Mandatory Cycle Lanes

[judith]

I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.

Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.

I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory or
advisory and:

There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
Code)

140
Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT
drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its
times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a
broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any
cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.

If this are indeed the definitions of mandatory and advisory cycle
lanes - I would like to know where they are defined as such : anyone?
Are they in common usage?

[Nigel Cliffe]

judith wrote:
> I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>
> Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
> this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
> for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
>
> I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory or
> advisory and:
>
> There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
> Code)
>
> 140
> Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT
> drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its
> times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a
> broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any
> cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
>
> If this are indeed the definitions of mandatory and advisory cycle
> lanes - I would like to know where they are defined as such : anyone?
> Are they in common usage?


The term is in common use in Government documents when describing cycle
lanes. There are two types, mandatory (cars forbidden) and advisory (cars
permitted). There is a similar term for mandatory bus lanes, and in the use
of either solid (mandatory do not cross) or dotted white lines (advisory do
not cross unless safe) around areas marked with chevrons/diagonal lines.

The official "Know your traffic signs" booklet describes them using the term
"mandatory pedal cycle lanes".
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/trafficsigns.pdf

A short list of government documents and websites using the term "Mandatory
cycle lane" , including the Department for Transport.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page10784.asp
http://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/section.asp?docId=27820
http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/transport/cyclelanes.shtml
http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2007/foioct20071/foicyclelanes/foiresponsecyclelanes.pdf








- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

[Clive George]

"judith" > wrote in message
...
>I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>
> Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
> this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
> for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
>
> I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory or
> advisory and:
>
> There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
> Code)
>
> 140
> Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT
> drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its
> times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a
> broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any
> cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
>
> If this are indeed the definitions of mandatory and advisory cycle
> lanes - I would like to know where they are defined as such : anyone?
> Are they in common usage?

Yes, those are the ones we're talking about. The words mandatory and
advisory aren't in the HC, however a quick google (why haven't you done
that?) will give you plenty to play with in the form of government websites
among others.

So yes, it's common usage. Once again you demonstrate yourself to a) be
particularly uninformed and b) utterly incapable of looking things up for
yourself. The former isn't a great sin, the latter is inexcusable.

[Peter Fox[_5_]]

[Colin Nelson]

"judith" > wrote in message ...
> I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>
> Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
> this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
> for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
>
> I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory or
> advisory and:
>
> There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
> Code)
>
> 140
> Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT
> drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its
> times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a
> broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any
> cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
>
> If this are indeed the definitions of mandatory and advisory cycle
> lanes - I would like to know where they are defined as such : anyone?
> Are they in common usage?
>
>
>
>

You forgot to point out that you <snipped> parts of my original reply to you. Here it is again. You may note the handy reference to the RTRA sects 5 & 8 as well as the link that I provided.

"There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway Code)

140
Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.


[Law RTRA sects 5 & 8]

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070308

Have you not been keeping up with events for the past few years, and are you sure that you should be driving/riding on the road system (considering your apparent lack of knowledge of the basics ie. the Highway Code)? In this context of mandatory it means cars etc are not allowed in such lanes (subject to any specific times posted) whereas cyclists may or may not use them as they see fit."


--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[Bongman]

"Clive George" > wrote in message
...
> "judith" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>>
>> Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
>> this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
>> for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
>>
>> I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory or
>> advisory and:
>>
>> There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
>> Code)
>>
>> 140
>> Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT
>> drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its
>> times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a
>> broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any
>> cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
>>
>> If this are indeed the definitions of mandatory and advisory cycle
>> lanes - I would like to know where they are defined as such : anyone?
>> Are they in common usage?
>
> Yes, those are the ones we're talking about. The words mandatory and
> advisory aren't in the HC, however a quick google (why haven't you done
> that?) will give you plenty to play with in the form of government
> websites among others.
>
> So yes, it's common usage. Once again you demonstrate yourself to a) be
> particularly uninformed and b) utterly incapable of looking things up for
> yourself. The former isn't a great sin, the latter is inexcusable.


I'm pretty sure the OP isn't the only one (car driver who has limited, to no
knowledge of The Highway Code). But saying that, the OP may only be unsure
where it relates to cyclists/cycle lanes. So its unfair to make that
assumption of her/him.

However, I recently went for, and passed my Car Theory test (passed, with
only one question wrong) And I am still a cyclist (until I decide that I
*need* a car).

Talking to friends, colleagues and family, none of them knew of, or had seen
a "minimum speed" road sign. Although some of them, I class to be very safe,
responsible drivers (one or two have *never* had an accident, in over 10-15
years).

In itself, unfamiliarity with The Highway Code (or part of it), is not a
crime. Most people on the road today, will have less knowledge of The
Highway Code, than new drivers. Does that make them less safe? Should they
stop driving until they read and understand it? No. Not until the Govt.
decide to retest every driver who has not passed a theory test.

Don't insult people for asking questions!

Regards

Bongman

[Steve C[_2_]]

Bongman wrote:
>
> Don't insult people for asking questions!
>
> Regards
>
> Bongman
>
>

If you look closely you'll see that Judith is just a rabid irritating
troll. They weren't asking a question but deliberately trying to start a
flame war. Their past posting history shows this to be a fact.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:01:44 +0100, "Bongman"
> said in
>:

>Don't insult people for asking questions!

We don't as a rule but judith has a history which consists almost
exclusively of misrepresenting the answers to such questions and
obdurately refusing to understand the answers she's given. You can
save time and effort by killfiling her, as most of us by now have.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Clive George]

"Bongman" > wrote in message
...

> Don't insult people for asking questions!

Generally speaking I wouldn't. But the troll "judith" has been asking stupid
questions and ignoring sensible answers on URC now for several weeks.

[Steve Walker[_2_]]

Colin Nelson wrote:
> "judith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>>
>> Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar
>> with this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was
>> mandatory for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such
>> things.
>>
>> I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory
>> or advisory and:
>>
>> There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
>> Code)
>>
>> 140
>> Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT
>> drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its
>> times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a
>> broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any
>> cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
>>
>> If this are indeed the definitions of mandatory and advisory cycle
>> lanes - I would like to know where they are defined as such : anyone?
>> Are they in common usage?
>
>
> You forgot to point out that you <snipped> parts of my original reply
> to you. Here it is again. You may note the handy reference to the
> RTRA sects 5 & 8 as well as the link that I provided.
>
> "There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
> Code)
>
> 140
> Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT
> drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its
> times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a
> broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any
> cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
>
> [Law RTRA sects 5 & 8]
>
> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070308
>
> Have you not been keeping up with events for the past few years, and
> are you sure that you should be driving/riding on the road system
> (considering your apparent lack of knowledge of the basics ie. the
> Highway Code)? In this context of mandatory it means cars etc are not
> allowed in such lanes (subject to any specific times posted) whereas
> cyclists may or may not use them as they see fit."
>

Thanks, that's all really interesting. But the real question is surely
whether it's still OK to knock cyclists down if they're in one of these lane
thingies.

[Paul Boyd[_4_]]

On 01/08/2008 18:01, Bongman said,

> Don't insult people for asking questions!

Under normal circumstances your post would be very reasonable. However,
if you look back at "judith"'s history, you will see that she is
deliberately trolling. If you read the OP again in this thread, you
will see another blatant attempt at trolling. I wonder how much she's
bet on dragging this thread out? One of the others was £50 if the
thread exceeded x number of posts.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[Marc[_2_]]

Bongman wrote:

>
> In itself, unfamiliarity with The Highway Code (or part of it), is not a
> crime. Most people on the road today, will have less knowledge of The
> Highway Code, than new drivers. Does that make them less safe?

Yes.

Should they
> stop driving until they read and understand it?

Yes.

[judith]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:25:09 +0100, "Nigel Cliffe" >
wrote:

>judith wrote:
>> I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>>
>> Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
>> this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
>> for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
<snip>

>
>The official "Know your traffic signs" booklet describes them using the term
>"mandatory pedal cycle lanes".
>http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/trafficsigns.pdf
>
>A short list of government documents and websites using the term "Mandatory
>cycle lane" , including the Department for Transport.
>
>http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page10784.asp
>http://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/section.asp?docId=27820
>http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/transport/cyclelanes.shtml
>http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2007/foioct20071/foicyclelanes/foiresponsecyclelanes.pdf



Thanks - I had in fact Googled and I had seen the Kirklees and
Lincolnshire links - I had not seen the trafficsigns link.
I genuinely did not know that the term "mandatory cycle lane" was in
common usage - in the context stated.

It will be interesting to hear views of non-cyclists as to whether
they were aware or not.

[martin]

Bongman wrote:

>
> Talking to friends, colleagues and family, none of them knew of, or had seen
> a "minimum speed" road sign.

I don't recall ever seeing one in almost 30 years of driving.

Come to think of it, why haven't the local councils cottoned on to that
one? Stick a minimum speed limit sign up, couple with a speed camera and
pay your local farmer to drive his tractor down the road at rush-hour.

Best not give them any ideas ...

[Peter Grange]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:01:44 +0100, "Bongman" >
wrote:

(snip)
>Talking to friends, colleagues and family, none of them knew of, or had seen
>a "minimum speed" road sign. Although some of them, I class to be very safe,
>responsible drivers (one or two have *never* had an accident, in over 10-15
>years).
>
(snip)

Somewhat OT, but I have seen minimum speed limit signs(45 mph IIRC) on
freeways (motorways) in Arizona. Not a bad idea IMHO, in a
motorised-vehicle-only environment. Of course then the silly b*ggers
go and spoil it by putting a 40mph max speed on the slip road. Could
never convince the locals that such an arrangement made it impossible
to get onto or off the freeway legally. Not all speed limits are
sensible.

Pete

[andrew]

judith wrote:
> I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>
> Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
> this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
> for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.


If anyone asked me what a mandatory cycle lane was - then I would say it
is one you have to use.

[Colin Nelson]

"Steve Walker" > wrote in message ... "
> >
>
<snipped some bits that don't count>
> Thanks, that's all really interesting. But the real question is surely
> whether it's still OK to knock cyclists down if they're in one of these lane
> thingies.
>
>
Oh I think it's still OK ... The point scoring is a little different though ie. 1 gold star for one cyclist in an advisory lane, 2 gold stars for one cyclist in a mandatory lane, 1 silver star for one cyclist outside either type of lane, 1 bronze star for one cyclist on a cycle path (stars are increased pro rata per cyclist 'dealt with' per instance) ...



'S OK .... I'm getting my coat ... I'll close the door on my way out ...


--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[Steve C[_2_]]

martin wrote:
> Bongman wrote:
>
>>
>> Talking to friends, colleagues and family, none of them knew of, or
>> had seen a "minimum speed" road sign.
>
> I don't recall ever seeing one in almost 30 years of driving.
>
> Come to think of it, why haven't the local councils cottoned on to that
> one? Stick a minimum speed limit sign up, couple with a speed camera and
> pay your local farmer to drive his tractor down the road at rush-hour.
>
> Best not give them any ideas ...

Only ones I've ever seen are on the Dartford Tunnel.

[JethroUK©]

"judith" > wrote in message
...


> I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory or
> advisory and:
>

mandatory mean YOU MUST

so by definition, 'some' may be mandatory and 'others' may be advisory - but
'all' can never be both or either

[walter.smith]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
wrote:

>I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>
>Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
>this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
>for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.

A reasonable error to make - I have been driving for years and have
never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
was *mandatory* to use.

>I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory or
>advisory and:
>
>There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
>Code)

Well they were wrong : there is no mention of *mandatory" cylce lanes
in the Highway Code as far as I know.

[Fred.Harrison]

Clive George wrote:
> "Bongman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Don't insult people for asking questions!
>
> Generally speaking I wouldn't. But the troll "judith" has been asking stupid
> questions and ignoring sensible answers on URC now for several weeks.
>
>
>

So asking "what is a "mandatory cycle lane" in a cycling and legal
newsgroup is a stupid question is it (irrespective of previous history)

I saw that your answer in another post was that the term "mandatory
cycle lane" is in common usage - I would disagree with that - ask any
other driver what it means.

If you Google (as you have suggested) for "mandatory cycle lane" you get
1900 hits - hardly the number of hits for a term in common usage.

If you Google for "****ing the dog" you get 11,500.

I think that you are ****ing the dog.

[nik.morgan]

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 08:19:18 +0100, Fred.Harrison wrote
(in article >):

> Clive George wrote:
>> "Bongman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Don't insult people for asking questions!
>>
>> Generally speaking I wouldn't. But the troll "judith" has been asking
>> stupid
>> questions and ignoring sensible answers on URC now for several weeks.
>>
>>
>>
>
> So asking "what is a "mandatory cycle lane" in a cycling and legal
> newsgroup is a stupid question is it (irrespective of previous history)
>
> I saw that your answer in another post was that the term "mandatory
> cycle lane" is in common usage - I would disagree with that - ask any
> other driver what it means.
>
> If you Google (as you have suggested) for "mandatory cycle lane" you get
> 1900 hits - hardly the number of hits for a term in common usage.
>
> If you Google for "****ing the dog" you get 11,500.
>
> I think that you are ****ing the dog.
>
>

No, he's ****ing the bitch.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Paul Hyett]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 at 15:01:32, judith > wrote in
uk.legal :

>I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>
>Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
>this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
>for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.

You mean the pavements aren't 'mandatory cycle lanes' - or at least
that's what most cyclists around here seem to think...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[Jugger]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:19:18 +0100, "Fred.Harrison" >
wrote:

>Clive George wrote:
>> "Bongman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Don't insult people for asking questions!
>>
>> Generally speaking I wouldn't. But the troll "judith" has been asking stupid
>> questions and ignoring sensible answers on URC now for several weeks.
>>
>>
>>
>
>So asking "what is a "mandatory cycle lane" in a cycling and legal
>newsgroup is a stupid question is it (irrespective of previous history)

There is no such thing as a mandatory cycle lane - unfortunately -
yet.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:39:18 +0100, Jugger > said in
>:

>There is no such thing as a mandatory cycle lane - unfortunately -
>yet.

False, there is such a thing, and fortunately it is not mandatory
for cyclists to use it, only for cars to keep out. You do know who
is responsible for the concept of a cycle lane that *must* be used,
don't you? The political party concerned has a less than stellar
reputation and may not be mentioned on Usenet for fear of invoking
Godwin's Law.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[nik.morgan]

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 08:39:18 +0100, Jugger wrote
(in article >):

> On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:19:18 +0100, "Fred.Harrison" >
> wrote:
>
>> Clive George wrote:
>>> "Bongman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Don't insult people for asking questions!
>>>
>>> Generally speaking I wouldn't. But the troll "judith" has been asking
>>> stupid
>>> questions and ignoring sensible answers on URC now for several weeks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So asking "what is a "mandatory cycle lane" in a cycling and legal
>> newsgroup is a stupid question is it (irrespective of previous history)
>
> There is no such thing as a mandatory cycle lane - unfortunately -
> yet.

It won't make any difference, cyclists will ignore it, motorist will park on
it, maybe some EU grant money will be gained but that's as far as it's
usefulness will extend.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[baggy1963]

On 2 Aug, 09:48, nik.morgan > wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 08:39:18 +0100, Jugger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:19:18 +0100, "Fred.Harrison" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> Clive George wrote:
> >>> "Bongman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>>> Don't insult people for asking questions!
>
> >>> Generally speaking I wouldn't. But the troll "judith" has been asking
> >>> stupid
> >>> questions and ignoring sensible answers on URC now for several weeks.
>
> >> So asking "what is a "mandatory cycle lane" in a cycling and legal
> >> newsgroup is a stupid question is it (irrespective of previous history)
>
> > There is no such thing as a mandatory cycle lane - unfortunately -
> > yet.
>
> It won't make any difference, cyclists will ignore it, motorist will park on
> it, maybe some EU grant money will be gained but that's as far as it's
> usefulness will extend.
>
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Motorists will be fined if they park on them. Drivers who ride on the
footpath on the other side of the road won't even get a talking to
from the Police.

[johannes[_2_]]

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>
> judith wrote:
> > I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
> >
> > Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
> > this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
> > for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
> >
> > I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory or
> > advisory and:
> >
> > There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
> > Code)
> >
> > 140
> > Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT
> > drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its
> > times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a
> > broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any
> > cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
> >
> > If this are indeed the definitions of mandatory and advisory cycle
> > lanes - I would like to know where they are defined as such : anyone?
> > Are they in common usage?
>
> The term is in common use in Government documents when describing cycle
> lanes. There are two types, mandatory (cars forbidden) and advisory (cars
> permitted). There is a similar term for mandatory bus lanes, and in the use
> of either solid (mandatory do not cross) or dotted white lines (advisory do
> not cross unless safe) around areas marked with chevrons/diagonal lines.
>
> The official "Know your traffic signs" booklet describes them using the term
> "mandatory pedal cycle lanes".
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/trafficsigns.pdf

It doesn't include the small yellow or black circles, squares or triangles
that you often see on direction signs. What are these for? What do they mean?

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:39:18 +0100, Jugger > wrote:
>
> There is no such thing as a mandatory cycle lane - unfortunately -
> yet.

I do hope you will share your knowledge with the department for
transport - they seem to disagree, but I'm sure you are right and
they are wrong.

UK traffic signs manual (includes road markings):

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/

chapter 5:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/trafficsignsmanualchapter5ro4183

page 95 and onwards:

"16.1 ... Cycle lanes may be mandatory, where other vehicles are
excluded for at least part of the day (see paras 16.4 to 16.8), or
advisory, where other vehicles may enter if necessary and when it is
safe to do so (see paras 16.9 and 16.10)."

"16.4 Mandatory cycle lanes are parts of the carriageway which other
vehicles must not enter except to pick up or set down passengers, or
in case of emergency."

"16.5 With-flow mandatory cycle lanes are bounded by a 150 mm
continuous white line to diagram 1049."

"16.7 A traffic regulation order will be required to prohibit other
vehicles from using the lane (except for emergency and statutory
purposes). The order should also prohibit waiting and loading during
the operational hours of the lane. Yellow 'no waiting' lines and kerb
'no loading' marks are not necessary, unless it is required to
prohibit waiting or loading for some period outside the operational
hours of the cycle lane."

There's an awful lot of text in an official document about the legal
requirements for road markings to devote to something which, according
to you, does not exist.

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

[Clive George]

"johannes" > wrote in message
...

> It doesn't include the small yellow or black circles, squares or triangles
> that you often see on direction signs. What are these for? What do they
> mean?

They're for diversions - you follow the little shapes. And yes, they are in
the highway code under "Direction Signs" in "Signs and Markings".

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008, johannes > wrote:
>
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> >
> > The official "Know your traffic signs" booklet describes them
> > using the term "mandatory pedal cycle lanes".
> > http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/trafficsigns.pdf
>
> It doesn't include the small yellow or black circles, squares or
> triangles that you often see on direction signs. What are these
> for? What do they mean?

Page 107.

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

[Paul Weaver]

On 1 Aug, 18:32, Andrew > wrote:
> judith wrote:
> > I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>
> > Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
> > this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
> > for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
>
> If anyone asked me what a mandatory cycle lane was - then I would say it
> is one you have to use.

I hope not, there's a mandatory cycle lane in bristol, I have no
intention of riding 200 miles there just to use it. Should I use it on
every journey, or just once?

[R. Mark Clayton]

"judith" > wrote in message
...
>I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>
> Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
> this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
> for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
>
> I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory or
> advisory and:
>
> There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
> Code)
>
> 140
> Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT
> drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its
> times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a
> broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any
> cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.

Pity one can't down load the whole thing!

>
> If this are indeed the definitions of mandatory and advisory cycle
> lanes - I would like to know where they are defined as such : anyone?
> Are they in common usage?
>
>
>
>

You seem to be talking about whether the cycle / bus lanes are mandatory for
powered vehicles. These have solid lines, but may nevertheless be part
time, so you can drive on them outside the rush hour and / or at the
weekend.

What they unfortunately aren't is mandatory for cyclists, so on one road
near me there is a cycle track along side the road separated by a verge, and
when these were largely unused, cycle lanes along the side of the road.
Many cyclists still ride on the pavement (jump lights etc. etc., but let's
not got there again...).

Also it's a bit vague about what happens when there is a cycle box and the
lights change. Do cars past the first line have to stop in the box before
the second one or should they carry on?

[[email protected]]

On Aug 2, 7:45*am, walter.smith > wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
> wrote:
>
> >I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>
> >Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
> >this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
> >for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
>
> A reasonable error to make - I have been driving for years and have
> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. *I too would have assumed it
> was *mandatory* to use.

As a licensed driver, you ought to be familiar with the rules of the
road and keep up with changes.

>
> >I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory or
> >advisory and:
>
> >There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
> >Code)
>
> Well they were wrong : there is no mention of *mandatory" cylce lanes
> in the Highway Code as far as I know.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 2, 8:36*am, Paul Hyett > wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 at 15:01:32, judith > wrote in
> uk.legal :
>
> >I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>
> >Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
> >this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
> >for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
>
> You mean the pavements aren't 'mandatory cycle lanes' - or at least
> that's what most cyclists around here seem to think...

Around here you could not cycle on the pavement even if you wanted to,
as they are full of illegally parked cars and pedestrians are forced
to walk on the carriageway.

[Fred.Harrison]

wrote:
> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>>> Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
>>> this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
>>> for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
>> A reasonable error to make - I have been driving for years and have
>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>> was *mandatory* to use.
>
> As a licensed driver, you ought to be familiar with the rules of the
> road and keep up with changes.



As you are on top of the rules of the road - perhaps you can tell the
rest of us where this "mandatory cylce lane is defined" - with that
terminology - perhaps in the Highway Code?

[judith]

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 10:20:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On Aug 2, 7:45*am, walter.smith > wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>>
>> >Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
>> >this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
>> >for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
>>
>> A reasonable error to make - I have been driving for years and have
>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. *I too would have assumed it
>> was *mandatory* to use.
>
>As a licensed driver, you ought to be familiar with the rules of the
>road and keep up with changes.
>
>>
>> >I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory or
>> >advisory and:
>>
>> >There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
>> >Code)
>>
>> Well they were wrong : there is no mention of *mandatory" cylce lanes
>> in the Highway Code as far as I know.


Don't be shy - can you point out where these "mandatory" cycle lanes
are actually defined as such in the Highway Code please.
--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible.

[Colin Nelson]

"judith" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 10:20:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
> >On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
> >>
> >> >Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
> >> >this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
> >> >for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
> >>
> >> A reasonable error to make - I have been driving for years and have
> >> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
> >> was *mandatory* to use.
> >
> >As a licensed driver, you ought to be familiar with the rules of the
> >road and keep up with changes.
> >
> >>
> >> >I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory or
> >> >advisory and:
> >>
> >> >There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
> >> >Code)
> >>
> >> Well they were wrong : there is no mention of *mandatory" cylce lanes
> >> in the Highway Code as far as I know.
>
>
> Don't be shy - can you point out where these "mandatory" cycle lanes
> are actually defined as such in the Highway Code please.
> --


The Highway Code is quite a small booklet and only gives general guidence with pointers to legal
obligations (but obviously can't include all the laws regarding roads/highways/footpaths etc usage).
Anyone interested enough would read in the Highway Code rule 63,

"63
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway
(see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before
pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users.
Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills,
but they can make your journey safer".

and then have a look at rule 140.
"140
Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive
or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation.
Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable.
You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.


[Law RTRA sects 5 & 8]"

A little more interest (and searching) may lead to

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/

chapter 5:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/trafficsignsmanualchapter5ro4183

page 95 and onwards:

"16.1 ... Cycle lanes may be mandatory, where other vehicles are
excluded for at least part of the day (see paras 16.4 to 16.8), or
advisory, where other vehicles may enter if necessary and when it is
safe to do so (see paras 16.9 and 16.10)."

"16.4 Mandatory cycle lanes are parts of the carriageway which other
vehicles must not enter except to pick up or set down passengers, or
in case of emergency."

"16.5 With-flow mandatory cycle lanes are bounded by a 150 mm
continuous white line to diagram 1049."

"16.7 A traffic regulation order will be required to prohibit other
vehicles from using the lane (except for emergency and statutory
purposes). The order should also prohibit waiting and loading during
the operational hours of the lane. Yellow 'no waiting' lines and kerb
'no loading' marks are not necessary, unless it is required to
prohibit waiting or loading for some period outside the operational
hours of the cycle lane."

OK ...


--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[Jeremy Parker]

"judith" > wrote

[snip]

> Thanks - I had in fact Googled and I had seen the Kirklees and
> Lincolnshire links - I had not seen the trafficsigns link.
> I genuinely did not know that the term "mandatory cycle lane" was
> in
> common usage - in the context stated.

[snip]

Cheer up. It could be worse. The only people talking about bike
lanes nowadays don't even seem to know what a lane is, let alone
about a lane's subtypes. They get confused between lanes and tracks.
Even professional traffic engineers seem to have the problem,
although that might be because cycle tracks have acquired such a bad
reputation that they have become the facility that dare not speak its
name.

(That's "professional" in the sense that they get paid. I never have
dared ask any of them what kind of letters they have after their
name.)

Jeremy Parker

[judith]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:39:29 +0100, "Clive George"
> wrote:

>"judith" > wrote in message
...
>>I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>>
>> Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
>> this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
>> for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
>>
>> I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory or
>> advisory and:
>>
>> There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
>> Code)
>>
>> 140
>> Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT
>> drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its
>> times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a
>> broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any
>> cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
>>
>> If this are indeed the definitions of mandatory and advisory cycle
>> lanes - I would like to know where they are defined as such : anyone?
>> Are they in common usage?
>
>Yes, those are the ones we're talking about. The words mandatory and
>advisory aren't in the HC, however a quick google (why haven't you done
>that?) will give you plenty to play with in the form of government websites
>among others.

You jump to conclusions too easily.

I had never heard of the term. A reasonable assumption would be that
there are such things as mandatory cycle lanes (which must be used in
some circumstances).

I look in the Highway Code - there is no mention of mandatory cycle
lanes.

I used Google and found two parochial councils using the term.

I asked here.

Is that OK for you?

(Any way - the point is - it is a crap term - I suspect that if asked
- most road users would not know what it meant and would try mandatory
for cyclists to use)


>So yes, it's common usage. Once again you demonstrate yourself to a) be
>particularly uninformed and b) utterly incapable of looking things up for
>yourself. The former isn't a great sin, the latter is inexcusable.

Once again you demonstrate that you are willing to jump to conclusions
and come to the wrong answer.
Both of these are traits of ****wits in uk.rec.cycling.
--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible.

[Steve C[_2_]]

judith wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:39:29 +0100, "Clive George"
> > wrote:
>
>> "judith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>>>
>>> Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
>>> this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
>>> for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
>>>
>>> I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory or
>>> advisory and:
>>>
>>> There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
>>> Code)
>>>
>>> 140
>>> Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT
>>> drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its
>>> times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a
>>> broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any
>>> cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
>>>
>>> If this are indeed the definitions of mandatory and advisory cycle
>>> lanes - I would like to know where they are defined as such : anyone?
>>> Are they in common usage?
>> Yes, those are the ones we're talking about. The words mandatory and
>> advisory aren't in the HC, however a quick google (why haven't you done
>> that?) will give you plenty to play with in the form of government websites
>> among others.
>
> You jump to conclusions too easily.
>
> I had never heard of the term. A reasonable assumption would be that
> there are such things as mandatory cycle lanes (which must be used in
> some circumstances).
>
> I look in the Highway Code - there is no mention of mandatory cycle
> lanes.
>
> I used Google and found two parochial councils using the term.
>
> I asked here.
>
> Is that OK for you?
>
> (Any way - the point is - it is a crap term - I suspect that if asked
> - most road users would not know what it meant and would try mandatory
> for cyclists to use)
>
>
>> So yes, it's common usage. Once again you demonstrate yourself to a) be
>> particularly uninformed and b) utterly incapable of looking things up for
>> yourself. The former isn't a great sin, the latter is inexcusable.
>
> Once again you demonstrate that you are willing to jump to conclusions
> and come to the wrong answer.
> Both of these are traits of ****wits in uk.rec.cycling.
> --
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> the two are incompatible.

Judith,

If we're all ****wits in u.r.cycling then why don't you just **** off
back to your seeds and ISAs and leave us alone?

Steve C

[judith]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:01:24 +0100, Steve C >
wrote:

<snip>

>> Once again you demonstrate that you are willing to jump to conclusions
>> and come to the wrong answer.
>> Both of these are traits of ****wits in uk.rec.cycling.
>> --
>> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
>> the two are incompatible.
>
>Judith,
>
>If we're all ****wits in u.r.cycling then why don't you just **** off
>back to your seeds and ISAs and leave us alone?
>
>Steve C


I say "Both of these are traits of ****wits in urc" - does this say
"all the people in urc cycling are ****wits" - no.

But is that how you read it - yes.
Does this make you a ****wit - most certainly


--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible.

[Steve C[_2_]]

judith wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:01:24 +0100, Steve C >
> wrote:

>> Steve C
>
>
> I say "Both of these are traits of ****wits in urc" - does this say
> "all the people in urc cycling are ****wits" - no.
>
> But is that how you read it - yes.
> Does this make you a ****wit - most certainly
>

and how about ChrisM who gave you a completely reasonable answer about
transfering video to PCs?
Message reproduced below from
http://www.wirelessforums.org/uk-telecom-mobile/nokia-6500-transfer-video-pc-43150.html

"judith
Guest

Posts: n/a
Default Re: Nokia 6500 Transfer Video to PC
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:30:30 +0100, "ChrisM"
wrote:

>In message ,
>judith > Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
>
>> A friend has recorded a video on his 6500 - he is IT illiterate.
>>
>> What is the easiest/cheapest way to get the video on to a PC please?
>
>Are YOU IT literate? Can you offer him some assistance with this?
>If you have a PC with Bluetooth then the easiest/cheapest way would probably
>be to send the video to the PC using that, but it would take a small amount
>of PC knowledge in order to get it to work, so they would need your help, if
>you can provide it. Otherwise, the USB cable that came with the phone would
>probably do the job.
>As Jon said, the software that came bundled with the phone would probably
>make the process easier(as long as you can install it on your 'puter...)
>
>HTH

Many thanks for your assistance.
I am sorry if I have misunderstood the purpose of a newsgroup - I had
thought it was somewhere where you could ask a sensible question and
get a sensible answer. I expected people to offer alternatives such
as - bluetooth, software for the PC, e-mail, take the sim card out and
take it to a shop, sms to a web site, read sim card with reader
connected to PC - whatever people had experience of.

I apologise for wasting your time.

foc"

What do you mean by "foc"? I also noticed that you never had the guts to
follow up his reply?

"eh?!

What did I say to cause such offence? Seriously, I'd appreciate an answer to
that, I though my response might be of SOME use to you!

I thought my answer was perfectly sensible. IMO, that would be the easiest,
quickest and cheapest way to get a picture from the phone to the computer...

If you don't have bluetooth on the computer, transferring it by the phones
MEMORY (not SIM) card is probably the next easiest.
You can send an MMS message to an email address, so that'd work too, but
will obviously cost something(and the picture may be too big for an MMS)
If you don't want general advise, but are after a step-by-step set of
instructions then you should ask. I don't have a Nokia6500 or any manuals
for that phone, so I can't really help further.




--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)"

The fact that you didn't understand ChrisM's reply shows that you're not
very bright, so it's no wonder that you have to ask the same question
over and over again. Maybe if we all tell you often enough it will
eventually sink back that no one wants you. Go plant your seeds and
watch your flowers growing, at least they'll love you.

Steve C

[Colin Nelson]

"judith" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:39:29 +0100, "Clive George"
> > wrote:
>
> >"judith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
> >>
> >> Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
> >> this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
> >> for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
> >>
> >> I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory or
> >> advisory and:
> >>
> >> There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
> >> Code)
> >>
> >> 140
> >> Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT
> >> drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its
> >> times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a
> >> broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any
> >> cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
> >>
> >> If this are indeed the definitions of mandatory and advisory cycle
> >> lanes - I would like to know where they are defined as such : anyone?
> >> Are they in common usage?
> >
> >Yes, those are the ones we're talking about. The words mandatory and
> >advisory aren't in the HC, however a quick google (why haven't you done
> >that?) will give you plenty to play with in the form of government websites
> >among others.
>
> You jump to conclusions too easily.
>
> I had never heard of the term. A reasonable assumption would be that
> there are such things as mandatory cycle lanes (which must be used in
> some circumstances).
>
> I look in the Highway Code - there is no mention of mandatory cycle
> lanes.
>
> I used Google and found two parochial councils using the term.
>
> I asked here.
>
> Is that OK for you?
>
> (Any way - the point is - it is a crap term - I suspect that if asked
> - most road users would not know what it meant and would try mandatory
> for cyclists to use)
>
>
> >So yes, it's common usage. Once again you demonstrate yourself to a) be
> >particularly uninformed and b) utterly incapable of looking things up for
> >yourself. The former isn't a great sin, the latter is inexcusable.
>
> Once again you demonstrate that you are willing to jump to conclusions
> and come to the wrong answer.
> Both of these are traits of ****wits in uk.rec.cycling.
> --
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> the two are incompatible.

Miss this did you "judith"?


"judith" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 10:20:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
> >On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
> >>
> >> >Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
> >> >this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
> >> >for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
> >>
> >> A reasonable error to make - I have been driving for years and have
> >> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
> >> was *mandatory* to use.
> >
> >As a licensed driver, you ought to be familiar with the rules of the
> >road and keep up with changes.
> >
> >>
> >> >I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory or
> >> >advisory and:
> >>
> >> >There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
> >> >Code)
> >>
> >> Well they were wrong : there is no mention of *mandatory" cylce lanes
> >> in the Highway Code as far as I know.
>
>
> Don't be shy - can you point out where these "mandatory" cycle lanes
> are actually defined as such in the Highway Code please.
> --


The Highway Code is quite a small booklet and only gives general guidance with pointers to legal
obligations (but obviously can't include all the laws regarding roads/highways/footpaths etc usage).
Anyone interested enough would read in the Highway Code rule 63,

"63
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway
(see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before
pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users.
Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills,
but they can make your journey safer".

and then have a look at rule 140.
"140
Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive
or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation.
Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable.
You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.


[Law RTRA sects 5 & 8]"

A little more interest (and searching) may lead to

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/

chapter 5:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/trafficsignsmanualchapter5ro4183

page 95 and onwards:

"16.1 ... Cycle lanes may be mandatory, where other vehicles are
excluded for at least part of the day (see paras 16.4 to 16.8), or
advisory, where other vehicles may enter if necessary and when it is
safe to do so (see paras 16.9 and 16.10)."

"16.4 Mandatory cycle lanes are parts of the carriageway which other
vehicles must not enter except to pick up or set down passengers, or
in case of emergency."

"16.5 With-flow mandatory cycle lanes are bounded by a 150 mm
continuous white line to diagram 1049."

"16.7 A traffic regulation order will be required to prohibit other
vehicles from using the lane (except for emergency and statutory
purposes). The order should also prohibit waiting and loading during
the operational hours of the lane. Yellow 'no waiting' lines and kerb
'no loading' marks are not necessary, unless it is required to
prohibit waiting or loading for some period outside the operational
hours of the cycle lane."

OK ...


--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[judith]

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 21:46:34 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> wrote:

>
>"judith" > wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:39:29 +0100, "Clive George"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >"judith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>> >>
>> >> Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
>> >> this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
>> >> for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
>> >>
>> >> I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory or
>> >> advisory and:
>> >>
>> >> There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
>> >> Code)
>> >>
>> >> 140
>> >> Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT
>> >> drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its
>> >> times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a
>> >> broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any
>> >> cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
>> >>
>> >> If this are indeed the definitions of mandatory and advisory cycle
>> >> lanes - I would like to know where they are defined as such : anyone?
>> >> Are they in common usage?
>> >
>> >Yes, those are the ones we're talking about. The words mandatory and
>> >advisory aren't in the HC, however a quick google (why haven't you done
>> >that?) will give you plenty to play with in the form of government websites
>> >among others.
>>
>> You jump to conclusions too easily.
>>
>> I had never heard of the term. A reasonable assumption would be that
>> there are such things as mandatory cycle lanes (which must be used in
>> some circumstances).
>>
>> I look in the Highway Code - there is no mention of mandatory cycle
>> lanes.
>>
>> I used Google and found two parochial councils using the term.
>>
>> I asked here.
>>
>> Is that OK for you?
>>
>> (Any way - the point is - it is a crap term - I suspect that if asked
>> - most road users would not know what it meant and would try mandatory
>> for cyclists to use)
>>
>>
>> >So yes, it's common usage. Once again you demonstrate yourself to a) be
>> >particularly uninformed and b) utterly incapable of looking things up for
>> >yourself. The former isn't a great sin, the latter is inexcusable.
>>
>> Once again you demonstrate that you are willing to jump to conclusions
>> and come to the wrong answer.
>> Both of these are traits of ****wits in uk.rec.cycling.
>> --
>> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
>> the two are incompatible.
>
>Miss this did you "judith"?
>


No - I've seen it - thank you for the information - it does not stop
me responding to people who try and make things up:

"There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
Code)"
--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible.

[Colin Nelson]

"judith" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 21:46:34 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"judith" > wrote in message ...
> >> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:39:29 +0100, "Clive George"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >"judith" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
> >> >>
> >> >> Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
> >> >> this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
> >> >> for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
> >> >>
> >> >> I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory or
> >> >> advisory and:
> >> >>
> >> >> There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
> >> >> Code)
> >> >>
> >> >> 140
> >> >> Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT
> >> >> drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its
> >> >> times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a
> >> >> broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any
> >> >> cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
> >> >>
> >> >> If this are indeed the definitions of mandatory and advisory cycle
> >> >> lanes - I would like to know where they are defined as such : anyone?
> >> >> Are they in common usage?
> >> >
> >> >Yes, those are the ones we're talking about. The words mandatory and
> >> >advisory aren't in the HC, however a quick google (why haven't you done
> >> >that?) will give you plenty to play with in the form of government websites
> >> >among others.
> >>
> >> You jump to conclusions too easily.
> >>
> >> I had never heard of the term. A reasonable assumption would be that
> >> there are such things as mandatory cycle lanes (which must be used in
> >> some circumstances).
> >>
> >> I look in the Highway Code - there is no mention of mandatory cycle
> >> lanes.
> >>
> >> I used Google and found two parochial councils using the term.
> >>
> >> I asked here.
> >>
> >> Is that OK for you?
> >>
> >> (Any way - the point is - it is a crap term - I suspect that if asked
> >> - most road users would not know what it meant and would try mandatory
> >> for cyclists to use)
> >>
> >>
> >> >So yes, it's common usage. Once again you demonstrate yourself to a) be
> >> >particularly uninformed and b) utterly incapable of looking things up for
> >> >yourself. The former isn't a great sin, the latter is inexcusable.
> >>
> >> Once again you demonstrate that you are willing to jump to conclusions
> >> and come to the wrong answer.
> >> Both of these are traits of ****wits in uk.rec.cycling.
> >> --
> >> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> >> the two are incompatible.
> >
> >Miss this did you "judith"?
> >
>
>
> No - I've seen it - thank you for the information - it does not stop
> me responding to people who try and make things up:
>
> "There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
> Code)"

If I remember correctly ... I posted the above quote along with the relevant sections (copied and pasted from the most recent copy of the Highway Code) that describe the two types of cycle lane (and the legal obligations regarding their use), and have since copied and pasted further information from official sources in an attempt to help you (and others who seemingly have not kept up to date with such things). I have not made anything up, nor have I quoted any of your posting out of context or snipped thereby changing the meaning/context of your posts and I will be obliged if you will afford the same courtesy to my posts. I don't mind a bit of light hearted wit and repartee but I'm finding your 'style' of posting a little pointless ... or perhaps I'm missing something that's far too subtle (for me).


--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[Colin McKenzie]

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> Also it's a bit vague about what happens when there is a cycle box and the
> lights change. Do cars past the first line have to stop in the box before
> the second one or should they carry on?

Both lines are stop lines for motor vehicles. Only the front one applies
to cyclists. So you should stop if you can do so safely even if you have
passed (or will need to pass) the back line. [Front and back relative to
direction of travel.]

If drivers get into the box this way, I stay behind them. If they cross
the back line when they could have stopped at it, I will get in front of
them, if I can do so safely.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[Martin[_2_]]

Colin McKenzie wrote:
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> Also it's a bit vague about what happens when there is a cycle box and
>> the lights change. Do cars past the first line have to stop in the
>> box before the second one or should they carry on?
>
> Both lines are stop lines for motor vehicles. Only the front one applies
> to cyclists. So you should stop if you can do so safely even if you have
> passed (or will need to pass) the back line. [Front and back relative to
> direction of travel.]
>
> If drivers get into the box this way, I stay behind them. If they cross
> the back line when they could have stopped at it, I will get in front of
> them, if I can do so safely.

My understanding is that both lines also apply to cyclists, but if
cyclists use the feeder lane, we can bypass the first stop line. This is
why when there is not a feeder lane, the first lane does not often
extend to the kerb, allowing cyclists to go through the gap.

[judith]

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 22:36:35 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> wrote:

<snip>


>> "There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
>> Code)"
>
>If I remember correctly ... I posted the above quote along with the relevant sections (copied and pasted from the most recent copy of the Highway Code) that describe the two types of cycle lane (and the legal obligations regarding their use),

<snip>
>or perhaps I'm missing something that's far too subtle (for me).

Indeed you did - and I found your links to be helpful - thank you.

What was not helpful was the original "quote" - which I have put
above: Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway Code)
(Your capitals)

The phrase/heading "Mandatory Cycle Lane" - is not one from the
Highway Code - which is certainly the implication above - perhaps I
though that you were trying to be a bit too clever in the implication
;-)


I agree that the term is used elsewhere - but as far as I know - not
in the law and not in the Highway Code.




--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible.

[judith]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 22:12:52 +0100, Steve C >
wrote:

>judith wrote:
>
>> --
>> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
>> the two are incompatible.
>
>Considering you represent yourself as someone who hates cyclists why the
>strange signature above? Do you think cyclists shouldn't wear helmets or
>that they should? Are you basically saying no one should cycle so
>promote helmet wear to stop people cycling? Is this your opinion? Are
>you talking about road cyclists or off road (MTB, not pavement)
>cyclists? Do youmean for adults or children?
>
>Or did you just mean something completely different?
>
>Steve C

I do not hate cyclists.
I dislike people who lie, and who intentionally try and mislead.
I think that people should not be hypocritical on what they say
regarding helmet wearing.
I dislike people who will evade simple questions - and then when you
insist on an answer, say that you are trolling.
I dislike people who encourage their own children to wear cycle
helmets - and then openly discourage the use of helmets elsewhere.


You're not any of the above - are you?

Oh sorry - I missed out:

I dislike people who intentionally mis-read and mis-quote in order to
try and mislead other posters.


I think that all cyclists on all roads should wear helmets.
I think that "mandatory cycle lanes" should mean what they say.
I am not saying no-one should cycle.
I do not think that promoting wearing of helmets stops people cycling
- I think that anyone who thinks this is a ****wit.
I do not think that cyclists should ride on pavements.


I copied "you can either promote cycling or promote helmets, the two
are incompatible." and put it in my sig - because I thought it was
nonsense - the sort of thing that an anti-helmet nazi would say.

It was something Guy Chapman ("he's just zis Guy you know") said
somewhere.

It is nonsense - do you agree?

(PS Don't hesitate to ask any more questions - nice to talk to you)

(PPS: I've put the thread back to urc after you altered it - hope you
don't mind - I think it's lost the ul relevance)
--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[Colin Nelson]

"judith" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 22:36:35 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> >> "There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
> >> Code)"
> >
> >If I remember correctly ... I posted the above quote along with the relevant sections (copied and pasted from the most recent copy of the Highway Code) that describe the two types of cycle lane (and the legal obligations regarding their use),
>
> <snip>
> >or perhaps I'm missing something that's far too subtle (for me).
>
> Indeed you did - and I found your links to be helpful - thank you.
>
> What was not helpful was the original "quote" - which I have put
> above: Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway Code)
> (Your capitals)
>
> The phrase/heading "Mandatory Cycle Lane" - is not one from the
> Highway Code - which is certainly the implication above - perhaps I
> though that you were trying to be a bit too clever in the implication
> ;-)
>
>
> I agree that the term is used elsewhere - but as far as I know - not
> in the law and not in the Highway Code.
>
>
>
>
> --
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> the two are incompatible.

I think that my education/intellect will bar me from any attempt to be 'clever' hence my unfortunate wording re Mandatory Cycle Lane (from the Highway Code), but I do attempt (in my limited way) to help others if I think that I can. I've done the best I can to help you with your understanding of cycle lanes including looking/searching for what I understand to be relevant legal/informative/helpful sources and supplying links to such sites, yet you seem (to me) to keep on nit picking on anything but the main issue of the description and or legality of mandatory cycle lanes. If I have managed to make your understanding of cycle lanes (in particular or in general - legal or otherwise) any clearer I have achieved what I set out to do (in my own possibly/probably illiterate/clumsy way), and am unable to do more. Please bear in mind that (as I have pointed out in other posts to you) that the Highway Code offers only very basic/limited information and/or advice. Anyway I've tried to the best of my abilities ... If I've failed it wont be the first (or last) time.


--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[Zog The Undeniable]

judith wrote:
> I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>
> Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
> this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
> for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
>
> I was told in no uncertain terms that all cycle lanes are mandatory or
> advisory and:
>
> There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane (from The Highway
> Code)
>
> 140
> Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT
> drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its
> times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a
> broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any
> cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
>
> If this are indeed the definitions of mandatory and advisory cycle
> lanes - I would like to know where they are defined as such : anyone?
> Are they in common usage?
>
>
>
>
There are, of course, mandatory cycle routes (which may be normal roads)
where cycles are prohibited from using a certain stretch of dangerous
road. Examples that spring to mind, excluding motorways and (M) roads,
include the Saltash tunnel and the A45/A428 flyover in Northampton.

That's a different can of worms though.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:13:45 +0100 someone who may be Zog The
Undeniable > wrote this:-

>There are, of course, mandatory cycle routes (which may be normal roads)
>where cycles are prohibited from using a certain stretch of dangerous
>road.

Or a stretch of road where cycling is not particularly dangerous but
officials wish to get those dammed cycles out of the way. There is a
stretch of the A90 like this.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Mark[_11_]]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:46:18 +0100, JethroUK© > wrote:

>
>
>"Ian Smith" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 20:07:45 +0100, JethroUK© > wrote:
>>>
>
>
>> It is not mandatory to cycle in a mandatory cycle lane.
>
>It most definitely IS byyyyyyyyyy definition
>
>Mandatory means You MUST


I understand that the Government have introduced the terminology prior
to actually making some lanes mandatory which is under consideration
and likely to be introduced within a couple of years.

It is obvious when you think about it - just ask yourself what do you
think a mandatory cycle lane is? - there is only one sensible answer.

I think that they have realised that many people would welcome this
move.

[JethroUK©]

"Mark" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:46:18 +0100, JethroUK© > wrote:
>

> just ask yourself what do you
> think a mandatory cycle lane is? - there is only one sensible answer.
>

Quite!

It literally it means cyclist MUST use it

Any reference to cars is purely incidental

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 21:53:46 +0100, Mark > said in
>:

>I understand that the Government have introduced the terminology prior
>to actually making some lanes mandatory which is under consideration
>and likely to be introduced within a couple of years.
>I think that they have realised that many people would welcome this
>move.

Only problem is, none of them are cyclists. But actually I think
you made this up; there are no known plans to make use of cycle
facilities compulsory, and attempts to make the Highway Code
recommendation stronger were slapped down in no uncertain terms.

Here are some great reasons why cycle lane use should not be made
compulsory:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/index.htm

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Daniel Barlow]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > writes:

> Here are some great reasons why cycle lane use should not be made
> compulsory:
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/index.htm

Hmm. Seen that example somewhere before ;-)


-dan

[Nick[_4_]]

JethroUK© wrote:
>
>
> "Mark" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:46:18 +0100, JethroUK© > wrote:
>>
>
>> just ask yourself what do you
>> think a mandatory cycle lane is? - there is only one sensible answer.
>>
>
> Quite!
>
> It literally it means cyclist MUST use it
>
> Any reference to cars is purely incidental

How often must each cyclist use the lane?

Is it all the time, like the Flying Dutchman, or do I only have to use
each lane once.

I hope someone will post a map of where they all are so I can get around
to them all, it does seem to be a very onerous legal requirement.

[JethroUK©]

"Colin Nelson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "judith" > wrote in message
> ...


>>
>> >> "There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane"
>> >

which is that cyclists MUST it - hence the word Mandatory = You Must


Cars may well be prohibited from using a Mandatory cycle lane - but that is
not why it is described as Mandatory - that solely mean cyclist MUST use it

[JethroUK©]

"baggy1963" > wrote in message
...
> On 2 Aug, 09:48, nik.morgan > wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 08:39:18 +0100, Jugger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>


> Motorists will be fined if they park on them.

Motorist would probably be fined for parking on *any* cycle path - so that's
not why the cycle path is defined as specifically *Mandatory*

Mandatory means You MUST

Hence cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle path - by definition

[JethroUK©]

"Andrew" > wrote in message
...
> judith wrote:
>> I have got myself in to trouble with the cyclists again.
>>
>> Someone used the term "mandatory cycle lane" - I was not familiar with
>> this term and asked did they mean a cycle lane which it was mandatory
>> for cyclists to use - not being aware that there were such things.
>
>
> If anyone asked me what a mandatory cycle lane was - then I would say it
> is one you have to use.

You are quite right

"mandatory" literally means "you must"

and in this case cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane

[JethroUK©]

"Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>> wrote:
>>>


>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>

You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

"JethroUK©" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "baggy1963" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2 Aug, 09:48, nik.morgan > wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 08:39:18 +0100, Jugger wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>
>
>
>> Motorists will be fined if they park on them.
>
> Motorist would probably be fined for parking on *any* cycle path - so
> that's not why the cycle path is defined as specifically *Mandatory*

Assuming you mean cycle lane, not cycle path (they are not the same),
motorists are only prohibited from parking on cycle lanes during their
periods of operation.(HC Rule 240).

>
> Mandatory means You MUST
>
> Hence cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle path - by definition

is the wrong answer.

Rule 61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines,
cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so.
Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience
and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

Note the "Use of these facilities is not compulsory" bit.

[Martin[_2_]]

JethroUK© wrote:
>
>
> "Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote:
>>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>
>
>>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>>
>
> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane

Is this enshrined in law anywhere?

Or is the HC correct, and mandatory cycle lanes are optional for cyclists?

[judith]

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:43:42 +0100, Martin >
wrote:

>JethroUK© wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>>>
>>
>> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>
>Is this enshrined in law anywhere?
>
>Or is the HC correct, and mandatory cycle lanes are optional for cyclists?

Where in the Highway Code is the word mandatory used with regard to
cycle lanes?

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[Chris Malcolm]

In uk.rec.cycling Martin > wrote:
> JethroUK? wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>>>
>>
>> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane

> Is this enshrined in law anywhere?

No, nor in a dictionary.

> Or is the HC correct, and mandatory cycle lanes are optional for cyclists?

Mandatory means there is a rule which must be followed. It doesn't
necessarily have to be a rule which cyclists must follow, which in
this case as it happens it isn't.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

[Colin McKenzie]

JethroUK© wrote:
> "Mark" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:46:18 +0100, JethroUK© > wrote:
>> just ask yourself what do you
>> think a mandatory cycle lane is? - there is only one sensible answer.

> Quite!
> It literally it means cyclist MUST use it
> Any reference to cars is purely incidental

NO. As in many matters common sense is a poor guide. It is illegal to
drive in a mandatory cycle lane (mandatory to keep out) during the hours
of operation. It is not illegal to drive in an advisory cycle lane
(advisory to keep out).

The only cyclists who are compelled to do anything by a mandatory cycle
lane are motorcyclists, who must keep out.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
Steve C > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> martin wrote:
>> Bongman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Talking to friends, colleagues and family, none of them knew of, or
>>> had seen a "minimum speed" road sign.
>>
>> I don't recall ever seeing one in almost 30 years of driving.
>>
>> Come to think of it, why haven't the local councils cottoned on to
>> that one? Stick a minimum speed limit sign up, couple with a speed
>> camera and pay your local farmer to drive his tractor down the road
>> at rush-hour. Best not give them any ideas ...
>
> Only ones I've ever seen are on the Dartford Tunnel.

IIRC there's one in the southbound side of the Hackney Wick underpass; I
suspect there may be others lurking in tunnels as well.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
und keine Eie.

[nik.morgan]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:22:23 +0100, JethroUK© wrote
(in article >):

>
>
> "Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote:
>>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>
>
>>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>>
>
> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>


Like they must not ride on the pavements, that type of must?

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:22:23 +0100, JethroUK© > said
in >:

>You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane

An interesting if entirely uninformed and factually wrong opinion.
No, actually, not that interesting on reflection, just uninformed
and factually wrong.

You may wish to lobby for this to be the case, but bear in mind that
the originators of compulsory use of cycle facilities (in 1930s
Germany as it happens) have a less than stellar reputation
politically these days, and you may not wish to be associated with
them even to this limited extent.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[judith]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:24:13 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:22:23 +0100, JethroUK© > said
>in >:
>
>>You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>
>An interesting if entirely uninformed and factually wrong opinion.
>No, actually, not that interesting on reflection, just uninformed
>and factually wrong.
>
>You may wish to lobby for this to be the case, but bear in mind that
>the originators of compulsory use of cycle facilities (in 1930s
>Germany as it happens) have a less than stellar reputation
>politically these days, and you may not wish to be associated with
>them even to this limited extent.
>
>Guy


I'm thinking of starting a campaign for proper "mandatory cycle lanes"
and also compulsory wearing of high-visibility clothes for cyclists
(as they have in France).

Anyone have any pointers on how to get this up and running?

Is it something that the CTC would sponsor?
--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[David Damerell]

Quoting Peter Fox >:

[Empty article with subject "=DO NOT FEED THE TROLL="]

Knock it off before it turns into spam.
--
David Damerell > Kill the tomato!
Today is Wednesday, July.

[Graz]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:41:14 +0100, nik.morgan
> wrote:

>On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:22:23 +0100, JethroUK© wrote
>(in article >):
>
>>
>>
>> "Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>>>
>>
>> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>>
>
>
>Like they must not ride on the pavements, that type of must?

They must ride on pavements if they're black.

[J. Chisholm]

JethroUK© wrote:
>
>
> "Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wrote:
>>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>
>
>>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>>
>
> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane

I don't suppose it will stop these Idiots who clearly need to be banned
from driving, but as others are quoting from the HighWay Code:

"Rule 61
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop
lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe
to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on
your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer."

Note the " use of these facilities is not compulsory"

Jim Chisholm

[judith]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:34:54 +0100, "J. Chisholm" >
wrote:

>JethroUK© wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>>>
>>
>> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>
>I don't suppose it will stop these Idiots who clearly need to be banned
>from driving, but as others are quoting from the HighWay Code:
>
>"Rule 61
>Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop
>lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe
>to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on
>your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer."
>
>Note the " use of these facilities is not compulsory"
>
>Jim Chisholm


You are right but the confusion is caused by calling them "mandatory
cycle lanes" - a term which is not used in the Highway Code - but is
used in the Roadsigns document.

It is pure bad terminology which has caused the confusion.
--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[Colin Nelson]

"judith" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:24:13 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:22:23 +0100, JethroUK© > said
> >in >:
> >
> >>You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
> >
> >An interesting if entirely uninformed and factually wrong opinion.
> >No, actually, not that interesting on reflection, just uninformed
> >and factually wrong.
> >
> >You may wish to lobby for this to be the case, but bear in mind that
> >the originators of compulsory use of cycle facilities (in 1930s
> >Germany as it happens) have a less than stellar reputation
> >politically these days, and you may not wish to be associated with
> >them even to this limited extent.
> >
> >Guy
>
>
> I'm thinking of starting a campaign for proper "mandatory cycle lanes"
> and also compulsory wearing of high-visibility clothes for cyclists
> (as they have in France).
>
> Anyone have any pointers on how to get this up and running?
>
> Is it something that the CTC would sponsor?
> --
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

Tut Tut! If wit was **** you'd die of constipation "judith". Have you missed something out regarding the required circumstances of cyclists wearing high viz vests (as required in France)?
--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[judith]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:06:24 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> wrote:

<snip>

>> I'm thinking of starting a campaign for proper "mandatory cycle lanes"
>> and also compulsory wearing of high-visibility clothes for cyclists
>> (as they have in France).
>>
>> Anyone have any pointers on how to get this up and running?
>>
>> Is it something that the CTC would sponsor?
>> --
>> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
>> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)
>
>Tut Tut! If wit was **** you'd die of constipation "judith". Have you missed something out regarding the required circumstances of cyclists wearing high viz vests (as required in France)?


Not at all smart arse - as they have in France - means under the same
circumstances/conditions as they have introduced in France - as has
recently been discussed here.

Do you have a point to make?




--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[JethroUK©]

"Adam Lea" > wrote in message
...
>
> "JethroUK©" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> "baggy1963" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2 Aug, 09:48, nik.morgan > wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 08:39:18 +0100, Jugger wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>> Motorists will be fined if they park on them.
>>
>> Motorist would probably be fined for parking on *any* cycle path - so
>> that's not why the cycle path is defined as specifically *Mandatory*
>
> Assuming you mean cycle lane, not cycle path (they are not the same),
> motorists are only prohibited from parking on cycle lanes during their
> periods of operation.(HC Rule 240).
>
>>
>> Mandatory means You MUST
>>
>> Hence cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle path - by definition
>
> is the wrong answer.
>
> Rule 61
> Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines,
> cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so.
> Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your
> experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.
>
> Note the "Use of these facilities is not compulsory" bit.
>
>

Use of MANDATORY cycle lane by cyclists IS compulsory - that's is *the*
definition of mandatory - any other reference is purely incidental (could
equally apply to non-mandatory cycle lanes)

[JethroUK©]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 22:57:03 +0100, JethroUK© > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Colin Nelson" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> "judith" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> >> "There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane"
>>>> >
>>
>>which is that cyclists MUST it - hence the word Mandatory = You Must
>
> Perhaps you should try looking it up in a dictionary, you moron. It
> means "as mandated", i.e. as described bya mandate, or law.
>

And in the case of Mandatory Cycle lanes - Cyclists MUST use them -
irrespective of any/all other regulations which could equally apply to a
non-mandatory cycle lane

[Alex Potter]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:40:12 +0100, JethroUK© wrote:

<snipped drivel>

There are some very ignorant people in Leicestershire.

--
Regards
Alex
http://www.ap-consulting.co.uk
http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

[Clive George]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:37:10 +0100, JethroUK© > wrote:
>
>>Use of MANDATORY cycle lane by cyclists IS compulsory - that's is *the*
>>definition of mandatory -
>
> How many times do you need to be told? THAT'S NOT WHAT THE WORD MEANS!

Telling him won't make any difference - his mind is made up, and nothing
will shift it. The fact he's wrong is irrelevant.

[JethroUK©]

"Colin McKenzie" > wrote in message
...
> JethroUK© wrote:
>> "Mark" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:46:18 +0100, JethroUK© > wrote:
>>> just ask yourself what do you
>>> think a mandatory cycle lane is? - there is only one sensible answer.
>
>> Quite!
>> It literally it means cyclist MUST use it
>> Any reference to cars is purely incidental
>
> NO. As in many matters common sense is a poor guide. It is illegal to
> drive in a mandatory cycle lane (mandatory to keep out) during the hours
> of operation. It is not illegal to drive in an advisory cycle lane
> (advisory to keep out).
>
> The only cyclists who are compelled to do anything by a mandatory cycle
> lane are motorcyclists, who must keep out.
>

Nope

Cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane - that IS what defines as MANDATORY

Common sense tells us that if cars are *prohibited* from driving in a cycle
lane then it would be indicated by *PROHIBITION* sign = You MUST NOT

The sign would indicate a car over cycle lane on a white background with a
red strike through = Prohibition

[Clive George]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...

> It's not as if I even care what the rules are in the UK, but I hate to
> see people spouting off nonsense.

However do you survive usenet? :-)

[JethroUK©]

"Chris Malcolm" > wrote in message
...
> In uk.rec.cycling Martin > wrote:
>> JethroUK? wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>>>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>>>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>
>> Is this enshrined in law anywhere?
>
> No, nor in a dictionary.
>
>> Or is the HC correct, and mandatory cycle lanes are optional for
>> cyclists?
>
> Mandatory means there is a rule which must be followed.

And thus means - You Must - by law

The direct opposite to this is prohibition which means You MUST NOT - by law

We don't and never have used mandatory signage (white on blue) to indicate
prohibition (black on white with red strike)

If vehicles MUST NOT do something - it is *always* indicated by Prohibition
signage - not mandatory signage

[JethroUK©]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:49:53 +0100, "Clive George"
> > wrote:
>


> Many years ago I won a court case when accused of riding my motorcycle
> without lights. I was, of course, perfectly within my rights to do so,

Nope - You either bent the truth or it's a stone faced lie

If a vehicle has lights - they *have* to work whether it's day or night

[Peter Grange]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:53:45 +0100, JethroUK© > wrote:

>
>
>"Colin McKenzie" > wrote in message
...
>> JethroUK© wrote:
>>> "Mark" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:46:18 +0100, JethroUK© > wrote:
>>>> just ask yourself what do you
>>>> think a mandatory cycle lane is? - there is only one sensible answer.
>>
>>> Quite!
>>> It literally it means cyclist MUST use it
>>> Any reference to cars is purely incidental
>>
>> NO. As in many matters common sense is a poor guide. It is illegal to
>> drive in a mandatory cycle lane (mandatory to keep out) during the hours
>> of operation. It is not illegal to drive in an advisory cycle lane
>> (advisory to keep out).
>>
>> The only cyclists who are compelled to do anything by a mandatory cycle
>> lane are motorcyclists, who must keep out.
>>
>
>Nope
>
>Cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane - that IS what defines as MANDATORY
>
>Common sense tells us that if cars are *prohibited* from driving in a cycle
>lane then it would be indicated by *PROHIBITION* sign = You MUST NOT
>
>The sign would indicate a car over cycle lane on a white background with a
>red strike through = Prohibition

What a wazzock. You know, when I retired I thought my PC would be good
for a year or two. I didn't allow for the extra disk space for the
ever-expanding killfile :-)

pete

[Simon[_6_]]

JethroUK© wrote:
>
>
> "Chris Malcolm" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In uk.rec.cycling Martin > wrote:
>>> JethroUK? wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>>>>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>>>>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>>
>>> Is this enshrined in law anywhere?
>>
>> No, nor in a dictionary.
>>
>>> Or is the HC correct, and mandatory cycle lanes are optional for
>>> cyclists?
>>
>> Mandatory means there is a rule which must be followed.
>
> And thus means - You Must - by law
>
> The direct opposite to this is prohibition which means You MUST NOT - by
> law
>
> We don't and never have used mandatory signage (white on blue) to
> indicate prohibition (black on white with red strike)
>
> If vehicles MUST NOT do something - it is *always* indicated by
> Prohibition signage - not mandatory signage
>
>
>
Well tell the government, they don't agree


http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/issues/mcls/

For a number of years, Cambridge Cycling Campaign has had concerns over
the lack of compliance by motorists of the regulations regarding cycle
lanes delineated by a solid line. The Highway Code says in rule 119:

Cycle Lanes: ... You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked
by a solid line during its times of operation.

The law, in the form of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, gives
extremely few exceptions for this rule regarding Mandatory Cycle Lanes
(MCLs).

And look at:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/40/article15.html

"Dear Dr Dynamo,

Why do some cycle lanes have a solid white line and some a broken white
line?

Yours, John E, Fulbourn

Dear John,

Let's start by making clear what we mean by a cycle lane, because I know
some people don't use the term correctly. A cycle lane is a strip of
road, usually alongside the kerb, intended for cyclists. Cycle lanes are
always part of the carriageway of the road. We never use the term 'cycle
lanes' to refer to those cycle paths which are separated from the road
by a kerb and sometimes by a strip of grass as well, and which are
sometimes shared with pedestrians. These are given a variety of names:
cycle paths, cycle tracks, or cycleways. But never cycle lanes.
'Mandatory cycle lanes are mandatory for motorists, not cyclists'

A cycle lane is separated from the rest of the road by a white line
painted on the road. There are two types of cycle lane: mandatory and
advisory. Mandatory cycle lanes are marked with a solid, continuous
white line. Advisory cycle lanes are marked with a broken, or dashed,
white line. Both types of cycle lane may also be given a coloured
surface to make them more obvious to drivers - in Cambridge a red
surface is often used.

So what's a mandatory cycle lane, then? Now the first thing to stress is
that the term 'mandatory' refers to motorists, not to cyclists. It means
that it is mandatory that motorists keep out of a mandatory cycle lane.
It does not mean that it is mandatory that cyclists keep in the lane.

Motorists must not drive in a mandatory cycle lane, nor may they park in
it - whether there are double yellow lines or not (though stopping for
short periods to load and unload is sometimes permitted).
Advisory cycle lanes

An advisory cycle lane, on the other hand, is simply that - advisory.
Motorists are advised not to drive or park in it, but it is not an
offence to do so (though if there are yellow lines the usual rules apply)."

[Simon[_6_]]

JethroUK© wrote:
>
>
> "Colin McKenzie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> JethroUK© wrote:
>>> "Mark" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:46:18 +0100, JethroUK© > wrote:
>>>> just ask yourself what do you
>>>> think a mandatory cycle lane is? - there is only one sensible answer.
>>
>>> Quite!
>>> It literally it means cyclist MUST use it
>>> Any reference to cars is purely incidental
>>
>> NO. As in many matters common sense is a poor guide. It is illegal to
>> drive in a mandatory cycle lane (mandatory to keep out) during the
>> hours of operation. It is not illegal to drive in an advisory cycle
>> lane (advisory to keep out).
>>
>> The only cyclists who are compelled to do anything by a mandatory
>> cycle lane are motorcyclists, who must keep out.
>>
>
> Nope
>
> Cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane - that IS what defines as
> MANDATORY

And buses must also use only a bus lane?

http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/transport/traffic/traffic_management/cycle_lane_road_markings.htm

>
> Common sense tells us that if cars are *prohibited* from driving in a
> cycle lane then it would be indicated by *PROHIBITION* sign = You MUST NOT
>
> The sign would indicate a car over cycle lane on a white background with
> a red strike through = Prohibition

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:08:05 +0100, JethroUK© > said
in >:

>Nope - You either bent the truth or it's a stone faced lie
>If a vehicle has lights - they *have* to work whether it's day or night

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

(RVLR)

Maintenance of lamps, reflectors, rear markings and devices

23.—(1) No person shall use, or cause or permit to be used, on a
road a vehicle unless every lamp, reflector, rear marking and device
to which this paragraph applies is in good working order and, in the
case of a lamp, clean.

[...]

(3) Paragraph (2) does not apply to-

[...]

(c) a defective lamp, reflector, dim-dip device or headlamp
levelling device on a vehicle in use on a road between sunrise and
sunset, if any such lamp, reflector or device became defective
during the journey which is in progress or if arrangements have been
made to remedy the defect with all reasonable expedition; or

So it would all hinge on when the lamp failed and what constitutes
"reasonable expedition", especially in a context where simply
removing the lamp immediately renders the vehicle compliant.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Trax]

On Aug 4, 3:44 pm, Ace > wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:37:10 +0100, JethroUK© > wrote:
> >Use of MANDATORY cycle lane by cyclists IS compulsory - that's is *the*
> >definition of mandatory -
>
> How many times do you need to be told? THAT'S NOT WHAT THE WORD MEANS!
>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7540427.stm

Trax

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:01:25 +0100, JethroUK© > said
in >:

>> Mandatory means there is a rule which must be followed.
>And thus means - You Must - by law

In this case you MUST NOT drive or park in them if you are a motor
vehicle user. But since you seem to believe something contrary to
the advice of the usually cited authorities, perhaps you could quote
the relevant statutory instrument. That would settle the argument
straight away.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:53:45 +0100, JethroUK© > said
in >:

>Cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane - that IS what defines as MANDATORY

In which case there is no such thing, by your definition, in the UK.

Alternately one may take the definition used in the Highway Code,
which is that it is a lane which motor traffic is forbidden to use.
This is backed up by numerous documents on the DfT website.

The term "mandatory cycle lane" is an informal one, I believe; I
cannot find a statutory instrument which defines the term. Feel
free to cite it.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Paul Rudin[_2_]]

JethroUK© > writes:


> Cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane

There is no such legal requirement. If there is you'll have no trouble
pointing us all to the relevant act of parliment.

> - that IS what defines as MANDATORY

In this case the mandate is on motor vehicles to stay out, rather than
on cycles to stay in.


It's a poor term to describe these legal things, because it leads to
exactly the misunderstanding that you've apparently formed. But your
confusion with the legal situation makes no difference to what it
actually is...

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Clive George > wrote:
> "Ace" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:37:10 +0100, JethroUK© > wrote:
> >
> >>Use of MANDATORY cycle lane by cyclists IS compulsory - that's is
> >>*the* definition of mandatory -
> >
> > How many times do you need to be told? THAT'S NOT WHAT THE WORD MEANS!
>
> Telling him won't make any difference - his mind is made up, and nothing
> will shift it. The fact he's wrong is irrelevant.

Actually, I don't think his mind is made up - he is so implacably
regurgitating the same thing, he _has_ to be doing it deliberately.
He is clearly an out-and-out troll, and the sooner everyone notices
the better.

Personally, I replied twice, but teh second time sent it only
elsewhere.

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

[Colin Nelson]

"Simon" > wrote in message ...>>>>> wrote:
<snipped a bit of stuff that's been repeated many times>
> >
> >
> >
> Well tell the government, they don't agree
>
>
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/issues/mcls/
>
> For a number of years, Cambridge Cycling Campaign has had concerns over
> the lack of compliance by motorists of the regulations regarding cycle
> lanes delineated by a solid line. The Highway Code says in rule 119:
>
> Cycle Lanes: ... You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked
> by a solid line during its times of operation.
>
> The law, in the form of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, gives
> extremely few exceptions for this rule regarding Mandatory Cycle Lanes
> (MCLs).
>
> And look at:
>
> http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/40/article15.html
>
> "Dear Dr Dynamo,
>
> Why do some cycle lanes have a solid white line and some a broken white
> line?
>
> Yours, John E, Fulbourn
>
> Dear John,
>
> Let's start by making clear what we mean by a cycle lane, because I know
> some people don't use the term correctly. A cycle lane is a strip of
> road, usually alongside the kerb, intended for cyclists. Cycle lanes are
> always part of the carriageway of the road. We never use the term 'cycle
> lanes' to refer to those cycle paths which are separated from the road
> by a kerb and sometimes by a strip of grass as well, and which are
> sometimes shared with pedestrians. These are given a variety of names:
> cycle paths, cycle tracks, or cycleways. But never cycle lanes.
> 'Mandatory cycle lanes are mandatory for motorists, not cyclists'
>
> A cycle lane is separated from the rest of the road by a white line
> painted on the road. There are two types of cycle lane: mandatory and
> advisory. Mandatory cycle lanes are marked with a solid, continuous
> white line. Advisory cycle lanes are marked with a broken, or dashed,
> white line. Both types of cycle lane may also be given a coloured
> surface to make them more obvious to drivers - in Cambridge a red
> surface is often used.
>
> So what's a mandatory cycle lane, then? Now the first thing to stress is
> that the term 'mandatory' refers to motorists, not to cyclists. It means
> that it is mandatory that motorists keep out of a mandatory cycle lane.
> It does not mean that it is mandatory that cyclists keep in the lane.
>
> Motorists must not drive in a mandatory cycle lane, nor may they park in
> it - whether there are double yellow lines or not (though stopping for
> short periods to load and unload is sometimes permitted).
> Advisory cycle lanes
>
> An advisory cycle lane, on the other hand, is simply that - advisory.
> Motorists are advised not to drive or park in it, but it is not an
> offence to do so (though if there are yellow lines the usual rules apply)."
>
>

Oh deary me .... ''judith" ... "judith" ... There's something else for you to read ... It's OK as the Highway Code is mentioned.


--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[JethroUK©]

"Paul Rudin" > wrote in message
...
> JethroUK© > writes:
>
>
>> Cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>
> There is no such legal requirement. If there is you'll have no trouble
> pointing us all to the relevant act of parliment.
>
>> - that IS what defines as MANDATORY
>
> In this case the mandate is on motor vehicles to stay out, rather than
> on cycles to stay in.
>

In case a vehicle is to 'stay out' of anywhere, it is "prohibited" = you
must not = signed black on white with red strike thru

which is not the same as cyclists being forced to use a mandatory lane as in
this case

[Alan Braggins]

In article >, =?utf-8?Q?JethroUK=C2=A9?= wrote:
>
>"Paul Rudin" > wrote in message
>>
>> In this case the mandate is on motor vehicles to stay out, rather than
>> on cycles to stay in.
>
>In case a vehicle is to 'stay out' of anywhere, it is "prohibited" = you
>must not = signed black on white with red strike thru

No. The "no motor vehicles" sign
i) has no strike through
ii) isn't used for cycle lanes


>which is not the same as cyclists being forced to use a mandatory lane as in
>this case

There are no UK cases in which cyclists are legally forced to use a cycle lane.
Did you have an on-topic case in mind, or are you just confused?

[Colin Nelson]

"JethroUK©" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> "Paul Rudin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > JethroUK© > writes:
> >
> >
> >> Cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
> >
> > There is no such legal requirement. If there is you'll have no trouble
> > pointing us all to the relevant act of parliment.
> >
> >> - that IS what defines as MANDATORY
> >
> > In this case the mandate is on motor vehicles to stay out, rather than
> > on cycles to stay in.
> >
>
> In case a vehicle is to 'stay out' of anywhere, it is "prohibited" = you
> must not = signed black on white with red strike thru

Double unbroken white lines ?

>
> which is not the same as cyclists being forced to use a mandatory lane as in
> this case
>

In this case (cycle lanes ) the Highway Code says in rule

63:
Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway
(see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before
pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users.
Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills,
but they can make your journey safer.

119:
Cycle Lanes: ... You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid line during its times of operation.

140:
Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.

Please note that a MUST NOT used in the Highway Code signifies that a legal requirement is in place (a law).

Try to remember that we are talking of legal definitions here (not yours or any given in any standard dictionary).


--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

> And in the case of Mandatory Cycle lanes - Cyclists MUST use them -
> irrespective of any/all other regulations which could equally apply to a
> non-mandatory cycle lane

This is what is known in the trade as "complete ********". Cyclists
are no more restricted ot mandatory cycle lanes than buses are
restricted to mandatory bus lanes.

Guy

[judith]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:39:50 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>> And in the case of Mandatory Cycle lanes - Cyclists MUST use them -
>> irrespective of any/all other regulations which could equally apply to a
>> non-mandatory cycle lane
>
>This is what is known in the trade as "complete ********". Cyclists
>are no more restricted ot mandatory cycle lanes than buses are
>restricted to mandatory bus lanes.
>
>Guy


I see that you've dropped your sig.
Don't you think that they can be quite useful to get a point across?


--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[judith]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 19:05:14 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> wrote:

<snip>

>
>Oh deary me .... ''judith" ... "judith" ... There's something else for you to read ... It's OK as the Highway Code is mentioned.


And people have told me that I'm obsessed......................
--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[judith]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:49:52 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:53:45 +0100, JethroUK© > said
>in >:


<snip>
>The term "mandatory cycle lane" is an informal one, I believe; I
>cannot find a statutory instrument which defines the term.
>
>Guy


Getting there slowly - 4 days - not bad.



--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[judith]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:48:12 GMT, Alex Potter
> wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:40:12 +0100, JethroUK© wrote:
>
><snipped drivel>
>
>There are some very ignorant people in Leicestershire.


I didn't realise that you were from there.

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[Colin McKenzie]

Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article >, =?utf-8?Q?JethroUK=C2=A9?= wrote:
>> which is not the same as cyclists being forced to use a mandatory lane as in
>> this case
>
> There are no UK cases in which cyclists are legally forced to use a cycle lane.
> Did you have an on-topic case in mind, or are you just confused?

He must be doing it deliberately - at least 10 different people have
corrected him now. Perhaps he thinks if he repeats it enough times
people will believe it - like a certain 88% figure.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[Colin Nelson]

"judith" > wrote in message ...
<snip>
>
> And people have told me that I'm obsessed......................
> --
They haven't have they? Makes one wonder where some people get their ideas from ... I'd ignore them if I were you "judith"


--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[judith]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 22:35:06 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> wrote:

>
>"judith" > wrote in message ...
><snip>
>>
>> And people have told me that I'm obsessed......................
>> --
>They haven't have they? Makes one wonder where some people get their ideas from ... I'd ignore them if I were you "judith"


Why thanks "Colin".

Please don't just try the smart answer (you're not very good at them)
- give us your considered view on a relevant cycle topic.

Any views on mandatory hi-viz jackets as introduced in France. Can
you follow that simple sentence - or is there a wrong conclusion to
jump to there somewhere; I must say, you did make yourself look very
silly with that one.

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[Colin Reed[_3_]]

"judith" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:39:50 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:
>
>>> And in the case of Mandatory Cycle lanes - Cyclists MUST use them -
>>> irrespective of any/all other regulations which could equally apply to a
>>> non-mandatory cycle lane
>>
>>This is what is known in the trade as "complete ********". Cyclists
>>are no more restricted ot mandatory cycle lanes than buses are
>>restricted to mandatory bus lanes.
>>
>>Guy
>
>
> I see that you've dropped your sig.
> Don't you think that they can be quite useful to get a point across?

They can indeed!

Colin

------------------
judith the troll talks a load of ********!

[Colin Nelson]

"judith" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 22:35:06 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"judith" > wrote in message ...
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> And people have told me that I'm obsessed......................
> >> --
> >They haven't have they? Makes one wonder where some people get their ideas from ... I'd ignore them if I were you "judith"
>
>
> Why thanks "Colin".
>
> Please don't just try the smart answer (you're not very good at them)
Well "judith", that's only your opinion (though other people may have differing opinions about all sorts of 'things' eh!
> - give us your considered view on a relevant cycle topic.
>
> Any views on mandatory hi-viz jackets as introduced in France. Can
> you follow that simple sentence - or is there a wrong conclusion to
> jump to there somewhere; I must say, you did make yourself look very
> silly with that one.

Really ... Er ...


"judith" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:24:13 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:22:23 +0100, JethroUK© > said
> >in >:
> >
> >>You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
> >
> >An interesting if entirely uninformed and factually wrong opinion.
> >No, actually, not that interesting on reflection, just uninformed
> >and factually wrong.
> >
> >You may wish to lobby for this to be the case, but bear in mind that
> >the originators of compulsory use of cycle facilities (in 1930s
> >Germany as it happens) have a less than stellar reputation
> >politically these days, and you may not wish to be associated with
> >them even to this limited extent.
> >
> >Guy
>
>
> I'm thinking of starting a campaign for proper "mandatory cycle lanes"
> and also compulsory wearing of high-visibility clothes for cyclists
> (as they have in France).
>
> Anyone have any pointers on how to get this up and running?
>
> Is it something that the CTC would sponsor?
> --
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

>Tut Tut! If wit was **** you'd die of constipation "judith". >Have you missed something out regarding the required >circumstances of cyclists wearing high viz vests (as >required in France)?
>--
I'm still waiting for your reply.


Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[Chris Malcolm]

In uk.rec.cycling judith > wrote:

> I'm thinking of starting a campaign for proper "mandatory cycle lanes"
> and also compulsory wearing of high-visibility clothes for cyclists
> (as they have in France).

> Anyone have any pointers on how to get this up and running?

I think you ought to start at the root of the problem. The Oxford
English Dictionary is widely regarded as the best authority on the
meaning of English words. Yet in certain important respects it
disagrees with your usage of English. So I think your campaign should
start by correcting the OED.

If you don't start there you run the risk of pedants undermining your
campaign by quoting dictionaries at you.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

[Daniel Barlow]

Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> writes:

> Psst - your ignorance is hanging out.

Understatement of the week. His ignorance needs an "abnormal load"
sign and a police outrider.


-dan

[judith]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 00:07:22 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> wrote:

<snip>

>>Tut Tut! If wit was **** you'd die of constipation "judith". >Have you missed something out regarding the required >circumstances of cyclists wearing high viz vests (as >required in France)?
>>--
>I'm still waiting for your reply.



You must have missed the response:

Not at all smart arse - as they have in France - means under the same
circumstances/conditions as they have introduced in France - as has
recently been discussed here.




--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[judith]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 00:12:38 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm
> wrote:

>In uk.rec.cycling judith > wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking of starting a campaign for proper "mandatory cycle lanes"
>> and also compulsory wearing of high-visibility clothes for cyclists
>> (as they have in France).
>
>> Anyone have any pointers on how to get this up and running?
>
>I think you ought to start at the root of the problem. The Oxford
>English Dictionary is widely regarded as the best authority on the
>meaning of English words. Yet in certain important respects it
>disagrees with your usage of English. So I think your campaign should
>start by correcting the OED.
>
>If you don't start there you run the risk of pedants undermining your
>campaign by quoting dictionaries at you.


Good point.

You mean like :

as: To the same extent as, in so far as; in proportion as; according
as; just as, even as.
--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
Alan Braggins > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:

> There are no UK cases in which cyclists are legally forced to use a
> cycle lane.
> Did you have an on-topic case in mind, or are you just confused?

Confused? Terminally bewildered, more like.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
und keine Eie.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 23:31:58 +0100, "Colin Reed"
> said in
>:

>> I see that you've dropped your sig.
>> Don't you think that they can be quite useful to get a point across?

>They can indeed!

Stupid cow didn't notice that I was using Gurgle Gropes from my
Vista laptop, since I'd not bothered to lug the usual one home last
night. Mind, noticing things does not seem to be her strong point.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 20:58:20 +0100, JethroUK© > said
in >:

>In case a vehicle is to 'stay out' of anywhere, it is "prohibited" = you
>must not = signed black on white with red strike thru
>which is not the same as cyclists being forced to use a mandatory lane as in
>this case

No, you are right, in that the former is provable and the latter
entirely imaginary. So they are indeed different in concept.

Still waiting for you to cite the statutory instrument to back your
claim, since I'm tolerably familiar with road traffic law and can't
myself find any reference to it, only to documentation that either
states or implies the polar opposite.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Martin[_2_]]

JethroUK© wrote:
>
>
> "Paul Rudin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> JethroUK© > writes:
>>
>>
>>> Cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>>
>> There is no such legal requirement. If there is you'll have no trouble
>> pointing us all to the relevant act of parliment.
>>
>>> - that IS what defines as MANDATORY
>>
>> In this case the mandate is on motor vehicles to stay out, rather than
>> on cycles to stay in.
>>
>
> In case a vehicle is to 'stay out' of anywhere, it is "prohibited" =
> you must not = signed black on white with red strike thru
>
> which is not the same as cyclists being forced to use a mandatory lane
> as in this case


At slip roads onto the M32, there are not any "no cycling" signs. Does
this mean I can cycle along there?

[judith]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:20:53 +0100, Martin >
wrote:

>JethroUK© wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Paul Rudin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> JethroUK© > writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>>>
>>> There is no such legal requirement. If there is you'll have no trouble
>>> pointing us all to the relevant act of parliment.
>>>
>>>> - that IS what defines as MANDATORY
>>>
>>> In this case the mandate is on motor vehicles to stay out, rather than
>>> on cycles to stay in.
>>>
>>
>> In case a vehicle is to 'stay out' of anywhere, it is "prohibited" =
>> you must not = signed black on white with red strike thru
>>
>> which is not the same as cyclists being forced to use a mandatory lane
>> as in this case
>
>
>At slip roads onto the M32, there are not any "no cycling" signs. Does
>this mean I can cycle along there?


Please do - and give us all a break.

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[Colin Nelson]

"judith" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:06:24 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> I'm thinking of starting a campaign for proper "mandatory cycle lanes"
> >> and also compulsory wearing of high-visibility clothes for cyclists
> >> (as they have in France).
> >>
> >> Anyone have any pointers on how to get this up and running?
> >>
> >> Is it something that the CTC would sponsor?
> >> --
> >> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> >> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)
> >
> >Tut Tut! If wit was **** you'd die of constipation "judith". Have you missed something out regarding the required circumstances of cyclists wearing high viz vests (as required in France)?
>
>
> Not at all smart arse - as they have in France - means under the same
> circumstances/conditions as they have introduced in France -

Those circumstances/conditions being?

> as has
> recently been discussed here.

Where?
>
> Do you have a point to make?

Not yet ... just asking/seeking a little clarification.
>
>
>
>
> --
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[judith]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 15:50:06 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> wrote:

<snip>

>> Not at all smart arse - as they have in France - means under the same
>> circumstances/conditions as they have introduced in France -
>
>Those circumstances/conditions being?

You really need to keep abreast of these sort of developments - you
could have gone to France and fallen foul of their law. Aren't you a
member of the CTC? Perhaps they should have told their members

The best I can point you at is the following from This French Life:
http://www.thisfrenchlife.com/thisfrenchlife/2008/05/warning-triangl.html


"Also from September 1 cyclists will be required to wear high
visibility jackets when outside towns, as well as during the night or
when visibility is poor."

But I can't guarantee the translation.
Perhaps you should get in touch with the CTC and ask them for advice.
(Oh - on second thoughts someone else said that the law would be of
little consequence to the vast majority of the membership so perhaps
they can't be bothered)



>> as has
>> recently been discussed here.
>
>Where?

You may find it hard to believe but it was in a thread:
Subject: Compulsory Hi-Vis

hth
--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[dkahn400]

On Aug 4, 12:40*pm, judith > wrote:

> Is it something that the CTC would sponsor?

Definitely, but you will have to take out a 5 year membership. I
suggest you start with that, then approach the Council.

--
Dave...

[Colin Nelson]

"judith" > wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 15:50:06 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Not at all smart arse - as they have in France - means under the same
> >> circumstances/conditions as they have introduced in France -
> >
> >Those circumstances/conditions being?
>
> You really need to keep abreast of these sort of developments - you
> could have gone to France and fallen foul of their law.

I have no intention of going to France (or anywhere else overseas) within
the foreseeable future

> Aren't you a member of the CTC?

Yes, and have been for may years.

>Perhaps they should have told their members

By what means? There's rather a lot of us for the CTC to be informing us all
via the postal system - not to mention the cost.

>
> The best I can point you at is the following from This French Life:
> http://www.thisfrenchlife.com/thisfrenchlife/2008/05/warning-triangl.html
>
>
> "Also from September 1 cyclists will be required to wear high
> visibility jackets when outside towns, as well as during the night or
> when visibility is poor."
>
> But I can't guarantee the translation.

I'm not too good with written french either, but from what I see there the
information seems rather 'minimal'.

> Perhaps you should get in touch with the CTC and ask them for advice.

If I intended cycling in France I probably would.

> (Oh - on second thoughts someone else said that the law would be of
> little consequence to the vast majority of the membership so perhaps
> they can't be bothered)

I personally don't know whether the CTC members are generaly law abiding
or not (I know at least one member who tries to be) - I don't recall seeing/hearing
of any survey/research on that matter.

>
>
>
> >> as has
> >> recently been discussed here.
> >
> >Where?
>
> You may find it hard to believe but it was in a thread:
> Subject: Compulsory Hi-Vis

I did see a few posts in a subject headed Compusory High-Vis but they seemed
to be concerning Spain (including the legality regarding compulory helmet wearing)
and the fact that spanish cyclists did not appear to be observing any such laws.
As I don't intend to be cycling in Spain ...

>
> hth
> --
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)


Back to you "judith".



PS I do so enjoy these little chats ... when one is retired one has to fill the remaining time,
and there's no law that says retirement time must be gainfully spent.




--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[judith]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:16:07 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> wrote:

>
>"judith" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 15:50:06 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> Not at all smart arse - as they have in France - means under the same
>> >> circumstances/conditions as they have introduced in France -
>> >
>> >Those circumstances/conditions being?
>>
>> You really need to keep abreast of these sort of developments - you
>> could have gone to France and fallen foul of their law.
>
>I have no intention of going to France (or anywhere else overseas) within
>the foreseeable future
>
>> Aren't you a member of the CTC?
>
>Yes, and have been for may years.
>
>>Perhaps they should have told their members
>
>By what means? There's rather a lot of us for the CTC to be informing us all
>via the postal system - not to mention the cost.


Perhaps you need to upgrade your membership - I understand some
members were informed by an e-mail.

Anyway - glad to have been able to bring you up to speed on things.


--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[Colin Nelson]

"judith" > wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:16:07 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"judith" > wrote in message ...
> >> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 15:50:06 +0100, "Colin Nelson"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >> Not at all smart arse - as they have in France - means under the same
> >> >> circumstances/conditions as they have introduced in France -
> >> >
> >> >Those circumstances/conditions being?
> >>
> >> You really need to keep abreast of these sort of developments - you
> >> could have gone to France and fallen foul of their law.
> >
> >I have no intention of going to France (or anywhere else overseas) within
> >the foreseeable future
> >
> >> Aren't you a member of the CTC?
> >
> >Yes, and have been for may years.
> >
> >>Perhaps they should have told their members
> >
> >By what means? There's rather a lot of us for the CTC to be informing us all
> >via the postal system - not to mention the cost.
>
>
> Perhaps you need to upgrade your membership - I understand some
> members were informed by an e-mail.

The weekly 'NewsNet' (if that's what you mean) lands in my Inbox each week and has nothing to do with membership 'grade' (members opt to recieve it). There may have been something regarding high-vis/France a week or so ago, but as I don't need such information ...
>
> Anyway - glad to have been able to bring you up to speed on things.

You may wish ...
>
>
> --
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)


--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
judith > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> The best I can point you at is the following from This French Life:
> http://www.thisfrenchlife.com/thisfrenchlife/2008/05/warning-triangl.html
>
>
> "Also from September 1 cyclists will be required to wear high
> visibility jackets when outside towns, as well as during the night or
> when visibility is poor."

My French is far from perfect, but the statement "Obligation pour tout
cycliste circulant hors agglomération, de nuit ou de jour si visibilité
mauvaise , de porter un gilet rétro-réfléchissant à partir du 1er septembre
2008" is ambiguous to say the least. It can be construed that hi-viz is
/only/ required outside towns when it's dark or in poor visibility, or that
it's required outside town at all times and everywhere else in poor
visibility or at night, or that hi-viz only has to be carried. If said
statement is the letter of the law, then it is completely unworkable.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
I am now returned from both the seventeenth century and the Post Office.

[Peter Clinch]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> In ,
> judith > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
>> The best I can point you at is the following from This French Life:
>> http://www.thisfrenchlife.com/thisfrenchlife/2008/05/warning-triangl.html
>>
>>
>> "Also from September 1 cyclists will be required to wear high
>> visibility jackets when outside towns, as well as during the night or
>> when visibility is poor."
>
> My French is far from perfect, but the statement "Obligation pour tout
> cycliste circulant hors agglomération, de nuit ou de jour si visibilité
> mauvaise , de porter un gilet rétro-réfléchissant à partir du 1er septembre
> 2008" is ambiguous to say the least. It can be construed that hi-viz is
> /only/ required outside towns when it's dark or in poor visibility, or that
> it's required outside town at all times and everywhere else in poor
> visibility or at night, or that hi-viz only has to be carried. If said
> statement is the letter of the law, then it is completely unworkable.

"Porter", in particular, being a verb to mean /either/ "to carry" or "to
wear". "To carry" is the first sense given in my Oxford English/French
dictionary.

Odd there isn't a verb "to judith", to be on a horse so high that mere
facts are rendered invisible and Clues are absent due to the very thin air.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[James Thomson]

"Dave Larrington" > a écrit:

> My French is far from perfect, but the statement "Obligation
> pour tout cycliste circulant hors agglomération, de nuit ou de
> jour si visibilité mauvaise , de porter un gilet rétro-réfléchissant
> à partir du 1er septembre 2008" is ambiguous to say the least.
> It can be construed that hi-viz is /only/ required outside towns
> when it's dark or in poor visibility, or that it's required outside
> town at all times and everywhere else in poor visibility or at
> night, or that hi-viz only has to be carried.

To me it doesn't seem so ambiguous. The law applies to "tout cycliste
circulant hors agglomération", the conditions being "de nuit ou de jour si
visibilité mauvaise", and "porter" is only reasonably interpretable as "to
wear".

> If said statement is the letter of the law, then it is completely
> unworkable.

You can bet it's not the law as written. I couldn't find it on Legifrance
with a quick search, but the CISR site has the following:

Le Comité interministériel de la sécurité routière décide de
rendre obligatoire le port d’un gilet rétro-réfléchissant par
tout cycliste de nuit hors agglomération à compter du 1er
septembre 2008

http://www.securiteroutiere.equipement.gouv.fr/cnsr/2_documents_page_travaux/CISR_fev_2008.pdf

Whatever the law says, it's the fonctionnaire who has to be dealt with in
the first instance. I recently had an application rejected on the grounds
that having been asked to provide "one or more of the following documents",
I had provided one, while "one or more" clearly means "more than one".

James Thomson

[judith]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:49:59 +0100, Peter Clinch
> wrote:

>Dave Larrington wrote:
>> In ,
>> judith > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>>
>>> The best I can point you at is the following from This French Life:
>>> http://www.thisfrenchlife.com/thisfrenchlife/2008/05/warning-triangl.html
>>>
>>>
>>> "Also from September 1 cyclists will be required to wear high
>>> visibility jackets when outside towns, as well as during the night or
>>> when visibility is poor."
>>
<snip>

>Odd there isn't a verb "to judith", to be on a horse so high that mere
>facts are rendered invisible and Clues are absent due to the very thin air.
>
>Pete.

Or it could mean to point out the requested information as I have done
above.

Anyway - Happy to have helped in the education of cyclists - I might
make it my mission in life.

(How come there are so many people post her from University systems -
is it one of the perks of the job? You seem to be allowed to have
many breaks from your work - I hope I'm not funding you in any way ;-)


--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[Peter Hucker]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 09:44:52 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? >
wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:39:18 +0100, Jugger > said in
> >:
>
>> There is no such thing as a mandatory cycle lane - unfortunately -
>> yet.
>
> False, there is such a thing, and fortunately it is not mandatory
> for cyclists to use it, only for cars to keep out. You do know who
> is responsible for the concept of a cycle lane that *must* be used,
> don't you? The political party concerned has a less than stellar
> reputation and may not be mentioned on Usenet for fear of invoking
> Godwin's Law.

However they do want to remove the offence of speeding.


--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

.--------------------.
| |
| Good Evening.... | .--.--.
| | .; .;|;. ;.
`-------------. ,---' .;_;' `;_;.
\| ; ;' `; ;
\ ;;'.--.___.--.`;;
;-( o )=( o )-;
( `--' | `--' )
\| . . |/
........... . .:::::. . .______
/ . '---` . '\
.' `. .' \
| ____,.- . | `.....' | _______ |
| ,-' \ /|\'' \.-- |
| / \.'\ /,'. \. - |
| /| ` `\ / \ |
| ,/ _ '/ '\ |
,-' ,-. |o '
/ '| | | | \
/ ,/| |o | \ `
| .' | |.' |. \ \
________/ .'____|________________________||__`. `__________
( \ ) / )
'-. '-. ( .-` .-`
'-. .-'--.__. .-.__.--`-. .-`
'-..' \--' : ~`:=,`- `..-`
\ .. \\ |`-'|`-, /
\\\\\\\) | |`-'/.'/
\)\)\\ `-' `-'
`

[Peter Hucker]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:54:22 +0100, Ace > wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:49:53 +0100, "Clive George"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Ace" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:37:10 +0100, JethroUK© > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Use of MANDATORY cycle lane by cyclists IS compulsory - that's is
>>>> *the*
>>>> definition of mandatory -
>>>
>>> How many times do you need to be told? THAT'S NOT WHAT THE WORD MEANS!

Yes it does.

"Obligatory; required or commanded by authority."
from
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mandatory

>> Telling him won't make any difference - his mind is made up, and nothing
>> will shift it. The fact he's wrong is irrelevant.
>
> It's not as if I even care what the rules are in the UK, but I hate to
> see people spouting off nonsense.
>
> Many years ago I won a court case when accused of riding my motorcycle
> without lights. I was, of course, perfectly within my rights to do so,
> but the PC who stopped me wouldn't believe that this could be the
> case,m so I was charged withj "failure to maintain" headlight, tail
> light and "statutory brake light" as defined in the Road Traffic Acts.
> I decided to look up said acts in the reference library, and found
> that he'd made the same mistake as this muppet in thinking that
> "Statutory" = "must have".

Yes it does.

"Legally mandated requirement that must be complied with by the party to
which it applies."
from
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/statutory-requirement.html

> He walked out of the magistrate's court
> looking very angry, but more importantly, very stupid.
>
> Sadly I fessed up to the faulty exhaust (daffles had completely blown
> out) so I still got a 30 quid fine, but no endorsements.

You should be more polite to the pigs, I got away with a faulty exhaust,
handbrake, 3 tyres, and speeding.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

BREAKFAST.SYS halted... Cereal port not responding.

[Peter Hucker]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:03:10 +0100, Graz > wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:41:14 +0100, nik.morgan
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:22:23 +0100, JethroUK© wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>>>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>>>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>>>
>>
>>
>> Like they must not ride on the pavements, that type of must?
>
> They must ride on pavements if they're black.

The pavements or they cyclists?

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

This guy fell asleep on the beach one day. The wind came up and blew sand
all over him until he was covered with only his big toe sticking out.
An old nympho was walking down the beach, saw the toe sticking up, pulled
down her bikini bottom and squatted over the toe.
She humped away till she was satisfied, pulled up her drawers and left.
The guy woke up, brushed the sand away and left, not knowing what had
happened.
The next day his foot itched like hell, and had a sore on it.
He went to the Dr. and after an exam the doc told him he had syphilis of
the big toe.
"Syphilis of the big toe?" he inquired, "Isn't that rare?"
The doc said, "You think that's rare -- I had a woman in here this morning
with 'Athlete's Pussy.'"

[Peter Hucker]

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:40:12 +0100, judith > wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:24:13 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:22:23 +0100, JethroUK© > said
>> in >:
>>
>>> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>>
>> An interesting if entirely uninformed and factually wrong opinion.
>> No, actually, not that interesting on reflection, just uninformed
>> and factually wrong.
>>
>> You may wish to lobby for this to be the case, but bear in mind that
>> the originators of compulsory use of cycle facilities (in 1930s
>> Germany as it happens) have a less than stellar reputation
>> politically these days, and you may not wish to be associated with
>> them even to this limited extent.
>>
>> Guy
>
>
> I'm thinking of starting a campaign for proper "mandatory cycle lanes"
> and also compulsory wearing of high-visibility clothes for cyclists
> (as they have in France).
>
> Anyone have any pointers on how to get this up and running?
>
> Is it something that the CTC would sponsor?
> --
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

Explain your sig - it contradicts what you said above.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com
http://www.petersphotos.com

An avid duck hunter was in the market for a new bird dog. His search
ended when he found a dog that could actually walk on water to retrieve a
duck. Shocked by his find, he was sure none of his friends would ever
believe him.
He decided to try to break the news to a friend of his, a pessimist by
nature, and invited him to hunt with him and his new dog.
As they waited by the shore, a flock of ducks flew by. They fired, and a
duck fell. The dog responded and jumped into the water. The dog, however,
did not sink but instead walked across the water to retrieve the bird,
never getting more than his paws wet.
The friend saw everything but did not say a single word.
On the drive home the hunter asked his friend, "Did you notice anything
unusual about my new dog?"
"I sure did," responded his friend. "He can't swim."

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:13:19 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
said in >:

>> You do know who
>> is responsible for the concept of a cycle lane that *must* be used,
>> don't you? The political party concerned has a less than stellar
>> reputation and may not be mentioned on Usenet for fear of invoking
>> Godwin's Law.

>However they do want to remove the offence of speeding.

s/do/did/ - they made the fatal error of failing to learn from
history, in this case Napoleon's campaign against Russia.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[judith]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:26:16 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
wrote:
<snip>

>> Anyone have any pointers on how to get this up and running?
>>
>> Is it something that the CTC would sponsor?
>> --
>> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
>> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)
>
>Explain your sig - it contradicts what you said above.

You are of course right.
It is a nonsensical quote from a ****wit in uk.rec.cycling.
Like you have a different joke every day - I just use the same one -
Guy Chapman.

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

[Peter Hucker]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:56:26 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:13:19 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
> said in >:
>
>>> You do know who
>>> is responsible for the concept of a cycle lane that *must* be used,
>>> don't you? The political party concerned has a less than stellar
>>> reputation and may not be mentioned on Usenet for fear of invoking
>>> Godwin's Law.
>
>> However they do want to remove the offence of speeding.
>
> s/do/did/ - they made the fatal error of failing to learn from
> history, in this case Napoleon's campaign against Russia.

What?

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Please tell your pants it's not polite to point.

[Peter Hucker]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:09:43 +0100, judith > wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:26:16 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>> Anyone have any pointers on how to get this up and running?
>>>
>>> Is it something that the CTC would sponsor?
>>> --
>>> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
>>> the two are incompatible. (Guy Chapman)
>>
>> Explain your sig - it contradicts what you said above.
>
> You are of course right.
> It is a nonsensical quote from a ****wit in uk.rec.cycling.
> Like you have a different joke every day - I just use the same one -
> Guy Chapman.

The sig makes perfect sense. What business is it of yours what protection a cyclist chooses to use?

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met.

[John Kane]

On Aug 7, 2:18*pm, "Peter Hucker" > wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:56:26 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:13:19 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
> > said in >:
>
> >>> You do know who
> >>> is responsible for the concept of a cycle lane that *must* be used,
> >>> don't you? *The political party concerned has a less than stellar
> >>> reputation and may not be mentioned on Usenet for fear of invoking
> >>> Godwin's Law.
>
> >> However they do want to remove the offence of speeding.
>
> > s/do/did/ - they made the fatal error of failing to learn from
> > history, in this case Napoleon's campaign against Russia.
>
> What?

http://it.coe.uga.edu/studio/seminars/visualization/minardmap.html
?

[Peter Hucker]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:45:30 +0100, John Kane > wrote:

> On Aug 7, 2:18*pm, "Peter Hucker" > wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:56:26 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
>> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:13:19 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>> > said in >:
>>
>> >>> You do know who
>> >>> is responsible for the concept of a cycle lane that *must* be used,
>> >>> don't you? *The political party concerned has a less than stellar
>> >>> reputation and may not be mentioned on Usenet for fear of invoking
>> >>> Godwin's Law.
>>
>> >> However they do want to remove the offence of speeding.
>>
>> > s/do/did/ - they made the fatal error of failing to learn from
>> > history, in this case Napoleon's campaign against Russia.
>>
>> What?
>
> http://it.coe.uga.edu/studio/seminars/visualization/minardmap.html
> ?

And this has what to do with speeding?


--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Say it with flowers - send her a triffid.

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:57:33 +0100, Peter Hucker > wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:45:30 +0100, John Kane > wrote:
> > On Aug 7, 2:18*pm, "Peter Hucker" > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:56:26 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:13:19 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
> >> > said in >:
> >>
> >> >> However they do want to remove the offence of speeding.
> >>
> >> > s/do/did/ - they made the fatal error of failing to learn from
> >> > history, in this case Napoleon's campaign against Russia.
> >>
> >> What?
> >
> > http://it.coe.uga.edu/studio/seminars/visualization/minardmap.html
> > ?
>
> And this has what to do with speeding?

I don't understand either - Minard's map is a stunning example of
conveying information graphically, and has the power to make the hairs
on the back of my neck tingle [look at just how thin that black line
is alongside teh gold, and think even slightly about what that means].

But what on earth has it to do with speeding?

Incidently, if anyone is not familiar with Minard's map, this link is
about ten thousand times better than that one:

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/229-vital-statistics-of-a-deadly-campaign-the-minard-map/

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

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:57:33 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
said in >:

>>> >>> You do know who
>>> >>> is responsible for the concept of a cycle lane that *must* be used,
>>> >>> don't you? *The political party concerned has a less than stellar
>>> >>> reputation and may not be mentioned on Usenet for fear of invoking
>>> >>> Godwin's Law.
>>>
>>> >> However they do want to remove the offence of speeding.
>>>
>>> > s/do/did/ - they made the fatal error of failing to learn from
>>> > history, in this case Napoleon's campaign against Russia.
>>>
>>> What?
>>
>> http://it.coe.uga.edu/studio/seminars/visualization/minardmap.html
>> ?
>
>And this has what to do with speeding?

OK, so point #1, in response to the usual clueless advocacy of
compulsory bicycle Bantustans was: you do know who is responsible
for this idea, don't you? The party involved has a less than
stellar reputation these days.

You then said "However they do want to remove the offence of
speeding." No, they don't want to do anything in the present tense
as far as I can tell, their fortunes waned after a series of
reverses beginning with an ill-judged invasion of Russia, something
they might have avoided had they studied history more carefully.

Clear now? Or do I need to invoke Godwin's Law by naming the party
concerned?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:34:13 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:57:33 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
> said in >:

(of Minard's map):

> >
> >And this has what to do with speeding?
>
> OK, so point #1, in response to the usual clueless advocacy of
> compulsory bicycle Bantustans was: you do know who is responsible
> for this idea, don't you? The party involved has a less than
> stellar reputation these days.
>
> You then said "However they do want to remove the offence of
> speeding." No, they don't want to do anything in the present tense
> as far as I can tell, their fortunes waned after a series of
> reverses beginning with an ill-judged invasion of Russia, something
> they might have avoided had they studied history more carefully.
>
> Clear now? Or do I need to invoke Godwin's Law by naming the party
> concerned?

Ah, so it's just an association fallacy dressed up to provide an
opportunity to try the 'wider interests' ploy?

That clears it up, thanks.

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

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 07 Aug 2008 20:32:07 GMT, Ian Smith > said
in >:

>Ah, so it's just an association fallacy dressed up to provide an
>opportunity to try the 'wider interests' ploy?

Not really, just an aside on the history of compulsory psychlepath
legislation, of little significance at the time and blown out of all
proportion.

On the plus side, it introduced me to Minard's map, which is, as you
say, a work of very considerable merit. It is as good, in its way,
as the lateral thinking which led to the underground map: obvious in
hindsight, but only in hindsight.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Alan Braggins]

In article >, Peter Hucker wrote:
[Of the Nazis failing to learn from Napoleon]
>And this has what to do with speeding?

Who knows - you were the one who brought speeding into it.

[Graz]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:24:58 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:03:10 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:41:14 +0100, nik.morgan
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:22:23 +0100, JethroUK© wrote
>>> (in article >):
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>>>>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>>>>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Like they must not ride on the pavements, that type of must?
>>
>> They must ride on pavements if they're black.
>
>The pavements or they cyclists?

Both!

[Peter Hucker]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:34:13 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:57:33 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
> said in >:
>
>>>> >>> You do know who
>>>> >>> is responsible for the concept of a cycle lane that *must* be used,
>>>> >>> don't you? *The political party concerned has a less than stellar
>>>> >>> reputation and may not be mentioned on Usenet for fear of invoking
>>>> >>> Godwin's Law.
>>>>
>>>> >> However they do want to remove the offence of speeding.
>>>>
>>>> > s/do/did/ - they made the fatal error of failing to learn from
>>>> > history, in this case Napoleon's campaign against Russia.
>>>>
>>>> What?
>>>
>>> http://it.coe.uga.edu/studio/seminars/visualization/minardmap.html
>>> ?
>>
>> And this has what to do with speeding?
>
> OK, so point #1, in response to the usual clueless advocacy of
> compulsory bicycle Bantustans was: you do know who is responsible
> for this idea, don't you? The party involved has a less than
> stellar reputation these days.
>
> You then said "However they do want to remove the offence of
> speeding." No, they don't want to do anything in the present tense
> as far as I can tell, their fortunes waned after a series of
> reverses beginning with an ill-judged invasion of Russia, something
> they might have avoided had they studied history more carefully.
>
> Clear now? Or do I need to invoke Godwin's Law by naming the party
> concerned?

Assuming you're talking about the BNP, they have more votes recently than before.

And it cannot be illegal to name them, it's even legal to vote for them.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Have you heard the slogan for Trojan's new "Stealth" Condom?
"They'll never see you coming."

[Peter Hucker]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:09:43 +0100, Alan Braggins > wrote:

> In article >, Peter Hucker wrote:
> [Of the Nazis failing to learn from Napoleon]
>> And this has what to do with speeding?
>
> Who knows - you were the one who brought speeding into it.

And the party was mentioned after I said speeding.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Confucius say: "Boy who go to sleep with stiff problem wake up with solution in hand."

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:29:59 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
said in >:

>Assuming you're talking about the BNP

Your assumption is false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Appropriately, Mike Godwin is a lawyer.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Peter Hucker]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:05:24 +0100, Graz > wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:24:58 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:03:10 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:41:14 +0100, nik.morgan
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:22:23 +0100, JethroUK© wrote
>>>> (in article >):
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>>>>>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>>>>>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Like they must not ride on the pavements, that type of must?
>>>
>>> They must ride on pavements if they're black.
>>
>> The pavements or they cyclists?
>
> Both!

Camoflage is not generally considered a good idea on or near roads.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

'Hello, is this the Sheriff's Office?'
'Yes. What can I do for you?'
'I'm calling to report 'bout my neighbor Virgil Smith....He's hidin' marijuana inside his firewood! Don't quite know how he gets it inside them logs, but he's hidin' it there.'
'Thank you very much for the call, sir.'
The next day, the Sheriff's Deputies descend on Virgil's house. They search the shed where the firewood is kept. Using axes, they bust open every piece of wood, but find no marijuana. They sneer at Virgil and leave.
Shortly, the phone rings at Virgil's house.
'Hey, Virgil! This here's Floyd....Did the Sheriff come?'
'Yeah!'
'Did they chop your firewood?'
'Yep!'
'Happy Birthday, buddy!'

[Peter Hucker]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:34:04 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:29:59 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
> said in >:
>
>> Assuming you're talking about the BNP
>
> Your assumption is false.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
>
> Appropriately, Mike Godwin is a lawyer.

Oh, well I was talking about the BNP. They want to remove all speed traps.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A journalist assigned to the Jerusalem bureau takes an apartment overlooking the Wailing Wall. Every day when she looks out, she sees an old Jewish man praying vigorously. So the journalist goes down and introduces herself to the old man.
She asks: "You come every day to the wall. How long have you done that and what are you praying for?"
The old man replies, "I have come here to pray every day for 25 years. In the morning I pray for world peace and then for the brotherhood of man. I go home have a cup of tea and I come back and pray for the eradication of illness and disease from the earth."
The journalist is amazed. "How does it make you feel to come here every day for 25 years and pray for these things?" she asks.
The old man looks at her sadly. "Like I'm talking to a wall."

[Graz]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:34:09 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:05:24 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:24:58 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:03:10 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:41:14 +0100, nik.morgan
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:22:23 +0100, JethroUK© wrote
>>>>> (in article >):
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>>>>>>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>>>>>>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Like they must not ride on the pavements, that type of must?
>>>>
>>>> They must ride on pavements if they're black.
>>>
>>> The pavements or they cyclists?
>>
>> Both!
>
>Camoflage is not generally considered a good idea on or near roads.

Indeed. For ethnics, smiling is recommended for good visibility.

[Peter Hucker]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:19:27 +0100, Graz > wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:34:09 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:05:24 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:24:58 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:03:10 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:41:14 +0100, nik.morgan
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:22:23 +0100, JethroUK© wrote
>>>>>> (in article >):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>>>>>>>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>>>>>>>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like they must not ride on the pavements, that type of must?
>>>>>
>>>>> They must ride on pavements if they're black.
>>>>
>>>> The pavements or they cyclists?
>>>
>>> Both!
>>
>> Camoflage is not generally considered a good idea on or near roads.
>
> Indeed. For ethnics, smiling is recommended for good visibility.

Depending on the toothpaste used, this could dazzle oncoming traffic.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Why did the Blonde put ice in her boyfriend's condom?
To keep the swelling down.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:03:57 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
said in >:

>I was talking about the BNP. They want to remove all speed traps.

One more good reason for not voting for them, then. Not that there
was a shortage of good reasons for not voting BNP in the first
place, of course...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Peter Hucker]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:35:07 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:03:57 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
> said in >:
>
>> I was talking about the BNP. They want to remove all speed traps.
>
> One more good reason for not voting for them, then. Not that there
> was a shortage of good reasons for not voting BNP in the first
> place, of course...

Ther are plenty of reasons to vote BNP (which I did), and speed trap removal is most certainly one of them!

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

__________________
/\ ______________ \
/::\ \ZZZZZZZZZZZZ/\ \
/:/\.\ \ /:/\:\ \
/:/Z/\:\ \ /:/Z/\:\ \
/:/Z/__\;\_\____/:/Z/ \:\ \
/:/Z/____________\/Z/ \:\ \
\:\ \ZZZZZZZZZZZZ/\ \ \:\ \
\:\ \ \:\ \ \:\ \ \:\ \
\:\ \ \:\ \_\:\ \_____\;\ \
\:\ \ \:\___\ \ \_________\
\:\ \ /:/ZZZZ\:\ \ZZZZZZZZ/
\:\ \ /:/Z/ \:\ \ /:/Z/
\:\ \/:/Z/ \:\ \/:/Z/
\:\/:/Z/________\;\/:/Z/
\::/Z/_______itz__\/Z/
\/ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ/

[Graz]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:23:44 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:19:27 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:34:09 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:05:24 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:24:58 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:03:10 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:41:14 +0100, nik.morgan
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:22:23 +0100, JethroUK© wrote
>>>>>>> (in article >):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>>>>>>>>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>>>>>>>>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like they must not ride on the pavements, that type of must?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They must ride on pavements if they're black.
>>>>>
>>>>> The pavements or they cyclists?
>>>>
>>>> Both!
>>>
>>> Camoflage is not generally considered a good idea on or near roads.
>>
>> Indeed. For ethnics, smiling is recommended for good visibility.
>
>Depending on the toothpaste used, this could dazzle oncoming traffic.

They used to sell a toothpaste in the Far East called "Darkie" which
made much of this ethnic imagery. It has since been renamed "Darlie",
although the graphics on the packet remain the same.

http://www.sinosplice.com/life/archives/2004/11/26/darkie-toothpaste

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:48:40 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
said in >:

>Ther are plenty of reasons to vote BNP (which I did), and speed trap removal is most certainly one of them!

In which case we most likely have nothing in common. Bye.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Peter Hucker]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:50:39 +0100, Graz > wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:23:44 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:19:27 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:34:09 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:05:24 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:24:58 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:03:10 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:41:14 +0100, nik.morgan
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:22:23 +0100, JethroUK© wrote
>>>>>>>> (in article >):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>>>>>>>>>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>>>>>>>>>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like they must not ride on the pavements, that type of must?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They must ride on pavements if they're black.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The pavements or they cyclists?
>>>>>
>>>>> Both!
>>>>
>>>> Camoflage is not generally considered a good idea on or near roads.
>>>
>>> Indeed. For ethnics, smiling is recommended for good visibility.
>>
>> Depending on the toothpaste used, this could dazzle oncoming traffic.
>
> They used to sell a toothpaste in the Far East called "Darkie" which
> made much of this ethnic imagery. It has since been renamed "Darlie",
> although the graphics on the packet remain the same.
>
> http://www.sinosplice.com/life/archives/2004/11/26/darkie-toothpaste

It states "Yikes. That really is offensive."

Why is it offensive? Black people have teeth that show up more. It's not taking the **** out of them in any way.


--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Capitalism: Man exploiting man.
Socialism: The reverse.

[Peter Hucker]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:54:22 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:48:40 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
> said in >:
>
>> Ther are plenty of reasons to vote BNP (which I did), and speed trap removal is most certainly one of them!
>
> In which case we most likely have nothing in common. Bye.

So you love political correctness and staying within the speed limit? What a moron.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Our parents got divorced when we were kids and it was kind of cool.

We got to go to divorce court with them. It was like a game show. My mom won the house and car. We're all excited. My dad got some luggage.

[Graz]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:57:13 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:50:39 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:23:44 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:19:27 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:34:09 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:05:24 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:24:58 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:03:10 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:41:14 +0100, nik.morgan
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:22:23 +0100, JethroUK© wrote
>>>>>>>>> (in article >):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like they must not ride on the pavements, that type of must?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They must ride on pavements if they're black.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The pavements or they cyclists?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both!
>>>>>
>>>>> Camoflage is not generally considered a good idea on or near roads.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. For ethnics, smiling is recommended for good visibility.
>>>
>>> Depending on the toothpaste used, this could dazzle oncoming traffic.
>>
>> They used to sell a toothpaste in the Far East called "Darkie" which
>> made much of this ethnic imagery. It has since been renamed "Darlie",
>> although the graphics on the packet remain the same.
>>
>> http://www.sinosplice.com/life/archives/2004/11/26/darkie-toothpaste
>
>It states "Yikes. That really is offensive."
>
>Why is it offensive? Black people have teeth that show up more. It's not taking the **** out of them in any way.

My thoughts exactly. It's the contrast, you know.

[Graz]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:59:19 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:54:22 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:48:40 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>> said in >:
>>
>>> Ther are plenty of reasons to vote BNP (which I did), and speed trap removal is most certainly one of them!
>>
>> In which case we most likely have nothing in common. Bye.
>
>So you love political correctness and staying within the speed limit? What a moron.

I love political correctness.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 05:22:31 GMT, (Graz) said in
>:

>I love political correctness.

I don't care overmuch either way, but I don't like bigots, and every
BNP member I have met so far has been a bigot. There is a big
difference between un-PC plain speaking and bigotry.

In the BNP, this attitude comes from the top:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Griffin

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[judith]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:48:40 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
wrote:

<snip>

>Ther are plenty of reasons to vote BNP (which I did)


Now why am I not the least bit surprised by that ?

[JethroUK©]

"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
...
> JethroUK© > considered Sun, 3 Aug 2008 22:57:03 +0100
> the perfect time to write:
>
>>
>>
>>"Colin Nelson" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> "judith" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>


> If you choose to harass cyclists who choose (for whatever reason) to
> use the main carriageway in preference to a cycle lane (whether
> mandatory or not)


i don't 'harass' cars that are exceeding the speed limit - but that doesn't
mean they are not breaking the law - and equally:

if it is mandatory they *must* use it - if they don't - the cyclist faces a
penalty

[JethroUK©]

"Ace" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:40:12 +0100, JethroUK© > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 22:57:03 +0100, JethroUK© > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Colin Nelson" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>> "judith" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> "There's only one meaning of Mandatory Cycle Lane"
>>>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>which is that cyclists MUST it - hence the word Mandatory = You Must
>>>
>>> Perhaps you should try looking it up in a dictionary, you moron. It
>>> means "as mandated", i.e. as described bya mandate, or law.
>>>
>>
>>And in the case of Mandatory Cycle lanes - Cyclists MUST use them -
>>irrespective of any/all other regulations which could equally apply to a
>>non-mandatory cycle lane
>
> Where does it say this?
>

A/ It's Explicitly implied in the term

B/ UK uses *prohibition* to *prohibit*

C/ Anyone that cannot see the common sense implications should not be
allowed to walk around carrying a sharp object

D/ Conclusion is obvious to even a half wit

[JethroUK©]

I'd have to agree

Alas *I* have forgotten more than you'll ever know about anything



"Alex Potter" > wrote in message
m...
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:40:12 +0100, JethroUK© wrote:
>
> <snipped drivel>
>
> There are some very ignorant people in Leicestershire.
>
> --
> Regards
> Alex
> http://www.ap-consulting.co.uk
> http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 12:15:26 +0100, JethroUK© > said
in >:

>D/ Conclusion is obvious to even a half wit

For values of obvious which encompass being completely wrong. Still,
you could settle the argument instantly by citing the statutory
instrument that backs your interpretation. That would contradict
the numerous official statements (including the Highway Code and
signage regulations) which show that you are wrong.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[JethroUK©]

"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
...
> JethroUK© > considered Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:40:12 +0100
> the perfect time to write:
>
>>
>>
>>"Ace" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 22:57:03 +0100, JethroUK© > wrote:
>>>


>
> So of course, by your logic*, motor vehicles MUST use motorways.

The use of motorways isn't defined as *mandatory* so I'm not sure how you
reached that conclusion

[JethroUK©]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 12:15:26 +0100, JethroUK© > said
> in >:
>
>>D/ Conclusion is obvious to even a half wit
>
> For values of obvious which encompass being completely wrong. Still,
> you could settle the argument instantly by citing the statutory
> instrument that backs your interpretation.

I could equally bring a fridge around to you and drop it from the roof of a
building to demonstrate it's behaves *exactly* like the apple you dropped
yesterday

but i'm not inclined to evidence the tediously obvious

[Graz]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:13:11 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 05:22:31 GMT, (Graz) said in
>:
>
>>I love political correctness.
>
>I don't care overmuch either way, but I don't like bigots, and every
>BNP member I have met so far has been a bigot. There is a big
>difference between un-PC plain speaking and bigotry.
>
>In the BNP, this attitude comes from the top:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Griffin

I think the BNP are bleeding-heart liberals, actually.
Bunch of tree-hugging, yoghurt-knitting liberals.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:18:51 GMT, (Graz) said in
>:

>I think the BNP are bleeding-heart liberals, actually.
>Bunch of tree-hugging, yoghurt-knitting liberals.

Watch out! You're channeling Norman Tebbit!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 12:47:37 +0100, JethroUK© > said
in >:

>>>D/ Conclusion is obvious to even a half wit
>>
>> For values of obvious which encompass being completely wrong. Still,
>> you could settle the argument instantly by citing the statutory
>> instrument that backs your interpretation.
>
>I could equally bring a fridge around to you and drop it from the roof of a
>building to demonstrate it's behaves *exactly* like the apple you dropped
>yesterday
>
>but i'm not inclined to evidence the tediously obvious

Fail. The law of gravity is not in dispute, whereas your assertion
is at odds with every single piece of official documentation cited
thus far. So: you are making the claim, it's up to you to prove it.
All you need to do is cite the relevant statutory instrument. We've
cited the Highway Code, statutory instruments, various authorities
and case law, all of which, without exception, show that your
assertion is wrong, so it really is time that you introduced
something other than your personal interpretation of one word used
in informally identifying the objects in question.

Unless, of course, you're a pointless troll. Only you can show the
difference. Cite the statutory instrument, or you're a pointless
troll. We're right out of alternatives here.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 12:19:12 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 12:15:26 +0100, JethroUK© > said
> in >:
>
> >D/ Conclusion is obvious to even a half wit
>
> For values of obvious which encompass being completely wrong.

Guy, eventually (about a hundred messages later than you should have
done) you noticed what judith admitted from the start - she was a
lying troll not worth responding to.

JeththroUK hasn't yet admitted he's just doing it for a bet, but can
you really not learn from judith and apply to JethroUK?

You (yes _you_, not even the people you encourage) are getting
tedious.

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

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 09 Aug 2008 13:57:53 GMT, Ian Smith > said
in >:

>JeththroUK hasn't yet admitted he's just doing it for a bet, but can
>you really not learn from judith and apply to JethroUK?

Um, most of the replies to him are not from me. I kf'd judith and
Nuxxy ages ago.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Graz]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:50:01 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:18:51 GMT, (Graz) said in
>:
>
>>I think the BNP are bleeding-heart liberals, actually.
>>Bunch of tree-hugging, yoghurt-knitting liberals.
>
>Watch out! You're channeling Norman Tebbit!

Is he still breathing???

[judith]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:19:14 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On 09 Aug 2008 13:57:53 GMT, Ian Smith > said
>in >:
>
>>JeththroUK hasn't yet admitted he's just doing it for a bet, but can
>>you really not learn from judith and apply to JethroUK?
>
>Um, most of the replies to him are not from me. I kf'd judith and
>Nuxxy ages ago.
>
>Guy


That's a pity Guy - I would love to hear your view on Cycle Racing on
the streets of London and riding down Oxford Street when you
shouldn't.

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are incompatible.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit their heads; other evidence suggests that helmets are largely ineffective against the rotational forces implicated in the worst brain injuries.
(Guy 'Liar' Chapman)

[judith]

On 09 Aug 2008 13:57:53 GMT, Ian Smith > wrote:

>["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
>On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 12:19:12 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 12:15:26 +0100, JethroUK© > said
>> in >:
>>
>> >D/ Conclusion is obvious to even a half wit
>>
>> For values of obvious which encompass being completely wrong.
>
>Guy, eventually (about a hundred messages later than you should have
>done) you noticed what judith admitted from the start - she was a
>lying troll not worth responding to.
>[back to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal]

Not strictly true old bean.
I never admitted that I was a "lying troll" - still accuracy has never
been one of your strong points has it.

(Chapman is the liar - having accused me of making "snide comments"
about the author of Cyclecraft - he has never substantiated this
accusation)

However, for those who don't know the one occasion when I did carry
out what could be called a trolling exercise - here are the details.

(I can give you the list of the knobs and some of their choice
comments if you wish)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I started the thread (Subject: (Non-) Use of cycling facilities) with
the intent of serious discussion.

It did not get off to a good start with the first response:

>Oh dear.
>Mostly my view is you're extremely badly informed.

Closely followed by:
>Why didn't the car use the Motorway, after all they are provided by
>taxpayers for their use, and they are much safer than urban roads?

and later:
>Following the logic, or lack of logic, of the police in this incident,
>I would be entirely within my rights to physically attack
> drivers who drive and park in cycle lanes.

It became quickly apparent that one must not criticise a cyclist in
this news group.

I mentioned my experience to a colleague who had been looking at
social aspects of newsgroups - I was told that this group was well
known for the "zealots and ****wits" it attracted; I was told that
some people would argue, and argue - just for the sake of it - if it
was defending a cyclist.

I had a bet that I could keep the thread going for at least four
hundred posts.

I won the bet - and immediately owned up.

I admit that is one time I may have carried out what could be called
trolling.

Unfortunately I have continued to show that some (and only some)
members of uk.rec.cycling are arrogant ****wits. This of course does
not go down well with them.

They have a remarkable inability to substantiate what they say when
questioned on the veracity of their comments.

[Alan Braggins]

In article >, JethroUK© wrote:
>
>if it is mandatory they *must* use it - if they don't - the cyclist faces a
>penalty

Why don't you stop wasting your time looking like an idiot
on Usenet and go and argue with the government instead:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page10784.asp
http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/transport/cyclelanes.shtml
http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/BathNES/transportandstreets/walkingandcycling/cycling/CycleRoutes.htm

In the meantime, "cycle lanes that aren't mandatory because Jethro says so
but which the government calls mandatory" is too clumsy for normal use.
They might be poorly named, but that's what we're stuck with.

[Peter Hucker]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 06:21:43 +0100, Graz > wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:57:13 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:50:39 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:23:44 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:19:27 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:34:09 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:05:24 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:24:58 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:03:10 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:41:14 +0100, nik.morgan
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:22:23 +0100, JethroUK© wrote
>>>>>>>>>> (in article >):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Like they must not ride on the pavements, that type of must?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They must ride on pavements if they're black.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The pavements or they cyclists?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Camoflage is not generally considered a good idea on or near roads.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed. For ethnics, smiling is recommended for good visibility.
>>>>
>>>> Depending on the toothpaste used, this could dazzle oncoming traffic.
>>>
>>> They used to sell a toothpaste in the Far East called "Darkie" which
>>> made much of this ethnic imagery. It has since been renamed "Darlie",
>>> although the graphics on the packet remain the same.
>>>
>>> http://www.sinosplice.com/life/archives/2004/11/26/darkie-toothpaste
>>
>> It states "Yikes. That really is offensive."
>>
>> Why is it offensive? Black people have teeth that show up more. It's not taking the **** out of them in any way.
>
> My thoughts exactly. It's the contrast, you know.

It'll soon be offensive to call someone "contrasting".

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

It said, "Insert disk #3," but only two will fit!

[Peter Hucker]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 06:22:31 +0100, Graz > wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:59:19 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:54:22 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:48:40 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>> said in >:
>>>
>>>> Ther are plenty of reasons to vote BNP (which I did), and speed trap removal is most certainly one of them!
>>>
>>> In which case we most likely have nothing in common. Bye.
>>
>> So you love political correctness and staying within the speed limit? What a moron.
>
> I love political correctness.

Why?

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Sign on a condom machine: HELP STAMP OUT PEOPLE!

[Peter Hucker]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:45:44 +0100, judith > wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:48:40 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Ther are plenty of reasons to vote BNP (which I did)
>
>
> Now why am I not the least bit surprised by that ?

They are a perfectly valid political party.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

He was a very clumsy lover. So the girl had to put him in her place.

[Graz]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:54:36 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 06:21:43 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:57:13 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:50:39 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:23:44 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:19:27 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:34:09 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:05:24 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:24:58 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:03:10 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:41:14 +0100, nik.morgan
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:22:23 +0100, JethroUK© wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> (in article >):
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Fred.Harrison" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 2, 7:45 am, walter.smith > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:01:32 +0100, judith >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been driving for years and have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never heard of a mandatory cycle lane. I too would have assumed it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was *mandatory* to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You assumed correctly - cyclists MUST use a MANDATORY cycle lane
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Like they must not ride on the pavements, that type of must?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They must ride on pavements if they're black.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The pavements or they cyclists?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Camoflage is not generally considered a good idea on or near roads.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed. For ethnics, smiling is recommended for good visibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> Depending on the toothpaste used, this could dazzle oncoming traffic.
>>>>
>>>> They used to sell a toothpaste in the Far East called "Darkie" which
>>>> made much of this ethnic imagery. It has since been renamed "Darlie",
>>>> although the graphics on the packet remain the same.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.sinosplice.com/life/archives/2004/11/26/darkie-toothpaste
>>>
>>> It states "Yikes. That really is offensive."
>>>
>>> Why is it offensive? Black people have teeth that show up more. It's not taking the **** out of them in any way.
>>
>> My thoughts exactly. It's the contrast, you know.
>
>It'll soon be offensive to call someone "contrasting".

And so it should be. It suggests an unwelcome element of
multiculturalism!

[Graz]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:54:46 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 06:22:31 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:59:19 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:54:22 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:48:40 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>> said in >:
>>>>
>>>>> Ther are plenty of reasons to vote BNP (which I did), and speed trap removal is most certainly one of them!
>>>>
>>>> In which case we most likely have nothing in common. Bye.
>>>
>>> So you love political correctness and staying within the speed limit? What a moron.
>>
>> I love political correctness.
>
>Why?

The verbal contortions are almost endless in scope. For "black" or
"coloured" we can now also say "ethnically challenged" Likewise for
"crippled", "handicapped" or "spastic" we have "differently abled"
For "bent" or "queer" we get "revelling in an alternative lifestyle".
And so on and so forth.

[Peter Hucker]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:17:51 +0100, Graz > wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:54:46 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 06:22:31 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:59:19 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:54:22 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:48:40 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>>> said in >:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ther are plenty of reasons to vote BNP (which I did), and speed trap removal is most certainly one of them!
>>>>>
>>>>> In which case we most likely have nothing in common. Bye.
>>>>
>>>> So you love political correctness and staying within the speed limit? What a moron.
>>>
>>> I love political correctness.
>>
>> Why?
>
> The verbal contortions are almost endless in scope. For "black" or
> "coloured" we can now also say "ethnically challenged" Likewise for
> "crippled", "handicapped" or "spastic" we have "differently abled"
> For "bent" or "queer" we get "revelling in an alternative lifestyle".
> And so on and so forth.

What is PC this year becomes insulting the next. Pretty soon all words in the dictionary will be illegal to use.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

When there's a will, I want to be in it!

[Peter Hucker]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:13:11 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 05:22:31 GMT, (Graz) said in
> >:
>
>> I love political correctness.
>
> I don't care overmuch either way, but I don't like bigots, and every
> BNP member I have met so far has been a bigot.

So?

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

|
--====|====--
|
.-"""""-.
.'_________'.
/_/_|__|__|_\_\
;'-._ _.-';
,--------------------| `-. .-' |--------------------,
``""--..__ ___ ; ' ; ___ __..--""``
`"-// \\.._\ /_..// \\-"`
\\_// '._ _.' \\_//
`"` ``---`` `"`

[Graz]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:22:00 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:17:51 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:54:46 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 06:22:31 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:59:19 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:54:22 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:48:40 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>>>> said in >:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ther are plenty of reasons to vote BNP (which I did), and speed trap removal is most certainly one of them!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In which case we most likely have nothing in common. Bye.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you love political correctness and staying within the speed limit? What a moron.
>>>>
>>>> I love political correctness.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> The verbal contortions are almost endless in scope. For "black" or
>> "coloured" we can now also say "ethnically challenged" Likewise for
>> "crippled", "handicapped" or "spastic" we have "differently abled"
>> For "bent" or "queer" we get "revelling in an alternative lifestyle".
>> And so on and so forth.
>
>What is PC this year becomes insulting the next. Pretty soon all words in the dictionary will be illegal to use.

Then we will invent new words!

[Peter Hucker]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:40:49 +0100, Graz > wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:22:00 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:17:51 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:54:46 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 06:22:31 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:59:19 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:54:22 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:48:40 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>>>>> said in >:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ther are plenty of reasons to vote BNP (which I did), and speed trap removal is most certainly one of them!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In which case we most likely have nothing in common. Bye.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you love political correctness and staying within the speed limit? What a moron.
>>>>>
>>>>> I love political correctness.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> The verbal contortions are almost endless in scope. For "black" or
>>> "coloured" we can now also say "ethnically challenged" Likewise for
>>> "crippled", "handicapped" or "spastic" we have "differently abled"
>>> For "bent" or "queer" we get "revelling in an alternative lifestyle".
>>> And so on and so forth.
>>
>> What is PC this year becomes insulting the next. Pretty soon all words in the dictionary will be illegal to use.
>
> Then we will invent new words!

#http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutdictionaries/inventedwords

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A juggler, driving to his next performance, is stopped by the police. "What are these matches and lighter fluid doing in your car?" asks the cop.
"I'm a juggler and I juggle flaming torches in my act."
"Oh yeah?" says the doubtful cop. "Lets see you do it." The juggler gets out and starts juggling the blazing torches masterfully.
A couple driving by slows down to watch. "Wow," says the driver to his wife. "I'm glad I quit drinking. Look at the test they're giving now!"

[Graz]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:50:36 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:40:49 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:22:00 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:17:51 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:54:46 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 06:22:31 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:59:19 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:54:22 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:48:40 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>>>>>> said in >:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ther are plenty of reasons to vote BNP (which I did), and speed trap removal is most certainly one of them!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In which case we most likely have nothing in common. Bye.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you love political correctness and staying within the speed limit? What a moron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I love political correctness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> The verbal contortions are almost endless in scope. For "black" or
>>>> "coloured" we can now also say "ethnically challenged" Likewise for
>>>> "crippled", "handicapped" or "spastic" we have "differently abled"
>>>> For "bent" or "queer" we get "revelling in an alternative lifestyle".
>>>> And so on and so forth.
>>>
>>> What is PC this year becomes insulting the next. Pretty soon all words in the dictionary will be illegal to use.
>>
>> Then we will invent new words!
>
>#http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutdictionaries/inventedwords

There you go!

I can only take credit for having coined the phrase "round the twist"
back in the 1960s. It seems to have caught on.

[DavidR[_2_]]

"judith" > wrote

> I'm thinking of starting a campaign for .... compulsory wearing of
> high-visibility > clothes for cyclists

I have decided hi-viz doesn't work in daylight. Too often I approach a
junction whe a driver approaches from the side turning. I am seen a long way
off and they wait. And wait. Concentration wanes and they pull out just as I
approach.

Too dangerous. Better for them not to see me and pull out while there's
plenty of time.

[Peter Hucker]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:21:49 +0100, Graz > wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:50:36 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:40:49 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:22:00 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:17:51 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:54:46 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 06:22:31 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:59:19 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:54:22 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:48:40 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>>>>>>> said in >:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ther are plenty of reasons to vote BNP (which I did), and speed trap removal is most certainly one of them!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In which case we most likely have nothing in common. Bye.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you love political correctness and staying within the speed limit? What a moron.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I love political correctness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>
>>>>> The verbal contortions are almost endless in scope. For "black" or
>>>>> "coloured" we can now also say "ethnically challenged" Likewise for
>>>>> "crippled", "handicapped" or "spastic" we have "differently abled"
>>>>> For "bent" or "queer" we get "revelling in an alternative lifestyle".
>>>>> And so on and so forth.
>>>>
>>>> What is PC this year becomes insulting the next. Pretty soon all words in the dictionary will be illegal to use.
>>>
>>> Then we will invent new words!
>>
>> #http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutdictionaries/inventedwords
>
> There you go!
>
> I can only take credit for having coined the phrase "round the twist"
> back in the 1960s. It seems to have caught on.

It was an australian kids show.


--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

"Take off lid and push up bottom." (From a stick deodorant label)

[Graz]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:37:47 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:21:49 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:50:36 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:40:49 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:22:00 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:17:51 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:54:46 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 06:22:31 +0100, Graz > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:59:19 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:54:22 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:48:40 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
>>>>>>>>>> said in >:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ther are plenty of reasons to vote BNP (which I did), and speed trap removal is most certainly one of them!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In which case we most likely have nothing in common. Bye.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you love political correctness and staying within the speed limit? What a moron.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I love political correctness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The verbal contortions are almost endless in scope. For "black" or
>>>>>> "coloured" we can now also say "ethnically challenged" Likewise for
>>>>>> "crippled", "handicapped" or "spastic" we have "differently abled"
>>>>>> For "bent" or "queer" we get "revelling in an alternative lifestyle".
>>>>>> And so on and so forth.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is PC this year becomes insulting the next. Pretty soon all words in the dictionary will be illegal to use.
>>>>
>>>> Then we will invent new words!
>>>
>>> #http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutdictionaries/inventedwords
>>
>> There you go!
>>
>> I can only take credit for having coined the phrase "round the twist"
>> back in the 1960s. It seems to have caught on.
>
>It was an australian kids show.

They got the name from me.

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
Graz > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:50:01 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:

>> Watch out! You're channeling Norman Tebbit!
>
> Is he still breathing???

Normo Tebbs don't need no oxygen.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
uck Wa

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
Just zis Guy, you know? > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> Unless, of course, you're a pointless troll. Only you can show the
> difference. Cite the statutory instrument, or you're a pointless
> troll. We're right out of alternatives here.

Tsk, Guy, you are missing the bleedin' obvious. /All/ villages have an
idiot, and 99% of the time, the village idiot is called "Jethro".

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
uck Wa

[Graz]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:53:27 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
> wrote:

>In ,
>Graz > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:50:01 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>> > wrote:
>
>>> Watch out! You're channeling Norman Tebbit!
>>
>> Is he still breathing???
>
>Normo Tebbs don't need no oxygen.

Not even when he's on his bike?

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
Graz > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:53:27 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
> > wrote:

>> Normo Tebbs don't need no oxygen.
>
> Not even when he's on his bike?

Er, it was Normo Tebbs' *dad* who was /alleged/ to have got on his bike and
looked for work, though this commonly-quoted phrase or saying is actually an
urban legend - what Tebbs actually said was "He got in his Bugatti and
looked for workmen to mend his front gate".

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
I am the Disgruntled Employee; I am the New Face of Labour
Relations.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:42:48 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
> said in
>:

>what Tebbs actually said was "He got in his Bugatti and
>looked for workmen to mend his front gate".

C|N>K

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Graz]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:42:48 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
> wrote:

>In ,
>Graz > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:53:27 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
>> > wrote:
>
>>> Normo Tebbs don't need no oxygen.
>>
>> Not even when he's on his bike?
>
>Er, it was Normo Tebbs' *dad* who was /alleged/ to have got on his bike and
>looked for work, though this commonly-quoted phrase or saying is actually an
>urban legend - what Tebbs actually said was "He got in his Bugatti and
>looked for workmen to mend his front gate".

Ah, thank you. All is now clear!

[Peter Hucker]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:35:48 +0100, DavidR > wrote:

> "judith" > wrote
>
>> I'm thinking of starting a campaign for .... compulsory wearing of
>> high-visibility > clothes for cyclists
>
> I have decided hi-viz doesn't work in daylight. Too often I approach a
> junction whe a driver approaches from the side turning. I am seen a long way
> off and they wait. And wait. Concentration wanes and they pull out just as I
> approach.
>
> Too dangerous. Better for them not to see me and pull out while there's
> plenty of time.

Or pedal faster.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

From Hollywood Squares:
Host Peter Marshall: Charley, you've just decided to grow strawberries. Are you going to get any during your first year?
Charley Weaver: Of course not, Peter. I'm too busy growing strawberries!

[®i©ardo]

judith wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:48:40 +0100, "Peter Hucker" >
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Ther are plenty of reasons to vote BNP (which I did)
>
>
> Now why am I not the least bit surprised by that ?

Because you're a Socialist bigot?

--
Moving things in still pictures!

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:44:54 +0100, ®i©ardo > said
in >:

>>> Ther are plenty of reasons to vote BNP (which I did)
>> Now why am I not the least bit surprised by that ?
>Because you're a Socialist bigot?

According to the political compass website BNP are considerably more
left-wing than any of the mainstream parties. They are, however,
strongly authoritarian and also a bunch of racists and bigots. It's
this last which offends my small-l liberal sensibilities.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Graz]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:31:46 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:44:54 +0100, ®i©ardo > said
>in >:
>
>>>> Ther are plenty of reasons to vote BNP (which I did)
>>> Now why am I not the least bit surprised by that ?
>>Because you're a Socialist bigot?
>
>According to the political compass website BNP are considerably more
>left-wing than any of the mainstream parties. They are, however,
>strongly authoritarian and also a bunch of racists and bigots. It's
>this last which offends my small-l liberal sensibilities.
>

The BNP are far too wussy and liberal for me.

[Martin[_3_]]

>>According to the political compass website BNP are considerably more
>>left-wing than any of the mainstream parties. They are, however,
>>strongly authoritarian and also a bunch of racists and bigots. It's
>>this last which offends my small-l liberal sensibilities.

No chance with them - I am sort of capitalism with libertarian tendancies,
other direction!

No DNA database, no ID cards, no storage system for all of our
communications.

Keep governments out of businesses - they ruined a lot with nationalisation