14-05-2020, 02:21 PM
11
Re: Two Busy-Bodies Or Nuisance Cyclists?
I haven't read the news item or seen the video, I use AdBlock so cannot access the DM. However, reading those posts so far and with the way the law works in this country, had either of the riders injured themselves due to the obstacles placed on the path and taken those who placed them there to Court, then I feel sure those two women would have been found liable for damages.With this coronavirus and the effects it's going to have on all of us, I think we are all going to have to learn to live in a better way with others who also share this planet. This should, in my opinion, have happened many years' ago so perhaps those who do learn new ways will be contributing to a positive outcome of the pandemic when, hopefully, in the future it ends.
14-05-2020, 02:38 PM
14
Re: Two Busy-Bodies Or Nuisance Cyclists?
Originally Posted by Westender
->
There are a couple of likely looking trees in the background.Perhaps a length of taught wire , about neck height would have been more effective?
What an unpleasant twosome!
14-05-2020, 02:46 PM
15
Re: Two Busy-Bodies Or Nuisance Cyclists?
Originally Posted by Westender
->
There are a couple of likely looking trees in the background.Perhaps a length of taught wire , about neck height would have been more effective?
What an unpleasant twosome!
If the cyclist had been injured they could have ended up in serious trouble. Harridans.
14-05-2020, 02:59 PM
16
Re: Two Busy-Bodies Or Nuisance Cyclists?
Originally Posted by Longdogs
->
The trouble is, where do these 'freedoms' end. Would it be acceptable to allow 4x4s or dirt bikes through the woods too? There are certain parts of Dartmoor which have been ruined by such behaviour.
As I said earlier, the right of the individual is absolute until you negatively impact another's right. Furthermore, it is not within the authority of the individual to act as a vigilante to determine what is or is not right and to take matters into their own hands unless the threat is life-threatening and immediate.
Do mechanized-vehicles create a risk and negatively impact others? If yes, then those can be regulated. Riding a bike along a path shouldn't be an issue under normal standards. If bike-riders start running people over and become a risk to others, then they either need to be regulated, restricted or have common etiquette and courtesy standards enforced through an increased police presence.
14-05-2020, 03:11 PM
17
Re: Two Busy-Bodies Or Nuisance Cyclists?
Why did the guy have a shovel?Where I used to live there was a copse, it had narrow paths, lovely place to walk your dog.
Some teenagers, who lived in a place with an enormous garden, possibly the size of the copse, decided to build a mountain bike track in the copse. They dug dips, piled up rocks and soil to make humps and ruined it for walkers.
Just saying...
14-05-2020, 03:18 PM
18
Re: Two Busy-Bodies Or Nuisance Cyclists?
I'm a fair-weather cyclist. I enjoy cycling along the local canal towpath and often encounter ramblers and others walking side by side. I bought a BIG bell (like all Dutch bikes seem to have) that is loud and I give this a ring when I'm about 20 yards behind anyone to give them time to react. Not once have I had should accusations as these two women made thrown at me. In fact, several people have said it's good to be able to hear a bell for a change.BTW, it's the law in the UK that all bikes have to be sold with a bell already attached to the handlebars. That's why you see so many absolutely useless tiny little bells that do little else than go ping, and that's very quietly.
14-05-2020, 03:20 PM
19
Re: Two Busy-Bodies Or Nuisance Cyclists?
All it would have taken would be a couple of strands of cotton. At face level it would have caused the kids on bikes to lose their Ballance and over they would have gone. Some broken glass on the path and scars to remind them for the future.There are places for things and woodland footpaths are not the place for cyclists.
14-05-2020, 03:42 PM
20
Re: Two Busy-Bodies Or Nuisance Cyclists?
Originally Posted by PSXtreme
->
Where should they start? Perhaps some individuals feel that walkers and hikers are hurting the environment with littering, trampling plant-life, scaring animals so they install bear traps on the path to deter walkers from coming through the woods. As I said earlier, the right of the individual is absolute until you negatively impact another's right. Furthermore, it is not within the authority of the individual to act as a vigilante to determine what is or is not right and to take matters into their own hands unless the threat is life-threatening and immediate.
Do mechanized-vehicles create a risk and negatively impact others? If yes, then those can be regulated. Riding a bike along a path shouldn't be an issue under normal standards. If bike-riders start running people over and become a risk to others, then they either need to be regulated, restricted or have common etiquette and courtesy standards enforced through an increased police presence.
That's the problem though isn't it. There is no such thing these days. I agree we should all be able to live together and respect each other but unfortunately it doesn't always happen. I see enough cyclists travelling the wrong way up our one way street to realise that the rules don't apply to everyone. If I were to drive into one of them though, I would no doubt be charged with careless driving.
|
|
