'Cyclist knocked me down, then rode off' (From York Press)

Boadicea wrote:
Cyclists think they have priority on footpaths and pedestriations should "get out of their way". they (the cyclists) should be banned from pavements as they were at one time. It shoiuld be illegal to cycle on footpaths.

lis0r wrote:
Until cyclists are made accountable by giving them registration plates, then their fraternity will be a haven for morons. 3rd party insurance would be a good idea. Both these ideas work on the continent, so I don't see why they're such anathema here.

akuma wrote:
If this was a car there'd be a much bigger deal made about it, but as it is cyclists are just about unaccountable for there actions but can clearly do just as much harm.

I'm only surprised PP hasn't appeared to defend bikes and somehow say it was a car drivers fault!

JoeR wrote:
imho, the point is that cyclists should keep to their cycle lanes or on the road. Riding on footpaths isn't OK, and "mixed use" isn't OK. It isn't safe for pedestrians. The council have just proposed a major expansion of cycling in the city centre (the new Cycling Map) - including new "mixed use".
This is crazy, we need to keep the city centre safe for pedestrians.

Tom6187 wrote:
How could you just ride off? These kind of people are lower than Tories.

roskoboskovic wrote:
yes it is the point yorkboy.get d agorne and merritt on here to defend the indefensible.you can t keep them out of the paper when they re after another cycle path or the like but this incident is more typical of cyclists in york.i was going to start photographing cyclists breaking the law on a typical day in york but i got fed up with taking the camera out of my pocket and i was in danger of filling the memory card.

desmond tiblets wrote:

Tom6187 wrote: How could you just ride off? These kind of people are lower than Tories.

these type of people are the respectless chav yob the labour party created

dodgydavereturns wrote:

Boadicea wrote:
Cyclists think they have priority on footpaths and pedestriations should "get out of their way". they (the cyclists) should be banned from pavements as they were at one time. It shoiuld be illegal to cycle on footpaths.

It is illegal to cycle on footpaths....I think the clue is in the words foot & path!

They are just ignorant to the fact that they are supposed to ride on the road.

If this was a car, it would be taken off the driver and crushed! We should do the same to the bikes!
...and the spineless, abhorant, gutless and ignorant little s**t that did this....
I would love to find out who he is, I bet he would never do this again!

Von_Dutch wrote:
The usual trolls out again today i see... Just don't feed them.

Some of us (as has already been said) have an IQ greater than an Amoeba, so don't jump to mass generalisations.

I find it truly pathetic that The Press do not allow comments on several news stories (including vehicle collisions etc), yet without fail if a cyclist is mentioned, you know for a fact the comments section will be open. Because they just love to stir things up. Unfortunately the trolls are too thick to realise this and feed this further...

yorkboy60 wrote:

lis0r wrote:
Until cyclists are made accountable by giving them registration plates, then their fraternity will be a haven for morons. 3rd party insurance would be a good idea. Both these ideas work on the continent, so I don't see why they're such anathema here.

where on the continent do they have registration plates and insurance?

Von_Dutch wrote:
The usual trolls out again today i see... Just don't feed them. Some of us (as has already been said) have an IQ greater than an Amoeba, so don't jump to mass generalisations. I find it truly pathetic that The Press do not allow comments on several news stories (including vehicle collisions etc), yet without fail if a cyclist is mentioned, you know for a fact the comments section will be open. Because they just love to stir things up. Unfortunately the trolls are too thick to realise this and feed this further...

lis0r wrote:

yorkboy60 wrote:

lis0r wrote: Until cyclists are made accountable by giving them registration plates, then their fraternity will be a haven for morons. 3rd party insurance would be a good idea. Both these ideas work on the continent, so I don't see why they're such anathema here.

where on the continent do they have registration plates and insurance?

They had them in Switzerland seemingly until earlier this year - sad to see them going backwards.

Boadicea wrote:
Cyclists think they have priority on footpaths and pedestriations should "get out of their way". they (the cyclists) should be banned from pavements as they were at one time. It shoiuld be illegal to cycle on footpaths.

dodgydavereturns wrote:
Oh, they are so vunerable, these cyclists! How bad a deal they have.... That's all we hear from the likes of peddling paul! The poor woman, I hope they get the little s**t who did this. If this was a car driver, they would have a licence plate so we could trace them, they would have had to have stopped, otherwise it would be an offence & (although it doesn't make this poor lady better) they would have had to have had insurance. This is the sort of reason that cyclists are the bain of York. I hope you get well soon Beryl, you didn't get to such a wonderful age to end up with something like this.

desmond tiblets wrote:

Tom6187 wrote:
How could you just ride off? These kind of people are lower than Tories.

these type of people are the respectless chav yob the labour party created

Need for protection?
11:36am Saturday 21st July 2012
By Reader's letter
With reference to letters this week about cyclists’ helmets, maybe pedestrians should also wear them.
While I was walking towards town on the footpath near the barracks on Fulford Road I decided to cross the road at the safety island, as the footpath is a dual cycle/footpath.
I glanced over my shoulder to check no cyclist was coming, and there was a youth cycling past me as if the hounds of hell were after him, no warning bell on his bike. I was fortunate, but a small child or elderly person may not have been.

I find it truly pathetic that The Press do not allow comments on several news stories (including vehicle collisions etc), yet without fail if a cyclist is mentioned, you know for a fact the comments section will be open.

Sillybillies wrote:
It's far from a one off, illegal and dangerous cycling on footpaths is not exactly unusual.

Need for protection? 11:36am Saturday 21st July 2012 By Reader's letter With reference to letters this week about cyclists’ helmets, maybe pedestrians should also wear them. While I was walking towards town on the footpath near the barracks on Fulford Road I decided to cross the road at the safety island, as the footpath is a dual cycle/footpath. I glanced over my shoulder to check no cyclist was coming, and there was a youth cycling past me as if the hounds of hell were after him, no warning bell on his bike. I was fortunate, but a small child or elderly person may not have been.

A few points. The VEL argument is a dead duck due to zero rated so called clean cars, a very poor New Labour idea. Some of these cars such as hybrids carry an horrendous manufacturing energy cost which negates the whole idea. However we do need cycle registration and number plates, because the inability to identify cyclists encourages a substantial number of them to ride on pavements, ignore traffic lights and cycle with illegal lights if any at all.

I find it truly pathetic that The Press do not allow comments on several news stories (including vehicle collisions etc), yet without fail if a cyclist is mentioned, you know for a fact the comments section will be open.

This annoys me as well, but in relation to incidents involving cars invariably there is a possibility of legal proceedings because the drivers are known and the cars likely to be identified due to number plates. It might even be the case that the drivers have stopped as required by law, a concept difficult to grasp by many cyclists, complying with the law. I note Hepworth and his doppelgänger(s) have gone to ground as usual on a story like this. Also that anyone expressing views that could be interpreted as anti cyclist is being called a troll.

Sillybillies wrote:
It's far from a one off, illegal and dangerous cycling on footpaths is not exactly unusual.

Need for protection?
11:36am Saturday 21st July 2012
By Reader's letter
With reference to letters this week about cyclists’ helmets, maybe pedestrians should also wear them.
While I was walking towards town on the footpath near the barracks on Fulford Road I decided to cross the road at the safety island, as the footpath is a dual cycle/footpath.
I glanced over my shoulder to check no cyclist was coming, and there was a youth cycling past me as if the hounds of hell were after him, no warning bell on his bike. I was fortunate, but a small child or elderly person may not have been.

A few points. The VEL argument is a dead duck due to zero rated so called clean cars, a very poor New Labour idea. Some of these cars such as hybrids carry an horrendous manufacturing energy cost which negates the whole idea.

However we do need cycle registration and number plates, because the inability to identify cyclists encourages a substantial number of them to ride on pavements, ignore traffic lights and cycle with illegal lights if any at all.

I find it truly pathetic that The Press do not allow comments on several news stories (including vehicle collisions etc), yet without fail if a cyclist is mentioned, you know for a fact the comments section will be open.

This annoys me as well, but in relation to incidents involving cars invariably there is a possibility of legal proceedings because the drivers are known and the cars likely to be identified due to number plates. It might even be the case that the drivers have stopped as required by law, a concept difficult to grasp by many cyclists, complying with the law.

I note Hepworth and his doppelgänger(s) have gone to ground as usual on a story like this. Also that anyone expressing views that could be interpreted as anti cyclist is being called a troll.

Sillybillies wrote:
It's far from a one off, illegal and dangerous cycling on footpaths is not exactly unusual.

Need for protection?
11:36am Saturday 21st July 2012
By Reader's letter
With reference to letters this week about cyclists’ helmets, maybe pedestrians should also wear them.
While I was walking towards town on the footpath near the barracks on Fulford Road I decided to cross the road at the safety island, as the footpath is a dual cycle/footpath.
I glanced over my shoulder to check no cyclist was coming, and there was a youth cycling past me as if the hounds of hell were after him, no warning bell on his bike. I was fortunate, but a small child or elderly person may not have been.

A few points. The VEL argument is a dead duck due to zero rated so called clean cars, a very poor New Labour idea. Some of these cars such as hybrids carry an horrendous manufacturing energy cost which negates the whole idea.

However we do need cycle registration and number plates, because the inability to identify cyclists encourages a substantial number of them to ride on pavements, ignore traffic lights and cycle with illegal lights if any at all.

I find it truly pathetic that The Press do not allow comments on several news stories (including vehicle collisions etc), yet without fail if a cyclist is mentioned, you know for a fact the comments section will be open.

This annoys me as well, but in relation to incidents involving cars invariably there is a possibility of legal proceedings because the drivers are known and the cars likely to be identified due to number plates. It might even be the case that the drivers have stopped as required by law, a concept difficult to grasp by many cyclists, complying with the law.

I note Hepworth and his doppelgänger(s) have gone to ground as usual on a story like this. Also that anyone expressing views that could be interpreted as anti cyclist is being called a troll.

yorkboy60 wrote:
hmmm that's odd, the last two comments have been removed....

you are aware about things like numberplate cloning and stolen cars are you not? It's not foolproof, and generally those commiting offences will be those in stolen cars or using cloned number plates.

You say that people expressing views against cycling are called a troll, yet you then say things like cyclists have a difficult time reconising the law, and a substantial number of them ride of pavements - what do you expect?

as for the whole debate about cycles being registered etc... how do you propose this is funded?

so if I were the police and not a builder and I were interested at all in finding him I'd check the CCTV at the KFC, Chip shop and Sansburys.

Tom6187 wrote:

desmond tiblets wrote:

Tom6187 wrote:
How could you just ride off? These kind of people are lower than Tories.

these type of people are the respectless chav yob the labour party created

Not created by the Northern poverty that is the fault of Margaret Thatcher and her attack on the Northern working man? You're a typical Tory fool.

desmond tiblets wrote:

Tom6187 wrote:
How could you just ride off? These kind of people are lower than Tories.

these type of people are the respectless chav yob the labour party created

I have rode on paths, I Still do every day, theres a lovely wide one near me that could have been split into half path half cycle and the locals have used it that way for years, at least the 20 i have lived here, with no issues, but I guess they had a white paint shortage, as plod will do you for it.... or try, if they can catch you...

Oh and dont no one say I have no respect for the law, its not a law, its a statute I believe... and those i dont choose to live by.

Rule 64 Highway Code
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

I have rode on paths, I Still do every day, theres a lovely wide one near me that could have been split into half path half cycle and the locals have used it that way for years, at least the 20 i have lived here, with no issues, but I guess they had a white paint shortage, as plod will do you for it.... or try, if they can catch you...

Oh and dont no one say I have no respect for the law, its not a law, its a statute I believe... and those i dont choose to live by.

Rule 64 Highway Code
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

chunkyyorkie wrote:
Come on now let’s be fair it’s the person not the type of transport. The villain here isn’t ‘all cyclists’ its ‘all morons’. As a car driver, motorcyclist and someone who cycles to get to work everyday, I’ll say bikes are not ‘the bain of York’. A large majority of cyclist behave responsibly and in accordance with the Highway Code. The idiot who did this to the poor lady will have the same disregard for human beings if he were in a car or on foot. It’s the mentality of the individual I’m afraid. If this person also drives a car then yes I agree it would have number plates but the car could be stolen and have no licence, insurance – it’s just a fact that some type of people’s attitude and sense of right or wrong is not the same as that of the majority of decent society. I’m not here to defend all bike riders, I see every day some who jump traffic lights and ride on footpaths and I know pedestrians will come off worse against a bike – but I also see every day many times just how risky and dangerous it can be on a bike and how close cars and buses pass by cyclist and just how vulnerable bikes are too against anything else. And to keep things in perspective, examples of cars and buses driving badly speeding, jumping red lights etc etc also go on everyday and nothing is ever done. For some reason there are many cities around the world where all types of transport operate far more harmoniously together than York. It’s also worth thinking how bad traffic would be in York if everyone left their bikes at home and jumped in the car, it would be a nightmare! It’s horrible what happened and hope Beryl gets well soon and well done to the decent passers-by who did the right thing by her.

sharpy296 wrote:
Clearly the repribate that did this needs to be held to account, it is not good enough and shows the worst of the cycling community. Around York there are few places where it is dangerous to be on the road, generally road users are polite to each other certainly I have never felt the need to cycle on the pavement. However shared cycle paths are a nightmare for both cyclists and pedestirans. I hope that Mrs Hall has a swift recovery. To the note that is always made about "Road Tax", this does not exsist Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) is what you now pay and please explain to me how does it work for the cars that no longer have to pay VED? This argument is even less valid that it has ever been now.

Sillybillies wrote:

I have rode on paths, I Still do every day, theres a lovely wide one near me that could have been split into half path half cycle and the locals have used it that way for years, at least the 20 i have lived here, with no issues, but I guess they had a white paint shortage, as plod will do you for it.... or try, if they can catch you...

Oh and dont no one say I have no respect for the law, its not a law, its a statute I believe... and those i dont choose to live by.

Well there you are, proves my point about the criminal mentality of far too many cyclists. Not a law it's a statute? - Very limited intelligence as well, most laws are statutes and obeying them is not something we have an option over. The law on this matter is easily found here.

Rule 64 Highway Code
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

Woody G wrote:
Or FOREVER hold your piece.

ouseswimmer wrote:
Cylists must have a code for using pavements. The roads are simply not safe for them as many car drivers attack them. I propose that cyclists are alloweed to use the outside edge of a footpath up to say halef a mile from the city centre where traffic is slower and then cyclists can use the main roads. Laws need to be bought in so that pedestrians are safe on the inside of a footpath.

Alfredd-g wrote:
These people are complete and utter morons and will only be spurred on by the likes of Bradley Wiggins and his friends at the Olympic Games. They should be made to carry licence plates and third party insurance. As a pedestrian on the York to Selby footpath / cycle track, I have experienced several bad moments, with cyclists threatening to run both myself and my dog over. The path is for the shared enjoyment of pedestrians and cyclists. If you want to live dangerously, go and play with the lorries on the A19, please.

ouseswimmer wrote:
Cylists must have a code for using pavements. The roads are simply not safe for them as many car drivers attack them. I propose that cyclists are alloweed to use the outside edge of a footpath up to say halef a mile from the city centre where traffic is slower and then cyclists can use the main roads. Laws need to be bought in so that pedestrians are safe on the inside of a footpath.

The Grim Reaper wrote:
I had a real shock yesterday - a cyclist actually stopped at a red light and waited for the green light. Thought I was dreaming.

chunkyyorkie wrote:
Come on now let’s be fair it’s the person not the type of transport. The villain here isn’t ‘all cyclists’ its ‘all morons’.

As a car driver, motorcyclist and someone who cycles to get to work everyday, I’ll say bikes are not ‘the bain of York’. A large majority of cyclist behave responsibly and in accordance with the Highway Code. The idiot who did this to the poor lady will have the same disregard for human beings if he were in a car or on foot. It’s the mentality of the individual I’m afraid. If this person also drives a car then yes I agree it would have number plates but the car could be stolen and have no licence, insurance – it’s just a fact that some type of people’s attitude and sense of right or wrong is not the same as that of the majority of decent society.
I’m not here to defend all bike riders, I see every day some who jump traffic lights and ride on footpaths and I know pedestrians will come off worse against a bike – but I also see every day many times just how risky and dangerous it can be on a bike and how close cars and buses pass by cyclist and just how vulnerable bikes are too against anything else. And to keep things in perspective, examples of cars and buses driving badly speeding, jumping red lights etc etc also go on everyday and nothing is ever done. For some reason there are many cities around the world where all types of transport operate far more harmoniously together than York.
It’s also worth thinking how bad traffic would be in York if everyone left their bikes at home and jumped in the car, it would be a nightmare! It’s horrible what happened and hope Beryl gets well soon and well done to the decent passers-by who did the right thing by her.

monkeyhanger wrote:
“We were just coming out of an alleyway and a cyclist came like a bat out of Hell along the pavement. He will be gone now the morning has come.

Magicman! wrote:

Alfredd-g wrote:
These people are complete and utter morons and will only be spurred on by the likes of Bradley Wiggins and his friends at the Olympic Games. They should be made to carry licence plates and third party insurance. As a pedestrian on the York to Selby footpath / cycle track, I have experienced several bad moments, with cyclists threatening to run both myself and my dog over. The path is for the shared enjoyment of pedestrians and cyclists. If you want to live dangerously, go and play with the lorries on the A19, please.

Errrmmmmmm... the york to selby route was created by a CYCLING organisation for a safe route between york and selby to CYCLE along. The fact you and your dog can walk there is just a byproduct that happenes to be beneficial to you. I suggest you do your homework before making stupid comments on here... And I also suggest when you're walking along there with your dog that (A) you stick to ONE SIDE of the route, and (B) you keep your dog ON A LEAD... you wouldn't let your dog run lose if you were walking beside the A19, so why would anybody do the same thing on the cycling equivalent route? The same thing happens on several other routes that were built primarily for cyclists whereby cyclists often encounter people walking dogs that are not on leads and not under the owners control... and let me tell you know, if I came off my bike due to a collision with an unrestrained dog whilst riding along a designated cycle route, it would be you I'd be going after compensation for injuries and a damaged bike. If you stick to one side with your dog on a lead then you have nothing to fear... a single pedestrian walking along the route is easy to go past, a pedestrian with an unrestrained dog is another matter.

Old_Man wrote:
In Norway the pavements are shared by cyclists and pedestrians as a matter of course. A cyclist using the road when there is a perfectly good pavement is likely to get themselves a loud hoot of the horn for their troubles.

pedalling paul wrote:

Magicman! wrote:

Alfredd-g wrote: These people are complete and utter morons and will only be spurred on by the likes of Bradley Wiggins and his friends at the Olympic Games. They should be made to carry licence plates and third party insurance. As a pedestrian on the York to Selby footpath / cycle track, I have experienced several bad moments, with cyclists threatening to run both myself and my dog over. The path is for the shared enjoyment of pedestrians and cyclists. If you want to live dangerously, go and play with the lorries on the A19, please.

Errrmmmmmm... the york to selby route was created by a CYCLING organisation for a safe route between york and selby to CYCLE along. The fact you and your dog can walk there is just a byproduct that happenes to be beneficial to you. I suggest you do your homework before making stupid comments on here... And I also suggest when you're walking along there with your dog that (A) you stick to ONE SIDE of the route, and (B) you keep your dog ON A LEAD... you wouldn't let your dog run lose if you were walking beside the A19, so why would anybody do the same thing on the cycling equivalent route? The same thing happens on several other routes that were built primarily for cyclists whereby cyclists often encounter people walking dogs that are not on leads and not under the owners control... and let me tell you know, if I came off my bike due to a collision with an unrestrained dog whilst riding along a designated cycle route, it would be you I'd be going after compensation for injuries and a damaged bike. If you stick to one side with your dog on a lead then you have nothing to fear... a single pedestrian walking along the route is easy to go past, a pedestrian with an unrestrained dog is another matter.

Wrong again. The Sustrans York-Selby path like all their paths, is intended for unsegregated, shared use. The majority of use is for leisure and there is generally extensive courtesy between different users. I've both given and received this when cycling along it. As for the Moss St. incident, we must perhaps await further information about the site of the collision, before condemning either party. As one commentator mentioned, there is a shared path with white line segregation, alongside Scarcroft school which emerges onto Moss St. It is possible that the pedestrian was crossing the end of this, as the cyclist emerged. If so then sight lines and calming measures may need to be reconsidered. My doppleganger PH has already been castigated for not commentating, then told to shut up when he did. I'll be very interested to see what statistics he comes up with. Meanwhile I've had a quick internet trawl. The following is typical. "In Great Britain, almost all of the 43 pedestrians killed and the majority of the 367 seriously injured on a footway or verge in 2010 were the result of being hit by motor vehicles". So next time a pedestrian in York is injured by a motor vehicle on the pavement, perhaps it will receive similar media prominence. My sympathy to Beryl and I condemn the action of the cyclist for not remaining at the scene. I hope that the Police can identify him and take appropriate action.

NickPheas wrote:
"As a cyclist I can ride down the Sustrans to find MOST dog walkers with their dogs off the lead, zig zagging across the Sustrans, and ringing my bell may or may not get the owners attention, but very rarely produces a response to get the dog under control." Really? We must go at different times of the day then. The vast bulk of times I'm using the paths I find dog walkes will be taking control of their animals long before I've had any need to ring a bell. When I do need to ring a bell then they'll take hold of the collar and hold it at the side as I go past. Dog walkers are no more keen on my running their pets down than I am.

lezyork says...
I have rode on paths, I Still do every day, theres a lovely wide one near me that could have been split into half path half cycle and the locals have used it that way for years, at least the 20 i have lived here, with no issues, but I guess they had a white paint shortage, as plod will do you for it.... or try, if they can catch you...
Oh and dont no one say I have no respect for the law, its not a law, its a statute I believe... and those i dont choose to live by.

I choose to live my life my way, if that makes me of limited intelligence or a criminal, do i care? not really, theres more to life than following rules i never signed up for.
I live by the simpler common laws of the land, dont do harm or cause distress or loss etc, if i cycle on the grey bit of tarmac instead of the red, and dont hit a nun, wheres the distress harm or loss??
better lock all the locals up round here who do the same on this double width path to keep you sheep minded people safe.

bolero wrote:

NickPheas wrote:
"As a cyclist I can ride down the Sustrans to find MOST dog walkers with their dogs off the lead, zig zagging across the Sustrans, and ringing my bell may or may not get the owners attention, but very rarely produces a response to get the dog under control." Really? We must go at different times of the day then. The vast bulk of times I'm using the paths I find dog walkes will be taking control of their animals long before I've had any need to ring a bell. When I do need to ring a bell then they'll take hold of the collar and hold it at the side as I go past. Dog walkers are no more keen on my running their pets down than I am.

You must possess the only bicycle bell in York.

bolero wrote:

NickPheas wrote: "As a cyclist I can ride down the Sustrans to find MOST dog walkers with their dogs off the lead, zig zagging across the Sustrans, and ringing my bell may or may not get the owners attention, but very rarely produces a response to get the dog under control." Really? We must go at different times of the day then. The vast bulk of times I'm using the paths I find dog walkes will be taking control of their animals long before I've had any need to ring a bell. When I do need to ring a bell then they'll take hold of the collar and hold it at the side as I go past. Dog walkers are no more keen on my running their pets down than I am.

You must possess the only bicycle bell in York.

Buzz Light-year wrote:

bolero wrote:

NickPheas wrote: "As a cyclist I can ride down the Sustrans to find MOST dog walkers with their dogs off the lead, zig zagging across the Sustrans, and ringing my bell may or may not get the owners attention, but very rarely produces a response to get the dog under control." Really? We must go at different times of the day then. The vast bulk of times I'm using the paths I find dog walkes will be taking control of their animals long before I've had any need to ring a bell. When I do need to ring a bell then they'll take hold of the collar and hold it at the side as I go past. Dog walkers are no more keen on my running their pets down than I am.

You must possess the only bicycle bell in York.

You're just prejudiced.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Ring your bell and you get "What did you get for christmas?" "Shove that up your ****"
So you don't ring it and you get shouted at "Why don't you use your bell, idiot?"

http://www.yorkpress
.co.uk/news/9843759.
Car_driver__15___arr
ested_after_cyclist_
is_hurt/

Buzz Light-year says...
1:11pm Thu 9 Aug 12

http://www.yorkpress

.co.uk/news/9843759.

Car_driver__15___arr

ested_after_cyclist_

is_hurt/


Wonder why this story didn't provoke as much outrage?

What to do?
Should we force all 15 year-olds .... etc etc ........
Anyone see what I'm getting at?

Boadicea says...
2:09pm Thu 9 Aug 12
It isn't the cyclists that obey the law that are doing anything wrong, its the ones that cycle on footpaths and there are plenty of them. I rarely go out when I dont see one or more of them.

Sillybillies wrote:

Buzz Light-year says... 1:11pm Thu 9 Aug 12 http://www.yorkpress .co.uk/news/9843759. Car_driver__15___arr ested_after_cyclist_ is_hurt/ Wonder why this story didn't provoke as much outrage?

Comments weren't allowed because court proceedings are pending. Might be the case here if bikes had number plates and were identifiable.

What to do? Should we force all 15 year-olds .... etc etc ........ Anyone see what I'm getting at?

Nope!

Boadicea says... 2:09pm Thu 9 Aug 12 It isn't the cyclists that obey the law that are doing anything wrong, its the ones that cycle on footpaths and there are plenty of them. I rarely go out when I dont see one or more of them.

I agree, and you missed off the small number who actually stop at traffic lights and have legal lights on a night. They are OK too.

bolero wrote:
`yorkboy 60`, I won't waste space requoting you and this is not intended as an insult but just plain fact. What absolute utter tosh you talk.

bolero says...
4:01pm Thu 9 Aug 12
`yorkboy 60`, I won't waste space requoting you and this is not intended as an insult but just plain fact. What absolute utter tosh you talk.

Buzz Light-year says...
3:44pm Thu 9 Aug 12
Sillybillies - Please don't engage my posts.

Sillybillies wrote:

bolero says... 4:01pm Thu 9 Aug 12 `yorkboy 60`, I won't waste space requoting you and this is not intended as an insult but just plain fact. What absolute utter tosh you talk.

Correct.

Buzz Light-year says... 3:44pm Thu 9 Aug 12 Sillybillies - Please don't engage my posts.

Every time you attempt to defend the indefensible I will.

Sillybillies wrote:

bolero says... 4:01pm Thu 9 Aug 12 `yorkboy 60`, I won't waste space requoting you and this is not intended as an insult but just plain fact. What absolute utter tosh you talk.

Correct.

Buzz Light-year says... 3:44pm Thu 9 Aug 12 Sillybillies - Please don't engage my posts.

Every time you attempt to defend the indefensible I will.

Buzz Light-year wrote
The kid here who knocked the old lady over deserves the book throwing at him for not even saying sorry and stepping off. Disgusting coward.

Buzz Light-year wrote
I have learnt the futility of trying to reason with prejudice.

sb, when are you going to start debating like an adult? ....
...What is it with you and the push-bikes?

Buzz Light-year wrote:
At 4.58 this afternoon I was waiting at the lights on Lawrence St.
We got green but a taxi - yellow plate number 28 - went through the red and cut across us
The cyclist in front of me told him he had just gone through a red light and the driver rudely gave him two fingers.

This is an example of cyclists waiting at the lights and a driver going through on red.
It happens everyday at these lights.

Actually, on the subject of another case in question that has been reported of late, the relevant individual is actually getting the relevant support from a certain individual that posts here and the case is being thoroughly 'researched' and alternative diagnosis made. So, OK I lost it but when the medical facts will be out fully, the public will see.

bolero wrote:
`yorkboy 60`, I won't waste space requoting you and this is not intended as an insult but just plain fact. What absolute utter tosh you talk.

Sillybillies wrote:

sb, when are you going to start debating like an adult? ....
...What is it with you and the push-bikes?

The problem you have with me is that I shoot straight and hit the target every time. I research my comments and justify them, whilst all you can do is make personal attacks and innuendos.

At the same time I do get a lot of support, and don't forget the many who read my comments and don't comment. I'm very sure that the majority of them also agree with me. Let's face it they've all seen cyclists going through traffic lights at red, riding on pavements and not having lights on a night, plus exhibiting absolutely no road sense, and been infuriated by congestion causing cycle lanes and green boxes for very few cyclists.

Old_Man wrote:
In Norway the pavements are shared by cyclists and pedestrians as a matter of course. A cyclist using the road when there is a perfectly good pavement is likely to get themselves a loud hoot of the horn for their troubles.

yorkboy60 wrote:

Sillybillies wrote:

sb, when are you going to start debating like an adult? .... ...What is it with you and the push-bikes?

The problem you have with me is that I shoot straight and hit the target every time. I research my comments and justify them, whilst all you can do is make personal attacks and innuendos. At the same time I do get a lot of support, and don't forget the many who read my comments and don't comment. I'm very sure that the majority of them also agree with me. Let's face it they've all seen cyclists going through traffic lights at red, riding on pavements and not having lights on a night, plus exhibiting absolutely no road sense, and been infuriated by congestion causing cycle lanes and green boxes for very few cyclists.

ok, let's look at this another way. Yes, we've all seen cylists with no road sense, going through red lights etc. This is a question directly for you - Have you ever seen car drivers go through red lights, swerving, being on pavements when they shouldn't be and exhibiting no road sense at at all?

yorkboy60 wrote:

bolero wrote: `yorkboy 60`, I won't waste space requoting you and this is not intended as an insult but just plain fact. What absolute utter tosh you talk.

which bit? I honestly believe that some of you are having breakdowns in public to think that everybody who has ever got on a bike is a criminal and breaks laws. Anyhoo, in reference to my earlier comment about you, you're the one who wrote those things, not me, so mabye you do have split personality. I really urge you to seek professional help at your earliest convenience.

bolero wrote:

yorkboy60 wrote:

bolero wrote: `yorkboy 60`, I won't waste space requoting you and this is not intended as an insult but just plain fact. What absolute utter tosh you talk.

which bit? I honestly believe that some of you are having breakdowns in public to think that everybody who has ever got on a bike is a criminal and breaks laws. Anyhoo, in reference to my earlier comment about you, you're the one who wrote those things, not me, so mabye you do have split personality. I really urge you to seek professional help at your earliest convenience.

Every bit.

Mr Udigawa wrote:

yorkboy60 wrote:

Sillybillies wrote:

sb, when are you going to start debating like an adult? .... ...What is it with you and the push-bikes?

The problem you have with me is that I shoot straight and hit the target every time. I research my comments and justify them, whilst all you can do is make personal attacks and innuendos. At the same time I do get a lot of support, and don't forget the many who read my comments and don't comment. I'm very sure that the majority of them also agree with me. Let's face it they've all seen cyclists going through traffic lights at red, riding on pavements and not having lights on a night, plus exhibiting absolutely no road sense, and been infuriated by congestion causing cycle lanes and green boxes for very few cyclists.

ok, let's look at this another way. Yes, we've all seen cylists with no road sense, going through red lights etc. This is a question directly for you - Have you ever seen car drivers go through red lights, swerving, being on pavements when they shouldn't be and exhibiting no road sense at at all?

I genuinely believe he/she is a wind up merchant, nobody could repeatedly make such sweeping generalisations and expect them to be taken seriously, while conveniently ignoring any genuine attempts to engage them in a sensible debate.
I just find it sad that the mods allow it to continue despite my pointing it out to them on more than one occasion.

king-albert wrote:
Causing and accident and driving away is a motoring offence.
Surely the same must apply to cyclists.
Mrs Hall must also be entitled to compensation from the cyclist`s insurer.
At least £4000.

Boadicea wrote:

king-albert wrote:
Causing and accident and driving away is a motoring offence.
Surely the same must apply to cyclists.
Mrs Hall must also be entitled to compensation from the cyclist`s insurer.
At least £4000.

I very much doubt Mrs. Hall will get any compensation, let alone £4000 and I don't suppose the cyclist in question is insured, they don't have to be.

This is a question directly for you - Have you ever seen car drivers go through red lights, swerving, being on pavements when they shouldn't be and exhibiting no road sense at at all?

I genuinely believe he/she is a wind up merchant, nobody could repeatedly make such sweeping generalisations and expect them to be taken seriously, while conveniently ignoring any genuine attempts to engage them in a sensible debate.
I just find it sad that the mods allow it to continue despite my pointing it out to them on more than one occasion.

The council hasn't the money to employ anybody to stop these morons, there aren't enough police and the ones there are think cycling on pavements is too trivial for them to bother about and so pedestrians have to get out of the way of cyclists or get knocked down.
Some years ago a young girl,(under 5) was run into whilst playing outside her home at Chapelfields and had to have hospital treatment. A lot was said but nothing done.

Rule 140 - Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
Law RTRA sects 5 & 8

yorkboy60 wrote:

lis0r wrote:
Until cyclists are made accountable by giving them registration plates, then their fraternity will be a haven for morons. 3rd party insurance would be a good idea. Both these ideas work on the continent, so I don't see why they're such anathema here.

where on the continent do they have registration plates and insurance?

peter123456 wrote:

yorkboy60 wrote:

lis0r wrote:
Until cyclists are made accountable by giving them registration plates, then their fraternity will be a haven for morons. 3rd party insurance would be a good idea. Both these ideas work on the continent, so I don't see why they're such anathema here.

where on the continent do they have registration plates and insurance?

Belgium

peter123456 wrote:
Only licence plates, insurance and a full highway code test just as all other motorists have to do. This is the way forward as I said last week. Bicycles are a vehicle just as a car, van lorry or motorcycle. The only difference is that a cyclist uses his or her legs as the motor. They use the road like all motorists so there is no reason why they should be treated any different.

peter123456 wrote:
If this cyclist had number plates and was insured. a) the culprit would have been caught. b) The tax payer would not now be paying for this poor lady's hospital and medical bills. Beryl I do hope that you make a full recovery. I wish you all the very best.

RuckBogers wrote:
It seems that some people simply haven't taken the following obvious fact into consideration:

No car driver/cyclist/pedes

trian/bus driver you see do anything is representative of every single one of them.

I say this as a frequent driver, cyclist and pedestrian in/around York. I've experienced first-hand a lot of the irritating things that people do on the roads and footpaths, and I do everything I can to not do them myself.

The same can't be said for everyone, obviously, such as the motorist who decided to undertake a waiting car indicating right by driving into the cycle lane and forcing me onto the verge. But ho-hum, no one was hurt, these things happen, he apologised and everyone moved on with their lives.

Also, rather than asking questions like 'have you ever seen a driver/cyclist/whate

ver do such-and-such a terrible thing?', why not consider the surely innumerable journeys you've undertaken where such annoyances have not been inflicted on you.

If you honestly can't recall any, then perhaps York is not the city for you.

The culprit in this story has committed an unforgivable act, but I don't think for a second that anyone posting comments here has said otherwise. Here's wishing Mrs Hall a speedy recovery.

Yorkie-Clifton wrote:

RuckBogers wrote:
It seems that some people simply haven't taken the following obvious fact into consideration:

No car driver/cyclist/pedes


trian/bus driver you see do anything is representative of every single one of them.

I say this as a frequent driver, cyclist and pedestrian in/around York. I've experienced first-hand a lot of the irritating things that people do on the roads and footpaths, and I do everything I can to not do them myself.

The same can't be said for everyone, obviously, such as the motorist who decided to undertake a waiting car indicating right by driving into the cycle lane and forcing me onto the verge. But ho-hum, no one was hurt, these things happen, he apologised and everyone moved on with their lives.

Also, rather than asking questions like 'have you ever seen a driver/cyclist/whate


ver do such-and-such a terrible thing?', why not consider the surely innumerable journeys you've undertaken where such annoyances have not been inflicted on you.

If you honestly can't recall any, then perhaps York is not the city for you.

The culprit in this story has committed an unforgivable act, but I don't think for a second that anyone posting comments here has said otherwise. Here's wishing Mrs Hall a speedy recovery.

Answer my question ---- Please -- I am not a member of the **** Brigade .

peter123456 says...
5:04pm Sat 11 Aug 12
Only licence plates, insurance and a full highway code test just as all other motorists have to do. This is the way forward as I said last week. Bicycles are a vehicle just as a car, van lorry or motorcycle. The only difference is that a cyclist uses his or her legs as the motor. They use the road like all motorists so there is no reason why they should be treated any different.

I have politely asked you more than once not to engage me. I want nothing to do with you.

But Japan are now seriously considering introducing a similar system as their studies show that the majority of people think this is the only way to cut there nations rise in cyclists causing injuries to pedestrians.

Buzz Light-year wrote:
The exchange between the Spoonerised man from the 25th century and Yorkie-Clifton is the epitome of cycling debate here.

On the one hand we have calm reasoning and an ability to see both sides.
On the other, shouty hysterical nastiness and name-calling.

Yorkie-Clifton proving quite well that one side of this issue is driven by hate and prejudice.

Yorkie-Clifton says...
12:53pm Sun 12 Aug 12

I see ----- Buzz Light-year wishes to dominate and control this debate , as per usual .

For utter lunacy, the other day two cyclists with occupied child seats, travelling along Foss Islands Road toward the Barbican, turned right into Walmgate on the wrong side of that road. That could have given an driver turning left into Foss Islands Road from Walmgate one hell of shock. These are the sorts of idiots we have riding around York.

Sillybillies wrote:

Yorkie-Clifton says...
12:53pm Sun 12 Aug 12

I see ----- Buzz Light-year wishes to dominate and control this debate , as per usual .

Of course, and stand by for the abuse, insults and name calling and allegations about your mental health. All par for the course.

Sillybillies wrote:

For utter lunacy, the other day two cyclists with occupied child seats, travelling along Foss Islands Road toward the Barbican, turned right into Walmgate on the wrong side of that road. That could have given an driver turning left into Foss Islands Road from Walmgate one hell of shock. These are the sorts of idiots we have riding around York.

Let's have some comments about this, thus far it's been ignored.

SB wrote
You mean you can't do with being shot down in flames?!

For utter lunacy, the other day two cyclists with occupied child seats, travelling along Foss Islands Road toward the Barbican, turned right into Walmgate on the wrong side of that road. That could have given an driver turning left into Foss Islands Road from Walmgate one hell of shock. These are the sorts of idiots we have riding around York.

I would suggest that if the lights coming from Foss Islands Road past Walmgate Bar were on green, the cyclists may have known the pattern and known the lights on Walmgate were on red.

RuckBogers wrote:

Sillybillies wrote:

For utter lunacy, the other day two cyclists with occupied child seats, travelling along Foss Islands Road toward the Barbican, turned right into Walmgate on the wrong side of that road. That could have given an driver turning left into Foss Islands Road from Walmgate one hell of shock. These are the sorts of idiots we have riding around York.

Let's have some comments about this, thus far it's been ignored.

I don't think it's been ignored so much as taken on board and, more than likely, agreed with. I would suggest that if the lights coming from Foss Islands Road past Walmgate Bar were on green, the cyclists may have known the pattern and known the lights on Walmgate were on red. That does not excuse it at all, but I'm just trying to offer another side - you have asked for comments, after all. But you're completely right, people like that do not help anyone - they aggravate and potentially endanger themselves and other road-users, and, I think quite importantly, lead sensible cyclists to be unfairly judged for their stupidity. Away from the cycling, I was driving from that way recently (towards Cemetery Road), waiting in the left-hand lane at the lights, not indicating as I was going straight on. A motorcyclist pulled up next to me in the right-hand lane, and when the lights changed, went from the right-hand lane, in front of my car and down Lawrence Street, without indicating at all, and then shouting at me despite them having cut me off. Regrettably, it doesn't seem to just be cyclists who make stupid decisions at that junction.

Gary Gilmores Eyes wrote:
‘Woody G Mellor says...5:51pm Wed 8 Aug 12 Peddling Paul. After all the comments you have made in the past relating to cyclists/cycling in York, I believe that it is your duty to make a comment on this incident. Or FOREVER hold your piece.’ It is quite obvious that from previous posts he has placed on here over the years, PP holds his piece on a regular basis.

yorkshirelad wrote:
Compare the comments here to the comments you might get when a car driver does something stupid and causes carnage. The difference is that, even with a very rare event like this, some people try to blame it on 'cyclists'. But do you also rant at 'motorists' when someone kills or seriously injures on the roads. Even thoughdriver law breaking and the consequences of it are much, much, more serious and much much more common than that by cyclist, it's still cyclists that get the bad press. Perhaps we can have the face of the next victim of speeding as a full front page on The Press? The reason for the differing treatment between the two groups is simple - prejudice. The incident is appalling and I hope the culprit is dealt with. It has absolutely nothing to do with the vast majority of York's cyclists who, day-in, day-out...obey the laws and respect others and are all too often themselves victims of lack of respect from drivers.

Mr Udigawa wrote:

RuckBogers wrote:

Sillybillies wrote:

For utter lunacy, the other day two cyclists with occupied child seats, travelling along Foss Islands Road toward the Barbican, turned right into Walmgate on the wrong side of that road. That could have given an driver turning left into Foss Islands Road from Walmgate one hell of shock. These are the sorts of idiots we have riding around York.

Let's have some comments about this, thus far it's been ignored.

I don't think it's been ignored so much as taken on board and, more than likely, agreed with. I would suggest that if the lights coming from Foss Islands Road past Walmgate Bar were on green, the cyclists may have known the pattern and known the lights on Walmgate were on red. That does not excuse it at all, but I'm just trying to offer another side - you have asked for comments, after all. But you're completely right, people like that do not help anyone - they aggravate and potentially endanger themselves and other road-users, and, I think quite importantly, lead sensible cyclists to be unfairly judged for their stupidity. Away from the cycling, I was driving from that way recently (towards Cemetery Road), waiting in the left-hand lane at the lights, not indicating as I was going straight on. A motorcyclist pulled up next to me in the right-hand lane, and when the lights changed, went from the right-hand lane, in front of my car and down Lawrence Street, without indicating at all, and then shouting at me despite them having cut me off. Regrettably, it doesn't seem to just be cyclists who make stupid decisions at that junction.

See the original comment, at no point does he say it makes it alright. You appear to be deliberately taking quotes out of context again.

Sillybillies wrote:
I agree with you Bolero, the sentence is a joke and beyond belief, but we are never officially allowed to pass comments after sentence lest we dare to criticise the judicial system and especially the decisions of some judges.

RuckBogers wrote:

Buzz Light-year wrote:
The exchange between the Spoonerised man from the 25th century and Yorkie-Clifton is the epitome of cycling debate here.

On the one hand we have calm reasoning and an ability to see both sides.
On the other, shouty hysterical nastiness and name-calling.

Yorkie-Clifton proving quite well that one side of this issue is driven by hate and prejudice.

Thanks, fellow sci-fi-themed commenter.

Retrospectively, I think Yorkie-Clifton may have thought my first post was in response to their one, which is why they kicked up a fuss that I hadn't answered their question. I thought it was quite clear I was just passing comment in general and not directing anything at any one person in particular, but perhaps not.

When I did answer the question, all it got in response was accusations of lies. I've never seen anyone form a vendetta so quickly and efficiently for no reason - it's actually quite impressive, yet hugely depressing at the same time...

But hey, that's life.

On another note, walking to and from the supermarket today, I had to move very slightly twice for cyclists on the pavement (no cycle lane). Naturally, I am now vehemently against anyone in the whole of York cycling at all and I burnt my bike to cinders as soon as I got home...(!)

TTFN everyone.

tachyon42 wrote:
Heh

Before complaining about cyclists (and I appreciate a cyclist was to blame in this situation although weasel words aside he /did/ stop)

How about pedestrians stop walking along cycle paths, I'm sick of having to dodge people who can't read the whacking great white lettering reading "Cycles only"

There's more than enough blame to go around, heh.

Yorkie-Clifton wrote:

tachyon42 wrote: Heh Before complaining about cyclists (and I appreciate a cyclist was to blame in this situation although weasel words aside he /did/ stop) How about pedestrians stop walking along cycle paths, I'm sick of having to dodge people who can't read the whacking great white lettering reading "Cycles only" There's more than enough blame to go around, heh.

You will find that the pedestrian is terrified to walk on the pavements . So they use the little used safety of the cycle track .

Buzz Light-year wrote:

Yorkie-Clifton wrote:

tachyon42 wrote: Heh Before complaining about cyclists (and I appreciate a cyclist was to blame in this situation although weasel words aside he /did/ stop) How about pedestrians stop walking along cycle paths, I'm sick of having to dodge people who can't read the whacking great white lettering reading "Cycles only" There's more than enough blame to go around, heh.

You will find that the pedestrian is terrified to walk on the pavements . So they use the little used safety of the cycle track .

Busted.
Wind up.