Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands

On 06/09/2019 11:46, JNugent wrote:
On 06/09/2019 08:38, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/09/2019 00:31, JNugent wrote:
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.

Whether or not they did something against the rules is irrelevant to
final situation.

What "final situation"?

Oh, you didn't finish reading the article. No wonder you got victim and
offender the wrong way round.

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.

I was telling you not asking.

That's even sillier than your previous position.

What was my previous position?

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

The reason is a law going back to 1835. The basic idea being to
provide an area that would be clear of animal ****.

You're really scraping that barrel.

Or was it 1885? I can't remember. Either way it was long before
bicycles, cars and 44t lorries.