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

Pavement cyclist kills OAP



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old June 15th 14, 04:56 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Pavement cyclist kills OAP

On 15/06/2014 16:50, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:38:10 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 14/06/2014 18:58, Bertie Wooster wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2014 14:21, Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:


[ ... ]

So you would encourage the police to have zero tolerance to all road
traffic offences, including cyclists on the footway and speeding
motorists?

As has been observed before, cycling along the footway is an offence
which is easily identified. If the cyclist is cycling along, and he's
cycling along a footway reserved for pedestrians, he's breaking the law.
There are no other considerations - it's absolute.

"Offences" of gradation, eg, moving along a 30mph carriageway at 30.1
mph, are rather more difficult to detect, even for the driver
information equipment of the vehicle concerned. For that reason, a
certain amount of marginal leeway is allowed as a matter of legal
expediency - and as a matter of justice. Driving along Colchester High
Street at 29.9mph is permissible, doing the same at 30.1 is
theoretically not, but only those with a screw loose would claim that it
ought to be punished or even that any effort be made to detect it.

It is not very kind of you to suggest that MrCheerful might have a
screw loose.

I suggested nothing of the kind with the above. My reference was very
clearly to whoever wrote: "So you would encourage the police to have
zero tolerance to all road traffic offences, including ... speeding
motorists?".
Many writers lose perspective on that issue and start comparing apples
with oranges.

No such leeway is needed with absolute offences such as:
- driving with a defective tyre, or


1.61mm of tread is OK whereas 1.59 is not...

The defect may ne one of a number of things.

- driving with no insurance, or
- driving with no road tax, or
- driving with no MOT certificate, or
- cycling along a footway, or

What about mounting the kerb and driving on the footway when turning?

Is that an offence?

You need to ask?


I do, since driving on the footway is not uniformly lawful or unlawful
as between local authority areas. I mount the footway when turning
several times a day. Completely lawful, and pedestrians using the
footway lawfully have to give way to me, as do cyclists using it illegally.




- cycling the wrong way along a one-way street, or

What is a legally allowed distance to reverse into a parking space on
a one way street?

Whatever is reasonably necessary. It's provided for in law, as you
probably know.

Is reversing 2m ok? what about 2.01m? 3.59m? 10.67m? 40.154m?


Offhand, I would say that any of those except the last, depending on the
exact circumstances. 10 metres is less than the length of a stationary
lorry or bus, for instance.

Forty metres, or, as the British call it, 131 feet 9 inches, seems less
likely, except in peculiar circumstances, to be viewable as
"reasonable". It's not out of the question, though, I have reversed
further than that in a one way street, with the permission of a police
officer on the scene.

You get the idea?


Of course I do. You are trying to make the weasel case that because
drivers are allowed to reverse park in one way streets, it's OK for
cyclists to disregard one-way working completely.


Not my point at all.


Of course it was. It's transparently at the base of the whole sub-thread
(which you started). You must be pretty stupid if you really "think"
that it can't be seen a mile off.

I said that last time.

Why are you trying to scrape the bottom of a bone-dry barrel? Surely you
are not being so stupid as to try to claim that because a driver may
reverse a few feet or yards into a parking space, that means it's
acceptable for a cyclist to cycle the wrong way in a one-way street?


Perhaps it depends how far?


Maybe. But whether one is parking, or just trying to evade the rules
(like a cyclist) will be crystal clear to an observer.


- driving or cycling through a red traffic light, or
- driving or cycling at night without use of mandated vehicle lights.


There are no measurement difficulties with these offences. If they have
been witnessed, they have been committed. And the driving offences
mentioned in that list - absolute offences - are the correct comparators
for "cycling along the footway" (a particularly mean-spirited,
self-centred, anti-social and absolute offence).


I'm glad you agree.


I felt I'd proved the converse already. But perhaps you can answer my
questions above.


You claim not only that cycling along a footway is NOT a particularly
mean-spirited, self-centred, anti-social and absolute offence, but also
that you have proven that assertion?


What colour is your local star?


Ads
  #32  
Old June 15th 14, 06:28 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Bertie Wooster[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,958
Default Pavement cyclist kills OAP

On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 16:56:38 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 15/06/2014 16:50, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:38:10 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 14/06/2014 18:58, Bertie Wooster wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2014 14:21, Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:

[ ... ]

So you would encourage the police to have zero tolerance to all road
traffic offences, including cyclists on the footway and speeding
motorists?

As has been observed before, cycling along the footway is an offence
which is easily identified. If the cyclist is cycling along, and he's
cycling along a footway reserved for pedestrians, he's breaking the law.
There are no other considerations - it's absolute.

"Offences" of gradation, eg, moving along a 30mph carriageway at 30.1
mph, are rather more difficult to detect, even for the driver
information equipment of the vehicle concerned. For that reason, a
certain amount of marginal leeway is allowed as a matter of legal
expediency - and as a matter of justice. Driving along Colchester High
Street at 29.9mph is permissible, doing the same at 30.1 is
theoretically not, but only those with a screw loose would claim that it
ought to be punished or even that any effort be made to detect it.

It is not very kind of you to suggest that MrCheerful might have a
screw loose.

I suggested nothing of the kind with the above. My reference was very
clearly to whoever wrote: "So you would encourage the police to have
zero tolerance to all road traffic offences, including ... speeding
motorists?".
Many writers lose perspective on that issue and start comparing apples
with oranges.

No such leeway is needed with absolute offences such as:
- driving with a defective tyre, or

1.61mm of tread is OK whereas 1.59 is not...

The defect may ne one of a number of things.

- driving with no insurance, or
- driving with no road tax, or
- driving with no MOT certificate, or
- cycling along a footway, or

What about mounting the kerb and driving on the footway when turning?

Is that an offence?

You need to ask?

I do, since driving on the footway is not uniformly lawful or unlawful
as between local authority areas. I mount the footway when turning
several times a day. Completely lawful, and pedestrians using the
footway lawfully have to give way to me, as do cyclists using it illegally.




- cycling the wrong way along a one-way street, or

What is a legally allowed distance to reverse into a parking space on
a one way street?

Whatever is reasonably necessary. It's provided for in law, as you
probably know.

Is reversing 2m ok? what about 2.01m? 3.59m? 10.67m? 40.154m?

Offhand, I would say that any of those except the last, depending on the
exact circumstances. 10 metres is less than the length of a stationary
lorry or bus, for instance.

Forty metres, or, as the British call it, 131 feet 9 inches, seems less
likely, except in peculiar circumstances, to be viewable as
"reasonable". It's not out of the question, though, I have reversed
further than that in a one way street, with the permission of a police
officer on the scene.

You get the idea?

Of course I do. You are trying to make the weasel case that because
drivers are allowed to reverse park in one way streets, it's OK for
cyclists to disregard one-way working completely.


Not my point at all.


Of course it was. It's transparently at the base of the whole sub-thread
(which you started). You must be pretty stupid if you really "think"
that it can't be seen a mile off.


You are wrong.

My initial point was that if Cheerless wanted rigorous enforcement of
road traffic laws, it needed to be rigorous for all road users.

You then made the invalid point that speeding motorists were a special
case. Your reasoning being that it was difficult to detect a speeding
offence which was marginally over the speed limit.

I then pointed out that speeding was not a special case by
demonstrating that offences, such as driving the wrong way down a
one-way street could be equally difficult to detect, or having
defective tyres.

You then made the incorrect assumption that what I was trying to say
was that as motorists could legally reverse for short distances along
one-way roads, that it was OK for cyclists.

I said that last time.

Why are you trying to scrape the bottom of a bone-dry barrel? Surely you
are not being so stupid as to try to claim that because a driver may
reverse a few feet or yards into a parking space, that means it's
acceptable for a cyclist to cycle the wrong way in a one-way street?


Perhaps it depends how far?


Maybe. But whether one is parking, or just trying to evade the rules
(like a cyclist) will be crystal clear to an observer.


- driving or cycling through a red traffic light, or
- driving or cycling at night without use of mandated vehicle lights.


There are no measurement difficulties with these offences. If they have
been witnessed, they have been committed. And the driving offences
mentioned in that list - absolute offences - are the correct comparators
for "cycling along the footway" (a particularly mean-spirited,
self-centred, anti-social and absolute offence).


I'm glad you agree.


I felt I'd proved the converse already. But perhaps you can answer my
questions above.

You claim not only that cycling along a footway is NOT a particularly
mean-spirited, self-centred, anti-social and absolute offence, but also
that you have proven that assertion?


What colour is your local star?

  #33  
Old June 15th 14, 07:37 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Pavement cyclist kills OAP

On 15/06/2014 18:28, Bertie Wooster wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2014 16:50, Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2014 14:21, Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:


[ ... ]


So you would encourage the police to have zero tolerance to all road
traffic offences, including cyclists on the footway and speeding
motorists?


As has been observed before, cycling along the footway is an offence
which is easily identified. If the cyclist is cycling along, and he's
cycling along a footway reserved for pedestrians, he's breaking the law.
There are no other considerations - it's absolute.


"Offences" of gradation, eg, moving along a 30mph carriageway at 30.1
mph, are rather more difficult to detect, even for the driver
information equipment of the vehicle concerned. For that reason, a
certain amount of marginal leeway is allowed as a matter of legal
expediency - and as a matter of justice. Driving along Colchester High
Street at 29.9mph is permissible, doing the same at 30.1 is
theoretically not, but only those with a screw loose would claim that it
ought to be punished or even that any effort be made to detect it.


It is not very kind of you to suggest that MrCheerful might have a
screw loose.


I suggested nothing of the kind with the above. My reference was very
clearly to whoever wrote: "So you would encourage the police to have
zero tolerance to all road traffic offences, including ... speeding
motorists?".
Many writers lose perspective on that issue and start comparing apples
with oranges.


No such leeway is needed with absolute offences such as:
- driving with a defective tyre, or
- driving with no insurance, or
- driving with no road tax, or
- driving with no MOT certificate, or
- cycling along a footway, or
- cycling the wrong way along a one-way street, or


What is a legally allowed distance to reverse into a parking space on
a one way street?


Whatever is reasonably necessary. It's provided for in law, as you
probably know.


Is reversing 2m ok? what about 2.01m? 3.59m? 10.67m? 40.154m?


Offhand, I would say that any of those except the last, depending on the
exact circumstances. 10 metres is less than the length of a stationary
lorry or bus, for instance.
Forty metres, or, as the British call it, 131 feet 9 inches, seems less
likely, except in peculiar circumstances, to be viewable as
"reasonable". It's not out of the question, though, I have reversed
further than that in a one way street, with the permission of a police
officer on the scene.


You get the idea?


Of course I do. You are trying to make the weasel case that because
drivers are allowed to reverse park in one way streets, it's OK for
cyclists to disregard one-way working completely.


Not my point at all.


Of course it was. It's transparently at the base of the whole sub-thread
(which you started). You must be pretty stupid if you really "think"
that it can't be seen a mile off.


You are wrong.


I don't think so. You were trying to "justify" blatant selfish
law-breaking on the basis that motorists reverse-park on one-way streets.

My initial point was that if Cheerless wanted rigorous enforcement of
road traffic laws, it needed to be rigorous for all road users.


Fair enough.

You then made the invalid point that speeding motorists were a special
case.


No, I did not.

I made the absolutely valid point that "speeding", being an offence of
gradation, which cannot be detected (let alone proven) without
scientific measurement technology, is a *different* case from an obvious
absolute offence which can be detected by the Mk I Eyeball.

Your reasoning being that it was difficult to detect a speeding
offence which was marginally over the speed limit.


That was an illustration. It cannot be detected *at all* without the use
of a technology. Your "witnessing" a vehicle being driven at 35mph (in
your opinion) in a 30mph limit is meaningless. Not so your witnessing
someone cycling along the footway, which needs only to be witnessed and
attested to be proven.

I then pointed out that speeding was not a special case by
demonstrating that offences, such as driving the wrong way down a
one-way street could be equally difficult to detect, or having
defective tyres.


Some such offences may indeed only be provable by measurement, but that
merely puts those particular offences in the same category as alleged
speeding. It doesn't shift the selfish offences that cyclists commit
into that category. They remain absoluite and provable without measurement.

You then made the incorrect assumption that what I was trying to say
was that as motorists could legally reverse for short distances along
one-way roads, that it was OK for cyclists.


But you were trying to say that.

If you weren't, you can make that clear.

Simply copy and paste the following:

"I, Tom Crispin, aka Bertie Wooster, hereby give notice and wish it to
be known that I do not seek, and do not wish to seek, to justify the
selfish offences committed by cyclists (eg, cycling along
pedestrian-only footways, cycling through pedestrian-only precincts,
cycling the wrong-way along one-way streets or disobeying traffic
lights), whether on their own demerits or by comparison with any faults
I might imagine or perceive in any other class of road-user.".

Do that and omit the inverted commas and I might think about taking your
testy protestations seriously.

Why are you trying to scrape the bottom of a bone-dry barrel? Surely you
are not being so stupid as to try to claim that because a driver may
reverse a few feet or yards into a parking space, that means it's
acceptable for a cyclist to cycle the wrong way in a one-way street?


Perhaps it depends how far?


Maybe. But whether one is parking, or just trying to evade the rules
(like a cyclist) will be crystal clear to an observer.


- driving or cycling through a red traffic light, or
- driving or cycling at night without use of mandated vehicle lights.


There are no measurement difficulties with these offences. If they have
been witnessed, they have been committed. And the driving offences
mentioned in that list - absolute offences - are the correct comparators
for "cycling along the footway" (a particularly mean-spirited,
self-centred, anti-social and absolute offence).


I'm glad you agree.


I felt I'd proved the converse already. But perhaps you can answer my
questions above.


You claim not only that cycling along a footway is NOT a particularly
mean-spirited, self-centred, anti-social and absolute offence, but also
that you have proven that assertion?


What colour is your local star?


  #34  
Old June 16th 14, 06:40 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Bertie Wooster[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,958
Default Pavement cyclist kills OAP

On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:37:53 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 15/06/2014 18:28, Bertie Wooster wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2014 16:50, Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2014 14:21, Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:


[ ... ]


So you would encourage the police to have zero tolerance to all road
traffic offences, including cyclists on the footway and speeding
motorists?


As has been observed before, cycling along the footway is an offence
which is easily identified. If the cyclist is cycling along, and he's
cycling along a footway reserved for pedestrians, he's breaking the law.
There are no other considerations - it's absolute.


"Offences" of gradation, eg, moving along a 30mph carriageway at 30.1
mph, are rather more difficult to detect, even for the driver
information equipment of the vehicle concerned. For that reason, a
certain amount of marginal leeway is allowed as a matter of legal
expediency - and as a matter of justice. Driving along Colchester High
Street at 29.9mph is permissible, doing the same at 30.1 is
theoretically not, but only those with a screw loose would claim that it
ought to be punished or even that any effort be made to detect it.


It is not very kind of you to suggest that MrCheerful might have a
screw loose.


I suggested nothing of the kind with the above. My reference was very
clearly to whoever wrote: "So you would encourage the police to have
zero tolerance to all road traffic offences, including ... speeding
motorists?".
Many writers lose perspective on that issue and start comparing apples
with oranges.


No such leeway is needed with absolute offences such as:
- driving with a defective tyre, or
- driving with no insurance, or
- driving with no road tax, or
- driving with no MOT certificate, or
- cycling along a footway, or
- cycling the wrong way along a one-way street, or


What is a legally allowed distance to reverse into a parking space on
a one way street?


Whatever is reasonably necessary. It's provided for in law, as you
probably know.


Is reversing 2m ok? what about 2.01m? 3.59m? 10.67m? 40.154m?


Offhand, I would say that any of those except the last, depending on the
exact circumstances. 10 metres is less than the length of a stationary
lorry or bus, for instance.
Forty metres, or, as the British call it, 131 feet 9 inches, seems less
likely, except in peculiar circumstances, to be viewable as
"reasonable". It's not out of the question, though, I have reversed
further than that in a one way street, with the permission of a police
officer on the scene.


You get the idea?


Of course I do. You are trying to make the weasel case that because
drivers are allowed to reverse park in one way streets, it's OK for
cyclists to disregard one-way working completely.


Not my point at all.


Of course it was. It's transparently at the base of the whole sub-thread
(which you started). You must be pretty stupid if you really "think"
that it can't be seen a mile off.


You are wrong.


I don't think so. You were trying to "justify" blatant selfish
law-breaking on the basis that motorists reverse-park on one-way streets.

My initial point was that if Cheerless wanted rigorous enforcement of
road traffic laws, it needed to be rigorous for all road users.


Fair enough.

You then made the invalid point that speeding motorists were a special
case.


No, I did not.

I made the absolutely valid point that "speeding", being an offence of
gradation, which cannot be detected (let alone proven) without
scientific measurement technology, is a *different* case from an obvious
absolute offence which can be detected by the Mk I Eyeball.


And as I patiently pointed out, speeding isn't unique in this.
Detecting a bald tyre similarly needs measuring - unless you think
that you can determine the difference between 1.61mm and 1.59mm.

Your reasoning being that it was difficult to detect a speeding
offence which was marginally over the speed limit.


That was an illustration. It cannot be detected *at all* without the use
of a technology. Your "witnessing" a vehicle being driven at 35mph (in
your opinion) in a 30mph limit is meaningless. Not so your witnessing
someone cycling along the footway, which needs only to be witnessed and
attested to be proven.

I then pointed out that speeding was not a special case by
demonstrating that offences, such as driving the wrong way down a
one-way street could be equally difficult to detect, or having
defective tyres.


Some such offences may indeed only be provable by measurement, but that
merely puts those particular offences in the same category as alleged
speeding. It doesn't shift the selfish offences that cyclists commit
into that category. They remain absoluite and provable without measurement.


So what do you suggest? That the police are less rigorous with
offences such as speeding and driving with bald tyres, and focus their
attention on absolute offences, such as an eight year old cycling on
the footway alongside a busy road on their way to school?

You then made the incorrect assumption that what I was trying to say
was that as motorists could legally reverse for short distances along
one-way roads, that it was OK for cyclists.


But you were trying to say that.

If you weren't, you can make that clear.

Simply copy and paste the following:

"I, Tom Crispin, aka Bertie Wooster, hereby give notice and wish it to
be known that I do not seek, and do not wish to seek, to justify the
selfish offences committed by cyclists (eg, cycling along
pedestrian-only footways, cycling through pedestrian-only precincts,
cycling the wrong-way along one-way streets or disobeying traffic
lights), whether on their own demerits or by comparison with any faults
I might imagine or perceive in any other class of road-user.".

Do that and omit the inverted commas and I might think about taking your
testy protestations seriously.

Why are you trying to scrape the bottom of a bone-dry barrel? Surely you
are not being so stupid as to try to claim that because a driver may
reverse a few feet or yards into a parking space, that means it's
acceptable for a cyclist to cycle the wrong way in a one-way street?


Perhaps it depends how far?


Maybe. But whether one is parking, or just trying to evade the rules
(like a cyclist) will be crystal clear to an observer.


- driving or cycling through a red traffic light, or
- driving or cycling at night without use of mandated vehicle lights.


There are no measurement difficulties with these offences. If they have
been witnessed, they have been committed. And the driving offences
mentioned in that list - absolute offences - are the correct comparators
for "cycling along the footway" (a particularly mean-spirited,
self-centred, anti-social and absolute offence).


I'm glad you agree.


I felt I'd proved the converse already. But perhaps you can answer my
questions above.


You claim not only that cycling along a footway is NOT a particularly
mean-spirited, self-centred, anti-social and absolute offence, but also
that you have proven that assertion?


What colour is your local star?

  #35  
Old June 16th 14, 09:21 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Peter Keller[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,736
Default Pavement cyclist kills OAP

On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:41:21 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 15/06/2014 09:47, Peter Keller wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:58:58 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 14/06/2014 09:05, Peter Keller wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 13/06/2014 09:49, Peter Keller wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:25:00 +0100, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:28:12 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

The death toll is mounting, when will this menace be stopped?

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...g/2014/jun/11/

police-
hunt-pavement-cyclist-who-killed-81-year-old-woman-in-oldham

It is time there was a real effort by the police to clamp down on
cyclists on footpaths - with a large fine.

Not ours.
They are too busy nicking bicyclists without helmets.
Now how does a bicyclist wearing a helmet save a knocked down OAP?

There is the issue of instilling a respect for law and the rioghts
of others - even if only a grudging one - in the lawless.

Nicking bicyclists for not wearing helmets is not designed to instill
respect for the law.

Nevertheless, it is a side effect.


It might bludgeon long-suffering people into obeying stupid laws. It
does not instill respect.


If scofflaw chavs on bikes won't respect the law (and the rights of
others), bludgeoning them into compliance, whilst not the ideal, is
still an acceptable substitute, as I'm sure you'll agree.


I agree.
Forcing people to wear pudding bowels does not reduce the danger to
others.

Nicking bicyclists for behaviour increasing the chances of serious
injury to others is another matter.


Much traffic law is aimed at preventing injury to road-users in
general,
including the prevention of injury solely to the offender.


So let us have rules which have a good effect aof preventing injury to
the offender, such as --
Stop at red lights --
Always be able to stop without hitting something --
etc.
A pudding bowl does not have nearly as good an effect as real measures
do.


We have those rules in the UK. I am sorry to hear that they have not yet
reached the Antipodes. Speak to your MP?


Oh we have tried. Do you know what kind of person the average MP is?
As you and I say, we are talking about a thoroughly ****ed-up country.

  #36  
Old June 16th 14, 11:57 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Pavement cyclist kills OAP

On 16/06/2014 06:40, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:37:53 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 15/06/2014 18:28, Bertie Wooster wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2014 16:50, Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2014 14:21, Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:

[ ... ]

So you would encourage the police to have zero tolerance to all road
traffic offences, including cyclists on the footway and speeding
motorists?

As has been observed before, cycling along the footway is an offence
which is easily identified. If the cyclist is cycling along, and he's
cycling along a footway reserved for pedestrians, he's breaking the law.
There are no other considerations - it's absolute.

"Offences" of gradation, eg, moving along a 30mph carriageway at 30.1
mph, are rather more difficult to detect, even for the driver
information equipment of the vehicle concerned. For that reason, a
certain amount of marginal leeway is allowed as a matter of legal
expediency - and as a matter of justice. Driving along Colchester High
Street at 29.9mph is permissible, doing the same at 30.1 is
theoretically not, but only those with a screw loose would claim that it
ought to be punished or even that any effort be made to detect it.

It is not very kind of you to suggest that MrCheerful might have a
screw loose.

I suggested nothing of the kind with the above. My reference was very
clearly to whoever wrote: "So you would encourage the police to have
zero tolerance to all road traffic offences, including ... speeding
motorists?".
Many writers lose perspective on that issue and start comparing apples
with oranges.

No such leeway is needed with absolute offences such as:
- driving with a defective tyre, or
- driving with no insurance, or
- driving with no road tax, or
- driving with no MOT certificate, or
- cycling along a footway, or
- cycling the wrong way along a one-way street, or

What is a legally allowed distance to reverse into a parking space on
a one way street?

Whatever is reasonably necessary. It's provided for in law, as you
probably know.

Is reversing 2m ok? what about 2.01m? 3.59m? 10.67m? 40.154m?

Offhand, I would say that any of those except the last, depending on the
exact circumstances. 10 metres is less than the length of a stationary
lorry or bus, for instance.
Forty metres, or, as the British call it, 131 feet 9 inches, seems less
likely, except in peculiar circumstances, to be viewable as
"reasonable". It's not out of the question, though, I have reversed
further than that in a one way street, with the permission of a police
officer on the scene.

You get the idea?

Of course I do. You are trying to make the weasel case that because
drivers are allowed to reverse park in one way streets, it's OK for
cyclists to disregard one-way working completely.

Not my point at all.

Of course it was. It's transparently at the base of the whole sub-thread
(which you started). You must be pretty stupid if you really "think"
that it can't be seen a mile off.

You are wrong.


I don't think so. You were trying to "justify" blatant selfish
law-breaking on the basis that motorists reverse-park on one-way streets.

My initial point was that if Cheerless wanted rigorous enforcement of
road traffic laws, it needed to be rigorous for all road users.


Fair enough.

You then made the invalid point that speeding motorists were a special
case.


No, I did not.

I made the absolutely valid point that "speeding", being an offence of
gradation, which cannot be detected (let alone proven) without
scientific measurement technology, is a *different* case from an obvious
absolute offence which can be detected by the Mk I Eyeball.


And as I patiently pointed out, speeding isn't unique in this.


I didn't say it was, and it doesn't need to be for my point to remain
absolutely valid.

Detecting a bald tyre similarly needs measuring - unless you think
that you can determine the difference between 1.61mm and 1.59mm.


I said *defective* tyre. There may be some defects where marginality
requires measurement, there are many that don't.

But it doesn't matter at all - all that your attempt at a nitpick proves
is that there is more than one offence where measurement is necessary as
evidence, and that takes nothing away from the fact that selfish,
anti-social, offences like cycling along a footway (etc) need not be
measured: they only need to be witnessed and attested.

Your reasoning being that it was difficult to detect a speeding
offence which was marginally over the speed limit.


That was an illustration. It cannot be detected *at all* without the use
of a technology. Your "witnessing" a vehicle being driven at 35mph (in
your opinion) in a 30mph limit is meaningless. Not so your witnessing
someone cycling along the footway, which needs only to be witnessed and
attested to be proven.


I then pointed out that speeding was not a special case by
demonstrating that offences, such as driving the wrong way down a
one-way street could be equally difficult to detect, or having
defective tyres.


Some such offences may indeed only be provable by measurement, but that
merely puts those particular offences in the same category as alleged
speeding. It doesn't shift the selfish offences that cyclists commit
into that category. They remain absoluite and provable without measurement.


So what do you suggest? That the police are less rigorous with
offences such as speeding and driving with bald tyres,


Bald tyres need no measurement. And the police would be well within
their rights to impound a vehicle being driven on them.

Come on...

and focus their
attention on absolute offences, such as an eight year old cycling on
the footway alongside a busy road on their way to school?


Ah... the usual attempt at sleight of hand...

FWIW, I'd want the police to focus first on 20-something and
30-something sociopaths riding bicyles on footways, through pedestrian
areas, through red traffic lights and the wrong way on one-way carriageways.

Pick a hole in that.

You then made the incorrect assumption that what I was trying to say
was that as motorists could legally reverse for short distances along
one-way roads, that it was OK for cyclists.


But you were trying to say that.
If you weren't, you can make that clear.
Simply copy and paste the following:


"I, Tom Crispin, aka Bertie Wooster, hereby give notice and wish it to
be known that I do not seek, and do not wish to seek, to justify the
selfish offences committed by cyclists (eg, cycling along
pedestrian-only footways, cycling through pedestrian-only precincts,
cycling the wrong-way along one-way streets or disobeying traffic
lights), whether on their own demerits or by comparison with any faults
I might imagine or perceive in any other class of road-user.".


Do that and omit the inverted commas and I might think about taking your
testy protestations seriously.


Well, there can't be anyone reading this who thought you would (want to)
take that opportunity.

Why are you trying to scrape the bottom of a bone-dry barrel? Surely you
are not being so stupid as to try to claim that because a driver may
reverse a few feet or yards into a parking space, that means it's
acceptable for a cyclist to cycle the wrong way in a one-way street?


Perhaps it depends how far?


Maybe. But whether one is parking, or just trying to evade the rules
(like a cyclist) will be crystal clear to an observer.


- driving or cycling through a red traffic light, or
- driving or cycling at night without use of mandated vehicle lights.


There are no measurement difficulties with these offences. If they have
been witnessed, they have been committed. And the driving offences
mentioned in that list - absolute offences - are the correct comparators
for "cycling along the footway" (a particularly mean-spirited,
self-centred, anti-social and absolute offence).


I'm glad you agree.


I felt I'd proved the converse already. But perhaps you can answer my
questions above.


You claim not only that cycling along a footway is NOT a particularly
mean-spirited, self-centred, anti-social and absolute offence, but also
that you have proven that assertion?


What colour is your local star?


  #37  
Old June 16th 14, 12:50 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Bertie Wooster[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,958
Default Pavement cyclist kills OAP

On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:57:10 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 16/06/2014 06:40, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:37:53 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 15/06/2014 18:28, Bertie Wooster wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2014 16:50, Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2014 14:21, Bertie Wooster wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:

[ ... ]

So you would encourage the police to have zero tolerance to all road
traffic offences, including cyclists on the footway and speeding
motorists?

As has been observed before, cycling along the footway is an offence
which is easily identified. If the cyclist is cycling along, and he's
cycling along a footway reserved for pedestrians, he's breaking the law.
There are no other considerations - it's absolute.

"Offences" of gradation, eg, moving along a 30mph carriageway at 30.1
mph, are rather more difficult to detect, even for the driver
information equipment of the vehicle concerned. For that reason, a
certain amount of marginal leeway is allowed as a matter of legal
expediency - and as a matter of justice. Driving along Colchester High
Street at 29.9mph is permissible, doing the same at 30.1 is
theoretically not, but only those with a screw loose would claim that it
ought to be punished or even that any effort be made to detect it.

It is not very kind of you to suggest that MrCheerful might have a
screw loose.

I suggested nothing of the kind with the above. My reference was very
clearly to whoever wrote: "So you would encourage the police to have
zero tolerance to all road traffic offences, including ... speeding
motorists?".
Many writers lose perspective on that issue and start comparing apples
with oranges.

No such leeway is needed with absolute offences such as:
- driving with a defective tyre, or
- driving with no insurance, or
- driving with no road tax, or
- driving with no MOT certificate, or
- cycling along a footway, or
- cycling the wrong way along a one-way street, or

What is a legally allowed distance to reverse into a parking space on
a one way street?

Whatever is reasonably necessary. It's provided for in law, as you
probably know.

Is reversing 2m ok? what about 2.01m? 3.59m? 10.67m? 40.154m?

Offhand, I would say that any of those except the last, depending on the
exact circumstances. 10 metres is less than the length of a stationary
lorry or bus, for instance.
Forty metres, or, as the British call it, 131 feet 9 inches, seems less
likely, except in peculiar circumstances, to be viewable as
"reasonable". It's not out of the question, though, I have reversed
further than that in a one way street, with the permission of a police
officer on the scene.

You get the idea?

Of course I do. You are trying to make the weasel case that because
drivers are allowed to reverse park in one way streets, it's OK for
cyclists to disregard one-way working completely.

Not my point at all.

Of course it was. It's transparently at the base of the whole sub-thread
(which you started). You must be pretty stupid if you really "think"
that it can't be seen a mile off.

You are wrong.

I don't think so. You were trying to "justify" blatant selfish
law-breaking on the basis that motorists reverse-park on one-way streets.

My initial point was that if Cheerless wanted rigorous enforcement of
road traffic laws, it needed to be rigorous for all road users.

Fair enough.

You then made the invalid point that speeding motorists were a special
case.

No, I did not.

I made the absolutely valid point that "speeding", being an offence of
gradation, which cannot be detected (let alone proven) without
scientific measurement technology, is a *different* case from an obvious
absolute offence which can be detected by the Mk I Eyeball.


And as I patiently pointed out, speeding isn't unique in this.


I didn't say it was, and it doesn't need to be for my point to remain
absolutely valid.

Detecting a bald tyre similarly needs measuring - unless you think
that you can determine the difference between 1.61mm and 1.59mm.


I said *defective* tyre. There may be some defects where marginality
requires measurement, there are many that don't.

But it doesn't matter at all - all that your attempt at a nitpick proves
is that there is more than one offence where measurement is necessary as
evidence, and that takes nothing away from the fact that selfish,
anti-social, offences like cycling along a footway (etc) need not be
measured: they only need to be witnessed and attested.

Your reasoning being that it was difficult to detect a speeding
offence which was marginally over the speed limit.


That was an illustration. It cannot be detected *at all* without the use
of a technology. Your "witnessing" a vehicle being driven at 35mph (in
your opinion) in a 30mph limit is meaningless. Not so your witnessing
someone cycling along the footway, which needs only to be witnessed and
attested to be proven.


I then pointed out that speeding was not a special case by
demonstrating that offences, such as driving the wrong way down a
one-way street could be equally difficult to detect, or having
defective tyres.


Some such offences may indeed only be provable by measurement, but that
merely puts those particular offences in the same category as alleged
speeding. It doesn't shift the selfish offences that cyclists commit
into that category. They remain absoluite and provable without measurement.


So what do you suggest? That the police are less rigorous with
offences such as speeding and driving with bald tyres,


Bald tyres need no measurement. And the police would be well within
their rights to impound a vehicle being driven on them.

Come on...

and focus their
attention on absolute offences, such as an eight year old cycling on
the footway alongside a busy road on their way to school?


Ah... the usual attempt at sleight of hand...

FWIW, I'd want the police to focus first on 20-something and
30-something sociopaths riding bicyles on footways, through pedestrian
areas, through red traffic lights and the wrong way on one-way carriageways.

Pick a hole in that.


No, that's fair enough. You disagree with Cheerless's statement, "It
is the broken window syndrome, ignore one bit of lawbreaking and the
scale will escalate."

I happen to agree with you.

It is fine for the police to target lawbreaking that really matters.

Where we disagree is in what the fuzz should target - though we
probably agree more than we disagree. Law-breaking 8-year-olds on the
footway alongside a busy road appears to be one such example.

You then made the incorrect assumption that what I was trying to say
was that as motorists could legally reverse for short distances along
one-way roads, that it was OK for cyclists.


But you were trying to say that.
If you weren't, you can make that clear.
Simply copy and paste the following:


"I, Tom Crispin, aka Bertie Wooster, hereby give notice and wish it to
be known that I do not seek, and do not wish to seek, to justify the
selfish offences committed by cyclists (eg, cycling along
pedestrian-only footways, cycling through pedestrian-only precincts,
cycling the wrong-way along one-way streets or disobeying traffic
lights), whether on their own demerits or by comparison with any faults
I might imagine or perceive in any other class of road-user.".


Do that and omit the inverted commas and I might think about taking your
testy protestations seriously.


Well, there can't be anyone reading this who thought you would (want to)
take that opportunity.

Why are you trying to scrape the bottom of a bone-dry barrel? Surely you
are not being so stupid as to try to claim that because a driver may
reverse a few feet or yards into a parking space, that means it's
acceptable for a cyclist to cycle the wrong way in a one-way street?


Perhaps it depends how far?


Maybe. But whether one is parking, or just trying to evade the rules
(like a cyclist) will be crystal clear to an observer.


- driving or cycling through a red traffic light, or
- driving or cycling at night without use of mandated vehicle lights.


There are no measurement difficulties with these offences. If they have
been witnessed, they have been committed. And the driving offences
mentioned in that list - absolute offences - are the correct comparators
for "cycling along the footway" (a particularly mean-spirited,
self-centred, anti-social and absolute offence).


I'm glad you agree.


I felt I'd proved the converse already. But perhaps you can answer my
questions above.


You claim not only that cycling along a footway is NOT a particularly
mean-spirited, self-centred, anti-social and absolute offence, but also
that you have proven that assertion?


What colour is your local star?

 




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 bus-driver kills man. Doug[_10_] UK 2 April 2nd 12 07:55 AM
Yet another pavement motorist kills. Doug[_10_] UK 15 March 23rd 12 09:25 PM
Pavement cyclist kills himself in front of children Mrcheerful[_2_] UK 7 September 5th 11 09:24 PM
Yet another pavement motorist kills. Doug[_3_] UK 38 April 29th 11 10:31 PM
Another pavement motorist kills Doug[_3_] UK 29 April 6th 10 12:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:04 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.