Braintree: Dad knocked down by cyclist is paralysed

First published in News

A dad will never walk again after a cyclist knocked him down, leaving his neck broken and body paralysed.

Terry Pace, 63, of Rifle Hill, Braintree, is being treated at Queen’s Hospital, Romford.

The cyclist did not stop and police are making a fresh appeal for information. Mr Pace was walking along a footpath between St John’s Avenue and Rifle Hill, Braintree, on September 23 at 9pm.

Anyone with information should call the central road policing unit on 0300 333 4444 or 101.

Full story in today's Braintree and Witham Times.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:13pm Wed 26 Oct 11

Brentt says...

Appalling, hideous and tragic. My utmost sympathy to this poor man and his family.

What I'd like to know is - when I reported a cyclist riding iont he pavement to the police, which is illegal, complete with a name of the cyclist, they were NOT INTERESTED. They were only interested if the cyclist had knocked me down. Yet the cyclist was breaking the law and this man's horrible life changing injuries are the reason why. Why can't the police do something before he is paralysed, as this could have been me or any one of us.
Appalling, hideous and tragic. My utmost sympathy to this poor man and his family. What I'd like to know is - when I reported a cyclist riding iont he pavement to the police, which is illegal, complete with a name of the cyclist, they were NOT INTERESTED. They were only interested if the cyclist had knocked me down. Yet the cyclist was breaking the law and this man's horrible life changing injuries are the reason why. Why can't the police do something before he is paralysed, as this could have been me or any one of us. Brentt
  • Score: 0

12:23pm Wed 26 Oct 11

Bhudeeka says...

absolutely right Brentt i am sick of cyclists who constantly break the law and are never dealt with there are many more of these tragic accidents and deaths than the press will ever tell you so why is nothing done? cyclists 9 times out of 10 never stop at red lights and abuse pedestrians who are crossing they must pay to use the roads, be tested properly and be responsible for theire actions my heart goes out to this poor man and his family law in this country you should be ashamed of yourself sas you are equally to be blame through no action
absolutely right Brentt i am sick of cyclists who constantly break the law and are never dealt with there are many more of these tragic accidents and deaths than the press will ever tell you so why is nothing done? cyclists 9 times out of 10 never stop at red lights and abuse pedestrians who are crossing they must pay to use the roads, be tested properly and be responsible for theire actions my heart goes out to this poor man and his family law in this country you should be ashamed of yourself sas you are equally to be blame through no action Bhudeeka
  • Score: 0

2:03pm Wed 26 Oct 11

ravenmorpheus says...

Yes and whilst we're at it why don't we make hit and run drivers responsible for their actions, especially when they run down cyclists...

Fact is that the majority of cyclists do ride on the roads where possible.

But the roads are as unsafe for cyclists as the pavements are claimed to be for pedestrians, especially for young children.

Making people pay for using the roads on a bike to supposedly make them responsible for riding a bike is not the solution as it doesn't make one responsible at all - just look at the number of idiot drivers we have, they pay taxes, they take a licence test, and yet we still see idiotic and downright dangerous behaviour on the roads.

As for the police not doing anything - would you do anything if someone called to report that x person had been seen riding on the pavement but nothing had really come of it, when you have a hundred and one other more important crimes to solve, like murders, drug dealing, drunken violent behaviour with actual victims?

Until an unfortunate accident such as this happens there is no harm done by cyclists riding on the pavement if they do it in a competent manner, and the majority of cyclists do.

Do not tar all cyclists with the same brush - those that are unsafe on the pavements are in the minority, just the same as those who are unsafe on the roads in cars are in the minority.

And the majority should not be penalised by having to pay even more to use a bike, currently the cheapest form of personal transport available, besides walking, just because of the minority who cause unfortunate accidents such as this.
Yes and whilst we're at it why don't we make hit and run drivers responsible for their actions, especially when they run down cyclists... Fact is that the majority of cyclists do ride on the roads where possible. But the roads are as unsafe for cyclists as the pavements are claimed to be for pedestrians, especially for young children. Making people pay for using the roads on a bike to supposedly make them responsible for riding a bike is not the solution as it doesn't make one responsible at all - just look at the number of idiot drivers we have, they pay taxes, they take a licence test, and yet we still see idiotic and downright dangerous behaviour on the roads. As for the police not doing anything - would you do anything if someone called to report that x person had been seen riding on the pavement but nothing had really come of it, when you have a hundred and one other more important crimes to solve, like murders, drug dealing, drunken violent behaviour with actual victims? Until an unfortunate accident such as this happens there is no harm done by cyclists riding on the pavement if they do it in a competent manner, and the majority of cyclists do. Do not tar all cyclists with the same brush - those that are unsafe on the pavements are in the minority, just the same as those who are unsafe on the roads in cars are in the minority. And the majority should not be penalised by having to pay even more to use a bike, currently the cheapest form of personal transport available, besides walking, just because of the minority who cause unfortunate accidents such as this. ravenmorpheus
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Wed 26 Oct 11

notmoaningagain says...

As a pedestrian I have to say cyclists in Braintree are bad, they do not stop at crossings or red lights, to get round a red light if they don't ride straight through it they will hop on and off the pavement and you just have to get out the way.

I think it's a sign of just how they treat pedestrians that the cyclist did not stop to help the man he paralised!
As a pedestrian I have to say cyclists in Braintree are bad, they do not stop at crossings or red lights, to get round a red light if they don't ride straight through it they will hop on and off the pavement and you just have to get out the way. I think it's a sign of just how they treat pedestrians that the cyclist did not stop to help the man he paralised! notmoaningagain
  • Score: 0

2:34pm Wed 26 Oct 11

ravenmorpheus says...

notmoaningagain wrote:
As a pedestrian I have to say cyclists in Braintree are bad, they do not stop at crossings or red lights, to get round a red light if they don't ride straight through it they will hop on and off the pavement and you just have to get out the way.

I think it's a sign of just how they treat pedestrians that the cyclist did not stop to help the man he paralised!
All cyclists in Braintree or just a select few? I wonder...

I, until a few years ago when I suffered an accident caused by myself with only myself involved, was a cyclist, I also avoided red lights where possible, but never once in 20yrs of cycling did I ever have a near miss with a pedestrian because I was conscious of where I was in relation to pedestrians and if there were any in the vicinity I refrained from kerb hopping.

And I have cycled in many towns in this county, not just in Braintree.

As a pedestrian since I have not seen much of the behaviour you claim happens.


Yes it is rather unsavoury that this person did not stop.

But again - don't tar all cyclists with the same brush.
[quote][p][bold]notmoaningagain[/bold] wrote: As a pedestrian I have to say cyclists in Braintree are bad, they do not stop at crossings or red lights, to get round a red light if they don't ride straight through it they will hop on and off the pavement and you just have to get out the way. I think it's a sign of just how they treat pedestrians that the cyclist did not stop to help the man he paralised![/p][/quote]All cyclists in Braintree or just a select few? I wonder... I, until a few years ago when I suffered an accident caused by myself with only myself involved, was a cyclist, I also avoided red lights where possible, but never once in 20yrs of cycling did I ever have a near miss with a pedestrian because I was conscious of where I was in relation to pedestrians and if there were any in the vicinity I refrained from kerb hopping. And I have cycled in many towns in this county, not just in Braintree. As a pedestrian since I have not seen much of the behaviour you claim happens. Yes it is rather unsavoury that this person did not stop. But again - don't tar all cyclists with the same brush. ravenmorpheus
  • Score: 0

4:04pm Wed 26 Oct 11

Bhudeeka says...

ravenmorpheous you are wrong i am afraid there is no place for cyclists on pavements pedestrians already struggle what with shop signs blocking our ways, cars parked stupidly and illegally so we ahve to walk out inr oads, cyclists, skateboarders and woemn with buggies who think they have right of way - no wheeled thing shoudl be on pavements
ravenmorpheous you are wrong i am afraid there is no place for cyclists on pavements pedestrians already struggle what with shop signs blocking our ways, cars parked stupidly and illegally so we ahve to walk out inr oads, cyclists, skateboarders and woemn with buggies who think they have right of way - no wheeled thing shoudl be on pavements Bhudeeka
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Wed 26 Oct 11

Bhudeeka says...

oh yes and i forgot; to say that whilst the cyclists wear theire helmets and variuos pads us pedestrians are vulnerable to theire seflish and dangerous ways whilst on our pavements and refusing to stop at lights or pedesstrian crossings so leave the pavements for people
oh yes and i forgot; to say that whilst the cyclists wear theire helmets and variuos pads us pedestrians are vulnerable to theire seflish and dangerous ways whilst on our pavements and refusing to stop at lights or pedesstrian crossings so leave the pavements for people Bhudeeka
  • Score: 0

4:12pm Wed 26 Oct 11

ravenmorpheus says...

Bhudeeka wrote:
ravenmorpheous you are wrong i am afraid there is no place for cyclists on pavements pedestrians already struggle what with shop signs blocking our ways, cars parked stupidly and illegally so we ahve to walk out inr oads, cyclists, skateboarders and woemn with buggies who think they have right of way - no wheeled thing shoudl be on pavements
We must live in different towns then.

I walk around Braintree without the hassle you seem to perceive on a daily basis.

I've never been anywhere in this town where I have had to avoid shop signs that have significantly blocked my progress down the path I am walking.

But whilst you're complaining what about the little old ladies that get in the way of other pedestrians with their shopping trolleys?

Or the mums with their push chairs who run into pedestrians?

Or the groups of youths who hand around on the the paths in groups so you have to walk out into the road to pass them?

Yeah, funny how you don't mention that.

And where do you suggest cyclists travel safely? On the roads with inconsiderate drivers, risking life and limb?

No your solution is to have a knee jerk reaction and demand that cyclists pay for using the road because of a minority of cyclists that may cause a problem.
[quote][p][bold]Bhudeeka[/bold] wrote: ravenmorpheous you are wrong i am afraid there is no place for cyclists on pavements pedestrians already struggle what with shop signs blocking our ways, cars parked stupidly and illegally so we ahve to walk out inr oads, cyclists, skateboarders and woemn with buggies who think they have right of way - no wheeled thing shoudl be on pavements[/p][/quote]We must live in different towns then. I walk around Braintree without the hassle you seem to perceive on a daily basis. I've never been anywhere in this town where I have had to avoid shop signs that have significantly blocked my progress down the path I am walking. But whilst you're complaining what about the little old ladies that get in the way of other pedestrians with their shopping trolleys? Or the mums with their push chairs who run into pedestrians? Or the groups of youths who hand around on the the paths in groups so you have to walk out into the road to pass them? Yeah, funny how you don't mention that. And where do you suggest cyclists travel safely? On the roads with inconsiderate drivers, risking life and limb? No your solution is to have a knee jerk reaction and demand that cyclists pay for using the road because of a minority of cyclists that may cause a problem. ravenmorpheus
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Wed 26 Oct 11

pacey5 says...

ravenmorpheus wrote:
Yes and whilst we're at it why don't we make hit and run drivers responsible for their actions, especially when they run down cyclists... Fact is that the majority of cyclists do ride on the roads where possible. But the roads are as unsafe for cyclists as the pavements are claimed to be for pedestrians, especially for young children. Making people pay for using the roads on a bike to supposedly make them responsible for riding a bike is not the solution as it doesn't make one responsible at all - just look at the number of idiot drivers we have, they pay taxes, they take a licence test, and yet we still see idiotic and downright dangerous behaviour on the roads. As for the police not doing anything - would you do anything if someone called to report that x person had been seen riding on the pavement but nothing had really come of it, when you have a hundred and one other more important crimes to solve, like murders, drug dealing, drunken violent behaviour with actual victims? Until an unfortunate accident such as this happens there is no harm done by cyclists riding on the pavement if they do it in a competent manner, and the majority of cyclists do. Do not tar all cyclists with the same brush - those that are unsafe on the pavements are in the minority, just the same as those who are unsafe on the roads in cars are in the minority. And the majority should not be penalised by having to pay even more to use a bike, currently the cheapest form of personal transport available, besides walking, just because of the minority who cause unfortunate accidents such as this.
"would you do anything if someone called to report that x person had been seen riding on the pavement but nothing had really come of it, when you have a hundred and one other more important crimes to solve, like murders, drug dealing, drunken violent behaviour with actual victims?"

There is a reason why it's illegal to ride bikes on pavements and this is exactly why. Also what do you mean actuall victims, so we just have to wait till it's to late for the police to maybe do something?
[quote][p][bold]ravenmorpheus[/bold] wrote: Yes and whilst we're at it why don't we make hit and run drivers responsible for their actions, especially when they run down cyclists... Fact is that the majority of cyclists do ride on the roads where possible. But the roads are as unsafe for cyclists as the pavements are claimed to be for pedestrians, especially for young children. Making people pay for using the roads on a bike to supposedly make them responsible for riding a bike is not the solution as it doesn't make one responsible at all - just look at the number of idiot drivers we have, they pay taxes, they take a licence test, and yet we still see idiotic and downright dangerous behaviour on the roads. As for the police not doing anything - would you do anything if someone called to report that x person had been seen riding on the pavement but nothing had really come of it, when you have a hundred and one other more important crimes to solve, like murders, drug dealing, drunken violent behaviour with actual victims? Until an unfortunate accident such as this happens there is no harm done by cyclists riding on the pavement if they do it in a competent manner, and the majority of cyclists do. Do not tar all cyclists with the same brush - those that are unsafe on the pavements are in the minority, just the same as those who are unsafe on the roads in cars are in the minority. And the majority should not be penalised by having to pay even more to use a bike, currently the cheapest form of personal transport available, besides walking, just because of the minority who cause unfortunate accidents such as this.[/p][/quote]"would you do anything if someone called to report that x person had been seen riding on the pavement but nothing had really come of it, when you have a hundred and one other more important crimes to solve, like murders, drug dealing, drunken violent behaviour with actual victims?" There is a reason why it's illegal to ride bikes on pavements and this is exactly why. Also what do you mean actuall victims, so we just have to wait till it's to late for the police to maybe do something? pacey5
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Wed 26 Oct 11

pacey5 says...

ravenmorpheus wrote:
Yes and whilst we're at it why don't we make hit and run drivers responsible for their actions, especially when they run down cyclists... Fact is that the majority of cyclists do ride on the roads where possible. But the roads are as unsafe for cyclists as the pavements are claimed to be for pedestrians, especially for young children. Making people pay for using the roads on a bike to supposedly make them responsible for riding a bike is not the solution as it doesn't make one responsible at all - just look at the number of idiot drivers we have, they pay taxes, they take a licence test, and yet we still see idiotic and downright dangerous behaviour on the roads. As for the police not doing anything - would you do anything if someone called to report that x person had been seen riding on the pavement but nothing had really come of it, when you have a hundred and one other more important crimes to solve, like murders, drug dealing, drunken violent behaviour with actual victims? Until an unfortunate accident such as this happens there is no harm done by cyclists riding on the pavement if they do it in a competent manner, and the majority of cyclists do. Do not tar all cyclists with the same brush - those that are unsafe on the pavements are in the minority, just the same as those who are unsafe on the roads in cars are in the minority. And the majority should not be penalised by having to pay even more to use a bike, currently the cheapest form of personal transport available, besides walking, just because of the minority who cause unfortunate accidents such as this.
"would you do anything if someone called to report that x person had been seen riding on the pavement but nothing had really come of it, when you have a hundred and one other more important crimes to solve, like murders, drug dealing, drunken violent behaviour with actual victims?"

There is a reason why it's illegal to ride bikes on pavements and this is exactly why. Also what do you mean actuall victims, so we just have to wait till it's to late for the police to maybe do something?
[quote][p][bold]ravenmorpheus[/bold] wrote: Yes and whilst we're at it why don't we make hit and run drivers responsible for their actions, especially when they run down cyclists... Fact is that the majority of cyclists do ride on the roads where possible. But the roads are as unsafe for cyclists as the pavements are claimed to be for pedestrians, especially for young children. Making people pay for using the roads on a bike to supposedly make them responsible for riding a bike is not the solution as it doesn't make one responsible at all - just look at the number of idiot drivers we have, they pay taxes, they take a licence test, and yet we still see idiotic and downright dangerous behaviour on the roads. As for the police not doing anything - would you do anything if someone called to report that x person had been seen riding on the pavement but nothing had really come of it, when you have a hundred and one other more important crimes to solve, like murders, drug dealing, drunken violent behaviour with actual victims? Until an unfortunate accident such as this happens there is no harm done by cyclists riding on the pavement if they do it in a competent manner, and the majority of cyclists do. Do not tar all cyclists with the same brush - those that are unsafe on the pavements are in the minority, just the same as those who are unsafe on the roads in cars are in the minority. And the majority should not be penalised by having to pay even more to use a bike, currently the cheapest form of personal transport available, besides walking, just because of the minority who cause unfortunate accidents such as this.[/p][/quote]"would you do anything if someone called to report that x person had been seen riding on the pavement but nothing had really come of it, when you have a hundred and one other more important crimes to solve, like murders, drug dealing, drunken violent behaviour with actual victims?" There is a reason why it's illegal to ride bikes on pavements and this is exactly why. Also what do you mean actuall victims, so we just have to wait till it's to late for the police to maybe do something? pacey5
  • Score: 0

6:51pm Wed 26 Oct 11

ravenmorpheus says...

pacey5 wrote:
ravenmorpheus wrote:
Yes and whilst we're at it why don't we make hit and run drivers responsible for their actions, especially when they run down cyclists... Fact is that the majority of cyclists do ride on the roads where possible. But the roads are as unsafe for cyclists as the pavements are claimed to be for pedestrians, especially for young children. Making people pay for using the roads on a bike to supposedly make them responsible for riding a bike is not the solution as it doesn't make one responsible at all - just look at the number of idiot drivers we have, they pay taxes, they take a licence test, and yet we still see idiotic and downright dangerous behaviour on the roads. As for the police not doing anything - would you do anything if someone called to report that x person had been seen riding on the pavement but nothing had really come of it, when you have a hundred and one other more important crimes to solve, like murders, drug dealing, drunken violent behaviour with actual victims? Until an unfortunate accident such as this happens there is no harm done by cyclists riding on the pavement if they do it in a competent manner, and the majority of cyclists do. Do not tar all cyclists with the same brush - those that are unsafe on the pavements are in the minority, just the same as those who are unsafe on the roads in cars are in the minority. And the majority should not be penalised by having to pay even more to use a bike, currently the cheapest form of personal transport available, besides walking, just because of the minority who cause unfortunate accidents such as this.
"would you do anything if someone called to report that x person had been seen riding on the pavement but nothing had really come of it, when you have a hundred and one other more important crimes to solve, like murders, drug dealing, drunken violent behaviour with actual victims?"

There is a reason why it's illegal to ride bikes on pavements and this is exactly why. Also what do you mean actuall victims, so we just have to wait till it's to late for the police to maybe do something?
I'm sorry but I fail to see your point. You say there is a reason, and don't actually give one.

If you, pacey5, can provide the police the resources to deal with such petty transgressions of the law each and every time they are reported whilst not taking away from them dealing more important and far more impactful crime then please do feel free to report such minor trangressions as people riding on the pavements.

Whilst your at it you might also want to tell the people who setup combined cycle lanes/pavements that it's illegal to ride on the pavement - because there are quite a few paths around Braintree where pedestrians share the path quite legally with cyclists.

And no I don't mean we should wait until unfortunate accidents such as this one happen, but neither am I deluded that the police have the resources to deal with such petty transgressions phoned in by petty people who have nothing better to do with their lives.

Nor do I brand all cyclists as the sort who cause these accidents.

The vast majority of cyclists are competent cyclists who cause no harm to anyone by occasionally riding on the pavement.
[quote][p][bold]pacey5[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ravenmorpheus[/bold] wrote: Yes and whilst we're at it why don't we make hit and run drivers responsible for their actions, especially when they run down cyclists... Fact is that the majority of cyclists do ride on the roads where possible. But the roads are as unsafe for cyclists as the pavements are claimed to be for pedestrians, especially for young children. Making people pay for using the roads on a bike to supposedly make them responsible for riding a bike is not the solution as it doesn't make one responsible at all - just look at the number of idiot drivers we have, they pay taxes, they take a licence test, and yet we still see idiotic and downright dangerous behaviour on the roads. As for the police not doing anything - would you do anything if someone called to report that x person had been seen riding on the pavement but nothing had really come of it, when you have a hundred and one other more important crimes to solve, like murders, drug dealing, drunken violent behaviour with actual victims? Until an unfortunate accident such as this happens there is no harm done by cyclists riding on the pavement if they do it in a competent manner, and the majority of cyclists do. Do not tar all cyclists with the same brush - those that are unsafe on the pavements are in the minority, just the same as those who are unsafe on the roads in cars are in the minority. And the majority should not be penalised by having to pay even more to use a bike, currently the cheapest form of personal transport available, besides walking, just because of the minority who cause unfortunate accidents such as this.[/p][/quote]"would you do anything if someone called to report that x person had been seen riding on the pavement but nothing had really come of it, when you have a hundred and one other more important crimes to solve, like murders, drug dealing, drunken violent behaviour with actual victims?" There is a reason why it's illegal to ride bikes on pavements and this is exactly why. Also what do you mean actuall victims, so we just have to wait till it's to late for the police to maybe do something?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry but I fail to see your point. You say there is a reason, and don't actually give one. If you, pacey5, can provide the police the resources to deal with such petty transgressions of the law each and every time they are reported whilst not taking away from them dealing more important and far more impactful crime then please do feel free to report such minor trangressions as people riding on the pavements. Whilst your at it you might also want to tell the people who setup combined cycle lanes/pavements that it's illegal to ride on the pavement - because there are quite a few paths around Braintree where pedestrians share the path quite legally with cyclists. And no I don't mean we should wait until unfortunate accidents such as this one happen, but neither am I deluded that the police have the resources to deal with such petty transgressions phoned in by petty people who have nothing better to do with their lives. Nor do I brand all cyclists as the sort who cause these accidents. The vast majority of cyclists are competent cyclists who cause no harm to anyone by occasionally riding on the pavement. ravenmorpheus
  • Score: 0

11:23pm Wed 26 Oct 11

richarddotx says...

Firstly, and the most important element part of this post is my condolences to the gentleman seriously affected by what has happened.

It is something that by law should never have happened.

However, reading some of the comments on here, especially by one person is verging on the edge of alarmist knee jerk insanity for one incident. (Albeit it a serious one)

To paste the same assumptions amongst every person who cycles is taking this to the same right wing extreme as something which would be read in the certain daily newspapers or possibly be seen as libel for those who do cycle and are careful.

I cycle, which the intelligent ones reading this would have gathered already, however I would like to point out that whilst I always cycle on the road, I have almost hit two pedestrians who have not looked and stepped out into the road, as well as almost hitting two cars in less than 500 metres thanks to drivers who were not looking in their mirrors before they opened their doors.
Does this make me assume all drivers are the same no?
Conversely on Friday morning I had to side step on the pavement for three cyclists (all adults and in my estimation well over 20) who were riding on the pavement and weren't going to stop for me.
Training for cyclists, well this should be pushed when bikes are sold in shops, the roads can be intimidating, especially with the way some people drive, training would help with this, but would it have prevented this incident or someone not riding on the pathways? I doubt it.
The comments about pushchairs in the road? Is this a serious comment or one that should be reserved for April 1st?

Unfortunately there are two real issues here, one is the law breaking, which is no matter how it is in the law books, lower down on the response list than say mugging, sexual assault etc. Until someone is injured or killed then there is not the attention given as to what can happen when struck by a cycle. Events such as the story headline are thankfully less common than say serious car accidents, though they are not given the same ridiculous venom when they occur.

The second issue I believe is the more important issue. The social inept responsibility from people in society today is visible in this incident. The person, who hit Mr Pace, has probably not thought about their actions after the event, and I suspect nor have they considered what may have happened afterwards.
Even if they read this story, would they come forward? My suspicions are that they would not have the stomach to do so.

In no way am I dismissing the seriousness of Mr Pace's injuries, I hope that he is given all the support speedily that will be needed by hospital and social services. And hope that the person responsible will own up to the police for what they have done.

Ultimately the failure of personal and social responsibility is the bigger issue within this story.
Firstly, and the most important element part of this post is my condolences to the gentleman seriously affected by what has happened. It is something that by law should never have happened. However, reading some of the comments on here, especially by one person is verging on the edge of alarmist knee jerk insanity for one incident. (Albeit it a serious one) To paste the same assumptions amongst every person who cycles is taking this to the same right wing extreme as something which would be read in the certain daily newspapers or possibly be seen as libel for those who do cycle and are careful. I cycle, which the intelligent ones reading this would have gathered already, however I would like to point out that whilst I always cycle on the road, I have almost hit two pedestrians who have not looked and stepped out into the road, as well as almost hitting two cars in less than 500 metres thanks to drivers who were not looking in their mirrors before they opened their doors. Does this make me assume all drivers are the same no? Conversely on Friday morning I had to side step on the pavement for three cyclists (all adults and in my estimation well over 20) who were riding on the pavement and weren't going to stop for me. Training for cyclists, well this should be pushed when bikes are sold in shops, the roads can be intimidating, especially with the way some people drive, training would help with this, but would it have prevented this incident or someone not riding on the pathways? I doubt it. The comments about pushchairs in the road? Is this a serious comment or one that should be reserved for April 1st? Unfortunately there are two real issues here, one is the law breaking, which is no matter how it is in the law books, lower down on the response list than say mugging, sexual assault etc. Until someone is injured or killed then there is not the attention given as to what can happen when struck by a cycle. Events such as the story headline are thankfully less common than say serious car accidents, though they are not given the same ridiculous venom when they occur. The second issue I believe is the more important issue. The social inept responsibility from people in society today is visible in this incident. The person, who hit Mr Pace, has probably not thought about their actions after the event, and I suspect nor have they considered what may have happened afterwards. Even if they read this story, would they come forward? My suspicions are that they would not have the stomach to do so. In no way am I dismissing the seriousness of Mr Pace's injuries, I hope that he is given all the support speedily that will be needed by hospital and social services. And hope that the person responsible will own up to the police for what they have done. Ultimately the failure of personal and social responsibility is the bigger issue within this story. richarddotx
  • Score: 0

7:59am Thu 27 Oct 11

Bhudeeka says...

those of you who see no problem in cycling on pavements show you rignorance the pavements are for people not wheeled things i work with many people who travel in from all areas of the country london essex kent dorset and they all say the same thing that cyclists go thorugh red lights and are abusive they haras pedestrians by ringing bells and riding deliberarly and meancingly close we are not talking about a few cyclists we are talkkng about a mjaroity cyclists must be forced off the pavements if you feel unsafe cyclying on the road then dont cycle at all you seem to feel justified in making us feel as unsafe on the pavements through your actions as you claim to feel on the roads by motoristswe all see you weave in and out of cars and cut people up there is no place for you on pavements and that is all i have to say on this subject now
those of you who see no problem in cycling on pavements show you rignorance the pavements are for people not wheeled things i work with many people who travel in from all areas of the country london essex kent dorset and they all say the same thing that cyclists go thorugh red lights and are abusive they haras pedestrians by ringing bells and riding deliberarly and meancingly close we are not talking about a few cyclists we are talkkng about a mjaroity cyclists must be forced off the pavements if you feel unsafe cyclying on the road then dont cycle at all you seem to feel justified in making us feel as unsafe on the pavements through your actions as you claim to feel on the roads by motoristswe all see you weave in and out of cars and cut people up there is no place for you on pavements and that is all i have to say on this subject now Bhudeeka
  • Score: 0

9:56am Thu 27 Oct 11

The Yellow Peril says...

If any of you have walked through the streets of the City of London recently you will know how aggressive and dangerously cyclists act. They positively speed through people legitimately crossing the road, shouting out and ringing their bells and dishing out abuse. These people are probably intelligent well paid professionals who become mad men (and women) once on their bikes. I see numerous cyclists breaking the law every morning and evening. Pedestrians have to have eyes in the back of their heads to avoid a collision with a cyclist. Yes, they hurtle down the pavements all the time. It's about time the law was dished out to these people.
If any of you have walked through the streets of the City of London recently you will know how aggressive and dangerously cyclists act. They positively speed through people legitimately crossing the road, shouting out and ringing their bells and dishing out abuse. These people are probably intelligent well paid professionals who become mad men (and women) once on their bikes. I see numerous cyclists breaking the law every morning and evening. Pedestrians have to have eyes in the back of their heads to avoid a collision with a cyclist. Yes, they hurtle down the pavements all the time. It's about time the law was dished out to these people. The Yellow Peril
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Thu 27 Oct 11

BitBytr_2 says...

richarddotx wrote:
Firstly, and the most important element part of this post is my condolences to the gentleman seriously affected by what has happened.

It is something that by law should never have happened.

However, reading some of the comments on here, especially by one person is verging on the edge of alarmist knee jerk insanity for one incident. (Albeit it a serious one)

To paste the same assumptions amongst every person who cycles is taking this to the same right wing extreme as something which would be read in the certain daily newspapers or possibly be seen as libel for those who do cycle and are careful.

I cycle, which the intelligent ones reading this would have gathered already, however I would like to point out that whilst I always cycle on the road, I have almost hit two pedestrians who have not looked and stepped out into the road, as well as almost hitting two cars in less than 500 metres thanks to drivers who were not looking in their mirrors before they opened their doors.
Does this make me assume all drivers are the same no?
Conversely on Friday morning I had to side step on the pavement for three cyclists (all adults and in my estimation well over 20) who were riding on the pavement and weren't going to stop for me.
Training for cyclists, well this should be pushed when bikes are sold in shops, the roads can be intimidating, especially with the way some people drive, training would help with this, but would it have prevented this incident or someone not riding on the pathways? I doubt it.
The comments about pushchairs in the road? Is this a serious comment or one that should be reserved for April 1st?

Unfortunately there are two real issues here, one is the law breaking, which is no matter how it is in the law books, lower down on the response list than say mugging, sexual assault etc. Until someone is injured or killed then there is not the attention given as to what can happen when struck by a cycle. Events such as the story headline are thankfully less common than say serious car accidents, though they are not given the same ridiculous venom when they occur.

The second issue I believe is the more important issue. The social inept responsibility from people in society today is visible in this incident. The person, who hit Mr Pace, has probably not thought about their actions after the event, and I suspect nor have they considered what may have happened afterwards.
Even if they read this story, would they come forward? My suspicions are that they would not have the stomach to do so.

In no way am I dismissing the seriousness of Mr Pace's injuries, I hope that he is given all the support speedily that will be needed by hospital and social services. And hope that the person responsible will own up to the police for what they have done.

Ultimately the failure of personal and social responsibility is the bigger issue within this story.
"Ultimately the failure of personal and social responsibility is the bigger issue within this story."

Hear, hear. THAT'S getting the bottom line of the issue...
[quote][p][bold]richarddotx[/bold] wrote: Firstly, and the most important element part of this post is my condolences to the gentleman seriously affected by what has happened. It is something that by law should never have happened. However, reading some of the comments on here, especially by one person is verging on the edge of alarmist knee jerk insanity for one incident. (Albeit it a serious one) To paste the same assumptions amongst every person who cycles is taking this to the same right wing extreme as something which would be read in the certain daily newspapers or possibly be seen as libel for those who do cycle and are careful. I cycle, which the intelligent ones reading this would have gathered already, however I would like to point out that whilst I always cycle on the road, I have almost hit two pedestrians who have not looked and stepped out into the road, as well as almost hitting two cars in less than 500 metres thanks to drivers who were not looking in their mirrors before they opened their doors. Does this make me assume all drivers are the same no? Conversely on Friday morning I had to side step on the pavement for three cyclists (all adults and in my estimation well over 20) who were riding on the pavement and weren't going to stop for me. Training for cyclists, well this should be pushed when bikes are sold in shops, the roads can be intimidating, especially with the way some people drive, training would help with this, but would it have prevented this incident or someone not riding on the pathways? I doubt it. The comments about pushchairs in the road? Is this a serious comment or one that should be reserved for April 1st? Unfortunately there are two real issues here, one is the law breaking, which is no matter how it is in the law books, lower down on the response list than say mugging, sexual assault etc. Until someone is injured or killed then there is not the attention given as to what can happen when struck by a cycle. Events such as the story headline are thankfully less common than say serious car accidents, though they are not given the same ridiculous venom when they occur. The second issue I believe is the more important issue. The social inept responsibility from people in society today is visible in this incident. The person, who hit Mr Pace, has probably not thought about their actions after the event, and I suspect nor have they considered what may have happened afterwards. Even if they read this story, would they come forward? My suspicions are that they would not have the stomach to do so. In no way am I dismissing the seriousness of Mr Pace's injuries, I hope that he is given all the support speedily that will be needed by hospital and social services. And hope that the person responsible will own up to the police for what they have done. Ultimately the failure of personal and social responsibility is the bigger issue within this story.[/p][/quote]"Ultimately the failure of personal and social responsibility is the bigger issue within this story." Hear, hear. THAT'S getting the bottom line of the issue... BitBytr_2
  • Score: 0

5:42pm Thu 27 Oct 11

BitBytr_2 says...

One other thing to point out: the use of the term "pavement" for pathways adjacent to roads in the UK is relatively new. It was (as currently in the States) called a "sidewalk" and, as implied in its name, was for pedestrian traffic.

There is no justification for cycling on the pathway: just as there is no justification for the danger imposed upon cyclists on the road (the road is to be shared by all vehicular traffic). It seems, however, in the UK one assumes the right of way - instead of which they should always defer the right of way. Were that to be the case, then it would facilitate a far more polite negotiation when deciding who should go first and take preference over the other.

Now, to go to the heart of the matter, it is as noted earlier, "a failure of personal and social responsibility". The question therefore begs to be asked: how do we (collectively) go about resolving this decline in societal etiquette?

Certainly not by more (socialistic, if well-meaning) legislation!
One other thing to point out: the use of the term "pavement" for pathways adjacent to roads in the UK is relatively new. It was (as currently in the States) called a "sidewalk" and, as implied in its name, was for pedestrian traffic. There is no justification for cycling on the pathway: just as there is no justification for the danger imposed upon cyclists on the road (the road is to be shared by all vehicular traffic). It seems, however, in the UK one assumes the right of way - instead of which they should always defer the right of way. Were that to be the case, then it would facilitate a far more polite negotiation when deciding who should go first and take preference over the other. Now, to go to the heart of the matter, it is as noted earlier, "a failure of personal and social responsibility". The question therefore begs to be asked: how do we (collectively) go about resolving this decline in societal etiquette? Certainly not by more (socialistic, if well-meaning) legislation! BitBytr_2
  • Score: 0

10:34pm Thu 27 Oct 11

mysayok says...

prevention not cures or excuses
prevention not cures or excuses mysayok
  • Score: 0

3:11pm Fri 28 Oct 11

Brentt says...

OMG! When did it become petty to report crimes when you see them being committed? Cycling on the pavement is illegal because it is dangerous. How much worse do you want the result of a crime to be than being crippled for life before it is deemed more than a mere transgression? And note; Responsible cyclists need not fear - the home office makes it clear that prosecutions are aimed at irresponsible cyclists, not those there out of fear of cycling on the road. What a terrible excuse to use that you are not willing to report crimes being committed 'because you have better things to do with your life'. FOR SHAME
OMG! When did it become petty to report crimes when you see them being committed? Cycling on the pavement is illegal because it is dangerous. How much worse do you want the result of a crime to be than being crippled for life before it is deemed more than a mere transgression? And note; Responsible cyclists need not fear - the home office makes it clear that prosecutions are aimed at irresponsible cyclists, not those there out of fear of cycling on the road. What a terrible excuse to use that you are not willing to report crimes being committed 'because you have better things to do with your life'. FOR SHAME Brentt
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Fri 28 Oct 11

ravenmorpheus says...

Brentt wrote:
OMG! When did it become petty to report crimes when you see them being committed? Cycling on the pavement is illegal because it is dangerous. How much worse do you want the result of a crime to be than being crippled for life before it is deemed more than a mere transgression? And note; Responsible cyclists need not fear - the home office makes it clear that prosecutions are aimed at irresponsible cyclists, not those there out of fear of cycling on the road. What a terrible excuse to use that you are not willing to report crimes being committed 'because you have better things to do with your life'. FOR SHAME
So a guy on a bike hops the kerb and begins riding on the path across the street from you.

The path is completely empty.

But as it's a crime you will report it?

Do you see my point? - the cyclist is doing no harm to anyone if the path is empty or he is nowhere near pedestrians.

And even if they do inconvenience pedestrians what are you going to tell the police - "yeah, it was some guy, on a thing with 2 wheels, think it was a bike, think the guy was of average build". Not exactly a lot for the police to go on is it?

They have far more important things to be policing than constant reports of people riding on the pavements.

As I said to pacey5, if you can provide the police with the resources to police such "crimes" then please do report such minor transgressions.

Meanwhile I'll report people getting beaten, stabbed, shot, drug dealers, car thefts, burglaries and other more severe crime that the police can deal with.

It's not even worth forcing cyclists to use number plates, as we all know how effective they are already in prevention of road deaths.
[quote][p][bold]Brentt[/bold] wrote: OMG! When did it become petty to report crimes when you see them being committed? Cycling on the pavement is illegal because it is dangerous. How much worse do you want the result of a crime to be than being crippled for life before it is deemed more than a mere transgression? And note; Responsible cyclists need not fear - the home office makes it clear that prosecutions are aimed at irresponsible cyclists, not those there out of fear of cycling on the road. What a terrible excuse to use that you are not willing to report crimes being committed 'because you have better things to do with your life'. FOR SHAME[/p][/quote]So a guy on a bike hops the kerb and begins riding on the path across the street from you. The path is completely empty. But as it's a crime you will report it? Do you see my point? - the cyclist is doing no harm to anyone if the path is empty or he is nowhere near pedestrians. And even if they do inconvenience pedestrians what are you going to tell the police - "yeah, it was some guy, on a thing with 2 wheels, think it was a bike, think the guy was of average build". Not exactly a lot for the police to go on is it? They have far more important things to be policing than constant reports of people riding on the pavements. As I said to pacey5, if you can provide the police with the resources to police such "crimes" then please do report such minor transgressions. Meanwhile I'll report people getting beaten, stabbed, shot, drug dealers, car thefts, burglaries and other more severe crime that the police can deal with. It's not even worth forcing cyclists to use number plates, as we all know how effective they are already in prevention of road deaths. ravenmorpheus
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Fri 28 Oct 11

BitBytr_2 says...

The point is to avoid libertarian anarchy, Raven! Who decides which laws are OK to break and which aren't? You? Me? That's a specious argument you put forth and that sort of thinking contributes to the diminution of society for the greater good. ALL laws are there for a purpose - for the greater good. If, however, they're redundant or archaic (practicing one's archery on a Sunday pops into mind) then we must to lobby the legislature to change or repeal it. Not simply ignore it!
The point is to avoid libertarian anarchy, Raven! Who decides which laws are OK to break and which aren't? You? Me? That's a specious argument you put forth and that sort of thinking contributes to the diminution of society for the greater good. ALL laws are there for a purpose - for the greater good. If, however, they're redundant or archaic (practicing one's archery on a Sunday pops into mind) then we must to lobby the legislature to change or repeal it. Not simply ignore it! BitBytr_2
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Fri 28 Oct 11

ravenmorpheus says...

BitBytr_2 wrote:
The point is to avoid libertarian anarchy, Raven! Who decides which laws are OK to break and which aren't? You? Me? That's a specious argument you put forth and that sort of thinking contributes to the diminution of society for the greater good. ALL laws are there for a purpose - for the greater good. If, however, they're redundant or archaic (practicing one's archery on a Sunday pops into mind) then we must to lobby the legislature to change or repeal it. Not simply ignore it!
Well then given the fact we have cyclists already legally sharing paths with pedestrians - in the form of cycle lanes, perhaps it is time for cyclists to lobby for a change in the law.

My point is not ignoring the law, or deciding who decides which laws are relevant - but just how do you suppose the police will cope with having to investigate each and every rider kerb hopping, as it seems you and others are asking for?

They don't have the manpower.

Nor does phoning them up with a vague description of some person you've seen riding a bike give them any assistance.
[quote][p][bold]BitBytr_2[/bold] wrote: The point is to avoid libertarian anarchy, Raven! Who decides which laws are OK to break and which aren't? You? Me? That's a specious argument you put forth and that sort of thinking contributes to the diminution of society for the greater good. ALL laws are there for a purpose - for the greater good. If, however, they're redundant or archaic (practicing one's archery on a Sunday pops into mind) then we must to lobby the legislature to change or repeal it. Not simply ignore it![/p][/quote]Well then given the fact we have cyclists already legally sharing paths with pedestrians - in the form of cycle lanes, perhaps it is time for cyclists to lobby for a change in the law. My point is not ignoring the law, or deciding who decides which laws are relevant - but just how do you suppose the police will cope with having to investigate each and every rider kerb hopping, as it seems you and others are asking for? They don't have the manpower. Nor does phoning them up with a vague description of some person you've seen riding a bike give them any assistance. ravenmorpheus
  • Score: 0

5:08pm Fri 28 Oct 11

Brentt says...

I'm going to say this just once more I gave the police a name and an address. not a vague description. And the law HAS been reviewed and updated - so that those riding responsibly on the pavement are not prosecuted. Only those riding irresponsibly. No need to make things up to win an argunment that never existed. All the best to the injured man, my thoughts are with you. I have a friend who was paralysed in an accident - and she in fact recovered. I hope you do too.
I'm going to say this just once more I gave the police a name and an address. not a vague description. And the law HAS been reviewed and updated - so that those riding responsibly on the pavement are not prosecuted. Only those riding irresponsibly. No need to make things up to win an argunment that never existed. All the best to the injured man, my thoughts are with you. I have a friend who was paralysed in an accident - and she in fact recovered. I hope you do too. Brentt
  • Score: 0

5:18pm Fri 28 Oct 11

BitBytr_2 says...

I second those sentiments, Brentt: my thoughts are with the injured gentleman.

Raven - then the problem is with those that would arbitrarily break the law and the attitude and abilities of the law enforcement organisations. Those are the areas to be addressed, surely? That line of discussion can open up a can of worms that leads to discussion about less government in my life and libertarianism. My feelings are that I agree with the former to an extent but worry about ramifications of the latter.
I second those sentiments, Brentt: my thoughts are with the injured gentleman. Raven - then the problem is with those that would arbitrarily break the law and the attitude and abilities of the law enforcement organisations. Those are the areas to be addressed, surely? That line of discussion can open up a can of worms that leads to discussion about less government in my life and libertarianism. My feelings are that I agree with the former to an extent but worry about ramifications of the latter. BitBytr_2
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Fri 28 Oct 11

ravenmorpheus says...

Brentt wrote:
I'm going to say this just once more I gave the police a name and an address. not a vague description. And the law HAS been reviewed and updated - so that those riding responsibly on the pavement are not prosecuted. Only those riding irresponsibly. No need to make things up to win an argunment that never existed. All the best to the injured man, my thoughts are with you. I have a friend who was paralysed in an accident - and she in fact recovered. I hope you do too.
With respect, I know what you said.

And we are talking in general about cyclists, not the one you reported, at least I was.

But as the cyclist you reported did no harm (making an assumption here from what you Have said) and you have now said that the law is only applied to those who are irresponsible, just exactly what is your problem with the way the police dealt with it - was the rider being irresponsible, or simply riding on the path in a responsible manner?

And if the law has been updated so that responsible cyclists are not prosecuted then why are we even having a discussion about it being illegal to ride on the pavement if prosecution is only for those who are irresponsible?!?!

It is you that mentioned it being illegal, as well as others, but now you're backtracking by saying that prosecution is only applied to those who are irresponsible?

So which is it - illegal, or perfectly legal until you act irresponsibly?

As an ex-cyclist I admit that I wasn't aware the law had been changed, if that is case.

@BitBytr - I am concerned with too much government in my life also (I believe we've discussed that before), but I am also not concerned with libertarianism as you can't have one without having the other. And perhaps the negative ramifications of libertarianism, if there are any, can be overcome by a better community where we all look out for each other and teach right and wrongs from an early age.

Nor am I worried by the minority who cause such unfortunate accidents such as this - purely because they are in a minority.

It seems today in the UK we are more worried about what affects the minority instead of what affects the majority.

Don't think I'm trying to be disrespectful to Mr Pace, my sympathies are with him, but you're all going on about preventing accidents that are caused by the minority by affecting the majority.

And to me that's rather upside down.
[quote][p][bold]Brentt[/bold] wrote: I'm going to say this just once more I gave the police a name and an address. not a vague description. And the law HAS been reviewed and updated - so that those riding responsibly on the pavement are not prosecuted. Only those riding irresponsibly. No need to make things up to win an argunment that never existed. All the best to the injured man, my thoughts are with you. I have a friend who was paralysed in an accident - and she in fact recovered. I hope you do too.[/p][/quote]With respect, I know what you said. And we are talking in general about cyclists, not the one you reported, at least I was. But as the cyclist you reported did no harm (making an assumption here from what you Have said) and you have now said that the law is only applied to those who are irresponsible, just exactly what is your problem with the way the police dealt with it - was the rider being irresponsible, or simply riding on the path in a responsible manner? And if the law has been updated so that responsible cyclists are not prosecuted then why are we even having a discussion about it being illegal to ride on the pavement if prosecution is only for those who are irresponsible?!?! It is you that mentioned it being illegal, as well as others, but now you're backtracking by saying that prosecution is only applied to those who are irresponsible? So which is it - illegal, or perfectly legal until you act irresponsibly? As an ex-cyclist I admit that I wasn't aware the law had been changed, if that is case. @BitBytr - I am concerned with too much government in my life also (I believe we've discussed that before), but I am also not concerned with libertarianism as you can't have one without having the other. And perhaps the negative ramifications of libertarianism, if there are any, can be overcome by a better community where we all look out for each other and teach right and wrongs from an early age. Nor am I worried by the minority who cause such unfortunate accidents such as this - purely because they are in a minority. It seems today in the UK we are more worried about what affects the minority instead of what affects the majority. Don't think I'm trying to be disrespectful to Mr Pace, my sympathies are with him, but you're all going on about preventing accidents that are caused by the minority by affecting the majority. And to me that's rather upside down. ravenmorpheus
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Fri 28 Oct 11

ravenmorpheus says...

Brentt wrote:
I'm going to say this just once more I gave the police a name and an address. not a vague description. And the law HAS been reviewed and updated - so that those riding responsibly on the pavement are not prosecuted. Only those riding irresponsibly. No need to make things up to win an argunment that never existed. All the best to the injured man, my thoughts are with you. I have a friend who was paralysed in an accident - and she in fact recovered. I hope you do too.
With respect, I know what you said.

And we are talking in general about cyclists, not the one you reported, at least I was.

But as the cyclist you reported did no harm (making an assumption here from what you Have said) and you have now said that the law is only applied to those who are irresponsible, just exactly what is your problem with the way the police dealt with it - was the rider being irresponsible, or simply riding on the path in a responsible manner?

And if the law has been updated so that responsible cyclists are not prosecuted then why are we even having a discussion about it being illegal to ride on the pavement if prosecution is only for those who are irresponsible?!?!

It is you that mentioned it being illegal, as well as others, but now you're backtracking by saying that prosecution is only applied to those who are irresponsible?

So which is it - illegal, or perfectly legal until you act irresponsibly?

As an ex-cyclist I admit that I wasn't aware the law had been changed, if that is case.

@BitBytr - I am concerned with too much government in my life also (I believe we've discussed that before), but I am also not concerned with libertarianism as you can't have one without having the other. And perhaps the negative ramifications of libertarianism, if there are any, can be overcome by a better community where we all look out for each other and teach right and wrongs from an early age.

Nor am I worried by the minority who cause such unfortunate accidents such as this - purely because they are in a minority.

It seems today in the UK we are more worried about what affects the minority instead of what affects the majority.

Don't think I'm trying to be disrespectful to Mr Pace, my sympathies are with him, but you're all going on about preventing accidents that are caused by the minority by affecting the majority.

And to me that's rather upside down.
[quote][p][bold]Brentt[/bold] wrote: I'm going to say this just once more I gave the police a name and an address. not a vague description. And the law HAS been reviewed and updated - so that those riding responsibly on the pavement are not prosecuted. Only those riding irresponsibly. No need to make things up to win an argunment that never existed. All the best to the injured man, my thoughts are with you. I have a friend who was paralysed in an accident - and she in fact recovered. I hope you do too.[/p][/quote]With respect, I know what you said. And we are talking in general about cyclists, not the one you reported, at least I was. But as the cyclist you reported did no harm (making an assumption here from what you Have said) and you have now said that the law is only applied to those who are irresponsible, just exactly what is your problem with the way the police dealt with it - was the rider being irresponsible, or simply riding on the path in a responsible manner? And if the law has been updated so that responsible cyclists are not prosecuted then why are we even having a discussion about it being illegal to ride on the pavement if prosecution is only for those who are irresponsible?!?! It is you that mentioned it being illegal, as well as others, but now you're backtracking by saying that prosecution is only applied to those who are irresponsible? So which is it - illegal, or perfectly legal until you act irresponsibly? As an ex-cyclist I admit that I wasn't aware the law had been changed, if that is case. @BitBytr - I am concerned with too much government in my life also (I believe we've discussed that before), but I am also not concerned with libertarianism as you can't have one without having the other. And perhaps the negative ramifications of libertarianism, if there are any, can be overcome by a better community where we all look out for each other and teach right and wrongs from an early age. Nor am I worried by the minority who cause such unfortunate accidents such as this - purely because they are in a minority. It seems today in the UK we are more worried about what affects the minority instead of what affects the majority. Don't think I'm trying to be disrespectful to Mr Pace, my sympathies are with him, but you're all going on about preventing accidents that are caused by the minority by affecting the majority. And to me that's rather upside down. ravenmorpheus
  • Score: 0

6:37pm Fri 28 Oct 11

BitBytr_2 says...

Yes! But therein is my worry. Not to be too cynical, but I don't have the highest opinion of my fellow man when it comes to "groupthink". Libertarianism allows enormous latitude (good) but fosters factionalism, which can and often does include groups whose attitude reviles individuality, perhaps (bad). To teach right and wrong from an early age is utopia: I believe that we have descended too far towards dystopia to implement that - look at our society already. Hence, from innate fear (of the minority?) we abdicate our collective responsibilities, supplanting them by insisting that other groups (government, police, other clandestine agencies etc.) enforce restrictive legislation that intrudes and constrict our freedoms (which we relinquish readily these days).

I am gobsmacked by the USA - the word's defender of freedom - applauding the Arab Spring revolts and demonstrations while forcefully and brutally subduing erstwhile peaceful protests in its own country! Yet, the UK is little different. A bit more muted in all aspects, but very similar indeed.

Freedoms lost and liberties restricted. Due in part by the lack of respect from (a minority of?) people who insist on riding bikes on paved sidewalks without concern for their fellow, pedestrian travelers.

Common decency, courtesy and etiquette - replaced by restrictive and unenforceable legislation.
Yes! But therein is my worry. Not to be too cynical, but I don't have the highest opinion of my fellow man when it comes to "groupthink". Libertarianism allows enormous latitude (good) but fosters factionalism, which can and often does include groups whose attitude reviles individuality, perhaps (bad). To teach right and wrong from an early age is utopia: I believe that we have descended too far towards dystopia to implement that - look at our society already. Hence, from innate fear (of the minority?) we abdicate our collective responsibilities, supplanting them by insisting that other groups (government, police, other clandestine agencies etc.) enforce restrictive legislation that intrudes and constrict our freedoms (which we relinquish readily these days). I am gobsmacked by the USA - the word's defender of freedom - applauding the Arab Spring revolts and demonstrations while forcefully and brutally subduing erstwhile peaceful protests in its own country! Yet, the UK is little different. A bit more muted in all aspects, but very similar indeed. Freedoms lost and liberties restricted. Due in part by the lack of respect from (a minority of?) people who insist on riding bikes on paved sidewalks without concern for their fellow, pedestrian travelers. Common decency, courtesy and etiquette - replaced by restrictive and unenforceable legislation. BitBytr_2
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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