Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton

On Jan 25, 4:06*pm, _ wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:39:16 -0000, "pk" said
in :

Which does not actually change the documented fact that pedestrians
are far more likely to be injured on the footway by motorists than
cyclists.

I think the fact that is documented it the number of reported injuries not
the number of injuries per se, there is after all a legal duty to report
motor accident causing injury there will be close to 100% reporting of car
related injuries but a far lower proportion of the minor cycle/pedestrian
collisions will be reported.

Reporting of injuries does indeed vary according to severity and
cause. *Nearly all fatalities, and most serious injuries, are
recorded. *Trivial injuries are mostly unreported, we can only infer
things form the relative prevalence of those injuries which are
reported. *For example, we know that half of all injury admissions
to hospital are due to simple trips and falls, and many of these are
on footways. *My council says that the major cause of footway trips
is damage to the footways by motor vehicle encroachment.

probably better, though, to stick with the figures we do have rather
than suppositions. *And also probably better to look to the causes
and how they might be fixed, rather than advocating draconian
responses to the symptoms. *Especially since the symptom is, in many
cases, entirely legal now.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAA! Ah ****, sorry, I normally try and not rise to Chapmans
idiocy but this time I couldn't resist. Now he wants to blame cars for
incidents on the pavement even when they're not *there*!!!

That is pretty ****witted, even for him. When will he realise that no-
one is falling for his "I don't hate motorists" ********, and it just
makes him look like the lying **** that he is?

On Jan 24, 11:17*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
There is, too, the fact that you are clearly looking for this
behaviour and therefore noticing it. *Like all the drivers who
complain about cyclists wearing dark clothing at night because it
makes them impossible to see. *If it did, how would they know?

What a ****ing stupid thing to say.

JNugent wrote:
fred2 wrote:
"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

Without reading every sub-page, is that a pro-pedestrian website which
seeks to dissuade illegal footway cycling?

I don't get that impression from the page you cite (which is the only
one I've looked at).

The URL's a pretty big clue Doh!

Jolly Polly wrote:
JNugent wrote:
fred2 wrote:
"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

Without reading every sub-page, is that a pro-pedestrian website which
seeks to dissuade illegal footway cycling?
I don't get that impression from the page you cite (which is the only
one I've looked at).

The URL's a pretty big clue Doh!

If the site is not aimed at pedestrian safety (I didn't think it was, but
wasn't going to go to the trouble of clicking every link on it to check),
it's difficult to see why that PP cited it.

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".

ho, ho, go - two in one message:

Examples from the definition of psycholist:

2) They cannot bring themselves to use the word: "facility" in
the context of a "cycling facility". Whatever the facility - they
must try and ridicule it as they will not be able to fully comprehend
the benefits as seen for all road users. This is achieved by using
the alternative "farcility".

4) "Magic paint" - only used by the most inflicted psycholists.
Used to describe signage to cyclist on pavements. Origin unknown.

David Hansen:
Yes I understand that councils have been given/taken on 'targets' to
produce so many yards/miles of cycle-ways. But choose not to take this
responsibility seriously, only covering there backsides, as it were by
doing the minimum. They take the easy, cheap, quick *solution* and
divide up a resource that in most cases is not wide enough to
accommodate the division (whether road or pavement).
I am firmly against this policy, thus my total agreement with the
statement: 'The pavement is the sole preserve of the pedestrian'
I'm afraid I don't know what the law now is regarding this matter. As
far as I understand, it's a criminal offence to cycle on the pavement
(or mount the pavement with a motor vehicle for that matter).

judithtaylorsmith:
What is your problem, Which part of Magic Paint don't you understand?

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:32:51 +0000 someone who may be Jolly Polly
wrote this:-

I'm afraid I don't know what the law now is regarding this matter. As
far as I understand, it's a criminal offence to cycle on the pavement
(or mount the pavement with a motor vehicle for that matter).

Both questions depend on which country/principality/province/town
[1] one is talking about. It also depends on whether the pavement is
alongside a road or away from one.

[1] I am told that the law in London is different to the law in the
rest of England in this respect.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:32:51 +0000 someone who may be Jolly Polly
wrote this:-

I'm afraid I don't know what the law now is regarding this matter. As
far as I understand, it's a criminal offence to cycle on the pavement
(or mount the pavement with a motor vehicle for that matter).

Both questions depend on which country/principality/province/town
[1] one is talking about. It also depends on whether the pavement is
alongside a road or away from one.

[1] I am told that the law in London is different to the law in the
rest of England in this respect.




O dear, one for all the UK would be good. Good 'ol Europe'll step in and
sort us out, if we don't LOL

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:29:56 +0000 someone who may be Jolly Polly
wrote this:-

O dear, one for all the UK would be good.

Given that there is more than one legal system in the UK that would
be difficult.

Good 'ol Europe'll step in and sort us out, if we don't LOL

The UK is in Europe, so Europe is not some external body imposing
its will on a poor defenceless UK, no matter what the Daily Wail may
claim.

I am not very popular with many cyclists in this group for stating
this view, but I have no great objection to bikes ridden sensibly on
the pavement. Riding sensibly means riding at walking pace or below
in crowded conditions and some bikes and/or loads are not stable
enough at low speed to be ridden sensibly on pavements, in which
case they should be pushed. However, I do point out to advocates of
pavement cycling that it is safer and quicker to use the roads in
most cases, so pavements are really for short parts of trips, for
example getting to/from parking. Much of the rest of Europe does not
share the claimed horror of the British about pavement cycling and
as a result if these ideas spread here that would fit in with my
ideas.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

The UK is in Europe, so Europe is not some external body imposing
its will on a poor defenceless UK, no matter what the Daily Wail may
claim.

I agree, the comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. We (as a Nation) tend
to let events just take there course, rather than be pro-active. We're
lazy.

I am not very popular with many cyclists in this group for stating
this view, but I have no great objection to bikes ridden sensibly on
the pavement. Riding sensibly means riding at walking pace or below
in crowded conditions and some bikes and/or loads are not stable
enough at low speed to be ridden sensibly on pavements, in which
case they should be pushed. However, I do point out to advocates of
pavement cycling that it is safer and quicker to use the roads in
most cases, so pavements are really for short parts of trips, for
example getting to/from parking. Much of the rest of Europe does not
share the claimed horror of the British about pavement cycling and
as a result if these ideas spread here that would fit in with my
ideas.

unpopular in no way makes them wrong, or invalid. They are your views
and as such are perfectly legitimate. What's more you have a right,
maybe even a duty, to express them. I take it, as a member of a public
newsgroup you are open to persuasion, this is good.

Jolly Polly wrote:

[to David Hansen:]

... They are your views and as such are perfectly legitimate.

So far, so good.

What's more you have a right, maybe even a duty, to express them.

So far, so good.

I take it, as a member of a public newsgroup you are open to persuasion,
this is good.

mild amusement

It would be if it were the case.