Police pull over 'two abrest' cyclists - argument ensues
Discussion
DoubleD said:
Doesnt sound absurd, sounds rather sensible.
It sounds absurd to me because a pedestrian ought to be able to walk on a footway, or shared use path, in relative safety without having to be hyper-vigilant constantly, and without the fear that an object carrying significantly more kinetic energy than them will at any moment selfishly and dangerously "plough into" (to use emotive language in the same way as the biased press recently has) an entirely innocent pedestrian going about his/her business.In exactly the same way that a cyclist ought to be able to ride on a shared carriageway in relative safety without having to be constantly hyper-vigilant, and without the fear that an object carrying significantly more kinetic energy than them will at any moment drive straight into an entirely innocent cyclist going about his/her business.
But no-one seems to want to discuss how best to share what facilities we have. All any one-issue campaign group (cyclists, sadly, included) seems to want to do is stake a claim to some imagined 'territory' and guard it jealously lest anyone from one of the other groups tries to use it.
It's why large groups of obnoxious pedestrians spread out across a path and deliberately obstruct free passage of cyclists. It's why militant cyclists ride two or more abreast and deny passage to motor vehicles. It's why some motorists will hug the gutter in heavy traffic to deliberately prevent cyclists from filtering, and why they also refuse to comply with Highway Code advice to keep crossings clear, even when it's obvious that they're obstructing access when traffic is going no-where and there's no space between them and the car ahead to squeeze a pushchair or wheelchair through. It's pathetic and stupid, whichever group is doing it. I'd love to see an end to this willy-waving, and territory-marking behaviour, because when we work together as a society, instead of competing and squabbling like kids in a school playground, we can achieve so much more...
Personally think that everyone needs to remember firstly that everyone else is like them, just some gump trying to get somewhere.
Secondly, that everyone has a responsibility to keep themselves safe and not just rely solely on others to keep them safe.
Thirdly, that everyone has a responsibility to keep others safe, this is particularly so when others are inherently in a more vulnerable position, and the greater that differential the greater the responsibility.
Finally, that responsibility to others also extends up the vulnerability tree. Getting yourself squashed by, let's say, a large vehicle through your own carelessness or misadventure will also adversely affect the unfortunate person in control of that vehicle who was, for whatever reason, unable to avoid or fully mitigate the consequences of your action.
Secondly, that everyone has a responsibility to keep themselves safe and not just rely solely on others to keep them safe.
Thirdly, that everyone has a responsibility to keep others safe, this is particularly so when others are inherently in a more vulnerable position, and the greater that differential the greater the responsibility.
Finally, that responsibility to others also extends up the vulnerability tree. Getting yourself squashed by, let's say, a large vehicle through your own carelessness or misadventure will also adversely affect the unfortunate person in control of that vehicle who was, for whatever reason, unable to avoid or fully mitigate the consequences of your action.
Mave said:
twoblacklines said:
Mave said:
Just to give you something else to froth about,
guess what? Every time I cycle into work, I cycle on a pavement. For about half a mile! Why? Because in the specific circumstances it's considerate and safe! :-o
Because there is a bike lane on the pavement?guess what? Every time I cycle into work, I cycle on a pavement. For about half a mile! Why? Because in the specific circumstances it's considerate and safe! :-o
Care to define how it is safer exactly? Go on, im taking the bait...
And seen as you don't seem to know, that was a question!
yellowjack said:
DoubleD said:
Doesnt sound absurd, sounds rather sensible.
It sounds absurd to me because a pedestrian ought to be able to walk on a footway, or shared use path, in relative safety without having to be hyper-vigilant constantly, and without the fear that an object carrying significantly more kinetic energy than them will at any moment selfishly and dangerously "plough into" (to use emotive language in the same way as the biased press recently has) an entirely innocent pedestrian going about his/her business.In exactly the same way that a cyclist ought to be able to ride on a shared carriageway in relative safety without having to be constantly hyper-vigilant, and without the fear that an object carrying significantly more kinetic energy than them will at any moment drive straight into an entirely innocent cyclist going about his/her business.
But no-one seems to want to discuss how best to share what facilities we have. All any one-issue campaign group (cyclists, sadly, included) seems to want to do is stake a claim to some imagined 'territory' and guard it jealously lest anyone from one of the other groups tries to use it.
It's why large groups of obnoxious pedestrians spread out across a path and deliberately obstruct free passage of cyclists. It's why militant cyclists ride two or more abreast and deny passage to motor vehicles. It's why some motorists will hug the gutter in heavy traffic to deliberately prevent cyclists from filtering, and why they also refuse to comply with Highway Code advice to keep crossings clear, even when it's obvious that they're obstructing access when traffic is going no-where and there's no space between them and the car ahead to squeeze a pushchair or wheelchair through. It's pathetic and stupid, whichever group is doing it. I'd love to see an end to this willy-waving, and territory-marking behaviour, because when we work together as a society, instead of competing and squabbling like kids in a school playground, we can achieve so much more...
It scares the crap out of me here - as they have priority, pedestrians just step off the pavement without even looking for vehicles trusting you to stop for them. Totally stupid in my opinion. When I walk I certainly keep an eye out.
There's no point being right...if you're dead.
twoblacklines said:
So after all that boring lecturing, you actually boast about breaking the law?
Care to define how it is safer exactly? Go on, im taking the bait...
And seen as you don't seem to know, that was a question!
Hang on a second... Thinks... Who was it didn't answer a question because he didn't realise it was a question despite me asking it multiple times (with question marks?) Oh yes, you. And for the record, I note you still haven't answered it. I was going to drop it, I'm still prepared to drop it, but if you keep trying to take cheap shots then I will respond to them. Oh, and boring lecturing? Maybe you should read it. Again. And again. Because it seems to me that 6 months after you nearly killed someone (and your response, just like the idiot cyclist in the news this week, was to blame the victim) you haven't changed your attitude to using roads safely.Care to define how it is safer exactly? Go on, im taking the bait...
And seen as you don't seem to know, that was a question!
How is it safer for me to cycle on the pavement? Because it's a half mile climb up a narrow, winding steep hill. I could stay on the road and have traffic queuing behind me for 5 minutes, with the risk of someone chancing an impatient overtake. At best, there will be people who consider it "inconsiderate" for me to not pull over, when there isn't actually anywhere convenient to pull over; and if I did then there would never be a break in the traffic or anyone prepared to let me slowly pull back in in front of them. So I cycle on the pavement instead, until the top of the hill. What would you do?
Edited by Mave on Friday 25th August 23:48
Mave said:
Hang on a second... Thinks... Who was it didn't answer a question because he didn't realise it was a question despite me asking it multiple times (with question marks?) Oh yes, you. And for the record, I note you still haven't answered it. I was going to drop it, I'm still prepared to drop it, but if you keep trying to take cheap shots then I will respond to them. Oh, and boring lecturing? Maybe you should read it. Again. And again. Because it seems to me that 6 months after you nearly killed someone (and your response, just like the idiot cyclist in the news this week, was to blame the victim) you haven't changed your attitude to using roads safely.
How is it safer for me to cycle on the pavement? Because it's a half mile climb up a narrow, winding steep hill. I could stay on the road and have traffic queuing behind me for 5 minutes, with the risk of someone chancing an impatient overtake. At best, there will be people who consider it "inconsiderate" for me to not pull over, when there isn't actually anywhere convenient to pull over; and if I did then there would never be a break in the traffic or anyone prepared to let me slowly pull back in in front of them. So I cycle on the pavement instead, until the top of the hill. What would you do?
How is it safer for me to cycle on the pavement? Because it's a half mile climb up a narrow, winding steep hill. I could stay on the road and have traffic queuing behind me for 5 minutes, with the risk of someone chancing an impatient overtake. At best, there will be people who consider it "inconsiderate" for me to not pull over, when there isn't actually anywhere convenient to pull over; and if I did then there would never be a break in the traffic or anyone prepared to let me slowly pull back in in front of them. So I cycle on the pavement instead, until the top of the hill. What would you do?
Edited by Mave on Friday 25th August 23:48
You could get off & legally push it along the path.
mygoldfishbowl said:
You could get off & legally push it along the path.
I could, but that means my courtesy in avoiding holding up cars by ~2 minutes would add over 10 minutes to my commute. Just so I can avoid the risk of pedestrians suddenly appearing on the pavement in front of me as I scorch up the hill at a blistering 8mph...Edited by Mave on Saturday 26th August 08:54
Mave said:
I could, but that means my courtesy in avoiding holding up cars by ~2 minutes would add over 10 minutes to my commute. Just so I can avoid the risk of pedestrians suddenly appearing on the pavement in front of me as I scorch up the hill at a blistering 8mph...
But it would also mean you're not breaking the law.Edited by Mave on Saturday 26th August 08:54
It would also mean you're not a hypocrite.
twoblacklines said:
Mave said:
I could, but that means my courtesy in avoiding holding up cars by ~2 minutes would add over 10 minutes to my commute. Just so I can avoid the risk of pedestrians suddenly appearing on the pavement in front of me as I scorch up the hill at a blistering 8mph...
But it would also mean you're not breaking the law.Edited by Mave on Saturday 26th August 08:54
It would also mean you're not a hypocrite.
2) in what way am I a hypocrite?
Edited by Mave on Sunday 27th August 00:15
twoblacklines said:
But it would also mean you're not breaking the law.
It would also mean you're not a hypocrite.
I think you're the only one here so obsessed with not breaking the law.It would also mean you're not a hypocrite.
Your comment on cars and pavements also shows you're particularly blind or selective when it comes to law breaking by motorists.
heebeegeetee said:
I think you're the only one here so obsessed with not breaking the law.
Your comment on cars and pavements also shows you're particularly blind or selective when it comes to law breaking by motorists.
I still stand by the statement that I have not seen cars travelling down pavements at speed.Your comment on cars and pavements also shows you're particularly blind or selective when it comes to law breaking by motorists.
You chose to twist my words into "parking on pavements" to suit your little agenda.
twoblacklines said:
heebeegeetee said:
I think you're the only one here so obsessed with not breaking the law.
Your comment on cars and pavements also shows you're particularly blind or selective when it comes to law breaking by motorists.
I still stand by the statement that I have not seen cars travelling down pavements at speed.Your comment on cars and pavements also shows you're particularly blind or selective when it comes to law breaking by motorists.
You chose to twist my words into "parking on pavements" to suit your little agenda.
twoblacklines said:
I know one thing and that is, cars dont drive down pavements.
No mention of speed.Then when, for example, later I said that thuis had been seen by me, not talking about parking but people driving down the pavement, you replied you had never seen this. Fair enough that may be the case, but it has happened, only the other day I saw someone who was blocked from getting onto his drive by badly parked vehicles, drive up the dropped kerb 50 yards down the road, drive along the pavement and onto his drive. I had another person in the car who witnessed this, but if course it wasn't at speed. That is not the only occurrence personally witnessed of people driving down the pavement, all four wheels on, sad to say.
No idea where this concept of driving along the pavement at speed has been introduced compared to your original statement quoted above, or what was it, later it morphed into "along the pavement for 3 miles" just before your unacceptable insult towards another poster. Seems like someone else altering the story to suit an agenda. Plus the insults were completely out of order, suggest you calm down or a posting holiday beckons ever closer.
Mave said:
twoblacklines said:
Mave said:
I could, but that means my courtesy in avoiding holding up cars by ~2 minutes would add over 10 minutes to my commute. Just so I can avoid the risk of pedestrians suddenly appearing on the pavement in front of me as I scorch up the hill at a blistering 8mph...
But it would also mean you're not breaking the law.Edited by Mave on Saturday 26th August 08:54
It would also mean you're not a hypocrite.
in what way is my post hypocritical?
twoblacklines said:
FiF said:
suggest you calm down or a posting holiday beckons ever closer.
I suggest you mind your own business.Not that a ban would bother me actually. I get little to no value from this entire website!
No remorse over your offensive post to heebee either. Noted.
twoblacklines said:
This situation is safer
Than this one:
Come on, that's nonsense. In the second picture you can see that pedestrians are still using the path, and both types of users are sharing the space. In the first picture the path has been taken completely, and pedestrians have to go into the road. A mum with a pushchair and perhaps a child or two on foot, walking downhill, has to walk the whole of her brood into the road with their backs to the traffic. It is very dangerous and totally unacceptable.Than this one:
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff