On 06/09/2019 00:20, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/09/2019 12:15, JNugent wrote:
On 05/09/2019 00:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/09/2019 12:37, JNugent wrote:

The report clearly states that the victim was on foot on the
"pavement" (properly known as the "footway" for good and rather
obvious reasons) and that the offender was also on the footway, on a
bicycle.

What did the "offender" do to the "victim"?

The "victim" was threatened by the "offender's" dangerous behaviour,
of course.

(Note I have put back the quotes.)

You can do as you like. It doesn't make cycling along the "pavement" lawful.

You're making a rather big leap to assume that if something is not
permitted it is necessarily dangerous. Shared paths, created by the
stroke of a bureaucrat's pen on previously ordinary footways,
demonstrate it is not so.

Ask the victim whether he was in danger from the illegal cycling, not
me. He's the only one who can judge it. And he had a right to
remonstrate at the very least.

There's a reason why cycling along footways is not allowed. Have a
think and see whether you can guess what it is.

But in any event, any citizen is entitled to point out that an
offender's illegal behaviour is... er... illegal, and to remonstrate
with the offender.

That is true. That is not the same as attempted murder.

Have you got any other little gems from your CSE in "The Bleedin'
Obvious" that you'd like to share? But preferably ones that have
something to do with the case.

Not that offending cyclists are susceptible to any sense of shame or
social responsibility, of course.

Â*It certainly is not peculiar to cyclists.

No-one said it was.

But as you know, it is very characteristic of far too many cyclists.