don't cycle on the pavement and don't go faster than you can handle

Not too bright these here cyclists, are they?
Bicycles belong in the road, and should have brakes in good working order.
Thank goodness he did not hit a pedestrian.

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/ne...h_victim_dies/

On 16 jan, 09:45, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Not too bright these here cyclists, are they?
Bicycles belong in the road, and should have brakes in good working order.
Thank goodness he did not hit a pedestrian.

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/ne...am_crash_victi...

Not too bright, Mrcheerful, is he? There is nothing in the article
which supports his being on the pavement as having contributed to his
fatal accident.
Stiil, Mrcheerful would not want to miss this chance to gloat.

My thoughts are with his (Mrcheerful's) family for being persistently
exposed to this sort of dysfunctional,cynical bitter stupidity.

On Jan 16, 8:45*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Not too bright these here cyclists, are they?

Well, as he's now dead, that is at least insensitive.

Bicycles belong in the road, and should have brakes in good working order..
Thank goodness he did not hit a pedestrian.

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/ne...am_crash_victi...

You forgot to read the report again! Nowhere does it say anything
about him going faster than he could handle and nowhere does it say
anything about the condition of his brakes. It says he lost control of
his bike and went into the road, where he was hit by a Mondeo. What
happens if you apply your "logic" to the speed and brakes of the
Modeo?

You are still as comical as ever.

On Jan 16, 8:45*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Not too bright these here cyclists, are they?
Bicycles belong in the road, and should have brakes in good working order..
Thank goodness he did not hit a pedestrian.

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/ne...am_crash_victi...

Actually he was killed on the road, no doubt the reason he chose to
use the pavement in the first place.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Jan 17, 8:12*am, Doug wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:45*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote: Not too bright these here cyclists, are they?
Bicycles belong in the road, and should have brakes in good working order.
Thank goodness he did not hit a pedestrian.

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/ne...am_crash_victi...

Actually he was killed on the road, no doubt the reason he chose to
use the pavement in the first place.

Every doubt, actually. Yet again, you make the same claim, this time
qualifying it as "no doubt", yet you have failed to come up with any
evidence for this claim. Something being "so" in your head does not
make it the truth.

On Jan 17, 8:19*am, FrengaX wrote:
On Jan 17, 8:12*am, Doug wrote:

On Jan 16, 8:45*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote: Not too bright these here cyclists, are they?
Bicycles belong in the road, and should have brakes in good working order.
Thank goodness he did not hit a pedestrian.

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/ne...am_crash_victi....

Actually he was killed on the road, no doubt the reason he chose to
use the pavement in the first place.

Every doubt, actually. Yet again, you make the same claim, this time
qualifying it as "no doubt", yet you have failed to come up with any
evidence for this claim. Something being "so" in your head does not
make it the truth.

Again!

Due to the general inconvenience of cycling on pavements this is
evidence enough. Why else would they do it?

Cycling amid pedestrians and street furniture and having to deal with
raised kerbs at numerous intersections is highly inconvenient compared
to cycling on a normal road with its continuous surface and lack of
such clutter.

Also parents of small children prefer them to cycle on pavements
because of the readily perceived increased safety.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Jan 17, 8:30*am, Doug wrote:
On Jan 17, 8:19*am, FrengaX wrote:



On Jan 17, 8:12*am, Doug wrote:

On Jan 16, 8:45*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote: Not too bright these here cyclists, are they?
Bicycles belong in the road, and should have brakes in good working order.
Thank goodness he did not hit a pedestrian.

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/ne...am_crash_victi...

Actually he was killed on the road, no doubt the reason he chose to
use the pavement in the first place.

Every doubt, actually. Yet again, you make the same claim, this time
qualifying it as "no doubt", yet you have failed to come up with any
evidence for this claim. Something being "so" in your head does not
make it the truth.

Again!

Due to the general inconvenience of cycling on pavements this is
evidence enough. Why else would they do it?

Laziness, and a miscomprehension that in doing so, they no longer need
to observe other road signs or traffic lights.

Cycling amid pedestrians and street furniture and having to deal with
raised kerbs at numerous intersections is highly inconvenient compared
to cycling on a normal road with its continuous surface and lack of
such clutter.

All this is just circumstantial, and your hypothesis. Needs a bit more
than that to be claiming that there is "no doubt" (your words).

Also parents of small children prefer them to cycle on pavements
because of the readily perceived increased safety.

That's an entirely different matter not relevant to this or your many
other claims - none of which involve small children.

Doug wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:45 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Not too bright these here cyclists, are they?
Bicycles belong in the road, and should have brakes in good working order.
Thank goodness he did not hit a pedestrian.

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/ne...am_crash_victi...

Actually he was killed on the road, no doubt the reason he chose to
use the pavement in the first place.


I suspect he was in the road all the time but he is dead so there is no
one to give his side of the story.

Why do I think that? Well the pavement at the point he was killed is
pretty well non-existent. I doubt anyone could actually cycle on it its
so narrow. OTOH if he had wanted to cycle on the pavement there is a
much wider one on the other side of the road he could easily have used.
The picture in the originally linked article is misleading as to
where the accident happened. The one in this article isn't because it
shows the tributes at the place where he was hit.
http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/ne...en ham_crash/

Google Streetview shows it even more clearly
http://tinyurl.com/4dajkxu

Tony

On Jan 17, 8:12*am, Doug wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:45*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote: Not too bright these here cyclists, are they?
Bicycles belong in the road, and should have brakes in good working order.
Thank goodness he did not hit a pedestrian.

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/ne...am_crash_victi...

Actually he was killed on the road, no doubt the reason he chose to
use the pavement in the first place.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
*http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

My condolences to his family - if he was cycling down the hill he
would have been on the wrong side of the road anyway, and from the
placement of the flowers it would appear he clipped the lampost. Had
he been on the right side of the road and not on the pavement then he
wouldn't now be dead....

Councillors are calling for changes - if anything it looks as if that
narrow section of pavement should be removed and some crossings
installed to enable access to the wide safe pavement on the other side
of the road.

Mrcheerful wrote:
Bicycles belong in the road

Noted.

BugBear