From: The Luggage on 20 Dec 2007 07:45
On 19 Dec, 22:12, JNugent <not.tell...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com>
> Ekul Namsob wrote:
> > Do you condone cycling on pavements? Many cyclists have put their
> > 'self-preservation' skills into effect and decided that they would be
> > better off there. Indeed, I believe that fear of injury is a defence for
> > people charged with pavement cycling. 
> Fear of injury would be just as "good" a defence for the shooting dead
> of an armed police officer by the criminal he is confronting. Or of
> the murder of the victim of a mugging "just in case" he or a member of
> his family comes after the mugger.
> > Cheers,
> > Luke
> >  As with so many things, I cannot provide a source for that.
> Of course you can't.
Well I can. It was a comment in 1999 from then Home Office minister
Paul Boateng. 'In a letter to cycling MP Ben Bradshaw Home Office
Minister Paul Boateng wrote "The introduction of the fixed penalty is
not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use
the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to
other pavement users."
So not strictly a defence, but it is clear that the intention of the
FPN system for pavement cycling was NOT to penalise 'responsible
cyclists' but those who cause a danger to pedestrians. This, of
course, has been completely forgotten or ignored by councils and
Police. I don't know if anyone has challenged a FPN and used this in
From: Ian Smith on 20 Dec 2007 07:50
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:37:54 +0000, Steve Firth <%email@example.com> wrote:
> Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Indeed. I think it's fair to say that a lot of the heat from the
> > cycling side has come solely from the suggestion in Brimstone's post
> > that we should just avoid lorries, period.
> You may continue to mix it with trucks as you like.
Since the trucks are on the roads and no amount of wishful posting
will change that, you would seem to be advocating cyclists only ride
around the inside of their houses. It's not a very practical
recommendation, is it?
regards, Ian SMith
|\ /| no .sig
From: Andy Leighton on 20 Dec 2007 07:50
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:20:20 GMT, MrBitsy <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> As a driver who has passed the IAM, DSA and RoSPA advanced driving tests, I
> can assure you I know my, and other road users, responsibilities. However, I
> stay away from large vehicles where I possibly can - because they are bigger
> than me and I will come off worse in a collision.
If you are in a small car (a mini for example) do you stay away from
Transit sized vans? It is the same principle you espouse above.
As a cyclist that principle would mean me staying away from roads where
I possibly can because all cars (as well as lorries) are bigger than me.
This just isn't practicable.
Andy Leighton => andyl(a)azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
From: Peter Clinch on 20 Dec 2007 07:54
Steve Firth wrote:
> You may continue to mix it with trucks as you like. And you may continue
> to run the risk of beign squashed in consequence.
Much as I (and you) do in cars, and still much the case that getting out
on the roads /at all/ will involve mixing it with trucks, whatever my likes.
> If you don't have an
> instinct for self-preservation feel free to die in whatever manner you
Still too dumb to realise a lot of accidents involve little in the way
of choice for the deceased, I see.
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
From: PK on 20 Dec 2007 08:23
"Nick" <nospam(a)spam.com> wrote in message
>> The most stupid actions were those that would squeeze down the side of
>> the bus at junctions - even when I was signalling to turn left! They
>> would put themselves straight into the blindpot and sit there. I never
>> collided with one as I always spotted them early, but I am never
>> surprised when I hear of a cyclist being run down.
> So you felt it was OK to continue driving in a way that put other road
> users lives at risk. Presumably this is because you felt it would be their
> fault if you did kill them?
> I realise that professional drivers come from the lower end of the
> intelligence scale but can you not see this was exactly my point.
I think you have demonstrated by that non sequiter that it is you who comes
from the lower end of the intelligence scale: the cyclists were putting
themselves in danger by their positioning and the driver was observing and