Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:26:12 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every
year?
And how many of those motorists are not on the footway because they have lost
control of the vehicle (for whatever reason)?

Are you implying that an out-of-control motorist on the footway poses
less of a danger than a cyclist there on purpose, or that being
out-of-control on a footway is somehow an acceptable if you are a
motorist?

Are you implying that an out-of-control aeroplane in a river is somehow
/unacceptable/. Should pilots be trained, and expected, to keep them in
the air in all circumstances?

--
Matt B

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:18:11 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:55:43 +0000,
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:31:17 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:21:21 +0000,
wrote:

A grandmother suffered broken bones and a bloody face after she was
hit by a cyclist riding on the pavement.

Perhaps she should have worn a helmet. As has been claimed
repeatedly, helmets protect against head and upper facial injury.


Ho,ho, ho - very funny

Perhaps now you know why everyone laughs at your continued diatribe.


Oh - really - I thought I was in everyone's kill-file.

If I'm not feel free to point out any errors I make in my posts


- mind it may become true as more and more
****wit cyclists think it is OK to ride on pavements/run in to
pedestrians.

PS - You never did explain why you published the names and addresses
of the restaurants owned by the Vietnamese guy who hit the cyclist?

Yes I did. Use Google.


Funny I must have missed it at the time - and now perhaps Google have
taken it out of the archive because I still can't find it

You wouldn't happen to have a bit more information such as date of
posting and subject would you?

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:15:59 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:26:12 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every
year?

And how many of those motorists are not on the footway because they have lost
control of the vehicle (for whatever reason)?

Are you implying that an out-of-control motorist on the footway poses
less of a danger than a cyclist there on purpose, or that being
out-of-control on a footway is somehow an acceptable if you are a
motorist?


Perhaps he is suggesting that the only reason the motorist is on the
footway is because they have lost control for whatever reason.

Cyclists on the pathway have chosen to be there.


judith

--

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. (Guy
Chapman)

Martin wrote:

The cyclist concerned is a twunt, but from the comments, he was using a
"shared use facility", not a pavement which many in local government
seem to promote. The government should get its act together and tell
cyclists to use the road, not these stupid facilities that endanger
pedestrians and cyclists.

I think it really a pavement.

Careful googling reveals this, from 11th Sep 2007:

(ref
http://www.bricycles.org.uk/index.ph...nload&gid= 94
)


Brighton & Hove City Cycling Forum
..
..
PB – Marine Parade. The road surface on Marine Parade is very poor and the a cycle track should
be provided on the wide southern pavement.

I infer that there is presently no cycle facility in Marine Parade,
although I admit the evidence is not conclusive.

BugBear

Paul Weaver wrote:
On 22 Jan, 22:55, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:31:17 +0000, Tom Crispin

wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:21:21 +0000,
wrote:
A grandmother suffered broken bones and a bloody face after she was
hit by a cyclist riding on the pavement.
Perhaps she should have worn a helmet. As has been claimed
repeatedly, helmets protect against head and upper facial injury.
Ho,ho, ho - very funny - mind it may become true as more and more
****wit cyclists think it is OK to ride on pavements/run in to
pedestrians.

More and more? Evidence of increaseing proportion of pavement
cyclists?

Well my evidence is my own eyes, there are more & more of them.

I was stuck behind a car today that had issues overtaking another car
that
had driven onto the pavement.

If he was completely on the pavement then there would be no problems
overtaking him


PS - You never did explain why you published the names and addresses
of the restaurants owned by the Vietnamese guy who hit the cyclist?

Did you have a good reason to do so - surely you weren't encouraging
vigilantes?

That would surely drum up business


--
Tony the Dragon

Martin wrote:
Matt B wrote:
N Ron Hubbard wrote:
How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every
year?

How many by cyclists?
RCGB 2007 shows that "Vehicle travelling along pavement" was a
contributory factor in 4 fatal, 63 serious and 331 slight "accidents" in
2007. It doesn't give the split by vehicle type.

RCGB 2007 (table 32) shows 44 pedestrians killed on the footway and 522
seriously hurt. In total 646 pedestrians were killed on the roads in
2007 (table 32), of which 3 were in accidents involving a pedal cycle
(parliamentary written answer).

The cyclist concerned is a twunt, but from the comments, he was using a
"shared use facility", not a pavement which many in local government
seem to promote. The government should get its act together and tell
cyclists to use the road, not these stupid facilities that endanger
pedestrians and cyclists.

Where do you get the idea he was using a shared use facility, & even if
it was, he was not using the diligence that he should have been.

--
Tony the Dragon

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:26:12 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every
year?
And how many of those motorists are not on the footway because they have lost
control of the vehicle (for whatever reason)?

Are you implying that an out-of-control motorist on the footway poses
less of a danger than a cyclist there on purpose, or that being
out-of-control on a footway is somehow an acceptable if you are a
motorist?

As you very well know he meant that most cyclists who are on the
pavement intend to be there & are not there by accident.

--
Tony the Dragon

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:27:27 +0000 someone who may be Tony Dragon
wrote this:-

As you very well know he meant that most cyclists who are on the
pavement intend to be there & are not there by accident.

The same is true of most motorists who are on the pavement.

Next.


--
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

David Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:27:27 +0000 someone who may be Tony Dragon
wrote this:-

As you very well know he meant that most cyclists who are on the
pavement intend to be there & are not there by accident.

The same is true of most motorists who are on the pavement.

Next.



But there are more cyclists on the pavements that motorists.

(By the way good clipping of the post)

--
Tony the Dragon

Tony Dragon wrote:

But there are more cyclists on the pavements that motorists.

(By the way good clipping of the post)

Walking to work this morning I encountered several vehicles parked on
the pavement (they must have got their somehow...) and no cyclists on
the pavement.

It depends where you are, in other words.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/