On 10/09/2019 12:19, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/09/2019 11:04, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2019 10:36, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/09/2019 00:41, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2019 00:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:34, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2019 11:18, Simon Mason wrote:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-drivers.html



Whereabout is the mention of the cyclist?

I often leave my bike at home and use the pavement. Sometimes I
also stand still on it.

How interesting (sigh).
So whereabout is the mention of the cyclist which makes it an
on-topic post?

Some members of the group (including you) frequently claim that
stories about a person that is not actually cycling are on topic for
a cycling group. Cos they're a cyclist, innit.

Posts about cyclists and cycling in a cycling NG are on topic. Posts
about other things, which do not involve cycling, bicycles or cyclists
are not in topic.

Even you should be able to understand that. But you imply that you don't.

A lot of posts about drug dealers, burglaries, assorted assaults, etc
come into that category. You need to make your mind up.

If they involve bicycles, cyclists or cycling, they are on-topic.

Are we to assume that you also dsapprove of the chaining of
bicycles to street furniture and other property adjoing footways?

Do you ever walk anywhere where you find this is a problem? It's
usuall better to deal with bigger problems first.

Are things only a problem if they impact me, then?

That is frequently the way things work.

Maybe for you. Not for me. For me, it's principle first. I don't
actually expect you to comprehend that. In fact, I confidently expect
you not to understand it.

1000 pedestrians hurt by drivers every day is a principle you have a lot
of trouble with.

That isn't a principle. You need a dictionary and the ability to read
and understand its contents.

Do you ever walk anywhere? It's an easy to question to answer but you
always swerve away.

Why does it matter?

As it happens, I don't often travel to anywhere significant on foot
because I live in a village. Foot journeys are local and primarily for
exercise (or part of a holiday, exercised elsewhere, naturally). I
very rarely travel by publictransport, though. Life isn't like that here.

Then most of the time you are looking at the world through a windscreen.

That's ridiculous. Even a TIR HGV driver or USA trucker doing interstate
deliveries doesn't do that.

You attempt to put your self forward as the "pedestrian's friend". The
over used, over abused word 'hypocrite' comes to mind.

I am a pedestrian. We all are, at least most of the time.

I ask that because I also never have problems with cars parked on
the footway - but that doesn't mean that I either approve of that or
oppose moves to prevent it.

Do you ever walk anywhere?

That has nothing to do with the subject or with you and you raise it
purely as a diversion, but see above anyway.

It is necessary to establish your qualifications.

Qualifications?

Q: What qualifications does one need to be a pedestrian?

A: The same qualifications as are needed to be a cyclist.

That is: none whatsoever.

And reflect on today's word: principle (not that it means much to you).

You think the things I experience when out walking don't count. Because
I am a "cyclist". See above.

No, I don't think that, because I dont actually believe you when you
claim that cyclists cause no problems for pedestrians. You are well
aware that they do cause problems for pedestrians in more than one way.
But... your stance does not permit you to admit that which you and
everyone else know to be true. You usually attempt to counter this
problem with a combination of disingenuity and dishonesty. To be fair,
you aren't the only one to do so. Cycling seems to have that effect on
(some) people.

But for reasons of your own (I wonder what they could be?), you
think it's alright to block footways with parked or semi-abandoned
bikes, but (apparently) not cars.

First rule of a social group:
One says they prefer apples to pears. The response is "oh, so you
hate oranges."

You think it's alright to block footways with bicycles and the
evidence for that is that you don't see the need for addressing it. Or
at least, so you say.

There are some concepts you really struggle with.

Support for self-centred lawbreaking is one of them. I don't know you
can rationalise it. I couldn't. But you do manage it.