London SE1 community website

Cyclists V motorists Vpedestrians part 638

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 6 of 16
Monday 18 August 2014 7.52pm
Sandgrown Dave wrote:
Hang on a minute Edward, going back to Boroughonian's anecdote:
In this example, pedestrians jumping out of the way - or better still, using some common sense in the first place about correct use of a pelican crossing - would indeed have been a good "solution".

Erm, I wasn't referring to that anecdote in the reply you're quoting, I replied to that anecdote in a previous post. Also, I don't think your arguments against licences for cyclists do not hold water: we obviously have a problem with increasing aggression between road users, so it's definitely not disproportionate. All parties have valid points and in the absence of other constructive solutions (guns and tazers), surely, responsible cyclists wouldn't have a problem with a test/licence, as they'd ace it and they respect other road users already anyway. Air quality is concern of mine as well, but I think you underestimate the impact irresponsible cycling has on people.
Tuesday 19 August 2014 8.52am
Jules62 wrote:
After all the greatest danger to pedestrians are other pedestrians in acts of street crime.

I am having a bit of a Crocodile Dundee moment here, but if a mugger robs someone with a penknife, which is likely to cause pain but may not be lethal, do you think that mugger should be punished less severely than someone who carries a "proper" knife? Even if that penknife was used to injure the victim?
Tuesday 19 August 2014 9.08am
Brendan D wrote:
Well, Yesterday my wife and I took the train to Bookham and cycled a 35mile loop around the surrey hills. What really struck me was (apart from one close pass by a rental van on the way up to Ranmore) the courtesy, patience and consideration of the drivers in Surrey.
Maybe they are used to lots of cyclists... However it was a refreshing day to be without the aggression and pressure from London traffic. To be fair, all the riders I saw were also obeying all the traffic signals, signalling cars to pass and not unnecessarily blocking the road. so give and take all round :).

There's generally less agression and impatience on the roads once you get out of city/town centres - this is something I've noticed having cycled across the country. Surrey in particular is a very popular cycling area with Box Hill etc and with the Olympic and Ride London routes passing through it has massively increased the profile of cycling in that area, leading to more understanding and empathy with cyclists.

Country lanes, with a general lack of traffic lights and speed limits in excess of the speed at which a cyclist could travel obviously make it harder for a cyclist to break any rules of the road, short of cycling on the wrong side of the road or ignoring the occasional give-way sign. I suppose for that reason, drivers in the country have very little to moan about other than cyclists sometimes slowing them down a little.
Tuesday 19 August 2014 1.23pm
eDWaRD WooDWaRD wrote:
Jules62 wrote:
After all the greatest danger to pedestrians are other pedestrians in acts of street crime.

I am having a bit of a Crocodile Dundee moment here, but if a mugger robs someone with a penknife, which is likely to cause pain but may not be lethal, do you think that mugger should be punished less severely than someone who carries a "proper" knife? Even if that penknife was used to injure the victim?

According to the law in England and Wales, a person may carry a folding knife that is no longer than 3" and does not have a blade that locks in the open position.

However it may still be lethal if used as a weapon, particularly if used to stab a person in the throat.

If someone carries out a mugging or any act of violence with a 'street legal' penknife they will incur the same penalty as if they had used a sword.

The difference between a penknife and a sword, is that the former is legal to carry in public (provided it is not being used in a threatening manner) the latter is not.
Tuesday 19 August 2014 8.55pm
Good analogy, Jules.
Wonder why the penknife-riders are so reluctant to contemplate the possibility that their useful tools are also possibly dangerous when used irresponsibly...

...if you press it, they will come.
Tuesday 19 August 2014 9.50pm
Ivanhoe wrote:
Good analogy, Jules.
Wonder why the penknife-riders are so reluctant to contemplate the possibility that their useful tools are also possibly dangerous when used irresponsibly...

I don't wonder about that: I'm pretty sure every person who carries a penknife knows that they can be dangerous when misused.

Same applies to bus drivers and their buses: I'm pretty sure there isn't a qualified bus driver who is unaware of the potentially lethal consequences that could follow if they mount the pavement with their bus...
Thursday 21 August 2014 9.13am
Here is another example, though not a London one admittedly.

http://road.cc/content/news/127128-driver-looking-photos-phone-hits-cyclist--then-snaps-fatally-injured-victim

[redacted]

If the people on here want to know why cyclists are so radicalised, look through the back stories and see dozens of examples of:
motorists deliberately nearly killing and injuring cyclists/ the Police uninterested/ motorists being at fault and getting off in Court/ or motorists getting convicted, then getting a 6 month suspended sentence..

Until Health and Safety standards are applied to Police prosecutions, and H&S prosecutions of companies with vehicles that kill take place (fines almost unlimited) things won't change.

Drivers and cyclists of all abilities do not mix. Segregated facilities are needed if my granny/kid is ever to cycle to the shops.
Thursday 21 August 2014 9.38am
Johnnytee wrote:
motorists deliberately nearly killing and injuring cyclists
**redacted***

Where are there "attempted murders" reported? The article that you link to is a case that is "sub judice" - under trial - and the defendant has pleaded not guilty.

The first sentence of your third paragraph isn't fair. Not only are your comments partisan, but
factually incorrect and I'm not sure they should be allowed in the public domain unless and until this chap is convicted.

You make reference to H&S standards, but it's a two-way street and just as there are "rights", there are "responsibilities".

A less than proficient cyclist should not be on the highway until at a suitable standard. They might choose to cycle in the park or somewhere separate until such time.
Thursday 21 August 2014 10.24am
Johnnytee - I've made a small alteration to your post above.

Please do not pass comment on active court cases. There is a good reason that comments are not permitted on the road.cc site below that story.

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Thursday 21 August 2014 1.11pm
James Hatts wrote:
Johnnytee - I've made a small alteration to your post above.
Please do not pass comment on active court cases. There is a good reason that comments are not permitted on the road.cc site below that story.

Fair enough
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 6 of 16

To post a message, please log in or register..
February at a glance
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions