Cycling on the pavement

[a fish]

Oh yeah, I look where I?m going all right. Though I don?t have eyes in the back of my head, which is a real pity, because a courier hit me from behind the other day. I didn?t have headphones in ? I?ve stopped doing that ? so I know for a fact there was no warning noises.

What is it with you anti-pedestrians, are you so blinkered that you can?t see that this is happening all the time?

[jimbo1964]

As this is not an ED topic anymore.. Just an attention seeker jumping in front of cyclists in Clerkenwell could this please be Lounged?

[reeko]

Amen to that Jimbo

[a fish]

If trying to make idiots sit up and listen is attention seeking, then yeah.

[Loz]

Well, you could make it more 'ED' by photographing cycling on the pavement in ED. Shouldn't be too difficult.

[a fish]

I tried to this morning, but I didn't get my phone out in time.

[LadyDeliah]

No wonder my ears were burning. A fish, you clearly missed me, so I'm sorry for neglecting your obvious needs, but real life got in the way.

Still haven't seen any photos of Lyra louts scattering pedestrians and abusing them, which was the assertion I requested proof of.

But don't worry about details a fish, you appear to be having so much fun so knock yourself out.

[a fish]

Yes, you have LadyD, your sad, very blinkered, prejudices are just telling you you haven't, or maybe you're just being ultra pedantic about the fact that most of them aren't wearing Lycra. One way or another, they're still tw4ts. This morning?s pavement cyclist was especially tw4ttish, weaving in and out of pedestrians, bumping at least one that I saw, hissing and tutting at them, going really quite quickly. He was shouted at by a construction guy coming out of the site who he just missed, but he called him a cnut and cycled on.

[LadyDeliah]

Yes, I see you have perfectly captured the look of fear and loathing on the pedestrians' faces as he ploughs through them.

[LadyDeliah]

A fish, I don't want to spoil your fun but the challenge was, post pics of Lycra louts scattering pedestrians and abusing them. You asserted this happens daily, but all you have posted are pics of benign looking pavement cyclists on near empty pavements, which no-one has claimed doesn't happen.

So although it gives you great pleasure, is rather pointless.

[LadyDeliah]

Anyway a fish, I'm really busy with life right now, so I will endeavour to check on your progress in a week or so.

[a fish]

Oh I?m *so* sorry LadyD, I seem to have forgotten my wide-angle lens on my big SLR. Tell you what, I?ll bring a BBC HD film crew with me tomorrow, shall I?

The fact remains that I have, as requested by you, provided you with 8 photos of 8 cyclists, all cycling in areas where they?re expressly forbidden, either on the pavement where it?s illegal anyway, or through the Grand Avenue ? the workplace of dozens of people ? where there are big signs ordering you off your bike. I have been hit by one cyclist, and seen two more bump people. I have had to jump out of the way sharpish several times, and have watched others do the same. I have heard cyclists hissing and tutting and swearing at people for having the audacity to be on a pavement when they want to come tearing through. I have watched when, at 6:30am, when there isn?t a car on the road, a cyclist bombed along a pavement barely two people wide, not once, but twice. In every single one of these 8 cases, there was no reason for them to be on the pavement other than pure selfishness. They may not all have been wearing Lycra, but some definitely were. There was evening a police crackdown last week, with dozens of cyclists being handed fines for cycling on pavements and cycling through red lights. If that?s not enough to prove my assertion that Farringdon and Clerkenwell is a nightmare for idiots on bikes, then I fear for your version of reality.

[LadyDeliah]

That wasn't the assertion I called you on. You said you regularly see Lycra louts scattering pedestrians and abusing them. That is what you claimed, that is what I disbelieved and asked you to prove, so either retract or prove it.

[ruffers]

Ner ner ne ner ner

[a fish]

I could, but I?m not going to, because I know what you?ll do. You?ll get even more desperately wriggly and pedantic about, oh, I don?t know, we can?t see this guy?s Lycra because he has an anorak over it, or that guy?s freewheeling so he?s not dangerous or some other guff. Either that or you?ll claim not to accept anecdotal evidence. I have made my point, if you are too timid and/or loath to admit you may have actually learnt something, that something?s actually penetrated the thick layer of obstinacy and prejudice surrounding your brain, then that?s your choice. Meantime I warn you, if you should ever go walking around Farringdon and Clerkenwell, be hyper vigilant, the guy at our reception has just told me how he was hit by a cycle courier yesterday afternoon, just outside Pret...

[jonsuissy]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> That wasn't the assertion I called you on. You

> said you regularly see Lycra louts scattering

> pedestrians and abusing them. That is what you

> claimed, that is what I disbelieved and asked you

> to prove, so either retract or prove it.

Oh no LadyD - don't encourage her.

Do not feed the trolls.

This has turned into the most boring thread EVER.

Please please somebody lounge it.

[LadyDeliah]

So you are unable or unwilling to provide evidence of your assertion that Lycra louts regularly scatter pedestrians and abuse them then?

[a fish]

Bear in mind, LadyD, I don?t actually need to prove anything to you, I know what it?s like around here, I see it every morning. I tried to make you aware, but you?re determined to retain your prejudices intact, not to mention your weird thing about the Law applying to everyone but you. It?s like your fingers are in your ears, and you?re going ?la la la, I can?t hear you? very loudly indeed. I bet you read the Daily Mail.

[LadyDeliah]

No worries a fish, you said you can prove it, you proved nothing of the sort, I think this little challenge has come to it's natural end.

[Zebedee Tring]

Can't you two just agree to differ and then end the thread, since nothing that either of you say will persuade the other person that you are right? I speak as someone who is very much opposed to cycling on the pavement.

[a fish]

It was never my intention to get anyone to change their minds, just maybe to see that there are other views. Though bumping up against such intransigence can make one slightly bloody minded. I'll give LadyD the last word, should she want it...

[Captkerk]

I am a cyclist and realise riding on pavement is not legal although I have done it on rare occasions at which times I proceed very slowly and cautiously and dismount if there is any danger to pedestrians. I still think most motorists would be able to see a cyclist coming even if on pavement. What if someone was running on pavement? Why would it be OK for a motorist to hit a person on or off a cycle just because they were moving quickly on pavement?

Conversely, if it could be demonstrated that the cyclist was at fault, they would be liable for damage to a motor vehicle regardless of whether they were insured or not.

[northlondoner]

Captkerk Wrote:

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

> I still think most motorists would be

> able to see a cyclist coming even if on pavement.

> What if someone was running on pavement? Why would

> it be OK for a motorist to hit a person on or off

> a cycle just because they were moving quickly on

> pavement?

>

> Conversely, if it could be demonstrated that the

> cyclist was at fault, they would be liable for

> damage to a motor vehicle regardless of whether

> they were insured or not.

This makes no sense. Try again.

[Otta]

Why is this thread going on and on. Cycling on the pavement is against the law. Cyclists should not be on the pavement, there is no discussion to be had.

[mynamehere]

Cycling is allowed on the pavement but it has to meet very well defined legal guidelines : very young, very old, very controlled with clear deference to pedestrian welfare. This was confirmed within this last week and I'll post that confirmation:

from the meeting with the Minister for Transport Susan Kramer:

I have just received a letter from Robert Goodwill, who is the Tory "Minister" for cycling, following my meeting with Susan Kramer, the ib Dem LMinister for Transport.

Whilst the letter covers only a few of the cycling safety issues I raised with Susan, it does cover my request for ministerial clarification on the guidance for implementation of the fixed penalty fines for pavement cycling.

This follows my being told by Operation Safeway police that they had been instructed by their senior officers to ignore the guidance and to implement the letter of the law instead.

The GOOD news is the minister re-endorsed the original guidance by the Minister who introduced the fines, Paul Boateng which was :

"'The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel

obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the 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 in

the road... sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required "

This was one of the issues the Vauxhall Cross Demo was addressing.

He also gives a potential positive to our suggestion that the DoT should be monitoriing what local councils are doing on cycling, so that the data can be examined and compared and badly performing councils identified and held to account.

I have attached the letter as a file.

Yes We Can!

thanks

Donnachadh