|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Pavement parking to be banned?
QUOTE:
"Pavement parking in London has been an offence since 1974 and attracts a £70 fine. Mrs Greenwood added: ‘The Government’s inaction has left communities blighted by unsightly and obstructive pavement parking and individuals ***afraid or unable to leave their homes*** (EMPHASIS MINE) or safely navigate the streets.’ She said a public awareness campaign is needed to educate people on the negative impacts of pavement parking. Huw Merriman, MP for Bexhill-on-Sea, said the town, which was visited by the panel, is in a state of parking chaos, especially for the elderly. He said: ‘I’m afraid we have parking anarchy here because people believe they can get away with anything.’ " END QUOTE. **APPLAUSE** https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-drivers.html |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Pavement parking to be banned?
On 09/09/2019 11:18, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE: "Pavement parking in London has been an offence since 1974 and attracts a £70 fine. Mrs Greenwood added: ‘The Government’s inaction has left communities blighted by unsightly and obstructive pavement parking and individuals ***afraid or unable to leave their homes*** (EMPHASIS MINE) or safely navigate the streets.’ She said a public awareness campaign is needed to educate people on the negative impacts of pavement parking. Huw Merriman, MP for Bexhill-on-Sea, said the town, which was visited by the panel, is in a state of parking chaos, especially for the elderly. He said: ‘I’m afraid we have parking anarchy here because people believe they can get away with anything.’ " END QUOTE. **APPLAUSE** https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-drivers.html Whereabout is the mention of the cyclist? Are we to assume that you also dsapprove of the chaining of bicycles to street furniture and other property adjoing footways? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Pavement parking to be banned?
On 09/09/2019 12:34, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2019 11:18, Simon Mason wrote: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-drivers.html Whereabout is the mention of the cyclist? I often leave my bike at home and use the pavement. Sometimes I also stand still on it. Are we to assume that you also dsapprove of the chaining of bicycles to street furniture and other property adjoing footways? Do you ever walk anywhere where you find this is a problem? It's usuall better to deal with bigger problems first. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Pavement parking to be banned?
On 10/09/2019 00:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:34, JNugent wrote: On 09/09/2019 11:18, Simon Mason wrote: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-drivers.html Whereabout is the mention of the cyclist? I often leave my bike at home and use the pavement. Sometimes I also stand still on it. How interesting (sigh). So whereabout is the mention of the cyclist which makes it an on-topic post? Are we to assume that you also dsapprove of the chaining of bicycles to street furniture and other property adjoing footways? Do you ever walk anywhere where you find this is a problem? It's usuall better to deal with bigger problems first. Are things only a problem if they impact me, then? I ask that because I also never have problems with cars parked on the footway - but that doesn't mean that I either approve of that or oppose moves to prevent it. But for reasons of your own (I wonder what they could be?), you think it's alright to block footways with parked or semi-abandoned bikes, but (apparently) not cars. Sensible people, on the other hand, oppose obstruction of the footway with *anything*, including cars, vans and bicycles. And not always - probably not even usually - because they are personally adversely affected. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Pavement parking to be banned?
On 10/09/2019 00:41, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2019 00:27, TMS320 wrote: On 09/09/2019 12:34, JNugent wrote: On 09/09/2019 11:18, Simon Mason wrote: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-drivers.html Whereabout is the mention of the cyclist? I often leave my bike at home and use the pavement. Sometimes I also stand still on it. How interesting (sigh). So whereabout is the mention of the cyclist which makes it an on-topic post? Some members of the group (including you) frequently claim that stories about a person that is not actually cycling are on topic for a cycling group. Cos they're a cyclist, innit. Are we to assume that you also dsapprove of the chaining of bicycles to street furniture and other property adjoing footways? Do you ever walk anywhere where you find this is a problem? It's usuall better to deal with bigger problems first. Are things only a problem if they impact me, then? That is frequently the way things work. Do you ever walk anywhere? It's an easy to question to answer but you always swerve away. I ask that because I also never have problems with cars parked on the footway - but that doesn't mean that I either approve of that or oppose moves to prevent it. Do you ever walk anywhere? But for reasons of your own (I wonder what they could be?), you think it's alright to block footways with parked or semi-abandoned bikes, but (apparently) not cars. First rule of a social group: One says they prefer apples to pears. The response is "oh, so you hate oranges." Sensible people, on the other hand, oppose obstruction of the footway with *anything*, including cars, vans and bicycles. And not always - probably not even usually - because they are personally adversely affected. Sensible people try to solve the biggest problems first. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Pavement parking to be banned?
On 10/09/2019 10:36, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/09/2019 00:41, JNugent wrote: On 10/09/2019 00:27, TMS320 wrote: On 09/09/2019 12:34, JNugent wrote: On 09/09/2019 11:18, Simon Mason wrote: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-drivers.html Whereabout is the mention of the cyclist? I often leave my bike at home and use the pavement. Sometimes I also stand still on it. How interesting (sigh). So whereabout is the mention of the cyclist which makes it an on-topic post? Some members of the group (including you) frequently claim that stories about a person that is not actually cycling are on topic for a cycling group. Cos they're a cyclist, innit. Posts about cyclists and cycling in a cycling NG are on topic. Posts about other things, which do not involve cycling, bicycles or cyclists are not in topic. Even you should be able to understand that. But you imply that you don't. Are we to assume that you also dsapprove of the chaining of bicycles to street furniture and other property adjoing footways? Do you ever walk anywhere where you find this is a problem? It's usuall better to deal with bigger problems first. Are things only a problem if they impact me, then? That is frequently the way things work. Maybe for you. Not for me. For me, it's principle first. I don't actually expect you to comprehend that. In fact, I confidently expect you not to understand it. Do you ever walk anywhere? It's an easy to question to answer but you always swerve away. Why does it matter? As it happens, I don't often travel to anywhere significant on foot because I live in a village. Foot journeys are local and primarily for exercise (or part of a holiday, exercised elsewhere, naturally). I very rarely travel by publictransport, though. Life isn't like that here. I ask that because I also never have problems with cars parked on the footway - but that doesn't mean that I either approve of that or oppose moves to prevent it. Do you ever walk anywhere? That has nothing to do with the subject or with you and you raise it purely as a diversion, but see above anyway. And reflect on today's word: principle (not that it means much to you). But for reasons of your own (I wonder what they could be?), you think it's alright to block footways with parked or semi-abandoned bikes, but (apparently) not cars. First rule of a social group: One says they prefer apples to pears. The response is "oh, so you hate oranges." You think it's alright to block footways with bicycles and the evidence for that is that you don't see the need for addressing it. Or at least, so you say. Sensible people, on the other hand, oppose obstruction of the footway with *anything*, including cars, vans and bicycles. And not always - probably not even usually - because they are personally adversely affected. Sensible people try to solve the biggest problems first. And devious people like to pretend that other peoples' problems are too minor to ever be addressed. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Pavement parking to be banned?
On 10/09/2019 11:04, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2019 10:36, TMS320 wrote: On 10/09/2019 00:41, JNugent wrote: On 10/09/2019 00:27, TMS320 wrote: On 09/09/2019 12:34, JNugent wrote: On 09/09/2019 11:18, Simon Mason wrote: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-drivers.html Whereabout is the mention of the cyclist? I often leave my bike at home and use the pavement. Sometimes I also stand still on it. How interesting (sigh). So whereabout is the mention of the cyclist which makes it an on-topic post? Some members of the group (including you) frequently claim that stories about a person that is not actually cycling are on topic for a cycling group. Cos they're a cyclist, innit. Posts about cyclists and cycling in a cycling NG are on topic. Posts about other things, which do not involve cycling, bicycles or cyclists are not in topic. Even you should be able to understand that. But you imply that you don't. A lot of posts about drug dealers, burglaries, assorted assaults, etc come into that category. You need to make your mind up. Are we to assume that you also dsapprove of the chaining of bicycles to street furniture and other property adjoing footways? Do you ever walk anywhere where you find this is a problem? It's usuall better to deal with bigger problems first. Are things only a problem if they impact me, then? That is frequently the way things work. Maybe for you. Not for me. For me, it's principle first. I don't actually expect you to comprehend that. In fact, I confidently expect you not to understand it. 1000 pedestrians hurt by drivers every day is a principle you have a lot of trouble with. Do you ever walk anywhere? It's an easy to question to answer but you always swerve away. Why does it matter? As it happens, I don't often travel to anywhere significant on foot because I live in a village. Foot journeys are local and primarily for exercise (or part of a holiday, exercised elsewhere, naturally). I very rarely travel by publictransport, though. Life isn't like that here. Then most of the time you are looking at the world through a windscreen. You attempt to put your self forward as the "pedestrian's friend". The over used, over abused word 'hypocrite' comes to mind. I ask that because I also never have problems with cars parked on the footway - but that doesn't mean that I either approve of that or oppose moves to prevent it. Do you ever walk anywhere? That has nothing to do with the subject or with you and you raise it purely as a diversion, but see above anyway. It is necessary to establish your qualifications. And reflect on today's word: principle (not that it means much to you). You think the things I experience when out walking don't count. Because I am a "cyclist". See above. But for reasons of your own (I wonder what they could be?), you think it's alright to block footways with parked or semi-abandoned bikes, but (apparently) not cars. First rule of a social group: One says they prefer apples to pears. The response is "oh, so you hate oranges." You think it's alright to block footways with bicycles and the evidence for that is that you don't see the need for addressing it. Or at least, so you say. There are some concepts you really struggle with. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Pavement parking to be banned?
On 10/09/2019 12:19, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/09/2019 11:04, JNugent wrote: On 10/09/2019 10:36, TMS320 wrote: On 10/09/2019 00:41, JNugent wrote: On 10/09/2019 00:27, TMS320 wrote: On 09/09/2019 12:34, JNugent wrote: On 09/09/2019 11:18, Simon Mason wrote: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-drivers.html Whereabout is the mention of the cyclist? I often leave my bike at home and use the pavement. Sometimes I also stand still on it. How interesting (sigh). So whereabout is the mention of the cyclist which makes it an on-topic post? Some members of the group (including you) frequently claim that stories about a person that is not actually cycling are on topic for a cycling group. Cos they're a cyclist, innit. Posts about cyclists and cycling in a cycling NG are on topic. Posts about other things, which do not involve cycling, bicycles or cyclists are not in topic. Even you should be able to understand that. But you imply that you don't. A lot of posts about drug dealers, burglaries, assorted assaults, etc come into that category. You need to make your mind up. If they involve bicycles, cyclists or cycling, they are on-topic. Are we to assume that you also dsapprove of the chaining of bicycles to street furniture and other property adjoing footways? Do you ever walk anywhere where you find this is a problem? It's usuall better to deal with bigger problems first. Are things only a problem if they impact me, then? That is frequently the way things work. Maybe for you. Not for me. For me, it's principle first. I don't actually expect you to comprehend that. In fact, I confidently expect you not to understand it. 1000 pedestrians hurt by drivers every day is a principle you have a lot of trouble with. That isn't a principle. You need a dictionary and the ability to read and understand its contents. Do you ever walk anywhere? It's an easy to question to answer but you always swerve away. Why does it matter? As it happens, I don't often travel to anywhere significant on foot because I live in a village. Foot journeys are local and primarily for exercise (or part of a holiday, exercised elsewhere, naturally). I very rarely travel by publictransport, though. Life isn't like that here. Then most of the time you are looking at the world through a windscreen. That's ridiculous. Even a TIR HGV driver or USA trucker doing interstate deliveries doesn't do that. You attempt to put your self forward as the "pedestrian's friend". The over used, over abused word 'hypocrite' comes to mind. I am a pedestrian. We all are, at least most of the time. I ask that because I also never have problems with cars parked on the footway - but that doesn't mean that I either approve of that or oppose moves to prevent it. Do you ever walk anywhere? That has nothing to do with the subject or with you and you raise it purely as a diversion, but see above anyway. It is necessary to establish your qualifications. Qualifications? Q: What qualifications does one need to be a pedestrian? A: The same qualifications as are needed to be a cyclist. That is: none whatsoever. And reflect on today's word: principle (not that it means much to you). You think the things I experience when out walking don't count. Because I am a "cyclist". See above. No, I don't think that, because I dont actually believe you when you claim that cyclists cause no problems for pedestrians. You are well aware that they do cause problems for pedestrians in more than one way. But... your stance does not permit you to admit that which you and everyone else know to be true. You usually attempt to counter this problem with a combination of disingenuity and dishonesty. To be fair, you aren't the only one to do so. Cycling seems to have that effect on (some) people. But for reasons of your own (I wonder what they could be?), you think it's alright to block footways with parked or semi-abandoned bikes, but (apparently) not cars. First rule of a social group: One says they prefer apples to pears. The response is "oh, so you hate oranges." You think it's alright to block footways with bicycles and the evidence for that is that you don't see the need for addressing it. Or at least, so you say. There are some concepts you really struggle with. Support for self-centred lawbreaking is one of them. I don't know you can rationalise it. I couldn't. But you do manage it. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Pavement parking to be banned?
On 10/09/2019 14:37, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2019 12:19, TMS320 wrote: On 10/09/2019 11:04, JNugent wrote: On 10/09/2019 10:36, TMS320 wrote: On 10/09/2019 00:41, JNugent wrote: On 10/09/2019 00:27, TMS320 wrote: On 09/09/2019 12:34, JNugent wrote: On 09/09/2019 11:18, Simon Mason wrote: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-drivers.html Whereabout is the mention of the cyclist? .... A lot of posts about drug dealers, burglaries, assorted assaults, etc come into that category. You need to make your mind up. If they involve bicycles, cyclists or cycling, they are on-topic. Below you say I am a cyclist even when I am walking. My response to your question above is therefore relevant and on topic. Had you used the word 'bicycles' (given the subject was 'cars') that would have been a different matter. Are we to assume that you also dsapprove of the chaining of bicycles to street furniture and other property adjoing footways? Do you ever walk anywhere where you find this is a problem? It's usuall better to deal with bigger problems first. Are things only a problem if they impact me, then? That is frequently the way things work. Maybe for you. Not for me. For me, it's principle first. I don't actually expect you to comprehend that. In fact, I confidently expect you not to understand it. 1000 pedestrians hurt by drivers every day is a principle you have a lot of trouble with. That isn't a principle. You need a dictionary and the ability to read and understand its contents. Your technique of swallting things away and dwelling on the meaning of a word is long established. (The figure I gave happens to be wrong. It is 100 a day but it doesn't change the argument.) Do you ever walk anywhere? It's an easy to question to answer but you always swerve away. Why does it matter? As it happens, I don't often travel to anywhere significant on foot because I live in a village. Foot journeys are local and primarily for exercise (or part of a holiday, exercised elsewhere, naturally). I very rarely travel by publictransport, though. Life isn't like that here. Then most of the time you are looking at the world through a windscreen. That's ridiculous. Even a TIR HGV driver or USA trucker doing interstate deliveries doesn't do that. Apart from a minority that have other applicable experience, it is not ridiculous. Please explain how experience of road conditions are gained in various modes without using those modes. (Perhaps it comes from posts "in this very newsgroup"?) You attempt to put your self forward as the "pedestrian's friend". The over used, over abused word 'hypocrite' comes to mind. I am a pedestrian. We all are, at least most of the time. Official figures show it is negligible. I ask that because I also never have problems with cars parked on the footway - but that doesn't mean that I either approve of that or oppose moves to prevent it. Do you ever walk anywhere? That has nothing to do with the subject or with you and you raise it purely as a diversion, but see above anyway. It is necessary to establish your qualifications. Qualifications? Q: What qualifications does one need to be a pedestrian? A: The same qualifications as are needed to be a cyclist. That is: none whatsoever. You missed the full stop after 'qualifications'. I was not trying to find out whether you are permitted to travel on foot in public places. You think the things I experience when out walking don't count. Because I am a "cyclist". See above. No, I don't think that, because I dont actually believe you when you claim that cyclists cause no problems for pedestrians. You are well aware that they do cause problems for pedestrians in more than one way. But... your stance does not permit you to admit that which you and everyone else know to be true. You usually attempt to counter this problem with a combination of disingenuity and dishonesty. To be fair, you aren't the only one to do so. Cycling seems to have that effect on (some) people. You start the paragraph with the word 'no' then spend the rest of it explaining that my experience doesn't count because I am a cyclist. But for reasons of your own (I wonder what they could be?), you think it's alright to block footways with parked or semi-abandoned bikes, but (apparently) not cars. First rule of a social group: One says they prefer apples to pears. The response is "oh, so you hate oranges." You think it's alright to block footways with bicycles and the evidence for that is that you don't see the need for addressing it. Or at least, so you say. There are some concepts you really struggle with. Support for self-centred lawbreaking is one of them. I don't know you can rationalise it. I couldn't. But you do manage it. It's very easy to have a perspective against the harm caused by drivers. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"HELP US PUT a stop to pavement parking" | Doug[_3_] | UK | 54 | March 7th 10 07:58 PM |
Pavement cyclists targeted again but not pavement motorists. | Doug[_3_] | UK | 44 | October 30th 09 07:31 AM |
W 2 W Parking | ColinS | UK | 1 | September 5th 06 09:43 PM |
DISC Parking | Dave A | Australia | 5 | December 9th 05 07:43 AM |
Pavement Parking | [Not Responding] | UK | 3 | January 21st 04 01:47 PM |