Cyclists V motorists Vpedestrians part 638

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.

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.

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