motorist mafia?

JNugent wrote:

Anyone who genuinely can't tell the difference between a pedestrian
footway and an off-carriageway cycle path is too stupid to be cycling.


I'll tell you what, I'll set a little test based on photographs of the
two over the weekend to see if you and Derek can tell the difference
between a pedestrian footway and an off-carriageway cycle path. Lets
see how stupid you are.

Tony

On 30/11/2010 23:45, Tony Raven wrote:

JNugent wrote:

Anyone who genuinely can't tell the difference between a pedestrian footway
and an off-carriageway cycle path is too stupid to be cycling.

I'll tell you what, I'll set a little test based on photographs of the two
over the weekend to see if you and Derek can tell the difference between a
pedestrian footway and an off-carriageway cycle path. Lets see how stupid you
are.

I reserve the right to show you photographs of certain footways and require
your attempt at an answer as to whether anyone *sane* could possibly take
them to be cycle paths - all before answering about any of yours. Typically,
they will be of streets in the City of London and similar urban locations.

In the mean time, it's interesting that you claim that there is no visual
difference between a cycle path and a footway.

JNugent wrote:

I reserve the right to show you photographs of certain footways and
require your attempt at an answer as to whether anyone *sane* could
possibly take them to be cycle paths - all before answering about any
of yours. Typically, they will be of streets in the City of London and
similar urban locations.


There are websites full of cycle paths that no-one sane could possibly
consider to be a cycle path so showing me photos of doorways won't tell
you much!

In the mean time, it's interesting that you claim that there is no
visual difference between a cycle path and a footway.


--
Tony

Tony Raven wrote:

There are websites full of cycle paths that no-one sane could possibly
consider to be a cycle path so showing me photos of doorways won't
tell
you much!

Damn speelchucker. That should be footways not doorways. A bit of
unintended humour.


--
Tony

On Dec 1, 6:28*am, Tony Raven wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:
There are websites full of cycle paths that no-one sane could possibly
consider to be a cycle path so showing me photos of doorways won't
tell
you much!

Damn speelchucker. *That should be footways not doorways. *A bit of
unintended humour.


As a pro-helmet cyclist, I would have been crucified by the helmet
safety deniers such as Ravin for a minor spelling mistake like that!

I agree that some cycle paths are a bit idiotic by the way (especially
in Slough) , but many are good.

Derek C

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, JNugent wrote:
On 30/11/2010 23:45, Tony Raven wrote:
JNugent wrote:

Anyone who genuinely can't tell the difference between a
pedestrian footway and an off-carriageway cycle path is too
stupid to be cycling.

I'll tell you what, I'll set a little test based on photographs of
the two over the weekend to see if you and Derek can tell the
difference between a pedestrian footway and an off-carriageway
cycle path. Lets see how stupid you are.

I reserve the right to show you photographs of certain footways and
require your attempt at an answer as to whether anyone *sane* could
possibly take them to be cycle paths - all before answering about
any of yours. Typically, they will be of streets in the City of
London and similar urban locations.

That's irrelevant - you said anyone that can't tell the difference
between a footway and an off-carriageway cycle path is stupid.

That is not at all the same thing as claiming that no-one will ever
cycle where they shouldn't. By all means produce your photos -
basically everyone on the group will then say "nope, you shouldn't
cycle there".

Then we can move on to the photos Tony produces. Do you think
you that prove that you are stupid, or that your assertion quoted
above was stupid?

In the mean time, it's interesting that you claim that there is no
visual difference between a cycle path and a footway.

Where was the claim made? I have not seen it made in this newsgroup
(but maybe I missed it). There are certainly locations where there
are no visible indications that an off-carriageway cycle path is in
fact that and not a footway (even without snow cover on the ground).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 01/12/2010 13:25, Ian Smith wrote:

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, wrote:
On 30/11/2010 23:45, Tony Raven wrote:
JNugent wrote:

Anyone who genuinely can't tell the difference between a
pedestrian footway and an off-carriageway cycle path is too
stupid to be cycling.

I'll tell you what, I'll set a little test based on photographs of
the two over the weekend to see if you and Derek can tell the
difference between a pedestrian footway and an off-carriageway
cycle path. Lets see how stupid you are.

I reserve the right to show you photographs of certain footways and
require your attempt at an answer as to whether anyone *sane* could
possibly take them to be cycle paths - all before answering about
any of yours. Typically, they will be of streets in the City of
London and similar urban locations.

That's irrelevant - you said anyone that can't tell the difference
between a footway and an off-carriageway cycle path is stupid.

It's highly relevant, since the majority of footway cycling I see takes place
in highly-urbanised areas (or on narror footways) which no-one same could
possibly mistake for a cycle-path.

That is not at all the same thing as claiming that no-one will ever
cycle where they shouldn't. By all means produce your photos -
basically everyone on the group will then say "nope, you shouldn't
cycle there".

Not the issue. The issue is whether there's a difference. The PP's position
was that cyclists (or the majority of them) who cycle along footways are
simply "confused" by the actions and statements of local authorities.

I'm not confused by them. I bet that you and the PP are not confused by them.
Unless the footway cyclists are particularly stupid, it isn't easy to see
where the "confusion" comes from.

Then we can move on to the photos Tony produces. Do you think
you that prove that you are stupid, or that your assertion quoted
above was stupid?

Again, in English this time? [That one had overtones of Welsh English, look you.]

In the mean time, it's interesting that you claim that there is no
visual difference between a cycle path and a footway.

Where was the claim made? I have not seen it made in this newsgroup
(but maybe I missed it). There are certainly locations where there
are no visible indications that an off-carriageway cycle path is in
fact that and not a footway (even without snow cover on the ground).

In that case, you cannot possibly agree with the "cyclists are confused by
local authorities" argument. You must believe (as I do) that footway cycling
is done out of pure selfishness and lack of concern for the rights of others
(especially, though not exclusively, pedestrians), and not out of ignorance
or "confusion".

Thank you for agreeing with me.

JNugent wrote:

It's highly relevant, since the majority of footway cycling I see
takes place in highly-urbanised areas (or on narror footways) which
no-one same could possibly mistake for a cycle-path.

Except for Local authorities looking for opportunities to make a cycle
path. But then perhaps they're not sane.


--
Tony

Derek C wrote:
On Dec 1, 6:28 am, Tony Raven wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:
There are websites full of cycle paths that no-one sane could
possibly
consider to be a cycle path so showing me photos of doorways won't
tell
you much!

Damn speelchucker. That should be footways not doorways. A bit of
unintended humour.


As a pro-helmet cyclist, I would have been crucified by the helmet
safety deniers such as Ravin for a minor spelling mistake like that!


Ah, a good revisionist historian. If you care to check the record it
was you that tried spelling and grammar flames not me. Your problem
though was your flames were full of spelling and grammar errors.


--
Tony

On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Derek C wrote:
On Dec 1, 6:28Â*am, Tony Raven wrote:

Damn speelchucker. Â*That should be footways not doorways. Â*A bit
of unintended humour.

As a pro-helmet cyclist, I would have been crucified by the helmet
safety deniers such as Ravin for a minor spelling mistake like
that!

No Derek. You were crucified for putting a spelling error in a
spelling flame, and a grammar error in the opening sentence of a
grammar flame. You then insisted in swearing that the grammar was
perfect for days and days, but that was just the icing on the cake.

Oh how we laughed.

In fact, it still brings a smile to my face even now. Thank you.

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|