Motorist drives along pavement

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:23:00 GMT someone who may be "ian henden"
wrote this:-

No. It is NOT "driving" along the pavement.

Given that the victims were on the pavement it is difficult to know
how else to describe it. Perhaps the car was levitated at the time
and thus some would claim it was not on the pavement.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...

Presumably, then, children under the age of eleven don't have to pay
to travel on public transport. I know they don't in London, except on
most National Rail journeys, but London's an exception.

snip

The way it works is that a parents, or a person in loco parentis,
/might/ be arrested on the child's behalf.

I think though (even with new laws) whether someone would be prosecuted for
anything a kid does depends on how proportionate the arrest would be.

Not paying fares causes a financial loss to the transport companies. I
didn't know about the London exemption, is this one of Red Ken's ideas?

I expect a 20something or late teens "parent" *encouraging* a chavlet to
ride at peoples knees under a working CCTV camera *would* be "cruising for
an asbo".

OTOH *young* children (primary school age) riding on the pavement appears to
have been accepted by society even in the "good old days". I have a couple
of cycling books from the 1950s which admonish would be adult cyclists
against riding on pavements; but deem it acceptable for a small child to do
so whilst learning. When said brat reaches 11 or thereabouts they are
supposed to ride on the road. (Of course the roads were clearer then)

Also in my teens there was a local bobby who *would* tick you off if he
caught you cycling on the pavement, or trying to do stunts in public places
etc...

Now I'm not the sort of person who always sees eye to eye with the cops or
restrictive legislation; but to be fair he explained how you could end up
hurting yourself or someone else by doing so; and the fact he was a cyclist
himself helped matters...

Alex
--
Mr R@T / General Lighting
Ipswich, Suffolk, Untied Kingdom
http://www.partyvibe.com

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:52:59 -0000, "Mr R@t \(2.30 zulu-india\)"
wrote:

Not paying fares causes a financial loss to the transport companies. I
didn't know about the London exemption, is this one of Red Ken's ideas?

Under 16s travel free on busses, the tube and Docklands' Light
Railway, and a few National Rail lines (I think). 14 - 16 must have an
exemption photocard, for older looking younger children photocards are
an option. Yep - it's down to Red Ken. He's coming to see my cycle
training project some time next term or in the Autumn Term.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:36:12 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "p.k."
wrote this:-

on other bbc sites the inital text is preserved:

Detective Chief Inspector Mick Southerton, who is investigating the deaths
said: "At the moment we are dealing with it as a very tragic accident but we
are not ruling anything out."

If the original story is as you claim then I misread it.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"Mr R@t \(2.30 zulu-india\)" typed

Not paying fares causes a financial loss to the transport companies. I
didn't know about the London exemption, is this one of Red Ken's ideas?

Yup. AFAIK kids under 11 were exempt from fares last year.
This year it's under 16 (Photocards needed for those of over 14 in appearance)

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

Clive George wrote:

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...

The unacceptable face of motoring (and some pedestrian groups who
are not au fait with the real dangers those they claim to represent
face) often imply that only cyclists ride along pavements.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4827894.stm is about a
motorist driving along a pavement, in the course of which he injured
six people, one very badly.

True to form the police appear to have already gone out of their way
to excuse the motorist. Other groups in the motoring lobby will no
doubt follow their lead.


Can you tell me where it says the police have gone out of their way to
excuse the motorist?

The version I read last night quoted a policeman as saying it appeared
to be a tragic accident (I think I have those words right). That bit has
gone now.

An arguably less loaded assessment would be that it appeared to be the
result of dangerous driving. After all, they have already arrested the
driver on that charge, so it could hardly be prejudicial or inaccurate
to say such a thing.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

Tom Crispin wrote:

The Royal Parks prohibit all cycling on footpaths, other than marked
cycle routes and roads, but their regulations allow for children of
ten years and under to ride on paths when learning to ride safely.

That seems very sensible.

UTAPLC. If cycling on footpaths is dangerous, then how can learning to
ride on a footpath be learning to ride safely?

...d

"James Annan" wrote in message
...

Can you tell me where it says the police have gone out of their way to
excuse the motorist?

The version I read last night quoted a policeman as saying it appeared to
be a tragic accident (I think I have those words right). That bit has gone
now.

The words are about right - it's just that they were in the half of the
report talking about the railway crash, not the car crash. "Tragic" because
people died in the former, not the latter.

Not that any of this excuses the driver for his actions...

cheers,
clive

Simon Brooke wrote:

in message , 2.30 zulu-india\ ('"Mr R@t \')
wrote:


"David Martin" wrote in message
groups.com...


Goodness me, dead plants in the countryside. Who'd have thought it.
Something must be done..

AFAIK most dead (wild) plants die where they were planted or are
trimmed / removed / harvested. Decomposing vegetable matter is no
longer normally thrown or left at the side of the road - at least in
the areas where I live!


Are there now no deciduous trees left in southern England?


No, the last one was blown down in the Great Hurricane.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:34:05 -0000 someone who may be "Clive George"
wrote this:-

as I said twice, I
think the sentence referred to the rail crash, not the car crash.

We will have to disagree.

Fortunately the matter appears to have been resolved by somebody finding the
old text.

Face it, you're just getting all self-righteoously wound up about plod
again - you do have a habit of doing this.

Excellent, the swerve into a personal attack.

Yup. Do you want urls to reinforce my assertion? I can probably provide
them...

clive