On the Other Hand...

[LordoftheTeapot]

... The cyclist can be dishing it out as well... Tut!

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co....sourceNode=132969&home=yes&contentPK=20155822


PS. New Walk is, or was the last time I went for a walk along it, a pedestrian only area.

 

[tdr1nka]

The guy seems well balanced with a chip on both shoulders.
Bizarre, paranoid and uncondoneable behaviour tho.

I spent 5 years away from cycling after a couple of v. nasty instances, having lost all faith in drivers and my confidence on the road.
As I didn't feel safe I thought it best to remove myself from the equation rather than ride in a state of agitation and possibly putting myself at further risk.

This bloke has obviously carried on by his own rules and has been taking his anger out on whoever crosses his path.
A thouroughly unpleasant way to conduct yourself, but I wonder if he had any councilling, or such like, after his accidents? Lots of repressed anger going on in there me thinks?

Gads, just imagine being told by a Judge that you must sell your bike!!!!!!!!

 

[Wolf04]

I agree, sounds like this guy needs some serious help. Thank god he doesn't drive a car.

 

[magnatom]

I agree, sounds like this guy needs some serious help. Thank god he doesn't drive a car.

That's a good point, and a good answer when someone grumps about any rule breaking by cyclists.

Bad car driver: All $%£^& cyclists jump red lights and ride on pavements.
Cyclist: You should encourage them to keep cycling then.
Bad car driver: Eh?.... Why?
Cyclist: Imagine the carnage if they all drove cars....


Obviously the bloke described in the OP is an idiot!

 

[Arch]

I'm struggling to find the logic here...

"He has also been knocked off his bike by pedestrians and began riding on pavements because he feels it is a safer place".


Unless it means "he's been knocked off by both cars and pedestrians, and generally felt the latter were less dangerous"

Idiot. If he'd shoved me or my Mum walking down New Walk, as we generally do at some stage when I'm back home, he'd have got a bloody big shove in return, and then I'd have sat on him until saw the error of his ways.

 

[Cab]

I wonder whether he'll get a serious sentence or not. He's clearly in the wrong, the question is whether he gets punishment that balances how bad his behaviour was, or something more or less harsh than that.

 

[yello]

Didn't know you were a Leicester lass Arch. I haven't been back there for a while now.

All the offences stem from a particular problem he has about riding his bike

So says the defence attorney! Well, I guess it will have a substance of truth... but his problem wasn't with pedestrians! But, and I really have no decent reason to make this statement, I've formed the impression that he's not all there. Dunno why... 36, mention of parent's place?

Magistrates agreed to grant bail on condition he kept probation appointments, did not ride a cycle at all and did not go into New Walk.

M'lud! Outrageously disproportionate punishment!

 

[Maz]

New Walk is a pedestrianised street [closed to traffic], so what a surprise that he should encounter peds.

 

[Cab]

New Walk is a pedestrianised street [closed to traffic], so what a surprise that he should encounter peds.

I'm going to stick my neck out here and probably have it lopped off...

I don't ride on pedestrianised streets. I don't ride on pavements. I might occasionally ride on shared use paths or routes, and if there is an insanely thought out design leaving no legal route between cycle paths then I may ride over the width of a pavement rather than dismounting to continue on my way. So the extent of my infringement on pavements could normally be measured with a 2m tape measure, at most.

But... I don't particularly care if other people do so. I mean, if the road is really nasty and someone chooses to ride on the pavement, what do I care? If they're considerate and not causing harm, and so long as they don't expect pedestrians to get out of their way for them when they're cycling where they shouldn't be, who is hurt? I might not get out of a pavement cyclists way in a hurry, but I'll not be obstructive or try to get them off their bikes.

Now I'd have thought that this would be the most senisble attitude, but often I've encountered people being very hostile to pavement cyclists (theres that chap up in court at the moment for having broken his asbo that required that he stop harassing cyclists, as a very serious example). Sometimes that stretches as far as endangering them. Such action isn't acceptable at all.

This guy in Leicester... Okay, maybe he isn't all there, but its hard to envisage someone like that suddenly deciding to go out and make an idiot of himself like this. It takes a certain amount of build up to get to that point, and I think its a shame that this has happened. Don't get me wrong, from what we know the guy is in the wrong, but I'm sad that our society lets these things build up to the point where someone who probably could have been dealt with by a few quiet, calm, helpful words of advice early on has ended up facing a guilty verdict in court.

 

[Tynan]

sounds like a routine nutter that happens to ride a bike, all that tosh was exactly that, his barrister trying to mitigate

 

[GrahamG]

Agreed. Plain nutter behaviour - nothing deeper.

 

[Arch]

Didn't know you were a Leicester lass Arch. I haven't been back there for a while now.



So says the defence attorney! Well, I guess it will have a substance of truth... but his problem wasn't with pedestrians! But, and I really have no decent reason to make this statement, I've formed the impression that he's not all there. Dunno why... 36, mention of parent's place?



M'lud! Outrageously disproportionate punishment!

Careful, I lived in Leicester at my Mum's until I was 30...

But I agree, he doesn't sound like a quite balanced person.

Cab, you're quite right that a sensible careful cyclist ought to be able to ride among pedestrians, if they choose, and not hurt anyone. Alas, not many can apparently (or that is the perception, at least), which is why bikes get banned from pavements. I think it's perfectly sensible to bar bikes on New Walk - there are a number of green spaces where kids run about, and a few nurseries, and a museum and the whole feeling is of a place you stroll along and don't pay much attention to where you're going, and on a nice day might be quite busy with people meandering into town from work for lunch - bit of a nightmare to cycle among. And while the parallel roads are busyish, I wouldn't be too concerned about using them instead. It would be nice to be able to cycle down, and you or I could do it, but if this chap was riding at all fast, or furiously, I can imagine people getting narked, or simply not getting out of his way because they don't hear him coming or whatever.

 

[Cab]

Cab, you're quite right that a sensible careful cyclist ought to be able to ride among pedestrians, if they choose, and not hurt anyone. Alas, not many can apparently (or that is the perception, at least), which is why bikes get banned from pavements. I think it's perfectly sensible to bar bikes on New Walk - there are a number of green spaces where kids run about, and a few nurseries, and a museum and the whole feeling is of a place you stroll along and don't pay much attention to where you're going, and on a nice day might be quite busy with people meandering into town from work for lunch - bit of a nightmare to cycle among. And while the parallel roads are busyish, I wouldn't be too concerned about using them instead. It would be nice to be able to cycle down, and you or I could do it, but if this chap was riding at all fast, or furiously, I can imagine people getting narked, or simply not getting out of his way because they don't hear him coming or whatever.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that. Thats a perfectly reasonable view and I share it more or less entirely. And I would guess that like me if you saw someone cycling in such a place, going along at a reasonable speed for the conditions (crawling along if people are about), not ringing the bell to get pedestrians out of the way where he clearly shouldn't really be, not passing too closely, taking extra care if kids are about and dismounting if it really is hazardous then you wouldn't fret over that, because the risk associated with such behaviour is miniscule. Rightly illegal of course, because some people just can't be trusted to ride responsibly on the pavements (as you said), but if I see an individual cycling cautiously on a pavement then I don't really care (and thats almost an official view, if you cast your mind back to what the home office minister Paul Boateng sent out to police constabularies when fixed penalty notices for riding on the pavement were introduced).

If someone is being an idiot then by all means, get angry; the problem I have is that often the response from some people to pavement riding is way out of proportion to the offense. It isn't hard to see how if someone starts off a little 'different' they may end up being an extremely bolshy pavement rider, their own bad behaviour being reinforced by (as they would see it) disproportionate aggression/lack of cooperation from pedestrians. That such a situation could arise and perhaps turn this into a far more serious happenstance saddens me... although he's still clearly in the wrong.

 

[Arch]

If someone is being an idiot then by all means, get angry; the problem I have is that often the response from some people to pavement riding is way out of proportion to the offense. It isn't hard to see how if someone starts off a little 'different' they may end up being an extremely bolshy pavement rider, their own bad behaviour being reinforced by (as they would see it) disproportionate aggression/lack of cooperation from pedestrians. That such a situation could arise and perhaps turn this into a far more serious happenstance saddens me... although he's still clearly in the wrong.

I take your point - I'm afraid reacting out of all proportion to the risk seems to be a modern epidemic in all sorts of circmstances....