A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Police warning in Thetford after cyclist is garroted by a rope



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 30th 20, 03:39 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mike Collins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 584
Default Police warning in Thetford after cyclist is garroted by a rope

On Sunday, 30 August 2020 01:43:31 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 30/08/2020 01:01, Mike Collins wrote:
On Sunday, 30 August 2020 00:34:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 29/08/2020 15:25, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 29 August 2020 11:02:07 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 29/08/2020 00:44, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 29 August 2020 00:20:48 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 28/08/2020 22:44, Mike Collins wrote:
On Friday, 28 August 2020 21:29:42 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 28/08/2020 17:41, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:
In yet another depressing incident of extreme violence that appears to be aimed at cyclists, Norfolk Police have issued a warning after a cyclist was garroted by a rope strung between trees.

Police say the 25-year-old man was left with "extensive lacerations" across his neck after falling victim to the trap in woods next to Edinburgh Way in Thetford. Shockingly, wood containing nails was also placed at head height down alleyways that are regularly used by cyclists from Edinburgh Way and Durham Way used by cyclists.

PC Nike Harris commented: “We are concerned as these throughways are sometimes used by cyclists on their way to from work. We do not know why the rope and wood has been put in place but it may be in attempt to discourage cyclists and bikers.

“We would ask you report anti-social behaviour in the areas to police rather than take matters into your own hands if this is the case. Although we know these routes are not strictly meant for cyclists or bikers we do not want to find people are being seriously injured.”

Norfolk Police have asked anyone with information to contact PC Harris on 101, quoting crime reference 36/60081/20.

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling...log-item-18383

Is "...not strictly meant for cyclists or bikers..." modern police-speak
for *footpaths*?

Define footpath taking in to account S72 of the 1835 Highways act..

Why?

Because there is a difference.

Explain it and explain why the alleged "difference" means that it is
lawful or acceptable for cyclists to abuse footpaths or footways.

Are cyclists supposed to use them (on bikes, that is) or not?

Treat "footpath" as including "footway"if you like.

It's a straightforward enough question.

Can you answer it?

I'd conclude that you can't, but that's a step too far. It's more a case
of "you daren't".

If so, the answer's so obvious, isn't it?
Why don't cyclists and bikers frustrate the rope-slingers by simply not
riding on footways?

So you believe I can cause permanent injury to the next motorist who violates the above cited act?
Or S34 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act?

I shan't ever drive along a footpath so will never be a target for
anyone incensed by cyclists abusing footpaths.

Can you equally guarantee that you won't cycle along one?

That's a straightforward enough question, isn't it?

Can you - dare you - answer it?\

Avoiding the question as usual.

You are not prepared to guarantee that you will never abuse a footpath
or footway by riding a bicycle along one, thereby bringing nuisance and
danger to adjacent residents and other pedestrians using the route for
its proper and intended purpose.

And that was the fully-expected reaction from you.

I'll pay you the compliment of adding that it would have been an easy
and cheap gambit for you to say that you were prepared to give that
guarantee, but it would have been a lie you were not prepared to tell.
That's something.

I, of course, will unhesitatingly guarantee that I shall never knowingly
drive or ride any sort of vehicle along a designated footway or footpath.

Apology accepted.

I haven't apologised to you and have done and said nothing to apologise for.


Back to the real world.
Apology accepted once again.


You may try to understand English your way.


I am not from Liverpool.


I shall continue to use and understand it correctly.


Sez the Unwashed Northerner.


Ads
  #12  
Old September 6th 20, 07:49 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Pamela
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 552
Default Police warning in Thetford after cyclist is garroted by a rope

On 03:39 30 Aug 2020, Mike Collins said:

On Sunday, 30 August 2020 01:43:31 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 30/08/2020 01:01, Mike Collins wrote:
On Sunday, 30 August 2020 00:34:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 29/08/2020 15:25, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 29 August 2020 11:02:07 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 29/08/2020 00:44, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 29 August 2020 00:20:48 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 28/08/2020 22:44, Mike Collins wrote:
On Friday, 28 August 2020 21:29:42 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 28/08/2020 17:41, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:
In yet another depressing incident of extreme violence that
app

ears to be aimed at cyclists, Norfolk Police have issued a warning after
a cyclist was garroted by a rope strung between trees.

Police say the 25-year-old man was left with "extensive
lacerat

ions" across his neck after falling victim to the trap in woods next to
Edinburgh Way in Thetford. Shockingly, wood containing nails was also
placed at head height down alleyways that are regularly used by cyclists
from Edinburgh Way and Durham Way used by cyclists.

PC Nike Harris commented: “We are concerned as these th

roughways are sometimes used by cyclists on their way to from work. We
do not know why the rope and wood has been put in place but it may be in
attempt to discourage cyclists and bikers.

“We would ask you report anti-social behaviour in the a

reas to police rather than take matters into your own hands if this is
the case. Although we know these routes are not strictly meant for
cyclists or bikers we do not want to find people are being seriously
injured.”

Norfolk Police have asked anyone with information to contact
PC

Harris on 101, quoting crime reference 36/60081/20.

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling...log-28-august-

2020-
2

76847#live-blog-item-18383

Is "...not strictly meant for cyclists or bikers..." modern
poli

ce-speak
for *footpaths*?

Define footpath taking in to account S72 of the 1835 Highways
act

.

Why?

Because there is a difference.

Explain it and explain why the alleged "difference" means that it
is lawful or acceptable for cyclists to abuse footpaths or
footways.

Are cyclists supposed to use them (on bikes, that is) or not?

Treat "footpath" as including "footway"if you like.

It's a straightforward enough question.

Can you answer it?

I'd conclude that you can't, but that's a step too far. It's more
a

case
of "you daren't".

If so, the answer's so obvious, isn't it?
Why don't cyclists and bikers frustrate the rope-slingers by
sim

ply not
riding on footways?

So you believe I can cause permanent injury to the next
motorist

who violates the above cited act?
Or S34 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act?

I shan't ever drive along a footpath so will never be a target
for anyone incensed by cyclists abusing footpaths.

Can you equally guarantee that you won't cycle along one?

That's a straightforward enough question, isn't it?

Can you - dare you - answer it?\

Avoiding the question as usual.

You are not prepared to guarantee that you will never abuse a
footpa

th
or footway by riding a bicycle along one, thereby bringing
nuisance

and
danger to adjacent residents and other pedestrians using the route
f

or
its proper and intended purpose.

And that was the fully-expected reaction from you.

I'll pay you the compliment of adding that it would have been an
eas

y
and cheap gambit for you to say that you were prepared to give
that guarantee, but it would have been a lie you were not prepared
to tel

l.
That's something.

I, of course, will unhesitatingly guarantee that I shall never
knowi

ngly
drive or ride any sort of vehicle along a designated footway or
foot

path.

Apology accepted.

I haven't apologised to you and have done and said nothing to
apologis

e for.

Back to the real world.
Apology accepted once again.


You may try to understand English your way.


I am not from Liverpool.


I shall continue to use and understand it correctly.


Sez the Unwashed Northerner.


How's the trolling going, Mike?
  #13  
Old September 6th 20, 10:49 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mike Collins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 584
Default Police warning in Thetford after cyclist is garroted by a rope

On Sunday, 6 September 2020 19:49:38 UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 03:39 30 Aug 2020, Mike Collins said:

On Sunday, 30 August 2020 01:43:31 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 30/08/2020 01:01, Mike Collins wrote:
On Sunday, 30 August 2020 00:34:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 29/08/2020 15:25, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 29 August 2020 11:02:07 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 29/08/2020 00:44, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 29 August 2020 00:20:48 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 28/08/2020 22:44, Mike Collins wrote:
On Friday, 28 August 2020 21:29:42 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 28/08/2020 17:41, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:
In yet another depressing incident of extreme violence that
app

ears to be aimed at cyclists, Norfolk Police have issued a warning after
a cyclist was garroted by a rope strung between trees.

Police say the 25-year-old man was left with "extensive
lacerat

ions" across his neck after falling victim to the trap in woods next to
Edinburgh Way in Thetford. Shockingly, wood containing nails was also
placed at head height down alleyways that are regularly used by cyclists
from Edinburgh Way and Durham Way used by cyclists.

PC Nike Harris commented: “We are concerned as these th

roughways are sometimes used by cyclists on their way to from work. We
do not know why the rope and wood has been put in place but it may be in
attempt to discourage cyclists and bikers.

“We would ask you report anti-social behaviour in the a

reas to police rather than take matters into your own hands if this is
the case. Although we know these routes are not strictly meant for
cyclists or bikers we do not want to find people are being seriously
injured.”

Norfolk Police have asked anyone with information to contact
PC

Harris on 101, quoting crime reference 36/60081/20.

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling...log-28-august-

2020-
2

76847#live-blog-item-18383

Is "...not strictly meant for cyclists or bikers..." modern
poli

ce-speak
for *footpaths*?

Define footpath taking in to account S72 of the 1835 Highways
act

.

Why?

Because there is a difference.

Explain it and explain why the alleged "difference" means that it
is lawful or acceptable for cyclists to abuse footpaths or
footways.

Are cyclists supposed to use them (on bikes, that is) or not?

Treat "footpath" as including "footway"if you like.

It's a straightforward enough question.

Can you answer it?

I'd conclude that you can't, but that's a step too far. It's more
a

case
of "you daren't".

If so, the answer's so obvious, isn't it?
Why don't cyclists and bikers frustrate the rope-slingers by
sim

ply not
riding on footways?

So you believe I can cause permanent injury to the next
motorist

who violates the above cited act?
Or S34 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act?

I shan't ever drive along a footpath so will never be a target
for anyone incensed by cyclists abusing footpaths.

Can you equally guarantee that you won't cycle along one?

That's a straightforward enough question, isn't it?

Can you - dare you - answer it?\

Avoiding the question as usual.

You are not prepared to guarantee that you will never abuse a
footpa

th
or footway by riding a bicycle along one, thereby bringing
nuisance

and
danger to adjacent residents and other pedestrians using the route
f

or
its proper and intended purpose.

And that was the fully-expected reaction from you.

I'll pay you the compliment of adding that it would have been an
eas

y
and cheap gambit for you to say that you were prepared to give
that guarantee, but it would have been a lie you were not prepared
to tel

l.
That's something.

I, of course, will unhesitatingly guarantee that I shall never
knowi

ngly
drive or ride any sort of vehicle along a designated footway or
foot

path.

Apology accepted.

I haven't apologised to you and have done and said nothing to
apologis

e for.

Back to the real world.
Apology accepted once again.

You may try to understand English your way.


I am not from Liverpool.


I shall continue to use and understand it correctly.


Sez the Unwashed Northerner.


How's the trolling going, Mike?


"I'm enjoying it so far", said the man as he passed the 50th floor of the Empire State Building, but the pavement was still waiting to meet him.
  #14  
Old September 15th 20, 04:06 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Pamela
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 552
Default Police warning in Thetford after cyclist is garroted by a rope

On 22:49 6 Sep 2020, Mike Collins said:

On Sunday, 6 September 2020 19:49:38 UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 03:39 30 Aug 2020, Mike Collins said:

On Sunday, 30 August 2020 01:43:31 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 30/08/2020 01:01, Mike Collins wrote:
On Sunday, 30 August 2020 00:34:12 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 29/08/2020 15:25, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 29 August 2020 11:02:07 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 29/08/2020 00:44, Mike Collins wrote:
On Saturday, 29 August 2020 00:20:48 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 28/08/2020 22:44, Mike Collins wrote:
On Friday, 28 August 2020 21:29:42 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 28/08/2020 17:41, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:
In yet another depressing incident of extreme violence
that app
ears to be aimed at cyclists, Norfolk Police have issued a warning
afte

r
a cyclist was garroted by a rope strung between trees.

Police say the 25-year-old man was left with "extensive
lacerat
ions" across his neck after falling victim to the trap in woods next
to Edinburgh Way in Thetford. Shockingly, wood containing nails was
also placed at head height down alleyways that are regularly used by
cyclist

s
from Edinburgh Way and Durham Way used by cyclists.

PC Nike Harris commented: “We are concerned as these

th
roughways are sometimes used by cyclists on their way to from work.
We do not know why the rope and wood has been put in place but it may
be i

n
attempt to discourage cyclists and bikers.

“We would ask you report anti-social behaviour in th

e a
reas to police rather than take matters into your own hands if this
is the case. Although we know these routes are not strictly meant for
cyclists or bikers we do not want to find people are being seriously
injured.”

Norfolk Police have asked anyone with information to
contact PC
Harris on 101, quoting crime reference 36/60081/20.

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling...log-28-august-

2020-
2
76847#live-blog-item-18383

Is "...not strictly meant for cyclists or bikers..." modern
poli
ce-speak
for *footpaths*?

Define footpath taking in to account S72 of the 1835
Highways act
.

Why?

Because there is a difference.

Explain it and explain why the alleged "difference" means that
it is lawful or acceptable for cyclists to abuse footpaths or
footways.

Are cyclists supposed to use them (on bikes, that is) or not?

Treat "footpath" as including "footway"if you like.

It's a straightforward enough question.

Can you answer it?

I'd conclude that you can't, but that's a step too far. It's
more a
case
of "you daren't".

If so, the answer's so obvious, isn't it?
Why don't cyclists and bikers frustrate the rope-slingers
by sim
ply not
riding on footways?

So you believe I can cause permanent injury to the next
motorist
who violates the above cited act?
Or S34 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act?

I shan't ever drive along a footpath so will never be a
target for anyone incensed by cyclists abusing footpaths.

Can you equally guarantee that you won't cycle along one?

That's a straightforward enough question, isn't it?

Can you - dare you - answer it?\

Avoiding the question as usual.

You are not prepared to guarantee that you will never abuse a
footpa
th
or footway by riding a bicycle along one, thereby bringing
nuisance
and
danger to adjacent residents and other pedestrians using the
rout

e
f
or
its proper and intended purpose.

And that was the fully-expected reaction from you.

I'll pay you the compliment of adding that it would have been
an eas
y
and cheap gambit for you to say that you were prepared to give
that guarantee, but it would have been a lie you were not
prepare

d
to tel
l.
That's something.

I, of course, will unhesitatingly guarantee that I shall never
knowi
ngly
drive or ride any sort of vehicle along a designated footway or
foot
path.

Apology accepted.

I haven't apologised to you and have done and said nothing to
apologis
e for.

Back to the real world.
Apology accepted once again.

You may try to understand English your way.

I am not from Liverpool.


I shall continue to use and understand it correctly.

Sez the Unwashed Northerner.


How's the trolling going, Mike?


I'm enjoying it so far


Thought so.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Near Miss of the Day 455: Police act against close pass (police) driver, saying “a warning letter or a fixed penalty or a prosecution has been issued” Mike Collins UK 2 August 19th 20 08:43 PM
Police crackdown results in cyclist warning Alycidon UK 13 February 21st 16 03:52 PM
The Age: Police warning for iPod users daveL Australia 68 February 22nd 06 09:31 AM
[media] TheAge (AU) Police warning for iPod users Alan J. Wylie UK 12 February 17th 06 06:26 PM
Breathalyser buster cyclist brings police warning Terry Collins Australia 27 April 1st 05 01:49 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.