Cyclist knocks over child ON THE PAVEMENT...

[Pints]

Grumfutock said:

lauda said:

I'm still interested to know why you hope he tries to undertake you one day...?

Because it is illegal!

Oh jeez. Not this again.

[lauda]

Grumfutock said:

lauda said:

I'm still interested to know why you hope he tries to undertake you one day...?

Because it is illegal!

So what would you do about his illegal riding? Would you be like those people who drive at 70mph in the outside lane of the motorway in order to stop other reckless motorists speeding?

Or would you just wind your window down and try to bore him to death with you sanctimonious ramblings about the law and the Highway Code?

[TKF]

If Grumty saw an Islamic banker cycling I worry he'd have an embolism.

[Timmy40]

Grumfutock said:

lauda said:

I'm still interested to know why you hope he tries to undertake you one day...?

Because it is illegal!

No it isn't.

[Grumfutock]

Timmy40 said:

Grumfutock said:

lauda said:

I'm still interested to know why you hope he tries to undertake you one day...?

Because it is illegal!

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Section 3 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act. Careless driving. Also section 2. Dangerous driving.

[Timmy40]

Grumfutock said:

Timmy40 said:

Grumfutock said:

lauda said:

I'm still interested to know why you hope he tries to undertake you one day...?

Because it is illegal!

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Section 3 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act. Careless driving. Also section 2. Dangerous driving.

Show me where is states as a specific offence that undertaking is illegal. Undertaking dangerously is an offence, in the same way as overtaking dangerously is an offence. There is NO specific offence of undertaking and hasn't been since 1972.

Edited by Timmy40 on Thursday 21st May 16:13

[BoRED S2upid]

Grumfutock said:

Timmy40 said:

Grumfutock said:

lauda said:

I'm still interested to know why you hope he tries to undertake you one day...?

Because it is illegal!

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Section 3 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act. Careless driving. Also section 2. Dangerous driving.

Never go to London. You may explode with all the law breakers undertaking each other and going faster than a car on their two wheels! I hear it's rife.

[lauda]

Timmy40 said:

Grumfutock said:

Timmy40 said:

Grumfutock said:

lauda said:

I'm still interested to know why you hope he tries to undertake you one day...?

Because it is illegal!

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Section 3 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act. Careless driving. Also section 2. Dangerous driving.

Show me where is states as a specific offence that undertaking is illegal.

It doesn't. It also specifically states that both sections relate to use of a 'mechanically propelled vehicle' and are therefore irrelevant to a cyclist.

[S10GTA]

Grumfutock said:

S10GTA said:

Grumfutock said:

S10GTA said:

Its pointless arguing with him, I've seen him pop up in loads of anti cycling threads. The fact is he chooses to ignore poor car drivers and concentrates on the few poor cyclists he sees. He is blinkered.

Oh you have, have you? News to me. But then again like all cyclenazi's you know best.

I hope you try and undertake me one day.

Actually I take it back, you've not posted loads in anti cycling threads. You're clearly anti cycling tho, and blinkered to poor drivers.

Not anti cycling in any way at all. I am anti stupid. I am anti moron. I am anti 'lets make crap up' and I am anti you.

But hey ho! Toodle pip old fruit. Happy pedaling to you.

Grumfutock earlier said:

And this is why car drivers should be issued with cattle prods!

Edited by S10GTA on Thursday 21st May 16:31

[ofcorsa]

Davel said:

Oh and I realise that riding on the pavement is illegal. I don't do it but there are places where I can understand why a cyclist would choose to do so.

I don't personally have a problem with it provided that they are doing it slowly and considerately - preferably when the pavement is empty or quiet.

There is a small part of my cycle into work that I use the pavement for, As the road approaches a junction and is backed up in rush hour. The queue of people eating breakfast/applying makeup/playing Candy Crush is a serious danger. I probably should dismount but I barely move above walking speed there anyway . Maybe I should be locked up.

[oyster]

PoleDriver said:

Slightly O/T (but it is MY thread!)
Is it compulsory for cyclists to use cycle lanes where they are provided?

It's as compulsory as it is for motorists to use the M25 instead of the A25. It's provided as a benefit, but it's not compulsory.

[oyster]

ofcorsa said:

Davel said:

Oh and I realise that riding on the pavement is illegal. I don't do it but there are places where I can understand why a cyclist would choose to do so.

I don't personally have a problem with it provided that they are doing it slowly and considerately - preferably when the pavement is empty or quiet.

There is a small part of my cycle into work that I use the pavement for, As the road approaches a junction and is backed up in rush hour. The queue of people eating breakfast/applying makeup/playing Candy Crush is a serious danger. I probably should dismount but I barely move above walking speed there anyway . Maybe I should be locked up.

In my cycle commute of 20 miles, I must hit at least 10 or more such pinch points as you describe. But I wouldn't use the pavement, I'm a road user.

You need to decide which you are. And if you like pavements then swap your wheels for a pair of trainers.

[Grumfutock]

S10GTA said:

Grumfutock said:

S10GTA said:

Grumfutock said:

S10GTA said:

Its pointless arguing with him, I've seen him pop up in loads of anti cycling threads. The fact is he chooses to ignore poor car drivers and concentrates on the few poor cyclists he sees. He is blinkered.

Oh you have, have you? News to me. But then again like all cyclenazi's you know best.

I hope you try and undertake me one day.

Actually I take it back, you've not posted loads in anti cycling threads. You're clearly anti cycling tho, and blinkered to poor drivers.

Not anti cycling in any way at all. I am anti stupid. I am anti moron. I am anti 'lets make crap up' and I am anti you.


But hey ho! Toodle pip old fruit. Happy pedaling to you.

Grumfutock earlier said:

And this is why car drivers should be issued with cattle prods!

Edited by S10GTA on Thursday 21st May 16:31

And again, where are all these numerous threads and all these anti cycling post of mine that you have seen?

S10GTA said:

Its pointless arguing with him, I've seen him pop up in loads of anti cycling threads. The fact is he chooses to ignore poor car drivers and concentrates on the few poor cyclists he sees. He is blinkered.

[simoid]

Grumfutock said:

S10GTA said:

Grumfutock said:

S10GTA said:

Grumfutock said:

S10GTA said:

Its pointless arguing with him, I've seen him pop up in loads of anti cycling threads. The fact is he chooses to ignore poor car drivers and concentrates on the few poor cyclists he sees. He is blinkered.

Oh you have, have you? News to me. But then again like all cyclenazi's you know best.

I hope you try and undertake me one day.

Actually I take it back, you've not posted loads in anti cycling threads. You're clearly anti cycling tho, and blinkered to poor drivers.

Not anti cycling in any way at all. I am anti stupid. I am anti moron. I am anti 'lets make crap up' and I am anti you.



But hey ho! Toodle pip old fruit. Happy pedaling to you.

Grumfutock earlier said:

And this is why car drivers should be issued with cattle prods!

Edited by S10GTA on Thursday 21st May 16:31

And again, where are all these numerous threads and all these anti cycling post of mine that you have seen?

S10GTA said:

Its pointless arguing with him, I've seen him pop up in loads of anti cycling threads. The fact is he chooses to ignore poor car drivers and concentrates on the few poor cyclists he sees. He is blinkered.

You actually quoted the part where he retracted that comment...

[Grumfutock]

simoid said:

You actually quoted the part where he retracted that comment...

I know. I am trying to show what a complete load of rollox he talks. On the other hand, having read many PH threads I am starting to see that making stuff up and talking complete and utter rollox maybe the way ahead. It is certainly very popular here in NP&E.

[RizzoTheRat]

Grumfutock said:

On the other hand, having read many PH threads I am starting to see that making stuff up and talking complete and utter rollox maybe the way ahead. It is certainly very popular here in NP&E.

It's taken you 58 months to work that out?

[Grumfutock]

RizzoTheRat said:

Grumfutock said:

On the other hand, having read many PH threads I am starting to see that making stuff up and talking complete and utter rollox maybe the way ahead. It is certainly very popular here in NP&E.

It's taken you 58 months to work that out?

OK, OK so I am a bit slow on the uptake! I blame a head injury from years ago

[272BHP]

All cyclists can't be treated the same though.

Sure the lycra clad roadie travelling at > 20mph should be on the road. But what about the little old lady carrying her shopping travelling at 8mph in towns where the roundabouts and roads are chock a block at rush hour and the pavement is empty? What about the junior school kid with little road awareness?

What about me? I cycle on pavements often but I will slow down or stop and get off when I am near pedestrians or busy areas. If you saw where I live you would probably understand though; 40mph zones where the roads are jammed and the masses are trying to get to work and the pavement? empty, I saw someone walking once I think. Better for everyone if I am on the pavement. I don't 'cycle furiously' as I am in my shirt and trousers for work and don't want to break a sweat so if I am on the road I will just be holding everyone up and fraying tempers.

All it takes is a little consideration and a little awareness, not the blind following of inflexible laws . The guy in the video was obviously a tt though, built up area, narrow path not appropriate for cycling on and going way too fast.

[funkyrobot]

272BHP said:

All cyclists can't be treated the same though.

Sure the lycra clad roadie travelling at > 20mph should be on the road. But what about the little old lady carrying her shopping travelling at 8mph in towns where the roundabouts and roads are chock a block at rush hour and the pavement is empty? What about the junior school kid with little road awareness?

What about me? I cycle on pavements often but I will slow down or stop and get off when I am near pedestrians or busy areas. If you saw where I live you would probably understand though; 40mph zones where the roads are jammed and the masses are trying to get to work and the pavement? empty, I saw someone walking once I think. Better for everyone if I am on the pavement. I don't 'cycle furiously' as I am in my shirt and trousers for work and don't want to break a sweat so if I am on the road I will just be holding everyone up and fraying tempers.

All it takes is a little consideration and a little awareness, not the blind following of inflexible laws . The guy in the video was obviously a tt though, built up area, narrow path not appropriate for cycling on and going way too fast.

As a cyclist, I can see why people cycle on the pavement. Some motorists are absolute idiots and they will cause you far more damage because of this than you would do on a bike.

On the other hand, I can't bring myself to ride on the pavement. It's for pedestrians and I wouldn't feel safe whizzing down the path. I know how annoying that is from my walks with the pram.

I guess the problem lies with motorists and the way people feel they have been forced onto the pavement. There are some people on the roads who do need to be educated better in how to treat vulnerable road users.

[Johnnytheboy]

I love the way a thread about a cyclist running over a child ends up with cyclists blaming motorists.