Motorist drives along pavement

"Pyromancer" wrote in message
ups.com...

Tragic, but hardly a case of a motorist deliberately driving on the
pavement. If anything, this incident should lead to calls for an end
for the obsession with leaving decomposing flowers and soggy teddybears
at the site of every accident.

There are a *lot* of these blackspots in the Thames Valley, particularly in
the areas where suburbs and semi-rural areas meet.

Although the cops sometimes remove the flowers, I have found that the soggy
remains eventually get blown across the road actually create a further road
hazard - I have nearly skidded on them at least once and I try *not* to ride
in the gutter, and would not want to trash someones memorial either by
deliberately riding over it..

ISTR cops also mentioning that there was another risk of rubberneckers
and/or do-gooders in cars stopping in appropriate places to add further
flowers to the memorial!

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

davek wrote:
Pyromancer wrote:
All the funds that are squandered on rotting roadside "memorials"
should instead be collected and given to the surviving relatives to
help cover the (often quite steep) funeral expenses.

There's just such a shrine directly across the road from me

There was a MASSIVE one in Margate for months. Why some people feel it's
appropriate to commemorate the place where someone copped it is totally
beyond me. It's far better to remember lost loved-ones in happier moments,
or peacefully at rest, than in agony dying by some grimy roadside; that's
some people for you.

Odd that no-one feels it appropriate to leave commemorative flowers at the
scene of industrial accidents, or in hospital wards. Perhaps because these
aren't public spaces, there's no appreciative audience for their grief. It's
rampant Diana Syndrome; attention-seeking and morose.

Mr R@t (2.30 zulu-india) wrote:

Although the cops sometimes remove the flowers, I have found that the soggy
remains eventually get blown across the road actually create a further road
hazard - I have nearly skidded on them at least once and I try *not* to ride
in the gutter, and would not want to trash someones memorial either by
deliberately riding over it..

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

...d

Children standing outside school gates, ban them now.

"David Martin" wrote in message
oups.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!

Nor do schoolkids normally lie in the road when I am cycling, unless they
have *really* been at the after school binge-drinking or have taken to
snorting ketamine.. even if dressed in dark clothing you can spot them by
the white bits on the draw cords of their hoodies [1]

I've never been particularly fond of chopping plants to pieces to get
flowers anyway. I'm not particulary green fingered but would rather buy
someone a present of a whole plant in a pot rather than chopped flowers.

I can understand some of the mentality behind this as I've lost a number of
friends due to RTCs/overdoses/violence etc over the years, but if these
people want to create tributes to deceased friends/relatives would it not be
far better to put a big *living* plant of some sort in a safer place?

Alex

[1] not to be mistaken for badgers.
--
Mr R@T / General Lighting
Ipswich, Suffolk, Untied Kingdom
http://www.partyvibe.com

Simon Bennett wrote:
davek wrote:
Pyromancer wrote:
All the funds that are squandered on rotting roadside "memorials"
should instead be collected and given to the surviving relatives to
help cover the (often quite steep) funeral expenses.

There's just such a shrine directly across the road from me

There was a MASSIVE one in Margate for months. Why some people feel it's
appropriate to commemorate the place where someone copped it is totally
beyond me. It's far better to remember lost loved-ones in happier moments,
or peacefully at rest, than in agony dying by some grimy roadside; that's
some people for you.

I tend to agree with all the anti sentiments but I do wonder if they
serve as a bit of a warning to others - I suspect not, or not
much, but perhaps they do.

Odd that no-one feels it appropriate to leave commemorative flowers at the
scene of industrial accidents, or in hospital wards. Perhaps because these
aren't public spaces, there's no appreciative audience for their grief. It's
rampant Diana Syndrome; attention-seeking and morose.

Quite.


--
Nobby Anderson

David Hansen wrote:
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.

Are you implying that cyclists only do it accidentally, or that the
motorist was doing it deliberately?

I would venture to suggest that, in fact, most times a motorist does it
dangerously (as in this case) it is accidental, whereas most times
cyclists do it dangerously, which is all day everyday in some places, it
is deliberate.

--
Matt B

Cyclists have been known to ride on the pavement and this occasionally
brings them into conflict with pedestrians. This conflict has been
known to cause injury and even, in very rare cases, death. Pavement
cycling is therefore another of the motorist's list of cyclist
infractions, used to self-justify a lack of care towards cyclists on
the road.

So let's have a look at pavement cycling and the real danger it poses,
starting by quantifying how dangerous bikes are to pedestrians.

Per mile travelled a car driver is five times as likely to injure or
kill a pedestrian as a cyclist (RAGB). And over half of all car mileage
is on major roads which have negligible levels of pedestrian traffic,
so the real level of danger per unit exposure is probably more like ten
times that of cycling. Now factor in the fact that annual UK bike
mileage is about 1% of the mileage for cars (Transtat - caution,
sampling errors).

Putting it in perspective, then, cyclists pose some danger to
pedestrians, but it is at least two and probably nearer three orders of
magnitude lower than that posed by cars. In statistical terms, allowing
for sampling errors and the confidence levels of the figures, cyclist
danger to pedestrians is negligible.

OK, that's clearly unacceptable - we know it's dangerous because Common
Sense tells us so. So let's look at the specific issue of cyclists on
pavements. Here, surely, the figures show that there is dangerous and
irresponsible behaviour going on. Beware the Cyclist Menace.

Er, not quite. During the 3-year period 1998-2000 out of a total of
2,630 pedestrians killed on the roads, 185 were killed by vehicles on
footways. Of these 185, one was killed by a bicycle and the remaining
184 were killed by motor vehicles. So you are nearly 200 times more
likely to be killed on the pavement by a motor vehicle as by a bicycle.
You are nearly 3,000 times more likely to die as a result of some other
road traffic incident, such as a driver failing to yield right of way
on a crossing. There are, in short, much bigger things to worry about.

But surely Common Sense can't be wrong? Surely pavement cycling is a
menace?

Granted, it certainly has some nuisance value, and it does cause a
degree of alarm particularly in older pedestrians who tend not to hear
the bikes coming. But then, you have to ask yourself why the cyclists
are on the pavement in the first place. What is it about the road which
persuades cyclists to ride on the pavement, despite the attendant
inconveniences of having to yield at every side turning, coming into
conflict with pedestrians and street furniture and so on? What could be
scaring these cyclists off the roads?

It couldn't possibly be the way cars are driven, could it?

Note: cycling on the footway is illegal unless the footway has been
specifically designated for shared use. So is driving on the footway
for that matter, and that includes the bit of driving necessary to get
your wheels on the kerb by 2" in order to pretend you're not
obstructing the road.

Cycling on the footway is also more dangerous than cycling on the road,
and causes distress to pedestrians. So don't do it.


http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web-...vement_Cycling

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:39:08 -0000 someone who may be "elyob"
wrote this:-

They have not excused anyone.

Incorrect. The appropriate sentence is, "police are investigating
and say it appears to have been a tragic accident."


--
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

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:38:21 +0000 someone who may be Matt B
wrote this:-

Are you implying that cyclists only do it accidentally,

No. They sometimes do it accidentally and sometimes do it
deliberately. However, I have yet to hear of a cyclist injuring six
pedestrians in one go.

or that the
motorist was doing it deliberately?

That remains to be seen.



--
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