Not viable

Two of us approached a 200m length of flooded road yesterday. One of
us (let's call him Range-Rover-man) decided to turn around and make a
detour. The other (let's call me, er, Cyclist) walked the bike along
the narrow raised causeway beside the road and continued the journey
as planned.

I'm puzzled as to which mode of transport was "viable".

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 01:19:31 -0800 (PST)
al Mossah wrote:

Two of us approached a 200m length of flooded road yesterday. One of
us (let's call him Range-Rover-man) decided to turn around and make a
detour. The other (let's call me, er, Cyclist) walked the bike along
the narrow raised causeway beside the road and continued the journey
as planned.

I'm puzzled as to which mode of transport was "viable".

This one:
http://news.topmotors.com/2011/04/sw...ling-aquadrome

And the bike. :-)

On Nov 26, 9:52*am, Rob Morley wrote:
snip

This one:http://news.topmotors.com/2011/04/sw...ith-snorkel-at...

And the bike. *:-)

Yes, the snorkelled Land Rover would certainly have easily made it.
Maybe the Range Rover Man had one of those at home.

"al Mossah" wrote in message
...
Two of us approached a 200m length of flooded road yesterday. One of
us (let's call him Range-Rover-man) decided to turn around and make a
detour. The other (let's call me, er, Cyclist) walked the bike along
the narrow raised causeway beside the road and continued the journey
as planned.

I'm puzzled as to which mode of transport was "viable".

I think most of us would do things with a 20 quid bike that we wouldn't do
with a £40-grand Landrover, not sure how that makes a bike "more viable"
though.

On 26/11/2012 11:41, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"al Mossah" wrote in message
...
Two of us approached a 200m length of flooded road yesterday. One of
us (let's call him Range-Rover-man) decided to turn around and make a
detour. The other (let's call me, er, Cyclist) walked the bike along
the narrow raised causeway beside the road and continued the journey
as planned.

I'm puzzled as to which mode of transport was "viable".

I think most of us would do things with a 20 quid bike that we wouldn't
do with a £40-grand Landrover, not sure how that makes a bike "more
viable" though.

The ability of psycholists to grasp at straws never fails to amaze me.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

al Mossah wrote:
Two of us approached a 200m length of flooded road yesterday. One of
us (let's call him Range-Rover-man) decided to turn around and make a
detour. The other (let's call me, er, Cyclist) walked the bike along
the narrow raised causeway beside the road and continued the journey
as planned.

I'm puzzled as to which mode of transport was "viable".

Yours was not: since you had to push your one, then yours was no longer a
form of transport, merely luggage.

Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

I think most of us would do things with a 20 quid bike


Where do I get one of these £20:00 bikes?

al Mossah wrote:
Two of us approached a 200m length of flooded road yesterday. One of
us (let's call him Range-Rover-man) decided to turn around and make a
detour. The other (let's call me, er, Cyclist) walked the bike along
the narrow raised causeway beside the road and continued the journey
as planned.

I'm puzzled as to which mode of transport was "viable".

definitely not viable: here is the video evidence:
http://www.itv.com/news/central/upda...o-flood-water/

soup wrote:
Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

I think most of us would do things with a 20 quid bike


Where do I get one of these £20:00 bikes?

any local druggie, or pykie truck.
But they are often left lying about on the pavement outside shops, you can
pick one of those up for nothing.

Luke Moore wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:

soup wrote:
Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

I think most of us would do things with a 20 quid bike


Where do I get one of these £20:00 bikes?

any local druggie, or pykie truck.
But they are often left lying about on the pavement outside shops,
you can pick one of those up for nothing.

As long as you can beat the local druggie or pykie to them I suppose.
But then they are welcome to them as no self-respecting cyclist wants
anything to do with a 20 quid bike.

the question was: where can you get a twenty quid bike? Not how expensive a
bike must be before it is 'good' enough to ride. Anyone that arsey is quite
clearly a prat of the highest order.

The Range Rover driver clearly had enough sense to know there was another
route, which because of his engine would be little extra effort and rather
than risk getting stuck due to any number of possible unseeable hazards
below the water (like dumped bicycles, drain covers blown out etc.) he took
a diversion.

The cyclist was also sensible, he got off his bike and pushed it on a
diversion along a narrow path, around the deepest water, an option which is
not available to the RR driver, and unnecessary in any case.

The RR driver was able to continue his journey without getting wet or
uncomfortable, while the cyclist had to push, I know which I would prefer to
be doing, as would 99.999 percent of the UK population.