Yet more pavement cycling

On Sunday, September 4, 2011 9:12:20 AM UTC+1, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 04/09/2011 07:51, Doug wrote:
On Saturday, September 3, 2011 12:39:20 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
On Sep 3, 5:39 am, Peter wrote:
which I find strange. In my experience bicycling on the footpath is much
more dangerous also for the bicyclist than bicycling on the road.


Same here - even if it was legal to do so, I'd never cycle on the
pavement as it is too slow and there are too many give way points.

Agreed but surely some people cycle on the pavements because they consider the roads and its drivers too dangerous and therefore are prepared to put up with the many inconveniences of pavement cycling?

Yes, and bugger the inconveniences to pedestrians.

The same applies to pavement motorists who are, of course, much more dangerous.

Personally I disagree with them because pavement motoring also represents a danger to cyclists. Because of their vulnerability cyclists have to make difficult choices in an inequitable situation where drivers can kill them but they can't kill drivers.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to drive a car.




Lack of any mention of pedestrians in your post noted.

See above. Note, motorists can kill pedestrians and cyclists but cyclists can only kill pedestrians. Also, becuase motorists are much more numerous they kill much more people.

It's cyclists like you, who obviously do not care about pedestrians,
( you did not mention them at all in your anti care rant) that give
cycling a bad name

No it motorists who give cycling a bad name in their attempts at self-justification.

Naturally, pedestrians have reason to fear both cyclists and motorists but guess who they have to fear the most? Since when, as a ranting motorist, did you care about pedestrians?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Sep 5, 12:00*am, Peter Keller wrote:

Any accidents I have had have been minor; scrapes, low-speed knock off
bike etc, and none of those even for some years.
No, I don't agree with people like Doug that biking in today's world is
excessively dangerous. *Of course the bicyclist, like any road user,
should obey road rules, be visible, audible and predictable, and have a
bike in good mechanical condition and always be able to stop without
hitting something.


Same here - one broken collar bone in 90000 miles caused by a driver
undertaking another car while I was on his left.
Still, made 5000 quid on it in compo.

--
Simon Mason

Doug wrote:
On Sunday, September 4, 2011 9:12:20 AM UTC+1, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 04/09/2011 07:51, Doug wrote:
On Saturday, September 3, 2011 12:39:20 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
On Sep 3, 5:39 am, Peter wrote:
which I find strange. In my experience bicycling on the footpath
is much more dangerous also for the bicyclist than bicycling on
the road.


Same here - even if it was legal to do so, I'd never cycle on the
pavement as it is too slow and there are too many give way points.

Agreed but surely some people cycle on the pavements because they
consider the roads and its drivers too dangerous and therefore are
prepared to put up with the many inconveniences of pavement
cycling?

Yes, and bugger the inconveniences to pedestrians.

The same applies to pavement motorists who are, of course, much more
dangerous.

Personally I disagree with them because pavement motoring also
represents a danger to cyclists. Because of their vulnerability
cyclists have to make difficult choices in an inequitable situation
where drivers can kill them but they can't kill drivers.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to drive a car.




Lack of any mention of pedestrians in your post noted.

See above. Note, motorists can kill pedestrians and cyclists but
cyclists can only kill pedestrians. Also, becuase motorists are much
more numerous they kill much more people.

It's cyclists like you, who obviously do not care about pedestrians,
( you did not mention them at all in your anti care rant) that give
cycling a bad name

No it motorists who give cycling a bad name in their attempts at
self-justification.

Naturally, pedestrians have reason to fear both cyclists and
motorists but guess who they have to fear the most? Since when, as a
ranting motorist, did you care about pedestrians?


Strange , because if I walk along the pavement I am not afraid of the cars
at all since they stay in the road, but I am concerned about receiving
injury from the dozens of bicycles that infest the pavements.

On 05/09/2011 06:55, Doug wrote:

... motorists can kill pedestrians and cyclists but cyclists can only kill pedestrians.

Oh dear. One can sense your disappointment.

On Sep 5, 12:00*am, Peter Keller wrote:

I don't need my name to be in bold. *I am only a bicyclist who uses my
great form of transport for most off my in-town and close-town transport
needs. and for beautiful wind-in-hair recreation.

How do you manage to feel the wind in your hair?
I thought you had to wear a magic hat where you live?

--
Simon Mason

On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 23:40:06 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:


Still, made 5000 quid on it in compo.


It makes it all worth while doesn't it.

On Sep 5, 7:40*am, Simon Mason wrote:
On Sep 5, 12:00*am, Peter Keller wrote:

Any accidents I have had have been minor; scrapes, low-speed knock off
bike etc, and none of those even for some years.
No, I don't agree with people like Doug that biking in today's world is
excessively dangerous. *Of course the bicyclist, like any road user,
should obey road rules, be visible, audible and predictable, and have a
bike in good mechanical condition and always be able to stop without
hitting something.

Same here - one broken collar bone in 90000 miles caused by a driver
undertaking another car while I was on his left.
Still, made 5000 quid on it in compo.


And another cyclist benefitted as well, since I spent the money on new
doors, windows and a porch.
All fitted by a fellow cyclist.
Win win as Matt B used to say.

--
Simon Mason

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 02:32:19 -0700, Simon Mason wrote:

On Sep 5, 12:00Â*am, Peter Keller wrote:

I don't need my name to be in bold. Â*I am only a bicyclist who uses my
great form of transport for most off my in-town and close-town
transport needs. and for beautiful wind-in-hair recreation.

How do you manage to feel the wind in your hair? I thought you had to
wear a magic hat where you live?


Yes we do. However exemptions are possible.
I have one. So I have had many amiable conversations with the police
down the years.


--
An oft-repeated lie is sill a lie.

On 05/09/2011 06:55, Doug wrote:
On Sunday, September 4, 2011 9:12:20 AM UTC+1, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 04/09/2011 07:51, Doug wrote:
On Saturday, September 3, 2011 12:39:20 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
On Sep 3, 5:39 am, Peter wrote:
which I find strange. In my experience bicycling on the footpath is much
more dangerous also for the bicyclist than bicycling on the road.


Same here - even if it was legal to do so, I'd never cycle on the
pavement as it is too slow and there are too many give way points.

Agreed but surely some people cycle on the pavements because they consider the roads and its drivers too dangerous and therefore are prepared to put up with the many inconveniences of pavement cycling?

Yes, and bugger the inconveniences to pedestrians.

The same applies to pavement motorists who are, of course, much more dangerous.

But of course there are many fewer of them.
Every day I can see a pavement cyclist, can't recall when I last saw a
motorist driving along the pavement.

But that matters not the point I was making was that you had not
considered pedestrians.


Personally I disagree with them because pavement motoring also represents a danger to cyclists. Because of their vulnerability cyclists have to make difficult choices in an inequitable situation where drivers can kill them but they can't kill drivers.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to drive a car.




Lack of any mention of pedestrians in your post noted.

See above. Note, motorists can kill pedestrians and cyclists but cyclists can only kill pedestrians. Also, becuase motorists are much more numerous they kill much more people.

It's cyclists like you, who obviously do not care about pedestrians,
( you did not mention them at all in your anti care rant) that give
cycling a bad name

No it motorists who give cycling a bad name in their attempts at self-justification.

Have I done that, I think not.


Naturally, pedestrians have reason to fear both cyclists and motorists but guess who they have to fear the most? Since when, as a ranting motorist, did you care about pedestrians?

As I use PT & walk to get to & from work I consider myself a pedestrian
as well as a motorist, so guess what, I care about all vehicles using
the pavement I am on, and there are far more cyclists doing that than cars.
So consider me a 'ranting pedestrian'

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 05/09/2011 10:20, JNugent wrote:
On 05/09/2011 06:55, Doug wrote:

... motorists can kill pedestrians and cyclists but cyclists can only
kill pedestrians.

Oh dear. One can sense your disappointment.

I wonder if it's a sense of guilt because of damage he did to a
pedestrian when he used to drive.