Cyclist seriously injures woman on pavement

Echo: Marine Parade, Southend Marine Parade, Southend

A CYCLIST who smashed into a woman on the pavement, causing life-threatening head injuries, has avoided jail.

Jason Hurrell, 23, of Mansell Close, Leigh, was sentenced to four months in jail, suspended for eighteen months, on Friday after crashing into Olivia George on the pavement of Marine Parade, Southend.

Miss George had to undergo several operations and spent several weeks in hospital after the crash, which happened earlier this year.

PC Chris Rowland said: "Cycling on the footpath is often perceived as a minor offence and public nuisance but this case highlights the very real dangers that exist if cyclists fail to ride without due regard for other road users, and pedestrians in particular.

"The sentence Jason Hurrell has received today reflects the seriousness with which courts view this type of incident and should serve to remind all road users of their responsibility to place safety before any other consideration when using the public highway.”

Despite the availability of marked cycle tracks and the road, Hurrell was riding his bike along the pavement of Marine Parade at about 9.45pm on Friday, February 1.

A number of pedestrians were either walking or gathered outside local bars and amusement arcades.

He was riding at significant speed and collided with Olivia George, who had just crossed the road and stepped onto the pavement - an area she could reasonably have expected to be safe and free from traffic.

As a result of the collision Miss George suffered a very serious, life threatening head injury and spent several weeks in hospital.

After surgery she is making a good recovery.

Hurrell was also ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work at Basildon Crown Court after pleading guilty to causing bodily harm by wanton and furious driving at an earlier hearing.

Comments (61)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:27pm Sat 14 Dec 13

returnoftheleftie says...

""The sentence Jason Hurrell has received today reflects the seriousness with which courts view this type of incident and should serve to remind all road users of their responsibility to place safety before any other consideration when using the public highway.” "

Like heck it does, he will do less community service time than time she spent in hospital, and nothing else provided he doesn't get caught being naughty for the next 18 months.
""The sentence Jason Hurrell has received today reflects the seriousness with which courts view this type of incident and should serve to remind all road users of their responsibility to place safety before any other consideration when using the public highway.” " Like heck it does, he will do less community service time than time she spent in hospital, and nothing else provided he doesn't get caught being naughty for the next 18 months. returnoftheleftie

3:20pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Kim Gandy says...

Rayleigh mum wrote:
x2k wrote:
"Miss George had to undergo several operations and spent several weeks in prison after the crash"
.
Hospital, surely?
my thoughts exactly! does nobody proof read these articles any more?
terrible reporting
Short answer: no they don't. They keep advertising for sub editors. Obviously the quality of English coming out of schools these days is sadly lacking.
[quote][p][bold]Rayleigh mum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]x2k[/bold] wrote: "Miss George had to undergo several operations and spent several weeks in prison after the crash" . Hospital, surely?[/p][/quote]my thoughts exactly! does nobody proof read these articles any more? terrible reporting[/p][/quote]Short answer: no they don't. They keep advertising for sub editors. Obviously the quality of English coming out of schools these days is sadly lacking. Kim Gandy

3:23pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Kim Gandy says...

Another bl**dy nuisance. They're all over the place nowadays. The other night I saw one riding along the road with no lights on whatsoever - and wearing BLACK.

But if I'd knocked him off his bike I would have no doubt been pursued within an inch of my life by some ambulance chasing lawyer.

How gormless are these people?
Another bl**dy nuisance. They're all over the place nowadays. The other night I saw one riding along the road with no lights on whatsoever - and wearing BLACK. But if I'd knocked him off his bike I would have no doubt been pursued within an inch of my life by some ambulance chasing lawyer. How gormless are these people? Kim Gandy

3:25pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Test Tickle says...

I think it's high time Cyclists were made to have insurance like car drivers and motorcyclists have to, or banned from the roads altogether!!
I think it's high time Cyclists were made to have insurance like car drivers and motorcyclists have to, or banned from the roads altogether!! Test Tickle

3:39pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Diannah says...

So glad to hear the young lady is recovering well.
So glad to hear the young lady is recovering well. Diannah

4:00pm Sat 14 Dec 13

scrounger‎ says...

The other people that should have been in the dock are the police and CSO for failing to uphold the law and get these pests off the pavement.
The other people that should have been in the dock are the police and CSO for failing to uphold the law and get these pests off the pavement. scrounger‎

4:08pm Sat 14 Dec 13

chrissiem says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
Another bl**dy nuisance. They're all over the place nowadays. The other night I saw one riding along the road with no lights on whatsoever - and wearing BLACK.

But if I'd knocked him off his bike I would have no doubt been pursued within an inch of my life by some ambulance chasing lawyer.

How gormless are these people?
I agree, these heedless cyclists are a danger to everyone. Coming home in Westcliff a few days ago, round about 8 pm, we were driving up a side road towards the London Road. As we were approaching the main road we were travelling relatively slowly. Suddenly a pavement cyclist shot across in front of us, he was dressed in dark clothing & hoodie, and he was texting on his mobile! He did not glance left or right. My husband and I were quite shaken. If we had been going a little bit faster we would have hit him. No doubt that would have been our fault.
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: Another bl**dy nuisance. They're all over the place nowadays. The other night I saw one riding along the road with no lights on whatsoever - and wearing BLACK. But if I'd knocked him off his bike I would have no doubt been pursued within an inch of my life by some ambulance chasing lawyer. How gormless are these people?[/p][/quote]I agree, these heedless cyclists are a danger to everyone. Coming home in Westcliff a few days ago, round about 8 pm, we were driving up a side road towards the London Road. As we were approaching the main road we were travelling relatively slowly. Suddenly a pavement cyclist shot across in front of us, he was dressed in dark clothing & hoodie, and he was texting on his mobile! He did not glance left or right. My husband and I were quite shaken. If we had been going a little bit faster we would have hit him. No doubt that would have been our fault. chrissiem

4:14pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

That's where a golfing umbrella comes in handy, in the spokes of any tw@t of a cyclist on the footpath
That's where a golfing umbrella comes in handy, in the spokes of any tw@t of a cyclist on the footpath Nowthatsworthknowing

4:27pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Keptquiettillnow says...

Glad that the lady is recovering.
Now please Southend Council can we stop this shared use footpaths that you are allowing. Cyclists and pedestrians do not mix.
Glad that the lady is recovering. Now please Southend Council can we stop this shared use footpaths that you are allowing. Cyclists and pedestrians do not mix. Keptquiettillnow

4:28pm Sat 14 Dec 13

John Bull 40 says...

Havent heard from Shoebury cyclist yet.
Havent heard from Shoebury cyclist yet. John Bull 40

4:34pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Keptquiettillnow says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
Another bl**dy nuisance. They're all over the place nowadays. The other night I saw one riding along the road with no lights on whatsoever - and wearing BLACK.

But if I'd knocked him off his bike I would have no doubt been pursued within an inch of my life by some ambulance chasing lawyer.

How gormless are these people?
Gormless or not, but you did see him!
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: Another bl**dy nuisance. They're all over the place nowadays. The other night I saw one riding along the road with no lights on whatsoever - and wearing BLACK. But if I'd knocked him off his bike I would have no doubt been pursued within an inch of my life by some ambulance chasing lawyer. How gormless are these people?[/p][/quote]Gormless or not, but you did see him! Keptquiettillnow

5:01pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Complete_Nutter says...

Can u blame cyclists for riding on the path though with so many idiot drivers. As a cyclist myself I often ride on the road and get dirty looks from car drivers as like 'what the hell you doing, you'r slowing me up'. I think the sentence for Jason Hurrell was indeed too harsh. Not intentional. All charges dropped would of been the better outcome.
Can u blame cyclists for riding on the path though with so many idiot drivers. As a cyclist myself I often ride on the road and get dirty looks from car drivers as like 'what the hell you doing, you'r slowing me up'. I think the sentence for Jason Hurrell was indeed too harsh. Not intentional. All charges dropped would of been the better outcome. Complete_Nutter

5:03pm Sat 14 Dec 13

paulatepc says...

returnoftheleftie wrote:
""The sentence Jason Hurrell has received today reflects the seriousness with which courts view this type of incident and should serve to remind all road users of their responsibility to place safety before any other consideration when using the public highway.” "

Like heck it does, he will do less community service time than time she spent in hospital, and nothing else provided he doesn't get caught being naughty for the next 18 months.
An absolute insult, actually there is no sentence if its suspended unless he does the same thing again; but then justice is rarely done.
A few years ago someone knocked my 95 year old mother down on a zebra crossing in Wickford - they called an ambulance and she said she was OK, but then she would say that as she has dementia, but suffered bruising to arms and legs. I found her at home and shocked when I visited that day and called the police to find out what happened, I was never informed as her next of kin

I was denied any information on the incident, was told I had to get a lawyer to find out more. The driver was never prosecuted or even cautioned. There is no justice unless you sue.

My advice to Miss George is to get in touch with one of these compensation lawyers - didn't used to agree with these people in the past but now think its the only way to get any sort of justice.
[quote][p][bold]returnoftheleftie[/bold] wrote: ""The sentence Jason Hurrell has received today reflects the seriousness with which courts view this type of incident and should serve to remind all road users of their responsibility to place safety before any other consideration when using the public highway.” " Like heck it does, he will do less community service time than time she spent in hospital, and nothing else provided he doesn't get caught being naughty for the next 18 months.[/p][/quote]An absolute insult, actually there is no sentence if its suspended unless he does the same thing again; but then justice is rarely done. A few years ago someone knocked my 95 year old mother down on a zebra crossing in Wickford - they called an ambulance and she said she was OK, but then she would say that as she has dementia, but suffered bruising to arms and legs. I found her at home and shocked when I visited that day and called the police to find out what happened, I was never informed as her next of kin I was denied any information on the incident, was told I had to get a lawyer to find out more. The driver was never prosecuted or even cautioned. There is no justice unless you sue. My advice to Miss George is to get in touch with one of these compensation lawyers - didn't used to agree with these people in the past but now think its the only way to get any sort of justice. paulatepc

5:04pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Complete_Nutter says...

chrissiem wrote:
Kim Gandy wrote:
Another bl**dy nuisance. They're all over the place nowadays. The other night I saw one riding along the road with no lights on whatsoever - and wearing BLACK.

But if I'd knocked him off his bike I would have no doubt been pursued within an inch of my life by some ambulance chasing lawyer.

How gormless are these people?
I agree, these heedless cyclists are a danger to everyone. Coming home in Westcliff a few days ago, round about 8 pm, we were driving up a side road towards the London Road. As we were approaching the main road we were travelling relatively slowly. Suddenly a pavement cyclist shot across in front of us, he was dressed in dark clothing & hoodie, and he was texting on his mobile! He did not glance left or right. My husband and I were quite shaken. If we had been going a little bit faster we would have hit him. No doubt that would have been our fault.
Of course it would if been. Your driving a ton of metal, and as a motorist your expected to expect the unexpected? Moron.
[quote][p][bold]chrissiem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: Another bl**dy nuisance. They're all over the place nowadays. The other night I saw one riding along the road with no lights on whatsoever - and wearing BLACK. But if I'd knocked him off his bike I would have no doubt been pursued within an inch of my life by some ambulance chasing lawyer. How gormless are these people?[/p][/quote]I agree, these heedless cyclists are a danger to everyone. Coming home in Westcliff a few days ago, round about 8 pm, we were driving up a side road towards the London Road. As we were approaching the main road we were travelling relatively slowly. Suddenly a pavement cyclist shot across in front of us, he was dressed in dark clothing & hoodie, and he was texting on his mobile! He did not glance left or right. My husband and I were quite shaken. If we had been going a little bit faster we would have hit him. No doubt that would have been our fault.[/p][/quote]Of course it would if been. Your driving a ton of metal, and as a motorist your expected to expect the unexpected? Moron. Complete_Nutter

5:06pm Sat 14 Dec 13

_Lotus_ says...

I could have sworn I read a few months back, that these same pavements were actually "shared" meaning cyclists were allowed to cycle there? Perhaps the shared part is on the opposite side of the road.
I could have sworn I read a few months back, that these same pavements were actually "shared" meaning cyclists were allowed to cycle there? Perhaps the shared part is on the opposite side of the road. _Lotus_

5:21pm Sat 14 Dec 13

OldFairfaxian says...

Suspended sentence. Ridiculous!
If that had happened anywhere else in the world he would have got a custodial sentence.
Suspended sentence. Ridiculous! If that had happened anywhere else in the world he would have got a custodial sentence. OldFairfaxian

5:23pm Sat 14 Dec 13

OldFairfaxian says...

_Lotus_ wrote:
I could have sworn I read a few months back, that these same pavements were actually "shared" meaning cyclists were allowed to cycle there? Perhaps the shared part is on the opposite side of the road.
Don't be absurd!
[quote][p][bold]_Lotus_[/bold] wrote: I could have sworn I read a few months back, that these same pavements were actually "shared" meaning cyclists were allowed to cycle there? Perhaps the shared part is on the opposite side of the road.[/p][/quote]Don't be absurd! OldFairfaxian

6:25pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Keptquiettillnow says...

Its been said before, but worth saying again. I welcome a clampdown on pavement cycling, in just the same way I also welcome a clampdown on pavement driving/parking. Pavements are for pedestrians, not for parking cars or riding bicycles.
Its been said before, but worth saying again. I welcome a clampdown on pavement cycling, in just the same way I also welcome a clampdown on pavement driving/parking. Pavements are for pedestrians, not for parking cars or riding bicycles. Keptquiettillnow

7:06pm Sat 14 Dec 13

ColonelSpiffSpaff says...

It was the shared cyclist/pedestrian space, cyclists are allowed on it
It was the shared cyclist/pedestrian space, cyclists are allowed on it ColonelSpiffSpaff

7:16pm Sat 14 Dec 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

chrissiem wrote:
Kim Gandy wrote:
Another bl**dy nuisance. They're all over the place nowadays. The other night I saw one riding along the road with no lights on whatsoever - and wearing BLACK.

But if I'd knocked him off his bike I would have no doubt been pursued within an inch of my life by some ambulance chasing lawyer.

How gormless are these people?
I agree, these heedless cyclists are a danger to everyone. Coming home in Westcliff a few days ago, round about 8 pm, we were driving up a side road towards the London Road. As we were approaching the main road we were travelling relatively slowly. Suddenly a pavement cyclist shot across in front of us, he was dressed in dark clothing & hoodie, and he was texting on his mobile! He did not glance left or right. My husband and I were quite shaken. If we had been going a little bit faster we would have hit him. No doubt that would have been our fault.
yup seen them too,these type are everywhere...it is about time police stopped them, if i see them a passing patrol can too, and once stopped check them out for other things inc whats in their bag/back pack.
[quote][p][bold]chrissiem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: Another bl**dy nuisance. They're all over the place nowadays. The other night I saw one riding along the road with no lights on whatsoever - and wearing BLACK. But if I'd knocked him off his bike I would have no doubt been pursued within an inch of my life by some ambulance chasing lawyer. How gormless are these people?[/p][/quote]I agree, these heedless cyclists are a danger to everyone. Coming home in Westcliff a few days ago, round about 8 pm, we were driving up a side road towards the London Road. As we were approaching the main road we were travelling relatively slowly. Suddenly a pavement cyclist shot across in front of us, he was dressed in dark clothing & hoodie, and he was texting on his mobile! He did not glance left or right. My husband and I were quite shaken. If we had been going a little bit faster we would have hit him. No doubt that would have been our fault.[/p][/quote]yup seen them too,these type are everywhere...it is about time police stopped them, if i see them a passing patrol can too, and once stopped check them out for other things inc whats in their bag/back pack. DogsMessInLeigh

7:20pm Sat 14 Dec 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

Complete_Nutter wrote:
Can u blame cyclists for riding on the path though with so many idiot drivers. As a cyclist myself I often ride on the road and get dirty looks from car drivers as like 'what the hell you doing, you'r slowing me up'. I think the sentence for Jason Hurrell was indeed too harsh. Not intentional. All charges dropped would of been the better outcome.
well theres riding on the path and theres riding on the path, slow and cautious and i don't see a problem, its the example above(chrissiem) and this lad in the story that are the problem.
[quote][p][bold]Complete_Nutter[/bold] wrote: Can u blame cyclists for riding on the path though with so many idiot drivers. As a cyclist myself I often ride on the road and get dirty looks from car drivers as like 'what the hell you doing, you'r slowing me up'. I think the sentence for Jason Hurrell was indeed too harsh. Not intentional. All charges dropped would of been the better outcome.[/p][/quote]well theres riding on the path and theres riding on the path, slow and cautious and i don't see a problem, its the example above(chrissiem) and this lad in the story that are the problem. DogsMessInLeigh

7:20pm Sat 14 Dec 13

ShrimperSS0 says...

And there was me thinking that riding a bike on the pavement was a criminal offence! Oh well, guess he would've got a similar punishment for drug or shoplifting offences. Riding on the pavement, or on the road no lights and dark clothes even with no contact with the handlebars while talking/ texting, the bad examples of cyclists help to give the considerate ones a bad name. If he'd caused her GBH or ABH by other methods would he have been so lucky to not be spending time at HMP?
And there was me thinking that riding a bike on the pavement was a criminal offence! Oh well, guess he would've got a similar punishment for drug or shoplifting offences. Riding on the pavement, or on the road no lights and dark clothes even with no contact with the handlebars while talking/ texting, the bad examples of cyclists help to give the considerate ones a bad name. If he'd caused her GBH or ABH by other methods would he have been so lucky to not be spending time at HMP? ShrimperSS0

7:21pm Sat 14 Dec 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

_Lotus_ wrote:
I could have sworn I read a few months back, that these same pavements were actually "shared" meaning cyclists were allowed to cycle there? Perhaps the shared part is on the opposite side of the road.
happened on the wrong side of the road.
[quote][p][bold]_Lotus_[/bold] wrote: I could have sworn I read a few months back, that these same pavements were actually "shared" meaning cyclists were allowed to cycle there? Perhaps the shared part is on the opposite side of the road.[/p][/quote]happened on the wrong side of the road. DogsMessInLeigh

7:38pm Sat 14 Dec 13

_Lotus_ says...

OldFairfaxian wrote:
_Lotus_ wrote:
I could have sworn I read a few months back, that these same pavements were actually "shared" meaning cyclists were allowed to cycle there? Perhaps the shared part is on the opposite side of the road.
Don't be absurd!
Ahh here it is what I was thinking of:

http://road.cc/conte
nt/news/75569-teenag
e-pedestrian-fightin
g-her-life-after-bei
ng-hit-cyclist-south
end
[quote][p][bold]OldFairfaxian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]_Lotus_[/bold] wrote: I could have sworn I read a few months back, that these same pavements were actually "shared" meaning cyclists were allowed to cycle there? Perhaps the shared part is on the opposite side of the road.[/p][/quote]Don't be absurd![/p][/quote]Ahh here it is what I was thinking of: http://road.cc/conte nt/news/75569-teenag e-pedestrian-fightin g-her-life-after-bei ng-hit-cyclist-south end _Lotus_

8:19pm Sat 14 Dec 13

smiffy22 says...

Complete_Nutter wrote:
Can u blame cyclists for riding on the path though with so many idiot drivers. As a cyclist myself I often ride on the road and get dirty looks from car drivers as like 'what the hell you doing, you'r slowing me up'. I think the sentence for Jason Hurrell was indeed too harsh. Not intentional. All charges dropped would of been the better outcome.
I don't agree, I believe the charges should stay. And yet I speak as a very frequent cyclist who does on occasion use the pavement to avoid very dangerous junctions. The difference however, between me and the culprit in this article, is that I will be riding at a sedate speed when on the pavement (little more that walking pace), and if I encounter a pedestrian I will stop and wait for them to pass. The seems the sensible, polite, and reasonable thing to do. And if the pavement is just too busy then I will of course just walk and push the bike. But then I'm not interested in exchanging my road risk for pedestrians' safety.
I believe any civilised, considerate cyclist would do the same. The scummy chavvy types that weave in and out of pedestrians at speed are the ones that give cyclists a bad name, but please don't run away with the idea that all cyclists are a menace when they are trying to avoid getting killed by motorists but are doing so without transferring that risk to pedestrians.
Regards,
Smiffy22
[quote][p][bold]Complete_Nutter[/bold] wrote: Can u blame cyclists for riding on the path though with so many idiot drivers. As a cyclist myself I often ride on the road and get dirty looks from car drivers as like 'what the hell you doing, you'r slowing me up'. I think the sentence for Jason Hurrell was indeed too harsh. Not intentional. All charges dropped would of been the better outcome.[/p][/quote]I don't agree, I believe the charges should stay. And yet I speak as a very frequent cyclist who does on occasion use the pavement to avoid very dangerous junctions. The difference however, between me and the culprit in this article, is that I will be riding at a sedate speed when on the pavement (little more that walking pace), and if I encounter a pedestrian I will stop and wait for them to pass. The seems the sensible, polite, and reasonable thing to do. And if the pavement is just too busy then I will of course just walk and push the bike. But then I'm not interested in exchanging my road risk for pedestrians' safety. I believe any civilised, considerate cyclist would do the same. The scummy chavvy types that weave in and out of pedestrians at speed are the ones that give cyclists a bad name, but please don't run away with the idea that all cyclists are a menace when they are trying to avoid getting killed by motorists but are doing so without transferring that risk to pedestrians. Regards, Smiffy22 smiffy22

8:40pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Stardust01 says...

People are quick to complain about 'these cyclists' when clearly there's a difference between an average cyclist and this guy being a **** on a bike. He also pleaded guilty to a driving offense so he's one of those idiot drivers too then?
People are quick to complain about 'these cyclists' when clearly there's a difference between an average cyclist and this guy being a **** on a bike. He also pleaded guilty to a driving offense so he's one of those idiot drivers too then? Stardust01

9:02pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Alice in Her Own Land :P says...

When we were kids, we couldn't wait to be "grown up" and cycle on the roads! What a namby-pamby lot today's cyclists are ... if they can't ride on the road, they shouldn't be riding a bike full stop.
When we were kids, we couldn't wait to be "grown up" and cycle on the roads! What a namby-pamby lot today's cyclists are ... if they can't ride on the road, they shouldn't be riding a bike full stop. Alice in Her Own Land :P

9:06pm Sat 14 Dec 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

Alice in Her Own Land :P wrote:
When we were kids, we couldn't wait to be "grown up" and cycle on the roads! What a namby-pamby lot today's cyclists are ... if they can't ride on the road, they shouldn't be riding a bike full stop.
crap.
[quote][p][bold]Alice in Her Own Land :P[/bold] wrote: When we were kids, we couldn't wait to be "grown up" and cycle on the roads! What a namby-pamby lot today's cyclists are ... if they can't ride on the road, they shouldn't be riding a bike full stop.[/p][/quote]crap. DogsMessInLeigh

9:17pm Sat 14 Dec 13

John T Pharro says...

Shoeburycyclist has gone all quiet on this. I wonder why?
Shoeburycyclist has gone all quiet on this. I wonder why? John T Pharro

9:23pm Sat 14 Dec 13

John T Pharro says...

DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
Alice in Her Own Land :P wrote:
When we were kids, we couldn't wait to be "grown up" and cycle on the roads! What a namby-pamby lot today's cyclists are ... if they can't ride on the road, they shouldn't be riding a bike full stop.
crap.
So this clears the legal side it is illegal to ride a cycle on the pavement. So what action are the police going to take? I expect ignore it, until of course an incident like this happens. I thought the police were supposed prevent crime, not ignore it.
[quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alice in Her Own Land :P[/bold] wrote: When we were kids, we couldn't wait to be "grown up" and cycle on the roads! What a namby-pamby lot today's cyclists are ... if they can't ride on the road, they shouldn't be riding a bike full stop.[/p][/quote]crap.[/p][/quote]So this clears the legal side it is illegal to ride a cycle on the pavement. So what action are the police going to take? I expect ignore it, until of course an incident like this happens. I thought the police were supposed prevent crime, not ignore it. John T Pharro

9:26pm Sat 14 Dec 13

John T Pharro says...

smiffy22 wrote:
Complete_Nutter wrote:
Can u blame cyclists for riding on the path though with so many idiot drivers. As a cyclist myself I often ride on the road and get dirty looks from car drivers as like 'what the hell you doing, you'r slowing me up'. I think the sentence for Jason Hurrell was indeed too harsh. Not intentional. All charges dropped would of been the better outcome.
I don't agree, I believe the charges should stay. And yet I speak as a very frequent cyclist who does on occasion use the pavement to avoid very dangerous junctions. The difference however, between me and the culprit in this article, is that I will be riding at a sedate speed when on the pavement (little more that walking pace), and if I encounter a pedestrian I will stop and wait for them to pass. The seems the sensible, polite, and reasonable thing to do. And if the pavement is just too busy then I will of course just walk and push the bike. But then I'm not interested in exchanging my road risk for pedestrians' safety.
I believe any civilised, considerate cyclist would do the same. The scummy chavvy types that weave in and out of pedestrians at speed are the ones that give cyclists a bad name, but please don't run away with the idea that all cyclists are a menace when they are trying to avoid getting killed by motorists but are doing so without transferring that risk to pedestrians.
Regards,
Smiffy22
Fact is careful or not it is still an offence to ride a cycle on the pavement full stop. Walk your bike if you cannot ride it.
[quote][p][bold]smiffy22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Complete_Nutter[/bold] wrote: Can u blame cyclists for riding on the path though with so many idiot drivers. As a cyclist myself I often ride on the road and get dirty looks from car drivers as like 'what the hell you doing, you'r slowing me up'. I think the sentence for Jason Hurrell was indeed too harsh. Not intentional. All charges dropped would of been the better outcome.[/p][/quote]I don't agree, I believe the charges should stay. And yet I speak as a very frequent cyclist who does on occasion use the pavement to avoid very dangerous junctions. The difference however, between me and the culprit in this article, is that I will be riding at a sedate speed when on the pavement (little more that walking pace), and if I encounter a pedestrian I will stop and wait for them to pass. The seems the sensible, polite, and reasonable thing to do. And if the pavement is just too busy then I will of course just walk and push the bike. But then I'm not interested in exchanging my road risk for pedestrians' safety. I believe any civilised, considerate cyclist would do the same. The scummy chavvy types that weave in and out of pedestrians at speed are the ones that give cyclists a bad name, but please don't run away with the idea that all cyclists are a menace when they are trying to avoid getting killed by motorists but are doing so without transferring that risk to pedestrians. Regards, Smiffy22[/p][/quote]Fact is careful or not it is still an offence to ride a cycle on the pavement full stop. Walk your bike if you cannot ride it. John T Pharro

9:34pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Kursaal76 says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Shoeburycyclist has gone all quiet on this. I wonder why?
He is most proberly using one of his many other user names
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: Shoeburycyclist has gone all quiet on this. I wonder why?[/p][/quote]He is most proberly using one of his many other user names Kursaal76

9:37pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Devils Advocate says...

As usual, let's all be enemies together.
It seems none of you have seen the news about how many cyclists have been killed in London, nor have you seen the films made by cyclists with cameras on their bikes, that show what a horrendous crowd motorists are. I drive a car and every day I see drivers who do not allow the cyclists the "At least one metre" when they pass him, regardless of how dodgy the road surface is and how easily he may swerve because of the same potholes we drivers make such a fuss about.
Having said that, I think it is fine for cyclists to ride on shared pavements, providing they realise they are actually on a pavement and that pedestrians do not have the same sense of awareness as road users. If a cyclist rides at high-speed on a walkway then he should have his cycle confiscated and, if he is seen on a bike within a certain time, he should face imprisonment.
Why are we so much like Americans now and live with hatred for anybody who is not us?
Why won't we try returning to the real "Good old days" and show respect for one another? That used to be the English way, and it worked (obviously only among the lower classes) Disrespecting each other is just like declaring war.... What else do you expect if that's the way you all behave!
As usual, let's all be enemies together. It seems none of you have seen the news about how many cyclists have been killed in London, nor have you seen the films made by cyclists with cameras on their bikes, that show what a horrendous crowd motorists are. I drive a car and every day I see drivers who do not allow the cyclists the "At least one metre" when they pass him, regardless of how dodgy the road surface is and how easily he may swerve because of the same potholes we drivers make such a fuss about. Having said that, I think it is fine for cyclists to ride on shared pavements, providing they realise they are actually on a pavement and that pedestrians do not have the same sense of awareness as road users. If a cyclist rides at high-speed on a walkway then he should have his cycle confiscated and, if he is seen on a bike within a certain time, he should face imprisonment. Why are we so much like Americans now and live with hatred for anybody who is not us? Why won't we try returning to the real "Good old days" and show respect for one another? That used to be the English way, and it worked (obviously only among the lower classes) Disrespecting each other is just like declaring war.... What else do you expect if that's the way you all behave! Devils Advocate

10:52pm Sat 14 Dec 13

lucy10 says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Shoeburycyclist has gone all quiet on this. I wonder why?
WHAT CLLR COX
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: Shoeburycyclist has gone all quiet on this. I wonder why?[/p][/quote]WHAT CLLR COX lucy10

12:35am Sun 15 Dec 13

smiffy22 says...

John T Pharro wrote:
smiffy22 wrote:
Complete_Nutter wrote:
Can u blame cyclists for riding on the path though with so many idiot drivers. As a cyclist myself I often ride on the road and get dirty looks from car drivers as like 'what the hell you doing, you'r slowing me up'. I think the sentence for Jason Hurrell was indeed too harsh. Not intentional. All charges dropped would of been the better outcome.
I don't agree, I believe the charges should stay. And yet I speak as a very frequent cyclist who does on occasion use the pavement to avoid very dangerous junctions. The difference however, between me and the culprit in this article, is that I will be riding at a sedate speed when on the pavement (little more that walking pace), and if I encounter a pedestrian I will stop and wait for them to pass. The seems the sensible, polite, and reasonable thing to do. And if the pavement is just too busy then I will of course just walk and push the bike. But then I'm not interested in exchanging my road risk for pedestrians' safety.
I believe any civilised, considerate cyclist would do the same. The scummy chavvy types that weave in and out of pedestrians at speed are the ones that give cyclists a bad name, but please don't run away with the idea that all cyclists are a menace when they are trying to avoid getting killed by motorists but are doing so without transferring that risk to pedestrians.
Regards,
Smiffy22
Fact is careful or not it is still an offence to ride a cycle on the pavement full stop. Walk your bike if you cannot ride it.
Fact is it is illegal to drive at more than 30 in a thirty mph limit, but the vast majority of drivers do so knowing their chances of being caught are miniscule. So don't come the high and mighty over considerate pavement cyclists, particularly since cyclists cause a tiny fraction of the injuries to others in comparison to motorists. That's precisely why this is such a newsworthy item, because of its relative rarity.
And for the record, no I don't think that exceeding 30 in a 30 limit is ok. I'm one of those unusual people that abide by speed limits. It's about respect for the rights of others, the same reason I give way to pedestrians on the odd occasion that I cycle short stretches on the pavement.
Regards,
Smiffy22
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smiffy22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Complete_Nutter[/bold] wrote: Can u blame cyclists for riding on the path though with so many idiot drivers. As a cyclist myself I often ride on the road and get dirty looks from car drivers as like 'what the hell you doing, you'r slowing me up'. I think the sentence for Jason Hurrell was indeed too harsh. Not intentional. All charges dropped would of been the better outcome.[/p][/quote]I don't agree, I believe the charges should stay. And yet I speak as a very frequent cyclist who does on occasion use the pavement to avoid very dangerous junctions. The difference however, between me and the culprit in this article, is that I will be riding at a sedate speed when on the pavement (little more that walking pace), and if I encounter a pedestrian I will stop and wait for them to pass. The seems the sensible, polite, and reasonable thing to do. And if the pavement is just too busy then I will of course just walk and push the bike. But then I'm not interested in exchanging my road risk for pedestrians' safety. I believe any civilised, considerate cyclist would do the same. The scummy chavvy types that weave in and out of pedestrians at speed are the ones that give cyclists a bad name, but please don't run away with the idea that all cyclists are a menace when they are trying to avoid getting killed by motorists but are doing so without transferring that risk to pedestrians. Regards, Smiffy22[/p][/quote]Fact is careful or not it is still an offence to ride a cycle on the pavement full stop. Walk your bike if you cannot ride it.[/p][/quote]Fact is it is illegal to drive at more than 30 in a thirty mph limit, but the vast majority of drivers do so knowing their chances of being caught are miniscule. So don't come the high and mighty over considerate pavement cyclists, particularly since cyclists cause a tiny fraction of the injuries to others in comparison to motorists. That's precisely why this is such a newsworthy item, because of its relative rarity. And for the record, no I don't think that exceeding 30 in a 30 limit is ok. I'm one of those unusual people that abide by speed limits. It's about respect for the rights of others, the same reason I give way to pedestrians on the odd occasion that I cycle short stretches on the pavement. Regards, Smiffy22 smiffy22

12:42am Sun 15 Dec 13

EssexBoy1968 says...

"PC Chris Rowland said: "Cycling on the footpath is often perceived as a minor offence and public nuisance but this case highlights the very real dangers that exist if cyclists fail to ride without due regard for other road users, and pedestrians in particular."
So, in light of these comments will we see Police Officers & PCSOs stop and issue fines/confiscate bicycles from cyclists who ride on the pavement or through pedestrianised areas - or will they just continue to ignore them, even to the point of claiming not to have seen them as ride them?
The sentence was not proportionate to the offence, & even if suspended should have been considerably harsher . Wonder what will happen when Mr Hurrell is next seen riding on the pavement - nothing I bet....
"PC Chris Rowland said: "Cycling on the footpath is often perceived as a minor offence and public nuisance but this case highlights the very real dangers that exist if cyclists fail to ride without due regard for other road users, and pedestrians in particular." So, in light of these comments will we see Police Officers & PCSOs stop and issue fines/confiscate bicycles from cyclists who ride on the pavement or through pedestrianised areas - or will they just continue to ignore them, even to the point of claiming not to have seen them as ride them? The sentence was not proportionate to the offence, & even if suspended should have been considerably harsher . Wonder what will happen when Mr Hurrell is next seen riding on the pavement - nothing I bet.... EssexBoy1968

7:41am Sun 15 Dec 13

Keptquiettillnow says...

John T Pharro wrote:
DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
Alice in Her Own Land :P wrote:
When we were kids, we couldn't wait to be "grown up" and cycle on the roads! What a namby-pamby lot today's cyclists are ... if they can't ride on the road, they shouldn't be riding a bike full stop.
crap.
So this clears the legal side it is illegal to ride a cycle on the pavement. So what action are the police going to take? I expect ignore it, until of course an incident like this happens. I thought the police were supposed prevent crime, not ignore it.
If you are worried about pedestrian safety, then ask the police to start fining motorists who drive/park on the pavement as well. I am all for pedestrian safety, but it needs to include all road users. When I walk around Southend/Westcliff there are far more cars on pavements than bicycles. What is the answer?
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alice in Her Own Land :P[/bold] wrote: When we were kids, we couldn't wait to be "grown up" and cycle on the roads! What a namby-pamby lot today's cyclists are ... if they can't ride on the road, they shouldn't be riding a bike full stop.[/p][/quote]crap.[/p][/quote]So this clears the legal side it is illegal to ride a cycle on the pavement. So what action are the police going to take? I expect ignore it, until of course an incident like this happens. I thought the police were supposed prevent crime, not ignore it.[/p][/quote]If you are worried about pedestrian safety, then ask the police to start fining motorists who drive/park on the pavement as well. I am all for pedestrian safety, but it needs to include all road users. When I walk around Southend/Westcliff there are far more cars on pavements than bicycles. What is the answer? Keptquiettillnow

9:10am Sun 15 Dec 13

CHRISTMAS CAROL says...

I remember some years ago knowing a lady who was knocked over by a cyclist riding on the pavement, in Sutton Road she hit her head on the pavement and died. She was 6 months pregnant.
I have been in Southend High street at peak shopping times and seen cyclists haring down the on pedestrians and local community officers watching and doing nothing, thought they were there for everybody's safety, obviously not .
I remember some years ago knowing a lady who was knocked over by a cyclist riding on the pavement, in Sutton Road she hit her head on the pavement and died. She was 6 months pregnant. I have been in Southend High street at peak shopping times and seen cyclists haring down the on pedestrians and local community officers watching and doing nothing, thought they were there for everybody's safety, obviously not . CHRISTMAS CAROL

9:30am Sun 15 Dec 13

scrounger‎ says...

Now heres a thought, if every law enforcement officer in town was instructed to book 4 pavement cyclists a day then the fine of £50 each would pay for an officers wages for that day. In many hot spots this would only create a few minutes extra work each day. This would be nothing that us motorists don't face on a daily basis if we break parking or speeding rules.
Now heres a thought, if every law enforcement officer in town was instructed to book 4 pavement cyclists a day then the fine of £50 each would pay for an officers wages for that day. In many hot spots this would only create a few minutes extra work each day. This would be nothing that us motorists don't face on a daily basis if we break parking or speeding rules. scrounger‎

9:38am Sun 15 Dec 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

Today 7.45am Sunday Morning...a girl riding a bike near to Bellinis/Iceland London Road, headphones on riding no hands and travelling fast(slightly down hill) on the pavement,also East european Car washers preferred mode of transport...all on the pavements, Hoodies too, real cyclists stick to the highway.
Southend high street did have a clamp down on cycles, and also agree way too many cars half parked on pavements and verges.
Today 7.45am Sunday Morning...a girl riding a bike near to Bellinis/Iceland London Road, headphones on riding no hands and travelling fast(slightly down hill) on the pavement,also East european Car washers preferred mode of transport...all on the pavements, Hoodies too, real cyclists stick to the highway. Southend high street did have a clamp down on cycles, and also agree way too many cars half parked on pavements and verges. DogsMessInLeigh

10:13am Sun 15 Dec 13

PhatBloke says...

OldFairfaxian wrote:
Suspended sentence. Ridiculous!
If that had happened anywhere else in the world he would have got a custodial sentence.
You are absolutely correct. Part of the seafront is designated as "shared space". The pavement outside the arcades is not shared space and cycling on it is forbidden.
However, the signage is so bad along here as to what is "shared space" and what isn't that this conviction is completely unsound. The cyclist should get himself a decent brief and appeal straight away. Don't get me wrong, he shouldn't have been cycling that fast anywhere along that part of the seafront, but if he wanted to challenge the verdict I reckon it should be overturned.
[quote][p][bold]OldFairfaxian[/bold] wrote: Suspended sentence. Ridiculous! If that had happened anywhere else in the world he would have got a custodial sentence.[/p][/quote]You are absolutely correct. Part of the seafront is designated as "shared space". The pavement outside the arcades is not shared space and cycling on it is forbidden. However, the signage is so bad along here as to what is "shared space" and what isn't that this conviction is completely unsound. The cyclist should get himself a decent brief and appeal straight away. Don't get me wrong, he shouldn't have been cycling that fast anywhere along that part of the seafront, but if he wanted to challenge the verdict I reckon it should be overturned. PhatBloke

10:15am Sun 15 Dec 13

PhatBloke says...

_Lotus_ wrote:
I could have sworn I read a few months back, that these same pavements were actually "shared" meaning cyclists were allowed to cycle there? Perhaps the shared part is on the opposite side of the road.
You are absolutely correct. Part of the seafront is designated as "shared space". The pavement outside the arcades is not shared space and cycling on it is forbidden.
However, the signage is so bad along here as to what is "shared space" and what isn't that this conviction is completely unsound. The cyclist should get himself a decent brief and appeal straight away. Don't get me wrong, he shouldn't have been cycling that fast anywhere along that part of the seafront, but if he wanted to challenge the verdict I reckon it should be overturned.

(quoted wrong post earlier. Whoops!)
[quote][p][bold]_Lotus_[/bold] wrote: I could have sworn I read a few months back, that these same pavements were actually "shared" meaning cyclists were allowed to cycle there? Perhaps the shared part is on the opposite side of the road.[/p][/quote]You are absolutely correct. Part of the seafront is designated as "shared space". The pavement outside the arcades is not shared space and cycling on it is forbidden. However, the signage is so bad along here as to what is "shared space" and what isn't that this conviction is completely unsound. The cyclist should get himself a decent brief and appeal straight away. Don't get me wrong, he shouldn't have been cycling that fast anywhere along that part of the seafront, but if he wanted to challenge the verdict I reckon it should be overturned. (quoted wrong post earlier. Whoops!) PhatBloke

11:17am Sun 15 Dec 13

Goldilocks1 says...

CHRISTMAS CAROL wrote:
I remember some years ago knowing a lady who was knocked over by a cyclist riding on the pavement, in Sutton Road she hit her head on the pavement and died. She was 6 months pregnant.
I have been in Southend High street at peak shopping times and seen cyclists haring down the on pedestrians and local community officers watching and doing nothing, thought they were there for everybody's safety, obviously not .
I have seen police stop youngsters & men who should know better and give them a telling off only to find further up the road they just hope back on their bikes, If they took their bikes of them it may but only may teach them a lesson hopefully. I was once hit by a cyclist tearing along the pavement along the London Road and it HURTS but I do feel for them on the roads as people in car's haven't the time for them, I used to love riding my bike but I value my life more, shame there isn't a solution in this day & age but there you go Cars, Bikes & People don't mix.
That poor young lady being killed, pregnant too.
[quote][p][bold]CHRISTMAS CAROL[/bold] wrote: I remember some years ago knowing a lady who was knocked over by a cyclist riding on the pavement, in Sutton Road she hit her head on the pavement and died. She was 6 months pregnant. I have been in Southend High street at peak shopping times and seen cyclists haring down the on pedestrians and local community officers watching and doing nothing, thought they were there for everybody's safety, obviously not .[/p][/quote]I have seen police stop youngsters & men who should know better and give them a telling off only to find further up the road they just hope back on their bikes, If they took their bikes of them it may but only may teach them a lesson hopefully. I was once hit by a cyclist tearing along the pavement along the London Road and it HURTS but I do feel for them on the roads as people in car's haven't the time for them, I used to love riding my bike but I value my life more, shame there isn't a solution in this day & age but there you go Cars, Bikes & People don't mix. That poor young lady being killed, pregnant too. Goldilocks1

1:24pm Sun 15 Dec 13

Roland660 says...

One stupid idiot on a bike doesn't warrant all these attacks against cyclists.
I suppose most of you are overweight and read the Daily Mail and don't give a damm about the environment or looking after your health.
Stop being so righteous and try and educate yourselves.
Essex gets a bad press and I wonder why.
One stupid idiot on a bike doesn't warrant all these attacks against cyclists. I suppose most of you are overweight and read the Daily Mail and don't give a damm about the environment or looking after your health. Stop being so righteous and try and educate yourselves. Essex gets a bad press and I wonder why. Roland660

4:52pm Sun 15 Dec 13

John T Pharro says...

Keptquiettillnow wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
Alice in Her Own Land :P wrote:
When we were kids, we couldn't wait to be "grown up" and cycle on the roads! What a namby-pamby lot today's cyclists are ... if they can't ride on the road, they shouldn't be riding a bike full stop.
crap.
So this clears the legal side it is illegal to ride a cycle on the pavement. So what action are the police going to take? I expect ignore it, until of course an incident like this happens. I thought the police were supposed prevent crime, not ignore it.
If you are worried about pedestrian safety, then ask the police to start fining motorists who drive/park on the pavement as well. I am all for pedestrian safety, but it needs to include all road users. When I walk around Southend/Westcliff there are far more cars on pavements than bicycles. What is the answer?
All should be prosecuted that is the answer.
[quote][p][bold]Keptquiettillnow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alice in Her Own Land :P[/bold] wrote: When we were kids, we couldn't wait to be "grown up" and cycle on the roads! What a namby-pamby lot today's cyclists are ... if they can't ride on the road, they shouldn't be riding a bike full stop.[/p][/quote]crap.[/p][/quote]So this clears the legal side it is illegal to ride a cycle on the pavement. So what action are the police going to take? I expect ignore it, until of course an incident like this happens. I thought the police were supposed prevent crime, not ignore it.[/p][/quote]If you are worried about pedestrian safety, then ask the police to start fining motorists who drive/park on the pavement as well. I am all for pedestrian safety, but it needs to include all road users. When I walk around Southend/Westcliff there are far more cars on pavements than bicycles. What is the answer?[/p][/quote]All should be prosecuted that is the answer. John T Pharro

4:57pm Sun 15 Dec 13

John T Pharro says...

smiffy22 wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
smiffy22 wrote:
Complete_Nutter wrote:
Can u blame cyclists for riding on the path though with so many idiot drivers. As a cyclist myself I often ride on the road and get dirty looks from car drivers as like 'what the hell you doing, you'r slowing me up'. I think the sentence for Jason Hurrell was indeed too harsh. Not intentional. All charges dropped would of been the better outcome.
I don't agree, I believe the charges should stay. And yet I speak as a very frequent cyclist who does on occasion use the pavement to avoid very dangerous junctions. The difference however, between me and the culprit in this article, is that I will be riding at a sedate speed when on the pavement (little more that walking pace), and if I encounter a pedestrian I will stop and wait for them to pass. The seems the sensible, polite, and reasonable thing to do. And if the pavement is just too busy then I will of course just walk and push the bike. But then I'm not interested in exchanging my road risk for pedestrians' safety.
I believe any civilised, considerate cyclist would do the same. The scummy chavvy types that weave in and out of pedestrians at speed are the ones that give cyclists a bad name, but please don't run away with the idea that all cyclists are a menace when they are trying to avoid getting killed by motorists but are doing so without transferring that risk to pedestrians.
Regards,
Smiffy22
Fact is careful or not it is still an offence to ride a cycle on the pavement full stop. Walk your bike if you cannot ride it.
Fact is it is illegal to drive at more than 30 in a thirty mph limit, but the vast majority of drivers do so knowing their chances of being caught are miniscule. So don't come the high and mighty over considerate pavement cyclists, particularly since cyclists cause a tiny fraction of the injuries to others in comparison to motorists. That's precisely why this is such a newsworthy item, because of its relative rarity.
And for the record, no I don't think that exceeding 30 in a 30 limit is ok. I'm one of those unusual people that abide by speed limits. It's about respect for the rights of others, the same reason I give way to pedestrians on the odd occasion that I cycle short stretches on the pavement.
Regards,
Smiffy22
However low risk or careful you are the fact is you are still picking and choosing which laws you want to adhere to. I don't break the speed limit nor ride my bike on the pavement. Tell me what is do difficult about walking your bike if it is only "occasional".
[quote][p][bold]smiffy22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smiffy22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Complete_Nutter[/bold] wrote: Can u blame cyclists for riding on the path though with so many idiot drivers. As a cyclist myself I often ride on the road and get dirty looks from car drivers as like 'what the hell you doing, you'r slowing me up'. I think the sentence for Jason Hurrell was indeed too harsh. Not intentional. All charges dropped would of been the better outcome.[/p][/quote]I don't agree, I believe the charges should stay. And yet I speak as a very frequent cyclist who does on occasion use the pavement to avoid very dangerous junctions. The difference however, between me and the culprit in this article, is that I will be riding at a sedate speed when on the pavement (little more that walking pace), and if I encounter a pedestrian I will stop and wait for them to pass. The seems the sensible, polite, and reasonable thing to do. And if the pavement is just too busy then I will of course just walk and push the bike. But then I'm not interested in exchanging my road risk for pedestrians' safety. I believe any civilised, considerate cyclist would do the same. The scummy chavvy types that weave in and out of pedestrians at speed are the ones that give cyclists a bad name, but please don't run away with the idea that all cyclists are a menace when they are trying to avoid getting killed by motorists but are doing so without transferring that risk to pedestrians. Regards, Smiffy22[/p][/quote]Fact is careful or not it is still an offence to ride a cycle on the pavement full stop. Walk your bike if you cannot ride it.[/p][/quote]Fact is it is illegal to drive at more than 30 in a thirty mph limit, but the vast majority of drivers do so knowing their chances of being caught are miniscule. So don't come the high and mighty over considerate pavement cyclists, particularly since cyclists cause a tiny fraction of the injuries to others in comparison to motorists. That's precisely why this is such a newsworthy item, because of its relative rarity. And for the record, no I don't think that exceeding 30 in a 30 limit is ok. I'm one of those unusual people that abide by speed limits. It's about respect for the rights of others, the same reason I give way to pedestrians on the odd occasion that I cycle short stretches on the pavement. Regards, Smiffy22[/p][/quote]However low risk or careful you are the fact is you are still picking and choosing which laws you want to adhere to. I don't break the speed limit nor ride my bike on the pavement. Tell me what is do difficult about walking your bike if it is only "occasional". John T Pharro

4:57pm Sun 15 Dec 13

John T Pharro says...

smiffy22 wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
smiffy22 wrote:
Complete_Nutter wrote:
Can u blame cyclists for riding on the path though with so many idiot drivers. As a cyclist myself I often ride on the road and get dirty looks from car drivers as like 'what the hell you doing, you'r slowing me up'. I think the sentence for Jason Hurrell was indeed too harsh. Not intentional. All charges dropped would of been the better outcome.
I don't agree, I believe the charges should stay. And yet I speak as a very frequent cyclist who does on occasion use the pavement to avoid very dangerous junctions. The difference however, between me and the culprit in this article, is that I will be riding at a sedate speed when on the pavement (little more that walking pace), and if I encounter a pedestrian I will stop and wait for them to pass. The seems the sensible, polite, and reasonable thing to do. And if the pavement is just too busy then I will of course just walk and push the bike. But then I'm not interested in exchanging my road risk for pedestrians' safety.
I believe any civilised, considerate cyclist would do the same. The scummy chavvy types that weave in and out of pedestrians at speed are the ones that give cyclists a bad name, but please don't run away with the idea that all cyclists are a menace when they are trying to avoid getting killed by motorists but are doing so without transferring that risk to pedestrians.
Regards,
Smiffy22
Fact is careful or not it is still an offence to ride a cycle on the pavement full stop. Walk your bike if you cannot ride it.
Fact is it is illegal to drive at more than 30 in a thirty mph limit, but the vast majority of drivers do so knowing their chances of being caught are miniscule. So don't come the high and mighty over considerate pavement cyclists, particularly since cyclists cause a tiny fraction of the injuries to others in comparison to motorists. That's precisely why this is such a newsworthy item, because of its relative rarity.
And for the record, no I don't think that exceeding 30 in a 30 limit is ok. I'm one of those unusual people that abide by speed limits. It's about respect for the rights of others, the same reason I give way to pedestrians on the odd occasion that I cycle short stretches on the pavement.
Regards,
Smiffy22
However low risk or careful you are the fact is you are still picking and choosing which laws you want to adhere to. I don't break the speed limit nor ride my bike on the pavement. Tell me what is do difficult about walking your bike if it is only "occasional".
[quote][p][bold]smiffy22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smiffy22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Complete_Nutter[/bold] wrote: Can u blame cyclists for riding on the path though with so many idiot drivers. As a cyclist myself I often ride on the road and get dirty looks from car drivers as like 'what the hell you doing, you'r slowing me up'. I think the sentence for Jason Hurrell was indeed too harsh. Not intentional. All charges dropped would of been the better outcome.[/p][/quote]I don't agree, I believe the charges should stay. And yet I speak as a very frequent cyclist who does on occasion use the pavement to avoid very dangerous junctions. The difference however, between me and the culprit in this article, is that I will be riding at a sedate speed when on the pavement (little more that walking pace), and if I encounter a pedestrian I will stop and wait for them to pass. The seems the sensible, polite, and reasonable thing to do. And if the pavement is just too busy then I will of course just walk and push the bike. But then I'm not interested in exchanging my road risk for pedestrians' safety. I believe any civilised, considerate cyclist would do the same. The scummy chavvy types that weave in and out of pedestrians at speed are the ones that give cyclists a bad name, but please don't run away with the idea that all cyclists are a menace when they are trying to avoid getting killed by motorists but are doing so without transferring that risk to pedestrians. Regards, Smiffy22[/p][/quote]Fact is careful or not it is still an offence to ride a cycle on the pavement full stop. Walk your bike if you cannot ride it.[/p][/quote]Fact is it is illegal to drive at more than 30 in a thirty mph limit, but the vast majority of drivers do so knowing their chances of being caught are miniscule. So don't come the high and mighty over considerate pavement cyclists, particularly since cyclists cause a tiny fraction of the injuries to others in comparison to motorists. That's precisely why this is such a newsworthy item, because of its relative rarity. And for the record, no I don't think that exceeding 30 in a 30 limit is ok. I'm one of those unusual people that abide by speed limits. It's about respect for the rights of others, the same reason I give way to pedestrians on the odd occasion that I cycle short stretches on the pavement. Regards, Smiffy22[/p][/quote]However low risk or careful you are the fact is you are still picking and choosing which laws you want to adhere to. I don't break the speed limit nor ride my bike on the pavement. Tell me what is do difficult about walking your bike if it is only "occasional". John T Pharro

6:51pm Sun 15 Dec 13

Devils Advocate says...

scrounger‎ wrote:
Now heres a thought, if every law enforcement officer in town was instructed to book 4 pavement cyclists a day then the fine of £50 each would pay for an officers wages for that day. In many hot spots this would only create a few minutes extra work each day. This would be nothing that us motorists don't face on a daily basis if we break parking or speeding rules.
Not arguing with your sentiment, but I think you may be quoting the right-wing when you say the Officers wages equate to £200 a day.
But I would also point out that there are many, many cyclists who ride their machines extremely carefully when on the pedestrians right of way. The same as there aremany motorists who don't think it's a given right to go at least 30% above any speed limit.
Sadly, the only person I know who actually got fined for riding in Basildon town centre was an old boy in his 70's who, when he was alive, never ever exceeded 5 mph on a clear pavement and, if pedestrian traffic became heavy, got off and hobbled.
That was so unfair when you think how many times you get spun around in the wind of the wannabe Bradley Wiggins!
[quote][p][bold]scrounger‎[/bold] wrote: Now heres a thought, if every law enforcement officer in town was instructed to book 4 pavement cyclists a day then the fine of £50 each would pay for an officers wages for that day. In many hot spots this would only create a few minutes extra work each day. This would be nothing that us motorists don't face on a daily basis if we break parking or speeding rules.[/p][/quote]Not arguing with your sentiment, but I think you may be quoting the right-wing when you say the Officers wages equate to £200 a day. But I would also point out that there are many, many cyclists who ride their machines extremely carefully when on the pedestrians right of way. The same as there aremany motorists who don't think it's a given right to go at least 30% above any speed limit. Sadly, the only person I know who actually got fined for riding in Basildon town centre was an old boy in his 70's who, when he was alive, never ever exceeded 5 mph on a clear pavement and, if pedestrian traffic became heavy, got off and hobbled. That was so unfair when you think how many times you get spun around in the wind of the wannabe Bradley Wiggins! Devils Advocate

8:08pm Sun 15 Dec 13

Almeda11 says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
Rayleigh mum wrote:
x2k wrote: "Miss George had to undergo several operations and spent several weeks in prison after the crash" . Hospital, surely?
my thoughts exactly! does nobody proof read these articles any more? terrible reporting
Short answer: no they don't. They keep advertising for sub editors. Obviously the quality of English coming out of schools these days is sadly lacking.
Sorry, but NOWHERE does it say prison!! You are seeing things which are not there, and people are voting up without checking -- not very observant lot are they.

This is the quote and it says it in two places:

"Miss George had to undergo several operations and spent several weeks in hospital after the crash, which happened earlier this year."
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rayleigh mum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]x2k[/bold] wrote: "Miss George had to undergo several operations and spent several weeks in prison after the crash" . Hospital, surely?[/p][/quote]my thoughts exactly! does nobody proof read these articles any more? terrible reporting[/p][/quote]Short answer: no they don't. They keep advertising for sub editors. Obviously the quality of English coming out of schools these days is sadly lacking.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but NOWHERE does it say prison!! You are seeing things which are not there, and people are voting up without checking -- not very observant lot are they. This is the quote and it says it in two places: "Miss George had to undergo several operations and spent several weeks in hospital after the crash, which happened earlier this year." Almeda11

8:19pm Sun 15 Dec 13

tinaarocha321 says...

kimsmithjhones wrote:
hey how every one win the lottery I'm happy for them Mega Millions merry Christmas to you, here you go for christmas presents
..... ℬAℛ17.cℴm
merry Christmas
[quote][p][bold]kimsmithjhones[/bold] wrote: hey how every one win the lottery I'm happy for them Mega Millions merry Christmas to you, here you go for christmas presents ..... ℬAℛ17.cℴm[/p][/quote]merry Christmas tinaarocha321

1:06am Mon 16 Dec 13

Nebs says...

Almeda11 wrote:
Kim Gandy wrote:
Rayleigh mum wrote:
x2k wrote: "Miss George had to undergo several operations and spent several weeks in prison after the crash" . Hospital, surely?
my thoughts exactly! does nobody proof read these articles any more? terrible reporting
Short answer: no they don't. They keep advertising for sub editors. Obviously the quality of English coming out of schools these days is sadly lacking.
Sorry, but NOWHERE does it say prison!! You are seeing things which are not there, and people are voting up without checking -- not very observant lot are they.

This is the quote and it says it in two places:

"Miss George had to undergo several operations and spent several weeks in hospital after the crash, which happened earlier this year."
Maybe the editor changed the article after the errors were pointed out. It wouldn't be the first time.
[quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rayleigh mum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]x2k[/bold] wrote: "Miss George had to undergo several operations and spent several weeks in prison after the crash" . Hospital, surely?[/p][/quote]my thoughts exactly! does nobody proof read these articles any more? terrible reporting[/p][/quote]Short answer: no they don't. They keep advertising for sub editors. Obviously the quality of English coming out of schools these days is sadly lacking.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but NOWHERE does it say prison!! You are seeing things which are not there, and people are voting up without checking -- not very observant lot are they. This is the quote and it says it in two places: "Miss George had to undergo several operations and spent several weeks in hospital after the crash, which happened earlier this year."[/p][/quote]Maybe the editor changed the article after the errors were pointed out. It wouldn't be the first time. Nebs

10:23am Mon 16 Dec 13

JayRSS1 says...

Devils Advocate wrote:
As usual, let's all be enemies together.
It seems none of you have seen the news about how many cyclists have been killed in London, nor have you seen the films made by cyclists with cameras on their bikes, that show what a horrendous crowd motorists are. I drive a car and every day I see drivers who do not allow the cyclists the "At least one metre" when they pass him, regardless of how dodgy the road surface is and how easily he may swerve because of the same potholes we drivers make such a fuss about.
Having said that, I think it is fine for cyclists to ride on shared pavements, providing they realise they are actually on a pavement and that pedestrians do not have the same sense of awareness as road users. If a cyclist rides at high-speed on a walkway then he should have his cycle confiscated and, if he is seen on a bike within a certain time, he should face imprisonment.
Why are we so much like Americans now and live with hatred for anybody who is not us?
Why won't we try returning to the real "Good old days" and show respect for one another? That used to be the English way, and it worked (obviously only among the lower classes) Disrespecting each other is just like declaring war.... What else do you expect if that's the way you all behave!
I totally agree DA.
Driving and cycling should be undertaken with care and respect for others. What happen in the report was just awful.
But even when cycling responsibly in these shared areas SOME pedestrians should also be MADE aware that this is shared space instead of walking in a daze oblivious to everyone around them. Especially the parents who let toddlers run loose with no sign of regard until the little darlings are either off into the car park, staggering into the path of cyclists or other pedestrians etc
Especially when parking up on the sea front not looking to check the cycle path is clear before they open their doors, leaving their children parked in buggies, or even just standing or wandering around like gormless zombies right in the cycle lane.
As you have pointed out, there are morons in all walks of life but some of these pedestrians are one stop short of Simian.
At least drivers have taken a test, so too should cyclists. At school I was taught cycling proficiency which taught me at a relatively a young age how to act on the road. Should be rolled out and a badge to be put on every teen/adult's bike with ID number so there is a record if you have been cautioned and fined for not having lights or high vis' clothing when needed. Caught without one you get an on the spot fine and bike confiscated until you take the course.
Also drivers who can't pass the test after 3 tries shouldn't really be on the road in charge of a tonne of steel.
[quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: As usual, let's all be enemies together. It seems none of you have seen the news about how many cyclists have been killed in London, nor have you seen the films made by cyclists with cameras on their bikes, that show what a horrendous crowd motorists are. I drive a car and every day I see drivers who do not allow the cyclists the "At least one metre" when they pass him, regardless of how dodgy the road surface is and how easily he may swerve because of the same potholes we drivers make such a fuss about. Having said that, I think it is fine for cyclists to ride on shared pavements, providing they realise they are actually on a pavement and that pedestrians do not have the same sense of awareness as road users. If a cyclist rides at high-speed on a walkway then he should have his cycle confiscated and, if he is seen on a bike within a certain time, he should face imprisonment. Why are we so much like Americans now and live with hatred for anybody who is not us? Why won't we try returning to the real "Good old days" and show respect for one another? That used to be the English way, and it worked (obviously only among the lower classes) Disrespecting each other is just like declaring war.... What else do you expect if that's the way you all behave![/p][/quote]I totally agree DA. Driving and cycling should be undertaken with care and respect for others. What happen in the report was just awful. But even when cycling responsibly in these shared areas SOME pedestrians should also be MADE aware that this is shared space instead of walking in a daze oblivious to everyone around them. Especially the parents who let toddlers run loose with no sign of regard until the little darlings are either off into the car park, staggering into the path of cyclists or other pedestrians etc Especially when parking up on the sea front not looking to check the cycle path is clear before they open their doors, leaving their children parked in buggies, or even just standing or wandering around like gormless zombies right in the cycle lane. As you have pointed out, there are morons in all walks of life but some of these pedestrians are one stop short of Simian. At least drivers have taken a test, so too should cyclists. At school I was taught cycling proficiency which taught me at a relatively a young age how to act on the road. Should be rolled out and a badge to be put on every teen/adult's bike with ID number so there is a record if you have been cautioned and fined for not having lights or high vis' clothing when needed. Caught without one you get an on the spot fine and bike confiscated until you take the course. Also drivers who can't pass the test after 3 tries shouldn't really be on the road in charge of a tonne of steel. JayRSS1

2:43pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Master shoplifter says...

Devils Advocate wrote:
scrounger‎ wrote:
Now heres a thought, if every law enforcement officer in town was instructed to book 4 pavement cyclists a day then the fine of £50 each would pay for an officers wages for that day. In many hot spots this would only create a few minutes extra work each day. This would be nothing that us motorists don't face on a daily basis if we break parking or speeding rules.
Not arguing with your sentiment, but I think you may be quoting the right-wing when you say the Officers wages equate to £200 a day.
But I would also point out that there are many, many cyclists who ride their machines extremely carefully when on the pedestrians right of way. The same as there aremany motorists who don't think it's a given right to go at least 30% above any speed limit.
Sadly, the only person I know who actually got fined for riding in Basildon town centre was an old boy in his 70's who, when he was alive, never ever exceeded 5 mph on a clear pavement and, if pedestrian traffic became heavy, got off and hobbled.
That was so unfair when you think how many times you get spun around in the wind of the wannabe Bradley Wiggins!
As a young lad, I cycle like a maniac too. Weaving in and out of traffic jams, blasting through red lights etc. I don't think there's many cyclists more dangerous then me.
[quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrounger‎[/bold] wrote: Now heres a thought, if every law enforcement officer in town was instructed to book 4 pavement cyclists a day then the fine of £50 each would pay for an officers wages for that day. In many hot spots this would only create a few minutes extra work each day. This would be nothing that us motorists don't face on a daily basis if we break parking or speeding rules.[/p][/quote]Not arguing with your sentiment, but I think you may be quoting the right-wing when you say the Officers wages equate to £200 a day. But I would also point out that there are many, many cyclists who ride their machines extremely carefully when on the pedestrians right of way. The same as there aremany motorists who don't think it's a given right to go at least 30% above any speed limit. Sadly, the only person I know who actually got fined for riding in Basildon town centre was an old boy in his 70's who, when he was alive, never ever exceeded 5 mph on a clear pavement and, if pedestrian traffic became heavy, got off and hobbled. That was so unfair when you think how many times you get spun around in the wind of the wannabe Bradley Wiggins![/p][/quote]As a young lad, I cycle like a maniac too. Weaving in and out of traffic jams, blasting through red lights etc. I don't think there's many cyclists more dangerous then me. Master shoplifter

12:34am Thu 19 Dec 13

smiffy22 says...

John T Pharro wrote:
smiffy22 wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
smiffy22 wrote:
Complete_Nutter wrote:
Can u blame cyclists for riding on the path though with so many idiot drivers. As a cyclist myself I often ride on the road and get dirty looks from car drivers as like 'what the hell you doing, you'r slowing me up'. I think the sentence for Jason Hurrell was indeed too harsh. Not intentional. All charges dropped would of been the better outcome.
I don't agree, I believe the charges should stay. And yet I speak as a very frequent cyclist who does on occasion use the pavement to avoid very dangerous junctions. The difference however, between me and the culprit in this article, is that I will be riding at a sedate speed when on the pavement (little more that walking pace), and if I encounter a pedestrian I will stop and wait for them to pass. The seems the sensible, polite, and reasonable thing to do. And if the pavement is just too busy then I will of course just walk and push the bike. But then I'm not interested in exchanging my road risk for pedestrians' safety.
I believe any civilised, considerate cyclist would do the same. The scummy chavvy types that weave in and out of pedestrians at speed are the ones that give cyclists a bad name, but please don't run away with the idea that all cyclists are a menace when they are trying to avoid getting killed by motorists but are doing so without transferring that risk to pedestrians.
Regards,
Smiffy22
Fact is careful or not it is still an offence to ride a cycle on the pavement full stop. Walk your bike if you cannot ride it.
Fact is it is illegal to drive at more than 30 in a thirty mph limit, but the vast majority of drivers do so knowing their chances of being caught are miniscule. So don't come the high and mighty over considerate pavement cyclists, particularly since cyclists cause a tiny fraction of the injuries to others in comparison to motorists. That's precisely why this is such a newsworthy item, because of its relative rarity.
And for the record, no I don't think that exceeding 30 in a 30 limit is ok. I'm one of those unusual people that abide by speed limits. It's about respect for the rights of others, the same reason I give way to pedestrians on the odd occasion that I cycle short stretches on the pavement.
Regards,
Smiffy22
However low risk or careful you are the fact is you are still picking and choosing which laws you want to adhere to. I don't break the speed limit nor ride my bike on the pavement. Tell me what is do difficult about walking your bike if it is only "occasional".
Because it is pointless walking the bike along an empty pavement. You can follow the laws to the letter yet still act in an inconsiderate or even unsafe manner to other people. As I tried to convey in my posting, I attach far more importance to consideration of others and safety than sticking blindly to every single rule.
I expect that if you examine you own life in great detail there are probably many rules you also transgress.
Regards,
Smiffy22
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smiffy22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smiffy22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Complete_Nutter[/bold] wrote: Can u blame cyclists for riding on the path though with so many idiot drivers. As a cyclist myself I often ride on the road and get dirty looks from car drivers as like 'what the hell you doing, you'r slowing me up'. I think the sentence for Jason Hurrell was indeed too harsh. Not intentional. All charges dropped would of been the better outcome.[/p][/quote]I don't agree, I believe the charges should stay. And yet I speak as a very frequent cyclist who does on occasion use the pavement to avoid very dangerous junctions. The difference however, between me and the culprit in this article, is that I will be riding at a sedate speed when on the pavement (little more that walking pace), and if I encounter a pedestrian I will stop and wait for them to pass. The seems the sensible, polite, and reasonable thing to do. And if the pavement is just too busy then I will of course just walk and push the bike. But then I'm not interested in exchanging my road risk for pedestrians' safety. I believe any civilised, considerate cyclist would do the same. The scummy chavvy types that weave in and out of pedestrians at speed are the ones that give cyclists a bad name, but please don't run away with the idea that all cyclists are a menace when they are trying to avoid getting killed by motorists but are doing so without transferring that risk to pedestrians. Regards, Smiffy22[/p][/quote]Fact is careful or not it is still an offence to ride a cycle on the pavement full stop. Walk your bike if you cannot ride it.[/p][/quote]Fact is it is illegal to drive at more than 30 in a thirty mph limit, but the vast majority of drivers do so knowing their chances of being caught are miniscule. So don't come the high and mighty over considerate pavement cyclists, particularly since cyclists cause a tiny fraction of the injuries to others in comparison to motorists. That's precisely why this is such a newsworthy item, because of its relative rarity. And for the record, no I don't think that exceeding 30 in a 30 limit is ok. I'm one of those unusual people that abide by speed limits. It's about respect for the rights of others, the same reason I give way to pedestrians on the odd occasion that I cycle short stretches on the pavement. Regards, Smiffy22[/p][/quote]However low risk or careful you are the fact is you are still picking and choosing which laws you want to adhere to. I don't break the speed limit nor ride my bike on the pavement. Tell me what is do difficult about walking your bike if it is only "occasional".[/p][/quote]Because it is pointless walking the bike along an empty pavement. You can follow the laws to the letter yet still act in an inconsiderate or even unsafe manner to other people. As I tried to convey in my posting, I attach far more importance to consideration of others and safety than sticking blindly to every single rule. I expect that if you examine you own life in great detail there are probably many rules you also transgress. Regards, Smiffy22 smiffy22

8:10pm Thu 19 Dec 13

essex bad boy says...

How about this then, A cyclist gets stopped by old bill, gets a ticket, gets his bike seized, £25.00 recovery fee + £10-00 per day or part thereof storage? will that stop them? Stop every single one of them seize and fine them..... Allow just 3 days to pay fine and fees if not it gets sold at auction!!!! proceeds to those injured? on the spot compo lol.
How about this then, A cyclist gets stopped by old bill, gets a ticket, gets his bike seized, £25.00 recovery fee + £10-00 per day or part thereof storage? will that stop them? Stop every single one of them seize and fine them..... Allow just 3 days to pay fine and fees if not it gets sold at auction!!!! proceeds to those injured? on the spot compo lol. essex bad boy

9:02am Fri 20 Dec 13

Nebs says...

essex bad boy wrote:
How about this then, A cyclist gets stopped by old bill, gets a ticket, gets his bike seized, £25.00 recovery fee + £10-00 per day or part thereof storage? will that stop them? Stop every single one of them seize and fine them..... Allow just 3 days to pay fine and fees if not it gets sold at auction!!!! proceeds to those injured? on the spot compo lol.
Maybe there could be similar seize and fine orders for pedestrrians who use mobile phones while crossing the road, or who push a buggy down the cycle lane.
[quote][p][bold]essex bad boy[/bold] wrote: How about this then, A cyclist gets stopped by old bill, gets a ticket, gets his bike seized, £25.00 recovery fee + £10-00 per day or part thereof storage? will that stop them? Stop every single one of them seize and fine them..... Allow just 3 days to pay fine and fees if not it gets sold at auction!!!! proceeds to those injured? on the spot compo lol.[/p][/quote]Maybe there could be similar seize and fine orders for pedestrrians who use mobile phones while crossing the road, or who push a buggy down the cycle lane. Nebs

1:25pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Almeda11 says...

DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
Complete_Nutter wrote: Can u blame cyclists for riding on the path though with so many idiot drivers. As a cyclist myself I often ride on the road and get dirty looks from car drivers as like 'what the hell you doing, you'r slowing me up'. I think the sentence for Jason Hurrell was indeed too harsh. Not intentional. All charges dropped would of been the better outcome.
well theres riding on the path and theres riding on the path, slow and cautious and i don't see a problem, its the example above(chrissiem) and this lad in the story that are the problem.
l am a cyclist too, 66 years of age, passed my cycling proficiency test at 11, and ALWAYS cycle on the road, London Rd mainly to get from A to B, Busually being Sainsbursys.

Personally l have never noticed any dirty looks, but then again l don`t look at the drivers, all l concentrate on is my cycling, parked car doors along the London Rd, making sure l gve as wide a berth as is safe to do so, but not so wide as to be too close to cars that are coming behind me, and l NEVER jump red lights, l think that thould be made ILLEGAL, and immediately too !

lt is extremely dangerous, both for the cyclist and any car drivers, as it could cause a horrific accident if a driver swerved to avoid hitting the cyclist. And they also give good cyclists like me a bad name, and l resent that !!

But what l find really appaling in the uk is the ATTITUDE to cyclists, both by the car drivers and the council.

lt seems to be the perception that cyclists are somehow second class citizens. They are not, and many cyclists are in fact drivers too.

By contrast, particularly in countries like Germany and Holland, they have a much friendlier attitude and outlook towards cyclist and they are definitely NOT regarded as 2nd class citizens.

Quite the reverse in fact, their mode of travel is recognised as eco friendly and they do not pollute the atmosphere, much better for health and breathing.
lt is also great excercise and you don`t see half as many fat unhealthy people in Germany as you do in the uk, they cycle or walk everywhere, ie any distance under 5 miles usually.

And the government there makes sensible provisions for them in the form of cycle tracks wherever they can, so it`s far safer, both for the cyclist and pedestrians.

Why our council cannot see this simple and logical fact is beyond me, probably too sensible and logical for them, but it works, and there are many areas along the London Rd, from Leigh, past Chalkwell park where they have unused green areas, which could be reduced to make way for cycle paths, to the London Rd in Westcliff to Southend, where, in many places it is entirely possible to paint a white dividing line on the outside of the pavement ( outside Nathereth House, for example) and where the cyclist would be travelling in the same direction as the traffic.

At least that way the cyclist would be confined to one part of the pavement, as happens in Germany, and the pedestrian would know where they are, and not subjected to cyclist weaving in and out all over the place.

The greatest problem with this country is that it lacks common sense, they are either incapable of seeing the advantages or too pig headed to try them out , and, of course, they always think that only THEY know best, when what they should be doing is looking at countries in Europe, and stop wasting their money on little bits of cycle track, that start near one road and go just round the corner, we need REAL cycle tracks not pathetic bits and pieces, and on the London Rd, for convenience, not some way out place.
l have talked to the council and initially didn`t even get a reply, only by being persistent did l speak to someone, but judging by that conversation things will not be changing for the better anytime soon!
[quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Complete_Nutter[/bold] wrote: Can u blame cyclists for riding on the path though with so many idiot drivers. As a cyclist myself I often ride on the road and get dirty looks from car drivers as like 'what the hell you doing, you'r slowing me up'. I think the sentence for Jason Hurrell was indeed too harsh. Not intentional. All charges dropped would of been the better outcome.[/p][/quote]well theres riding on the path and theres riding on the path, slow and cautious and i don't see a problem, its the example above(chrissiem) and this lad in the story that are the problem.[/p][/quote]l am a cyclist too, 66 years of age, passed my cycling proficiency test at 11, and ALWAYS cycle on the road, London Rd mainly to get from A to B, Busually being Sainsbursys. Personally l have never noticed any dirty looks, but then again l don`t look at the drivers, all l concentrate on is my cycling, parked car doors along the London Rd, making sure l gve as wide a berth as is safe to do so, but not so wide as to be too close to cars that are coming behind me, and l NEVER jump red lights, l think that thould be made ILLEGAL, and immediately too ! lt is extremely dangerous, both for the cyclist and any car drivers, as it could cause a horrific accident if a driver swerved to avoid hitting the cyclist. And they also give good cyclists like me a bad name, and l resent that !! But what l find really appaling in the uk is the ATTITUDE to cyclists, both by the car drivers and the council. lt seems to be the perception that cyclists are somehow second class citizens. They are not, and many cyclists are in fact drivers too. By contrast, particularly in countries like Germany and Holland, they have a much friendlier attitude and outlook towards cyclist and they are definitely NOT regarded as 2nd class citizens. Quite the reverse in fact, their mode of travel is recognised as eco friendly and they do not pollute the atmosphere, much better for health and breathing. lt is also great excercise and you don`t see half as many fat unhealthy people in Germany as you do in the uk, they cycle or walk everywhere, ie any distance under 5 miles usually. And the government there makes sensible provisions for them in the form of cycle tracks wherever they can, so it`s far safer, both for the cyclist and pedestrians. Why our council cannot see this simple and logical fact is beyond me, probably too sensible and logical for them, but it works, and there are many areas along the London Rd, from Leigh, past Chalkwell park where they have unused green areas, which could be reduced to make way for cycle paths, to the London Rd in Westcliff to Southend, where, in many places it is entirely possible to paint a white dividing line on the outside of the pavement ( outside Nathereth House, for example) and where the cyclist would be travelling in the same direction as the traffic. At least that way the cyclist would be confined to one part of the pavement, as happens in Germany, and the pedestrian would know where they are, and not subjected to cyclist weaving in and out all over the place. The greatest problem with this country is that it lacks common sense, they are either incapable of seeing the advantages or too pig headed to try them out , and, of course, they always think that only THEY know best, when what they should be doing is looking at countries in Europe, and stop wasting their money on little bits of cycle track, that start near one road and go just round the corner, we need REAL cycle tracks not pathetic bits and pieces, and on the London Rd, for convenience, not some way out place. l have talked to the council and initially didn`t even get a reply, only by being persistent did l speak to someone, but judging by that conversation things will not be changing for the better anytime soon! Almeda11

9:34pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Almeda11 says...

Nebs wrote:
essex bad boy wrote: How about this then, A cyclist gets stopped by old bill, gets a ticket, gets his bike seized, £25.00 recovery fee + £10-00 per day or part thereof storage? will that stop them? Stop every single one of them seize and fine them..... Allow just 3 days to pay fine and fees if not it gets sold at auction!!!! proceeds to those injured? on the spot compo lol.
Maybe there could be similar seize and fine orders for pedestrrians who use mobile phones while crossing the road, or who push a buggy down the cycle lane.
Agreed, or who come dangerously close to cyclists, who don`t use their indicators when turning, or who fail to look in their mirrirs then open the car door on the road side, and l`m sure there are more !!
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]essex bad boy[/bold] wrote: How about this then, A cyclist gets stopped by old bill, gets a ticket, gets his bike seized, £25.00 recovery fee + £10-00 per day or part thereof storage? will that stop them? Stop every single one of them seize and fine them..... Allow just 3 days to pay fine and fees if not it gets sold at auction!!!! proceeds to those injured? on the spot compo lol.[/p][/quote]Maybe there could be similar seize and fine orders for pedestrrians who use mobile phones while crossing the road, or who push a buggy down the cycle lane.[/p][/quote]Agreed, or who come dangerously close to cyclists, who don`t use their indicators when turning, or who fail to look in their mirrirs then open the car door on the road side, and l`m sure there are more !! Almeda11

1:27pm Sat 21 Dec 13

John T Pharro says...

Test Tickle wrote:
I think it's high time Cyclists were made to have insurance like car drivers and motorcyclists have to, or banned from the roads altogether!!
If they have household insurance it usually is under public liability.
[quote][p][bold]Test Tickle[/bold] wrote: I think it's high time Cyclists were made to have insurance like car drivers and motorcyclists have to, or banned from the roads altogether!![/p][/quote]If they have household insurance it usually is under public liability. John T Pharro

10:00pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Almeda11 says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Test Tickle wrote: I think it's high time Cyclists were made to have insurance like car drivers and motorcyclists have to, or banned from the roads altogether!!
If they have household insurance it usually is under public liability.
l agree, and many cyclists are drivers too, so why should they pay twice !
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Test Tickle[/bold] wrote: I think it's high time Cyclists were made to have insurance like car drivers and motorcyclists have to, or banned from the roads altogether!![/p][/quote]If they have household insurance it usually is under public liability.[/p][/quote]l agree, and many cyclists are drivers too, so why should they pay twice ! Almeda11

10:00pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Almeda11 says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Test Tickle wrote: I think it's high time Cyclists were made to have insurance like car drivers and motorcyclists have to, or banned from the roads altogether!!
If they have household insurance it usually is under public liability.
l agree, and many cyclists are drivers too, so why should they pay twice !
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Test Tickle[/bold] wrote: I think it's high time Cyclists were made to have insurance like car drivers and motorcyclists have to, or banned from the roads altogether!![/p][/quote]If they have household insurance it usually is under public liability.[/p][/quote]l agree, and many cyclists are drivers too, so why should they pay twice ! Almeda11

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree