Cyclist riding on a promenade gets her come-uppance

On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 12:36, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 12:28, TMS320 wrote:

On 03/07/2019 15:58, Modesty wrote:
MrCheerful wrote:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/02/cycli...rank-10104973/

What 'come-uppance' did this 63 year old lady deserve? Promenades
often have cycle lanes.

This one actually has a restriction. But it's up to the authorities
to enforce it, not up to vigilantes to attempt murder.

That is a euphemistic way of saying that whilst cycling is indeed not
allowed on that pedestrian way but cyclists disobey that rule (how
unusual!), they have a right to get away with it.

When drivers routinely get away with speeding and bad parking...

What's the connection?

It is ABSOLUTELY clear that the cycling ban in the place in question is
there to protect pedestrians (all of us).

It's quite different when a driver (however wrongly and illegally)
passes a keep left bollard on the wrong side. In such a case it's
apparently perfectly permissible for a vigilante on a bike to obstruct
the road (an offence in itself) in order to "enforce" the rules.

What a completely stupid comparison. Stringing a rope across a path is
like dropping bricks onto a motorway.

They are both vigilantism.

If the vigilante blocks a cyclist with their own body, then you have a
reasonable equivalent.

They are both illegal and I don't support either of them.

Going back to my earlier remarks, though, the cyclist's injuries, as
terrible and frightful as they were, would have been totally avoided had
she not been cycling along a pedestrian path with a "No Cycling" rule,
wouldn't they? It seems reasonable to assume that it was cyclists the
person(s) setting the trap had in mind.

I have seen this sort of "trap" with my own eyes, by the way, including
a steel wire stretched across a suburban road (not a pedestrian path - a
road) just after dusk. A friend drove his vehicle into that
all-but-invisible ligature, causing severe and expensive damage, albeit
of a cosmetic type.

I thoroughly condemn this sort of irresponsible vigilantism - all of it
- and hope you do too.

On 04/07/2019 14:32, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 12:36, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 12:28, TMS320 wrote:

On 03/07/2019 15:58, Modesty wrote:
MrCheerful wrote:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/02/cycli...rank-10104973/

What 'come-uppance' did this 63 year old lady deserve? Promenades
often have cycle lanes.

This one actually has a restriction. But it's up to the authorities
to enforce it, not up to vigilantes to attempt murder.

That is a euphemistic way of saying that whilst cycling is indeed not
allowed on that pedestrian way but cyclists disobey that rule (how
unusual!), they have a right to get away with it.

When drivers routinely get away with speeding and bad parking...

What's the connection?

Every connection imaginable.

It is ABSOLUTELY clear that the cycling ban in the place in question is
there to protect pedestrians (all of us).

It is never absolutely clear that getting off to walk a bike is better
for pedestrians.

It's quite different when a driver (however wrongly and illegally)
passes a keep left bollard on the wrong side. In such a case it's
apparently perfectly permissible for a vigilante on a bike to
obstruct the road (an offence in itself) in order to "enforce" the
rules.

What a completely stupid comparison. Stringing a rope across a path is
like dropping bricks onto a motorway.

They are both vigilantism.

People putting their bodies in front of cyclists (often where cycling is
legal), is a familiar experience to most.

Not always unintentional (we have a poster here that admits as much).

If the vigilante blocks a cyclist with their own body, then you have a
reasonable equivalent.

They are both illegal and I don't support either of them.

Going back to my earlier remarks, though,Â* the cyclist's injuries, as
terrible and frightful as they were, would have been totally avoided had
she not been cycling along a pedestrian path with a "No Cycling" rule,
wouldn't they? It seems reasonable to assume that it was cyclists the
person(s) setting the trap had in mind.

You're justifying the perpetrator's action.

I have seen this sort of "trap" with my own eyes, by the way, including
a steel wire stretched across a suburban road (not a pedestrian path - a
road) just after dusk. A friend drove his vehicle into that
all-but-invisible ligature, causing severe and expensive damage, albeit
of a cosmetic type.

Then the cyclist following behind was extremely lucky.

I thoroughly condemn this sort of irresponsible vigilantism - all of it
- and hope you do too.

What you said above does not tell us this.

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 12:31:26 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:


It does seem pretty conclusive:

https://www.visit-dorset.com/imageresizer/?image=%2fdmsimgs%2ffriars-cliff-beach-non-copyright_221732048.jpg&action=ProductDetail&crop= 4D037E16A6C32DD04191FF6E4EB1

Indeed it does. It conclusively proves cycling is not prohibited.

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 9:10:43 AM UTC+1, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jul 2019 00:04:25 GMT, Simon Jester
wrote:

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 12:39:23 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 03/07/2019 17:35, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 5:12:11 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

I remember that the promenade from Seacombe to New Brighton (old
Borough of Wallasey, Cheshire, as was) was off limits to all
vehicles, including bicycles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-uhhBM67-I

???

Surely it is self evident. It shows the promenade you are talking
about with it's clearly marked No MOTOR vehicle signs and clearly
marked cycleway with bonus 'law abiding' motorists ignoring both.


Musta been an emergency delivery of tea.

Your(?) bike sounds a bit rattley.

It was filmed on an Oregon Scientific ATC2000. Great device for it's time but terrible by today's standards.
Currently using Contour Roam 2 using the ATC handlebar mount. Most cycle cams these days assume helmet mounting.

On 04/07/2019 20:36, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 12:31:26 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:


It does seem pretty conclusive:

https://www.visit-dorset.com/imageresizer/?image=%2fdmsimgs%2ffriars-cliff-beach-non-copyright_221732048.jpg&action=ProductDetail&crop= 4D037E16A6C32DD04191FF6E4EB1

Indeed it does. It conclusively proves cycling is not prohibited.

Another view
https://goo.gl/maps/zs2G6RprrnMdcbiG7

You're right. There are no round signs with red borders. It's a request,
not a prohibition.

On 04/07/2019 20:36, Simon Jester wrote:
On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 12:31:26 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:


It does seem pretty conclusive:

https://www.visit-dorset.com/imageresizer/?image=%2fdmsimgs%2ffriars-cliff-beach-non-copyright_221732048.jpg&action=ProductDetail&crop= 4D037E16A6C32DD04191FF6E4EB1

Indeed it does. It conclusively proves cycling is not prohibited.

I see. You are illiterate.

Your mummy does the typing for you, obviously.

On 04/07/2019 17:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:32, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 12:36, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 12:28, TMS320 wrote:

On 03/07/2019 15:58, Modesty wrote:
MrCheerful wrote:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/02/cycli...rank-10104973/

What 'come-uppance' did this 63 year old lady deserve? Promenades
often have cycle lanes.

This one actually has a restriction. But it's up to the authorities
to enforce it, not up to vigilantes to attempt murder.

That is a euphemistic way of saying that whilst cycling is indeed
not allowed on that pedestrian way but cyclists disobey that rule
(how unusual!), they have a right to get away with it.

When drivers routinely get away with speeding and bad parking...

What's the connection?

Every connection imaginable.

It is ABSOLUTELY clear that the cycling ban in the place in question
is there to protect pedestrians (all of us).

It is never absolutely clear that getting off to walk a bike is better
for pedestrians.

So you (think you) know better than the owners / operators of the land
in question.

It's quite different when a driver (however wrongly and illegally)
passes a keep left bollard on the wrong side. In such a case it's
apparently perfectly permissible for a vigilante on a bike to
obstruct the road (an offence in itself) in order to "enforce" the
rules.

What a completely stupid comparison. Stringing a rope across a path
is like dropping bricks onto a motorway.

They are both vigilantism.

People putting their bodies in front of cyclists (often where cycling is
legal), is a familiar experience to most.

So what?

Do two wrongs, widely separated by time, distance and the parties
involved, make a right?

Not always unintentional (we have a poster here that admits as much).

If the vigilante blocks a cyclist with their own body, then you have
a reasonable equivalent.

They are both illegal and I don't support either of them.

Going back to my earlier remarks, though,Â* the cyclist's injuries, as
terrible and frightful as they were, would have been totally avoided
had she not been cycling along a pedestrian path with a "No Cycling"
rule, wouldn't they? It seems reasonable to assume that it was
cyclists the person(s) setting the trap had in mind.

You're justifying the perpetrator's action.

Not at all, as you have seen below.

I have seen this sort of "trap" with my own eyes, by the way,
including a steel wire stretched across a suburban road (not a
pedestrian path - a road) just after dusk. A friend drove his vehicle
into that all-but-invisible ligature, causing severe and expensive
damage, albeit of a cosmetic type.

Then the cyclist following behind was extremely lucky.

I thoroughly condemn this sort of irresponsible vigilantism - all of
it - and hope you do too.

What you said above does not tell us this.

I have just told you it in plain English.

The cyclist was still partly the author of her own misfortune. Had she
obeyed the signage, it wouldn't have happened. I don't see how you can
deny that. Not if you want to make sense anyway (I readily accept that
you don't always even want to make sense).

On 04/07/2019 23:31, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 17:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:32, JNugent wrote:

It is ABSOLUTELY clear that the cycling ban in the place in question
is there to protect pedestrians (all of us).

It is never absolutely clear that getting off to walk a bike is better
for pedestrians.

So you (think you) know better than the owners / operators of the land
in question.

The owners / operators of the land don't know anything. They're just
applying a widely held belief.



The cyclist was still partly the author of her own misfortune. Had she
obeyed the signage, it wouldn't have happened. I don't see how you can
deny that. Not if you want to make sense anyway (I readily accept that
you don't always even want to make sense).

You're still justifying the perpetrator's action.

On 05/07/2019 00:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 23:31, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2019 17:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/07/2019 14:32, JNugent wrote:

It is ABSOLUTELY clear that the cycling ban in the place in question
is there to protect pedestrians (all of us).

It is never absolutely clear that getting off to walk a bike is
better for pedestrians.

So you (think you) know better than the owners / operators of the land
in question.

The owners / operators of the land don't know anything. They're just
applying a widely held belief.

So they're wrong to specify what may and may not be done by people using
their property and cyclists who disagree and ride roughshod over every
rule are always right?

I see.

The cyclist was still partly the author of her own misfortune. Had she
obeyed the signage, it wouldn't have happened. I don't see how you can
deny that. Not if you want to make sense anyway (I readily accept that
you don't always even want to make sense).

You're still justifying the perpetrator's action.

I am criticising the cyclist because her behaviour was not blameless. If
there were a civil case against the culprits with the rope (assuming
they could be traced*), a considered judgment would be that she was x%
responsible, where x is a figure greater than 0 and smaller than 50.

And in any event, since your own mantra is always that two wrongs make a
right, you might want to reconsider that.

[* I suspect there's about as much chance of that as there is of tracing
a cyclist who rides on the footway, disobeys traffic lights or goes the
wrong way in a one-way street.]