Cyclists disrupt war memorial service again by ignoring roadclosure.
 

On 06/08/2017 21:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/08/17 15:57, JNugent wrote:
On 05/08/2017 16:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/08/17 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 05/08/2017 09:35, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/08/17 16:21, MrCheerful wrote:
http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/new...?ref=mrb&lp=16


If they "came haring through" how come there was time to have a
conversation with them?

Perhaps the riders could have been more sensitive to the situation
but similarly there are many people that are over obsessed with the
idea there is some sort of difference between walking and riding
slowly.

Is there NO difference between walking and riding a bike, then?

Not when speed is similar.

So why not walk and show a bit of respect?

Do try to keep up.

That's your usual childish tactic - trying to pretend that the subject
was something different - on display again.

This is about boorish behaviour by cyclists.

Don't defend their yobbish behaviour.

Cyclists disrupt war memorial service again by ignoring roadclosure.
 

On 07/08/17 14:47, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2017 21:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/08/17 15:57, JNugent wrote:
On 05/08/2017 16:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/08/17 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 05/08/2017 09:35, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/08/17 16:21, MrCheerful wrote:
http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/new...?ref=mrb&lp=16


If they "came haring through" how come there was time to have a
conversation with them?

Perhaps the riders could have been more sensitive to the situation
but similarly there are many people that are over obsessed with
the idea there is some sort of difference between walking and
riding slowly.

Is there NO difference between walking and riding a bike, then?

Not when speed is similar.

So why not walk and show a bit of respect?

Do try to keep up.

That's your usual childish tactic - trying to pretend that the subject
was something different - on display again.

You seriously believe your posting habits are mature and intelligent?

We have no idea in this case but something you ought to ponder is that
some bicycle users have dodgy hips and knees. Getting off, pushing and
getting back on is actually difficult and painful.

This is about boorish behaviour by cyclists.

Don't defend their yobbish behaviour.

What, compared to drivers passing through similar ceremonies elsewhere
and not getting out to push, perhaps? Of course, under the rules of
uk.rec.cycling (dictated by non-cyclists), that doesn't count.

Cyclists disrupt war memorial service again by ignoring roadclosure.
 

On 07/08/2017 21:58, TMS320 wrote:

On 07/08/17 14:47, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2017 21:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/08/17 15:57, JNugent wrote:
On 05/08/2017 16:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/08/17 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 05/08/2017 09:35, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/08/17 16:21, MrCheerful wrote:

http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/new...?ref=mrb&lp=16

If they "came haring through" how come there was time to have a
conversation with them?

Perhaps the riders could have been more sensitive to the
situation but similarly there are many people that are over
obsessed with the idea there is some sort of difference between
walking and riding slowly.

Is there NO difference between walking and riding a bike, then?

Not when speed is similar.

So why not walk and show a bit of respect?

Do try to keep up.

That's your usual childish tactic - trying to pretend that the subject
was something different - on display again.

You seriously believe your posting habits are mature and intelligent?

I certainly do. I approach topics logically and argue consistently.

You, OTOH, do not. You frequently make unsupported and untrue assertions
to the effect that the topic is something other than what it actually
is. You've just done it again - in claiming that cyclists can't dismount
(and obey the law) because they are disabled in some way. And you go on
(below) to try to twist the topic away from the disgraceful behaviour of
cyclists.

We have no idea in this case but something you ought to ponder is that
some bicycle users have dodgy hips and knees. Getting off, pushing and
getting back on is actually difficult and painful.

Even in the odd unusual case where that might be true, would it mean
that it's alright to cycle through a space where people are conducting a
remembrance service in respect of those killed serving their country?

This is about boorish behaviour by cyclists.

Don't defend their yobbish behaviour.

What, compared to drivers passing through similar ceremonies elsewhere
and not getting out to push, perhaps?

No. Of course not.

Just "don't defend boorish behaviour by yob cyclists", pure and simple.

It has nothing to do with what other people might or might not do.
Nothing whatsoever.

Of course, under the rules of
uk.rec.cycling (dictated by non-cyclists), that doesn't count.

It certainly doesn't count when it doesn't happen and is therefore not
reported in the news story at the centre of the topic. That was all
about yob cyclists, wasn't it?

Cyclists disrupt war memorial service again by ignoring roadclosure.
 

On 08/08/17 03:04, JNugent wrote:
On 07/08/2017 21:58, TMS320 wrote:

On 07/08/17 14:47, JNugent wrote:
On 06/08/2017 21:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/08/17 15:57, JNugent wrote:
On 05/08/2017 16:21, TMS320 wrote:
On 05/08/17 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 05/08/2017 09:35, TMS320 wrote:
On 04/08/17 16:21, MrCheerful wrote:

http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/new...?ref=mrb&lp=16



If they "came haring through" how come there was time
to have a conversation with them?

Perhaps the riders could have been more sensitive to
the situation but similarly there are many people that
are over obsessed with the idea there is some sort of
difference between walking and riding slowly.

Is there NO difference between walking and riding a bike,
then?

Not when speed is similar.

So why not walk and show a bit of respect?

Do try to keep up.

That's your usual childish tactic - trying to pretend that the
subject was something different - on display again.

You seriously believe your posting habits are mature and
intelligent?

I certainly do. I approach topics logically and argue consistently.

How does it feel to be in a minority of one?

You, OTOH, do not. You frequently make unsupported and untrue
assertions to the effect that the topic is something other than what
it actually is. You've just done it again - in claiming that cyclists
can't dismount (and obey the law) because they are disabled in some
way.

I said "some bicycle users". Obviously you have proof that none (in this
instance) were in this category? And what law are we talking about?

And you go on (below) to try to twist the topic away from the
disgraceful behaviour of cyclists.

Yeah ok, all the world's problems are due to a few people on bicycles
in some British backwater not getting off to push.

We have no idea in this case but something you ought to ponder is
that some bicycle users have dodgy hips and knees. Getting off,
pushing and getting back on is actually difficult and painful.

Even in the odd unusual case where that might be true, would it mean
that it's alright to cycle through a space where people are
conducting a remembrance service in respect of those killed serving
their country?

This is about boorish behaviour by cyclists.

Don't defend their yobbish behaviour.

What, compared to drivers passing through similar ceremonies
elsewhere and not getting out to push, perhaps?

No. Of course not.

Just "don't defend boorish behaviour by yob cyclists", pure and
simple.

It hasn't been established that "boorish behaviour" actually occurred.

It has nothing to do with what other people might or might not do.
Nothing whatsoever.

It has everything to do with it. A person on a bicycle does not have to
set standards way above what people not using bicycles do.

Of course, under the rules of uk.rec.cycling (dictated by
non-cyclists), that doesn't count.

It certainly doesn't count when it doesn't happen and is therefore
not reported in the news story at the centre of the topic. That was
all about yob cyclists, wasn't it?

What doesn't happen? It is pretty certain you will never have seen
a press report informing us about drivers passing through and not
getting out to push. I guess this must mean that drivers do get out to
push.

Cyclists disrupt war memorial service again by ignoring roadclosure.
 

On 08/08/17 03:04, JNugent wrote:

You, OTOH, do not. You frequently make unsupported and untrue
assertions to the effect that the topic is something other than what
it actually is. You've just done it again - in claiming that cyclists
can't dismount (and obey the law)

You have replied to another thread, which shows you have been active
since my reply and that you ran away. I asked you a question which you
haven't answered:-

What law are we talking about?

Cyclists disrupt war memorial service again by ignoring roadclosure.
 

On 09/08/2017 09:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/08/17 03:04, JNugent wrote:

You, OTOH, do not. You frequently make unsupported and untrue
assertions to the effect that the topic is something other than what
it actually is. You've just done it again - in claiming that cyclists
can't dismount (and obey the law)

You have replied to another thread, which shows you have been active
since my reply and that you ran away. I asked you a question which you
haven't answered:-

What law are we talking about?

Been busy with other, more imprtant, things and available time has had
to be rationed. Real life tends to happen in fits and starts for the
retired.

Stand by. I hasten to reassure you that you have not yet been (quite)
forgotten.

Cyclists disrupt war memorial service again by ignoring roadclosure.
 

On 11/08/17 12:53, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2017 09:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/08/17 03:04, JNugent wrote:

You, OTOH, do not. You frequently make unsupported and untrue
assertions to the effect that the topic is something other than what
it actually is. You've just done it again - in claiming that cyclists
can't dismount (and obey the law)

You have replied to another thread, which shows you have been active
since my reply and that you ran away. I asked you a question which you
haven't answered:-

What law are we talking about?

Been busy with other, more imprtant, things and available time has had
to be rationed. Real life tends to happen in fits and starts for the
retired.

Of course. A complete pause wouldn't have generated an alert.

Stand by. I hasten to reassure you that you have not yet been (quite)
forgotten.

Cyclists disrupt war memorial service again by ignoring roadclosure.
 

On 11/08/2017 12:53, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2017 09:03, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/08/17 03:04, JNugent wrote:

You, OTOH, do not. You frequently make unsupported and untrue
assertions to the effect that the topic is something other than what
it actually is. You've just done it again - in claiming that cyclists
can't dismount (and obey the law)

You have replied to another thread, which shows you have been active
since my reply and that you ran away. I asked you a question which you
haven't answered:-

What law are we talking about?

Been busy with other, more imprtant, things and available time has had
to be rationed. Real life tends to happen in fits and starts for the
retired.

Stand by. I hasten to reassure you that you have not yet been (quite)
forgotten.


Assuming that there was an official temporary closure of the road then
'vehicles of all classes' would be prohibitted. A bicycle being ridden
is a vehicle. (section 14 RTA 1984)