DM at it again...

MaxwellBygraves

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ds-newsxml

As always, the comments are a good laugh.

inkyfingers

I actually agree with the article. A cyclist riding on the pavement deserves to have the book thrown at them, similarly a cyclist who causes an accident or hits a pedestrian because they've gone through a red light or not stopped at a pedestrian crossing deserves to have the book thrown at them.

The only thing we need to watch for is that cyclists should continue to get treated the same as cars, in the sense that if you are cycling on the road and a pedestrian walks out in front of you then the pedestrian must always be considered at fault.

rick_chasey

Pfft, as a little kid I rode on the pavement to school for years - was the only way age 8 I could ride.

When I was even younger mum would ride with me untill I sped up.

There's no problem with riding on the pavement - there's a problem with people riding anti-socially on the pavement.

Then again, anything anti-social's a problem.

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pfft, as a little kid I rode on the pavement to school for years - was the only way age 8 I could ride.

When I was even younger mum would ride with me untill I sped up.

There's no problem with riding on the pavement - there's a problem with people riding anti-socially on the pavement.

Then again, anything anti-social's a problem.

There is a problem with riding on the pavement - it is illegal

Its a bit like saying there is no problem driving at 70mph in a 30 zone - there's only a problem with people driving at 70 mph anti-socially in a 30 zone

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pfft, as a little kid I rode on the pavement to school for years - was the only way age 8 I could ride.

When I was even younger mum would ride with me untill I sped up.

There's no problem with riding on the pavement - there's a problem with people riding anti-socially on the pavement.

Then again, anything anti-social's a problem.

There is a problem with riding on the pavement - it is illegal

Its a bit like saying there is no problem driving at 70mph in a 30 zone - there's only a problem with people driving at 70 mph anti-socially in a 30 zone

Oh boo hoo.

Be practical here - is an 8yr old on his way to school riding on the road a bad thing, with his mother riding behind him? No. If that's against the law, then the law should change.

It's not remotely the same as doing 70 in a 30, since the risks are a totally different magnitude.

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pfft, as a little kid I rode on the pavement to school for years - was the only way age 8 I could ride.

When I was even younger mum would ride with me untill I sped up.

There's no problem with riding on the pavement - there's a problem with people riding anti-socially on the pavement.

Then again, anything anti-social's a problem.

There is a problem with riding on the pavement - it is illegal

Its a bit like saying there is no problem driving at 70mph in a 30 zone - there's only a problem with people driving at 70 mph anti-socially in a 30 zone

Oh boo hoo.

Be practical here - is an 8yr old on his way to school riding on the road a bad thing, with his mother riding behind him? No. If that's against the law, then the law should change.

It's not remotely the same as doing 70 in a 30, since the risks are a totally different magnitude.

Rick, it is illegal- therefore at present to do it is a problem

It is not for you to choose which laws you want to obey

Campaign to get the law changed rather than ignore laws you don't like.

You will be the first to complain when motorists ignore laws they don't like

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pfft, as a little kid I rode on the pavement to school for years - was the only way age 8 I could ride.

When I was even younger mum would ride with me untill I sped up.

There's no problem with riding on the pavement - there's a problem with people riding anti-socially on the pavement.

Then again, anything anti-social's a problem.

There is a problem with riding on the pavement - it is illegal

Its a bit like saying there is no problem driving at 70mph in a 30 zone - there's only a problem with people driving at 70 mph anti-socially in a 30 zone

Oh boo hoo.

Be practical here - is an 8yr old on his way to school riding on the road a bad thing, with his mother riding behind him? No. If that's against the law, then the law should change.

It's not remotely the same as doing 70 in a 30, since the risks are a totally different magnitude.

Rick, it is illegal- therefore at present to do it is a problem

i is not for you to choose which laws you want to obey

Campaign to get the law changed rather than ignore laws you don't like.

you will be the first to complain when motorists ignore laws they don't like

Christ, a discussion is easy with you isn't it?

I'm not discussing the law - I'm discussing the practicalities and dangers (or lack of) of riding on the pavement. If you have an issue with the law side, by all means start a thread on it.

For what it's worth, I've passed many a policeman in my time on the pavement when I was younger and I was never prosecuted - you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who has in a reasonable situation.

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

...
Christ, a discussion is easy with you isn't it?

I'm not discussing the law - I'm discussing the practicalities and dangers (or lack of) of riding on the pavement. If you have an issue with the law side, by all means start a thread on it.

For what it's worth, I've passed many a policeman in my time on the pavement when I was younger and I was never prosecuted - you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who has in a reasonable situation.

Its easy - obey the law.

If you don't like the law- campaign to get it changed


Your last point could be used by motorists to justify speeding etc- ie rare anyone is prosecuted etc


Ignoring laws you don't like leads to anarchy

petemadoc

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pfft, as a little kid I rode on the pavement to school for years - was the only way age 8 I could ride.

When I was even younger mum would ride with me untill I sped up.

There's no problem with riding on the pavement - there's a problem with people riding anti-socially on the pavement.

Then again, anything anti-social's a problem.

There is a problem with riding on the pavement - it is illegal

Its a bit like saying there is no problem driving at 70mph in a 30 zone - there's only a problem with people driving at 70 mph anti-socially in a 30 zone

Would you want your 10 your old child to ride on the road or on the pavement?

A fully grown adult riding at any kind of speed above 5mph on the pavement is stupid and yes it's illegal. But what ever happened to common sense? A little old lady pops to the shops and rides on the pavement for 20 metres as she gets close to the shop to avoid a busy junction, a young lad goes to the corner shop to get some sweets on his BMX. If the government spent more time and effort protecting cyclists and making the roads safer for them there would be no need to ride on the pavement. Unfortunately the roads are full of pricks and to an inexperienced cyclist it can be very scary.

Driving at 70mph in a 30 zone is a ridiculous comparison. Get a grip

petemadoc

spen666 wrote:

Ignoring laws you don't like leads to anarchy

Sometimes I ignore the law

Where's the anarchy?

If a copper ever bothered to prosecute a mother riding behind her child on the way to school, yes on the pavement god forbid, he'd just be a power hungry prick who got bullied at school. Most coppers are sensible, the law is there to stop you from riding your race bike at 25mph on the pavement. but that's almost impossible to define.

rick_chasey

Spen in his spare time:

spen666

PeteMadoc wrote:

....
Driving at 70mph in a 30 zone is a ridiculous comparison. Get a grip

Really?

Lets see

Your example is someone breaking the law they don't like and claiming it affects no one
My example is someone breaking the law they don't like and claiming it affects no one

Seems like it is a ridiculous comparison you are right


The difference is in your example you are the law breaker and ignoring the consequences of your law breaking


In my example you are likely to be the person affected by the law breaking.


Why should you be allowed to choose to ignore laws you do not like and the motorist not?

petemadoc

Rick Chasey wrote:

Spen in his spare time:

I AM THE LAW

petemadoc

spen666 wrote:

Why should you be allowed to choose to ignore laws you do not like and the motorist not?

Because riding my bike with my children on the pavement is not a danger to anyone and I will continue to do so.

petemadoc

Oh and BTW

My kids are 4 and 6 years old, where do you suggest they do ride?

spen666

Ahh so we now resort to personal insults do we

At this point it seems the sensible debate is over

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

aHH SO WE NOW RESORT TO PERSONAL INSULTS DO WE

aT THIS POINT IT SEEMS THE SENSIBLE DEBATE IS OVER

It got pointless when you decided that there is NO DISCUSSION ALLOWED about riding on the pavement because IT'S ILLEGAL.

petemadoc

spen666 wrote:

aHH SO WE NOW RESORT TO PERSONAL INSULTS DO WE

aT THIS POINT IT SEEMS THE SENSIBLE DEBATE IS OVER

Although highly amusing I think the point that Rick was trying to make was that your opinion that you must never ever ride your bike on the pavement because IT'S THE LAW was somewhat ridiculous.

PS. I think you have caps lock on

bigmat

Its that age old debate - should we all slavishly follow the letter of the law without applying common sense? Driving at 70 in a 30 zone is inherently unsafe - for the driver as much as anyone else. Riding a bike on the pavement can be done in a manner that has no impact on anybody else whatsoever. The only similarity between the two things is that they are both illegal. It therefore represents a very good example of why strict application of the law doesn't always result in a sensible and proportionate outcome. Spen, I would have expected you to have known that all too well? Or are you just playing devil's advocate here?

rhext

I taught my kids to ride on the pavement. I should be locked up! :oops:

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

aHH SO WE NOW RESORT TO PERSONAL INSULTS DO WE

aT THIS POINT IT SEEMS THE SENSIBLE DEBATE IS OVER

It got pointless when you decided that there is NO DISCUSSION ALLOWED about riding on the pavement because IT'S ILLEGAL.

I have never said no discussion is allowed. You are now inventing things

You said there was no problem with it - I simply pointed out there is a problem - it is illegal. Now if that is not a problem, then what is?


I have repeatedly said if you think riding on the pavement is appropriate then campaign to change the law.

I have never said riding on the pavement is anything other than currently illegal.


You however, have managed to move the debate onto personal insults and now seemingly inventing things to accuse me of

Cleat Eastwood

spen666 wrote:

Ignoring laws you don't like leads to anarchy

but anarchy is goooood.

Ollieda

When our school started doing cycling proficiency we had a police officer come in and talk to us about road saftey, the constabulary's official line was that as children we should stick to riding on the pavements until we had completed cycling proficiency training and were suitably experienced to riding on the roads.

Prehaps the TVP cheif constable should be locked up for encouraging people to break the law, after all encouraging children to ride on the pavement to school is just as bad as encouraging someone to drive 70mph in a 30mph zone right?

spen666

BigMat wrote:

Its that age old debate - should we all slavishly follow the letter of the law without applying common sense? Driving at 70 in a 30 zone is inherently unsafe - for the driver as much as anyone else. Riding a bike on the pavement can be done in a manner that has no impact on anybody else whatsoever. The only similarity between the two things is that they are both illegal. It therefore represents a very good example of why strict application of the law doesn't always result in a sensible and proportionate outcome. Spen, I would have expected you to have known that all too well? Or are you just playing devil's advocate here?

Matt your examples are great at highlighting double standards.

There are plenty of times when driving at 70 mph can be done with little danger

There are also plenty of times when people ride bikes on the pavement causing danger to themselves or others.


The law is there for a purpose- it provides the rules we expect people to live by

You say you are riding safely on the pavement- Mrs Miggins doesn't agree - who is right?

Mr toad says he is driving safely at 70 mph - you disagree- who is right?


The rule is there so we know what to expect - ie no one riding on pavements, no one speeding

Who and when decisdes that the law doesn't apply.

If Mr Toad can decide when to speed- you can't rely on traffic driving slowly in your street.

Simialrily re riding on pavement- Mrs miggins can't expect to be able to walk on the pavement without the fear of being hit by a cyclist.

By all means change the laws re pavment riding- until then it is illegal and selfish on the part of the cyclist to break the law for his / her convenience- simialrily with breaking other laws

Ollieda

PeteMadoc wrote:

Oh and BTW

My kids are 4 and 6 years old, where do you suggest they do ride?

Let them ride on the pavement......they have a few years to go before they are old enough to be criminally liable

daviesee

spen666 wrote:

Ahh so we now resort to personal insults do we

At this point it seems the sensible debate is over

It's the internet. Sensible debate is as rare as the weather this past weekend

This must be the Monday Heated Debate (copyright Mrs Merton) when everybody is having weekend cycling withdrawal symptoms.

petemadoc

spen666 wrote:

By all means change the laws re pavment riding- until then it is illegal and selfish on the part of the cyclist to break the law for his / her convenience- simialrily with breaking other laws

What do I tell my 4 year old daughter?

Ollieda

Going back to the OP

Interestingly enough according to the article this chap has actually been convicted of breaking a law that is currently being debated and implamented in commons, so he's been convicted of breaking a law that doesn't yet exsist?

I'm thinking he's actually been convicted of wonton and furious cycling that has been around for a long time.

brin

[/quote] There is a problem with riding on the pavement - it is illegal [/quote]

Maybe someone should point this out to the two policemen i saw riding their bikes on the pavement in Sunderland city centre the other week?

morstar

PeteMadoc wrote:

spen666 wrote:

By all means change the laws re pavment riding- until then it is illegal and selfish on the part of the cyclist to break the law for his / her convenience- simialrily with breaking other laws

What do I tell my 4 year old daughter?

To ride on the pavement until she's old enough to enter this debate.

No way my 4 year old is riding on the road. I find it truly unsettling when my 8 year old rides on the road.

bigmat

spen666 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Its that age old debate - should we all slavishly follow the letter of the law without applying common sense? Driving at 70 in a 30 zone is inherently unsafe - for the driver as much as anyone else. Riding a bike on the pavement can be done in a manner that has no impact on anybody else whatsoever. The only similarity between the two things is that they are both illegal. It therefore represents a very good example of why strict application of the law doesn't always result in a sensible and proportionate outcome. Spen, I would have expected you to have known that all too well? Or are you just playing devil's advocate here?

Matt your examples are great at highlighting double standards.

There are plenty of times when driving at 70 mph can be done with little danger

There are also plenty of times when people ride bikes on the pavement causing danger to themselves or others.


The law is there for a purpose- it provides the rules we expect people to live by

You say you are riding safely on the pavement- Mrs Miggins doesn't agree - who is right?

Mr toad says he is driving safely at 70 mph - you disagree- who is right?


The rule is there so we know what to expect - ie no one riding on pavements, no one speeding

Who and when decisdes that the law doesn't apply.

If Mr Toad can decide when to speed- you can't rely on traffic driving slowly in your street.

Simialrily re riding on pavement- Mrs miggins can't expect to be able to walk on the pavement without the fear of being hit by a cyclist.

By all means change the laws re pavment riding- until then it is illegal and selfish on the part of the cyclist to break the law for his / her convenience- simialrily with breaking other laws

I don't think its double standards. Seriously, can you give me an example of where it could possibly be considered safe / not antisocial to drive at 70 in a 30 zone? On the other hand, I can think of lots of situations where cycling on a pavement won't impact upon anyone else and therefore by definition cannot be antisocial. Yes its illegal, no it isn't antisocial or "selfish" as you now suggest. I should add I'm no fan of pavement cycling, but it seems to me that only sometimes does it warrant being criminalised.