From: Steve Firth on
Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:

> If the driver is traveling at a speed which prevents him from reacting
> to pedestrians emerging onto the roadway, then he is driving without
> due care.

Oh look, it's Duhg.

So you reckon that any train driver who hits a person who throws
themselves in front of a train is "driving without due care", eh?

This bus driver obviously driving without due care, according to you?
From: BrianW on
On 27 Nov, 21:43, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
> BrianW <brianwhiteh...(a)> considered Fri, 27 Nov 2009
> 00:58:35 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
> >On 27 Nov, 01:24, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
> >> BrianW <brianwhiteh...(a)> considered Thu, 26 Nov 2009
> >> 09:53:59 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
> >> >On 26 Nov, 16:39, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
> >> >> Adrian <toomany2...(a)> considered 26 Nov 2009 12:08:38 GMT the
> >> >> perfect time to write:
> >> >> >Peter Grange <pe...(a)> gurgled happily, sounding much
> >> >> >like they were saying:
> >> >> >>> Perhaps you could clarify what you said. Are you proposing that killer
> >> >> >>> cyclists should face appropriate jail sentences or are you proposing
> >> >> >>> that the law should be enforced as it has been to-date. In a weak,
> >> >> >>> ineffective manners which permits cyclists to kill and then walk free?
> >> >> >> As far as I am concerned, if you unlawfully kill someone whilst riding a
> >> >> >> bike that is not substantially different from unlawfully killing someone
> >> >> >> whilst driving a car. What have I said which makes you think I believe
> >> >> >> differently?
> >> >> >You should believe differently, because it is different.
> >> >> >There is no equivalent, applicable to cycling, to the offences of Causing
> >> >> >Death by Dangerous Driving or Causing Death by Careless Driving.
> >> >> >They were introduced specifically because, in the case of a road
> >> >> >collision, it's very difficult to prove the gross negligence required for
> >> >> >a Manslaughter conviction - basically, juries were very reluctant to
> >> >> >convict because of the "There but for the grace..." angle. CDbDD and
> >> >> >CDbCD carry much less onerous tests, so are considerably easier to prove
> >> >> >- and thereby convict.
> >> >> >Which all means that, yes, there IS a substantial difference between
> >> >> >unlawfully killing someone whilst riding a bike and unlawfully killing
> >> >> >someone whilst driving a car - and that the cyclist IS much more likely
> >> >> >to walk free.
> >> >> I'm fairly sure that if you check the stats on custodial sentences for
> >> >> drivers who kill, the proportion is much lower than for cyclists who
> >> >> kill.
> >> >> Of course, it is so extremely rare for cyclists to kill anyone that
> >> >> there aren't many cases to compare, unlike with motorists who manage
> >> >> on average to kill each day as many people as cyclists do in a decade.-
> >> >You appear not to have spotted the word "unlawful" in Adrian's post.
> >> When has it not been unlawful to kill someone with a car?
> >If, for example, the driver is driving fully within the law and
> >someone runs out in front of the car, within the stopping distance,
> >and is killed. �Only people like Doug (and you???) �would seek to
> >blame the driver in such circumstances.
> >> Even in the cases where the legal system fails to prosecute, I've
> >> never heard of a coroner returning a "lawful homicide" verdict in a
> >> motor vehicle killing.
> >They would presumably record a verdict of accidental death in the
> >above scenario.
> >> The fact that they fail to return "unlawful killing" is part of the
> >> problem.
> >> If any weapon other than a motor vehicle was used in most of the road
> >> deaths, there would be custodial sentences almost every time.
> >Even if the driver was obeying the law in all respects?
> If the driver is traveling at a speed which prevents him from reacting
> to pedestrians emerging onto the roadway, then he is driving without
> due care.

Thanks for this - it saves me time. I now know I don't need to read
anything else you post.

From: JNugent on
Phil W Lee wrote:

[ ... ]

> If [a] driver is traveling at a speed which prevents him from reacting
> to pedestrians emerging onto the roadway, then he is driving without
> due care.

Oh, for God's sake, don't spout such sheer nonsense.

Unless you want to be mistaken for a sock puppet of Doug's, that is.
From: Peter Grange on
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:25:03 +0000, (Steve Firth)

>Peter Grange <peter(a)> wrote:
>> >Here's something you could try to test the theory. Stop the next
>> >pavement cyclist that you see and ask them to ride where they belong.
>> Try telling the next motorist parked on the pavement to get his
>> hulking great car off the pavement and on the street where it belongs.
>When I see a driver driving down the pavement at 25mph I shall tell them

Good luck with stopping him.


From: Peter Grange on
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:51:26 +0000, JNugent
<JN(a)> wrote:

>Peter Grange wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:37:18 -0000, "mileburner"
>> <mileburner(a)> wrote:
>>> "Steve Firth" <> wrote in message
>>>> Tony Dragon <tony.dragon(a)> wrote:
>>>>> I don't recall being knocked over on the pavement by a motorist, but a
>>>>> cyclist has managed to do this.
>>>> Walking on pavements in London I have to dodge a flying cyclist every
>>>> few hundred yards. Just a walk from place to work to sandwich bar can
>>>> see me dodging a dozen or more pavement cyclists. Even more galling
>>>> because there's a cycle lane on the pavement bu the cyclists choose not
>>>> to use them. I've not had to dodge a single car in the last twelve
>>>> months.
>>>> There are also "Give Way" markings for cyclists which are use whenever
>>>> the cycle lane crosses the pavement. Would you like to guess how many
>>>> cyclists obey those markings?
>>> What I have often wondered about those multitude of give way markers on
>>> cycle routes is who the cyclist is supposed to give way to. The complexity
>>> of some of them, (where there are pedestrians and traffic at a junction) is
>>> so great that it is far easier to just use the road, and its safer.
>> Which is one of my objections to most shared-pavement cycle lanes. The
>> cyclist is expected to stop and give way at every side turning off the
>> road to which the cycle lane is parallel.
>Not "expected" - "required".
Wow, that _really_ makes a difference.
>Though "give way" doesn't actually mean "stop". If there is no-one using the
>crossed route at that particular point and time, it is possible to give way
>without stopping.
>> In some cases this means a stop every few yards,
>Maybe (though rarely). That would be at one end of the continuum.
>> whereas on the road the cyclist, along with the
>> motorised traffic, has right-of-way over traffic joining from the side
>> road. This makes using the cycle lane for commuting, or any other
>> reason where time matters, a no-no, and puts the cyclist at risk at
>> each crossing point. There would be an uproar if the priorities were
>> reversed for motorised traffic, where safety would doubtless be raised
>> as an issue.

Indeed. You agree it's dangerous then.