Its one of those pavement killers again!

wrote:
JNugent writes:

Have you never encountered the concept of public opinion before?

Yes thank you. Did you have a point?

Yes - you seem not to understand what public opinion is.

If you had understood it, you couldn't have asked the question you asked.

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 23:08:42 -0000, "DavidR"
wrote:

"Matt B" wrote
wrote:

I was told that a driver hitting a pedestrian on a pavement would not
be at fault as he would never be there *deliberately*.

Another lie exposed.

No. What I think has been pointed out is that there is a big _difference_
between driving on the pavement deliberately and ending up on it
involuntarily due to some other event.

Twice in 2 days has it been necessary for me (as pedestrian) to give way to
cars being *deliberately* driven on the pavement. And they were not trying
to park.



Yes of course you were - it happens every day of the week to thousands
of people, doesn't it.


Care to give a few more details of both occasions - not that anyone
would disbelieve you?

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 08:23:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On 5 Jan, 15:31, JNugent wrote:
wrote:
JNugent wrote:
You had been told that a vehicle which collides with a pedestrian on the
footway is almost certainly out of control when it mounts the kerb. And that
is correct.
"Almost certainly?"
Is that the same as "almost exactly" or "almost infinite"?

It is the same as neither of those things.

Is English your second language or something?

I ask because you sometimes read sentences and miss out the meaning of clumps
of words, and sometimes mentally insert words which were never there.

"Almost unique" is another one that sets my teeth on edge.


You really are a fool.

Please explain what is wrong with "almost unique"?

If there are only two people in the world with six arms - then I would
say that they are almost unique. Wouldn't you?

I would however not say that they are both unique.

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 07:30:05 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On 5 Jan, 15:20, Tony Dragon wrote:
wrote:
On 4 Jan, 20:23, Tony Dragon wrote:
wrote:
On 4 Jan, 19:52, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
SW wrote:
On 3 Jan, 19:15, harikeo wrote:
I have! In 2008 I had surgery on my spine and within a week I was
knocked by a cyclist while I made my way to my G.P. surgery. The git
rode off without stopping to ask if I was okay or even a backward
glance to apologise.
Sounds like a real scumbag. *Good job he wasn't driving a car though.
Motorist wouldn't be driving on the pavement.
No parking on the pavement then?
I thought it was allowed - how would they get there?
--
Simon Mason
By the means that he is allowed to do?

So a car driver who parks on a pavement, at some point *deliberately*
drives on the pavement?

Thanks for clearing that up, I had been told the exact opposite.

I was told that a driver hitting a pedestrian on a pavement would not
be at fault as he would never be there *deliberately*.

Another lie exposed.

--
Simon Mason

Was that a whoosh or just a get out on your part?

--
Tony Dragon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, since we don't know how many drivers kill pedestrians by
deliberately driving on the pavements either to park or to avoid
oncoming drivers, I couldn't say.
Apparently ones that are doing 60 mph on sheet ice don't count as they
do not intend to end up on the pavement, despite the laws of physics
stating that's exactly where they *will* end up.


I see that physics - just like English - is not one of your strong
points.

On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 23:32:14 +0000, (Roger Merriman)
wrote:

snip


quite fun on a bike attually, certinly if you can kick away from the
lights rapid and spin the bike up. though the one way system i'm a lot
faster than anything else if on the bike.


Why are cyclists obsessed with their speed - is it considered to be
clever in some way?

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:14:39 +0000, (Roger Merriman)
wrote:

Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

(Roger Merriman) considered Mon, 4 Jan 2010 12:13:47
+0000 the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

big snips

The slight problem with that assertion is that the opposite appears to
be true, hence the success of the "shared space" projects.

indeed lights and lanes do make for a racetrack compare kingston oneway
system to richmound.

Certainly in many places at the moment, the footway is unsafe to walk

Perhaps the peds should use the cycle lanes then, the cyclists don't
use them.

At the moment, you can't use most of the cycle lanes either, unless
you have spiked tyres (or shoe soles).

Councils need reminding that they are there to serve people, not
motor-vehicles.

to be fair bikes are a low % even around london,

But that doesn't hold true in Cambridge, where far more people cycle
than use public transport, yet the bus routes get salted and the cycle
routes don't.
You have to wonder how many people would be cycling if proper
provision were made.

are you sure? over the whole of cambridge I know cambridge is supposed
to have a large amount of cycling but that amount?


He will not be "sure" - he is renowned for making up statistics.

Did you know that eight pedestrians trip up and hence die in the UK
every day?

Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

(Roger Merriman) considered Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:14:39
+0000 the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

(Roger Merriman) considered Mon, 4 Jan 2010 12:13:47
+0000 the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

big snips

The slight problem with that assertion is that the opposite appears to
be true, hence the success of the "shared space" projects.

indeed lights and lanes do make for a racetrack compare kingston oneway
system to richmound.

Certainly in many places at the moment, the footway is unsafe to walk

Perhaps the peds should use the cycle lanes then, the cyclists don't
use them.

At the moment, you can't use most of the cycle lanes either, unless
you have spiked tyres (or shoe soles).

Councils need reminding that they are there to serve people, not
motor-vehicles.

to be fair bikes are a low % even around london,

But that doesn't hold true in Cambridge, where far more people cycle
than use public transport, yet the bus routes get salted and the cycle
routes don't.
You have to wonder how many people would be cycling if proper
provision were made.

are you sure? over the whole of cambridge I know cambridge is supposed
to have a large amount of cycling but that amount?

The figures I have seen quote 28% of commuters in Cambridge do so by
bike, and that didn't include students.

wikipedia gives 25% from the 2001 census which is a impressive market
share, london I'm not sure has even reached 1% yet.
Since almost all students in Cambridge use bikes (CU students aren't
allowed motor-vehicles without good reason, such as a disability), the
total figure would well over 50%.

the students should count for another 25% but that would require every
student to use the bike rather than, walk/bus/train or simply be one of
the few than can use a car.

but even so during term time it'd got a good chance of being well into
the 40% mark.

I think it's pretty safe to say that public transport cannot also
account for over 50%

I hadn't realised it was *that* much.

there is much more of a
argument for pavements so elderly/infirm are not trapped indoors.

But the same solution works for both - any equipment which can clear
and salt footways can also be used for cycle paths.

well yes.

WSR
on in any case.

roger

roger

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

wrote:
On 5 Jan, 15:20, Tony Dragon wrote:
wrote:
On 4 Jan, 20:23, Tony Dragon wrote:
wrote:
On 4 Jan, 19:52, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
SW wrote:
On 3 Jan, 19:15, harikeo wrote:
I have! In 2008 I had surgery on my spine and within a week I was
knocked by a cyclist while I made my way to my G.P. surgery. The git
rode off without stopping to ask if I was okay or even a backward
glance to apologise.
Sounds like a real scumbag. Good job he wasn't driving a car though.
Motorist wouldn't be driving on the pavement.
No parking on the pavement then?
I thought it was allowed - how would they get there?
--
Simon Mason
By the means that he is allowed to do?
So a car driver who parks on a pavement, at some point *deliberately*
drives on the pavement?
Thanks for clearing that up, I had been told the exact opposite.
I was told that a driver hitting a pedestrian on a pavement would not
be at fault as he would never be there *deliberately*.
Another lie exposed.
--
Simon Mason
Was that a whoosh or just a get out on your part?

--
Tony Dragon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, since we don't know how many drivers kill pedestrians by
deliberately driving on the pavements either to park or to avoid
oncoming drivers, I couldn't say.
Apparently ones that are doing 60 mph on sheet ice don't count as they
do not intend to end up on the pavement, despite the laws of physics
stating that's exactly where they *will* end up.
--
Simon Mason

Would you quote that physics law that states 'driving on ice at 60mph
will cause you to end up on the pavement'?

--
Tony Dragon

"Judith Smith" wrote in message
...

Why are cyclists obsessed with their speed - is it considered to be
clever in some way?

Nah, just macho :-)

On 7 Jan, 23:38, Judith Smith wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 08:23:19 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On 5 Jan, 15:31, JNugent wrote:
wrote:
JNugent wrote:
You had been told that a vehicle which collides with a pedestrian on the
footway is almost certainly out of control when it mounts the kerb. And that
is correct.
"Almost certainly?"
Is that the same as "almost exactly" or "almost infinite"?

It is the same as neither of those things.

Is English your second language or something?

I ask because you sometimes read sentences and miss out the meaning of clumps
of words, and sometimes mentally insert words which were never there.

"Almost unique" is another one that sets my teeth on edge.

You really are a fool.

Please explain what is wrong with "almost unique"?


Like women say, if you don't know then there's no point in me telling
you!

--
Simon Mason