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

Cyclist riding on a promenade gets her come-uppance



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old July 4th 19, 02:32 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,423
Default Cyclist riding on a promenade gets her come-uppance

On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 12:36, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 12:28, TMS320 wrote:

On 03/07/2019 15:58, Modesty wrote:
MrCheerful wrote:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/02/cycli...rank-10104973/

What 'come-uppance' did this 63 year old lady deserve? Promenades
often have cycle lanes.

This one actually has a restriction. But it's up to the authorities
to enforce it, not up to vigilantes to attempt murder.


That is a euphemistic way of saying that whilst cycling is indeed not
allowed on that pedestrian way but cyclists disobey that rule (how
unusual!), they have a right to get away with it.


When drivers routinely get away with speeding and bad parking...


What's the connection?

It is ABSOLUTELY clear that the cycling ban in the place in question is
there to protect pedestrians (all of us).

It's quite different when a driver (however wrongly and illegally)
passes a keep left bollard on the wrong side. In such a case it's
apparently perfectly permissible for a vigilante on a bike to obstruct
the road (an offence in itself) in order to "enforce" the rules.


What a completely stupid comparison. Stringing a rope across a path is
like dropping bricks onto a motorway.


They are both vigilantism.

If the vigilante blocks a cyclist with their own body, then you have a
reasonable equivalent.


They are both illegal and I don't support either of them.

Going back to my earlier remarks, though, the cyclist's injuries, as
terrible and frightful as they were, would have been totally avoided had
she not been cycling along a pedestrian path with a "No Cycling" rule,
wouldn't they? It seems reasonable to assume that it was cyclists the
person(s) setting the trap had in mind.

I have seen this sort of "trap" with my own eyes, by the way, including
a steel wire stretched across a suburban road (not a pedestrian path - a
road) just after dusk. A friend drove his vehicle into that
all-but-invisible ligature, causing severe and expensive damage, albeit
of a cosmetic type.

I thoroughly condemn this sort of irresponsible vigilantism - all of it
- and hope you do too.



Ads
  #32  
Old July 4th 19, 05:16 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,696
Default Cyclist riding on a promenade gets her come-uppance

On 04/07/2019 14:32, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 12:36, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 12:28, TMS320 wrote:

On 03/07/2019 15:58, Modesty wrote:
MrCheerful wrote:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/02/cycli...rank-10104973/

What 'come-uppance' did this 63 year old lady deserve? Promenades
often have cycle lanes.

This one actually has a restriction. But it's up to the authorities
to enforce it, not up to vigilantes to attempt murder.

That is a euphemistic way of saying that whilst cycling is indeed not
allowed on that pedestrian way but cyclists disobey that rule (how
unusual!), they have a right to get away with it.


When drivers routinely get away with speeding and bad parking...


What's the connection?


Every connection imaginable.

It is ABSOLUTELY clear that the cycling ban in the place in question is
there to protect pedestrians (all of us).


It is never absolutely clear that getting off to walk a bike is better
for pedestrians.

It's quite different when a driver (however wrongly and illegally)
passes a keep left bollard on the wrong side. In such a case it's
apparently perfectly permissible for a vigilante on a bike to
obstruct the road (an offence in itself) in order to "enforce" the
rules.


What a completely stupid comparison. Stringing a rope across a path is
like dropping bricks onto a motorway.


They are both vigilantism.


People putting their bodies in front of cyclists (often where cycling is
legal), is a familiar experience to most.

Not always unintentional (we have a poster here that admits as much).

If the vigilante blocks a cyclist with their own body, then you have a
reasonable equivalent.


They are both illegal and I don't support either of them.

Going back to my earlier remarks, though,* the cyclist's injuries, as
terrible and frightful as they were, would have been totally avoided had
she not been cycling along a pedestrian path with a "No Cycling" rule,
wouldn't they? It seems reasonable to assume that it was cyclists the
person(s) setting the trap had in mind.


You're justifying the perpetrator's action.

I have seen this sort of "trap" with my own eyes, by the way, including
a steel wire stretched across a suburban road (not a pedestrian path - a
road) just after dusk. A friend drove his vehicle into that
all-but-invisible ligature, causing severe and expensive damage, albeit
of a cosmetic type.


Then the cyclist following behind was extremely lucky.

I thoroughly condemn this sort of irresponsible vigilantism - all of it
- and hope you do too.


What you said above does not tell us this.

  #33  
Old July 4th 19, 08:36 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,319
Default Cyclist riding on a promenade gets her come-uppance

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 12:31:26 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:


It does seem pretty conclusive:

https://www.visit-dorset.com/imageresizer/?image=%2fdmsimgs%2ffriars-cliff-beach-non-copyright_221732048.jpg&action=ProductDetail&crop= 4D037E16A6C32DD04191FF6E4EB1


Indeed it does. It conclusively proves cycling is not prohibited.



  #34  
Old July 4th 19, 08:46 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,319
Default Cyclist riding on a promenade gets her come-uppance

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 9:10:43 AM UTC+1, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jul 2019 00:04:25 GMT, Simon Jester
wrote:

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 12:39:23 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 03/07/2019 17:35, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 5:12:11 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

I remember that the promenade from Seacombe to New Brighton (old
Borough of Wallasey, Cheshire, as was) was off limits to all
vehicles, including bicycles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-uhhBM67-I

???


Surely it is self evident. It shows the promenade you are talking
about with it's clearly marked No MOTOR vehicle signs and clearly
marked cycleway with bonus 'law abiding' motorists ignoring both.


Musta been an emergency delivery of tea.

Your(?) bike sounds a bit rattley.

It was filmed on an Oregon Scientific ATC2000. Great device for it's time but terrible by today's standards.
Currently using Contour Roam 2 using the ATC handlebar mount. Most cycle cams these days assume helmet mounting.
  #35  
Old July 4th 19, 09:14 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,696
Default Cyclist riding on a promenade gets her come-uppance

On 04/07/2019 20:36, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 12:31:26 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:


It does seem pretty conclusive:

https://www.visit-dorset.com/imageresizer/?image=%2fdmsimgs%2ffriars-cliff-beach-non-copyright_221732048.jpg&action=ProductDetail&crop= 4D037E16A6C32DD04191FF6E4EB1


Indeed it does. It conclusively proves cycling is not prohibited.


Another view
https://goo.gl/maps/zs2G6RprrnMdcbiG7

You're right. There are no round signs with red borders. It's a request,
not a prohibition.
  #36  
Old July 4th 19, 11:27 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,423
Default Cyclist riding on a promenade gets her come-uppance

On 04/07/2019 20:36, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 12:31:26 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:


It does seem pretty conclusive:

https://www.visit-dorset.com/imageresizer/?image=%2fdmsimgs%2ffriars-cliff-beach-non-copyright_221732048.jpg&action=ProductDetail&crop= 4D037E16A6C32DD04191FF6E4EB1


Indeed it does. It conclusively proves cycling is not prohibited.


I see. You are illiterate.

Your mummy does the typing for you, obviously.
  #37  
Old July 4th 19, 11:31 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,423
Default Cyclist riding on a promenade gets her come-uppance

On 04/07/2019 17:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:32, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 12:36, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 12:28, TMS320 wrote:

On 03/07/2019 15:58, Modesty wrote:
MrCheerful wrote:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/02/cycli...rank-10104973/

What 'come-uppance' did this 63 year old lady deserve? Promenades
often have cycle lanes.

This one actually has a restriction. But it's up to the authorities
to enforce it, not up to vigilantes to attempt murder.

That is a euphemistic way of saying that whilst cycling is indeed
not allowed on that pedestrian way but cyclists disobey that rule
(how unusual!), they have a right to get away with it.

When drivers routinely get away with speeding and bad parking...


What's the connection?


Every connection imaginable.

It is ABSOLUTELY clear that the cycling ban in the place in question
is there to protect pedestrians (all of us).


It is never absolutely clear that getting off to walk a bike is better
for pedestrians.


So you (think you) know better than the owners / operators of the land
in question.

It's quite different when a driver (however wrongly and illegally)
passes a keep left bollard on the wrong side. In such a case it's
apparently perfectly permissible for a vigilante on a bike to
obstruct the road (an offence in itself) in order to "enforce" the
rules.

What a completely stupid comparison. Stringing a rope across a path
is like dropping bricks onto a motorway.


They are both vigilantism.


People putting their bodies in front of cyclists (often where cycling is
legal), is a familiar experience to most.


So what?

Do two wrongs, widely separated by time, distance and the parties
involved, make a right?

Not always unintentional (we have a poster here that admits as much).

If the vigilante blocks a cyclist with their own body, then you have
a reasonable equivalent.


They are both illegal and I don't support either of them.

Going back to my earlier remarks, though,* the cyclist's injuries, as
terrible and frightful as they were, would have been totally avoided
had she not been cycling along a pedestrian path with a "No Cycling"
rule, wouldn't they? It seems reasonable to assume that it was
cyclists the person(s) setting the trap had in mind.


You're justifying the perpetrator's action.


Not at all, as you have seen below.

I have seen this sort of "trap" with my own eyes, by the way,
including a steel wire stretched across a suburban road (not a
pedestrian path - a road) just after dusk. A friend drove his vehicle
into that all-but-invisible ligature, causing severe and expensive
damage, albeit of a cosmetic type.


Then the cyclist following behind was extremely lucky.

I thoroughly condemn this sort of irresponsible vigilantism - all of
it - and hope you do too.


What you said above does not tell us this.


I have just told you it in plain English.

The cyclist was still partly the author of her own misfortune. Had she
obeyed the signage, it wouldn't have happened. I don't see how you can
deny that. Not if you want to make sense anyway (I readily accept that
you don't always even want to make sense).
  #38  
Old July 5th 19, 12:32 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,696
Default Cyclist riding on a promenade gets her come-uppance

On 04/07/2019 23:31, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 17:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:32, JNugent wrote:

It is ABSOLUTELY clear that the cycling ban in the place in question
is there to protect pedestrians (all of us).


It is never absolutely clear that getting off to walk a bike is better
for pedestrians.


So you (think you) know better than the owners / operators of the land
in question.


The owners / operators of the land don't know anything. They're just
applying a widely held belief.



The cyclist was still partly the author of her own misfortune. Had she
obeyed the signage, it wouldn't have happened. I don't see how you can
deny that. Not if you want to make sense anyway (I readily accept that
you don't always even want to make sense).


You're still justifying the perpetrator's action.
  #39  
Old July 5th 19, 02:19 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,423
Default Cyclist riding on a promenade gets her come-uppance

On 05/07/2019 00:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 23:31, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 17:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:32, JNugent wrote:

It is ABSOLUTELY clear that the cycling ban in the place in question
is there to protect pedestrians (all of us).

It is never absolutely clear that getting off to walk a bike is
better for pedestrians.


So you (think you) know better than the owners / operators of the land
in question.


The owners / operators of the land don't know anything. They're just
applying a widely held belief.


So they're wrong to specify what may and may not be done by people using
their property and cyclists who disagree and ride roughshod over every
rule are always right?

I see.

The cyclist was still partly the author of her own misfortune. Had she
obeyed the signage, it wouldn't have happened. I don't see how you can
deny that. Not if you want to make sense anyway (I readily accept that
you don't always even want to make sense).


You're still justifying the perpetrator's action.


I am criticising the cyclist because her behaviour was not blameless. If
there were a civil case against the culprits with the rope (assuming
they could be traced*), a considered judgment would be that she was x%
responsible, where x is a figure greater than 0 and smaller than 50.

And in any event, since your own mantra is always that two wrongs make a
right, you might want to reconsider that.

[* I suspect there's about as much chance of that as there is of tracing
a cyclist who rides on the footway, disobeys traffic lights or goes the
wrong way in a one-way street.]

 




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
Cyclist gets arsey with another cyclist who told him off fordangerous riding. MrCheerful UK 0 November 8th 16 09:03 AM
The clues are 'walkway' and 'Promenade' Mrcheerful UK 101 March 29th 14 07:34 PM
Cyclist riding in crosswalk Leo Lichtman General 71 October 12th 06 02:53 PM
for the cyclist who wants more riding Zebee Johnstone Australia 0 July 27th 06 06:47 AM
White van man gets his come-uppance Mike VM General 59 October 26th 04 06:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.