A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old October 27th 10, 06:25 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
mileburner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,365
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property


"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
"Steve Walker" considered Tue, 26 Oct 2010
20:08:40 +0100 the perfect time to write:

I personally don't think it's realistic for busy, modern traffic to work
around anachronisms like horse-drawn vehicles & bicycles, velocipedes,
rickshaws & steam traction engines etc. However that doesn't justify
those vehicles moving onto the pavements, where they will in turn
intimidate
and frighten pedestrians.

The obvious alternative is to restrict the motor vehicles so that they
can only use those roads where they do not present a threat to
existing traffic. We do have such roads, although the motorway
network would probably need extending in some areas to bring it within
reasonable (ie non-motorised or public transport) reach of all
destinations. Then you just have a park & ride at all the motorway
junctions, where people can transfer to public or non-motorised
transport.


A quaint idea, but you seem to have overlooked the fact that the motoring
public hijacked the road network and assumed its exclusive use and ownership
long ago. It started around the late 50s early 60s when motoring started to
become cheap enough for the masses.

Nowadays, the privilige has been extended to the unemployed, those on
benefits and of course, handymen :-(


Ads
  #72  
Old October 27th 10, 06:37 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
JMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,929
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:09:32 -0700 (PDT), S
wrote:

On Oct 26, 7:24*pm, "Steve Walker" wrote:



snip


What does 1835 have to do with anything? * *Riding bicycles on the pavement
is dangerous, so it's not allowed.


Motorists do many dangerous and forbidden things as well, e.g.,
speeding, running red lights, driving against the traffic in one-way
streets, just to name a few.

--

Pyscholist Rule Number 6

In an argument - if the going gets really tough - fall back on the "But what about motorists, they are much worse ...."
It does no good to the actual argument - but it shows you up as a real prat - and hence you are living up to the psycholist creed.
  #73  
Old October 27th 10, 07:56 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
JNugent[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,576
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

Tom Crispin wrote:

wrote:
On 25/10/2010 23:11, JMS wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:


snip


No doubt you can "understand" cyclists breaking other laws as well.


Yes - and I have posted details of such circumstances before. Even
official guidance allows for cyclists to use the footway under certain
circumstances:


Rubbish - there is no such "official guidance" for cyclists to use
footways unless there are clear signs that that is the case.


"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of
traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing
so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement,
acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young
people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use
of police discretion is required."
Former Home Office Minister Paul Boateng


That was *never* ever official guidance.


Quite.
And "former" says all you need to know.


It was in a letter to another MP - who chose to publish it.


And in any case, what possible "consideration" is being shown to footway (not
"pavement") users exiting their homes directly onto the footway by cyclists
speeding past?


Are we talking about the same house?


I don't know. I'm talking about the very many houses there are in the UK with
front doors opening directly onto the footway. There are a lot of them -
possibly millions. Thera re also many shops and other high-street places of
business which answer to the same description. A sensible person would grasp
instinctively that it is wrong to cycle along any of them.

But you don't, apparently.
  #74  
Old October 27th 10, 11:27 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Steve Walker[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

Squashme wrote:
On 26 Oct, 22:02, "Steve Walker" wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 26/10/2010 20:08, Steve Walker wrote:


I personally don't think it's realistic for busy, modern
traffic to work around anachronisms like horse-drawn
vehicles & bicycles, velocipedes, rickshaws & steam traction
engines etc.


There there.


I wasn't asking to be comforted, or patronised. This is meant
to be a discussion about traffic safety, if you want a snide
name-calling exercise then please start a new thread.


And you don't think that your personal statement was
intentionally insulting?


You mean the suggestion of a safe, intermediate lane for slower traffic?

"Perhaps we need to experiment with a widened middle lane for slow-moving
vehicles, instead of cycle lanes. Obviously there would be a fair bit of
demolition & widening required to achieve a decent amount of this, but we
need the jobs and the end result would be much safer."

You think that was insulting, do you? To whom, pray?


  #75  
Old October 27th 10, 11:37 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Steve Walker[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

Clive George wrote:
On 26/10/2010 23:03, Steve Walker wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 26/10/2010 22:02, Steve Walker wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 26/10/2010 20:08, Steve Walker wrote:

I personally don't think it's realistic for busy, modern
traffic to work around anachronisms like horse-drawn
vehicles& bicycles, velocipedes, rickshaws& steam
traction engines etc.

There there.

I wasn't asking to be comforted, or patronised. This is
meant to be a discussion about traffic safety, if you want a
snide name-calling exercise then please start a new thread.

If you don't want to get called names, don't write mindless
tripe like you did above. If you want others to behave like
grown-ups, maybe you ought to start yourself?


You're a poor spokesperson for cycling, Clive. Needless,
personalised abuse is going to achieve nothing other than to
alienate people, leading to less sympathy and courtesy
towards cyclists.


Keep up with the ****e talking. What I post here isn't going
to change anything.


You're helping to reinforce a perception of cycling enthusiasts as
supercilious & arrogant people - Nigel Oldfield in Lycra It's an
unfortunate trait that some of you have - you just can't stop yourselves
from being needlessly, deliberately offensive. The real effect of that
will be felt by other cyclists, most of whom probably wouldn't support your
behaviour at all.








  #76  
Old October 27th 10, 11:56 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Squashme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,146
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On 27 Oct, 23:27, "Steve Walker" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 26 Oct, 22:02, "Steve Walker" wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 26/10/2010 20:08, Steve Walker wrote:


I personally don't think it's realistic for busy, modern
traffic to work around anachronisms like horse-drawn
vehicles & bicycles, velocipedes, rickshaws & steam traction
engines etc.


There there.


I wasn't asking to be comforted, or patronised. This is meant
to be a discussion about traffic safety, if you want a snide
name-calling exercise then please start a new thread.


And you don't think that your personal statement was
intentionally insulting?


You mean the suggestion of a safe, intermediate lane for slower traffic?

"Perhaps we need to experiment with a widened middle lane for slow-moving
vehicles, instead of cycle lanes. *Obviously there would be a fair bit of
demolition & widening required to achieve a decent amount of this, but we
need the jobs and the end result would be much safer."

You think that was insulting, do you? * *To whom, pray?


"I personally don't think it's realistic for busy, modern traffic to
work
around anachronisms like horse-drawn vehicles & bicycles, velocipedes,
rickshaws & steam traction engines etc. However that doesn't
justify
those vehicles moving onto the pavements, where they will in turn
intimidate
and frighten pedestrians."

I think that paragraph was insulting and I think that you meant it to
be.
  #77  
Old October 28th 10, 12:20 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Clive George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,394
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On 27/10/2010 23:37, Steve Walker wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 26/10/2010 23:03, Steve Walker wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 26/10/2010 22:02, Steve Walker wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 26/10/2010 20:08, Steve Walker wrote:

I personally don't think it's realistic for busy, modern
traffic to work around anachronisms like horse-drawn
vehicles& bicycles, velocipedes, rickshaws& steam
traction engines etc.

There there.

I wasn't asking to be comforted, or patronised. This is
meant to be a discussion about traffic safety, if you want a
snide name-calling exercise then please start a new thread.

If you don't want to get called names, don't write mindless
tripe like you did above. If you want others to behave like
grown-ups, maybe you ought to start yourself?

You're a poor spokesperson for cycling, Clive. Needless,
personalised abuse is going to achieve nothing other than to
alienate people, leading to less sympathy and courtesy
towards cyclists.


Keep up with the ****e talking. What I post here isn't going
to change anything.


You're helping to reinforce a perception of cycling enthusiasts as
supercilious& arrogant people - Nigel Oldfield in Lycra It's an
unfortunate trait that some of you have - you just can't stop yourselves
from being needlessly, deliberately offensive. The real effect of that
will be felt by other cyclists, most of whom probably wouldn't support your
behaviour at all.


Oh, don't talk such utter nonsense.

You're the one who started off being needlessly, deliberately offensive.
Sort yourself out before you start on others.
  #78  
Old October 28th 10, 12:35 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
The Medway Handyman[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 392
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

mole****** wrote:

A quaint idea, but you seem to have overlooked the fact that the
motoring public hijacked the road network and assumed its exclusive
use and ownership long ago. It started around the late 50s early 60s
when motoring started to become cheap enough for the masses.


Oh dear. Another Daily Mail overdose from mole******. Surprising from a
Gironaught.

Of course, if you had any balls at all, you would make your employment
status public, but you obviously have something to hide

Nowadays, the privilige has been extended to the unemployed, those on
benefits and of course, handymen :-(


I've wondered why you have such a problem with the concept of a handyman.
At first I just put it down to your natural stupidity - as evidenced by your
posts here. You clearly do overdose on the Daily Mail.

Your bum chum Cwispin also has a problem with handymen, because he keeps
having homoerotic fantasies about tradesmen in public toilets, but with you
it's something else.

Then I put it down to your immaturity - after all, anyone who thinks a push
bike is a viable form of transport is a schoolboy who never grew up.

Then I considered that you keep getting beaten in simple arguments and made
to look foolish - that would clearly annoy someone educated beyond their
natural intelligence.

Which explains your tendency to attack everything apart from the argument.

But I've finally realised. What really annoys you about a handyman is that
you are a complete incompetant. You have no practical skills at all &
resent highly skilled people like me.

You don't know one end of a screwdriver from the other do you? You can't
put up a shelf without it falling down can you?

Does your missus deride you for this incompetance? I expect she does. That
must affect your Daily Mail man self image.

To summarise, you are just a complete ****** aren't you?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.









  #79  
Old October 28th 10, 12:38 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
The Medway Handyman[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 392
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

mileburner wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"mileburner" gurgled happily, sounding
much


While that may be the case in theory, experience tells me that
there are a lot of drivers on the roads who find it difficult and
distressing to drive near cyclists and would prefer to have them
separated onto footpaths or into special lanes.


Whether through arrogance or incompetence, it doesn't make _them_
right.


Absolutely not, but the root cause of the perceived need for cycle
facilities comes from drivers and in particular careless,
inconsiderate and incompetent drivers. If we did not have these
careles, inconsiderate and incompetent drivers there would be no
perceived need for separate cycle facilities and drivers themselves
would not be demanding that we had them.
While I do not think that adult cyclists riding at speeds above
walking pace should be on the pavements and footpaths, there is a
case for allowing (younger) children who have yet to be trained and
tested for riding on the roads to be allowed to use footpaths, or
if the distance travelled is short, for access, or from one shop to
another for example.


What would your reaction be if a similar exemption was suggested for
those who have not yet passed their car driving test?


The exemption for pre-test learner drivers is that they may drive on
the roads *if* they display an L plate *and* are under supervision.
Children of any age *may* ride on the road anyway. I do not however
think it is sensible to allow an untrained child on the public
highway and especially so if they are not under direct supervision.


Oh dear, mole****** makes a **** of himself again.

I do not however think it is sensible to allow an untrained adult cyclist on
the public highway and especially so if they are not under direct
supervision


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.


  #80  
Old October 28th 10, 08:11 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Tom Crispin[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,007
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:56:26 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:

wrote:
On 25/10/2010 23:11, JMS wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:


snip


No doubt you can "understand" cyclists breaking other laws as well.


Yes - and I have posted details of such circumstances before. Even
official guidance allows for cyclists to use the footway under certain
circumstances:


Rubbish - there is no such "official guidance" for cyclists to use
footways unless there are clear signs that that is the case.


"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of
traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing
so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement,
acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young
people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use
of police discretion is required."
Former Home Office Minister Paul Boateng


That was *never* ever official guidance.


Quite.
And "former" says all you need to know.


It was in a letter to another MP - who chose to publish it.


And in any case, what possible "consideration" is being shown to footway (not
"pavement") users exiting their homes directly onto the footway by cyclists
speeding past?


Are we talking about the same house?


I don't know. I'm talking about the very many houses there are in the UK with
front doors opening directly onto the footway. There are a lot of them -
possibly millions. Thera re also many shops and other high-street places of
business which answer to the same description. A sensible person would grasp
instinctively that it is wrong to cycle along any of them.

But you don't, apparently.


Given that this thread was about a specific couple in a specific
house, I find it odd that you start talking about non-specific people
in non-specific houses.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
and the cyclists complain about every little thing in the UK Mrcheerful[_2_] UK 3 June 18th 10 07:48 AM
and the cyclists complain about every little thing in the UK Mrcheerful[_2_] UK 0 June 17th 10 06:32 PM
OK to hit cyclists outside a cycle lane. spindrift UK 66 August 19th 08 10:29 AM
odd couples [email protected] Racing 4 December 11th 06 01:42 AM
Why do cyclists not use the cycle path? Tony Raven UK 30 August 13th 06 12:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.