Re: Saw a poor boy coming off his bike

Fergus <ferguscapewrath@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rowland McDonnell wrote:

Fergus <ferguscapewrath@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

So make it plain to them that it's *NOT* acceptable. If people don't
object, they'll just carry on. Don't give way: stand there and look 'em
in the eye. If they whinge at you, tell them off for riding on the
pavement in your best stood up straight middle class middle aged pillar
of the community fashion.

It works, I promise you.

I suspect that if I tried it I probably just get thumped.

How can they do that if they're sat on the bike and you're stood
directly in front? It's not easy.

On top of that, you're unlikely to get thumped by someone who's not
school age. Once they hit about 20, the risk of that sort of thing is
very low unless they're drunk or affected by another drug that causes
aggressive behaviour (crack cocaine, amphetamines, that sort of thing),
or happen to have an unusually bad attitude.

Basically, almost everyone's safe enough if they don't look like a
wild-eyed loon or madly aggressive.

I do tend to
walk towards cyclists who are coming towards me. Not close enough to be
crashed into but close enough to make them think they might.

I put myself directly in their line of travel unless they're going madly
fast and I'm too close for them to avoid me - in which case I do roughly
what you do.

Did you read the news story of the guy who deliberately ran down a girl
with a push bike because she happened to be where he wanted to go? He
shouted something like "Get out of the way 'cos I'm not stopping". And
then he killed her.

Yep. What you need to do is stand square and brace yourself correctly
to take the impact and divert the force so when you go down, you don't
get hurt. I've had practice (judo and rugby when young got me used to
hitting the deck - and like riding a bicycle, the skill never really
leaves you). Do it right, and the rider gets hurt - which is a good
outcome (better if he breaks a limb and ends up with a mangled twisted
wreck instead of a bicycle). No, I've never done anything like that -
but when I've stood firm in the path of an oncoming pavement cyclist,
those are the thoughts in my head. And the thoughts in my head appear
clearly on my face. I take it that explains why the buggers tend to
avoid me?

They locked up the Moors Murderers for ever because they're both too
much of a menace to ever let out and anyone they'd've been killed within
days of release.

I'm amazed that that murdering *** cyclist isn't treated the same
way.

We've got deeply unjust laws. If you kill someone in a way other than
with a vehicle, you'll be prosecuted for manslaughter or murder and
suffer a stiff penalty if found guilty.

Quite right too.

If you kill someone with a weapon like a car, you get prosecuted for
causing death by dangerous driving and very often get a sentence less
than some people get for speeding - an offence which, if not linked to
any other offence, indicates that no harm has been done to anyone.

So you can commit a totally harmless crime and get a worse penalty than
for killing a person.

Argh.

(It's because back in the days when murder carried an automatic death
penalty, motorists sometimes got had up in court for murder. Murder is
killing someone either with prior intention or with reckless action.
Juries would often refuse to give a guilty verdict in such cases because
they thought it was wrong to *hang* someone for that sort of fault -
give 'em a turn in prison, maybe, but not *hang* them. So they came up
with some other way of prosecuting motorists who kill people - which for
some reason lets them off far too lightly, and I don't know why.)

I recall hearing from a policeman once, who related the tale of a crash
scene he attended, where a (very) speeding car, driven by an aggressive
young man, had jumped some red lights and killed someone.

`What's the fucking problem?' screamed this young man to the arresting
policeman `It's only a poxy accident'.

I think the policeman told me that tale because it had happened recently
and he was still having trouble dealing with it himself.

That's murder in my book but I don't think this guy
was even charged with anything.

Surely not /nothing/?

But
in our liberated society that doesn't matter, does it?

It's hardly liberation when people are free to infringe on the liberties
of others, is it?

True, but it's often seen as such.

It is by me. There's a kind of mad Yank who wants to remove regulation
so that they and their rich friends can do what the hell they like
regardless of anyone else and calls that `freedom' - that's the sort of
thing you're complaining about.

And then there are anarchists like me - who don't want that, and have
plans for an anarchist society that'd permit everyone to have *real*
freedom, not merely the freedom to be oppressed by the rich and powerful
without any possibility of comeback.

[snip]

When the law is
treated with contempt it's the weak who suffer.

Yep. But when the law is contemptible, the law will be treated with
contempt. We have contemptible law, and it's administered in a
contemptible fashion.

I don't think the law that says that cyclists should not be mixing with
pedestrians is contemptible

Not all the law is contemptible - but enough of it is that it tarnishes
people's view of all of it, including the good bits.

But here's a thing: did you know there's no English law against murder?
Murder's a crime, but in common law so it's not got a proper written
down anything to make it illegal. There are laws defining what
sentences to pass for murder and all sorts of things like that - but yer
actual offence of murder is a purely traditional one.

but it's still treated with contempt. Same as
driving through red lights. It's a de facto right these days despite what
the law says and despite how dangerous and inconsiderate it is.

The problem with the whole red light thing is manifold.

To begin with, there are ways - in particular circumstances, using great
care - of crossing the line when the lights are red and you're on a
bicycle that actually *improve* overall road safety, if you do it
properly.

To be getting on with, there seems to be a fashion round here at least
for installing lots and lots more traffic lights. Lots more. Huge
numbers of extra sets of lights - on roundabouts, replacing roundabouts
(in one case near a hospital slowing down the traffic such that
ambulance drivers and doctors have been reported in the local press as
being seriously worried that the delays will kill people), doubling the
numbers of sets of lights on one main arterial route up the Wirral, and
so on.

And to end up with, the police round here drive through red lights as a
matter of routine.

Is it any wonder that with a world in that shape, `normal' drivers jump
the lights too these days? It's got a *LOT* more common in the last
couple of years, and I put it down to the huge increase in sets of
traffic lights coupled with the contempt that the police display in
public for obeying the highway code - especially with regard to traffic
lights and speed limits.

I mean, what the hell is the sanity in putting traffic lights on an
ordinary roundabout and then leave them operating 24 hours a day? If I
come off the motorway at 3am, I'm not going to stop at the damned
traffic lights going on to the roundabout - no, I'm going to do a set of
extra specially careful observations and drive onto the damned
roundabout regardless *because there's no other traffic around and I can
see absolutely everything I need to see to make such a manoeuvre as safe
as safe gets 'cos it's bloody roundabout and it's designed so that you
can do that safely*!

And that's me - me! Me who was once utterly sure that no matter what
other part of the Highway Code he'd break, he'd never ever jump the
lights. And I didn't start doing it until about 20 years after I
started riding motorcycles.

We need those who control the law and administer it to bring the law
back into respect - until they do that, people will continue to act with
contempt for the law.

Yes, if it's not too late.

Attitudes can always be changed.

Pavement cycling should have been nipped in
the bud but it would be very hard to reverse the current situation at
this stage.

Pavement cycling was common in my youth. It's just that people had a
bit of respect for each other back then and in any case there was less
traffic on road and on pavement. People cycling on the pavement
generally did not travel quickly because that would have been antisocial
- if you wanted to cycle fast, you hit the road.

So, as in the city near where I live, the bug has been turned
into a feature and cyclists are given free reign to create havoc in more
and more places.

People need to kick up a fuss about it. Why not hassle your local
councillor? Write to the police and ask them why they don't just do a
crackdown one day a month and nab everyone they see riding on the
pavement on that day, sort of thing?

Things can be made better - but they ain't going to get better unless
someone does something about it. I'm not suggesting that the job is
your /responsibility/ to deal with, but why not try something?

And if the cyclists whinge about how dangerous the roads are, the
response is `Cyclists on pavements make the pavements too damned
dangerous you selfish bastards: learn to ride safely, and wear
high-visibility and protective clothing'. You don't have to include the
phrase about them being selfish bastards, but I think it ought to be
said.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
.