Cyclists banned from road.

The Smith retard claim;
Cyclists have the right to use the roads, and that right cannot be removed.

The facts;
Highway Code Rule 253
Prohibited vehicles. Motorways MUST NOT be used by pedestrians, holders
of provisional motorcycle or car licences, riders of motorcycles under
50 cc, cyclists.

The right to use motorways has been removed.

On 18/10/2015 12:50, David Lang wrote:
The Smith retard claim;
Cyclists have the right to use the roads, and that right cannot be removed.

The facts;
Highway Code Rule 253
Prohibited vehicles. Motorways MUST NOT be used by pedestrians, holders
of provisional motorcycle or car licences, riders of motorcycles under
50 cc, cyclists.

The right to use motorways has been removed.


I hope you're wearing a helmet and appropriate safety clothing when
posting, because most injuries occur at home.
You know it makes sense.

On Sunday, 18 October 2015 12:54:39 UTC+1, Bod wrote:

I hope you're wearing a helmet and appropriate safety clothing when
posting, because most injuries occur at home.

And in the car.

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/i... rop-smart.jpg

On 18/10/2015 22:01, Phil W Lee wrote:
Bod considered Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:54:39 +0100
the perfect time to write:

On 18/10/2015 12:50, David Lang wrote:
The Smith retard claim;
Cyclists have the right to use the roads, and that right cannot be removed.

The facts;
Highway Code Rule 253
Prohibited vehicles. Motorways MUST NOT be used by pedestrians, holders
of provisional motorcycle or car licences, riders of motorcycles under
50 cc, cyclists.

The right to use motorways has been removed.


I hope you're wearing a helmet and appropriate safety clothing when
posting, because most injuries occur at home.
You know it makes sense.

He's also too stupid to know that motorways are not public highways.

It's a controlled-access highway. But cyclists are still banned from them.

On 18/10/2015 22:01, Phil W Lee wrote:
Bod considered Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:54:39 +0100
the perfect time to write:

On 18/10/2015 12:50, David Lang wrote:
The Smith retard claim;
Cyclists have the right to use the roads, and that right cannot be removed.

The facts;
Highway Code Rule 253
Prohibited vehicles. Motorways MUST NOT be used by pedestrians, holders
of provisional motorcycle or car licences, riders of motorcycles under
50 cc, cyclists.

The right to use motorways has been removed.


I hope you're wearing a helmet and appropriate safety clothing when
posting, because most injuries occur at home.
You know it makes sense.

He's also too stupid to know that motorways are not public highways.

But are still Roads.

David Lang wrote:
The Smith retard claim;
Cyclists have the right to use the roads, and that right cannot be removed.

The facts;
Highway Code Rule 253
Prohibited vehicles. Motorways MUST NOT be used by pedestrians, holders
of provisional motorcycle or car licences, riders of motorcycles under
50 cc, cyclists.

The right to use motorways has been removed.

ROFL.. oh, dear ... looks like I've achieved Lang's mental breakdown...
this isn't what I wanted... hahaha !!!!
--
john smith
'_The Guardian_. Wrong about everything. All the time'
(Anon)

Phil W Lee wrote:
Bod considered Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:54:39 +0100
the perfect time to write:

On 18/10/2015 12:50, David Lang wrote:
The Smith retard claim;
Cyclists have the right to use the roads, and that right cannot be removed.

The facts;
Highway Code Rule 253
Prohibited vehicles. Motorways MUST NOT be used by pedestrians, holders
of provisional motorcycle or car licences, riders of motorcycles under
50 cc, cyclists.

The right to use motorways has been removed.


I hope you're wearing a helmet and appropriate safety clothing when
posting, because most injuries occur at home.
You know it makes sense.

He's also too stupid to know that motorways are not public highways.

He is _impressively_ stupid. He also quite obviously firmly believes that
the 'ASBO ban' is his trump card, judging by the number of times he trots
it out.

But of course, an ASBO ban on being in a particular area, is not the same
as a ban on using the road. Anyone with a brain can see this, but David
Lang has probably been doing too many asbestos removals out there in
Rochester, and fondly believes that he's absolutely 'great in an argument'.
It must be awful not to see the number of times you get your balls kicked
up around your neck.
--
john smith
'_The Guardian_. Wrong about everything. All the time'
(Anon)

On 18/10/2015 22:40, David Lang wrote:
On 18/10/2015 22:01, Phil W Lee wrote:
Bod considered Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:54:39 +0100
the perfect time to write:

On 18/10/2015 12:50, David Lang wrote:
The Smith retard claim;
Cyclists have the right to use the roads, and that right cannot be
removed.

The facts;
Highway Code Rule 253
Prohibited vehicles. Motorways MUST NOT be used by pedestrians, holders
of provisional motorcycle or car licences, riders of motorcycles under
50 cc, cyclists.

The right to use motorways has been removed.


I hope you're wearing a helmet and appropriate safety clothing when
posting, because most injuries occur at home.
You know it makes sense.

He's also too stupid to know that motorways are not public highways.

It's a controlled-access highway. But cyclists are still banned from them.


The reasons are obvious to everyone else but you.
Why are horses/ mobility scooters/ pedestrians etc not allowed?
Ask someone who can explain the *very obvious* safety reasons to you.

On 18/10/2015 22:44, David Lang wrote:
On 18/10/2015 22:01, Phil W Lee wrote:
Bod considered Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:54:39 +0100
the perfect time to write:

On 18/10/2015 12:50, David Lang wrote:
The Smith retard claim;
Cyclists have the right to use the roads, and that right cannot be
removed.

The facts;
Highway Code Rule 253
Prohibited vehicles. Motorways MUST NOT be used by pedestrians, holders
of provisional motorcycle or car licences, riders of motorcycles under
50 cc, cyclists.

The right to use motorways has been removed.


I hope you're wearing a helmet and appropriate safety clothing when
posting, because most injuries occur at home.
You know it makes sense.

He's also too stupid to know that motorways are not public highways.

But are still Roads.

I award you 1 point for observation. I can confirm that they *are*
classed as roads.

On 19/10/2015 01:43, John Smith wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
Bod considered Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:54:39 +0100
the perfect time to write:

On 18/10/2015 12:50, David Lang wrote:
The Smith retard claim;
Cyclists have the right to use the roads, and that right cannot be removed.

The facts;
Highway Code Rule 253
Prohibited vehicles. Motorways MUST NOT be used by pedestrians, holders
of provisional motorcycle or car licences, riders of motorcycles under
50 cc, cyclists.

The right to use motorways has been removed.


I hope you're wearing a helmet and appropriate safety clothing when
posting, because most injuries occur at home.
You know it makes sense.

He's also too stupid to know that motorways are not public highways.

He is _impressively_ stupid. He also quite obviously firmly believes that
the 'ASBO ban' is his trump card, judging by the number of times he trots
it out.
The frequency isn't relevant, it remains true.

But of course, an ASBO ban on being in a particular area, is not the same
as a ban on using the road.

So, a ban on using the road isn't a ban on using the road?

Anyone with a brain can see this, but David
Lang has probably been doing too many asbestos removals out there in
Rochester, and fondly believes that he's absolutely 'great in an argument'.
It must be awful not to see the number of times you get your balls kicked
up around your neck.

Cyclists SOP again. A sure sign of a looser.

Now, was the cyclist banned from the road or not?