Cycling perspectives 1 of 9

On 20/07/2014 17:28, Sig wrote:
On 20/07/2014 16:51, JNugent wrote:
On 20/07/2014 16:31, Sig wrote:

On 20/07/2014 12:52, 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.

Who is discussing unlawful use of the road?

Lawful versus unlawful use of the road (and its constituent parts) is
absolutely basic in any discussion of a right or entitlement to use the
road.

Essentially, the right to use the road does not extend as far as denying
others its use. One's entitlement runs only as far as it may without
infringing upon the entitlement(s) of others.

Well, you'll find enough advocates in this group who would mow down any
errant non-motorist - sad really!

Are you using the phrase "mow down" in a literal sense (in which case,
I'm certain you're wrong)?

Or in the sense of demolishing half-baked arguments (something which is
frequently done here)?

some Synonyms: Mow Down

1 verb (Archaic or literary)
annihilate, butcher, destroy, dispatch, do away with, do in
(slang), eliminate, exterminate, kill, massacre, mow down, murder, rub
out (U.S. slang), slaughter

Fair enough.

You're simply wrong, but at least your view is clear.

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

In article
Peter Parry wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 10:44:42 +0100, 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.


However, they are not entitled to ignore Traffic Laws and to make things
intentionally difficult for other road and pavement users.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 14:45:31 +0200 (CEST), "Anonymous Remailer (austria)"
wrote:


In article
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.

I cause a much bigger obstruction when I do silly things in my car
than when I do them on a bicycle or on foot.


Perhaps you are not fit to be on the road either as a cyclist or a motorist.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 17:28:17 +0100, Sig wrote:

On 20/07/2014 16:51, JNugent wrote:
On 20/07/2014 16:31, Sig wrote:

On 20/07/2014 12:52, 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.

Who is discussing unlawful use of the road?

Lawful versus unlawful use of the road (and its constituent parts) is
absolutely basic in any discussion of a right or entitlement to use the
road.

Essentially, the right to use the road does not extend as far as denying
others its use. One's entitlement runs only as far as it may without
infringing upon the entitlement(s) of others.

Well, you'll find enough advocates in this group who would mow down any
errant non-motorist - sad really!

Are you using the phrase "mow down" in a literal sense (in which case,
I'm certain you're wrong)?

Or in the sense of demolishing half-baked arguments (something which is
frequently done here)?

some Synonyms: Mow Down

1 verb (Archaic or literary)
annihilate, butcher, destroy, dispatch, do away with, do in
(slang), eliminate, exterminate, kill, massacre, mow down, murder, rub
out (U.S. slang), slaughter





perhaps could list the posters here who have advocated such action.

It should not take you long: unless you dreamt it of course.

On 20/07/2014 19:00, Judith wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 17:28:17 +0100, Sig wrote:

On 20/07/2014 16:51, JNugent wrote:
On 20/07/2014 16:31, Sig wrote:

On 20/07/2014 12:52, 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.

Who is discussing unlawful use of the road?

Lawful versus unlawful use of the road (and its constituent parts) is
absolutely basic in any discussion of a right or entitlement to use the
road.

Essentially, the right to use the road does not extend as far as denying
others its use. One's entitlement runs only as far as it may without
infringing upon the entitlement(s) of others.

Well, you'll find enough advocates in this group who would mow down any
errant non-motorist - sad really!

Are you using the phrase "mow down" in a literal sense (in which case,
I'm certain you're wrong)?

Or in the sense of demolishing half-baked arguments (something which is
frequently done here)?

some Synonyms: Mow Down

1 verb (Archaic or literary)
annihilate, butcher, destroy, dispatch, do away with, do in
(slang), eliminate, exterminate, kill, massacre, mow down, murder, rub
out (U.S. slang), slaughter





perhaps could list the posters here who have advocated such action.

It should not take you long: unless you dreamt it of course.


It would take ages!

More synonyms for mow down:
mow down, beat down, blow down, blow over, bowl down, bowl over, break
down, bring down, bulldog, bulldoze, burn down, cast down, chop down,
cut down, dash down, deck, down, drop, fell, fetch down, flatten, floor,
ground, hew down, knock down, knock over, lay level, lay low, lay out,
level, precipitate, prostrate, pull down, rase, raze, send headlong,
smash, spread-eagle, steamroller, supinate, take down, tear down, throw,
throw down, topple, trip, tumble, whack down

In article
JNugent wrote:

On 20/07/2014 17:28, Sig wrote:
On 20/07/2014 16:51, JNugent wrote:
On 20/07/2014 16:31, Sig wrote:

On 20/07/2014 12:52, 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.

Who is discussing unlawful use of the road?

Lawful versus unlawful use of the road (and its constituent parts) is
absolutely basic in any discussion of a right or entitlement to use the
road.

Essentially, the right to use the road does not extend as far as denying
others its use. One's entitlement runs only as far as it may without
infringing upon the entitlement(s) of others.

Well, you'll find enough advocates in this group who would mow down any
errant non-motorist - sad really!

Are you using the phrase "mow down" in a literal sense (in which case,
I'm certain you're wrong)?

Or in the sense of demolishing half-baked arguments (something which is
frequently done here)?

some Synonyms: Mow Down

1 verb (Archaic or literary)
annihilate, butcher, destroy, dispatch, do away with, do in
(slang), eliminate, exterminate, kill, massacre, mow down, murder, rub
out (U.S. slang), slaughter

Fair enough.

You're simply wrong, but at least your view is clear.

I don't get your assertion which is clearly, legally wrong.

Saying something is so doesn't make it so.

You are the fool here as you are in the legal wrong.

On 20/07/2014 19:12, John Kennerson wrote:
In article
JNugent wrote:

On 20/07/2014 17:28, Sig wrote:
On 20/07/2014 16:51, JNugent wrote:
On 20/07/2014 16:31, Sig wrote:

On 20/07/2014 12:52, 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.

Who is discussing unlawful use of the road?

Lawful versus unlawful use of the road (and its constituent parts) is
absolutely basic in any discussion of a right or entitlement to use the
road.

Essentially, the right to use the road does not extend as far as denying
others its use. One's entitlement runs only as far as it may without
infringing upon the entitlement(s) of others.

Well, you'll find enough advocates in this group who would mow down any
errant non-motorist - sad really!

Are you using the phrase "mow down" in a literal sense (in which case,
I'm certain you're wrong)?

Or in the sense of demolishing half-baked arguments (something which is
frequently done here)?

some Synonyms: Mow Down

1 verb (Archaic or literary)
annihilate, butcher, destroy, dispatch, do away with, do in
(slang), eliminate, exterminate, kill, massacre, mow down, murder, rub
out (U.S. slang), slaughter

Fair enough.
You're simply wrong, but at least your view is clear.

I don't get your assertion which is clearly, legally wrong.

What, my assertion - that a right to use the road does not extend to a
right to prevent others from using it - is *wrong*?

Or perhaps it my pointing out that no-one here (uk,r.c) has threatened
to "mow down" cyclists which you "think" is wrong?

Saying something is so doesn't make it so.
You are the fool here as you are in the legal wrong.

I had no idea it was illegal to post the obvious truth on Usenet.

That's mitigation, surely?

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 19:03:33 +0100, colwyn wrote:

snip


perhaps could list the posters here who have advocated such action.

It should not take you long: unless you dreamt it of course.


It would take ages!


As I thought: you had made it up.

In article
Judith USE FOR wrote:

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

In article
Peter Parry wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 10:44:42 +0100, 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.


However, they are not entitled to ignore Traffic Laws and to make things
intentionally difficult for other road and pavement users.

No more or less than others and obviously the less restrictive laws
apply to pavement users and cyclists as they are less of a danger
to themselves and others.

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. Segregation of cyclists from other road
users is a policy which has worked. Keeping them all mixed up is a
policy which has failed. 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. Until cyclists are banned from roads where
alternative dedicated cycle lanes exist the problems will remain.