Cycling to work banned

"Dave Larrington" wrote:

At least once I saw him doing so from the stoker's position too,
though /that/ didn't look terribly controllable.


it's easier than it looks, but one should start it going from the
captain's seat first.

..max

--
the part of
was played by maxwell monningh 8-p

"James Annan" wrote in message
...
Ryan Ginstrom wrote:

"James Annan" wrote in message
-

$BBh(B9$Br!'7ZVN$NhV?M?tKt$O@Q:\$N@)8B( B
$B!!!!FsNXVKt$O;0NX$N+EV$K$"$?$C$F$O!"(B1 $B?M$rD6$($J$$$3$H!#(B
$B!!!!C"$7!"hVAuCV$r@_$1!"0BA4$JJ}K!$GEv3:h VAuCV$K#6:PL$K~(B
$B!!!!$NT(B1$BL$rhV$5$;!"(B16$B:P0Je$N T$,1?E$9$kl9g!"$^$?$O(B
$B!!!!+EV@lMQF;O)Ey$K$*$$$FhVAuCV$K1~$8$?? M0w$,hV$9$k(B
$B!!!!l9g$O!"$3$N8B$j$G$O$J$$!#(B



(2) The vehicle is being ridden on a bicycle path *or the like*, and the
number of persons riding the vehicle does not exceed the number of seats
thereon.

Hmmm. It seems to me that this clause is referring not to "the number of
seats" but something more "appropriate apparatus for carrying that many
people"

I said gist -- the translation is admittedly loose. However I would like to
see an example of a $BhVAuCV(B that would not be called a "seat" in English.
You could even have a cradle-like contraption, and it would most likely be
called an infant *seat*.

I wonder how rickshaws are treated under this law. They are ubiquitous
in my home town (tourist trap).

I saw some online definitions that included "carts pulled by people or
animals" under "light vehicle." However, there seem to be several
definitions, so you have to get the definition that pertains to your law.

If you can find that rickshaws are traveling the streets, and they are
included under "light vehicles," then you definitely have a good case for
riding your tandem *on the roads used by the rickshaws*

--
Regards,
Ryan Ginstrom

In article ,
"Ryan Ginstrom" wrote:

"James Annan" wrote in message
-

$BBh(B9$Br!'7ZVN$NhV?M?tKt$O@Q:\$N@)8B( B
$B!!!!FsNXVKt$O;0NX$N+EV$K$"$?$C$F$O!"(B1 $B?M$rD6$($J$$$3$H!#(B
$B!!!!C"$7!"hVAuCV$r@_$1!"0BA4$JJ}K!$GEv3:h VAuCV$K#6:PL$K~(B

$B!!!!$NT(B1$BL$rhV$5$;!"(B16$B:P0Je$N T$,1?E$9$kl9g!"$^$?$O(B
$B!!!!+EV@lMQF;O)Ey$K$*$$$FhVAuCV$K1~$8$?? M0w$,hV$9$k(B

$B!!!!l9g$O!"$3$N8B$j$G$O$J$$!#(B

I said gist -- the translation is admittedly loose. However I would like to
see an example of a $BhVAuCV(B that would not be called a "seat" in English.
You could even have a cradle-like contraption, and it would most likely be
called an infant *seat*.

SLOW DOWN. i'm only on lesson seven, "Mr. Smith visits Mr. Tanaka on
Sunday."

..max

--
the part of
was played by maxwell monningh 8-p

Bill Robertson wrote:
James Annan wrote:
[...]

Any hints and tips for a sensible strategy will be gratefully received.


Not sure about sensible, but you've got 3 tandems: how about riding one
each for a while to make the point?

Sounds like a pretty damn fine idea, actually.

John W.

Peter Fox wrote:
Following on from James Annan's message. . .
[Bizarre story of Little Togo trying to ban cycling to work snipped]


Why not organise the other cyclists.

While I think the entirety of your post is a good idea, it's not very
practical in Japan, particularly in that situation. My guess is that the
core of the problem has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual riding
of the bike, but perhaps the size of the bike. Perhaps somebody
complained that the bike sticks out too far, maybe someone bumped into
it, something like that. If that's the case there are far easier
resolutions. This is why I think the idea of riding one to a bike for a
few days might solve the situation; if size truly is the issue, that
will come out in no time at all.

John W.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:34:48 +0900, "mr.sumo snr."
brought down from the Mount tablets inscribed:

"James Annan" wrote in message
...

In the UK, I would happily tell the bureaucrat to **** off, but
unfortunately workers' rights are still a rather foreign concept here
and it is clear that any foreigner who kicks up too much of a fuss gets
sent home in short order (I have already caused more than my share of
trouble, and now is definitely not a good time to start any more).
Bureaucrats aside, I like it here, and am not in a rush to leave. But I
don't take kindly to small-minded petty jobsworths trying to push me
around. Any hints and tips for a sensible strategy will be gratefully
received.


Why not tell him: "No UKlander ever needs a 'permission slip' to ride a
tandem bicycle"

I sometimes use a variation on that theme when people ask me if I got
my truck license in Japan. I tell them I don't have a license at all.
When they ask how I can get by with that, I tell them it is because my
country won the war and that entitles me to some privileges.




--

Michael Cash

"I am sorry, Mr. Cash, but we are unable to accept your rap sheet in lieu of
a high school transcript."

Dr. Howard Sprague
Dean of Admissions
Mount Pilot College

In article , Darin McGrew wrote:
Louise Bremner wrote:
Don't know what a "stoker" is in this context. Maybe I'm better off not
knowing, since I never really learnt to ride a bike myself?

On a tandem, the person in the front is the captain, and the person in the
back is the stoker.

The captain steers and the stoker doesn't. Almost always, this is the
same thing as saying the person in the front is the captain, but not always:
http://www.kinetics.org.uk/html/pino.shtml

John W. wrote:


While I think the entirety of your post is a good idea, it's not very
practical in Japan, particularly in that situation. My guess is that the
core of the problem has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual riding
of the bike, but perhaps the size of the bike. Perhaps somebody
complained that the bike sticks out too far, maybe someone bumped into
it, something like that.

Well, the message I received referred explicitly to the issue of a crash
on the way to work. However when discussing the matter with some friends
at work, one person who I do not know well did chime in with "Ah, you
are the ones with the big bike. Someone told me that it takes up a lot
of space in the bike park" (or words to that effect). There are also a
few motorbikes that take up a huge amount of room (and only carry one
person each, rather than 2) but it wouldn't surprise me if this was the
reason that someone thought to mention it in the first place.

We often leave the bike outside the covered park, leaning up on a fence,
for precisely this reason. But I don't see this working as a permanent
solution now that someone has got his knickers in a twist over the law.

James

Ryan Ginstrom wrote:


If you can find that rickshaws are traveling the streets, and they are
included under "light vehicles," then you definitely have a good case for
riding your tandem *on the roads used by the rickshaws*

If the rickshaws are running freely wherever they wish, without any
hindrance, then that would be strong evidence that they are allowed
anywhere, rather than just on a specially defined set of roads.

James

Dave Fossett wrote:

James Annan wrote:

It is good to see that *and the like* as it definitely provides the
wriggle room for off-road MTB tandeming which I had always wondered
about and will now happily assert is unequivocally legal (at least until
I am arrested and charged). I must point Mr Bureaucrat in the direction
of this web page:

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames...ute/index.html

I explored some of the other pages on your site, and smiled at the comment
on the page below about campsites not accepting tents. Only in Japan...
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames...our/index.html

And also the clear route marked on the map, that does not, in fact,
exist in reality and looks like it never could have at any point in the
past. Disconcerting when the piece of fiction looks so similar to an
Ordinance Survey map.

__________________________________________________ ______________________
Louise Bremner (log at gol dot com)
If you want a reply by e-mail, don't write to my Yahoo address!