Cycling on the pavement

[john smith]

Yeah, come on, tell the people alldownhillfromhere...

[a fish]

a fish Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LadyDeliah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > My friend just called me to say that a car

> driver

> > levitated 6 ft off the ground and swooped down

> on

> > cyclists and pedestrians alike in his flying

> car.

>

> I'm assuming from your pointlessly sarcastic

> response that you don't believe me. OK, when my

> colleague comes in tomorrow, I'll get her to come

> on here and tell you exactly what happened to her

> herself - she can quote directly from the police

> report. She's gone home today, bruised, aching all

> over, and very very angry.

>

> Oh and you saying 'oh that'll just be you taking

> the lie further so it won't count', as I feel

> you're about to, will just be an indication that

> whatever those who are angry at dangerous cyclists

> say is automatically discounted by you, so that

> won't count either.

Chances are, LadyDeliah, you don't care about my colleague, as it was a cyclist who allegedly hit her, and we all know they're God's own innocent angels, and any claim made that they behave anything less than perfectly is a vicious smear by satanic Nazi motorists, but this just came in from her:- "Not going to be in today, still aching all over and have a doozy of a headache. And [a fish], tell the person on the net to try walking around Clerkenwell/Farringdon and see how often she sees moronic cycling!!!"

[sillywoman]

"Nazi" - he(she?) said "Nazi".

Someone-or-other's law is invoked (Godwin's?). This thread has surely reached the end of it's natural.

[Zebedee Tring]

Sillywoman, I don't think that Godwin's Law applies, because fish is satirising the kind of line that some cyclists (I hasten to add a small minority) take on such issues. The word "Nazi" is being used ironically. If a cyclist (or indeed anyone else) actually used the word in all seriousness, then it would be a case of Godwin's Law.

[LadyDeliah]

Damn, you guys got a bit carried away!

A Fish, after you posted your anecdotal evidence, I was about to list the numerous motorists' violations I'd witnessed on my ride to work. But the list would have been long and I didn't have time to faff about so made a joke to show that anecdotal evdence is pretty rubbish and lets get back to real numbers and statistics.

If anyone gets hurt by a car, a pedestrian or a cyclist, why would you expect me to not care? You don't know me and if you read any of my earlier posts, you may have noticed that I am all for increased safety through better design for all road users, including pedestrians.

As for ZT saying I insult people because I can?t argue with them, it seems that you both fit into that category. And for the record ZT, as I told you before, it was your argument I rubbished, not you. But you clearly can?t differentiate between someone and their position.

[LadyDeliah]

a fish Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And Zebedee Tring, don't worry, I deal with far

> more up-themselves people than Lady Deliah at the

> film studios every day...

Clearly

[Zebedee Tring]

Lady D, I don't accept that you rubbished my argument, although clearly you think you did; however, you disagreed with it in an insulting way. You need to learn how to debate with people in a reasonable and civilised way without resorting to abusing either them or their arguments.

For the record, my argument was that you can't choose which laws to obey and which laws to disobey. Quite a reasonable argument, with which one is perfectly free to disagree, but at the same time it's not a rubbish argument.

[Jonathan62]

I find it hard to take seriously some one who thinks a group she is a member of should be able to break the law whilst other groups should be subject to more laws.

The same argument that supports cyclists illegally, and dangerously, riding on a pavement supports other road users doing the same. Thus there is no justification except in absolute, life threatening extremis.

Everyone brings their own experience to these debates, mine is that I have nearly been hit twice this week by cyclists - one riding on a pavement and the other riding across a pedestrian crossing whilst it was green. Oddly enough no other motorists have done that.

[snowy]

So children under 6 should always cycle in the road Jonathan?

[LadyDeliah]

Here, read this:

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1175727,page=1

Everything you ever wanted to know on the subject, and then some!

[jonsuissy]

Surely we've all broken laws many times in our lives.

I know I have, and I'm a "law abiding citizen".

I've attached a postage stamp upside down on a letter - its an act of treason.

I've eaten a mince pie on XMas day - its illegal

Source :http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568475/Ten-stupidest-laws-are-named.html

Not a single motorist can claim to have kept to the speed limit for their entire life

Source : completely anecdotal

We all choose which laws to ignore.

Sometimes (not very often though) its safer to cycle on the pavement.

Jon

(slightly embarassed in quoting the Torygraph)

[a fish]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Damn, you guys got a bit carried away!

>

> A Fish, after you posted your anecdotal evidence,

> I was about to list the numerous motorists'

> violations I'd witnessed on my ride to work. But

> the list would have been long and I didn't have

> time to faff about so made a joke to show that

> anecdotal evdence is pretty rubbish and lets get

> back to real numbers and statistics.

>

> If anyone gets hurt by a car, a pedestrian or a

> cyclist, why would you expect me to not care? You

> don't know me and if you read any of my earlier

> posts, you may have noticed that I am all for

> increased safety through better design for all

> road users, including pedestrians.

>

You made a joke about a woman being injured badly enough to need an ambulance. That's a pretty good reason for me to assume either you didn't believe me, or you just didn't care.

Edit: You'll love this, LadyDeliah, I just popped up the road to buy some lunch, and on the 3 minute walk there, I saw a cyclist shoot through the red lights, making a black cab slam on its anchors, and on the way back, a cyclist jumping onto the pavement in front of Belgo and across the corner, making two people coming out of the shop jump sharply backwards so they didn't get hit by him. They shouted at him, he shouted back that they should look where they're fcuking going.

Your consolation prize is that some knob in a truck nearly hit a motorcycle as he shot through the junction as the lights turned red.

Sorry, I forgot, anecdotal doesn't count, does it?

[Jonathan62]

Fair point, I should have said adult, as I did on another thread I started on this topic. For info, my examples both involved adults.

[LadyDeliah]

A fish, I know you're trying to defend your rant against me, but no-where did I refer to the woman who you said was injured. Your post was one in a long line of unproven anecdotes from cyclists, pedestrians and motorists alike.

My joke was against the tendency to pile one set of anecdotes against another set of anecdotes, because we can all recite horror stories and sad incidents against cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. This thread is littered with them. But anecdotes don't convey the full picture, which is why a number of us have continuously attempted to get this thread back to fact based arguments. But it seems many people on here prefer anecdotes to fact and take arguments against the use of anecdotes as a personal affront.

Do you understand the problem with anecdote versus fact yet, or would you like me to continue trying to explain it to you?

[Voyageur]

Anecdotes can still be facts :) Simples. Just because it is something that individuals experience and report on doesn't make it a non-fact.

[sillywoman]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sillywoman, I don't think that Godwin's Law

> applies, because fish is satirising the kind of

> line that some cyclists (I hasten to add a small

> minority) take on such issues. The word "Nazi" is

> being used ironically. If a cyclist (or indeed

> anyone else) actually used the word in all

> seriousness, then it would be a case of Godwin's

> Law.

Oh. Shame. :(

[a fish]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A fish, I know you're trying to defend your rant

> against me, but no-where did I refer to the woman

> who you said was injured. Your post was one in a

> long line of unproven anecdotes from cyclists,

> pedestrians and motorists alike.

>

> My joke was against the tendency to pile one set

> of anecdotes against another set of anecdotes,

> because we can all recite horror stories and sad

> incidents against cyclists, pedestrians and

> motorists. This thread is littered with them. But

> anecdotes don't convey the full picture, which is

> why a number of us have continuously attempted to

> get this thread back to fact based arguments. But

> it seems many people on here prefer anecdotes to

> fact and take arguments against the use of

> anecdotes as a personal affront.

>

> Do you understand the problem with anecdote versus

> fact yet, or would you like me to continue trying

> to explain it to you?

*sigh*

OK, so let?s get pedantic about it:- you made a joke about a post in which I referred to a woman being injured by a pavement cyclist to the extent that she had to be taken by ambulance hospital for x-rays and dressings etc etc. That is why you appeared not to care about her, there was no ?Sorry to hear your colleague was hurt, I hope she?s ok. However, here?s my point about anecdotes about people cycling on the pavement etc etc?.

But if I understand you correctly, if someone should stand up in court and tell the judge and jury what they saw and/or heard, that doesn?t count because it?s anecdotal? You?ve done nothing to get this argument back to fact based argument, because we have very few of the facts about dangerous cycling at our fingertips, so we are forced to retort to our own personal experience, and that of our friends and/or relatives and/or colleagues.

The simple fact of the matter is, whether motorists drive like idiots or not, cyclists are also a considerable danger in London, and most of that danger seems to come from them cycling on the pavement. I have personally been hit twice, and have had, oh about 15 near misses. The best way for the authorities, or indeed us lot, to find out about it is by report ? anecdote by another name. Yes, I could reel off a list of anecdotes about the people I?ve seen driving their cars like idiots too, especially on Sundays (though never, fortunately, on the pavement), but that would have to go in a People Driving Their Cars Like Idiots thread. Why don?t you start one? I could post an anecdote or two every weekend if it?d make you feel better.

[Tommy1000]

I think any debate as to the merits of people's own anecdotes is a distraction.

I don't think anyone on here is denying that motorists and cyclists alike can, and frequently do, behave like idiots. The difference I think is that nobody is trying to defend the motorist and their breaking the law. LadyDeliah, however, is doing exactly that when it comes to cycling on the pavement. We would all give pretty short shrift to any motorist that thinks they're above the law and, for example, unilaterally decides that it's ok for them to jump a particular red light (regardless of whether or not such decision jeapordises someone else's safety). Of course, some motorists do this (and worse), but I'd be amazed if any such offenders would put much effort into defending their actions.

That is exactly what a cyclist is doing when they decide that certain laws don't apply to them. They presumably think it's fine for them to ride on the pavement, and this could be because they don't care or it could be because they think that they can do it safely. The point is that it's not their decision to take, beyond their own personal bubble a decision has been taken that, for the greater benefit of all, (adult) cyclists aren't allowed to ride on pavements.

[Jeremy]

It seems really bizarre to use dangerous driving as some sort of defence for dangerous cycling.

You could just as easily say "it doesn't really matter if I drive at 100mph, because here's a news story about a drunk airline pilot".

[mako]

A similar line was taken on the dogs thread where the argument put forward by a number of dog owners was that they didint like other anti social park users as if this was a defence of anti social/dangerous dog owners.

[Chick Pea]

Dogs and bikes on one thread, it's going to get messy.

I think Lady D is making a case for better road conditions for cyclists, which needs addressing not dismissing. I very much doubt that the increase in cyclists on London's streets is matched by investment in cycle friendly infrastructure.

I don't condone pavement peddling, pushing or pooing - said it would get messy.

[snowy]

Tommy1000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think any debate as to the merits of people's

> own anecdotes is a distraction.

> That is exactly what a cyclist is doing when they

> decide that certain laws don't apply to them. They

> presumably think it's fine for them to ride on the

> pavement, and this could be because they don't

> care or it could be because they think that they

> can do it safely. The point is that it's not their

> decision to take, beyond their own personal bubble

> a decision has been taken that, for the greater

> benefit of all, (adult) cyclists aren't allowed to

> ride on pavements.

Sorry to repeat the 'parallel example not being better than the original' fallacy, but does your comment apply to motorbikes and cars that encroach the Advanced Stop Line? That's something that if I notice a car driver NOT doing is something to remember...

[alldownhillfromhere]

Oh come on people, get a grip, stop being so bloody reasonable. Pavement cyclists need to be stopped, and stopped NOW.

[Chick Pea]

alldownhillfromhere Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh come on people, get a grip, stop being so

> bloody reasonable. Pavement cyclists need to be

> stopped, and stopped NOW.

How do you propose this is stopped?

[a fish]

alldownhillfromhere Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh come on people, get a grip, stop being so

> bloody reasonable. Pavement cyclists need to be

> stopped, and stopped NOW.

Aren't you supposed to be under a curfew?