Cycling perspectives 1 of 9

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:52:42 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 20/07/2014 12:44, Sig wrote:

John Kennerson wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
Sig wrote:

It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use the road

Herein lies the problem.

Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.

It can't be repeated often enough!

Everybody is entitled to use the road.

But all use of the road is subject to allowing others their use of the
road according to law. Obstruction, for instance, is not lawful.


Nor is, for instance, taking a moton-car upon it without the permission of the DVLA.

In article
Peter Parry wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 06:32:11 -0400 (EDT), John Kennerson
wrote:

Herein lies the problem.

Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.

Of course they are at the moment, but places like Copenhagen have only
seen rises in cycling use by stopping them from doing so where
dedicated cycle lanes exist.

That statement or sentence makes no sense in English. Who is they
and them?

Segregation of cyclists from other road
users is a policy which has worked. Keeping them all mixed up is a
policy which has failed.

Not in Kopenhagen or others in Europe.

Cycling propagandists include many who want
slow and inexperienced riders out of their way and wouldn't dream of
using the dedicated facilities they constantly agitate for. They
simply want to go faster.

Where do you see this in Denmark?

Until cyclists are banned from roads where
alternative dedicated cycle lanes exist the problems will remain.

That is the car users argument not that of a pedestrian or cyclist.

The most harmful vehicle must hav the least permission. Simples
like meerkats.

In article
John Kennerson wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:52:42 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 20/07/2014 12:44, Sig wrote:

John Kennerson wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
Sig wrote:

It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use the road

Herein lies the problem.

Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.

It can't be repeated often enough!

Everybody is entitled to use the road.

But all use of the road is subject to allowing others their use of the
road according to law. Obstruction, for instance, is not lawful.


Nor is, for instance, taking a moton-car upon it without the permission of the DVLA.

Le moton-car ? No you see if a truck or car is registered outside
the UK it is much easier to drive it inside the UK. The DVLA is an
inconvenience for intelligent people.

On 24/07/14 00:02, John Kennerson wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:52:42 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 20/07/2014 12:44, Sig wrote:

John Kennerson wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
Sig wrote:

It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use the road

Herein lies the problem.

Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.

It can't be repeated often enough!

Everybody is entitled to use the road.

But all use of the road is subject to allowing others their use of the
road according to law. Obstruction, for instance, is not lawful.


Nor is, for instance, taking a moton-car upon it without the permission of the DVLA.


Apparently JNugent doesn't need permission.

--
JS

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:29:16 +0200, Anonymous
wrote:


The most harmful vehicle must hav the least permission. Simples
like meerkats.

Simple minded, certainly. The idea that the least useful mode of
transport should have priority of other more useful ones is bizarre.
Why on earth should people using the road as a racing circuit have
greater privileges than those delivering goods?

The usefulness of bicycles was well illustrated by the recent
announcement that Royal Mail will be phasing them out because they are
neither efficient nor effective for postal deliveries.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:34:29 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:29:16 +0200, Anonymous
wrote:


The most harmful vehicle must hav the least permission. Simples like
meerkats.

Simple minded, certainly. The idea that the least useful mode of
transport should have priority of other more useful ones is bizarre. Why
on earth should people using the road as a racing circuit have greater
privileges than those delivering goods?

The usefulness of bicycles was well illustrated by the recent
announcement that Royal Mail will be phasing them out because they are
neither efficient nor effective for postal deliveries.

My bicycle is a very useful convenient economical viable delightful
healthy means of transport.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:34:29 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

Simple minded, certainly.

And thank you very much for your great accolade. That is a real
compliment, coming from you.

On 26/07/2014 09:40, Peter Keller wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:34:29 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

Simple minded, certainly.

And thank you very much for your great accolade. That is a real
compliment, coming from you.

Ah... so YOU are the " to whom he was responding!

On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:01:45 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 26/07/2014 09:40, Peter Keller wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:34:29 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

Simple minded, certainly.

And thank you very much for your great accolade. That is a real
compliment, coming from you.

Ah... so YOU are the " to whom he was
responding!

Me? Simple minded?
Thank you very much!!

On 27/07/2014 09:22, Peter Keller wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:01:45 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 26/07/2014 09:40, Peter Keller wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:34:29 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

Simple minded, certainly.

And thank you very much for your great accolade. That is a real
compliment, coming from you.

Ah... so YOU are the " to whom he was
responding!

Me? Simple minded?
Thank you very much!!

;-)