Threatened for telling someone to ride on the road

slowbike

CitizenLee wrote:

I do however get your point, but there are bigger problems we need to address as a society than people cycling on the pavement...

So we'll just ignore everything else that's going wrong until we get the "bigger problems" fixed then shall we?

Tell us - if you see your kid(s) out in the street and they're being beaten up by some older kids - do you call the police and wait for them to arrive? Or do you wade in and protect your child(ren)?

pblakeney

CitizenLee wrote:

That was just one of many stories of have a go heroes coming a cropper.

I do however get your point, but there are bigger problems we need to address as a society than people cycling on the pavement... like rich tax dodgers, government sponsored genocide, the demonization of the poor/working class, ATOS, selling of the HNS etc.

All of which can be solved if enough people exert enough pressure on those who can change them.
Or, the people in charge actually doing something of their own violation.

But society is being eroded by the unacceptable, however minor, becoming acceptable.

CitizenLee

I'm just saying shouting at cyclists isn't going to right societies wrongs or be of any benefit to anyone.

pblakeney

Neither will shouting at drivers who left hook.

Ouija

Slowbike wrote:

Never thought it would ... but if I thought someone was causing a danger to my nieces or nephews by riding where they shouldn't then I'd probably say something. I'd define busybodies as those who would say something despite the fact that the person their admonishing is not interfering with anyone else.

I'm actually reminded of a story told locally where some kids used to hang out in a garage compound in the dark and frighten/threaten any elderly residents that came in. Police weren't interested so some of the blokes got together and hid in the compound with a few "tools" ... the kids had a bit of a shock when they came in and decided that perhaps they wouldn't frighten the old folk again.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Back in the 70's i used to ride down a snicket/path between two houses to get from the back of the village to the front (the purpose for which the path was made). When the owners of the new houses either side of the snicket started raising a family they decided they didn't like kids riding down the snicket in case they hit one of their precious offspring (understandably).

But rather than putting up signs, keeping their toddles inside their respective gardens or contacting the authorities about the problem they decided to band together and form their own little vigilante group and do something about it themselves. So they strung up some invisible fishing wire between their two houses at chest height to try and dissuade kids from riding down the snicket......

Being the smallest of my group of friends at that time i rode quite innocently down the alley wondering why the two nice middle class gentlemen in the gardens next to each other were grinning at each other (my older brother and his friend twigged something was wrong but i was too young to understand). Being small, the wire cleanly garroted my throat and left me in hospital for three months with a tube down my throat being fed intravenously....

In hindsight i imagine they regretted their decision, but at the time it probably seemed like the most sensible and community spirited thing to do. The incident has probably had a affect on my "don't tell other people how to behave" attitude to life. No matter how well intentioned.

Would i walk past someone being raped, beaten up, murdered? No, probably not. But that's not vocally 'educating' someone on how you think they should behave, is it? (unless you stand there with your hands in your pockets expressing your opinion on their behaviour while doing nothing).

On a side note. On revisiting my old village after many decades away i've noticed the authorities have placed spring loaded gates at either end of the snicket to prevent kids riding down it without dismounting. Not sure how long they've been there but i imagine if the community spirited 'vigilante' families in question had contacted the authorities with their concerns first this solution would of been in place before any 'mishaps' could of happened.

Walls82

love a good quote:

Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph

Ok so your not going to stop the next nazi party by telling someone not to ride on the pavement but in certain situations(and not knowing very detailed specifics of this one) its called for. I think fair play for speaking out if someone is acting selfishly and putting others in danger - though maybe take some self defence(or running) lessons if your going to tell off chavs on bikes!

Walls82

love a good quote:

Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph

Ok so your not going to stop the next nazi party by telling someone not to ride on the pavement but in certain situations(and not knowing very detailed specifics of this one) its called for. I think fair play for speaking out if someone is acting selfishly and putting others in danger - though maybe take some self defence(or running) lessons if your going to tell off chavs on bikes!

Wheelspinner

No, no reason to bother trying to get idiots on their bikes off the footpath is there? After all, what harm can they do?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-19/sydney-cyclist-daniel-wood-to-serve-more-jail-over-womans-death/5755760

bompington

Ouija wrote:

<long story>

If true, this is neither a busy-body nor public spirited intervention, but attempted murder. I don't think anyone is actually arguing for that.

meanredspider

If I make a comment or intervene, I do so in the full knowledge that I might get some comeback. If I'm in a situation that I'm not prepared to deal with that then I leave it alone.

slowbike

Ouija wrote:

But rather than putting up signs, keeping their toddles inside their respective gardens or contacting the authorities about the problem they decided to band together and form their own little vigilante group and do something about it themselves. So they strung up some invisible fishing wire between their two houses at chest height to try and dissuade kids from riding down the snicket......

Yer - well that's not being community minded - that's criminal behaviour.

Actually I don't mind kids riding on the pavement - providing it's not dangerous of course.

timothyw

Wheelspinner wrote:

No, no reason to bother trying to get idiots on their bikes off the footpath is there? After all, what harm can they do?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-19/sydney-cyclist-daniel-wood-to-serve-more-jail-over-womans-death/5755760

Er, if you actually read the article, it appears that the murderer had gotten off his bike in order to push an old lady to her death for 'getting in his way', the bike seems fairly incidental - he could have been driving, walking, whatever.

It's not even clear that he was cycling illegally at the time (although I suppose it's a fair argument that the incident might have started in the same way as it did for the OP).

If anything you've made an argument that people shouldn't challenge pavement cyclists in case they do then proceed to assault you, which I don't think was your intention.

Really, the danger isn't from pavement cycling so much as dangerous cyclists, same as on the road or anywhere else - I can't see the harm in a cyclist pootling along at 10mph on a quiet pavement, whereas hammering around a blind corner at 20mph is clearly a different story.

You only have to consider the way that councils magically accommodate cyclists with a bit of paint and a sign marking what was once a pavement 'Shared Usage'. Is hammering along a shared usage path at 20mph, cutting up the other users actually any more reasonable than pootling along the pavement just because it is legal?

I remember when I was a little boy once getting told off by some busybody because I'd used the ladies toilet (I'd been taken in by my big sister) - which reminds me of a similar incident on a club run when one of our members was berated by a member of public after accidentally using the ladies (the door was open, he couldn't see the sign on the door, just the toilet ahead of him...) who simply wouldn't accept his apology. I don't know if they really thought we obtained some kind of perverse satisfaction from using the 'wrong' toilet, or if it was simply about their own satisfaction in pointing out that someone else was in the wrong.

It's an interesting subject, and I've actually read a book about it... 'The Authoritarians' by Bob Altermeyer - it's free: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Initialised

Veronese68 wrote:

CitizenLee wrote:

My mate got charged with assault for stopping a guy beating up his girlfriend, and he didn't even throw a punch... the couple just both turned on him and then shopped him to the cops when they turned up.

That is ridiculous, but I'd still intervene. Look at it the other way, you see a bloke beating on a girl and ignore it. The next day you read in the news that a girl was attacked and raped. But you did nothing when you could have stopped it.

Look at it the other way, you see a girl beating on a bloke would you intervene?

Wheelspinner

TimothyW wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

No, no reason to bother trying to get idiots on their bikes off the footpath is there? After all, what harm can they do?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-19/sydney-cyclist-daniel-wood-to-serve-more-jail-over-womans-death/5755760

Er, if you actually read the article, it appears that the murderer had gotten off his bike in order to push an old lady to her death for 'getting in his way', the bike seems fairly incidental - he could have been driving, walking, whatever.

It's not even clear that he was cycling illegally at the time (although I suppose it's a fair argument that the incident might have started in the same way as it did for the OP).

If anything you've made an argument that people shouldn't challenge pavement cyclists in case they do then proceed to assault you, which I don't think was your intention.

Really, the danger isn't from pavement cycling so much as dangerous cyclists, same as on the road or anywhere else - I can't see the harm in a cyclist pootling along at 10mph on a quiet pavement, whereas hammering around a blind corner at 20mph is clearly a different story.

You only have to consider the way that councils magically accommodate cyclists with a bit of paint and a sign marking what was once a pavement 'Shared Usage'. Is hammering along a shared usage path at 20mph, cutting up the other users actually any more reasonable than pootling along the pavement just because it is legal?

I remember when I was a little boy once getting told off by some busybody because I'd used the ladies toilet (I'd been taken in by my big sister) - which reminds me of a similar incident on a club run when one of our members was berated by a member of public after accidentally using the ladies (the door was open, he couldn't see the sign on the door, just the toilet ahead of him...) who simply wouldn't accept his apology. I don't know if they really thought we obtained some kind of perverse satisfaction from using the 'wrong' toilet, or if it was simply about their own satisfaction in pointing out that someone else was in the wrong.

It's an interesting subject, and I've actually read a book about it... 'The Authoritarians' by Bob Altermeyer - it's free: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

I remember the story quite well, after all, it happened a few suburbs away from me. Perhaps I should have linked to the other article, which is referenced on that page too as " related story" where it says quite clearly "rode past her on the footpath". Not a shared pathway, and he's over 14, so riding illegally was never in question - he was.

And sorry but I disagree there's "no harm in a cyclist pootling along on a quiet pavement". That's no different to saying "there's no harm in RLJ'ing as long as nobody is looking". You may get away with it, but doesn't make it right. The rules are there so everyone knows what to expect, not just to be followed if they suit your personal convenience or not. You may think its a quiet pavement with no risk, until someone steps out through the gap in the hedge you didn't see and gets bowled over by you on a bike where you aren't supposed to be.

timothyw

Wheelspinner wrote:

I remember the story quite well, after all, it happened a few suburbs away from me. Perhaps I should have linked to the other article, which is referenced on that page too as " related story" where it says quite clearly "rode past her on the footpath". Not a shared pathway, and he's over 14, so riding illegally was never in question - he was.

So he was riding illegally. It therefore serves as a cautionary tale for anyone who might wish to confront a pavement rider, although it's fair to observe that he might as well have been skateboarding, or rollerblading or jogging and the incident might still have happened.

And sorry but I disagree there's "no harm in a cyclist pootling along on a quiet pavement". That's no different to saying "there's no harm in RLJ'ing as long as nobody is looking". You may get away with it, but doesn't make it right. The rules are there so everyone knows what to expect, not just to be followed if they suit your personal convenience or not. You may think its a quiet pavement with no risk, until someone steps out through the gap in the hedge you didn't see and gets bowled over by you on a bike where you aren't supposed to be.

I don't disagree with you exactly, I certainly do follow the rules myself - I never ride on the pavement or RLJ - but I see people cycling on the pavement most days at one time or another and this is the only time I've ever heard of it leading to a death (and once again I'd argue indirectly - the old lady was not hit by him while he was riding his bike). A lot of the time and in many locations it is safe, as evidenced by the number of times that local government redesignate footpaths as shared usage.

If you feel you must confront pavement cyclists then be my guest, but I can't see it ending well. You have to remember, the reason that they are on the pavement is not because it is quicker and easier but because they are afraid of getting maimed or killed on the roads. They will not thank you for encouraging them onto the roads.

Initialised

TimothyW wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

I remember the story quite well, after all, it happened a few suburbs away from me. Perhaps I should have linked to the other article, which is referenced on that page too as " related story" where it says quite clearly "rode past her on the footpath". Not a shared pathway, and he's over 14, so riding illegally was never in question - he was.

So he was riding illegally. It therefore serves as a cautionary tale for anyone who might wish to confront a pavement rider, although it's fair to observe that he might as well have been skateboarding, or rollerblading or jogging and the incident might still have happened.

And sorry but I disagree there's "no harm in a cyclist pootling along on a quiet pavement". That's no different to saying "there's no harm in RLJ'ing as long as nobody is looking". You may get away with it, but doesn't make it right. The rules are there so everyone knows what to expect, not just to be followed if they suit your personal convenience or not. You may think its a quiet pavement with no risk, until someone steps out through the gap in the hedge you didn't see and gets bowled over by you on a bike where you aren't supposed to be.

I don't disagree with you exactly, I certainly do follow the rules myself - I never ride on the pavement or RLJ - but I see people cycling on the pavement most days at one time or another and this is the only time I've ever heard of it leading to a death (and once again I'd argue indirectly - the old lady was not hit by him while he was riding his bike). A lot of the time and in many locations it is safe, as evidenced by the number of times that local government redesignate footpaths as shared usage.

If you feel you must confront pavement cyclists then be my guest, but I can't see it ending well. You have to remember, the reason that they are on the pavement is not because it is quicker and easier but because they are afraid of getting maimed or killed on the roads. They will not thank you for encouraging them onto the roads.

Isn't there some evidence of spikes in cyclist road casualties following police crackdowns on "pavement cycling"?

I think someone died on the road at a junction where he had previously been stopped and either fined or advised to use the road by police.

Be careful what you wish for, just because it's the law doesn't mean it's in your best interests.