Brighton cyclist ordered to pay £1,000 for ignoring one-way sign

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:31:53 -0000, Mrcheerful wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqtltnh1ytk5n5@i7-940...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 22:40:42 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqtjtsbaytk5n5@i7-940...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:49:05 -0000, Mrcheerful

wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqthkeb9ytk5n5@i7-940...




Pity, she should have sued you for her pain and suffering.

It's hardly suffering getting bumped by a bicycle.


It is battery for a start. Any bump may produce a bruise or injury which
shows up later. She should at least have taken your details in case of a
later claim becoming apparent.

A bruise, for ****'s sake stop being such a pussy.


So you think that personal injury or loss is unimportant? What about the
possible consequence? such as a blood clot or haemophiliac bleeding causing
death? both are a possible reaction to a bruise.

Your sarcastic name "Mr Cheerful" fits you well here. Stop being such an old grump and have some fun for once. Live life more dangerously.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

One of the first things you learn on your honeymoon is,
when you're carrying your bride over the threshold, always go in sideways,
unless of course two broken ankles and a concussion turn you on.

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqtoibsnytk5n5@i7-940...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:29:40 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqtm2frxytk5n5@i7-940...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:15:27 -0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 12/01/2013 22:38, Mrcheerful wrote:

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote:

[ ... ]











Stop talking in riddles for the sake of it. The discussion was
whether
it
was worth being illegal for bicycles to do what cars aren't meant to,
considering cars cause billions of times more damage.

No riddle, it is clear enough to most people.
I will put it in simpler terms just for you.
If a law is broken then the lawbreaker should be caught and charged
appropriately. You appear to think that there is some sort of
'degree'
or
'level' of law breaking which should be ignored due to limited likely
possibilities. The law is an absolute, the punishment may well be on
a
sliding scale depending on the danger/consequences.

I'm not sure that he *does* believe that there should be degrees of
lawbreaking. But I do.

Speed, for instance. Doing 31 is no different in practical effect from
doing 29. It would be asking too much of drivers and motorcyclists
never
to let their speed drift 1mph above a limit. IOW, it's a marginal
issue.
The same behaviour (to a nicety) is theoretically capable of being
either lawful or unlawful. It's a question of accuracy and intent.

It's much more clear-cut in most other types of case.

Stealing a bottle of whisky from the supermarket spirits aisle, for
instance.

You either did it or you didn't.

Going through a red light.

You either did it or you didn't.

Or cycling along a footway.

You either did it or you didn't.

Or going the wrong way along a one-way street.

You either did it or you didn't.

And if you did (in any of those cases), it's reasonable to presume (in
the absence of persuasive countervailing evidence) that you did it
deliberately.

Book-throwing time.

But if you steal a bottle of whisky, you don't get into as much trouble
as
if you steal a million quid from a bank vault.

Likewise going up a one way street in a bicycle pales in comparison to
doing it in a car, or even going up a one way street in a car.


Which is why the sentencing is usually different. The breaking of the
law
is the same.

Breaking the law on a bicycle is so unimportant that it shouldn't be
against the law at all. Unless you use one to raid a bank of course.


Look up broken window syndrome.

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqtogrwxytk5n5@i7-940...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:31:53 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqtltnh1ytk5n5@i7-940...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 22:40:42 -0000, Mrcheerful

wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqtjtsbaytk5n5@i7-940...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:49:05 -0000, Mrcheerful

wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqthkeb9ytk5n5@i7-940...




Pity, she should have sued you for her pain and suffering.

It's hardly suffering getting bumped by a bicycle.


It is battery for a start. Any bump may produce a bruise or injury
which
shows up later. She should at least have taken your details in case of
a
later claim becoming apparent.

A bruise, for ****'s sake stop being such a pussy.


So you think that personal injury or loss is unimportant? What about
the
possible consequence? such as a blood clot or haemophiliac bleeding
causing
death? both are a possible reaction to a bruise.

Stop thinking of 1 in a millions. They could just as well do that bumping
into a door.


Why would a cyclist breaking the law be able to take that decision against
another person?

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqtojlh6ytk5n5@i7-940...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:31:53 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqtltnh1ytk5n5@i7-940...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 22:40:42 -0000, Mrcheerful

wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqtjtsbaytk5n5@i7-940...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:49:05 -0000, Mrcheerful

wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wqthkeb9ytk5n5@i7-940...




Pity, she should have sued you for her pain and suffering.

It's hardly suffering getting bumped by a bicycle.


It is battery for a start. Any bump may produce a bruise or injury
which
shows up later. She should at least have taken your details in case of
a
later claim becoming apparent.

A bruise, for ****'s sake stop being such a pussy.


So you think that personal injury or loss is unimportant? What about
the
possible consequence? such as a blood clot or haemophiliac bleeding
causing
death? both are a possible reaction to a bruise.

Your sarcastic name "Mr Cheerful" fits you well here. Stop being such an
old grump and have some fun for once. Live life more dangerously.


There is no fun in endangering the general public deliberately. I can only
see selfish behaviour in anyone that does so.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:20:28 +0000, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:06:13 -0000, henry.mcintosh
wrote:


He considers that if a pedestrian is hit by a cyclist it would never
hurt the pedestrian.

Are you made of glass or something? A cyclist is basically a pedestrian
on wheels.

Except that bicyclists often travel much faster than pedestrians.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 18:32:25 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:


You haven't quite grasped the concept yet have you?

If you ride a push bike, you are automatically an idiot. It's a given.

Sensible people don't ride pushbikes.

I am real glad to idiotted by the dave for using a sensible relaxing
viable means of transport, the bicycle.
And to be called not sensible, oh! the ecstasy!

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:17:45 +0000, Simon Weissel wrote:

Cycling is not ‘sensible’.

I find bicycling very sensible for me.

On 12/01/2013 22:26, JNugent wrote:
On 12/01/2013 18:14, Simon Weissel wrote:
On 12/01/2013 12:39, JNugent wrote:

In real-world situations where cyclists encounter pedestrians on the
footways or on pedestrian crossings, it tends to be varied to "**** off"
or "Get out of my way, ****".

Perhaps that in indicative of the type of people why cycle on footways
or on pedestrian crossings?

I assume you meant to type "who" instead of "why".

And that is clearly correct.

Yes I meant ‘who’.

No No No! That is not correct, it is only an assumption based on my
personal observation :-)

My own cycling encounters with pedestrians are always amicable. It is
only drivers who seem to get vexed from time to time.

I think you may have misunderstood what I wrote.

What, the bit where you wrote?

"In real-world situations where cyclists encounter pedestrians on the
footways or on pedestrian crossings, it tends to be varied to "**** off"
or "Get out of my way, ****"."

I think this varies from place to place.

Out in the countryside and small towns and villages where traffic
volumes are low, pedestrians and cyclists, horse-users and dog walkers
all seem to get along fine. Mr Toad the motorist tends to be the one who
is Bogieman.

But if you head to the City, where everyone is competing for space this
all changes. Pedestrians loath cyclists, cyclists loath pedestrians.
Drivers loath anything in their way and everyone co-exists in an
unpleasant manner. When driving through Cambridge City yesterday, I was
repeatedly hooted at by a driver because I refused to mow down a
pedestrian crossing the road. What I am saying is, attitudes between
road users vary from place to place. The biggest problems between
cyclists and pedestrians seems exist where traffic volumes are high and
shared use cycle paths are created.

On 12/01/2013 22:53, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

I'm not talking about breaking laws, I'm talking about what the law
should be in the first place. The one way rule should only apply to
full sized vehicles.

There is this prevailing attitude that ‘everyone MUST obey the law’ and
that means that if a cyclist makes a harmless minor misdemeanour, he
becomes the spawn of Satan and must punished by the full force of the
law. Of course the people with these attitudes are often happy to
dismiss their own lawbreaking activities on the basis of ‘that’s
different’ or ‘everyone does it’ regardless of how dangerous it actually
may be.

On 13/01/2013 07:01, Simon Weissel wrote:
On 12/01/2013 22:53, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

I'm not talking about breaking laws, I'm talking about what the law
should be in the first place. The one way rule should only apply to
full sized vehicles.

There is this prevailing attitude that ‘everyone MUST obey the law’ and
that means that if a cyclist makes a harmless minor misdemeanour, he
becomes the spawn of Satan and must punished by the full force of the
law. Of course the people with these attitudes are often happy to
dismiss their own lawbreaking activities on the basis of ‘that’s
different’ or ‘everyone does it’ regardless of how dangerous it actually
may be.

Cyclists are indeed the spawn of Satan. Well done, your education is
coming along nicely. One day you may be cured of cycling.

There is a difference between deliberately flouting the law and
accidentally doing so. Cyclists deliberately flout the law.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."