|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |