"Disabled" Guy - "pepper sprayed" at 2012

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 20:40:00 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

I am asking the drivers of slow traffic to show some consideration and
voluntarily move out of the way of faster traffic.

So that the motor traffic can risk their lives by passing too close,
only to join the back of a queue a few seconds later.

They will only get too close if you fail to leave sufficient room -
often by wobbling all over the road.

Do you shoulder barge your way through supermarket queues in such a
fashion, taking advantage of your physically greater strength over
little old ladies buying teabags, or children buying sweets?

No. Do you stand in a supermarket aisle with your trolley blocking
the passage so that other shoppers cannot get past you?

Motorists block roads to those with a right to use them.
Cyclist simply don't have that capability - how often do you see a
traffic jam of cycles?

This thread is about a cyclist who deliberately blocked the road. Do
keep up!

--
Cynic

In message , at 11:19:00 on Wed, 8 Aug 2012,
Cynic sniffed the air and proclaimed
On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 22:30:19 +0100, Pedt "\"@
wrote:

Only because you pointed out, correctly, that it wasn't you who used
the term 'too dangerous'. You, correctly said that you said that "it
wouldn't be safe to stop"

If there is any significant difference between the phrases, "It is not
safe to stop," and "It is too dangerous to stop," it is a subtle one.
Would you like to explain the essential difference in meaning between
the two statements?

AFAICS, it is just Tom nit-picking that I didn't use the exact words he
used and refusing to answer on that basis. I might even reply to him now
he's provided an answer to the amended question unless it's clear enough
points have been already made.

I might quibble over the "too" in some circumstance but if it isn't
safe to stop than it is at least dangerous to stop so we are not in
disagreement here.

--
Pedt

On Aug 9, 8:50*am, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:


Motorways are a public highway idiot.
===================================

:-)

highways are open to all users, motorways are fer uhm motor-vehicles
only.


Then when they get it so crammed that none of them can move, they
blame the cyclists.
Dumb, huh?

Cycle travels at 10mph, car much faster - do the math.

The MOT decided that dynamo lighting on pedal-cycles be capable of a
certain luminosity (I forget) at 11mph, this being thought a capable
speed by adult cyclists. So what authority (eek) thinks that cyclists
have become weaker that adults now can only sustain a speed less than
10mph on a pedal-cycle?

On 09/08/2012 14:20, thirty-six wrote:
On Aug 9, 8:50 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:


Motorways are a public highway idiot.
===================================

:-)

highways are open to all users, motorways are fer uhm motor-vehicles
only.


Then when they get it so crammed that none of them can move, they
blame the cyclists.
Dumb, huh?

Cycle travels at 10mph, car much faster - do the math.

The MOT decided that dynamo lighting on pedal-cycles be capable of a
certain luminosity (I forget) at 11mph, this being thought a capable
speed by adult cyclists. So what authority (eek) thinks that cyclists
have become weaker that adults now can only sustain a speed less than
10mph on a pedal-cycle?


BMA report on masturbation and fantasy living?

--
OUT OF MY WAY you plebs!

In message , at 21:59:52 on
Tue, 7 Aug 2012, Phil W Lee sniffed the air and
proclaimed
Pedt "\"@ considered Tue, 7 Aug 2012
01:07:15 +0100 the perfect time to write:

No campaign from you then? I see Tom hasn't responded either as to why
he hasn't been campaigning for pedestrians and bicycles to be banned
from the pavement on this bit of road as it is 'too dangerous'. It
wouldn't be because you are both desperately trying to dig yourself out
of the hole you've gotten into and daren't reply as it wouldn't hold up
to any sort of scrutiny would it?

Why are you so keen to allow bullying motor traffic to drive
vulnerable road users off the public highway?

Why are CM so keen to bully other road users?

Do you shoulder barge your way through supermarket queues in such a
fashion, taking advantage of your physically greater strength over
little old ladies buying teabags, or children buying sweets?

Of course not.

Continuing your analogy with a supermarket queue: I've often been in a
queue with one or two items behind someone with a large amount. Usually
I get asked if I'd like to go ahead and, similarly, when I do have a
large amount myself and a few behind me has a minimal amount I do the
same and suggest they go ahead.

My, and lots of other people's behaviour in a supermarket, is directly
akin to slower traffic not hindering faster traffic.

If you had a full trolley load queuing at a checkout and there was a
little old lady behind you with just a pint of milk, would you suggest
she went in front or would you say sod her, I was here first?


You do get a few with huge trolleys in front of someone with one item
and look at them dismissively with an "I'm so superior to you because of
the amount I'm buying" or "I was here first". You can, in your analogy
of a supermarket queue, make a comparison with the cyclists who think
they are more important.

--
Pedt

On 10/08/2012 08:04, Phil W Lee wrote:

Cars block each other, and create queues and congestion.
That is why cyclists are always faster in cities and major towns.
10mph is highly optimistic for the speed of motor vehicles in London
(apart from motorcycles) although I don't know where you get that
10mph for cyclists - I'm an unfit cripple, and I can do twice that on
the flat.

That is simply dishonest.

You know full well that average speed (which depends on many things well
outside a driver's control) and free-flowing speed "on the flat" are not the
same thing at all.

Why are you trying to confuse the concepts as though they were just points on
a single continuum?

Bear in mind that this MoT cycle for lighting evaluation was a
gas-pipe special weighing at least 40lbs with racks, mudguards, skirt
guards, a full chaincase, at best a 3 speed hub, and a bolt-upright
riding position.
Oh, and rod brakes on steel rims, so going fast would have been a
less-than-brilliant idea anyway, as braking was best planned using a
calendar..
The same person on a modern touring bike would manage 20mph on the
flat with no problem (hell, even /I/ can do it).

What speed can a typical, small, 1 litre car manage "on the flat" (or even up
a moderate to severe gradient), with four average weight occupants?

....just reminding you of the difference between average and maximum speed...

In message , at 07:10:09 on
Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Bertie Wooster sniffed the
air and proclaimed

No. You changed the emphasis.

You got upset that I didn't use the exact words that you had previously
used. I don't think there is any real emphasis shift here.

Detaching your arse from your saddle so you could stop your bicycle is
not "unloading" within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act.

[This is the first time the idea of getting off the bike and moving
onto the footway has been brought up in this sub-thread]

********. I've never suggested otherwise.

BTW, if this traffic you held up would have been proceeding at a rather
stately speed of 8.8mph according to your amended figures, how did this
speed make it far too dangerous to be on the pavement?

[You talk of me riding at a modest 8.8mph. The way you phrase your
question suggests that at this low speed there would be no danger
cycling on the footway.

******** again. I never said anything about riding on the pavement
merely standing on the pavement. If I missed out the standing bit on
this occasion then you might like to consider Cynic's point about
context.

I never said anything about you riding at 8.8mph either, either on or
off the pavement.

Care to spell out the safety issue of a cyclist rejoining traffic flow
on a road where you've now said other traffic was at 8.8mph and the lane
wide enough for another vehicle to pass a cyclist anyway. Or do we get
another fudge that you didn't mean what you said?

I have not said other traffic was at 8.8mph. I have said that the
average traffic speed for main roads in central London is 8.8mph.

There is a difference.

So, perhaps you'll tell us at roughly what speed the other traffic would
have been doing if you hadn't been cycling along at 8mph (until you'll
decide to change that that speed, if you do then insert new speed here
and still answer the question).

Anyway, if it was that unsafe to rejoin the road after a voluntary stop
then you'd have to do exactly what you'd have to do after an involuntary
stop such a puncture and walk with the bicycle to the next safe point to
rejoin the road, or do you think that you should have repaired such a
puncture, if such had happened, in the road lane?

Hypthetical.

Fortunately I rarely get punctures nowadays. I buy strong kevlar lined
tyres, and the last time I had a puncture was during my 48 hour Paris
to London cycle ride in June 2010.

Most people I know who has led a group would consider the people they
were leading first not themselves (and if they did the latter they'd
have failed an assessment under controlled conditions and not let
'live').

You seem to have forgotten about the 8 Chinese people.

The location was he
http://goo.gl/maps/oE47g
And on that occasion I fixed it on the roadside.

B2101 North of Rotherfield is hardly the same as the A13 in London.

--
Pedt

On Aug 10, 10:12*am, Pedt "\"@ wrote:
In message , at 21:59:52 on
Tue, 7 Aug 2012, Phil W Lee sniffed the air and
proclaimed

Pedt "\"@ considered Tue, 7 Aug 2012
01:07:15 +0100 the perfect time to write:

No campaign from you then? I see Tom hasn't responded either as to why
he hasn't been campaigning for pedestrians and bicycles to be banned
from the pavement on this bit of road as it is 'too dangerous'. It
wouldn't be because you are both desperately trying to dig yourself out
of the hole you've gotten into and daren't reply as it wouldn't hold up
to any sort of scrutiny would it?

Why are you so keen to allow bullying motor traffic to drive
vulnerable road users off the public highway?

Why are CM so keen to bully other road users?



Do you shoulder barge your way through supermarket queues in such a
fashion, taking advantage of your physically greater strength over
little old ladies buying teabags, or children buying sweets?

Of course not.

Continuing your analogy with a supermarket queue: I've often been in a
queue with one or two items behind someone with a large amount. Usually
I get asked if I'd like to go ahead and, similarly, when I do have a
large amount myself and a few behind me has a minimal amount I do the
same and suggest they go ahead.

My, and lots of other people's behaviour in a supermarket, is directly
akin to slower traffic not hindering faster traffic.

If you had a full trolley load queuing at a checkout and there was a
little old lady behind you with just a pint of milk, would you suggest
she went in front or would you say sod her, I was here first?

You do get a few with huge trolleys in front of someone with one item
and look at them dismissively with an "I'm so superior to you because of
the amount I'm buying" or "I was here first". You can, in your analogy
of a supermarket queue, make a comparison with the cyclists who think
they are more important.

--
Pedt

it's the ****in thought police again.

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:12:07 +0100, Pedt "\"@
wrote:

Why are you so keen to allow bullying motor traffic to drive
vulnerable road users off the public highway?

Why are CM so keen to bully other road users?

CM is a disparate group of cyclists. People go on CM rides for a host
of different reasons. However, there is one fairly common theme which
is to assert cyclists' right to use the road.

Unfortunately there are a significant minority of cyclists who join CM
rides each month with seemingly a sole aim to cause as much disruption
to other road traffic as possible.

My best guess is that they do this to try to make the point, "we can
retaliate for all the disruption you cause to us on all other days of
the month."

On Aug 10, 12:38*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:12:07 +0100, Pedt "\"@

wrote:
Why are you so keen to allow bullying motor traffic to drive
vulnerable road users off the public highway?

Why are CM so keen to bully other road users?

CM is a disparate group of cyclists. People go on CM rides for a host
of different reasons. However, there is one fairly common theme which
is to assert cyclists' right to use the road.

I think that we should uphold our freedom to travel without
hinderence, which is god-given, NOT speak of rights which are only
granted by those who ACT AS IF GIVEN THE AUTHORITY OF LAW (or similar
words, perhap's m'lud could correct if I've misquoted). The freedom
to travel is essential to enable us to flourish, the confinement
placed upon us leads to our demise.

I was born free, I bow down only to God.




Unfortunately there are a significant minority of cyclists who join CM
rides each month with seemingly a sole aim to cause as much disruption
to other road traffic as possible.

Parhaps they could be persuaded otherwise by more responsible
attendees.



My best guess is that they do this to try to make the point, "we can
retaliate for all the disruption you cause to us on all other days of
the month."

thought police again.