction?

Blackhead is blinded by obsessive love turned sour. So much so in his
confused state he has targeted the wrong person! There must be a
sexual component there surely?

Anyway, back on topic, I have been posting elsewhere about
discrimination against disabled cyclists and this case clearly
illustrates my point. Cars and mobility scooters on pavements are much
more dangerous that bicycles but all we seem to hear about is cycling
on pavements.


Cars don't drive on pavements unless something is seriously amiss or
there is a legal arrangement in place for them to drive over the pavement.

Cyclists and mobility scooters appear to do it as a matter of course.

--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

  #9  
Old September 20th 09, 03:59 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling
nightjar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 480
Default Doug, was this you?


"John Wright" wrote in message
...
.....
Cars don't drive on pavements unless something is seriously amiss or there
is a legal arrangement in place for them to drive over the pavement.

Cyclists and mobility scooters appear to do it as a matter of course.


Single speed mobility scooters are legally required to use the pavement and
are only allowed on the road for specific purposes, such as crossing it..
Two speed scooters are permitted to use the pavement at their lower speed of
4mph.

Colin Bignell


  #10  
Old September 20th 09, 04:12 PM posted to uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling
Andy Leighton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 627
Default Doug, was this you?

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:59:31 +0100, nightjar cpb@ wrote:

"John Wright" wrote in message
...
....
Cars don't drive on pavements unless something is seriously amiss or there
is a legal arrangement in place for them to drive over the pavement.

Cyclists and mobility scooters appear to do it as a matter of course.


Single speed mobility scooters are legally required to use the pavement and
are only allowed on the road for specific purposes, such as crossing it..


Are you sure about that? The Highway code says Class 2 (the 4mph jobbies)
should always use the footway when it is available - it doesn't say
MUST. But your rebuttal of the PP was in essence correct - class 2 scooters
are legal to drive on any pedestrian footway and are encouraged to do so as
it is considered safer to do so.

--
Andy Leighton =
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
This should please Doug Steve Firth UK 261 August 26th 09 10:20 PM
Doug PeterG UK 18 June 28th 09 11:23 AM
Roll in the Doug $$$ Stephen Baker Mountain Biking 0 October 25th 04 10:54 AM
Old Doug Fattic drako Marketplace 0 October 3rd 04 02:45 AM
Old Doug Fattic drako Marketplace 4 October 2nd 04 09:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.