Driver on drugs who mowed down group of cyclists while on wrong sideof road is jailed - LONG

On 02/09/2020 07:59, JNugent wrote:
On 01/09/2020 18:12, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 September 2020 18:03:00 UTC+1, TMS320Â* wrote:
On 01/09/2020 17:13, JNugent wrote:

"Don't ride your bike along the pavement" is sublimely easy to
"adhere to".

Except where it is permitted. But it's not a rule that underpins society
and realistically serves little purpose. If it was removed, the rule "do
not kill" is still overarching.


I think Nugents meant to say "Don't ride you bike along the pavement
unless the council have used their pot of Magic White Paint after
which you MUST ride your bike along the pavement and drivers may use
lethal force against any cyclist failing to to so".

No, not at all.

"Stay off the pavement whilst riding your fairy-cycle", followed by a
full stop, is another way of putting it.

Ride your bike on the carriageway and take your own chances. Don't
endanger others.

A few weeks ago you told me that I should not try to guess the reasons
for various laws and not think I know better than the lawmakers. You're
making a rather big leap with your statement.

But of course, it's perfectly alright for you to use your car and put
your convenience above the safety of pedestrians.

The footway was built and is distinctively different
from a carriageway for a good reason.

It's noticeable how few carriages are used on roads these days: the
world has changed a lot since 1835. Remarkably, most people now have gas
central heating, and pictures, sound and text can be sent to and from a
magic litte box that can be put in a pocket.

On 02/09/2020 18:20, TMS320 wrote:

On 02/09/2020 07:59, JNugent wrote:
On 01/09/2020 18:12, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 September 2020 18:03:00 UTC+1, TMS320Â* wrote:
On 01/09/2020 17:13, JNugent wrote:

"Don't ride your bike along the pavement" is sublimely easy to
"adhere to".

Except where it is permitted. But it's not a rule that underpins
society
and realistically serves little purpose. If it was removed, the rule
"do
not kill" is still overarching.

I think Nugents meant to say "Don't ride you bike along the pavement
unless the council have used their pot of Magic White Paint after
which you MUST ride your bike along the pavement and drivers may use
lethal force against any cyclist failing to to so".

No, not at all.

"Stay off the pavement whilst riding your fairy-cycle", followed by a
full stop, is another way of putting it.

Ride your bike on the carriageway and take your own chances. Don't
endanger others.

A few weeks ago you told me that I should not try to guess the reasons
for various laws and not think I know better than the lawmakers.

And that much is true. You don't.

You're making a rather big leap with your statement.

Not at all. If riding or driving vehicles along the footway is not
prohibited in order to protect pedestrians, it's impossible to see what
alternative reason there could possibly be for it.

But of course, it's perfectly alright for you to use your car and put
your convenience above the safety of pedestrians.

I give you a 100% guarantee that I have never driven a car - or ridden a
bicycle - along a footway to the disadvantage of any other pedestrian or
anyone else.

The footway was built and is distinctively different from a
carriageway for a good reason.

It's noticeable how few carriages are used on roads these days: the
world has changed a lot since 1835.

Carriageways and footways can be seen in the streets of Pompeii. But you
didn't even know that.

Some things are simply obvious in any civilised society. "Don't ride on
the footway" is one of them.

Remarkably, most people now have gas
central heating, and pictures, sound and text can be sent to and from a
magic litte box that can be put in a pocket.

Do you know what "diversion" is?

On Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 11:13:04 AM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
On Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 12:19:51 AM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 September 2020 17:56:27 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 5:48:47 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

So motorists only drive on the footway by accident?

That's an awful lot of "accidents" right there.
Double yellows as well.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eg2C1_3W...jpg&name=small

Isn't it amazing how many cars 'accidentally' park themselves so neatly on a footway.

All without ever driving along the pavement.
Amazing, isn't it?

Pavement parking could be permanently banned under new plans to make roads and pathways safer for families and people with disabilities.

A new consultation has been launched to ban antisocial parking and give councils greater powers to fine drivers who flout the rules.

It comes after 95% of wheelchair users and people with visual impairments said they have experienced mobility issues due to restricted pavements in the past.

Under new rules being proposed, councils will be able to prohibit pavement parking in certain areas and fine drivers who mount the kerb.

It could see the introduction of a London-style parking ban, which already prohibits pavement parking in 32 boroughs.

The Department for Transport said that fines of £70 could be imposed, similar to the current charge for parking on double yellow lines.

Another option would be to create a civil offence of "unnecessary obstruction", which would allow councils to penalise the worst kinds of parking, including drivers who blocked footpaths completely, without issuing an all-out ban.

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said: "Parking on pavements means wheelchair users, visually impaired people and parents with pushchairs can be forced into the road, which is not only dangerous but discourages people from making journeys.

It would help free up pavements for those who need it most (Image: Getty)
art of our green, post-COVID recovery will be encouraging more people to choose active travel, such as walking, so it is vital that we make the nation’s pavements accessible for everyone."

Stephen Edwards, director of policy and communications at Living Streets, said: "We’re regularly contacted by disabled and older people who feel trapped in their homes because there is not enough room on the pavement for wheelchairs or mobility scooters.

"This has impacted more people during the pandemic with blocked pavements affecting everyone’s ability to physically distance."

Blanche Shackleton, head of policy, public affairs and campaigns at Guide Dogs, said: "For many people with sight loss, cars and vans parked on the pavement make our streets stressful and dangerous to navigate. At any time, you might be forced out into the road with traffic that you cannot see.
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said an all-out ban on pavement parking across England is being considered by ministers (Image: PA)

"When every journey is an ordeal, simply going out independently can become daunting."

Justine Roberts, founder of Mumsnet, added: "Lots of us have occasionally parked a couple of wheels up on the pavement to leave space on the road without really thinking about how it might inconvenience people.

"It’s a topic that comes up regularly on Mumsnet, where wheelchair users and people with buggies share stories about being forced into the road or having to double back long distances."

The consultation comes as Transport Secretary Grant Shapps steps up efforts to encourage active travel – such as walking – as part of a green, post-COVID-19 recovery, and level up road quality across the country.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/pavem...fines-22604193

On 03/09/2020 15:09, JNugent wrote:
On 02/09/2020 18:20, TMS320 wrote:

On 02/09/2020 07:59, JNugent wrote:
On 01/09/2020 18:12, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 September 2020 18:03:00 UTC+1, TMS320Â* wrote:
On 01/09/2020 17:13, JNugent wrote:

"Don't ride your bike along the pavement" is sublimely easy to
"adhere to".

Except where it is permitted. But it's not a rule that underpins
society
and realistically serves little purpose. If it was removed, the
rule "do
not kill" is still overarching.

I think Nugents meant to say "Don't ride you bike along the pavement
unless the council have used their pot of Magic White Paint after
which you MUST ride your bike along the pavement and drivers may use
lethal force against any cyclist failing to to so".

No, not at all.

"Stay off the pavement whilst riding your fairy-cycle", followed by a
full stop, is another way of putting it.

Ride your bike on the carriageway and take your own chances. Don't
endanger others.

A few weeks ago you told me that I should not try to guess the reasons
for various laws and not think I know better than the lawmakers.

And that much is true. You don't.

You're making a rather big leap with your statement.

Not at all. If riding or driving vehicles along the footway is not
prohibited in order to protect pedestrians, it's impossible to see what
alternative reason there could possibly be for it.

Speculating is not allowed under your rules.

But of course, it's perfectly alright for you to use your car and put
your convenience above the safety of pedestrians.

I give you a 100% guarantee that I have never driven a car - or ridden a
bicycle - along a footway to the disadvantage of any other pedestrian or
anyone else.

I can also give a 100% guarantee that I have never driven or ridden
along a footway to the disadvantage of any pedestrian.

But do you know what a "diversion" is? I also drive for the convenience
but unlike you, I am aware of the statistics.

The footway was built and is distinctively different from a
carriageway for a good reason.

It's noticeable how few carriages are used on roads these days: the
world has changed a lot since 1835.

Carriageways and footways can be seen in the streets of Pompeii. But you
didn't even know that.

So that people didn't have to paddle through animal ****.

Some things are simply obvious in any civilised society. "Don't ride on
the footway" is one of them.

I have seen dog **** on a pavement but never cyclist ****.

Remarkably, most people now have gas central heating, and pictures,
sound and text can be sent to and from a magic litte box that can be
put in a pocket.

Do you know what "diversion" is?

On Thursday, September 3, 2020 at 7:14:59 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
I have seen dog **** on a pavement but never cyclist ****.

Drivers however:

They brought with them chairs, picnic tables, portable cooking stoves, pans etc.

"They also brought large quantities of beer. Toilet paper and human excrement was left all over.

"They very kindly left everything for us to clear up. We estimate over a quarter of a tonne of rubbish. We have photographed the disgraceful scene, if you wish to view it.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...beauty-4482823

On 03/09/2020 19:14, TMS320 wrote:
On 03/09/2020 15:09, JNugent wrote:
On 02/09/2020 18:20, TMS320 wrote:

On 02/09/2020 07:59, JNugent wrote:
On 01/09/2020 18:12, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 September 2020 18:03:00 UTC+1, TMS320Â* wrote:
On 01/09/2020 17:13, JNugent wrote:

"Don't ride your bike along the pavement" is sublimely easy to
"adhere to".

Except where it is permitted. But it's not a rule that underpins
society
and realistically serves little purpose. If it was removed, the
rule "do
not kill" is still overarching.

I think Nugents meant to say "Don't ride you bike along the
pavement unless the council have used their pot of Magic White
Paint after which you MUST ride your bike along the pavement and
drivers may use lethal force against any cyclist failing to to so".

No, not at all.

"Stay off the pavement whilst riding your fairy-cycle", followed by
a full stop, is another way of putting it.

Ride your bike on the carriageway and take your own chances. Don't
endanger others.

A few weeks ago you told me that I should not try to guess the
reasons for various laws and not think I know better than the lawmakers.

And that much is true. You don't.

You're making a rather big leap with your statement.

Not at all. If riding or driving vehicles along the footway is not
prohibited in order to protect pedestrians, it's impossible to see
what alternative reason there could possibly be for it.

Speculating is not allowed under your rules.

And happily, isn't necessary.

But of course, it's perfectly alright for you to use your car and put
your convenience above the safety of pedestrians.

I give you a 100% guarantee that I have never driven a car - or ridden
a bicycle - along a footway to the disadvantage of any other
pedestrian or anyone else.

I can also give a 100% guarantee that I have never driven or ridden
along a footway to the disadvantage of any pedestrian.

On reflection, I ought not to have added that last subordinate clause.

Let me amend what I said to the much more straightforward and
unambiguous: "I give you a 100% guarantee that I have never driven a car
- or ridden a bicycle - along a footway".

Let's see whether you can honestly say the same.

But do you know what a "diversion" is? I also drive for the convenience
but unlike you, I am aware of the statistics.

You are not free to break the law on the basis that you "think" there
will be no ill effects.

If that were the case, there would hardly ever be a good case for
prosecuting anyone for speeding, since exceeding the limit rarely leads
to, causes or exacerbates the effect of a traffic accident.

The footway was built and is distinctively different from a
carriageway for a good reason.

It's noticeable how few carriages are used on roads these days: the
world has changed a lot since 1835.

Carriageways and footways can be seen in the streets of Pompeii. But
you didn't even know that.

So that people didn't have to paddle through animal ****.

I'm willing to defer to your knowledge of such substances. You obviously
frequently deal in at least one sub-set of it.

Some things are simply obvious in any civilised society. "Don't ride
on the footway" is one of them.

I have seen dog **** on a pavement but never cyclist ****.

Nevertheless, that particular species of the substance *has* been known
to have been deposited on public spaces, in quite recent years. And some
here defended it.

Remarkably, most people now have gas central heating, and pictures,
sound and text can be sent to and from a magic litte box that can be
put in a pocket.

Do you know what "diversion" is?

On 03/09/2020 19:45, Simon Mason wrote:
On Thursday, September 3, 2020 at 7:14:59 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
I have seen dog **** on a pavement but never cyclist ****.

Drivers however:

They brought with them chairs, picnic tables, portable cooking stoves, pans etc.

"They also brought large quantities of beer. Toilet paper and human excrement was left all over.

"They very kindly left everything for us to clear up. We estimate over a quarter of a tonne of rubbish. We have photographed the disgraceful scene, if you wish to view it.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...beauty-4482823

A:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/new-forest-100-sportive-racing-2794548

B:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/not-in-our-front-yards-surrey-residents-tells-cyclists-locals-complain-that-they-are-being-kettled-9039175.html

QUOTE:
.... cyclists ... had been seen "literally defecating on a local green".
ENDQUOTE

C:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/cyclist-defecates-throws-own-poop-at-woman-after-vehicle-collision-in-b-c

[That one slightly OT, but not all that much]

D:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9447079/hated-cyclist-driver-rages-drivers-phones/

QUOTE:
One Surrey local claimed cyclists have pooed in front gardens and left
the roads strewn with mess - particularly in hotspots like Box Hill in
the North Downs in Surrey. The hill has attracted thousands of cyclists
hoping to ride on the same course as their heroes after it was used in
the 2012 London Olympics.
Resident Ian says: "They come along, drink their drinks, throw their
bottles on the ground, leave their rubbish behind, defecate in people's
front gardens and go back home again."
ENDQUOTE

E:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-pooed-hands-hurled-car-10252757

QUOTE:
A cyclist allegedly defecated in his own hands and threw it at a car
windscreen after he was beeped for cycling "scarily" in the street.
The "vile and disgusting" incident took place in London Road, Gloucester...
ENDQUOTE

On 04/09/2020 15:46, JNugent wrote:
On 03/09/2020 19:14, TMS320 wrote:
On 03/09/2020 15:09, JNugent wrote:
On 02/09/2020 18:20, TMS320 wrote:

On 02/09/2020 07:59, JNugent wrote:
On 01/09/2020 18:12, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 September 2020 18:03:00 UTC+1, TMS320Â* wrote:
On 01/09/2020 17:13, JNugent wrote:

"Don't ride your bike along the pavement" is sublimely easy to
"adhere to".

Except where it is permitted. But it's not a rule that underpins
society
and realistically serves little purpose. If it was removed, the
rule "do
not kill" is still overarching.

I think Nugents meant to say "Don't ride you bike along the
pavement unless the council have used their pot of Magic White
Paint after which you MUST ride your bike along the pavement and
drivers may use lethal force against any cyclist failing to to so".

No, not at all.

"Stay off the pavement whilst riding your fairy-cycle", followed by
a full stop, is another way of putting it.

Ride your bike on the carriageway and take your own chances. Don't
endanger others.

A few weeks ago you told me that I should not try to guess the
reasons for various laws and not think I know better than the
lawmakers.

And that much is true. You don't.

You're making a rather big leap with your statement.

Not at all. If riding or driving vehicles along the footway is not
prohibited in order to protect pedestrians, it's impossible to see
what alternative reason there could possibly be for it.

Speculating is not allowed under your rules.

And happily, isn't necessary.

But you are speculating. A few weeks ago you told me I could not assume
that safety was the intention of road law.

But of course, it's perfectly alright for you to use your car and
put your convenience above the safety of pedestrians.

I give you a 100% guarantee that I have never driven a car - or
ridden a bicycle - along a footway to the disadvantage of any other
pedestrian or anyone else.

I can also give a 100% guarantee that I have never driven or ridden
along a footway to the disadvantage of any pedestrian.

On reflection, I ought not to have added that last subordinate clause.

Let me amend what I said to the much more straightforward and
unambiguous: "I give you a 100% guarantee that I have never driven a car
- or ridden a bicycle - along a footway".

Wow. Look at those goalposts move!
Let's see whether you can honestly say the same.

I have ridden on pavements, with pedestrians present, where it is legal.
Next.

But do you know what a "diversion" is? I also drive for the
convenience but unlike you, I am aware of the statistics.

You are not free to break the law on the basis that you "think" there
will be no ill effects.

If that were the case, there would hardly ever be a good case for
prosecuting anyone for speeding, since exceeding the limit rarely leads
to, causes or exacerbates the effect of a traffic accident.

QUOTE from thread: Speeding driver who killed dedicated cyclist days
before Christmas gets jail sentence -

"A speeding Porsche driver who killed a cyclist when he lost control of
his £50,000 sports car and knocked him off his bike has been spared jail.

David McSkimming was driving at 59mph in a 40mph zone when he collided
with keen cyclist Anthony Satterthwaite, 51."

The footway was built and is distinctively different from a
carriageway for a good reason.

It's noticeable how few carriages are used on roads these days: the
world has changed a lot since 1835.

Carriageways and footways can be seen in the streets of Pompeii. But
you didn't even know that.

So that people didn't have to paddle through animal ****.

I'm willing to defer to your knowledge of such substances. You obviously
frequently deal in at least one sub-set of it.

Well, I don't believe there where many cars or bicycles about before
1835 (or in Pompeii) so perhaps you could suggest other reasoning?

Some things are simply obvious in any civilised society. "Don't ride
on the footway" is one of them.

I have seen dog **** on a pavement but never cyclist ****.

Nevertheless, that particular species of the substance *has* been known
to have been deposited on public spaces, in quite recent years. And some
here defended it.

We are discussing pavements. Besides, to you, "defence" means that you
expect and don't get condemnation for cyclists (specifically), when the
alleged activity is known to be carried out by non-cyclists.

On Saturday, September 5, 2020 at 2:03:31 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

QUOTE from thread: Speeding driver who killed dedicated cyclist days
before Christmas gets jail sentence -

"A speeding Porsche driver who killed a cyclist when he lost control of
his £50,000 sports car and knocked him off his bike has been spared jail.

David McSkimming was driving at 59mph in a 40mph zone when he collided
with keen cyclist Anthony Satterthwaite, 51."

Don't forget hitting the tree.

QUOTE:
The 53-year-old was travelling almost 20mph over the speed limit on Eastcote Lane, Solihull, West Mids., when he lost control on a bend.

He hit a tree, span across the road and smashed into Mr Satterthwaite who was cycling in the opposite direction.

On Thursday, 3 September 2020 15:08:07 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

I give you a 100% guarantee that I have never driven a car - or ridden a
bicycle - along a footway


I can give you a 100% guarantee I have never crashed a B747 because I have never flown a B747.