|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
Its one of those pavement killers again!
|
Ads |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
Its one of those pavement killers again!
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? |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
Its one of those pavement killers again!
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. |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
Its one of those pavement killers again!
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. |
#295
|
|||
|
|||
Its one of those pavement killers again!
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? |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
Its one of those pavement killers again!
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 |
#298
|
|||
|
|||
Its one of those pavement killers again!
|
#299
|
|||
|
|||
Its one of those pavement killers again!
"Judith Smith" wrote in message ... Why are cyclists obsessed with their speed - is it considered to be clever in some way? Nah, just macho :-) |
#300
|
|||
|
|||
Its one of those pavement killers again!
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pavement cyclists targeted again but not pavement motorists. | Doug[_3_] | UK | 44 | October 30th 09 07:31 AM |
psycho killers | ray | Australia | 14 | March 8th 06 03:55 AM |
Cyclist killers in local paper. | Sniper8052(L96A1) | UK | 16 | August 13th 05 10:19 PM |
Hammond Positive for Pain Killers!!!! | Charles & Camilla | Racing | 3 | April 10th 05 11:11 AM |
12-footer dad killers? | PopeSamXVI | Unicycling | 1 | December 21st 04 01:32 AM |