|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Local cycling club - *******
On 19/12/17 16:37, JNugent wrote:
On 19/12/2017 12:21, TMS320 wrote: On 18/12/17 20:30, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: MrCheerful wrote: On 16/12/2017 15:23, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: On the way back from taking the dog for a walk. Along come members of the local cycling club, all dressed up like actors in a gay rave movie. Up onto the footpath they all go and straight down a ginnel with a cycling prohibited sign. The legal sign, not the advisory sign. Was anybody there to be inconvenienced? Had anybody been there would they have been inconvenienced? These are members of a club and are expected to ride legally and to know the law. ******s. cyclists cannot be stopped from riding anywhere, we have been told that many times, legal restrictions do not apply to cyclists, they are saving the planet, and are God's chosen people. I've just made a complaint to the cycling club. The little cowards delight in reporting drivers who they think drive too close to them. What's good for the goose .............................. You equate going past a sign (which, although legal in appearance, may or may not have been placed legally) is the same as causing actual danger? That's the Alliston Defence, surely? Not...in...the...slightest. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Local cycling club - *******
On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 4:37:12 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 19/12/2017 12:21, TMS320 wrote: On 18/12/17 20:30, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: MrCheerful wrote: On 16/12/2017 15:23, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: On the way back from taking the dog for a walk. Along come members of the local cycling club, all dressed up like actors in a gay rave movie. Up onto the footpath they all go and straight down a ginnel with a cycling prohibited sign. The legal sign, not the advisory sign. Was anybody there to be inconvenienced? Had anybody been there would they have been inconvenienced? These are members of a club and are expected to ride legally and to know the law. ******s. cyclists cannot be stopped from riding anywhere, we have been told that many times, legal restrictions do not apply to cyclists, they are saving the planet, and are God's chosen people. I've just made a complaint to the cycling club. The little cowards delight in reporting drivers who they think drive too close to them. What's good for the goose .............................. You equate going past a sign (which, although legal in appearance, may or may not have been placed legally) is the same as causing actual danger? That's the Alliston Defence, surely? Something along the lines "I was totally in control at all times until that pesky pedestrian turned up in front of me.It definitely was that pedesrian's fault just walking out of that back gate onto a pedestrian-only alleyway. Anyway, could you bring me in a copy of the Daily Mirror on next visiting day?". Or perhaps it's the Holland Defence: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-fined-leaving-toddler-cuts-6171717 QUOTE: Deputy District Judge Pam Baldwin told Holland, of Blackpool: "You have admitted you rode a bicycle in a manner that falls below that of a competent cyclist. "You were riding on a pavement in a residential area and ... [there] was no indication that you slowed the vehicle or took evasive action. It was very lucky indeed the child avoided very serious injury." Subway team leader Holland pleaded guilty to riding a bicycle dangerously and was ordered to pay a total of £829 in fines and costs. ENDQUOTE This case apparently "ruined the life" of the perp. It didn't do his victim much good either. It'll have taken him quite a few shifts at Subway to pay off £829. But hey, cyclists always know best, eh? But cyclists are among the richest (we have been told) so he should have no problem. I'm still waiting for a reply from this cycling club. My complaint was very polite. What shower of ******s! Typical cowardly cyclists. Unfortunate for them, I have the email address of the head teacher of the local school where these idiots teach cycling to very young pupils. Are you going to tell him/her that your idea of being a model citizen is to carry an offensive weapon? Or to ride one on a pedestrian-only route? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Local cycling club - *******
On 19/12/2017 19:38, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/12/17 16:37, JNugent wrote: On 19/12/2017 12:21, TMS320 wrote: On 18/12/17 20:30, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: MrCheerful wrote: On 16/12/2017 15:23, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: On the way back from taking the dog for a walk. Along come members of the local cycling club, all dressed up like actors in a gay rave movie. Up onto the footpath they all go and straight down a ginnel with a cycling prohibited sign. The legal sign, not the advisory sign. Was anybody there to be inconvenienced? Had anybody been there would they have been inconvenienced? These are members of a club and are expected to ride legally and to know the law. ******s. cyclists cannot be stopped from riding anywhere, we have been told that many times, legal restrictions do not apply to cyclists, they are saving the planet, and are God's chosen people. I've just made a complaint to the cycling club. The little cowards delight in reporting drivers who they think drive too close to them. What's good for the goose .............................. You equate going past a sign (which, although legal in appearance, may or may not have been placed legally) is the same as causing actual danger? That's the Alliston Defence, surely? Not...in...the...slightest. "I was breaking the law but die to my superior abilities nd my clairvoyance, I could not possibly have caused any danger" is as close to the Alliston defence as one could wish. All you need to add is that if a victim happens along and is injured or worse, it's their own fault. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Local cycling club - *******
On 19/12/17 20:43, JNugent wrote:
On 19/12/2017 19:38, TMS320 wrote: On 19/12/17 16:37, JNugent wrote: On 19/12/2017 12:21, TMS320 wrote: On 18/12/17 20:30, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: MrCheerful wrote: On 16/12/2017 15:23, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: On the way back from taking the dog for a walk. Along come members of the local cycling club, all dressed up like actors in a gay rave movie. Up onto the footpath they all go and straight down a ginnel with a cycling prohibited sign. The legal sign, not the advisory sign. Was anybody there to be inconvenienced? Had anybody been there would they have been inconvenienced? These are members of a club and are expected to ride legally and to know the law. ******s. cyclists cannot be stopped from riding anywhere, we have been told that many times, legal restrictions do not apply to cyclists, they are saving the planet, and are God's chosen people. I've just made a complaint to the cycling club. The little cowards delight in reporting drivers who they think drive too close to them. What's good for the goose .............................. You equate going past a sign (which, although legal in appearance, may or may not have been placed legally) is the same as causing actual danger? That's the Alliston Defence, surely? Not...in...the...slightest. "I was breaking the law but die to my superior abilities nd my clairvoyance, I could not possibly have caused any danger" is as close to the Alliston defence as one could wish. Superior abilities to... what? Care is all that is required, not clairvoyance. The OP merely criticised this group for riding their bikes where there is a no-cycle sign, not for being reckless. All you need to add is that if a victim happens along and is injured or worse, it's their own fault. You are confused with the attitude of several drivers that have posted on the 20mph thread. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Local cycling club - *******
On 20/12/2017 00:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/12/17 20:43, JNugent wrote: On 19/12/2017 19:38, TMS320 wrote: On 19/12/17 16:37, JNugent wrote: On 19/12/2017 12:21, TMS320 wrote: On 18/12/17 20:30, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: MrCheerful wrote: On 16/12/2017 15:23, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: On the way back from taking the dog for a walk. Along come members of the local cycling club, all dressed up like actors in a gay rave movie. Up onto the footpath they all go and straight down a ginnel with a cycling prohibited sign. The legal sign, not the advisory sign. Was anybody there to be inconvenienced? Had anybody been there would they have been inconvenienced? These are members of a club and are expected to ride legally and to know the law. ******s. cyclists cannot be stopped from riding anywhere, we have been told that many times, legal restrictions do not apply to cyclists, they are saving the planet, and are God's chosen people. I've just made a complaint to the cycling club. The little cowards delight in reporting drivers who they think drive too close to them. What's good for the goose .............................. You equate going past a sign (which, although legal in appearance, may or may not have been placed legally) is the same as causing actual danger? That's the Alliston Defence, surely? Not...in...the...slightest. "I was breaking the law but die to my superior abilities nd my clairvoyance, I could not possibly have caused any danger" is as close to the Alliston defence as one could wish. Superior abilities to... what? Care is all that is required, not clairvoyance. The OP merely criticised this group for riding their bikes where there is a no-cycle sign, not for being reckless. How is that different from "I was breaking the law but due to my superior abilities and my clairvoyance, I could not possibly have caused any danger"? Both Alliston and Holland could well have uttered a justification for their anti-social behaviour which would have rung a very similar bell. All you need to add is that if a victim happens along and is injured or worse, it's their own fault. You are confused with the attitude of several drivers that have posted on the 20mph thread. I am not the one who is confused. It is those who couldn't care less about danger to pedestrians - especially the ones just about to emerge through a garden gate or a door, or come round a corner, into a pedestrian-only environment like a footway - who seem confused. They really ought to study the Alliston case and the Holland case. But it seems that some will never learn any sort of lesson as long as doing so involves behaving properly and lawfully and ceding all precedence to those who have it by law. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Local cycling club - *******
On 19.12.2017 19:45, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
There was hate in the Pounder's stupid eyes. This is one reason I carry a chisel in my back pocket. IFYPFY http://bit.ly/2z2pbro |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Local cycling club - *******
On 20/12/17 02:04, JNugent wrote:
On 20/12/2017 00:51, TMS320 wrote: On 19/12/17 20:43, JNugent wrote: On 19/12/2017 19:38, TMS320 wrote: On 19/12/17 16:37, JNugent wrote: On 19/12/2017 12:21, TMS320 wrote: On 18/12/17 20:30, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: MrCheerful wrote: On 16/12/2017 15:23, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: On the way back from taking the dog for a walk. Along come members of the local cycling club, all dressed up like actors in a gay rave movie. Up onto the footpath they all go and straight down a ginnel with a cycling prohibited sign. The legal sign, not the advisory sign. Was anybody there to be inconvenienced? Had anybody been there would they have been inconvenienced? These are members of a club and are expected to ride legally and to know the law. ******s. cyclists cannot be stopped from riding anywhere, we have been told that many times, legal restrictions do not apply to cyclists, they are saving the planet, and are God's chosen people. I've just made a complaint to the cycling club. The little cowards delight in reporting drivers who they think drive too close to them. What's good for the goose .............................. You equate going past a sign (which, although legal in appearance, may or may not have been placed legally) is the same as causing actual danger? That's the Alliston Defence, surely? Not...in...the...slightest. "I was breaking the law but die to my superior abilities nd my clairvoyance, I could not possibly have caused any danger" is as close to the Alliston defence as one could wish. Superior abilities to... what? Care is all that is required, not clairvoyance. The OP merely criticised this group for riding their bikes where there is a no-cycle sign, not for being reckless. How is that different from "I was breaking the law but due to my superior abilities and my clairvoyance, I could not possibly have caused any danger"? Both Alliston and Holland could well have uttered a justification for their anti-social behaviour which would have rung a very similar bell. You talk about danger? That's something to do with the Laws of physics. You already knew that I am in favour of working within these Laws. All you need to add is that if a victim happens along and is injured or worse, it's their own fault. You are confused with the attitude of several drivers that have posted on the 20mph thread. I am not the one who is confused... ....but you assume the attitude that has been readily given by some drivers applies to all cyclists. It is those who couldn't care less about danger to pedestrians - especially the ones just about to emerge through a garden gate or a door, or come round a corner, into a pedestrian-only environment like a footway - who seem confused. Oh, I see where your idea about clairvoyance comes from. That's very straightforward - people can only walk through gaps in walls and fences (I don't believe we have to worry about the rights of ghosts). They really ought to study the Alliston case and the Holland case. Alliston's main fault was the decision to operate without proper consideration of the Laws of physics. It happens that the rule makers also knew that a lack of front brake is an issue so they had a clear cut offence to discuss in court. Not so easy when the only thing to put forward is the vague, subjective and often ineffective "careless driving". But it seems that some will never learn any sort of lesson as long as doing so involves behaving properly and lawfully and ceding all precedence to those who have it by law. Behaving properly and ceding precedence is a social and cultural issue that governs us all. We are required to act responsibly however or wherever we transport ourselves, whether or not officials have put up a sign. A sign does not mean that the primary objective cannot be met and ignoring the sign does not necessarily imply a failure to meet it. Given the many places now where the exception has been made to allow (and often encourage) people on bicycles to mingle with people on foot, the no-cycle rule has become devalued and a legacy of a different era (I doubt if estates built since the 80's have paths designated as no cycling. Though if someone wants to prove me wrong...). It is not possible to cite social or safety reasons as reason for existence. There is also the interesting case near me where an alleyway crosses the border between two authorities. One authority put up a no cycle sign (which looks like it has never been maintained since it was put up when the houses were built in the 60's), the other authority has not. So does the sign have any legal force in the first place (some no cycle signs do not), is it only legal to ride one way or is it only legal to ride as far as the (unmarked) border? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Local tandem club. | Simon Mason[_2_] | UK | 23 | October 27th 08 06:16 PM |
News articles, Ride the Lobster and local club | bmerry | Unicycling | 1 | January 7th 08 05:06 PM |
local bike club sells calendar | Claire Petersky | General | 12 | February 14th 07 10:20 PM |
Thinking of joning a local cycling club | Brian | UK | 9 | December 17th 04 07:24 PM |
Creating a local mountain bike club | Micheal Artindale | Mountain Biking | 2 | October 9th 04 02:51 PM |