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

Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old January 25th 09, 01:46 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tony Dragon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,715
Default Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton

Clive George wrote:
"Tony Dragon" wrote in message
...

In my experience, they aren't.
But I would imagine that most motorist caused injuries are reported,
probably not the same for cycle collisions. (My daughters injuries were
not reported)


Why not? If you want the authorities to do something about this, you need
them to have the evidence that it is a problem.

Complaining on here isn't going to do anything - go to the police and get
the injury recorded.

What did you do about the person who caused the injury?



I did nothing, it was my daughter that was struck, the cyclist did not
stop & she thought 'what is the point'

--
Tony the Dragon
Ads
  #92  
Old January 25th 09, 01:46 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,985
Default Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton

David Hansen wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:07:39 +0000 someone who may be Jolly Polly
wrote this:-

The pavement is the sole preserve of the pedestrian


However, councils are adding white paint and blue signs to
pavements. By magic that turns the pavement into a "cycle facility",
which cyclists are supposed to be grateful for and want to use.

These farcilities are not looked on with favour by many cyclists,
but when they ignore them in favour of the roads they are
"encouraged" by some motorists to get on the pavement. Even where
there is no magic paint and signs some motorists "encourage"
cyclists to get on the pavement "where they belong".


No-one is complaining at cyclists' use of such "facilities".

The discussion is about illegal use of footways which are *not* designated as
cycle racetracks (eg, most of Central London - and the footway at the bottom
of my driveway).

But why lose the opportunity to try to change the subject, eh?
  #93  
Old January 25th 09, 01:47 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,985
Default Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton

Daniel Barlow wrote:
JNugent writes:

Dunno about that.

How about a law saying that anyone who swings a hammer recklessly in a
public place within a foot of a passer-by is guilty of an offence?


If it causes the passerby to fear injury to themselvs, it's already
assault. Do we need more specific legislation?


No.

And certainly not a licensing system for hammers - which sort of blows the
PP's attempt at a "point" out of the water.
  #94  
Old January 25th 09, 01:48 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tony Dragon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,715
Default Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton

JNugent wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:34:53 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

can you explain why none of my family have never had a near miss
with a car on the footway, but have had many with cyclists?


Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured by
motorists than cyclists ?


Here is a word you missed *footway*


Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured on
the footway by motorists than cyclists ?


They may be more likely (statistically) to be *killed* by an out of
control motor-vehicle which mounts the footway (perhaps even with a dead
driver at the wheel), but are pedestrians more likely to be *injured* by
a motor-vehicle mounting the footway than by one of the much more
numerous bicycles being ridden along it?


You missed the word deliberately after ridden.

--
Tony the Dragon
  #95  
Old January 25th 09, 01:49 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tony Dragon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,715
Default Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 08:51:52 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured on
the footway by motorists than cyclists ?


In my experience, they aren't.


Which does not actually change the documented fact that pedestrians
are far more likely to be injured on the footway by motorists than
cyclists. Nor does it change the fact that in an increasing number
of places cycling on the footway is legal and actively encouraged,
and neither does it change the fact that the problem is in any case
only another symptom of the danger posed by motor traffic, which is
the major killer of both pedestrians and cyclists.

Hence the suggestion that working on motor danger is a better bet
for public policy intervention; to only will this tackle the much
more significant source of danger to both pedestrians and motorists,
it will also reduce the incentive to ride on the footway (legally or
not). That's a result with which most of us here would be very
happy indeed.

Guy


So you agree with cyclist's breaking the law, glad we have established that.

--
Tony the Dragon
  #96  
Old January 25th 09, 01:54 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,985
Default Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton

Tony Dragon wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:34:53 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

can you explain why none of my family have never had a near miss
with a car on the footway, but have had many with cyclists?

Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured
by motorists than cyclists ?

Here is a word you missed *footway*

Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured on
the footway by motorists than cyclists ?


They may be more likely (statistically) to be *killed* by an out of
control motor-vehicle which mounts the footway (perhaps even with a
dead driver at the wheel), but are pedestrians more likely to be
*injured* by a motor-vehicle mounting the footway than by one of the
much more numerous bicycles being ridden along it?


You missed the word deliberately after ridden.


I accept the Hon. Gentleman's amendment.
  #97  
Old January 25th 09, 02:10 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Clive George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,394
Default Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton

"Tony Dragon" wrote in message
...
Clive George wrote:
"Tony Dragon" wrote in message
...

In my experience, they aren't.
But I would imagine that most motorist caused injuries are reported,
probably not the same for cycle collisions. (My daughters injuries were
not reported)


Why not? If you want the authorities to do something about this, you need
them to have the evidence that it is a problem.

Complaining on here isn't going to do anything - go to the police and get
the injury recorded.

What did you do about the person who caused the injury?


I did nothing, it was my daughter that was struck, the cyclist did not
stop & she thought 'what is the point'


Well, now you know what the point is, and can communicate it to her. If
she's been as upset by the incident as you obviously have been, she'll
realise that it she'll need to take action. Getting the injuries reported is
the point - without that record, there is no impetus for people to make
change.

Of course if this incident happened a while ago, you're probably too late.
But if you feel a similar incident is likely to happen again, you and your
relatives and your friends probably ought to be prepared to take the
relevant actions.


  #98  
Old January 25th 09, 03:22 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tony Dragon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,715
Default Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton

Phil W Lee wrote:
Tony Dragon considered Sun, 25 Jan 2009
08:51:52 +0000 the perfect time to write:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:34:53 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

can you explain why none of my family have never had a near miss with
a car on the footway, but have had many with cyclists?
Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured by
motorists than cyclists ?
Here is a word you missed *footway*
Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured on
the footway by motorists than cyclists ?

Guy

In my experience, they aren't.
But I would imagine that most motorist caused injuries are reported,
probably not the same for cycle collisions. (My daughters injuries were
not reported)

Did you lie to the hospital about the cause then?
Because if you didn't, they will have made it into the stats.


I have no idea if the hospital added the incident into the stats, do you?

--
Tony the Dragon
  #99  
Old January 25th 09, 03:22 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tony Dragon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,715
Default Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton

Phil W Lee wrote:
Tony Dragon considered Sat, 24 Jan 2009
15:40:45 +0000 the perfect time to write:

Clive George wrote:
"Tony Dragon" wrote in message
...

I noticed he has not replied to me either, so I must draw my own
conclusions.
You can draw your own conclusions, but they may well be wrong. I'm probably
not alone in feeling that the actual reason is there's no point in him
replying to you - you're only here to cause trouble.


What a well considered answer.
If you had to drive to A&E to collect your daughter after she had been
hit by a pavement cyclist (who did not bother to stop), tell me what
would your opinion be about cycling on the footway?


I don't see why it should be any different to my attitude to trees
after my daughter's serious head injury resulting from a fall out of
one.
And I'm not going around campaigning for trees to be fenced of or
felled.


Were the trees breaking the law?

--
Tony the Dragon
  #100  
Old January 25th 09, 03:31 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
fred2
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
David Hansen wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:07:39 +0000 someone who may be Jolly Polly
wrote this:-

The pavement is the sole preserve of the pedestrian


However, councils are adding white paint and blue signs to
pavements. By magic that turns the pavement into a "cycle facility",
which cyclists are supposed to be grateful for and want to use.

These farcilities are not looked on with favour by many cyclists,
but when they ignore them in favour of the roads they are
"encouraged" by some motorists to get on the pavement. Even where
there is no magic paint and signs some motorists "encourage"
cyclists to get on the pavement "where they belong".


No-one is complaining at cyclists' use of such "facilities".

The discussion is about illegal use of footways which are *not* designated
as cycle racetracks (eg, most of Central London - and the footway at the
bottom of my driveway).

But why lose the opportunity to try to change the subject, eh?


What about this one?

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/

August 2008


 




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
Pavement cyclist killed Tony Raven UK 1 November 4th 06 08:07 PM
Pavement cyclist Colin Blackburn UK 39 September 12th 05 03:43 PM
Tyler hits the pavement one last time [email protected] Racing 0 April 19th 05 12:02 AM
"Pavement cyclist is first to be fined" Pete Bentley UK 19 January 24th 05 02:59 AM
Pavement cyclist falls off. Peter B UK 3 November 24th 03 06:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:00 PM.


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.