On 10/09/2019 14:37, JNugent wrote:
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?


....

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.

Below you say I am a cyclist even when I am walking. My response to your
question above is therefore relevant and on topic. Had you used the word
'bicycles' (given the subject was 'cars') that would have been a
different matter.

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.

Your technique of swallting things away and dwelling on the
meaning of a word is long established. (The figure I gave happens to be
wrong. It is 100 a day but it doesn't change the argument.)

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.

Apart from a minority that have other applicable experience, it is not
ridiculous. Please explain how experience of road conditions are gained
in various modes without using those modes. (Perhaps it comes from posts
"in this very newsgroup"?)

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.

Official figures show it is negligible.

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.

You missed the full stop after 'qualifications'. I was not trying to
find out whether you are permitted to travel on foot in public places.

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.

You start the paragraph with the word 'no' then spend the rest of it
explaining that my experience doesn't count because I am a cyclist.

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.

It's very easy to have a perspective against the harm caused by drivers.