Four years jail...

Ah a mere clarification of data. Now why didn't I understand that.

So you don't really need clarification because you already know. I'm
still at a loss for what you point was?

No I was suggesting that it does not cause problems of the scale that
many appear to pretend that it does.

My own personal view is that if a cyclist is riding very slowly, there
are places where it is safer and better for them to ride on the
pavement. This appears to be a view shared by the government.

 

Obviously they should also have taken a liberal dose of crystal meth first.

 

That's nice, dear.

So - how many pedestrians ARE killed every year by people choosing to
drive or ride motorbikes on the pavement?

 

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk:8080/web/public.nsf/Documents/Pavement_Cycling?OpenDocument
says 184 killed by motor vehicles in three years (1998-2000) and one by a
cyclist in the same three years.

 

andale, andale, arriba, arriba.

 

Paging Oggie!

 

And call me old and cynical but I take the stats with salt.
I wonder how many are caused by the walker's lack of due care.

 

Riding on the pavement is dangerous.

 

In some countries such as Japan pavement cycling is allowed without any
apparently significant effects.

It is perfectly legal to ride on the pavements adjacent to the road
outside my house and I am unaware of any significant accidents. Two
children have been killed recently on the road itself but as I said I
don't know of any problems with the pavement cycling.

So when you say riding on the pavement is dangerous what exactly do you
mean?

 

An interesting statistic which was addressed in the link provided in the
previous post by Alan Braggins.


http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk:8080/web/public.nsf/Documents/Pavement_Cycling?OpenDocument


Per miles travelled is of course also a questionable statistic as cars
tend to travel further. If we were being fair the best statistic would
be how much total risk each person presents to other citizens.

However as a pedestrian the really significant figure is total risk
posed by each transport form.

 

or if the ped is drunk?

 

On the pavement? Some mistake, shurely? We keep getting told there
are untold millions of cyclists continuously riding on the pavement,
and no motor vehicle goes there except in dire emergency.

Not changing the story now, are you?

regards, Ian SMith

 

I mean that some twonk propelling a mechanical device, at speed, along
an area that should be devoted to pedestrians who, reasonably, do not
expect such a twonk and such a device to be in aforesaid space, and who
therefore, cannot be relied upon to take the necessary avoiding action,
could hit someone and cause them injury.

It's not hard, is it? Prat.

 

I continue to derive a certain quiet amusement from the apparent ability
of some road users to assume simultaneously that cyclists are
near-stationary objects that can stop on a dime and therefore be cut up
and left-hooked with impunity, _and_ that they career recklessly along
pavements at near light-speed with no control over their direction. One
of these things is, in the immortal words of Sesame Street, not like the
other.


-dan

 

Quite. I do not assume the former at all. Your point?

 

Umm, small drawback.

I'm a driver, pedestrian AND cyclist.

 

You were replying to a post about pavements. It might have been his mistake
to assume your reply was intended to address the subject instead of being
an irrelevent distraction, but that's an entirely reasonable mistake.

 

Why is that drawback? Do you have a problem adding the separate risks?

 

Because you suggested quantifying the risk "per person". Well, which of
those categories would I fall into? Or will I be in all three?

 

You said you were in all three. So you present a risk to other citizens
in each of theses categories. These separate risks could be added
together to give a total risk.

What part or you having trouble understanding?