LadyDeliah

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 5 years ago my sister stepped out of her place of > work one day and was immediately hit by a cyclist > on the pavement. She fell awkwardly and her foot > is still not right today. The cyclist did not even > stop.... If you want to do top trumps, my 20 year old neice got her body smashed up and died within minutes, when she was hit by a speeding car. My brother and his wife have never been the same again.

You are entitled to disagree with my opinion, but assuming to know my motivation to be other than I have stated, is arrogant and presumptuous of you.

I agree with Geekasaurus too. There has to be a hard look at how the roads are failing cyclists and how they can be re-designed to be more inclusive of everyone who uses them.

Reeko, anyone who knows me, knows I fight for change when I think it's important, so no, it's not an excuse. I would have imagined that after reading my detailed explanations (if you did actually bother to read them) you'd have realised that this is something I have given a lot of thought to. This is a life and death issue for increasing numbers of people, so I will continue do what I think is right, to be noisy on this and try to do my bit to elicit positive change. Change often comes about by refusing to accept the status quo.

The rules were designed with priority given to heavy, dangerous vehicles and not with cyclists in mind. I plead the defence of necessity to any rules / laws broken and would do so in court. I'd love to get a ruling on this point given the lack of any co-ordinated policy on preventing cyclists' death and serious injury.

Like I said, I've been cycling for 25 years and never hit a pedestrian on a pavement. The increase in space shared for cyclists and pedestrians is a strong indicator that the danger to pedestrians from cyclists is minimal. Whereas the quote earlier from the air ambulance shows the huge risks faced by cyclists on the road. Improve road safety and I'll be happy to never cycle on pavements. By the way, the percentage of my journeys done on pavements is tiny because I am an experienced cyclist and only need to get out of the traffic on very dangerous bits of road. So I don't really care if it gets some people bent out of shape, because my safety is more important to me than their intolerance. In regards penalty fares etc. I will refuse to pay any if I get stopped and I will drag it through the courts to highlight the issues. I will not apologise for acting in a way that has the potential to save my life, which carries an infinitesimally small risk to others.

I'd either wait for a gap or get off and push. Same as when anyone else wants to pass a pedestrian when there's no space.

Reeko, because we don't want to be killed or seriously injured. I thought I'd already explained that in detail.

Not always Reeko. More and more pavements are being designated for shared use and I don't see the trend reversing, so in a decade I would expect this whole issue to be relegated to some kind of funny old fashioned viewpoint that only grumpy old men remember. By the way, for anyone who wants to know, it's footpaths (i.e. running next to roads) that we are not supposed to cycle on, so paths in parks and other paths are fine for cyclists to use unless there are specific bylaws to prohibit cycling.

I'm sorry Zebedee, I will continue to use the pavement, (giving way to pedestrians at all times) on stretches of road that are very dangerous because as far as I am concerned, getting home alive or without major injury, takes priority over your annoyance.

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the safety of roads for cyclists and I'd be happy > to always cycle on the road > > > Oh, so it's pedestrians' responsibility to improve > road safety for cyclists, while cyclists carry on > riding on pavements, is it? And it's our fault > then if cyclists hit us? A funny kind of logic. This was aimed at anyone who campaigns or complains against cyclists on pavements and anyone else who is concerned about road safety. It's about pushing for positive change, rather than wheeling out the same old circular arguments to no effect.

The roads are not designed for cyclists. They put us in massive danger compared to pedestrians sharing space with cyclists. How many times do you think the air ambulance has been called out to attend to people who have been hit by cyclists? I'd bet there have been none, ever, but I'd be happy to let you prove me wrong. Cycling on pavements poses some risk to pedestrians, but cycling on dangerous roads poses enormous and often fatal risks to cyclists. If you don't want me on the pavement, improve the safety of roads for cyclists and I'd be happy to always cycle on the road. Until then, I make no excuses and will continue to cycle on pavements to avoid death or serious injury. No, I don't have insurance. I have never hit a pedestrian in 25 years of cycling. Do any of you have insurance in place to cover injuries you may cause from walking out in front of a cyclist without looking, or from accidently causing injury from a stray football, cricket ball or excitable dog? I doubt it. It would be open to injured pedestrians or others to make a claim in the courts against the person who injured them in all of these circumstances. By the way, the reason cars, lorries etc have compulsory insurance is because they amount of damage they can cause would be far in excess of the means of most ordinary people to cover without insurance. That does not apply to cyclists.

From another report of the same incident: "Last month emergency doctors who work on the air ambulance called for urgent road safety measures after three cyclists were killed in three weeks in London. The air ambulance, which flies a surgeon and paramedic straight to crash scenes, has been called to more than 30 critical incidents involving cyclists this year." http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-killed-in-crash-with-lorry-on-archway-road-8746311.html

LadyNorwood Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- ... "It's too dangerous to cycle > on the road" - my reply "It's dangerous to drive > around Hyde Park Corner but I don't drive on the > pavement; if you aren't competent enough to cycle > on the roads, then you shouldn't be cycling".... Don't think the danger to cyclists is due to incompetence on their part. It's due to having to share space with big dangerous pieces of metal. Another cyclist killed today by a lorry on a London road: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23576109 That's why I cycle on the pavement in places where the roads are too dangerous. I want to get back home to my kids in one piece.

Roads were not designed with cyclists in mind and as a consequence are often very dangerous to cycle on. The only time I cycle on the pavement is where the available road space is so dangerous I'm not prepared to risk my life by staying on the road. There needs to be a re-think of how our public spaces, including roads and pavements are shared because cycling is set to continue to increase in popularity and the needs of all users need to be accommodated in ways that make travelling safer for everyone.

Try Gumtree Freebies and Freecycle.

I didn't say it was an excuse, just a possible explanation.

Didn't happen for years and now coincidently when more and more people are so broke they need food banks for basic food items, milk has started going from doorsteps of lots of people.

Do you think it might be people who want milk but have no money to buy any?

Please can I have an invite??

I'm pleasantly surprised by the posts above and totally agree (as if you wouldn't have guessed) that the elite are Royally shafting the lot of us. Without any kind of mandate from the electorate, they are selling our assets to their mates whose profits we have no choice but to pay for through our taxes, introducing (or failing to inroduce) laws that benefit their corporate paymasters and using hideous divide and conquer tactics to set the working against those on benefits, the poor against muslims / immigrants / disabled (take your pick) to deflect attention from their illegal, immoral and destructive governance.

Sue Wrote: > > I genuinely think that if things carry on like > this, there will be some kind of revolution. > I'm ready if you are :-D

I was asked why I was offended and I explained why. If you don't agree with me fair enough. I judged his post on past posts and I would bet anyone ?50 he is a 'working class' white male in his 50-60's. I evaluated in the context of the contents of his posts and from this conclude he is probably in that demographic. The unpleasant views he espouses fit with a certain section of that demographic. If I'm wrong, shoot me.

I found it offensive because saying illegal Asian immigrants flavour the Korma with their underpants appears to me that UncleBen is trying to infer the following: 1. Illegal immigrants are dirty (clean underwear wouldn't flavour anything); 2. Asian food tastes bad because the people cooking it are dirty; 3. He is contemptuous of Asians because he's above them (being white n all). You may not agree with me, but I think judging by his contribution to this thread and past performance, his 1980's attitude often has sexist or racist undertones. I find him regularly offensive and occasionally say so.

And I'm sure they've really missed you.