henryb

> Uh? So what you're saying is, "Here's a worse > thing than the bad thing you mentioned, so it > makes your bad thing less bad." Stabbing people is > worse than spitting at them, too. If spitting was illegal and stabbing people wasn't then it would be fair to point out the inconsistency.

I guess it depends on how he/she was cycling and what the man said to them first. I personally never cycle on the pavement but perfectly understand why some people do. When I am a pedestrian I don?t mind sharing the pavement with cyclists as long as they do responsibly. This is also consistent with the view of the Home Office and it guidelines to the police. To re-iterate here "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required." http://lcc.org.uk/articles/minister-for-cycling-clarifies-pavement-cycling-advice-after-1057-fines-for-pavement-cycling-in-london In my view driving a car in the busy, polluted city is more anti-social than cycling on the pavement.

matryx Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Nice" derail then. > > Back onto the real topic, I'm curious myself about > how residents could be helping with speed > enforcement (though not enough to actually contact > the safer neighbourhood team myself) - I didn't > think handheld speed guns had built in cameras, > but I suppose that might be a thing? Without > photographic evidence along with the speed gun > log, usually a statement from the PC would be used > as evidence. > Anyone know what the tech is like currently? Sounds like a SpeedWatch campaign. Other constabularies have done them. By the sounds of it the volunteers use hand held speed guns, there is a police officer supervising and only warnings are given to anyone stopped.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > henryb only posts to have a pop at motorists or to > claim cyclists are faultless and wonderful. Check > his/her posting history. Had it been just about > anyone else probably I wouldn't have made that > comment. When have I ever claimed cyclists are faultless and wonderful? I don't have a problem with motorists - I am one myself. I have a problem with motorists who dirve dangerously and speed in residential streets. I also have a problem with speeding motorists who think they are above the law and current limits should not be enforced.

Why does the fact it was directed at me make an off topic unsubstantiated abusive personal attack make it relavant to the thread?

Reporting crime doesn't make you a vigilante. What is there to worry about? That people driving at excessive speeds in residential streets will be fined?

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes rahrahrah: > > I regularly see cyclists on the diagonal pavement > down the side of Goose Green playground about 8 > out of 10 times that I use it (two/five times a > week). I believe that is a footpath rather than a footway/pavement as it is not along the side of a road. Cyclists are to allowed ride on those unless explicitly prohibited by a local by-law.

I can?t do 7 words but here? Cyclists should not cycle on the pavement if they can help it. It p*sses people off. However in some circumstances is it acceptable if going slowly and giving way to pedestrians. If someone is bombing down the pavement and crashes into someone they should be arrested. The laws are already enforced to some degree - more so than the 20mph limits are for car drivers. The police and community warden should focus their limited resources on the people breaking the law who are posing most risk of causing fatalities and serious injuries to others i.e. dangerous drivers. People complaining about cyclists pootling along empty pavements at 5mph need to get a life. Cats are nice.

Yep he probably switches bikes to confound any police investigation. Clearly a wily serial offender.

> Him, and his mate round the > corner:- http://goo.gl/maps/wGUdg I think that actually might be the same guy - same suit, same brief case. Probably a lawyer. :o)

OMG - call the cops!

Voyageur Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > God.... this thread really is groundhog day isn't > it. Start a thread about bad motorists Henry and I > will happily wade in and agree with you. This is a > thread about a minority of cyclists who cycle > dangerously on pavements. It is actually about a collision that happened between a cyclist and motorist on the pavement. i.e. the car driver was also on the pavement and was not driving with due care and attention. > I knyw I am repeating myself but I have never been hit by a car - I have been ridden into by aggressive and idiotic > pavement cyclists though, on more than one occasion. Ok well I am sorry for you. My experience is very different, I see reckless dangerous drivers every single day - however in 20 years in London I never seen a "Lycra Lout" bombing down the pavement barging people out the way spitting and swearing at pedestrians. If someone would tell me where to see one that would be great because I am starting to feel I am missing out. Until you come up with some evidence that cyclists are anywhere near the same level of road safety problem as reckless dangerous drivers then it is just talk.

> The only solution is for the full weight of the law to > descend upon idiots on all types wheels and for > cyclists to have a license plate equivalent and > insurance Does that apply to pedestrians as well? They are at fault in the majority of collisions between cycle and pedestrians. Many of these result in cyclist being seriously injured. > Also, when some people are behind a car wheel they behave as if they own the road and all caution and rational > behaviour goes out the window. It is actually the vast majority. 82% of drivers admitted to sometimes or frequently exceeding the limit http://news.sky.com/story/719315/driving-motorists-admit-to-breaking-speeding-laws On average on 30mph road half the cars will be speeding. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/free-flow-vehicle-speeds-in-great-britain-2011 This widespread criminality amongst car drivers results in hundreds of deaths every year and thousands of life changing serous injuries - yet it is mostly ignored by the police and politicians. I take all the drivers on this thread are one ones from the tiny minority who never speed and manage to get about without breaking the law?

Interesting article http://road.cc/content/news/93687-bikes-faster-public-transport-most-london-journeys-under-8-miles 1. Cycling is faster than public transport for journeys under 8 miles. 2. People who cycle to work enjoy their commute, whereas people who take public transport do not enjoy their commute. I dropped 10 mins off my 7 mile commute.

Yes it is the internet topic gift - that just keeps on giving! Look at this one in the telegraph - 1400 comments in 2 days! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10323653/War-declared-on-the-Lycra-louts-on-wheels.html ----------- Admin says: This is a duplicate thread to this one http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1175727 so locking this one

Is that a parked car?

Chick Pea Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can you please post the source of those statistics > Henryb? I will - I don't have it all to hand but I will collect and post back. I don't have time right now. As Lady D says it mostly here already or go any cycling website. Just for the record I don't condone reckless cycling wherever it it - some cyclists are dangerous there is no doubt. However cyclists are not a monstrous other group of people who have a death wish and hate everyone. They are pretty much an even cross section of society who have just decided to get to A to B in a healthier, cheaper, less polluting and mostly quicker way. Whenever I see a cyclist acting like a d*ck I think to myself - it is better they are on a bike or in a car or HGV?

titch juicy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Changing the dominance of motorists in general, > who are in turn dominated by the aggressive and > dangerous motorist would not only benefit > cyclists. It would have a beneficial effect in > everyone else, as explained above quite a few > times." > > I disagree. > > It wouldn't benefit those who have no choice but > to use buses. Incorrect. Buses are mostly held up by cars. More cyclists would mean less car congestion and bus journey would be quicker as a consequence. Also it would mean a less crowded public transport system as a whole. > It wouldn't benefit existing motorists who would > have to spend even more time trying to second > guess whether erratic cyclists; Again incorrect. They would also benefit from less congestion and journey times would decrease. Also there would be fewer cars on the road so it would be less likely there would be a collision with another car. Car-car collisions are considerably more dangerous and damaging for car drivers than cycle-car collisions. Cyclists as a group are the safest road users in terms of the risk they pose and at being at fault in collisions. This is unsurprising as they are more at risk of being injured themselves so will behave in a safer fashion. > -were going to pull out suddenly without > signalling, > > - were going to weave dangerously in and out of > traffic, > > - were going to shoot up the inside of you as > you're trying to turn left, > > - would come shooting across a junction through a > red light, > > - will suddenly ride off of the pavement and on to > the road in front of you, > > - will cross the road from pavement to pavement > without looking if any cars are coming (this one > is hilarious- not only are they riding on the > pavement, they still manage to annoy motorists by > crossing without looking), > > - are cycling at night with no lights wearing dark > clothes. > Cyclists break the law a lot less than car drivers do. They are the safest group of road uses in term of the collisions they cause and the risk they pose to others. A cyclist is a lot less dangerous to pedestrian and cars drivers than another car driver is. Someone who is reckless on a bike will be more reckless and more dangerous in a car. > It wouldn't benefit pedestrians who already have > to dodge enough cyclists on the pavement or > 'share' multi-use tracks where cyclist believe > they are king and don't have to consider > pedestrians, or dodge cyclists sppeeding through > red-lights. > Pedestrians are more likely to be killed on pavement by a car than by a cyclist. More pedestrians are killed and serious injured by car drivers jumping red lights than by cyclists jumping red lights. A cyclist poses less risk to pedestrians? safety than a car driver does. A car driver deciding to not drive and cycle instead means less population, less congestion, faster and safer journeys for everyone else. > > All of the above I see happen many times each > week. > I see car drivers break the law many times every single day. > This happens a lot already- an increase of > cyclists, without extensive and serious education > for cyclists is only going to increase this > anti-social behaviour. Cycling is not anti-social. Making an unnecessary car journeys in an over crowded, polluted city is anti-social. 85% of cyclists have passed the driving test - this more than non-cyclists.

No, trying to put it in context of other road safety problems.

LadyNorwood Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've had enough - cycling on the pavement is > illegal, whether the cyclist is being > 'considerate', is 'too frightened to ride on a > public road' and all the other blah blah blah > hand-wringing excuses..... It's illegal and > that's that.... I will no longer (ON A DAILY > BASIS) be complacent and be intimidated by, sworn > at, spat at, threatened with violence by pavement > cyclists - I will take your photograph and give it > to the police, I HAVE HAD ENOUGH.... That is appalling if you are being sworn at, spat at, threatened with violence on daily bases. Those things are all illegal in their own right. Have you contacted the police? I would definitely get photographic evidence of this intimidation. Where is it happening?

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is a "pavement casualty" included in the "road > casualty" statistics? > > John K Yes they are. Also included are pederestians who are killed by car drivers on the pavement which is about 20 a year. Here is a recent one in London - father killed in front of his son. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/father-killed-and-nineyearold-son-hurt-when-car-mounts-pavement-yards-from-upminster-school-8713187.html

I believe the guideline to the police from the Home Office is to use discrection. "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

It should be a 20 mph limit along there. The frequency and severity of these accidents would be reduced. Hope the man is ok.

2/10 - back to troll school for you.

I couldn't have put this better myself. "Care and courtesy" are concepts that, sadly, many pedestrians ignore when dealing with cyclists - those same pedestrians then complain vociferously when they are treated badly by motorists. Methinks a case of double standards on their part. There fixed your post for you.