BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk

Subject: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: PHJim
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 02:50 PM

I saw this posted by one of my "Facebook friends", whom I also happen to know in "real life".


    SO, another road rage post. A guy in a black pick up truck clipped me and XXXX on the bike today. At a four way stop. Because he wasn't paying attention, I had to swerve into oncoming traffic. CYCLISTS PEOPLE!!! We exist! Accidents are shitty things that happen, to everybody, but PLEASE LOOK before you accelerate. OH, and again, I am reporting this guy too.
       5 people like this.
   
*Commenter #1- and can you believe that no one is allowed to ride their bikes on the side walks !!!!! stupid, it is a lot safer...cant believe they passed a bylaw about riding bikes on sidewalks, they will give out 100 dollar fines 16 years and older and summons to 15 and under.
      
*Original poster- I had a ticket which is why I was riding on the road, I have been hit twice this week and once last. It is INSANE! I refuse to ride on the road now, and I will be VERY VOCAL about this to town hall, FUCK MY BAN!
      
*Commenter #2- that's retarded, how long ago did you get the ticket
      
*Me- It may be safer for the cyclist, but it's not safe for the pedestrians. As pedestrian, I have been hit by a bicycle rider who was riding on the sidewalk as I was coming out of a store in Cobourg. I stepped right into his path.
       I'm not aware of any municipality that DOESN'T have laws against bikes on the sidewalk. I tried to teach my kids to walk their bikes on the sidewalk. Like · 1

*Commenter #2- well I know my kids are NOT going to be riding bikes ,skate boards or roller blades on any street in our town...adults can ride on the roads but not kids, I would rather my kid run into a person then a friggin CAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
   
*Original poster- I am an adult with a toddler passenger, and until they provide separate bike paths beside the sidewalks AND OFF THE ROAD, I will be riding with my babies on the sidewalk. Two tme this week I have been clipped while following the rules, and the rules of the road. NO MORE. SIDEWALKS ONLY FOR ME from now on. I am infuriated, however the police officer I talked to yesterday told me to ride on the sidewalk... enough said. Like · 1

Commenter #3- I can't count the number of times I've slammed my hand on someone's vehicle so they didn't run me over. It pisses me off to no end. I'm with you Original poster Like · 1
   
***************************************************************
It looks like I'm in the minority on Facebook. How do Mudcatters feel. Obviously I've changed names and town, but everything else is left as is.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 03:52 PM

Some smaller towns around my area prefer that bicycles stay on the sidewalks. A few of these places have provided "bicycle ramps" for them.

Most places, especially the larger towns, require the bicycles to keep OFF the sidewalks, and some places have marked "bicycle lanes" for them that may be some help.

Whether driving, bicycling, or riding on your handicap mobility scooter/chair, you have to take care of your own safety and:

1. watch out for any one who might do something stupid, so you can allow for it well in advance.

2. assume that any one who can do something stupid is going to do it.

It doesn't matter nearly as much where they tell you to ride as it matters how aware YOU ARE while you do it.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Janie
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 03:55 PM

Well said, John.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 04:07 PM

I don't object to *vulnerable* or *slow* cyclists on pavements. Slow moving small children, slow moving old folk, slow moving young folk even! So long as they are aware that it's a *pedestrian footway* and pedestrians have right of way.

Parents who allow their kids to terrorise the frail and elderly, disabled or little toddlers, by taring along on the pavement should be stiffly fined. Teenagers and young adults who do the same, should get their bikes impounded.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: gnu
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 04:08 PM

I have no problems with cycling on sidewalks BUT... when you are gonna pass someone walking in the same direction PLEASE slow down and use your bell. And, when you meet an elderly person travelling in either direction, PLEASE have some manners and dismount so you can WALK past them.... please use common sense and good manners.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: gnu
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 04:13 PM

Cross-posted, CS. Pretty much the same deal, especially with small children, the eldery and dogs. It's just common sense and good manners.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 04:16 PM

Sensible and polite cyclists who sit up and look around them and go at a reasonable speed and act like pedetrians are one thing. The problem is those people who put their heads down and race along, normaly wearing stupid shiny cycling gear. Spoil it for everyone else and provide a rationale for banning cyclists from pavements, which is dangerous for everyone.

Dropped handlebars on bikes should be banned. And dedicated cycleways away from the traffic should be introduced as a top priority.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: gnu
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 04:16 PM

BTW, I should add, when anyone sees a catch basin with the grate installed with the grating parallel to the roadway, call and complain that someone without common sense did not put the cover on properly. Such can lead to a lot of sore groins.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 07:15 PM

Sidewalk bikers prohibited in Calgary.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: mg
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 09:13 PM

I think absolutely people should ride bikes on sidewalks. I could go for several years and not see pedestrians in certain areas. They should have to stop the bike and wait for pedestrian to pass. If another bike comes both should stop and walk past each other..but we have sidewalks going absolutely unused while bikers are in danger and put others in danger, especially in winter rain dark weather. You can't do this with huge pedestrian traffic of course, but when sidewalks are barely used, go for it. Especially children.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: frogprince
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 09:47 PM

I definitely have mixed reactions on this one. A few days ago someone yanked me out of the way of a kid biking on the sidewalk who would have hit me from behind at racing speed. Yes, dedicated bike lanes, please!

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: artbrooks
Date: 24 Jun 13 - 12:28 AM

Bicycles are vehicles, not toys. They are legally required to obey all relevant parts of the Uniform Vehicle Code (in the US), as modified by local ordinances. They have no business on sidewalks, unless it is really a marked multi-use path. Bicycles should be on separate bike trails or lanes. If there aren't any, then they belong on the paved roadway, staying as far to the right as is reasonably practical. That being said - and that being the law most places - cyclists need to be aware that cars are a lot harder than they are and watch out for idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Jun 13 - 04:08 AM

I will use a mixture of road, cycle lane and pavement while cycling. Whichever is safer for me and all others concerned. If cyclists are aware of pedestrians and give them right of way on pavements then I see no issue. If it is safe for them to use the road, then they should use it. If there is a dedicated bike lane then use that, but be aware that some tosser is still going to try and kill you! Basically, horses for courses. If, for instance, you are cycling on a busy road and need to pass parked vehicles I would have no issue passing them on the pavement and then returning to the road when safe.


I am pretty sure that most policemen and traffic control officers will use their discretion and apply the laws sensibly. In my experience the law will be applied if someone is misusing a pavement but not if using it sensibly. But others experiences may be different.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 24 Jun 13 - 05:56 AM

There was an interesting TV programme fairly recently on the dangers and problems faced by cyclists in London. Several now attach a video camera to their person while cycling, (which they show to the Police) and record the most awful driving by motorists who should know better. During the prog they were cut up, forced into the kerb, knocked off their bikes on roundabouts and generally risked life and limb daily. But London drivers that were interviewed had their own story; they were sick to death of bikes darting in and out, making safety impossible to maintain. The saddest part was the mother of a dead young woman, killed by a lorry (truck) at a small junction. It had turned left and crushed her to death. The site is now a 'shrine' to her memory. I think the only conclusion one can draw is that bikes and motor vehicles don't mix. There should be dedicated lanes for each. But in London, there ARE cycle lanes in many places. However the vehicles still menace the bikers by entering the tiny 2ft or so wide track.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Midchuck
Date: 24 Jun 13 - 06:19 AM

I would be the first to agree that riding a bicycle on the road, in automobile traffic, is terribly dangerous, and that there ought to be bike lanes and the exclusivity of such lanes should be enforced, with rawhide whips if necessary.

That said, why do cyclists seem to feel that they have no responsibility for their own safety?

I probably see 3 or 4 cyclists running red lights for every car or truck that I see doing the same - and there are vastly fewer cyclists on the road than cars.

Most cyclists think nothing of coming up to an intersection on the right shoulder (you islanders who drive on the wrong side reverse this), and proceeding straight ahead, oblivious to the fact that the driver of the car that is next to them, in the right traffic lane, and is turning right and has his turn signal on appropriately, will be looking to the LEFT to watch for traffic, since there isn't supposed to be anything on his right. Then they're upset when the car turns right and they collide.

Motorcyclists tend to be aware that a lot of car drivers won't see them, even in broad daylight - the drivers just aren't programmed to see anything smaller than another car. They should be, but they aren't. Bicyclists should be even more aware of this, since they're even smaller, and travel more slowly than the general flow of traffic. But a lot of them don't seem to be.

Making bicycle riding as safe as it can be made involves educating both automobile drivers and cyclists. But one gets the impression that each group thinks it's all the other group's problem. Even though it's the bicyclists who end up dead.

All IMNSHO, of course.

P.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 24 Jun 13 - 08:25 AM

No bikes should be on pavements, sideWALKS. I have been hit twice by cyclists on pavements..keep them off. If they find roads too dangerous...walk. They are vehicles and should not be in pedestrian areas.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Jun 13 - 08:57 AM

Cyclists should be in the road, not on the sidewalk.    There may be gentle cyclists, as mentioned above, but those who are not should not be given cover, and that's what allowing bikes on the sidewalk does.   There is no reason a pedestrian should have to fear bikes on the sidewalk--and now there is always that potential.


Of course there should be far more and wider bike lanes than there are.

But bikes should obey every traffic law, as other vehicles should. And be fined, etc. if they don't.

I agree with those above who point out the idiocy of many cyclists--even those who consider themselves law-abiding and smart-- who not only don't stop for red lights and stop signs, but don't even have the sense to realize the danger they put themselves in by this classically stupid behavior.    And they even teach their kids not to stop for stop signs.
This verges on criminal.

A car can have a confrontation with a bicycle more than once.   Sadly the opposite is not true.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: PHJim
Date: 24 Jun 13 - 10:41 AM

A little thread drift here. I was confused at first, but after a few posts I caught on. In North America, the word pavement is usually a synonym for the road which is for vehicles and the pedestrians walk on the sidewalk. It seems that in Europe, the word pavement refers to what we call the sidewalk.

It is similar to the use of the word "public" when referring to schools. In North America, a public school is one that is paid for by taxes and open to all, as opposed to a private school, where tuition is paid by the student or his/her family. In England, a public school is the equivalent of the North American private school. Am I right here?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Guest: Rara Avis
Date: 24 Jun 13 - 12:39 PM

The sidewalk is already too crowded with pedestrians, texters, skateboarders, mums with strollers, folks with shopping carts, joggers, runners, and the list goes on. Where would we fit the cyclists? A year ago in Philadelphia, a pedestrian was killed when hit by a speeding cyclist. The cyclist was never caught.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 24 Jun 13 - 12:50 PM

PHJIm, English-speaking Europeans say 'pavement' for sidewalk, but of course all the other Europeans have their own word in their own language (eg trottoir) It's true that in UK a Public School is a very expensive private school such as Eton or Harrow. But there are many Private Schools too, where the parents pay for their children's education. A Public School is usually much posher than a mere Private school. The free schools for all are called State Schools. A bit confusing!
I don't hold with cyclists whizzing along on the pavement. Apart from it being illegal here in UK, it can cause bad accidents particularly with elderly pedestrians who can so easily break a femur by falling. And I get very angry with cyclists not displaying any lights at night. They don't realise they're almost totally invisible from a driver's point of view. One was killed near our village a few years ago. He had no lights and not even reflectors. The poor motorist was in a terrible state, and it wasn't his fault at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Jun 13 - 01:18 PM

Skate boarders in Calgary may use bike trails and parks dedicated to them, but are prohibited from sidewalks.

Bicycle use of sidewalks is prohibited, and will be subject to fine. They are a danger to all pedestrians.

Under the Vehicle Code here, if there is no bike lane, bikers must take their chances on the roadway. They are prohibited on city freeways if there is no lane provision- cars and trucks are traveling at 60 mph or more, and pedal bikers are easy prey.

Highways have a paved space to the right of the traffic lanes, used for emergency stops by cars, but usually are clear and may be used by bikers.

I believe the ticket for sidewalk biking is $60 here, but I haven't checked.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jun 13 - 03:31 AM

There is no reason a pedestrian should have to fear bikes on the sidewalk--and now there is always that potential.

If I may paraphrase. There is no reason a cyclist should have to fear cars in the bike lane--and now there is always that potential.

What some of you seem to be saying is that if the roads are too dangerous, which they are in busy towns, then we cannot cycle anywhere. How Draconian is that? Maybe we should also say that if it is too dangerous to cross the road, which it often is, then no-one is allowed to get to the other side. Poor ol' chicken!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jun 13 - 05:37 AM

Or, an even better idea. The rationale is that, because pedestrians get injured by cyclists on the pavement then bikes should be banned from pavements. Yes? In that case, seeing as cyclists get injured by drivers on the roads, how about we ban motor vehicles off the roads that cyclists use? Simples! I'll leave it to you to decide which are pedestrian, cycle and motor vehicle areas :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Mooh
Date: 25 Jun 13 - 10:35 AM

I posted here yesterday but now my post has vanished.

What's up?

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jun 13 - 10:46 AM

Sorry, Dave, you're wrong on this.    Pedestrians have the right to be safe on sidewalks.    That is the top priority for society--and the way it should be.

We all agree there should be more and wider bike lanes in the road. Cyclists need to put pressure on their representatives to make sure this happens.    And the rest of us will back you on this--many of us have been already pushing for it.

But in the meantime, cyclists should stay off the sidewalk--or be fined.

They should also obey traffic laws--like stopping at red lights and stop signs. And many don't.

This doesn't help build sympathy for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jun 13 - 11:37 AM

OK, Ron , that is your view. I will carry on riding on the pavement where the road is unsafe and where it is safe for me to do so - IE where there are no pedestrians. I also always obey traffic laws, unlike many drivers and pedestrians. If you have any problems with that, please feel free to pop over to semi-rural North Yorkshire, tap a policeman on the shoulder and turn me in :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jun 13 - 11:44 AM

Glad you obey traffic laws.    Perhaps you can conduct a seminar for your fellow cyclists. Please be sure to have some of your sessions in the US--we need your guidance.

And by the way, I 'd also have all my fellow motorists fined who do not signal when turning or changing lanes. And they are legion. And cause many accidents.

Maybe we could take care of the deficits in both the US and UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 25 Jun 13 - 01:13 PM

I'd love to see the UK figures for collisions between pedestrians and bikes on pavements/sidewalks. I bet it's horrendous!
Here in the UK with have, probably, two generations of cyclist who think "pavement first"!
They might be riding down the quietest road in town but they still ride on the pavement!
And, of course too many pavement cyclist ride far too fast!

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 25 Jun 13 - 01:58 PM

It's probably not as high as the number of pedestrians killed by cars on footpaths!

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jun 13 - 02:28 PM

We should, Ron, we should. Come the revolution brother...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jun 13 - 03:09 PM

Too many of these discussions have people reasoning from only one point of view and set of presuppositions.

Here in this area (the same basic area where Ron lives) there are more lanes & paths specifically designated for bicycles, but never enough... and some street/roadways are not easily adapted.
Just as streets, parks, etc. are not all the same, neither are cyclists. Even when there are designated bike paths, some cyclists are not satisfied with what they consider 'restricted' pedaling situations. They are (mostly) young, athletic, serious and impatient. They flatly do not wish to slow down or yield. Contrast these with 'recreational bikers' who just like to pedal gently around in nice weather.. or kids who want to bike in their beighborhood.
In ALL cases, cyclists should obey the local laws, whether they 'approve' or not... just as motor vehicles should know and obey the laws about the rights of cyclists.... and everyone should use care, knowing that some members of the traveling public, whether automobile, motorcycle, bicycle... or pedestrian.... will NOT be careful.

Like others have noted, I have seen bicyclists blow thru red lights & stop signs as if the law didn't apply to them... and I have seen cars bully cyclists who had every right to be where they were. I have been slowed by cyclists, but I'd rather lose a minute than be involved in a nasty incident.

It's a big, complex world... and those who see ANY issue only from their own self-interest and convenience will inevitably have conflicts with others who have a different self-interest. If you obey the laws, you at least have SOME recourse when things go wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Jun 13 - 03:12 PM

All the rules are getting out of hand...I got a dirty look from a lady with a baby stroller in a department store, because I was riding my Harley, up the escalator...I just look at her and said, "There ain't no law against it!"
She said, How did you get it into the store?"
Well there was a law against ridin' on the sidewalk...so I walked it in!"
She smiled, "Well, at least you have respect for the law!"
"Well I used to walk through the store, but I was clipped by a shopping cart by a frantic bargain hunter".
So she bitched and moaned screaming at me.....so I married her!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jun 13 - 04:03 PM

Gee, GfS.. that sounds about like I'd believe from you... :>)

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Jun 13 - 08:51 PM

Like others have noted, I have seen bicyclists blow thru red lights & stop signs as if the law didn't apply to them. It does, of course, and they should be fined...of course, here the police doesn't give anyone tickets for running a stop sign or red light. I, and I'm sure many others, have seen many more automobile drivers roll right through stop signs than cyclists. Here (in Albuquerque, NM) we had a very successful red light camera program but the city was forced, by a popular vote, to remove the cameras because they were seen as unfair to motorists or something.

Close to where I live, we have a "multi-use" trail, which is regularly used by walkers, joggers, parents pushing strollers (four-abreast), skateboarders, dog walkers and, yes, cyclists. When the road was widened last year, a separate bicycle lane was included - not quite 50% of the city council members objected because the "bike path" was there for cyclists to use.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jun 13 - 11:17 PM

We have a successful red-light and speeding camera program.    So far, despite a lot of whining against it, it's still in effect. We could have a lot more red-light cameras, for instance--and maybe our taxes would go down. I see cars run red lights constantly, and very few intersections seem to have the cameras (more's the pity).

But jurisdictions make a lot of money on sins of motorists (including parking problems).    DC made $80 milion just on parking tickets last year.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jun 13 - 11:31 PM

"million"

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 03:50 AM

Round where I live plenty of motorists as well as cyclists seem to treat complying with red lights as an option rather than an obligation. It does piss me off, however, when cyclists assume that traffic laws are for other people and not for them. It seems like a cyclist can behave as stupidly as they want but if they come to grief in an incident involving a car it's always the car drivers fault. Mind you, the smugness and self-righteousness of a lot of cyclists makes a lot of people feel like mowing them down.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 04:08 AM

So the penalty for smugness is death is it? That's the fucking trouble with you motorists, you've got such a fucking sense of entitlement that anyone who gets in your way whether on the road or footpath deserves to die. You sit there in your metal invalid carriages poisoning the air and wasting valuable resources and you think you're God's gift to creation.

Research in Denmark has shown that motorists cost the state 13p for every km driven whereas cyclists SAVE the state 8p for each km. Cyclists have a reason to be smug, they'll live longer and be fitter.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 04:24 AM

I get thoroughly pissed off by cyclists wearing headphones. I get equally pissed off by drivers talking on their mobile phones.

The world's full of dangerous wankers.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 04:57 AM

The world's full of dangerous wankers.

That conjures up some images I really don't want on a Wednesday morning!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 05:08 AM

On my bike I do what is safest for me.
If I am at a red and the road is clear, I will not wait for the green to unleash the flesh crushing wheels all around me, some turning left across me.
I go while the coast is clear.

A cyclist is much closer to a pedestrian than to a motor vehicle.
No-one gets angry when a pedestrian crosses against a light, or goes against the flow of traffic.
Pedestrians are supposed to go against the flow, and cyclists should for the same reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 08:07 AM

"no one gets angry" .    Endorsing that is as sensible as advocating that people dodge across the street at night, not even close to a walkway, dressed in black. Which I see happen--right in front of me, as a motorist.    And it doesn't exactly delight me. I sure don't want to hit anybody.   But I wonder why the person has a death wish.

Sure, as a pedestrian I sometimes cross the street against the light.   But it's the middle of the day, it's in town, not the country, no cars are coming, I'm not wearing black. And I'm not self-righteous about it.   I know I shouldn't do it and there is always the chance that I could be fined for jaywalking.   Which I totally accept--though obviously I wouldn't be happy about it.

And it really does annoy me that fathers teach their bicyclist children to ignore stop signs.    One who does that is setting up his child for a terrible accident.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 08:27 AM

I sometimes cross the street against the light.   But it's the middle of the day, it's in town, not the country, no cars are coming,

What is the difference between you doing this a cyclist doing it then, Ron?

I do agree about cyclists acting suicidally but that is not what I was talking about. Cyclists who behave sensibly are rarely penalised, whether they are obeying the letter of law or not. Cyclists who act like idiots deserve all they get.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 08:31 AM

A cyclist can certainly do it.    But don't assert a right to do it. And don't complain if you are fined.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 09:05 AM

I have no problem with that at all, Ron. Thanks for the clarification.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 09:58 AM

'A cyclist is much closer to a pedestrian than to a motor vehicle'.

Especially when he's knocking them over on the pavement.

Jim, you're up.....

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: PHJim
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 10:33 AM

Keith said, "A cyclist is much closer to a pedestrian than to a motor vehicle.
No-one gets angry when a pedestrian crosses against a light, or goes against the flow of traffic.
Pedestrians are supposed to go against the flow, and cyclists should for the same reason."

A police officer may not get angry, but if you live in our town, he will give you a ticket for walking against a red if you're caught.
You are right in stating that a pedestrian walking against traffic when there are no sidewalks should walk facing traffic and on the shoulder of the road...Not on the paved portion of the road. (I almost said "pavement") Of course if they are on a sidewalk, this doesn't apply.
Most cyclists who ride on a road with no sidewalk ride on the paved portion of the road and the slightest wobble is very difficult for a car to avoid when the bike is coming at you. Riding on the paved portion of the road facing traffic is very dangerous...suicidal; not so bad if you stay on the gravel shoulder, but that makes riding difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 02:02 PM

"What is the difference between you doing this a cyclist doing it then, Ron? "

There IS a difference. A pedestrian can, if they are looking, stop walking instantly. Pedaling a cycle requires a couple of seconds more.... and a second or two can be crucial.

When *I* am a pedestrian, I give way to cars that seem to be turning in front of me even when I legally have the right-of-way. I don't like it, but I like life more than I need to prove my 'rights'.

In the same way, when I am driving I am careful of cyclists even when THEY are breaking the rules, as I don't want to have to explain in court why I "mowed one down".

Everyone knows there are NO laws for mororists, cyclists or pedestrians that will not be broken or ignored at times, and many jurisdictions use those laws mainly to settle cases where events happen. Jaywalking is just the most obvious example. In a couple of places, they had to install a 6' tall fence to keep pedestrians from taking certain dangerous shortcuts. (I once posted a picture of it.)

It amuses me... sort of... to read smug remarks from those who "know better" than the silly laws their jurisdictions try to inflict on them. I am quite aware of laws *I* consider excessive... but I am a practical man, and can't affored the fines.

artbrooks says they actually got 'speed cameras' removed in his area. Here (Wash DC area) I see interviews with people who mumble some rationalization about 'invasion of privacy' or other ambiguous complaint, when their actual reason is: "I don't WISH to pay attention the variations in the speed limits. I will drive at what *I* consider reasonable!"

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 02:17 PM

OK Bill you have a point but I have been walked into by a stupid person looking the other way - I saw it coming and stood still but they still glared at me. I have been run into by a harassed mother with a trolley. People on mobile phones while walking are completely oblivious to the fact that there are other pedestrians and I have had to dive for cover from an old lady demanding the whole pavement with her mobility scooter. Do we ban all those from pavements as well? It's all well and good having a go at one particular set of road and/or pavement users but there are idiots in all categories. BTW - We don't have 'Jaywalking' in the UK.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 02:26 PM

Just to throw another factor into the discussion, I have an issue with mobility scooters when driven by aggressive folk at speed on the pavements and even in shopping malls. They are heavier than bikes and therefore cause more serious injuries when they knock down a pedestrian. My friend's old and frail mum was sent flying by a Mobility Scooter Maniac, who promptly scooted off. Luckily she didn't break a bone. I suppose the answer is if we ALL try to consider others' needs and safety, whether on foot, bike or in a car. A bit of consideration, kindness, patience and common sense on everyone's part would make things better IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Lester sans cookie
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 02:26 PM

From my research of a 50 mile round London ride yesterday the most dangerous red light jumpers, and I saw cars, buses, bikes and pedestrians do it is the bloody pedestrians. I very nearly collided with a young lady around Trafalgar Square despite the crossing lights having a count down display which went to 0, then the lights went red against her, then green for the traffic and she just kept on chatting on her phone and launched about 10 feet in front of my bike.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 03:41 PM

D the G would not last long in any North American city.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jun 13 - 04:24 PM

I've been to Chicago, St Louis and Memphis along and lots of places I can't remember and survived them all, Q :-) I didn't have a bike though :-( Hoping to go to Florida (Tampa area) early next year.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 08:42 AM

BBC today.

The number of cyclists killed on Great Britain's roads rose by 10% in 2012, as the overall number of road deaths fell to its lowest since records began in 1926, according to official figures.

The number of deaths among cyclists rose from 107 in 2011 to 118 in 2012, the Department for Transport announced.

But there was a total of 1,754 deaths on British roads in accidents reported to the police in 2012, it added.

This was 8% lower than the equivalent figure for 2011.

It would lead to further calls for road designers to focus more on cycling safety, our correspondent added.

"In addition, the number of pedal cyclists reported to the police as seriously injured in a road accident increased by 4% to 3,222," the Department for Transport said.

"There is a well-established upward trend in pedal cyclist casualties; this is eighth year that the number of seriously injured cyclist casualties has increased."

The overall number of people seriously injured in road accidents fell 0.4% to 23,039 in 2012.

The Department for Transport said it was likely that the unusually high levels of rainfall in 2012 had reduced the number of pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists using the roads.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 09:05 AM

Do we ban all those from pavements as well?

No, just the mobile phones. Or we could just ban self-absorbed assholes in general - that would take care of most of the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 09:17 AM

Why do some cyclists think they have a right to ignore traffic laws as it suits them and why do the police and local authorites do nothing about it ?

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 09:19 AM

Riding on the paved portion of the road facing traffic is very dangerous...suicidal;

On a fast road, it makes no difference which way the cycle is going.
The relative speeds are little changed.
In a collision it is only the cyclist who dies, so better for him to be able to see the danger.
My closest call was was being hit from behind by wing mirror and screen pillar and sent sprawling into the road.

Cycling against the flow is not tolerated but should be.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 09:23 AM

Dave, as I said, I put my safety above rules.
Cycling, I go when I feel safest.
When I am safe inside my steel cage, I stick to the rules.

When vehicle and cyclist collide, only the cyclist dies.
Cut us some slack.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 09:39 AM

self-absorbed assholes

Now, there's a concept worth considering :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 10:15 AM

"
Why do some cyclists think they have a right to ignore traffic laws as it suits them and why do the police and local authorites do nothing about it ?"

The same reason as motorists do it to the extent that when challenged by another road user they pull a baseball bat from the boot and go to town.

Don't keep parroting these stupid questions. Cyclists are doing nothing motorists don't do in greater numbers, at higher speeds and with more death and maiming resulting. Furthermore, motorists evade paying tax and insurance (which are not required of cyclists - whether it should be is another matter - I do have cycle 3rd party insurance), they steal petrol from filling stations, park all over the pavements, use their vehicle for robberies, assaults and disposal of bodies - but we're getting silly here aren't we, we don't want to attribute the faults of a few to the many - oh, but that's just what you are doing!

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 10:41 AM

Absolutely Manitas

Cyclists all ignore traffic laws
Irish are all thick
Moslems are all terrorists

What is the difference between any of the above stupid statements?
Only one of them will not get you in trouble if you say it in public!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 10:44 AM

Greg - After my flippant comment above, I think you have a good point.

Or we could just ban self-absorbed assholes in general - that would take care of most of the problem.

Unfortunately we cannot legislate against stupidity but on the plus side, Darwin's Law takes care of a lot of them :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 10:48 AM

Unfortunate, indeed. I would actively support legislation to criminalize stupidity - would save many more lives than criminalizing drugs.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 12:22 PM

As a cyclist (only a lightweight - 5 miles to work and 5 miles home daily) who also drives when he absolutely has to, I'm going to give a big thumbs up to Manitas' comments above. There may be a few idiot cyclists out there, but the problem is because they're idiots not because they're cyclists. Most of us use a mixture of common sense, hyper-vigilance, flexibility and general awareness of our surroundings. That's why most of us don't crash into pedestrians. And because we're not driving around in a ton of metal capable of high speed and rapid acceleration, even if the red mist descends in the general scheme of things we really aren't the dangerous ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 12:37 PM

Sorry, Spleen - but there's way more than "a few".

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 01:27 PM

I doubt if the percentage of idiot cyclists exceeds the percentage of idiot pedestrians or idiot drivers but you could well be right, Greg. Unfortunately it does seem to be more than a few :-( Anyone care to put a % on it? 1? 5? 10? Doubt if it is any more or we would be seeing carnage on every street corner! I, personally, would expect the number of drivers in the idiot bracket to be the highest but I could be mistaken. I also suspect people tend to see only the idiot cyclists because they stand out from the vast majority of sensible ones in the same was as extremists stand out in any area. Just my two pen'urth of course but I hope it makes sense to others.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 01:49 PM

Makes sense to me, Dave - but consider, too, that many motorists are cyclists as well. ;>)

Dunno how that would adjust the persentages.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 03:53 PM

It is only a few, Greg. Otherwise the streets would be awash with gore...

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: olddude
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 03:59 PM

ON THE SIDEWALK ... my mom would probably just run them over when she was alive ... seems the sidewalk was part of the road to her

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 04:38 PM

It is only a few, Greg. Otherwise the streets would be awash with gore...

There but for the grace of attentive motorists, Spleen. And in my experience this side of the pond, they're an infestation.

Back in Blighty, I'll leave it for the natives to comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 06:02 PM

I can only speak for over here. And I know I feel a heck of a lot safer when I'm driving... And plenty of motorists are far fro attentive. Not all, by any means, but way too many.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 06:21 PM

I am glad to say the only close call I had on a pedal cycle was someone opening their car door in front of me. I managed to swerve out of the way and there was no harm done. The driver was mortified and could not apologise enough. Hopefully he never did it again.

Now, on a Motorcycle was a different matter. Drivers really seem to hate the way motorcycles can filter through the traffic. I always did it VERY safely but a few arseholes did not like it. One pulled as far over to the left as he could until he thought I could not get through. And 'accidentally' lost his wing mirror as I squeezed past. The best though was a boy racer wanting to try and beat me from the lights. Idiot. Honda CB450 - 0-60 in less than 4 seconds. Ford Escort 9 seconds-ish? I slipped my clutch and stopped after about 3 feet. He shot off on the red light and was unhurt but very embarrassed, and hopefully arrested, for running into the path of a police car:-)

Yes, I know, I should not have. But I was 18 years old and I know better now :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jun 13 - 09:14 PM

"Drivers really seem to hate the way motorcycles can filter through the traffic. I always did it VERY safely but a few arseholes did not like it. "

Well...color me 'arsehole'. I have had cyclists decide they 'needed' to use the space between cars to gain a few seconds while cars were stopped at a light. I had had them lean on or bump my car as they squeezed past. I have seen them take chances with all sorts of vehicles, just to exploit their smaller width.

The law in 'most' places says that cyclists are entitled to a place in the normal traffic lanes (*not on high-speed motorways*) and that motor vehicles must recognize this and not harass them. It does NOT grant cyclists the right to create new, personal traffic lanes between the marked lanes. Doing so says: "I have disdain for your silly restrictions on MY freedom and abilities, I will take my chances."

I am all in favor of bicycle lanes on major streets, giving hardy & healthy folks a non-polluting way to get about and not take up parking places where they go. I am NOT in favor of cyclists making up their own rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 02:48 AM

I see your reaction all the time Bill, in male drivers.
They hate it when a bicycle goes past them.
It does not effect your progress in any way, so why do you care?
Is it a masculinity issue?

It is not breaking any rule to slip between stationary vehicles.
Cyclist are not required to stop when their way ahead is clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 04:22 AM

So, it goes like this then, does it Bill?

A cyclist is tootling along at 10MPH, you can safely pass him either in the same lane or by, in your own words, 'creating a new personal one'. So you do.

Then, 200 yards down the road, you are stopped due to any of the major reasons that cars need to halt. The cyclist can safely pass you either in the same lane or by, in your own words, 'creating a new personal one'. So he does.

You are doing nothing wrong but he is being 'disdainful' and 'making up his own rules' is he? (No sexism intended btw - he or she would apply but is tedious to type all the time!) Sorry, but that really takes the biscuit. One law for you and one for cyclists. Sadly, too many other drivers think the same way and then wonder why cyclists get annoyed.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,JHW
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 06:00 AM

UK Highway Code - Rules for Cyclists
64. You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. (MUST NOT in capitals and Red)

Last year (best guess) a cyclist riding on the pavement shouted at a young woman to get out of his way. As she stood her ground he ran over and killed her. Fined £2000

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 06:11 AM

What the available statistics say
Using DFT figures, from 2007-2008, 60.7 pedestrians were killed on the pavement by motor-vehicles, whereas 0.5 were killed on the pavement, by pavement cyclists. This is based on 10% of pedestrian casualties being on the pavement or verge as was the case 2007-2008. The ratio of pedestrians killed on the pavement by motor-vehicles to those killed by cyclists is therefore 121.4:1. The ratio from 1998-2008 is 820.1:3 or 273:1 (uses the same 2007-2008 10% pedestrian casualties figure).

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 06:18 AM

Guardian, August 2009.


However, the only reason this case made national news is because thankfully it is rare.

Pedestrians and cyclists are far more at risk from drivers than they are from one another. Bicycles typically kill around two pedestrians a year; motor vehicles on average kill about two pedestrians a day. Even on pavements, those on foot are far more at risk from motor vehicles than bicycles. Motor vehicles kill pedestrians on pavements or verges at a rate of about 40 a year. In contrast, this latest incident is only the third time a cyclist has killed a pedestrian on the pavement this decade.

Yet unlike Darren Hall's jail term, drivers who kill often get off lightly. In fact, some don't even get to go to court. Last week, the family of 25-year-old Anthony Maynard who was killed when he was hit by a van as he cycled near Henley, felt they had been left no other option than to start civil proceedings against the driver who killed their son. In this case the driver claimed he didn't see Anthony because the sun was in his eyes and the CPS decided not to prosecute.

Cyclists, like pedestrians, are far more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of irresponsible road behaviour

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 08:33 AM

Can anyone who still has a problem with cyclists please go back and read Keith's last two posts very carefully.

Can I also add that every time I cycle instead of drive, I am not using petrol or creating pollution. I am taking up less space on our overcrowded roads. I am far less likely to kill or hurt others. I am getting some exercise. And I don't feel the urge to trade in my bike for a newer, better model every two years! Need I go on? The point is I believe cyclists should be celebrated not demonised - we are part of the solution, not part of the problem. The sooner more of you (disabilities notwithstanding) got up off your arses and joined us the better. But like most of us already out there do - cycle with care.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 08:51 AM

Spleen Cringe says, "But like most of us already out there do - cycle with care".
Well, in my view, MOST cyclist who ride on the same piece of pavement as me do not cycle with care!
They ride far too fast, and far too close!

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 08:53 AM

Spot on Mr Cringe but as we are talking about cyclists breaking the rules may I add another couple of points?

Cyclists who ride DANGEROUSLY on pavements deserve to be prosecuted. Those who are aggressive to other road users are a pain in the arse. The vast majority of cyclists however are sane sensible people who will never cause an accident, hit a pedestrian or do any damage to anyone. The are pedestrians who walk in cycle lanes. The advance stop area at traffic signals, designed to help cyclists is, 90% of the time, taken up with cars. Cars and Lorries park in cycle lanes, forcing cyclists to ride on the pavement or into the traffic in an area narrowed by inconsiderate drivers.

There are arseholes in all walks of life. Why are people singling out and trying to demonise cyclists for heavens sake? The sooner the oil is too scarce for people to run their cars, including me, the better as far as I am concerned.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 09:08 AM

Dave & Cringe - no-one is (or at I am not) trying to demonize cyclists.

We're complaining about asshole (or arsehole, if you prefer) cyclists who appear to be on the increase exponentially.

They should be cited and fined the same as the operators os other vehicles that violate existing rules & statutes.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 09:30 AM

Of course dangerous cyclists should be prosecuted - as should dangerous drivers. Trouble is, most dangerous driving or cycling I see isn't prosecuted because it doesn't take place when a copper is around. So the issue isn't really about prosecution, it's about taking personal responsibility. And whilst everyone needs to do this, the larger, heavier and faster your vehicle the more pressing the need...

Also I think some of the road rules around cycling may be different in the UK and the US. For instance, cyclists moving to the front of a queue of stationary cars at a traffic light is perfectly ok in the UK as far as I am aware - although again it is sensible to do this safely. And as for the green box at junctions with a bike symbol painted on it, oi motorists! That's for us. Keep out!

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 10:20 AM

"...personal responsibiity".

This is supremely meaningless.    Congratulations.    Nobody claims both cyclists and drivers --and pedestrians, even--should not take personal responsibility.   But personal responsibility includes obeying all rules of the road.   By all vehicles, including bicycles.

And staying off the sidewalk. Which is the subject here.

Also, everybody realizes bicyclists are more at risk from drivers than vice versa. Duh.

And nobody is advocating seriously that bicyclists should be punished for not obeying laws by being run over.

But it would be nice if bicyclists would actually stop for stop signs, for instance. Among other things, not stopping for stop signs is suicidal behavior on the part of bicyclists. But perhaps they're all immortal. In their own minds.

And some of us are actually sticking up for the rights of pedestrians to be safe from bicyclists running them over on the sidewalk.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 10:32 AM

Treat cyclists as more like pedestrians and less like motor vehicles.

The stop sign rule is to prevent motor vehicles colliding.
As you say, a cyclist would have to be suicidal to jump one into the path of an oncoming vehicle, so they don't.
That is not how cyclists tend to die.
Why does it matter to you so much that they keep to a rule not really aimed at them?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 10:34 AM

"personal responsibility"

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 10:38 AM

We all also realize that bicyclists are more at risk from drivers than pedestrians are from bicyclists.   Again. duh.

That does not address the question which is the topic here.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 10:39 AM

When I ride up to a stop sign, my main responsibility is to avoid a collision, not least because I would be the party killed or maimed.

If there is no danger of a collision, why should I stop?
I have to work hard for that kinetic energy in a way that drivers do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 12:04 PM

"...personal responsibiity".

This is supremely meaningless.    Congratulations.

Ron Davies, you have a way with words. And I don't particularly mean that as a compliment...

What's so "meaningless" about taking personal responsibility for your actions? Surely it's a cornerstone of any halfway civilised society, and the absence of this is one of the reasons we're in the mess we're in?

As a cyclist I never cycle on the pavement ("sidewalk"). EVER. The pavement is not there for me - the road is. And bastards in cars with no spatial awareness, no patience, no common sense and no driving skills make the road a dangerous place for me. So excuse me if I bang on about it... I cycle to work every day. I never see cyclists on the pavement though I see plenty on the road. In fact, generally, the only cyclists on the pavement are young children, which is legal in the UK... or those sorts of young men who happen to own bikes who, frankly, I wouldn't dignify with the title "cyclists".

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 12:29 PM

Treat cyclists as more like pedestrians and less like motor vehicles.

Nonsense.

Legally, cyclists ARE vehicles and must obey all laws of the road & etc. that apply to vehicles.

You can wish otherwise all you want, Keith, but it's bullshit. Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Midchuck
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 01:05 PM

Point 1: What Greg F. said (perfectly and simply) in his 12:29 post.

Point 2: As you say, a cyclist would have to be suicidal to jump one into the path of an oncoming vehicle, so they don't. BUT I have SEEN them do it, numerous times, often when I was the driver of, or a passenger in, the motor vehicle in question. The cyclists didn't die, in any of those cases, because the motorist (who had the right of way) slammed on the brakes, and we scraped ourselves off the dashboard after the cyclist had gone on. Are you saying that I hallucinated all those cases? (Not to say that motor vehicle drivers don't run red lights or stop signs; but cyclists do a lot more often, in proportion to the number of them on the road.)

P.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 03:55 PM

Not sayin' your hallucinating, Midchuck, but in all my years as both a driver and a cyclist I've never experienced this. Have I been lucky or have you been unlucky?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 06:09 PM

Perhaps you just haven't been paying attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 06:21 PM

As a cyclist, I come to a full (foot down) stop for all red lights and to a track stand at stop signs. I only put my foot down if there is oncoming traffic. Anyone who feels he has a right to ride through a stop sign is a moron.

BTW, those cuts in sidewalks/pavements at intersections are for wheelchairs, not bicycles.

A problem that I don't think has been addressed is that many cyclists are too young to have taken drivers' training and gotten a license (I assume that something of the sort is required in the UK as well as in the US), so they may be honestly ignorant of the basic rules of the road. A think that makes me cringe is seeing someone ride the wrong way, facing traffic. Besides the fact that they are in my space, any collision involves the sum of the velocities of the vehicles involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 06:41 PM


Legally, cyclists ARE vehicles and must obey all laws of the road & etc. that apply to vehicles.
But why?
Bicycles and pedestrians are slow, unprotected and vulnerable.
Drivers are seatbelted, airbag protected and inside a steel sarcophagus with a powerful engine.

Cyclists and pedestrians are both at the mercy of motor vehicles.
Motor vehicles mince them both with impunity.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 06:47 PM

A think that makes me cringe is seeing someone ride the wrong way, facing traffic. Besides the fact that they are in my space, any collision involves the sum of the velocities of the vehicles involved.

They are in your space whichever way round they are.
Sorry. How dare they!?

There is less likely to be a collision when the bike can see the motor.
His life depends on it.
The driver is oblivious and impervious, and the relative velocity is little different because bikes are so very comparatively slow.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 07:11 PM

"There is less likely to be a collision when the bike can see the motor. I assume that means that, in addition to running stop signs and riding on the wrong side of the road, you don't have a mirror on your bicycle?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Jun 13 - 09:14 PM

But why?

WHY? Because that's the way it fuckin'is, Keith. Grow up.

You're presenting as a perfect asshole, so likely you're also an asshole cyclist.

With any luck, you'll be cited and fined.

And then you'll still be an asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 02:49 AM

The way it is?
A bicycle is a vehicle like a car or a truck?
That is wrong.
A bicycle is a pedestrian on spindly wheels, exposed and vulnerable and no threat to anyone.

When you walk the sidewalk, you are in much greater danger of being hurt or killed by a vehicle than a bicycle, so why single out the almost harmless cycle?
Walkers and riders are the vulnerable victims
Vehicles are the impervious mincing machines that prey on them, and you are the drivers who want to persecute them because they can sometimes pass you and that threatens your manhood.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 08:23 AM

Kevin, why don't you enlighten us all about the difference between Christian[sic] and Muslim cyclists?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 09:14 AM

TYPO: read "Kevin" as KEITH.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 09:34 AM

I am not aware of any Greg, and why all the aggression and hostility?

Cyclists do not and can not threaten you, so why the anger?

Is it because, lean and physical, and with a higher stature, they sometimes leave you standing.
Or rather sitting, slob like.

Right there in your big, shiny penis substitute, humiliated and emasculated.
Oh dear.

That is where all that aggression comes from.
It is also why you use sexual words just to talk about it.
Words like "fuckin'" and "asshole."
That is like what they do to you, isn't it Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 09:49 AM

Cyclists do not and can not threaten you

Guess you've never been run into by a cyclist doing 20MPH, or after getting out of the hospital you'd surely remember it.

Nor been the victim of an automobile accident caused by a cyclist, eh?

Now, on to the subject of Islamist Jihad Cyclists-

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 11:14 AM

"It is not breaking any rule to slip between stationary vehicles.
Cyclist are not required to stop when their way ahead is clear."

That is not the law where *I* live! You are describing two different types of situations with very different concerns. I could badly injure a cyclist IF I acted as you imply (making 'my' own lane... which I do not do.) I have waited for long stretches to pass a slow cyclist when there was no safe or legal place to do so.

I only pass a bicycle when it is moving and it is safe to do so. I don't think I have ever needed to pass a slow moving motor cycle..... but I have had BOTH bicycles & motorcycles squeeze dangerously between vehicles in downtown Washington DC. They ARE breaking the law (although bicycle messengers do it all the time, and are seldom ticketed unless they CAUSE an accident...which does happen.)

I will continue to give all cyclists all the legal rights they have, even if it slows me briefly.... I will NOT tolerate them leaning on my car as they maneuver thru barely passable spaces.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 11:36 AM

the impervious mincing machines

I think I have their first album...

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 12:10 PM

Does sound familiar - they're an Islamist group, aren't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 12:27 PM

Hey, what's REALLY fun , being as it's really unsafe to ride bikes on the sidewalks, is roaring up and down the sidewalks in a bulldozer!..and if you have the need to rush into a store to use the restroom, you won't bump into the sides of the door, either!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 12:35 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 11:36 AM

the impervious mincing machines

I think I have their first album..."



Hehehe! Best laugh of the day!! :D

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 02:17 PM

I have waited for long stretches to pass a slow cyclist when there was no safe or legal place to do so.
So have I, and every other driver on our narrow roads in UK.
Relevance?

I only pass a bicycle when it is moving and it is safe to do so.
You don't pass stationary bikes? Why ever not?
I would expect all of us to only pass when safe.
Relevance?
BOTH bicycles & motorcycles squeeze dangerously between vehicles in downtown Washington DC.
Why is it dangerous and who to Bill?
They ARE breaking the law
Funny law that.
Please explain.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 02:33 PM

Regarding cyclists or motorcyclists moving through stationary traffic, I've never understood why *some* motorists object so vigorously to other road users utilising what are otherwise dead parts of the road. Many of the motorists I know, are *also* cyclists and motorcyclists, and I've known them to deliberately make a little extra room in order to enable two-wheeled road users coming through, to pass more freely.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 03:07 PM

"You don't pass stationary bikes? Why ever not?"

Stationary in this context MEANS stopped in a lane that I am in, as at a red light....even IF they are at one edge of the lane.

"Why is it dangerous and who to ?"

Because motor vehicles do not expect traffic in non-existent lanes! They begin to edge over, in preparation for changing lanes.... they stick their arms out of the window... and a cyclist who cuts it too close can scratch or damage cars.....and various other possible problems.

Strange law? See above...the law establishes rules which, if everyone follows them, will provide the best OVERALL safety for all...even IF a few cyclists feel 'slowed'.
These questions indicate to me that some folks feel that they wish to be the arbiter of what is reasonable, and intend to "do it their way", whether the law agrees or not.

I PREFER lanes set aside for cyclists (bicycles, as in my link above), but this is not always possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: PHJim
Date: 29 Jun 13 - 09:15 PM

DtG said, "I also suspect people tend to see only the idiot cyclists because they stand out from the vast majority of sensible ones in the same was as extremists stand out in any area. Just my two pen'urth of course but I hope it makes sense to others."

I agree that the majority of cyclists are sensible. I didn't start this thread as a tirade against cyclists, I am sometimes one myself. As DtG said, the idiot cyclists stand out from the majority, partly because some of them are on the sidewalk rather than the road, where they belong.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 13 - 02:38 AM

Stationary in this context MEANS stopped in a lane that I am in, as at a red light....even IF they are at one edge of the lane.

So in a single lane road, if a bike is stopped at the edge, you will not go alongside or pass him?
That is just silly.
I can not believe that is the norm or the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 30 Jun 13 - 05:42 AM

I suspect the cyclist will be conveniently ignored as usual.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jun 13 - 01:38 PM

So, in a nutshell, Bill, you will not pass a stationary cyclist at 5mph yet you will happily pass one that is doing 10mph at what, 30/40mph? Hmmm. Makes about as much sense as the rest of the anti-cycling lobby.

Thanks for the confirmation PHJim. I think we realised that you were not anti-cyclist but your thread certainly brought some of them out of the woodwork!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jun 13 - 01:46 PM

BTW - In case anyone gets the wrong idea, I NEVER cycle on a busy pavement. What I, and I suspect many others are talking about is similar to the following scenario - Cycling along at 10mph. on a busy road. You come to a line of parked cars. The remaining road is barely wide enough for two cars anyway so do you

a) Go on the pavement, where there are no pedestrians, until you are past the parked cars or
b) Move into the road front of an HGV with a driver who must make his delivery and has no time to wait behind a cycle.

I can tell you which would do and have done, in plain sight of a traffic officer on one occasion, who nodded and smiled.

Anyway chaps. Keep digging. We can all see that you care about your precious vehicles more than your fellow man already but it is nice to get further affirmation :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 30 Jun 13 - 02:03 PM

Last year I was walking along a narrower part o0f the pavement on a busy trunk road. A cyclist riding on the pavement as he passed meat without slpwing down gave me a violent shove and told me to get out of the fucking way.

Obviously as the cyclist was my better and has exclusive right to the pavement, should I then demand exclusive right to walk on the outside lane of the road??? How could that be enforced???

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jun 13 - 02:11 PM

Obviously as the cyclist was my better and has exclusive right to the pavement,

No he wasn't. He was a complete knobhead. Are you using this example to say all cyclists are the same? If so then you are no better than those who say all Irish are thick , all Moslems are terrorists and all Blacks are lazy.

Get over it and if it happens again report it to the police.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jun 13 - 02:13 PM

BTW - Have you ever been on a cycle? If you push anything while you are balancing on two wheels, chances are you will fall over. I suggest you try it.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 10:11 AM

Road deaths are falling, but cyclists' deaths increase.
Vehicles kill about 2 per day, but cyclists only 2 per year.
Lightening kills 3 per year in UK.
Deaths due to cycling on pavements are even rarer, say one in decades.
On the pavement you are at far more risk from vehicles, or from falling objects, or lightening.

Those of us without penis anxieties are happy for a bike to sail past us when we are stuck, and as CS says, even edge over to ease their passage.
Bikes are an urban solution not a problem.

" I will NOT tolerate them leaning on my car as they maneuver thru"
Skin on your chrome!
You are violated.
What will you do?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 11:05 AM

""It is not breaking any rule to slip between stationary vehicles.
Cyclist are not required to stop when their way ahead is clear.""

They aren't required to leave bloody great scratches from pedal or handlebar along the side of a car either, BUT THEY DO! And spit in your face if you complain about it.

The trouble is that a significant number of cyclists believe that there are no rules which apply to THEM, on road or pavement (sidewalk).

Where I live, there is a maze of footpaths offering shortcuts through the estate, which frankly are a death trap for pedestrians, especially the elderly, disabled or blind, since the local cycling fraternity don't seem to know what the word "footpath" means

I have to use one of those to get to my GP's surgery and about two years ago stepped into the end of it to be confronted by a cyclist doing about 20mph.

This halfwit yelled "Get out of the way, you fucking useless old cripple". I flattened myself against the fence in this 3 foot wide alley, and my walking stick unfortunately hooked his handlebar. It was a complete accident, but I have neither sympathy nor regret for his trip to the hospital in an ambulance, nor for the £80 fine he got for "furious riding".

If you think this prat was a one off, just stand at any set of traffic lights and open your eyes. You'll soon see how wrong you are.

It is more dangerous cycling on main roads these days admittedly, but I find it somewhat difficult to see that fact as a valid reason for ignoring traffic lights, pedestrian crossings or laws concerning bells and lights.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 11:31 AM

Deep breath.

We all have anecdotes we can use to tar a whole group of people with the same brush because of the actions of a minority. If the situation with bikes were only half as bad as some posters here insist, frankly they'd have been banned years ago...

And surely I can't be the only cyclist who has never scratched someone's car, never run over a pedestrian, never shoved a pedestrian out of the way (whilst simultaneously not falling off my bike), never hurled abuse at a pensioner (no doubt whilst high on petrol fumes from all the feckin' cars!), etc etc etc?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 11:59 AM

Go stand at a set of traffic lights, count the cyclists who don't go straight through or hop off and walk across against the red, count how many turn up actually on the road and how many arrive on the pavement, weaving in and out of the pedestrians at far too high a speed.

Then come back and talk about minorities.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 12:08 PM

I did, Don. I stood at the traffic lights near work for 45 minutes one day (Don't ask why - It's a long story) and not one single cyclist committed the crimes you detailed. What now? I am sure you have seen it just as I am sure I did not. Do we take a straw poll as to who can come out with most anecdotes? Maybe we could do the same on the anti-Moslem thread? You are happy that the terrorists are a small minority there. I am convinced that only a small minority of cyclists are 'urban terrorists'. I can carry on the 'is, isn't, is, isn't' argument for days if you like. It will get nowhere fast but it should prove who can tell the best tales.

Spleen - I am another. But as I pointed out earlier the same cannot be said about my antics on a motorbike when I was a youngster. I have grown up since. Well, nearly.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 12:24 PM

It's unfortunate that many people get comfortable in their view of the world. Whether that be as a motorist perceiving cyclists as a problem or vice versa. It's worth taking time out to consider the issues faced by another group who may annoy you without intending to. I used to think lorry drivers were a bunch of idiots hogging the roads, until I actually learned how hard it is to maneouver, speed up, slow down and break, when driving a huge and very heavy vehicle from someone who drove lorries for a living.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 12:30 PM

the anti-cycling lobby

Finally! I've been expecting this.

So anyone who expects cyclists to comply with the highway code/vehicle laws and act in a responsible and courteous manner are perforce card-carrying members of the "anti-cycling lobby".

Perfect example of the self-absorbed, sense-of-entitlement jackass cyclist attitude we've been discussing.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 12:46 PM

"you will not pass a stationary cyclist at 5mph yet you will happily pass one that is doing 10mph at what, 30/40mph?"

aww...Dave... that is a distortion of what I said, and of the point I was making. I 'may' pass a cyclist at 30/40 *IF* it is safe and legal to do so...for both me and the cyclist.

"Skin on your chrome!
You are violated.
What will you do?"

I will yell at them... my only recourse is to make it clear that someone is aware that they are both taking chances and (in my area) breaking the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 12:47 PM

So anyone who expects cyclists to comply with the highway code/vehicle laws and act in a responsible and courteous manner are perforce card-carrying members of the "anti-cycling lobby".

No, people who claim that cyclists are anti-social thugs are "card-carrying members of the anti-cycling lobby". There seems to be an abundance of them on here.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 12:55 PM

To clarify: It 'seems' to be your attitude that because cyclists find it easier, and have more opportunities to squeeze between larger vehicles, that the practice is generally justified. I simply disgree with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 12:58 PM

Dave, I think you need help. Talk to an alienist.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 01:00 PM

Nice one :-)

No help required, Greg. There is no opposition...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 01:21 PM

""So anyone who expects cyclists to comply with the highway code/vehicle laws and act in a responsible and courteous manner are perforce card-carrying members of the "anti-cycling lobby".
""

Ditto anybody who dares to point out that many cyclists are not acting that way.

Cyclists frequently are the authors of their own problems, when they decide to occupy the gap between vehicles and the kerb when those vehicles are already signalling a left turn, racing up the left side of a vehicle to try to get ahead before arriving at an obstacle or parked vehicle and swerving wildly out into the path of the one they've passed.

These things are emphaticaly not rare events. They happen every day, in every town, and in every case where a collision occurs, we hear the same old mantra.

"Motorists don't have any respect for cyclists."

I don't see anybody here objecting to all motorists being lumped together as thoughtless road users.

We pay hundreds of pounds every year in Road Fund Licence fees, Insurance and Fuel duty on which we also pay VAT, a TAX on a TAX!

We pay for insurance which pays out for damage done to bicycles among other things.

Cyclists pay nothing, many of them cause accidents, and don't look for any insurance if one of them damages your £20,000 investment.

Our insurance foots the bill for that too.

I'm a pedestrian most of the time, travelling no more than about 80 miles a week in the car, and I'm a damned sight more likely to be hit by a bike where I live, than a car. Your mileage may vary.

Incidentally, when I am out in the car I'm not in the least bothered by cyclists (pedal or motor) moving up between the lines except in the circumstances I mentioned above.

I do get bloody annoyed when one of them jumps a red light to turn left five yards in front of me when I'm driving through a green light, a common occurrence.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 01:25 PM

Christ on a cupcake! I've been reading through this thread. It looks like we've found something else to fight about...

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 01:51 PM

I am a cyclist, although (at 67) I don't ride as much as I used to do. I'm also in the US, so please read right for left if you find this difficult to follow.

I ride on the right, but I don't ride in the glass and debris-filled gutter. I stop for signals, don't ride on the sidewalk/pavement and generally use turn signals. I clip on front and rear lights on the (rare) occasions when I'm going to be out after dark. If a car passes me on the road, I feel no guilt by then passing him safely on his right when he stops at a signal - what would you prefer? Should I stop at the end of the line of stopped vehicles? I look to see if the car stopped next to me is signaling for a turn, and either wait until he has done so or I go ahead if he signals me to do so.

I think that, if I ever visit the UK, I will leave my bike home. Not only because there are apparently so many idiot drivers there but also because I really don't recognize the fraternity of cyclists in the behavior you are all describing.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 01:52 PM

" hop off and walk across against the red,"

So what?
They actually are pedestrians now!
Who in this country has never walked across against a red because there is no traffic?
You Don?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 02:07 PM

Don,

There's no such thing as a Road Fund Licence. Roads are funded out of general taxation since 1937 because Winston Churchill didn't want motorists claiming that they own the roads.

Many, if not most, cyclists are also motorists and have driving licences and pay VED on their cars as well as paying other taxes.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 02:14 PM

""So what?
They actually are pedestrians now!
Who in this country has never walked across against a red because there is no traffic?
You Don?""

You want my objection to that? OK!

Because when the lights change the same eejit is jumping out in front of and swerving all over the road as he accelerates away, having gained nothing whatever, and then I'm stuck at fifteen miles an hour til I can move out a lane.

It's another example of the arrogant sense of "anything I want to do is automatically right and screw the rest!

A bit like you really!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 02:31 PM

While we're at this mud throwing event, i thought I might as well remind road users that the pavement is for pedestrians, *including* the bits of pavement that happen to have a dropped curb to grant road users access.

Just because that dropped curb is outside your property or between wherever it is you want to get to and where you are now, it is not your private road, it remains the pavement where pedestrians have the right of way.

As such, please do not drive out of your drive as though you're the only being in the universe; there are young children, dog walkers, elderly folk, and me, using that pavement.

While *I* might realise that there are motorists who treat pavements as though they are roads, not all pedestrians are so savvy and they are usually the more vulnerable ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 02:33 PM

I absolutely agree with that C.S.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 02:45 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 02:33 PM

I absolutely agree with that C.S.

Don T."

Glad to hear it Don! But then if you're a regular walker then you'll be aware of how often car users pull out onto pavements without so much as slowing and looking!

Just had to get that one off my chest!! :D

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 02:46 PM

To be clear, of course not ALL car users behave like that!

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 02:57 PM

"of course not ALL car users behave like that"

No...but let's go into a spitting rage over those that do!!! Kick the chair! Roll around on the floor and chew on the carpet! Ahhhhh.... God, that felt good.

And now what about those fecking, bloody, useless, arrogant, self-centred, halfwit cyclists impeding our motorized progress? AAARGHHH!!!!!!!!!!! Kill 'em all, I say!

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 03:05 PM

"No...but let's go into a spitting rage over those that do!!!"

While we're at it, lets get bloody angry about people who drive drunk!

Oh wait, that's dangerous and illegal too..

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 03:23 PM

Don, Cyclists pay nothing. The fact that far too many pay with their lives, which you do not acknowledge, is a good indication of your views on cycling. Sorry, because I know you and think you are a good bloke, but I don't think you really thought that one through.

To make it a little less maudlin, how about the cycle lanes that share a pavement with pedestrians? There are plenty of them. With a painted line and easily understood symbols to separate the two. When I used to cycle to Salford Quays I rode down around 1.5 miles of them every day. Militant pedestrians used to walk in the cycle lane all the time. If I rang my bell, I got sworn at. If I tried to get by them, I got threatened. This was every working day of every week for about 6 months. There were occasions when I was glad I had the extra speed when a sloping forehead Neanderthal decided he was going to 'Kick my fucking old bloke head in'.

How are we doing on the exchange of anecdotes score?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 03:41 PM

The fact that far too many pay with their lives,

Ah, yes, the poor, oppressed, martyred cyclists who do nothing wrong yet are constantly harrassed and nailed to the cross by the anti-cycling lobby.

Give it a rest, Dave.

And pull the other one- it's got bells on.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 03:46 PM

Greg I don't think you're on much of a winner if you imagine motorists to be in any way 'the victims' where either non-metal clad cyclist or pedestrians are concerned. Cyclists routinely get injured or die when hit by cars, motorists merely get annoyed when hit by cyclists. There's no equity of offence caused.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 03:53 PM

50% of the time I'm a pedestrian, 50% of the time I'm a passenger in a car.

As a pedestrian I see some abuse of pavements by cyclists, but most of it is by motorists.

As a passenger I see some abuse of roads by cyclists, but by FAR most of it is by fellow motorists.

It is my observation that motorists are overall the most badly behaved of all users of the road and pavement. They also happen to be by far the most dangerous as the death tolls tell us.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 04:02 PM

I didn't know you danced Morris, Greg? What team? Every been run over by a Morris dancer on the pavement? They are complete bastards, the lot of 'em.

Cheers

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 05:02 PM

if you imagine motorists to be in any way 'the victims

Uh, CS - where did I say or even imply that? Is English a second language for you?

DAVE - give it a rest, already. Not remotely amusing, and puerile into the bargain.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 05:32 PM

"Uh, CS - where did I say or even imply that? Is English a second language for you?:

it'a so always quaint to be criticised by an American concerning English language usage.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 05:35 PM

or always so quaint - the point is buggered of course

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 05:59 PM

Not buggered in the slightest, CS. Anyone who can describe another as puerile while indulging in such juvenile games themselves would probably not even know the meaning of irony.

Cheers

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 06:07 PM

Not useage, CS & Dave - comprehension. But thanks for your overbearing Pommy sense of superiority.

Ta.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 08:05 PM

I had to give up serious cycling in 1994 when my right knee decided to let me down. I'd commuted to work every day, come rain, snow or shine, from Loughton to Walthamstow, a distance of about seven miles each way, for about five years. The journey took in a considerable stretch of the North Circular down to the Crooked Billet roundabout. For a change, I'd occasionally come in via Walthamstow dog track from Chingford. The ride always had me negotiating big rush-hour jams and several tricky junctions (look at a map!). I never jumped a red light (occasionally, to save time, I'd dismount and cross the road instead). I could usually sweep past the long queues on the outside and my journey time was predictable day to day to within a couple of minutes. In all that time my only altercation was with a bloke in a car in Loughton who hadn't seen me and who forced me to mount the pavement to get out of his way. He had religious posters in his car windows and one of those fish symbols stuck on his boot lid. He stopped to apologise, but, as he'd almost deprived a young wife of her husband and two little kids of their dad, I offered to stuff his effing crucifixes up his holier-than-thou bottom. After our move to Cornwall in 1986 I commuted from our house near Bude to Holsworthy, a daily distance of 22 miles, every day, on my good old Claud Butler Majestic. I never missed a single day due to weather, only "borrowing" our car on the rare days I had a streaming cold or something. I once did the eleven miles home in 29 minutes (hey, with almost 500 feet of climbing) with an easterly gale behind me! I became well known as that bloke that everyone on that road saw and waved to every day. In 1990 I cycled 6000 miles, adding rides for sheer pleasure on to my commuting miles. I did a 100-mile charity ride that summer in Cornwall and Devon (we cared not a jot about the hills!), and I rode the 320 miles from my mum's in Lancashire back to Bude in four days, staying at youth hostels. I've been trying to get back to some gentle riding again, bad bones permitting, and I've found that getting up on me bike is still very much in my blood. I did have occasion, in the late 80s, to cycle in London a lot, and there was no animosity then that I could discern between motorists and cyclists. You mustn't break the rules of the road on a bike but you do have to look after yourself. Fast is safe on a bike, and you must ride well out from the gutter. If it isn't safe for someone to pass you, you have the right to prevent them from doing so by occupying your rightful space. Most times, a cyclist is in a far better position than a motorist to decide what's safe and what isn't as there's far more at stake for them. There is no room for arrogance or bad manners on the part of cyclists, but, equally, motorists must accept that the bloke or blokess in the saddle is taking up much less road room than they are, they are not polluting the planet and they are flesh and blood unprotected by a tin overcoat. The "I pay road tax and you don't" argument is entirely bogus. That situation is engineered by the government, not cyclists, so choose your target a little better. I wouldn't mind betting that many of those self-same people who try to make that case would object if I told them to get their bloody dog off the pavement because it doesn't pay council tax. As for cycling on pavements, well I'd say it depends on the pavement. A good, wide sidewalk might have plenty of room for both cyclists and pedestrians. We have many miles of lovely trails in Cornwall where it's cheerfully understood by all users that bikes and walkers have equal precedence. Good manners must rule and pedestrians must come first (they're the least able to get out of the way quickly). Whatever happened to common sense?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 08:06 PM

I absolutely promise that I hit send just the once.

[duplicate deleted... Mudelf]

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 13 - 11:34 PM

Try this traffic, folks...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H88mdbL2IYg

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 02:58 AM

It is not a sense, dear Greg. It is a knowledge.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 03:28 AM

Look at these clips of one cyclist's experiences in outer London.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBLPb0LzQnA

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 04:45 AM

"" "I pay road tax and you don't" argument is entirely bogus.""

And the fact that our expensive insurance and our no claim discount pays for the damage done by cyclists who cause accidents?

I know at least five motorists who had collisions as a direct result of having to take avoiding action when cyclists made irresponsible decisions, one of them writing off a £30,000 car, while the cyclists went happily on their way, not giving a damn.

There are more ways of causing damage than you seem to be aware of.

As for clips from cyclists, there are plenty of police video files of cyclists misdemeanours, and I wonder how that picture would change if pedestrians started wearing head cams?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 04:53 AM

Cyclists rarely ride happily away from collisions Don.
They tend to get killed or maimed while the driver gets home safe.
That is why we work so hard to avoid them in spite of what you claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 04:57 AM

One last word on his topic.

It is insulting to be accused of being anti cyclist, because you dare to point out that the number of irresponsible cyclists is far larger than cycists want to admit, and increasing.

I am anti anybody who wantonly disregards the safety of others, and the laws of this country, no matter what their mode of transport may be.

The only thing that is seemingly common to the whole cycling fraternity is the fact that they are in absolute and adamantine denial of the size of the problem.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 05:03 AM

""Cyclists rarely ride happily away from collisions Don.
They tend to get killed or maimed while the driver gets home safe.
That is why we work so hard to avoid them in spite of what you claim.""

Naught out of ten for comprehension once again my dumb friend.

I was talking, as I clearly stated, about collisions with other vehicles caused by avoiding two wheeled idiots, who didn't even have the grace to stop and see if anybody was injured, and because cyclists have no visible identification, could not be found to sue them for the damages.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 05:09 AM

I think you dream these experiences Don, because they bear no relation to anyone else's reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 05:16 AM

You are an arrogant, opinionated arsehole, who always thinks he knows best.

You have no basis for your claims that I am lying about these events.

They happened and they happen to other people as well.

You need to pull your head out of your arse and look around once in a while.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 05:26 AM

Funny how all the hostility and anger and rage emanates from the anti-cycles.

This is another irrational prejudice of yours, such that I have commented on in other contexts.
No-one else on here has experienced those kinds of incidents, and I have never ever heard of any such.


I am not calling you a liar, just a dreamer.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 05:30 AM

I was tootling along the cycle lane a while back when some loony pedestrian on a mobile phone, with no regard for her safety or that of others, stepped out in front of me with no prior warning. To avoid a collision I had to brake hard. I fell off, causing damage to my left arm, left knee and tearing my clothes. When I took her to task for it she told me to F-off and watch were I was going.

How are we doing on the anecdote front? This happened to me and has to other people. You need to pull your head out of your arse and look around once in a while. Has someone said that before?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 05:33 AM

- Have you ever been on a cycle? If you push anything while you are balancing on two wheels, chances are you will fall over. I suggest you try it.

To be fair Dave, I have seen and experienced such incidents on occasions.

The machine has always been one of those with the pedals fixed to the front wheel, and two small wheels at the back giving the required stability.
The behaviour of such riders can be truly awful.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,SPB at work
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 05:40 AM

"Are you using this example to say all cyclists are the same? If so then you are no better than those who say all Irish are thick , all Moslems are terrorists and all Blacks are lazy. "

No I am not - I am using this as an example to say that pedestrians have as much right to use the pavement as anyone else, and as such be able to use the pavement safely and without fear of intimidation. I could also rant about cars that park on pavement not leaving room for prams, wheelchair users. And what I was also suggesting is that if road users want the pavement then let pedestrians have the road.

"BTW - Have you ever been on a cycle? If you push anything while you are balancing on two wheels, chances are you will fall over. I suggest you try it."

Actually, I was a cyclist for more than 10 years - did not ride on the pavement. I followed something called the Highway Code, and rode considerately, stopping at traffic lights, not mowing pedestrians down at zebra crossings. I only stopped because I moved to a first floor flat and could not face carrying it up and down stairs every day.

BTW - have you ever been hit by a cyclist - it didn't take that much of a shove do to the transfer of energy from the forward momentum of the bike for me to get quite a sizeable bruise on my arm.

I have nothing against cyclists - only the inconsiderate ones. What have you got against pedestrians?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 05:54 AM

What have you got against pedestrians?

Nothing whatsoever only the inconsiderate ones. Work on the basis that the same percentage of every group is inconsiderate and I think you will find that, pro-rata, there are many more inconsiderate drivers and pedestrians that cyclists. Glad to hear you have nothing against cyclists.

Suggestion to get over your issue with accommodation - Do the same as me. I had a fixed frame roadster but it was a pain to keep protected from both the elements and thieves anywhere. I now have a Ridgeback Attache folder - Bit expensive but not the dearest on the Market. Get to work, I can fold it and carry it up 2 flights of stairs. Stores under the stairs at home. If it (or me!) ever breaks, fold it and get a bus or taxi. Makes cycling much easier.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 07:04 AM

As a pedestrian, non-cyclist (I fell off last time I cycled somewhere!), it also really annoys me the amount of pedestrians who dominate cycle lanes when there's a wide pavement with clearly demarked zones. And it's ridiculous how annoyed people can get at a little bell letting them know a cyclist is coming through - on the cycle lane. I think this thread really just demonstrates that large numbers of people can be stupid, rude and inconsiderate, whether on foot or on two wheels or four.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 07:29 AM

And the fact that our expensive insurance and our no claim discount pays for the damage done by cyclists who cause accidents?

Bit of an old chestnut, this one, Don. In the bad old days, we used to say that women drivers didn't have accidents but they caused most of 'em, remember? Likewise elderly drivers (who cause accidents by forcing people to tailgate them). Your expensive insurance is expensive mainly because of the cartel operating between the insurance industry and major repairers (£1300+VAT for a damaged wing on a Honda Jazz...?), fraudulent claims brought about by people who'll crash your car for you for a couple of hundred and the plethora of claims for non-existent "injuries" such as whiplash in which your expensive insurance company has been woefully complicit. Don, if it's you vs a bike, the moral odds start off being stacked heavily against you. You're taking up much more space than him, you're polluting the air, you're helping global warming along and you're using up precious resources, fast. Sure, an idiot cyclist can redress the balance, but let's not get carried away with the notion that all cyclists are devils incarnate and all car drivers are paragons of virtue. But, as I said, in London in the 80s when I cycled thousands of urban miles per year, that animosity wasn't there. So who's to blame for it? Won't it just be the usual thing of the unrepresentative few (on both sides) giving everyone else a bad name?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 09:40 AM

It is not a sense, dear Greg. It is a knowledge.

Thanks for confirming my point, Pom.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 10:05 AM

No Problems, Colonial. We try to help the disadvantaged.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,SPB at work
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:30 PM

"Your expensive insurance is expensive mainly because of the cartel operating between the insurance industry and major repairers (£1300+VAT for a damaged wing on a Honda Jazz...?),"

And of course - if the age/value of the car does not allow the preferred repairer to carry out a repair at an over-inflated cost, the insurers are most likely to write-off the vehicle, even if the repair is just a small dent. Also unless the repair is carried out by an 'authorised' repairer it is easier to get blood out of a stone than it would be to get a couple of hundred pounds for the repair to be done by a local repairer. Also don't forget the levy towards the uninsured drivers compensation fund.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:41 PM

So "pom" really is taken as an insult?    It does seem that "colonial" in this context is meant as one.    Perhaps there's still some bitterness as to the outcome of the 1775-1783 unpleasantness.

All I can find as the origin of "pom" is that pom was meant to indicate a reddish skin color.   I don't think that is really something a sensible person should react violently to.   So why would Britons object?    Another theory is :    prisoner of Mother England ( which seems to be an urban myth). But "pom" is supposedly directed at Britons by Australians--yet it's the Australians who would have prisoners in their backgrounds.    So it makes no sense to have Australians call the British "poms".   And even less sense to voluntarily take it as an insult.

Thoughts?    Inquiring minds want to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:43 PM

A facility should be provided in central London...a small gymnasium with a boxing ring where you chaps could settle your differences over these various vital matters.

Or...how about a dueling range somewhere in the Midlands, complete with swords, pistols, knives, nunchucks, leather gloves (for slapping the opponent's face), and other appropriate weapons? That would provide for the possibility of a final solution.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:54 PM

"Pom". "Pommie bastards!" Love the sound of that... ;-) I wonder if it has any connection with pomegranites? They have a red skin. The English probably tended to get noticeably sunburnt when they came to Australia, so that could account for the expression.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 12:55 PM

So "pom" really is taken as an insult?    It does seem that "colonial" in this context is meant as one.   

No, Ron, Pom is not an insult. Far to out of date. Colonial was not meant as one either. If I wanted to be insulting it would have been obvious! :-)

LH - Wonderful idea :-) Gladiatorial contest featuring cycles with sharpened blades protruding from the hubs. Bring it on!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 01:48 PM

BIKE!

The problem with most cyclists is the lack of drugs.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 01:49 PM

"not meant to be an insult"   Just like "help the disadvantaged" is also not meant to be one.   RIght.    Sorry, Dave, your nose is growing.

And nobody has answered the question yet.    "Pommy bastard" might possibly be an insult. This seems like a reasonable conclusion. But still, why "pommy" ?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 03:03 PM

pommy, pommie n, adj, Australian
A British person. The standard and usually derogatory slang term for natives or immigrants from the British Isles, pommy is probably a corruption of 'pomegranate', chanted as a humorous semi-rhyme for 'immigrant'. The epithet has been in use since the first decade of the 20th century. The noun is now probably more common in the form of POM.
Thorne, Bloomsbury Dictionary of Contemporary Slang, London, 1990

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 03:15 PM

Yay! I said my insults would be obvious - Even you spotted it, Ron :-P

I think it more likely that pommy was short for pomegranate - The colour Brits went in the Aussie sunshine. I don't think anyone has a definitive answer though. It was classed as not offensive by the Aussie advertising standards body in 2006.

BTW - Although I was born here I am only about 3/8 English. Which I suppose makes me a true Pom :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jul 13 - 05:33 PM

And of course - if the age/value of the car does not allow the preferred repairer to carry out a repair at an over-inflated cost, the insurers are most likely to write-off the vehicle, even if the repair is just a small dent. Also unless the repair is carried out by an 'authorised' repairer it is easier to get blood out of a stone than it would be to get a couple of hundred pounds for the repair to be done by a local repairer. Also don't forget the levy towards the uninsured drivers compensation fund.

That's right. Doesn't that put into perspective Don's implied scenario of his insurance costs soaring because cyclists go around making cars crash into each other? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 12:55 AM

3/8 English?    What's the rest?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 12:57 AM

And, by the way, "even you"--sounds like you've been taking lessons from my style. Imitation is....

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 02:42 AM

No-one need be sensitive about offending Greg F of all people!
"Pom" is the least of his insults, "asshole" being his standard form of address.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 02:48 AM

because cyclists go around making cars crash into each other?

You and I and everyone else may never have heard of such a case, but knows personally of 5 cases including a total right off!

He is also personally responsible for putting an errant cyclist in hospital, and getting him fined.

Tell us some more Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 02:56 AM

I can always learn from a master, Ron :-)

My Father is Polish - So that should make me half Polish but his father was Russian and Mother Polish so that makes me 1/4 Russian and 1/4 Polish. Half English you may think, but no. Paternal Grandfather was about 1/4 Irish and paternal Grandmother was 1/2 Welsh. Thinking about it I guess I am a bit less than 3/8 but seeing as I was born here, that'll do!

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 05:26 AM

Whoops - replace all instances of paternal with maternal in above post! I mixed my mats and pats! Not that anyone on here would notice...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 07:30 AM

Well done, Dave.   You really are learning.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 08:46 AM

"asshole" being his standard form of address.

Well, Keith, if the hole fits.....

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 08:55 AM

Holier than thou Greg?
Surely not.

BBC today.
Two cyclists who died after being struck by a lorry during a charity ride from Land's End to John O'Groats have been named.

Andrew McMenigall, 47, and Toby Wallace, 36, were killed in the crash on the A30 in Cornwall on Tuesday.

Mr McMenigall, from Edinburgh, was a senior investment manager with Aberdeen Asset Management. He was married with two daughters.

Colleague Mr Wallace worked in the firm's Philadelphia office.

The 31-year-old driver of the lorry involved in the crash near Summercourt was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.

The two cyclists were on a charity ride to raise funds for the Kirsten Scott Memorial Trust, which was set up in memory of a colleague who lost her battle with cancer in October 2011.

Mr McMenigall was a triathlete who graduated as an Army officer from Sandhurst before completing an MBA at Edinburgh University.

Mr Wallace was married, and was a senior relationship manager for the company.

He joined the firm in 2000 as a graduate trainee from Jesus College, Cambridge, where he had been on the winning team in the 1998 and 1999 University Boat Races.

In 2012, Mr Wallace was a member of an eight-man crew which rowed across the Atlantic to raise money for the Kirsten Scott Memorial Trust.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 09:19 AM

suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving[emphasis mine]

OR the two cyclists pulled out in front of the lorry.

I'll wait for the final report so that we have some factual information instead of speculation.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 10:46 AM

And of course you're right, Keith, about Greg and his native tongue.   It does appear to be gutter language.   I've spoken to him about it before, but for some strange reason my admonitions have had little effect.   Just can't understand why.   But I suppose you can take the boy out of the gutter but perhaps not the gutter out of the boy.

Ah well, It looks like all we can do is encourage him when he does stay out of the gutter for a few posts.    It must be a struggle for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 10:47 AM

"Ah, well, it..."

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 12:37 PM

Hey Simple Seeker After Truth And Source Of All Knowledge Worth Knowing And Then Some: go fuck yourself.

Didn't want you to be disappointed, heaven forbid.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 02:54 PM

Well, it's nice to get back to normal. I was beginning to think I'd wandered into the wrong universe.

After all, Greg and I were on the same side of an issue.   It happens once in a while, but it sure does seem to be against the natural order of things.

But thanks, also, Greg, for climbing out of the gutter for a few posts.

Maybe it might be an option for you to kick the habit.

Or maybe not.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 02:56 PM

Whoops, sorry.

I meant:    QED

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 03:02 PM

Maybe it might be an option for you to kick the habit.

Why should I want to, Simple Seeker? You seem to be faithful to type.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 05:45 PM

Well, it's just possible that the poster might realize that relying on foul language to communicate actually just indicates a poverty of vocabulary.   Which is a secret I'd think he'd want to keep to himself.   But who knows, maybe he does want to shout it to the world.

Although anybody more than half-educated knows the English language is incredibly rewarding in its opportunity for expression.    So it's a shame not to take advantage of its richness. But most of it is not in the gutter.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 05:46 PM

Ah yes, and:   200 (forgot that).

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 05:48 PM

I think a lot of these posts just come from someone who likes to bait others. And they are very good at it. In fact... Wait for it...

A master baiter.

Oh, and 200!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 05:48 PM

DAMN YOU DAVIES!

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jul 13 - 06:20 PM

Uh, it does pay to read the posts sometimes, Dave.    But, tell you what, I'll leave #300 for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 03:30 AM

Awww, C'mon, Ron. There was less than 2 minutes between our postings so you only just beat me to it! I know I am good but not that good :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 06:43 AM

You're right, Dave.   It was the luck of the draw. I've had the same problem.

And cheers to you too.

Not to mention good luck with #300.

Will you be at Sidmouth this year?    Might see you there.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 07:31 AM

No - Sorry Ron. Never been to Sidmouth. Used to regularly do Whitby and Fylde but not done them recently. I will definitely be at Moira Furnace and may be at Fylde. Can I take my bike and ride it through crowds of Morris Dancers on the roads? :-)

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 07:37 AM

I have a confession to make. This morning, on the way to work I cycled on the "sidewalk". It was only for a few seconds, but I cannot tell a lie and pretend it didn't happen. I was proceeding in an orderly fashion along a dedicated cycle path that runs alongside a main road. It's a bit of a farce of a cycle path, because drivers park on it thus rendering it useless for cyclists and in places it ceases to exist for no apparent reason, but that's all by-the-by. Anyway, a car just in front of me cruised off their bit of the road and into the cycle path - again, for no apparent reason. I didn't take it personally - I think it was probably a combination of poor lane discipline and dozy sod syndrome. I had to slam the brakes on, whilst simultaneously checking there were no pedestrians on this stretch of pavement so I could hop onto it rather than crash into the back of the errant car.

Can I be excused my fine please? I know I've committed the sort of terrible crime that passing motorists may clock as another example of what rules-of-the-road defying BASTARDS us cyclists are, but at least no-one got hurt, no cars got scratched and the only person at risk of injury was me - and injury was only averted because as a cyclist I had my wits about me.

I'm not telling this story because it's unusual, but because it's increasingly the norm.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 07:53 AM

""but let's not get carried away with the notion that all cyclists are devils incarnate and all car drivers are paragons of virtue.""

Help me out here Steve. Point out exactly where I made any such claim.

Every single instance I have mentioned actually happened, notwithstanding Keith A's woeful inability to recognise the truth when it bites him in the arse.

Every person, group, organisation or country whose cause Keith espouses, automatically becomes lily white pure and incapable of error or misdeed, and everyone who disagrees with him is a dreamer, liar deluded fool or terrorist.

Don't take my word for it, go read the bastard's posts on every contentious topic under the sun.

Always the same tunnel vision, blinkered, one dimensional viewpoint.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 07:58 AM

So you expect us to believe that your walking stick accidentally put a cyclist in hospital, who was then fined for "furious cycling"?
Google does not believe you either.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 08:06 AM

"You can only be convicted of this offence (furious cycling)if you injure someone while you're cycling in a way which is wanton or furious or shows wilful misconduct or neglect. There's no definition of what counts as wanton or furious or wilful – it all basically depends on how a jury would judge your cycling.

Since 2008 there have been two reported prosecutions of cyclists for this offence, both involving cyclists who rode onto the pavement at speed and knocked over a pedestrian, who later died. Both were jailed, and one was disqualified from driving. (R v Lambert [2008] EWCA Crim 2019; R v Hall [2009] EWCA Crim 2236 – BBC report here)"
http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/09/27/can-you-lose-your-driving-licence-for-a-cycling-offence/

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 08:50 AM

Funny you should mention that Mr Cringe as it is exactly what I have been saying - I got that fed up of having to quickly avoid becoming another statistic that it became second nature to me to hop on the pavement to go around cars parked in the cycle lane. I never saw anyone on those pavements let alone run anyone over. My cycling days are strictly limited to leisure at the moment but when my fitness improves I would like to cycle/train or bus the 15 miles to work. I drive at the moment and can see the danger spots already! I have invited anyone to report me to the police but no-one has taken me up on it :-)

Every single instance I have mentioned actually happened So have mine, Don. As I said earlier, if you want to fight a war of who can provide the most anecdotes about driver v cycle v pedestrian stupidity you are on a loser strait away. Quoting from this excellent article, which I recommend anyone to read -

Despite this there may have been some genuine grounds for complaint, pavement cycling is annoying, (it irritates me), but it certainly isn't anything like as dangerous as often portrayed in the media and the public swallow that garbage.
Essentially, we must do what we can to be responsible and be seen to be responsible. I'm not sure quite how do do this, but it must involve adolescents, largely because these are the group who would seem to be heavily involved in antisocial cycling. There is little doubt that some of these will continue their antisocial ways into adulthood. All cyclists then get tarred with the same brush.

*What the available statistics say
Using DFT figures, from 2007-2008, 60.7 pedestrians were killed on the pavement by motor-vehicles, whereas 0.5 were killed on the pavement, by pavement cyclists. This is based on 10% of pedestrian casualties being on the pavement or verge as was the case 2007-2008. The ratio of pedestrians killed on the pavement by motor-vehicles to those killed by cyclists is therefore 121.4:1. The ratio from 1998-2008 is 820.1:3 or 273:1

We could, therefore provide at least 273 stories of driver stupidity to every one of yours about idiot cyclists.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 09:58 AM

We could, therefore provide at least 273 stories of driver stupidity to every one of yours about idiot cyclists.

And that, of course, exonerates the idiot cyclists.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 10:16 AM

Not at all, Greg. Just that there is no point in this type of anecdotal evidence. If we compare the number of cyclists on the road to the number of car drivers and pedestrians there are bound to be more idiots in the later two categories simply because there are more of them. It does not excuse stupid behavior by anyone nor is it an indication of the attitude of the majority in any category. I am just saying that in an exchange of examples there will inevitably be more showing drivers in a bad light and going down that road (pun intended) is a waste of time.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 11:03 AM

Greg, it's not about exonerating but contextualising. The 'idiot cyclist' clearly isn't a mythical beast but the statistics consistently show the threat is grossly exaggerated.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 11:41 AM

And that, of course, exonerates the idiot cyclists.""

They don't exonerate the idiots. They just deny that they exist. That's modern cyclethink.

It does of course carefully avoid acknowledging the percentage of cyclists killed by motorists where the cyclist was at fault and the motorist had no chance of avoiding the collision.

It also fails to recognise the number of instances of cyclists causing damage and simply pissing of, immune to prosecution because they can't be found.

But that is the way they justify their blinkered insistence that there isn't a problem.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 11:55 AM

Don: here are some recent statistics to try to help you understand the reality for those of us who chose to cycle. No-one is denying that a minority of cyclists are idiots (as are a minority of any group of humans undertaking any activity). What we are denying it that it is any bigger a problem than that. While you may claim not to be 'anti-cycling' what you actually write betrays you time and time again. And please don't make this issue just about Keith - he's far from the only cyclist in the village...

In the UK as a whole, the number of people killed cycling increased 10% last year and serious casualties were up as well. The Department for Transport acknowledged today that "There is a well-established upward trend in pedal cyclist casualties; this is eighth year that the number of seriously injured cyclist casualties has increased." (Cyclists in the City 24th June 2013).

RoSPA said:

The provisional road casualty figures for Great Britain in 2012, published today by the Department for Transport (DfT), show that overall road deaths fell by 8 per cent to 1,754 in 2012. This appears to show that the rise in road deaths in 2011 was not the start of a trend.   

The DfT report highlights that unusually heavy rainfall in the spring and summer of 2012 probably led to less walking, cycling and motorcycling, which may be part of the reason for the fall in overall casualty figures.   

However, despite this, the number of pedal cyclists killed rose by 10 per cent to 118 and the number of seriously injured cyclists rose, for the eighth year in a row, to 3,222. The increase in deaths was mainly among the young with the number of child cyclists killed doubling from six in 2011 to 13 in 2012, although the number seriously injured fell by a fifth.

There were also increases in the number of child car passengers killed from 21 in 2011 to 27 in 2012.   

Kevin Clinton, head of road safety at RoSPA, an accident prevention charity with a history stretching back nearly 100 years, said: "The good news of a large drop in road deaths in 2012 is marred by an increase in cyclist deaths, which occurred despite the poor weather in the main cycling seasons of spring and summer, which probably meant fewer cyclists were on the road. If the weather had been better, there may have been even more cyclists killed and injured.   

"Even though road deaths in 2012 were at their lowest level since records began, we need to redouble our efforts to make sure that cyclist deaths and injuries are reduced as the popularity of cycling increases.   

"The fact that most of the increase in cycling deaths was among child cyclists is particularly worrying. As well as increasing the provision of cyclist training and trying to make the roads safer for cyclists, we also need to hammer home the message to drivers to keep their speed down, watch out for cyclists and give them enough room on the road.   

"It is also vital to create a coherent safe network for cyclists by introducing the appropriate cycle lanes, linking quieter streets, developing routes alongside rivers, canals and through parks, and lowering speed limits."

http://www.rospa.com/news/releases/detail/?id=1221

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 11:56 AM

This article makes interesting reading, too:

http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 11:59 AM

And finally, merely as food for thought, here is an impassioned defence of pavement cycling:

http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/heroes-of-british-cycling-bradley-wiggins-and-the-pavement-cyclist/

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 12:09 PM

Really finally, this one's for Don. One for a reflective moment...

Why some people get angry with cyclists: and why it's time to do something about

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 12:34 PM

Don - They don't exonerate the idiots. They just deny that they exist. That's modern cyclethink.

Me, 2 posts ear;ier, - It does not excuse stupid behavior by anyone nor is it an indication of the attitude of the majority in any category

Neither I nor, as far as I can see, has ever denied that idiot cyclists exist. Just who is stretching the truth a little here?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 02:34 PM

here is an impassioned defence of pavement cycling

Impassioned, without a doubt. Also total bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 02:59 PM

Some research.
Two-thirds of collisions between vehicles and cyclists in central London are the fault of the driver, research revealed today.

Westminster council found that drivers were to blame in 68 per cent of incidents while cyclists were responsible for 20 per cent. In the remainder of cases, both were to blame or the cause could not be attributed.

The figures emerged in the council's draft cycling strategy, which aims to build on plans from Boris Johnson to double the number of people cycling in London in the next decade.

It said the most common contributory factors in vehicle-cyclist collisions were drivers failing to look properly (21  per cent), drivers being careless or reckless or in a hurry (13 per cent), drivers failing to judge the cyclist's speed or path (10 per cent) and drivers passing too close to the cyclist (10 per cent).

It revealed there were 133 collisions between cyclists and pedestrians in the past three years, with 60 per cent attributable to pedestrians and 40 per cent to cyclists.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/drivers-to-blame-for-twothirds-of-bicycle-collisions-in-westminster-8602166.html

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 04:10 PM

Hmmm. I disagree with the article to the extent that I would not, personally, be militant enough to make that sort of stand. But it is far from total bullshit, Greg. He is quite right in saying that if enough people cycle on the pavement then something would have to be done. Whether that something would be positive or negative for cyclists I cannot say!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 04:14 PM

OK, Dave; can we come to a meeting of minds on "largely bullshit"?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 04:22 PM

I'll do a deal - How about half and half :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 06:06 PM

Roger - OK.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,jeff
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 06:06 PM

Have been cycling most of my life. Recreationally in my youth and practically in my adulthood. Started cycle-commuting in 1987 in Chicago 10 years before they had a cycle-friendly mayor. Have done 2 tours of the UK/Ireland and countless week or two mixed camping/credit card tours in the US. My background in dealing w/hazzards of ALL varieties is extensive. So, I came to this realization many years ago. ANY collision w/a vehicle, pedestrian, parking meter, roadsign or pothole is THE FAULT OF THE CYCLIST. PERIOD. Why?

If one has a collision w/a car, regardless if the auto operator right or left hooks you, hits you from behind or is blind running drunk. If one is going to cycle in traffic one has to realize a bike is 200-225 lbs max and a car is 2-4 tons. The odds are NOT in your favor, so YOU must be constantly aware of your surroundings and anticipate that EVERYTHING is a potential hazzard. A rearward mirror in traffic is a MUST. When one gets used to functioning in THAT realization commuting, utility cycling and touring is a challenge and a JOY.

If one collides with a pedestrian even if they cross against a light or the middle of the block one should be in contol of one's bike to the extent that you either swerve and miss or be able to brake hard enough to come to a halt. Without doing an over-the-handlebars somersault. Shift your weight rearward and hold BOTH brakes firmly. Lay it down if you have to, but do everything in one's power to avoid hitting a pedestrian. They're helpless and vulnerable even if clearly in the wrong. You're not. It requires SKILL and needs to be practiced. Just like a musical instrument.

One needs to understand a bicycle is a mode of transportation where the rider is the motor AND operator and NOT a toy. NEVER take risks in dealing w/traffic, pedestrians, etc. Obey all traffic laws and be courteous to ALL drivers even if they are rude to you. If you notice a build-up of autos behind you signal and pull into the next driveway and let them pass. They WILL appreciate it, I can assure you. It isn't a game and shouldn't be treated as such. That being said it is FUN to be part of the traffic flow and keeps one's reflexes sharp. They HAVE to be sharp. Your safety and well being depends on it. Practice memorizing license plate numers in anticipation of dealing with harrassment. YOU WILL BE HARRASSED IF CYCLING LONG ENOUGH. Can't stress that point enough. Report it. Better yet mount an unobtrusive camera to one's helmet as video is invaluable to LEOs. A California doctor is serving aa lengthy hardtime sentence as I post this for attempted vehicular homicide when running over several cyclists climbing a hill to 'teach them a lesson'. One of the cyclists had a camera mounted to his helmet and it was THE main piece of evidence as he said those very words when asked by one of the cyclists why he did what he did.

ALWAYS have a white light on blink mode in the front along w/at least a 150 lumens steady light in the front for night riding. They're plentiful and cheap. The technology in bike lights has improved dramatically in the last 5 years. Rearward have as many red lights of AT LEAST 5 watts on blinking mode as one wishes to have. I have a Cygolite Hotshot which is 2 watts that I use in daytime as it is clearly visible in full sunlight. Wear bright clothing that is BIKE SPECIFIC as they will often contain refective material visible even in full daylight. Rearward lighting needs to be both low and high, so clipping 'blinkies' to one's helmet AND shirt or backpack are to one's advantage in safely negotiating traffic. ALWAYS have one low...maybe under the saddle as cars are mostly at that height.

Ok, dogs. One rarely encounters a dog in an urban setting, but if one does DO NOT try to outrun it. Dogs can do 30-35 mph in short bursts and have enough mass to knock one off one's bike if large and aggressive enough. Get off and keep your bike between you and the dog and don't try to ride off until it loses interest. Walk and give a commanding NO! if it moves towards you. Keep them in your peripheral vision as a direct eye to eye is considered a challenge and may result in an attack, especially 'guard' breeds. They're primordial instinct is to chase and render prey(which you are like it or not)weak by disabling the tendons in the rear legs. If necessary use one's bike like a set of antlers to keep the dog at bay and hollar for help. Back up while keeping your bike between you and the dog. Usually someone is within earshot and knows the dog by name. That can help alot in diffusing a given situation. All of that being said keep a can of wasp spray on one's bike as it shoots a narrow stream at least 20-30 ft, can temporarily blind a dog and smells really bad. Forget papper spray, Mace, Doggone, etc. Those products have too broad and short of a spray pattern. They can very well end up on YOU given the right wind conditions. Take the benefit of my experience. Been there. Done that and have road rash scars to prove it.

Now rural dogs. Get a Crosman C31 CO2 pistol and keep it mounted to your steering tube in a holster. SPRAY PAINT IT ORANGE! One doesn't want a LEO to mistake it for a real firearm. Again been there. Done that. Believe me, you wont have time in many circumstances to have it anywhere else on your bike. This particular model shoots a BB @ 485 fps and that velocity REALLY stings, but is not anywhere close to being lethal. It's got an 18 shot magazine. All dog owners can be confrontational when one shoots their precious, but it's legal when they hit the pavement and there are leash laws in my state. I keep the Sheriff's department on speed dial in my cell phone. Anyone who thinks this is harsh is either naive, a fool or both. A dog can easily knock one from their bike and if there's more than one a swam isn't likely it's a reality. Again take the benefit of my experience. I was bitten several times before the dogs' owner was able to calm them.

Sorry to have run on for so long or been guilty of thread drift, but this is a subject with which I'm well aquainted and very passionate about. Feel free to be offended or disagree w/any or all of this post. I could care less. One more thing: STAY OFF THE FREAKING SIDEWALKS WHILE CYCLING!! WALK IT!!

Sincerely, Guest Jeff in rural Tennessee, USA

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jul 13 - 08:19 PM

I have never said, nor would I ever say, that children should not ride on the pavement (sidewalk).

They should never ride anywhere else unaccompanied by an adult.

The figures regarding blame in London are suspect, to say the least, given that any cyclist causing a collision and lucky enough to avoid injury, will inevitably piss off, skewing the figures.

Children are most likely to ride out into the road without thinking, and with the best will in the world cars simply cannot stop dead. To blame drivers automatically, because the victim is a child, is out and out nonsense, but that IS what happens.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 05 Jul 13 - 02:41 AM

Jeff: "ANY collision w/a vehicle, pedestrian, parking meter, roadsign or pothole is THE FAULT OF THE CYCLIST. PERIOD.

I'm afraid I can't agree with that. It presupposed a lot about drivers and pedestrians and doesn't chime with reality or the statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 13 - 03:00 AM

The figures regarding blame in London are suspect, to say the least, given that any cyclist causing a collision and lucky enough to avoid injury

The figures are accepted as reliable except only by you Don.
No-one else has ever heard of a collision caused by but not involving cyclists.
You claim to personally know of five.
That is because you are a liar and make stories up to make your case.

You tell a ludicrous story of sending a cyclist to hospital with your stick.
You claim he was fined for "furious riding"
Such a charge is extremely rare and always reported on.
The last one in Kent was in 19th Century.
Furious Riding has to involve injury to a pedestrian.
You forgot to make up the injured pedestrian Don.

You foolish, foolish man.
You make a liar of yourself to make a pathetic point on a miniscule Mudcat spat.
Twat.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 05 Jul 13 - 03:03 AM

A lot of that is true when you replace bicycle with motor vehicle. There's no absolutes here, we all have a responsibility, to ourselves if not to others, to avoid accidents whether in control of a motor vehicle, bicycle, horse or pair of feet.

Cyclists need to be aware that pedestrians can't always hear them coming up behind and that pedestrians can't jump out of the way as quickly as you'd like. Cyclists need to be aware that drivers can't hear them, can't always see them and can't react as quickly as you'd like.

Motorists need to be aware that they are much heavier than anything else, that they come up on pedestrians and cyclists faster than expected and that they are not always seen.

Pedestrians need to be aware of the above.

There are things we can do. We can make ourselves more visible, turn our music down, drive or ride a bit slower, observe traffic lights, stop signs, road priorities and just do one thing at a time and put down that mobile phone.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 13 - 04:06 AM

any cyclist causing a collision and lucky enough to avoid injury, will inevitably piss off

So now cyclists are not only anti-social and dangerous but they are also dishonest? I think this says a lot more about attitudes toward cyclists than it does about cyclists. Keep 'em coming Don. The more you dig...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 05 Jul 13 - 04:29 AM

and I will repeat that figure from a Danish survey - cyclists save the state 8p per km, motorists cost the state 13p per km. Who's anti-social here?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Jul 13 - 01:04 PM

Adelaide, Australia. A study by the University Centre for Automotive Safety Research showed that 21 percent of bicycle-motor vehicle accidents were caused by the cyclist.
www.adelaidenow.com.au

The article goes on to discuss briefly the main types of accidents. A common one involved a motorist turning at an intersection, and hitting a bicyclist going straight.

In my city (Calgary, Canada), it is illegal for anyone 14 or older to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. In San Francisco, the age is set at thirteen. However, in case of injury to a pedestrian, the parent of the child is liable for damages according to the cases I could find by googling.

Advertising on the net, a number of law firms offer services in accidents involving bicycles and pedestrians, so accidents are not infrequent.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jul 13 - 01:36 PM

Ah, jeez, Q, you're in trouble now - confirming the existence of a growing nuber of jackass cyclists.

They'll be down on ya in no time.....

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 05 Jul 13 - 02:48 PM

Are you really that stupid Greg? If 21% of cyclists are at fault that means 79% of motorists are at fault. Confirming that there is a large number of jackass motorists. As you seem to be identifying with motorists.....

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 13 - 03:29 PM

A common one involved a motorist turning at an intersection, and hitting a bicyclist going straight.

So, let me get this right. In both the UK and Australia we drive on the left. So a cyclist is going strait on. A driver turns left in front of him and hits him. It is the cyclists fault? Going the other way a cyclist is going strait on. A driver turns right in front of him and hits him. It is the cyclists fault.

Sorry, but I can't figure that one out. Probably me being thick.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jul 13 - 03:38 PM

"motorist turning at an intersection and hitting a cyclist going straight"
.
   In the US there is often right turn on red for motorists---sometimes when the pedestrian ( or cyclist) has the green walk signal.   Motorists are in theory to give way to pedestrians (and cyclists) in this situation.   However this often seems to be honored in the breach.

And there's no question who has the power of intimidation here (clue:   not the pedestrian or cyclist).   Which motorists often use, it seems.   And, as a frequent pedestrian, I find extremely annoying.

But it does not seem reasonable that cyclists should always or even mostly be found to blame for the type of accident cited. Unless of course the cyclist is running the red light or stop sign.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jul 13 - 03:58 PM

Hey, Dave, we're on the same wavelength here.    And this time it's I who didn't see your post--though it was several minutes before mine, it seems.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jul 13 - 04:12 PM

Confirming that there is a large number of jackass motorists.

Jackass motoroists? Absolutely.

But that doesn't negate the fact that there is a large and ever increasing number of jackass cyclists.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 13 - 04:48 PM

Jackass motoroists? Absolutely.

But that doesn't negate the fact that there is a large and ever increasing number of jackass cyclists.

Absolutely spot on Greg. I don't think anyone has ever seen it any other way.

But a lot of motorists seem to be of the opinion that because some cyclists are idiots then no cyclist should be on the road. Surely by that same token if there are some idiot drivers, no cars should be on the road and because there are some idiot pedestrians, no-one should ever leave their front doors!

All I am saying, and as far as I can see all other cyclists are saying, is don't tar us all as idiots because a minority are.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jul 13 - 04:51 PM

Glurp! I see jackasses everywhere. It's such hard work being perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jul 13 - 06:01 PM

don't tar us all as idiots because a minority are

No intention of doing so. Was a cyclist myself until age had its way with me. Would help, tho, if responsible cyclists would at least admit that there are substantial numbers of idiot cyclists (and #'s growing daily) out there & help to self-police the "sport" instead of being apologists for jackasses, as far too many are. ( Not saying your'e one of said apologists).

Cheers,

Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 13 - 03:22 AM

there are substantial numbers of idiot cyclists

Now, there's the rub. What is a 'substantial' number? 1%? 10% 20% And is it any higher than the substantial number of idiots in any walk of life? Yes, we all know that they exist but some seem to make more of an issue and use it as an excuse to demonise all cyclists. Yes there are apologists but equally there are those who would use the actions of a few to engender bad feeling about the majority.

Do you see any parallels here? There are those who use the 'substantial number', whatever that is, to class the substantial majority as the anti-social, dangerous law-breakers. That, as I said earlier, is very lazy thinking and is as bad as saying the Irish are stupid, Moslems are terrorists and Blacks are lazy.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 13 - 04:39 AM

The Adelaide figs suggest idiot drivers outnumber idiot cyclist by about 4 to 1, with no indication that idiot cyclists are increasing Greg.
Natural selection would tend to cause a decrease.

In those figs we can assume that all the drivers were adults, but not all the cyclists, which makes the comparison slightly unfair to adult cyclists.

As with the Westminster figs, it establishes that cyclists are a non-problem and not a danger.
This thread exposes some of the irrational prejudice that cyclists face, and the lengths to which some will go to justify that irrational prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jul 13 - 08:24 AM

Do you see any parallels here?

I sure do. There's idiots & jackasses on both sides of any issue.

This comes as a surprise? Give over, Dave - no-one is "demonizing all cyclists".

You're starting to sound like the National Rifle Association.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Jul 13 - 09:49 AM

This pains me beyond belief to have to say, but Greg is absolutely right on this:    nobody is "demonizing all cyclists".

And you are in fact starting to sound like the NRA.

There, I've said it.   Now I'll have to go somewhere to recover. But I'll survive somehow.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jul 13 - 11:06 AM

Well, Simple Seeker, maybe there's hope for everyone, eh? Or perhaps its just a broken clock being right twice a day.

Either way, wishing you a speedy recovery...

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Jul 13 - 12:18 PM

Hey, Greg, you didn't clear that with me--I've copyrighted the "broken clock" phrase. My attorneys will be in touch.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jul 13 - 01:20 PM

Bring 'em on!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Jul 13 - 01:36 PM

OK, GWB.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 13 - 04:54 AM

nobody is "demonizing all cyclists".

OK Greg, I am very glad to hear that you are not and some other people on this thread are not but a substantial number of drivers are very anti-cyclist as some of the surveys referenced show.

What about Don's comment.

any cyclist causing a collision and lucky enough to avoid injury, will inevitably piss off

Not some cyclists or a substantial number of cyclists but any cyclist will inevitably piss off. There have been similar phrases elsewhere but it is a lovely day, for a change, and I think I'll go for a bike ride instead of looking for them :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jul 13 - 09:57 AM

So now you want to argue the fine points of semantics, Dave?

You'll have to argue 'em with yourself. I'll stick to the actual topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 13 - 10:26 AM

I don't think it is just semantics, Greg. How so? You said 'nobody is demonising all cyclists' but I just found an example that was. I think it is quite crucial to the argument.

I am, as ever, always willing to learn though. Explain how this is just semantics and I will listen.

The overall point though is people are making sweeping statements about various groups that do nothing to engender harmony between all. Can we not just do a bit of give and take? I don't believe anyone on here has said that all cyclists are angels or demons. Don came closest with the example I quoted but I suspect that was heat of the moment and not well thought through. Since everyone, in the main, seems to be in agreement that some cyclists are idiots and so are some pedestrians and some drivers, what on earth is the issue?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jul 13 - 11:05 AM

Like I said Dave, have fun talking to yourself.

You absolutely SURE that you're not a member of the National Rifle Association?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 13 - 01:41 PM

My question. don't think it is just semantics, Greg. How so?

Greg's answer - You absolutely SURE that you're not a member of the National Rifle Association?

Is it just me or does that make no sense at all? Come on, Greg, I know you are not stupid. Maybe I am! Please explain how and why you think I have anything to do with the NRA. Apart from the fact that I don't, never have and never will own a firearm, what in heavens has my views on cycling got to do with right wing American nutters?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 07 Jul 13 - 07:07 PM

Cyclists need somewhere safe to ride! Against a background of falling road casualties, GB cycling casualties continue to increase.

Just released; Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: Main results 2012

The number of people killed in road accidents reported to the police decreased to 1,754 in 2012 from 1,901 in 2011. This is the lowest number of people killed in road accidents on record.

The number of pedal cyclists killed rose by 10% from 107 in 2011 to 118 in 2012. There is a well-established upward trend in pedal cyclist casualties; this is eighth year that the number of seriously injured cyclist casualties has increased.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 03:46 AM

Very weird! I posted a response here yesterday and it disappeared!

Cycling is going to increase as oil becomes unaffordable; cities should be planning for this.

I don't think I've ever read a report of a pedestrian killed by a cyclist, while deaths and devastating injuries are far too common for cyclists. (A friend of mine was dragged screaming under a 4x4 in Dublin for 100 metres, with her bicycle, while desperate pedestrians and drivers tried to alert the oblivious driver.)

Some cities that are successfully giving cyclists good facilities and separating them from the dangerous cars, vans and trucks.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 09:09 AM

Cyclists need somewhere safe to ride!

And I 'need' somewhere to exercise my pet African elelephant. But unfortunately, I have to deal with what exisxts- not what I wish existed.

The number of pedal cyclists killed rose by 10% from 107 in 2011 to 118 in 2012.

Hmm - 11 person difference. And how did the numbers of bicyclists using the roads - often narrow roads with no shoulders and limited sight distances change during that period- was there more or less than a 10% increase in the number of cyclists??

And what CAUSED these road fatalities - actions by the driver of the motor vehicle, or actions of the bicyclist?

Here we go again with the the poor oppressed, martyred bicycling community.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 09:20 AM

The Times, April 16th 2013

"cycling organisations reacted with dismay to the publication of official figures showing that cycle use remained unchanged last year despite an apparent surge in interest after the success of Team GB at the London Olympics.
Cycling accounts for 2 per cent of all journeys, the same proportion as for train travel, but funding for bicycle schemes is dwarfed by the £4 billion taxpayers pay to run the railway every year.
Government data published yesterday showed that cities and boroughs where local authorities have prioritised investment in cycle infrastructure over a number of years have succeeded in encouraging the highest proportion of cyclists."

So that 10% increase in deaths represents a real increase in the risk and dangers faced by cyclists.

Blaming the roads is fatuous. Vehicles kill you not the road they drive on.

And what CAUSED these road fatalities - actions by the driver of the motor vehicle, or actions of the bicyclist?
Overwhelmingly the drivers, as has been shown by research figures posted earlier, remember?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 09:26 AM

4 in every 5 accidents involving a cyclist and a car are caused by driver of the car, according to the linked Australian study.

Just going by my hometown, which doesn't have good cycling infrastructure (plenty of cycle lanes, but only one is separated physically from cars, and drivers tend to ignore the existing cycle lanes), most fatal accidents involve cyclists and vans or trucks. Typical would be the Chinese student who was crushed to death by a truck that turned left (we drive and cycle on the left here), and the driver didn't see him.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 09:34 AM

Here we go again with the the poor oppressed, martyred bicycling community

Sigh.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,SPB at work
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 09:55 AM

From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 07 Jul 13 - 07:07 PM

"Cyclists need somewhere safe to ride! Against a background of falling road casualties, GB cycling casualties continue to increase."

Pedestrians need somewhere safe to walk.

"Just released; Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: Main results 2012

The number of people killed in road accidents reported to the police decreased to 1,754 in 2012 from 1,901 in 2011. This is the lowest number of people killed in road accidents on record.

The number of pedal cyclists killed rose by 10% from 107 in 2011 to 118 in 2012. There is a well-established upward trend in pedal cyclist casualties; this is eighth year that the number of seriously injured cyclist casualties has increased."

Of these, how many were proficient cyclists - I see kids riding their bikes on the road where I live - treating the road as a playground - riding on both sides of the road, the pavement, swerving of the pavement without looking, etc. Luckily none have got themselves killed. I've lost count of the number of cyclists who ignore red lights - whether they are endangering themselves by crossing the path of a moving vehicle (including buses - a few time I've been on a bus where the driver has had to do an emergency stop.), or riding in the path of pedestrians.

I suppose another answer - roads for motor vehicles, pavements of cyclists, and peoples front gardens seized to make way for pathways!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 10:02 AM

Well, Keith - your cut-and paste contradicts itself in several places, saying that bicycle use has increased in one breath, and hasn't increased in another. Have you any un-garbled information to shae?

Blaming the roads is fatuous. Vehicles kill you not the road they drive on.

Not one-half as fatuous as your statement, or as fatuous as cyclists who seem to think they can ride wherever and however they choose without taking appropriate precautions and with total safety and impunity, whether they comply with rules & regs or not.

Now, back to your ode to the downtrodden masses of bicyclists.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 10:06 AM

Well, Keith - your cut-and paste contradicts itself in several places, saying that bicycle use has increased in one breath, and hasn't increased in another.

No it does not.
Read it again or just read it Greg.

"publication of official figures showing that cycle use remained unchanged last year despite..."

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 10:43 AM

2004 to 2012, Keith. Not the last calendar year.

And: Government data published yesterday showed that cities and boroughs where local authorities have prioritised investment in cycle infrastructure over a number of years have succeeded in encouraging the highest proportion of cyclists.

Both you & Dave would do well to read THIS BOOK.

His thesis goes a long way toward explaining the Bicyclist Genocide.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 11:32 AM

:-) Nice try Greg, but no cigar.

You should know by now that I will not be wound up by someone who I know little and care for even less. Unlike your good self who appears to be on route to a coronary incident. Chill out man, get on your bike and smell some fresh air instead of getting so tense.

No answer to my why you believe I am a member of some American organisation yet?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 11:39 AM

Not a wind-up at all, Dave - a serious suggestion. Its a serious book - not a joke.

Why don't you read the book first, and then condemn it afterward?

I do realize that dismissing it out of hand saves considerable time for you and for the cause of The Oppressed Millions.....

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 11:52 AM

What makes you think I was talking about the book? You are making a lot of false assumptions here, Greg. I have never mentioned a book or any oppressed persons have I? Maybe you should do a bit of reading and save us all a lot of time? :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 12:00 PM

You are making a lot of false assumptions here, Greg

Am I, indeed? Then I'm in most excellent company, Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 12:20 PM

succeeded in encouraging the highest proportion of cyclists.

So you read it again but still can not understand.
No shame Greg.
I will explain.
The figures show NO INCREASE.
OK so far?

Some places have more cyclists than other places, but there has been NO INCREASE.

I could only make it simpler for you by drawing little pictures, so you had better ask a grown up if you still don't get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 12:29 PM

If you can draw that conclusion, Keith, from the info as stated, even little pictures wouldn't be of assistance to you.

Nothing as stated claims that there has been no increase in the # of cyclists in the last decade- you are making that up yourself.

Your childish insults show a definite lack of skill in any case, and are not a substitute for data or fact.


But ta, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 12:39 PM

Then I'm in most excellent company, Dave.

Absolutely, my friend, absolutely. Always remember that 1 and 1 do not necessarily make 2 :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 01:39 PM

Greg.
The number of pedal cyclists killed rose by 10% from 107 in 2011 to 118 in 2012.

That was the statement in henryp's post and quoted back by you.

You then said " And how did the numbers of bicyclists using the roads - often narrow roads with no shoulders and limited sight distances change during that period- was there more or less than a 10% increase in the number of cyclists??"

The answer is 0% in that period.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 01:48 PM

The larger context, Keith. And take a refresher course on the use of statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 02:31 PM

Your context was first that my quote was self-contradictory, but it was not.
Remember Greg?

Then, when that folly was exposed, you claimed that you were discussing some 10 year period never mentioned.

You have made a twat of yourself again Greg.
Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 05:22 PM

De nada, Keith.

Oh, and in addition, you might learn to read- for comprehension.
Kinda like that Juastice Holmes business, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 05:39 PM

I do need help with comprehension sometimes.
"De nada,"
I have no idea.
Anyone else?

"that Juastice Holmes business"
Who?
What?
Anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 05:50 PM

"De nada," I have no idea.

Spanish for "You're Welcome", genius.

"that Justice Holmes business" Who? What? Anyone?

You really ARE an idiot!

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 11:50 PM

De Nada as I've understood it, translate's literally as "It's Nothing."

By happenstance, I was out on the road early today and passed an area that I know well but other drivers seldom seem to notice. A crosswalk light (push the button and wait for the light) with nice ramps and a smooth crossing is CONSPICUOUSLY MARKED with the standard "handicapped" sign and also with a prominent sign indicating "BLIND PEDESTRIAN AREA." When someone pushes the button to get the crossing light, an audible signal is provided to tell them the light has changed. And most "users" without at least some, but limited, vision are generally accompanied by an "attendant."

A little down the road, however, I noted a somewhat similar crosswalk, with light and ramp conspicuously marked with a Handicapped Crossing sign, and an additional slightly different warning indicating "wheelchair traffic."

The first curious feature was that there was a post with button beside the ramp on one side of the road. The ramp beside the signal light post appeared to meet all requirements of the normal ADA regulations, but I noted (and went around the block to confirm) that THERE WAS NO %@#%$! RAMP AT THE OTHER END OF THE CROSSWALK to let anyone get a wheelchair OUT OF THE STREET, making it perhaps academic that there was no post/button to permit a wheelchair user even start to cross going in the opposite direction.

This was quite clearly NOT a "new construction in progress."

Obvously not a "6P" design, but that seems to happen fairly often when "minority" vehicles need to mix with the ordinary.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 03:02 AM

The Americans have a greater affinity for Spanish, Keith. John quite rightly points out it actually translates to 'It's Nothing'. Pretty much like the French 'de rien' or the Australian 'no probs, Bruce'. Justice Holmes is, apparently, some significant member of the American judiciary. Why anyone would expect someone outside the US to understand that without Google is yet another example of the firm belief that America IS the world :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 08:35 AM

In Czech, To Neni Nic - it is nothing neni zac (c has accent and in prounced ch) You're Welcome

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 09:59 AM

"Juastice Holmes".    Misspelled by Greg, it appears.

This really need not be a cause for-- yet another-- international misunderstanding.

It is reasonable to ask Greg what he means by this reference, and not reasonable on his part if he, rather than answer the question, makes a snarky remark.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 10:19 AM

Guess you, oh Simple Seeker, as well as Keith, have no comprehension of the discussion in the "First Ammendment" thread.

And shit - as well as occasional typos- happen. Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 10:22 AM

De Nada as I've understood it, translate's literally as "It's Nothing."

Absolutely correct, John - and customarily used in concersation in response to "Gracias", i.e. "Thank you".

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 10:31 AM

Ah, Greg's back in the gutter--- and refusing to give a an answer to a reasonable question.

All's right with the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 10:32 AM

"refusing to give an answer..."

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 10:38 AM

The answer is elucidated at some length in the above referenced thread, Oh Simple Seeker After Truth And Ultimate Authority On Everything In The World Worth Knowing. Try reading it for fuck's sake instead of being 'cute'.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 11:18 AM

Why should us Brits be less insular than you Yanks, Greg? Why would I need to know anything about the first amendment let alone someone who has no bearing on the UK whatsoever? I think asking what 'de nada' means and who Justice Whatshisface is. are both reasonable questions for a non Spanish speaking Englishman.

Do you know the names of the English Judiciary or the phrase for 'it was nothing' in all languages?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 11:24 AM

Nor should it be required on a thread about bicycles to read another thread in order to comprehend a posting.

No wonder Greg is so--universally --beloved.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 12:53 PM

Actually, Dave, if you'd read the other thread - to which Keith was a major contributor and should himself have been familiar with - you'd have understood that the US 1st Ammendment DOES have a bearing on similar British law. Why should you Poms be MORE insular than us Yanks?


As for Simple Seeker: Sod off.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 01:07 PM

Why should you Poms be MORE insular than us Yanks?

Obvious - because we are older! Do you know nowt?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 01:16 PM

Obvious - because we are older!

Oh - well, OK, then.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 03:25 PM

''so--universally--beloved".   

And every day he gives us more reasons to love him more.   It's so heartwarming.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 03:43 PM

And we're so proud of you, Greg--looks like you're learning a second language--you'll soon be just as at home in British gutters as in American gutters.

You're so talented--well, at least in Gassesprache.

But for some reason can't quite manage to actually answer the question posed about "Juastice" (your quaint spelling) Holmes--and what it has to do with bicycles--remember them?

Nor can you manage to actually read what you yourself write, and correct any problems. Evidently you are by definition right in everything you say.   So it seems it is not I but you who are the Ultimate Authority on Everything. I after all recognize my own errors and often try to correct them.   But since you're perfect, you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 03:48 PM

And "typos" won't cut it.    If we have no idea what you are talking about, we have no idea if what you say is clumsy typing or something you actually claim to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 06:12 PM

You say I'M perfect? Absolutely pricelesss, Simple Seeker And Omniscient Source of All Knowledge.

"We"? Who are WE, Simple? You mean you & the other idiot? Others seem to have no difficulty with comprehension.

Once again, Sod Off.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 08:39 PM

""any cyclist causing a collision and lucky enough to avoid injury, will inevitably piss off

Not some cyclists or a substantial number of cyclists but any cyclist will inevitably piss off. There have been similar phrases elsewhere but it is a lovely day, for a change, and I think I'll go for a bike ride instead of looking for them :-)""

In the words of the immortal Benny Hill, ""WHY YOU NO RISTEN,....BREEDIN IRIOT!""

Any cyclist cusing accidents may be assumed to be one of the irresponsible minority, so it is implicit in my statement that only those are included, and they are precisely the group that DOES piss off quick to avoid respopnsibility for their actions.

So, EMPHATICALLY NOT the blanket condemnation of all cyclists that you would prefer it to be, so that you would feel smugly justified in dismissing anything I say on the subject.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 08:57 PM

""Typical would be the Chinese student who was crushed to death by a truck that turned left (we drive and cycle on the left here), and the driver didn't see him.""

Which is precisely why cyclists shouldn't ride up between truck and kerb at the traffic lights.

It is most likely that the driver couldn't (rather than just didn't, which implies negligence) see the cyclist in the majority of such cases.

Do you have any idea of the view that a truck driver in a right hand seat has, of the road through the left hand mirror.

You can hide a car in there, never mind a bike, and even with the new blind spot mirrors (so called), a driver is looking at a very small area of mirror from a distance of about seven feet, which makes the image absolutely tiny.

This is also the reason for collisions and near misses when left hand drive foreign trucks suddenly change lanes on our motorways, not having seen an overtaking car in that blind spot.

The highway code sets this out for cyclists, many of whom apparently, not having to answer questions on it for a test, don't even bother to buy a copy.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 03:23 AM

The highway code sets this out for cyclists

No.
It does not say you must not ride up between vehicle and kerb, unless vehicle is signalling left.

"On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left."

The admonition, " check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists." is also given for motor vehicles.
If the collision occurs it is their fault for not checking.
If they can not see it is safe, they must not turn.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 03:43 AM

A few weeks ago I was cycling along the CS2 (cycle superhighway!) which is embedded in a bus lane along the Whitechapel Road. A large lorry in the right hand lane drew level with me and we continues for about 200 yards. As we approached a junction he started to move left, at this point I was ahead of him, in my mirror I saw him start to turn left (from the right hand lane) and at this point he must have noticed me as he hit his horn as if in warning. Who was at fault here? I had no idea he was going to turn left before he started as his indicators weren't visible and from his position I had every expectation he would be carrying straight on. He couldn't see me once he had drawn level and must have just assumed he had overtaken me. It's so easy for these things to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 03:45 AM

Any cyclist cusing accidents may be assumed to be one of the irresponsible minority, so it is implicit in my statement that only those are included, and they are precisely the group that DOES piss off quick to avoid respopnsibility for their actions.

So, all these irresponsible cyclists that cause accidents then piss off so no one ever know who they are. Yes? Well, Don, there are two simple words that you seem to have overlooked. Prove it. Where are you figures to give credence to this myth? Give us facts, verifiable by proof rather than intangible hearsay. Your anecdote about being run into has already been debunked by Keith. Your assumptions and suppositions are flaky, to say the least.

Let's look at another example.
Which is precisely why cyclists shouldn't ride up between truck and kerb at the traffic lights.
Who said anything about the cyclist riding up between the truck and kerb? How do you know that the cyclist was not simply riding along, minding his own business, when the truck decided he had time to pass him and then turn left? And found out when it was too late his judgement was wrong. Again, you don't because there has been no mention of the circumstances. So again you make your own assumptions to back up your already unbelievable arguments.

Yet more evidence -
So, EMPHATICALLY NOT the blanket condemnation of all cyclists that you would prefer it to be, so that you would feel smugly justified in dismissing anything I say on the subject.
I cannot believe you would come out with that only a matter of days after I categorically said "I don't believe anyone on here has said that all cyclists are angels or demons. Don came closest with the example I quoted but I suspect that was heat of the moment and not well thought through." That is verifiable and you are welcome to look it up.

So, Don, I never have felt 'smugly justified' (whatever that may mean) or dismissed anything you said. But I am sure others would forgive me if I started to do so in the light of overwhelming evidence that you are making things up.

Finally
"WHY YOU NO RISTEN,....BREEDIN IRIOT!"
I did not find Benny Hill particularly funny at the time, although some of his sketches were mildly humourous. Making fun of the way Orientals cannot pronounce cetrtain sounds is however racist in the extreme. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for repeating such nonsense.

Now please go away until you can verify your accusations with hard evidence. At which point in time you may start to gain at least a modicum of credibility.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 06:49 AM

""Now please go away until you can verify your accusations with hard evidence. At which point in time you may start to gain at least a modicum of credibility.""

By the same token, where's your hard evidence for what you claim to have seen?

What's sauce for the goose...........!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 07:01 AM

I don't have any, Don. Not for what I have seen. Which is why I have said, and often repeated, that anecdotal evidence is pretty useless. I only used it to prove the point and as you new seem to accept that this is true, I guess the point is made. Maybe you will stop using your anecdotes as well?

What I do have, thanks to all the surveys and information linked above, is hard evidence that cycling on roads is a damn site more dangerous to cyclists than cycling on the pavement is to pedestrians. Which is what we are discussing is it not? I fully accept that some cyclists are idiots and have said as much on many occasions in this thread. But to deny all cyclists the comparative safety of the pavement because of some idiots and the misguided idea that pedestrians are in severe danger is just wrong.

Now, Others have provided the evidence. I have stated what I believe to be true based on that factual evidence. Where is the proof of your statements?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 12:55 PM

I am quite happy for you to respond here you know, Don. You don't really need to go to another thread to continue :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jul 13 - 01:28 PM

And....the discussion continues! Another exciting round!

(The one on the left is incensed about the bad habits of automobile drivers. The one on the right is incensed about the bad habits of people who ride bicycles.) The future of life as we know it hangs in the balance....

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 03:04 AM

Who won LH? :-)

Just to make sure there is no doubt, as it has been said elsewhere that I have not stated my views, here they are again -

To cycle on the pavement carries a small risk of injury to pedestrians. Of that there is no doubt. On the other hand, to cycle on the road carries a moderate risk of injury or death to the cyclist. Of that there is no doubt. When conditions are such that there is no doubt that I will not injure a pedestrian but the risk of collision with a motor vehicle is high, I will take the chance and potentially break the law. I would rather risk a fine than death.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jul 13 - 03:15 AM

That sums up my position also.
I always defer to pedestrians as I am sure Dave does too.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Jul 13 - 01:02 AM

Hey, Dave, you missed #300 too.   How could that happen? And I wasn't in the way at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jul 13 - 09:30 AM

Damn! I just forgot. Must have been damage to the brain cycling into too many pedestrians :-)

Thanks for the reminder anyway.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jul 13 - 12:19 PM

But to deny all cyclists the comparative safety of the pavement ...is wrong.

Its not "wrong" - its the law. Sorry, mate.

I will take the chance and potentially break the law..

No, you will ACTUALLY break the law.

And that attitude, Dave - willful disregard of the law in favor of what you want to do & screw everyone else: drivers, pedestrials & etc - places you firmly and definitively in the category of the jackass cyclist.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Jul 13 - 07:34 PM

Time to stick a cane through his spokes.

How long can this thread go on repeating....

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 02:25 AM

The law is wrong.
There are motor vehicles, and there are pedestrians.

A 19th Century judge decreed that a bicycle was a carriage.
That ruling is out of date and needs changing.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 08:37 AM

And that 19th C. law has fuck-all to do with current regulations, Keith.

But thanks for the irrelevancy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 12:34 PM

And that attitude, Dave - willful disregard of the law in favor of what you want to do & screw everyone else: drivers, pedestrials & etc - places you firmly and definitively in the category of the jackass cyclist.

And wilful disregard of the law that said you could not eat meat on a Friday or many of the other laws that were nonsensical? I think you are wrong, Ron, but I would not call you a jackass. I would simply point out why I thought your analysis of the situation was wrong without resorting to personal abuse.

I think you need to see me cycle and know that in 40-odd years I have never cycled in a way that has been a danger to anyone. I have never been arrested for doing what I have done. I have cycled along a pavement chatting to a community police officer doing exactly the same thing. Before you make there sweeping judgements I think you need to know a lot more or you may find that it is yourself that comes across as asinine:-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 01:15 PM

And wilful disregard of the law that said you could not eat meat on a Friday

Give it a fuckin' rest, Dave - nothing whatsoever to do with ANYTHING regarding jackass bicyclists who think they're above the law, fail to comply, and then piss and moan about what happens to them. And, as has become increasinglt apparent, you number yourself - with pride - among them.

We're talking about a mutually accepted set of rules and regulations governing bicycles, vehicles and pedestrians so that one group knows what to expect from the (sentient and law-abiding) others.

You, however, apparently prefer chaos, and then whine about the results of chaos and the non-existent bicyclist genocide.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 01:54 PM

regarding jackass bicyclists who think they're above the law, fail to comply, and then piss and moan about what happens to them.

Nothing related has ever happened to me Greg so I think your point is rather spurious. Although I must say I have pissed on occasion, but not moaned apart from when appropriate. How does urinating have any bearing whatsoever on what we are talking about? Or is this another of those American things that everyone else is supposed to understand?

You, however, apparently prefer chaos, and then whine about the results of chaos and the non-existent bicyclist genocide.

I really don't understand a word of that. Have you been taking lessons from Liz? :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 02:34 PM

Sorry Ron, I just realised I was replying to a post by Greg and said 'sorry Ron'. It was an honest slip of the keyboard and I apologise most profusely if you think I mistook you for Greg. I did not intend such an insult.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Poetry Bird
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 02:49 PM

""But to deny all cyclists the comparative safety of the pavement because of some idiots and the misguided idea that pedestrians are in severe danger is just wrong.""

I don't deny cyclists anything mate. With the exception of children, the law of this country relating to vehicles does that.

So every adult cyclist who uses the pavement (more correctly the footpath, if you know what that means) is certainly a lawbreaker, arguably irresponsible too by virtue of that.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 02:52 PM

Is that the same Don T who said he was out of this forum posting under another pseudonym? If so, tsk, tsk, yet again. If not Sorry.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 03:14 PM

Nothing related has ever happened to me Greg -

So if you have no personal experience of it, it cannot ever have happened.

You really AE a fucking idiot, aintcha, Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 05:08 PM

Hey, Dave, no problem. I'd have absolutely no objection if you mistook me for Greg.   After all, I'm in awe of him.    Probably we all are: he's trilingual:   speaks US gutter, UK gutter--and possibly even a bit of English.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 05:10 PM

"me for Greg"   Or even Greg for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 05:17 PM

You really AE a fucking idiot, aintcha, Dave?

Sorry Greg, don't understand that either. I know it is my fault but I only speak English. Sorry.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 05:21 PM

You bet, Dave - use typos as an excuse.

But your're still a self-absorbed idiot.

Have at it, with my complements.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 05:27 PM

Oh yea, when you were reasonably coherent you said so that one group knows what to expect from the (sentient and law-abiding) others.


Is that the sentient and law abiding drivers or the sentient and law abiding pedestrians? Both of which have a higher percentage of breaking the rules of the road than cyclists and a number of surveys in both the UK and the US confirm this if you would care to look them up.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 05:29 PM

use typos as an excuse... ...But your're still a self-absorbed idiot.

Perfect. Greg, perfect. :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 08:49 PM

"self-absorbed idiot".   Please tell us, Greg, when you stop admiring yourself in the mirror. I do have to admit that your observation of yourself is remarkably accurate.

Now if you can only haul yourself out the gutter for keeps. We all think you can do it (though of course the track record so far is not promising).

But hope springs eternal.

Just remember we're all pulling for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jul 13 - 11:37 PM

"out of the gutter"

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 01:39 PM

More than one self-absorbed idiot here.




(Who, me?)

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 05:05 PM

Here's a thought. If you really were self-absorbed, you would not exist would you? Surely you would just mop yourself up until there were nowt left?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 05:35 PM

Like the bird that flies in ever decreasing circles?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 05:54 PM

Surely you would just mop yourself up until there were nowt left?

In your specific case, Dave, "tis a consummation devoutly to be wish'd".

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 06:28 PM

I'm frankly surprised that no one here has thought to mention the dire problem of people riding bicycles through crowded restaurants and down the "up" escalators in buildings and subways! It's becoming a scourge around these parts, and I think something should be done about it, so how about giving up for a short while on attempting to verbally reduce one another into tiny little shreds of scorched flesh, and take on the real meat of this vital and controversial discussion?

Right, now: Automobile proponents line up on one side. Bicycle proponents on the other. Load your respective weapons...and....FIRE!

(Just like back in 1815, expect massive carnage. Those who survive the initial volley shall fix bayonets and charge. For King and Country! To glory, all, and the Devil take the hindmost!)

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Jul 13 - 06:39 PM

the dire problem of people riding bicycles through crowded restaurants and down the "up" escalators in buildings and subways!

You really are a fucking idiot, aren't you, Hawk? Can't you have the common decency to keep your terminal idiocy to yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 16 Jul 13 - 04:15 AM

At least he's referencing the subject and not just taking part in a slagfest.

And on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8U-MLtSwek&feature=youtu.be&a

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jul 13 - 08:37 AM

Hello Greg. Who rattled your bars?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jul 13 - 10:31 AM

Are those rhetorical questions, Greg, or were you anticipating a lengthy and illuminating discussion at some upscale cafe of your choice?

If so, bear in mind that I'm booked until November 18....2015.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Jul 13 - 06:46 AM

"referencing the question".    At this particular second. We'll see how long that lasts.

"not taking part in a slagfest".   No, he never does that. Of course not.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jul 13 - 03:43 PM

Got your born soul-mate right here, Ron. I predict this is what your next incarnation will resemble.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 17 Jul 13 - 07:05 PM

Bottom line is I enjoy riding my bicycle. If people see me and think I'm an asshole or an idiot or any of the other shit mentioned on this thread that truly is their problem. When I cycle I feel happy and free. EVERYTHING ELSE IS BULLSHIT.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 13 - 10:39 PM

You bet, Spleen. You first, fuck everyone else. That's the spirit!

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 06:42 AM

"You bet, Spleen. You first, fuck everyone else. That's the spirit!"

Absofuckinglutely. As a RESPONSIBLE cyclist I'm part of the solution not part of the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 06:58 AM

As a RESPONSIBLE cyclist I'm part of the solution not part of the problem.

Ditto to that. Regardless of what other people may say :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 07:05 AM

Me too.
Far more sinned against than sinning.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 08:51 AM

Boo, hoo.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 08:54 AM

Is that Spanish for something Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 10:07 AM

It's Swahili for "My bile ducts are overproducin' again."

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 12:06 PM

Arise bicyclists of privation!
Ye tortured, wretched of the earth
For justice thunders condemnation
A better world's in birth!
No more the Highway Code shall bind you!
No more to laws in thrall!
So cherish your renunciation
Ye have been nowt, ye shall be all ...... etc.



What you guys need to do is organize - the International Cyclists of the World (ICW)perhaps? - to fight against the daily oppression you suffer. Take the IWW as a model? There must be a modern Joe Hill somewhere among your ranks.

Just a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 12:29 PM

Not a bad idea. In fact...I think it's an idea whose time has come!

Yamashita's army scuppered the British in Malaya right well by rapidly moving many of their men south on bicycles and catching the Tommy blighters unawares with their fast mobility. Banzai! And it kept the men in good shape too, not to mention saving wear and tear on their boots.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 04:05 PM

If you'd bothered to follow some of the links provided above rather than indulging in petty nursery level name calling you'd see we are organising. Two nights ago the London Cycling Campaign organized a protest rally of 2500 cyclists, and the Friday before that a slightly smaller rally. both to protest the death of cyclists and lack of road space. On a national level we've had the Cycle Touring Club which has campaigned for many more years. We also have Sustrans which is more involved in creating off-road routes and promoting sustainable transport modes.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 04:09 PM

ARISE YE CYCLISTS OF PRIVATION !!! Manitas.

And then learn to obey the law and get a life. Or do you feel you're somehow special and exempt?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 07:26 PM

Me (quoted by Don): ""Typical would be the Chinese student who was crushed to death by a truck that turned left (we drive and cycle on the left here), and the driver didn't see him.""

Don: "Which is precisely why cyclists shouldn't ride up between truck and kerb at the traffic lights.

It is most likely that the driver couldn't (rather than just didn't, which implies negligence) see the cyclist in the majority of such cases."

This is certainly true in Ireland, where trucks are badly designed. In some (most?) European countries passenger-side doors are now transparent, I'm told, and mirrors are convex so that the truck driver can see a cyclist on the offside.

This was how the accident was reported at the time, and this is the ghost bike at the spot where he died.

The consensus in Dublin was that the bridge is dangerous - it's a hump-backed bridge with a bad line of sight, used by many cyclists - and the driver didn't have the right mirror to have a proper view all around.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 18 Jul 13 - 07:28 PM

(Not that I'm blaming the driver - it must be a terrible burden to live with, being in any way connected with the tragic death of that poor lad, thousands of miles from his home and family.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 02:47 AM

I've got a life Greg and I wouldn't want to be considered special like you. I wouldn't want to have to sit around pouring scorn on others. I'm just asking for a bit more of the transport budget to be allocated to cyclists needs - something matching cyclist's contribution would be great.



"Two wheels good, four wheels bad!"

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 12:21 PM

I wouldn't want to be considered special like you.

    ?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 12:44 PM

I also would not like to be your kind of special Greg.
I doubt you have many friends, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 12:48 PM

No worries, Keith - that ain't gonna happen - demonstrably you're just a common jackass, not special in any way.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 12:54 PM

You might say "normal."

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 03:44 PM

The word 'knob' and 'head' seem to spring to mind for some reason...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 13 - 03:50 PM

Kinda like a CycleJackass with knobs on, ya mean, Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Jul 13 - 03:09 AM

Er, no.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 12:36 AM

Bicyclist Pleads Guilty to Felony Vehicular Manslaughter

The felony conviction is the nation's first one involving a bicyclist.

By Amanda Hochmuth
Tuesday, Jul 23, 2013

A bicyclist who struck and killed a 71-year-old man in San Francisco has pleaded guilty to felony vehicular manslaughter, according to San Francisco's district attorney.

Chris Bucchere, 37, was riding his bicycle through the intersection on Market and Castro Street on March 29, 2012, when he hit Sutchi Hui and his wife, who were walking across the street.

Hui suffered blunt force trauma injuries and died four days later.

The felony conviction is the nation's first one involving a bicyclist.

"We hope this case continues to serve as a reminder that blatant disregard of the traffic laws can have dire consequences," said San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon.

Bucchere will appear in court again on August 16 to be sentenced.
Under the plea deal, Gascon says he faces 1,000 hours of community service and three years of probation.

A judge can decide in six months if the conviction will be reduced to a misdemeanor.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 05:05 AM

That's awful. However, the fact it was the first ever conviction speaks volumes about the relative lack of danger to pedestrians from cycling compared with, say, cars...

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 08:24 AM

It may be the "first conviction," but it's a little difficult to know when to really believe such claims. There have been previous cases where serious charges were filed, but "plea bargained" to something lesser or down to avoiding trial altogether.

It's a little like the question currently being debated: "how many people have been killed on roller coasters?" The answer there is "nobody knows" too.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 08:59 AM

Fair point, John. I still suspect the numbers are considerably smaller than equivalent incidents involving cars, trucks, buses etc though.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 09:44 AM

The controversy rages on? Still? Look, chaps, it's really more fun to argue about penguins, and we have a thread going for that purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 10:06 AM

I still suspect the numbers are considerably smaller than equivalent incidents involving cars.

So that means we can ignore them, right?

Go, gonzo cyclists!.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 10:41 AM

more fun to argue

Not arguing, LH. Merely commenting and discussing.

So that means we can ignore them, right?

And I said that where, exactly, Greg. I'm talkingabout relative harm here. No need to polarise.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 10:44 AM

What I would potentially argue about, though, is whether there is any value in joining in with a conversation merely in order to look down on that conversation and throw around the odd put-down...

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 07:56 PM

LH is just trying to advertise the penguin thread.

He's waiting there for someone to answer the burning question of whether a weiner dog will eat a penguin; but the answer is too obvious for anyone to have bothered.

SC argues that bicycle accidents are much fewer than auto accidents, which is true in most places simply because there are many fewer bicycles than autos. Someone must look at statistics for places where "foot powered" transport is more common than other kinds, but I'll leave that to him (or someone else interested). (Reliable statistics are difficult to find due to variations in customs and sparse reporting in some areas with highest bicycle densities.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 08:15 PM

Thank you, John, for interjecting some sanity, rationality and common sense into the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jul 13 - 08:42 PM

There are, in my opinion, some wiener dogs who would definitely eat a penguin if they had the chance to. Others would merely bark and make little rushes toward and away from the penguin. It really depends on the individual, because wiener dogs are as varied in their personalities as humans are. At any rate, thanks for the thought, John, and do drop in on the penguin thread if you have the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: PHJim
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 01:22 AM

I thought they went by the name "Carlos Danger Dogs" on the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 03:57 AM

SC argues that bicycle accidents are much fewer than auto accidents, which is true in most places simply because there are many fewer bicycles than autos. Someone must look at statistics for places where "foot powered" transport is more common than other kinds

Sorry, John, but that is just not true. The only valid comparison would be percentages. IE - Percentage of cyclists involved in accidents vs percentage of drivers involved in accidents. I do believe that the former will be much lower but, like you, I will leave the finding of those statistics to someone who may be vaguely interested in continuing this pointless nonsense :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,FloraG
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 04:16 AM

I really like the idea that cyclists should dismount and walk past pedestrians on narrow walkways, as suggested earlier.
FloraG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 07:34 AM

Which is exactly what responsible cyclists, like myself and many others on here, will do. But why others are getting up in arms about ANY pavement cycling is beyond me.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 08:04 AM

How about - moter vehicles get the pavemnet - cycles the road and just lock up all the pedestrians!

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 10:05 AM

It'd be much easier to ban motor vehicles. Heavy freight can go by rail or water with the final mile or two stewarded. Result: fewer road deaths, fitter population, less pollution, cheaper roads.

Except, we know it ain't gonna happen. But then again we know SOME cyclists are always going to stick two fingers up to the law, good sense and good manners. Just the way SOME motorists do. Just the way SOMe pedestrians do.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 10:57 AM

It'd be much easier to ban motor vehicles.

I'd go with a variation of that, Manitas. Regular mini-buses to arterial roads. Regular bigger buses to Railway stations. No private motor vehicles rather than no motor vehicles. No air traffic. Sea traffic by sail. But I know that will not happen either!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 12:31 PM

You know what else'll never happen? The growing population of gonzo cyclists will never act like adults & obey the law & use common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 01:39 PM

Why should they have to when the bastard motorists are ignoring the rules in their droves (drives?). They have such a good example to follow.

When will you get it into your special head that it's only SOME cyclists ignoring the rules and they will never be responsible for the amount of pollution, maiming and death caused by motorists.

SOME does not equal all or even most. Clear enough?

When motorists stop raping hitchhikers, ram-raiding stores and killing people on FOOTPATHS then perhaps we can start educating the SMALL number of recreant cyclists. Perhaps by then motorists can be a shining example to them. Perhaps. Don't bet on it though.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 03:42 PM

That's right, Manitas- the argument favored by six-year olds: But mommy, Johnny did it, why can't I? Thanks for proving my point that gonzo cyclists will never grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 04:01 PM

What's a gonzo cyclist? Are you trying to get your own back because you didn't understand knob head? It won't work anyway because no matter how clever you try to be, everyone knows better :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 06:15 PM

Everyone, Gnome? - obviously not so.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 06:28 PM

Do you detest cyclists or just like fighting?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 07:47 PM

I've nothing against cyclists and in fact am one myself.

I detest assholes.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Van
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 08:12 PM

As a one time cyclist it irritates me to see these idiots using the pedestrian area of our streets, or going the wrong way up a one way street. I had some fool who kept ringing his bell so that I would get out of his way when I was pruning my hedge. I pointed out that there was a perfectly good road which he could use and got the usual abuse.
One ran into me once and as a result fell off his bike. He felt that I was in the wrong. I suggested that since he could not ride on the road he should still be using stabilisers.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 04:45 AM

From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 05 Jul 13 - 06:01 PM

... Was a cyclist myself until age had its way with me ....

Then


From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 25 Jul 13 - 07:47 PM

I've nothing against cyclists and in fact am one myself.

Which is it Greg? You are a cyclist or was a cyclist? In euther case I guess the answer to Spleens question that you were trying to answer then is that you just like fighting.

But as I keep saying, I don't think anyone is in disagreement about idiot cyclists. I just haven't come across any on here. In fact, I don't believe I have ever actually seen anyone on Mudcat cycling. Have you?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 08:58 AM

"As Department for Transport research found, bad behaviour by cyclists is interpreted within a 'cyclists are rule-breakers' framework, while bad behaviour by drivers is not seen as reflecting on all drivers."

From this article by Rachel Aldred, Dealing with Stigma

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 09:20 AM

Irrelevant, Spleen.

Dave, bugger off.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 09:56 AM

Not at all Greg. Highly relevant. Actual research that is very pertinent to the tone of much of this conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 02:42 PM

Sorry, Greg, but I'm not going anywhere, Involving anal penetration or not! You really should read the article more carefully BTW. I am sure you would find it is far from irrelevant. Particularly the line -

As Department for Transport research found, bad behaviour by cyclists is interpreted within a 'cyclists are rule-breakers' framework, while bad behaviour by drivers is not seen as reflecting on all drivers.

It is certainly what seems to happen here. Not that I am accusing anyone of any such behaviour of course.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 02:49 PM

BTW - You did not answer. Are you a cyclist or were you a cyclist?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Jul 13 - 04:49 PM

BTW - You did not answer. Are you a cyclist or were you a cyclist?

It matters not. Piss off.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jul 13 - 03:47 PM

It's embarrassing to be found out in a lie isn't it Greg? :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Jul 13 - 03:55 PM

What are you whinging on about Dave? Is there nothing of substance you could devote your time to?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Jul 13 - 04:04 AM

There is indeed, Greg, but I like to spend time doing lots of things. Cycling, playing music and proving people to be liars to name but three ;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jul 13 - 04:58 AM

....but not getting 400!
Ha!

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Jul 13 - 05:34 AM

Damn! Missed it again :-)

Well done Keith.

DtG