Pavement perils

moneyistooshorttomention

boliston wrote: »

What would it have to do with his employer?

The fact that, presumably, they would like their employees to be responsible, law-abiding people.

Goodness knows, in this day and age where we even see employers spying on peoples Facebook accounts and taking action against them in circumstances where the person has just criticised their employer - then, presumably, it would be all the more the case when no spying had been done (just reading their morning paper as normal) and that employee had done something wrong.

***********

BTW I don't think any of us are anti-cyclist per se. Its obvious that there are law-abiding people and law-breakers in any group. Some cyclists do abide by the laws and don't use our pavements and I certainly give benefit of doubt and assume they don't unless I see them doing so (at which point, if I've seen someone I know cycling on one of our pavements, I then have reservations about their likely behaviour in other contexts as well).

System

brat wrote: »

Unfortunately some believe that evidence that one cyclist is a pillock means that all cyclists are pillocks. .

Why not? You only have to look at threads on here where the cycling fraternity take that attitude toward motorists where they tar them all as homicidal bike-haters

brat

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Hopefully he will get that maximum fine then.

I shouldn't think there is much chance his employers could possibly miss the fact that he has done this.

I dealt with a S1 RTA offence some time back where a young lad drove excessively quickly along a road (several statements to that effect) before eventually losing control on a bend, bouncing on to the pavement and killing a pedestrian.

He was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving after trial, and was sentenced to 21months. (Max for that offence is 14 years)

His employees, a large local employer, were just one group who submitted reports to say how good a lad he was, and how he should be kept out of prison because it wouldn't be of benefit to him or anyone else.

I'm sure the input from his employers (along with a deal of understanding from the victim's family) went some way to keep his sentence as low as it was.

brat

!!!!!! wrote: »

brat wrote:

Unfortunately some believe that evidence that one cyclist is a pillock means that all cyclists are pillocks.

Why not?

Wow!! :eek:

!!!!!! wrote: »

You only have to look at threads on here where the cycling fraternity take that attitude toward motorists where they tar them all as homicidal bike-haters

I absolutely don't agree. I'm a motorist too. In fact I don't know a cyclist who is not a motorist.

Have you a link to such a thread?

Marco_Panettone

Proc wrote: »

How is this a story? Pedestrians are killed by motorists every single day - where are the threads about that?

Quite. There are 80 hit and runs a week from motor vehicles in London alone, with 20 pedestrians killed or injured because of them. EVERY WEEK.


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/eighty-hitandruns-each-week-on-londons-lawless-roads-9830590.html

boliston

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

The fact that, presumably, they would like their employees to be responsible, law-abiding people.

Goodness knows, in this day and age where we even see employers spying on peoples Facebook accounts and taking action against them in circumstances where the person has just criticised their employer - then, presumably, it would be all the more the case when no spying had been done (just reading their morning paper as normal) and that employee had done something wrong..........

Criticising your own employer online is VERY different to a pavement cycling offence as it could have a direct impact on the employer. I'm sure many people commit more serious crimes daily, such as speeding - and these ARE things that could have an impact on their employment if they were to loose their licence and not be able to drive a company vehicle if this was part of their job.

Norman_Castle

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Some cyclists do abide by the laws and don't use our pavements and (at I certainly give benefit of doubt and assume they don't unless I see them doing so at which point, if I've seen someone I know cycling on one of our pavements, I then have reservations about their likely behaviour in other contexts as well).

:rotfl:. When you're walking along your pavement look at the passing cars. Every one of these drivers will exceed the speed limit at some time. Do you consider them potential crime lords?.

moneyistooshorttomention

boliston wrote: »

Criticising your own employer online is VERY different to a pavement cycling offence as it could have a direct impact on the employer. I'm sure many people commit more serious crimes daily, such as speeding - and these ARE things that could have an impact on their employment if they were to loose their licence and not be able to drive a company vehicle if this was part of their job.

It's the attitude that is the employers' concern. I've already pointed that out - and what the employer will be concerned with is wanting to know that their employees are responsible and law-abiding. Illicit pavement cycling is an indicator of their general attitude towards being responsible and law-abiding and, obviously in the case of that particular cyclist concerned, he clearly doesn't take the slightest heed of looking out for other peoples safety.

I don't think I'd want someone around the place who wasn't bothered about other peoples safety - I would be wondering what bit of machinery (for instance) they might operate in a hazardous manner and cause injury to another one of my employees.

A careful/legal/responsible attitude to life generally would denote the first characteristic I would consider necessary for an employee in any type of job.

moneyistooshorttomention

Norman_Castle wrote: »

:rotfl:. When you're walking along your pavement look at the passing cars. Every one of these drivers will exceed the speed limit at some time. Do you consider them potential crime lords?.

People can only judge character and likely behaviour on the basis of what they actually see someone acting like in another context.

Its the same thing as I have a friend who has, shall we say, a slightly different attitude to financial responsibilities to me (they haven't gone as far as going bankrupt...but...). Add the fact they are a bit more trusting than I feel is appropriate of some other people
- cue for being a bit cautious about what extent I can trust them to.

Same principle.

esuhl

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

The fact that, presumably, they would like their employees to be responsible, law-abiding people.

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

It's the attitude that is the employers' concern. I've already pointed that out - and what the employer will be concerned with is wanting to know that their employees are responsible and law-abiding.

Interesting... So you'd never employ anyone who had ever broken the speed limit whilst driving either, then?

The majority of drivers break the speed limit at some point. Wouldn't your company struggle to find any suitable employees if you were able to tell who had broken the law?