On 16/09/2020 00:21, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 20:28, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/09/2020 10:54, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2020 09:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/09/2020 00:19, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2020 20:44, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/09/2020 16:17, JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

All court does is to decide whether Her Majesty gives the driver a
smacked botty.

So you "think" that passing cyclists (or perhaps even keyboard
warrior cyclists such as yourself) should be able to decide on
whether drivers have committed an offence.

Obviously. The difference is that when a "decision" is made, unlike
Her Majesty, your "keyboard warrior" has no power or means to give the
culprit a smacked botty.

Er... exactly.

Should it be otherwise?

And if it were, would it be equally acceptable for a normal citizen to
peremptorily find cyclists guilty of causing danger to pedestrians whose
only crime was to be walking along a footway?

Take your time.

Expressing an opinion is the not the same thing as finding guilty.

You still have the problem that the difference between drivers causing
danger and cyclists causing danger is the difference between statistics
and perception.

Even you would support that as a general principle, I expect.

I doubt that even you dare to put pavement cycling in the same
category. Particularly as any argument falls flat in light of
the many places where the mix of cyclist and pedestrian is allowed.

Where did that come from? What does it have to do with the
rolling review, amendment and consolidation of statute law?

Pavement cycling has been mentioned by you in this thread.

But not within this topic.

If you were to read your posts back you would notice how the matter
frequently and randomly pops up.

Irrelevant.

It is not.

Oh, you mean just because one person does something, it doesn't
"justify" another doing it.

That is a well-established principle.

Well, it is also an established principle that when a cyclist recounts
the occasion of having to dodge actual mortal danger caused by a driver,
trying to counter it by recalling an occasion of seeing a cyclist
breaking the law is rather pathetic.

Do you wish to try to state that cycling along pedestrian footways
(which you call "pavement cycling") is lawful?

To remind you, the topic had moved into intention of law and issues
of safety.

On the topic of law and safety, do you wish to try to state that
cycling along pedestrian footways (which you call "pavement cycling")
is lawful?

Some places it is, some places it is not.

I am speaking of *footways* where only walking is allowed in a linear
direction (like the one that runs past my house).

Do you wish to try to claim that cycling along such a footway, some 4'
wide, is lawful or acceptable?

If you tell us where your house is it might be be possible to find out
for you.