Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Tony Dragon on 10 Jun 2010 13:46 David Hansen wrote: > On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 14:08:20 +0200 someone who may be "GT" > <ContactGT_rem_ove_(a)hotmail.com> wrote this:- > >> *off* pavements 'for a change'. Actually driving along the pavement is 'for >> a change'. The vaaaast majority of journeys are made along roads! > > I checked the cyclists I saw in town yesterday. All were cycling > along the road, though a few used the pavement for a short period in > order to get to a parking place. > > I do see cyclists using the pavements, but I see motorists using > them too and the scattering of motor vehicles on pavements shows > that many motorists use pavements while I'm not looking. > > > You should have been crossing the road outside the Old Vic today, you would have to change your mind. -- Tony Dragon
From: Tony Dragon on 10 Jun 2010 13:48 David Hansen wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:35:18 +0100 someone who may be "GT" <a(a)b.c> > wrote this:- > >> some motorists do legally park on pavements. > > Whether it is legal or not depends on where one is. > > I know of no law in any part of the UK where the legality depends on > there being space for people to get past the obstruction. > >> However, in >> my few hundred thousand miles of motoring, I have never seen a car *driving* >> on a pavement. > > An interesting example of motoring lobby sleight of hand. It is the > motorist who drives along the pavement, not the car, just as it is > the cyclist who rides along the pavement, not the bike. > > If you haven't seen a motorist driving along the pavement then I am > glad you live such a sheltered life. > > > An interesting example of ignoring the points made. -- Tony Dragon
From: Doug on 11 Jun 2010 02:03 On 10 June, 18:35, "Mrcheerful" <nbk...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > David Hansen wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:35:18 +0100 someone who may be "GT" <a...(a)b.c> > > wrote this:- > > >> some motorists do legally park on pavements. > > > Whether it is legal or not depends on where one is. > > > I know of no law in any part of the UK where the legality depends on > > there being space for people to get past the obstruction. > > >> However, in > >> my few hundred thousand miles of motoring, I have never seen a car > >> *driving* on a pavement. > > > An interesting example of motoring lobby sleight of hand. It is the > > motorist who drives along the pavement, not the car, just as it is > > the cyclist who rides along the pavement, not the bike. > > > If you haven't seen a motorist driving along the pavement then I am > > glad you live such a sheltered life. > > mounting a pavement to park is not the same as driving along the pavement. > I see thousands of cars every day parking and parked on pavements, I never > see cars driving along pavements on a continual basis . > I see many cyclists every day riding along pavements without a care for > pedestrians, often at quite high speed. > Anecdotal. I have seen cars driving along pavements, e.g. to get to a filling station ahead during a traffic jam. So my anecdotal nullifies your anecdotal. Next? -- UK Radical Campaigns. http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Adrian on 11 Jun 2010 02:21 Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > I have seen cars driving along pavements, e.g. to get to a filling > station ahead during a traffic jam. And I cheerfully condemn the arrogant and selfish prick behind the wheel of that vehicle.
From: Adrian on 11 Jun 2010 10:04
Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> Wrong. Ordinary pavements, where motorists drive and park illegally, >>> are not designed to carry the extra weight of a car. >>Wrong. > No, Doug has that one correct. Duhg can't even get his own name correct. >>Do you really think that pavements are constructed markedly differently >>at drop kerbs, specifically intended for vehicular access? They're not. > Maybe you should check the construction standards before making yourself > look foolish. > There is a CONSIDERABLE difference in the standard required for a > section of footway with a dropped kerb, as you'd find out if you ever > had to have one installed (say, for a new driveway). There's about three inches difference. As you'd know if you'd ever had to pay for one. All they do is remove the top layer and kerbstones, then relay. And - oooh, look - it works just fine. |