Lords reject London anti-bike chaining law

[Doug[_3_]]

You would never have guessed previously would you who would be on the
side of cyclists. I bet it won't apply though to the vicinity of
Parliament or Downing Street, where chaining to railings elicits a
prompt response from the cops.

"The House of Lords has once again ridden to the rescue of cyclists,
this time by rejecting a proposed law to enable council contractors in
London to remove without notice any bicycles chained to railings.

Railings are just about the only place to park a bike in many places
in the capital.
Only recently the Lords also rejected a bid by the Met Police to
outlaw the monthly Critical Mass ride..."

More:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/Lords_reject_London_antibike_chaining_law_article_ 278861.html

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"More bikes, fewer cars!".

[[email protected]]

On 18 Mar, 08:10, Doug > wrote:
> You would never have guessed previously would you who would be on the
> side of cyclists.

Its funny that you object to free car parking but you think cyclists
should have a right to chain bikes to whatever handy object is around,
usually on the pavement.

Mind you i've noticed that you rarely seem bothered about pedestrians,
just cyclists.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 18 Mar, 09:46, "
> wrote:
> On 18 Mar, 08:10, Doug > wrote:
>
> > You would never have guessed previously would you who would be on the
> > side of cyclists.
>
> Its funny that you object to free car parking but you think cyclists
> should have a right to chain bikes to whatever handy object is around,
> usually on the pavement.
>
Given that many motorists are allowed to street garage their cars 24/7
for free, sometimes on pavements, I see no reason why cyclists
shouldn't be allowed something similar, particularly as they take up
much less space.

And before you start, VED doesn't begin to cover all the costs and
damage caused by mass car use, let alone street parking.
>
> Mind you i've noticed that you rarely seem bothered about pedestrians,
> just cyclists.
>
What gives you that idea?

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"More bikes, fewer cars!".

[Mike P[_2_]]

On 18 Mar, 09:57, Doug > wrote:
> On 18 Mar, 09:46, > wrote:
> > On 18 Mar, 08:10, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > You would never have guessed previously would you who would be on the
> > > side of cyclists.
>
> > Its funny that you object to free car parking but you think cyclists
> > should have a right to chain bikes to whatever handy object is around,
> > usually on the pavement.
>
> Given that many motorists are allowed to street garage their cars 24/7
> for free, sometimes on pavements, I see no reason why cyclists
> shouldn't be allowed something similar, particularly as they take up
> much less space.

Do you know WHY they "street garage" Doug? It's because green ****wits
on councils led by government guidlelines decided to build smaller
garages to try and tempt people not to use cars. So there's all these
garages that CARS CAN'T FIT INTO. So, of course they're going to park
on the road.

If you want a source for this, go to iPlayer and watch last night's
local London news. There was a long article about it. Cars all over
the place in one part of essex, blocking roads up. All because of some
green initiative to build smaller garages. There was one guy with a
lotus Elise (hardly a huge car) who could barely fit it into his
garage. Now, they're changing the rules to allow developers to build
garages that cars can actually fit it.

Yet another stupid idea from the green lot. Garages that cars can't
fit in. Wasted space, wasted energy building them.

Mike P



> And before you start, VED doesn't begin to cover all the costs and
> damage caused by mass car use, let alone street parking.
>
> > Mind you i've noticed that you rarely seem bothered about pedestrians,
> > just cyclists.
>
> What gives you that idea?
>
> --
> Critical Mass Londonhttp://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> "More bikes, fewer cars!".

[doug]

On 18 Mar, 09:46, "
> wrote:
> On 18 Mar, 08:10, Doug > wrote:
>
> > You would never have guessed previously would you who would be on the
> > side of cyclists.
>
> Its funny that you object to free car parking but you think cyclists
> should have a right to chain bikes to whatever handy object is around,
> usually on the pavement.
>
> Mind you i've noticed that you rarely seem bothered about pedestrians,
> just cyclists.

I think that all cycles in London should be padlocked to railing, as
long as they stay there, maybe the riders as well.


Critical Mess London
http://www.criticalmesslondon.org.uk
"More town bikes, fewer carts!".

[Adrian]

Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> Mind you i've noticed that you rarely seem bothered about pedestrians,
>> just cyclists.

> What gives you that idea?

The content and tone of your posts?

[Doug[_3_]]

On 18 Mar, 10:15, Mike P > wrote:
> On 18 Mar, 09:57, Doug > wrote:
>
> > On 18 Mar, 09:46, > wrote:
> > > On 18 Mar, 08:10, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > You would never have guessed previously would you who would be on the
> > > > side of cyclists.
>
> > > Its funny that you object to free car parking but you think cyclists
> > > should have a right to chain bikes to whatever handy object is around,
> > > usually on the pavement.
>
> > Given that many motorists are allowed to street garage their cars 24/7
> > for free, sometimes on pavements, I see no reason why cyclists
> > shouldn't be allowed something similar, particularly as they take up
> > much less space.
>
> Do you know WHY they "street garage" Doug? It's because green ****wits
> on councils led by government guidlelines decided to build smaller
> garages to try and tempt people not to use cars. So there's all these
> garages that CARS CAN'T FIT INTO. So, of course they're going to park
> on the road.
>
> If you want a source for this, go to iPlayer and watch last night's
> local London news. There was a long article about it. Cars all over
> the place in one part of essex, blocking roads up. All because of some
> green initiative to build smaller garages. There was one guy with a
> lotus Elise (hardly a huge car) who could barely fit it into his
> garage. *Now, they're changing the rules to allow developers to build
> garages that cars can actually fit it.
>
> Yet another stupid idea from the green lot. Garages that cars can't
> fit in. Wasted space, wasted energy building them.
>
What about older houses and streets then? I know houses where there is
one car in the front garden, one car on the pavement outside and one
car in the road outside.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 18 Mar, 10:25, Adrian > wrote:
> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >> Mind you i've noticed that you rarely seem bothered about pedestrians,
> >> just cyclists.
> > What gives you that idea?
>
> The content and tone of your posts?
>
Such as?

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

[Adrian]

Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> >> Mind you i've noticed that you rarely seem bothered about
>> >> pedestrians, just cyclists.

>> > What gives you that idea?

>> The content and tone of your posts?

> Such as?

Look, I know you rarely bother to actually read other people's posts all
the way through, but I assumed you did at least read your own.

[Brimstone[_6_]]

Adrian wrote:
> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>>>>> Mind you i've noticed that you rarely seem bothered about
>>>>> pedestrians, just cyclists.
>
>>>> What gives you that idea?
>
>>> The content and tone of your posts?
>
>> Such as?
>
> Look, I know you rarely bother to actually read other people's posts
> all the way through, but I assumed you did at least read your own.

<McEnroe>

You cannot be serious?

</McEnroe>

[Adrian]

"Brimstone" > gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>>>>> What gives you that idea?

>>>> The content and tone of your posts?

>>> Such as?

>> Look, I know you rarely bother to actually read other people's posts
>> all the way through, but I assumed you did at least read your own.

> <McEnroe>
>
> You cannot be serious?
>
> </McEnroe>

I keep saying it - I'm an incurable optimist.

[francis]

On 18 Mar, 11:59, Doug > wrote:
> On 18 Mar, 10:15, Mike P > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 18 Mar, 09:57, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > On 18 Mar, 09:46, > wrote:
> > > > On 18 Mar, 08:10, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > > You would never have guessed previously would you who would be on the
> > > > > side of cyclists.
>
> > > > Its funny that you object to free car parking but you think cyclists
> > > > should have a right to chain bikes to whatever handy object is around,
> > > > usually on the pavement.
>
> > > Given that many motorists are allowed to street garage their cars 24/7
> > > for free, sometimes on pavements, I see no reason why cyclists
> > > shouldn't be allowed something similar, particularly as they take up
> > > much less space.
>
> > Do you know WHY they "street garage" Doug? It's because green ****wits
> > on councils led by government guidlelines decided to build smaller
> > garages to try and tempt people not to use cars. So there's all these
> > garages that CARS CAN'T FIT INTO. So, of course they're going to park
> > on the road.
>
> > If you want a source for this, go to iPlayer and watch last night's
> > local London news. There was a long article about it. Cars all over
> > the place in one part of essex, blocking roads up. All because of some
> > green initiative to build smaller garages. There was one guy with a
> > lotus Elise (hardly a huge car) who could barely fit it into his
> > garage. *Now, they're changing the rules to allow developers to build
> > garages that cars can actually fit it.
>
> > Yet another stupid idea from the green lot. Garages that cars can't
> > fit in. Wasted space, wasted energy building them.
>
> What about older houses and streets then? I know houses where there is
> one car in the front garden, one car on the pavement outside and one
> car in the road outside.
>
> --
> World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If this is so, and lets not forget that pavement is not a legal term,
why are you not doing your duty & reporting it?

Francis

[francis]

On 18 Mar, 11:59, Doug > wrote:
> On 18 Mar, 10:25, Adrian > wrote:> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > saying:
>
> > >> Mind you i've noticed that you rarely seem bothered about pedestrians,
> > >> just cyclists.
> > > What gives you that idea?
>
> > The content and tone of your posts?
>
> Such as?
>
> --
> World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

How about 'cyclists only use the pavements because the roads are
dangerous'


Francis

[francis]

On 18 Mar, 12:05, Adrian > wrote:
> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >> >> Mind you i've noticed that you rarely seem bothered about
> >> >> pedestrians, just cyclists.
> >> > What gives you that idea?
> >> The content and tone of your posts?
> > Such as?
>
> Look, I know you rarely bother to actually read other people's posts all
> the way through, but I assumed you did at least read your own.

Be fair, he often does an about turn during the day.

Francis

[Abo]

Doug wrote:

> side of cyclists. I bet it won't apply though to the vicinity of
> Parliament or Downing Street, where chaining to railings elicits a
> prompt response from the cops.

Never heard of 'This Bike Is A Pipe Bomb'?

[Brimstone[_6_]]

Abo wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>
>> side of cyclists. I bet it won't apply though to the vicinity of
>> Parliament or Downing Street, where chaining to railings elicits a
>> prompt response from the cops.
>
> Never heard of 'This Bike Is A Pipe Bomb'?

Never heard of "Freedom of Expression"?

[Adrian]

Abo > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

>> side of cyclists. I bet it won't apply though to the vicinity of
>> Parliament or Downing Street, where chaining to railings elicits a
>> prompt response from the cops.

> Never heard of 'This Bike Is A Pipe Bomb'?

"Cyclist terrorists"...?

[[email protected]]

On 18 Mar, 09:57, Doug > wrote:
> On 18 Mar, 09:46, > wrote:
> > On 18 Mar, 08:10, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > You would never have guessed previously would you who would be on the
> > > side of cyclists.
>
> > Its funny that you object to free car parking but you think cyclists
> > should have a right to chain bikes to whatever handy object is around,
> > usually on the pavement.
>
> Given that many motorists are allowed to street garage their cars 24/7
> for free, sometimes on pavements, I see no reason why cyclists
> shouldn't be allowed something similar, particularly as they take up
> much less space.

Not one to lead by example then eh?
The old I know its wrong but everyone does it so I'm going to as well
defense.

> And before you start, VED doesn't begin to cover all the costs and
> damage caused by mass car use, let alone street parking.

Actually I had already started and it was entirely on your
hypocritical stance.

> > Mind you i've noticed that you rarely seem bothered about pedestrians,
> > just cyclists.
>
> What gives you that idea?
>

The majority of your posts so far.

Fod

[Peter Grange]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:15:16 -0700 (PDT), Mike P
> wrote:

>On 18 Mar, 09:57, Doug > wrote:
>> On 18 Mar, 09:46, > wrote:
>> > On 18 Mar, 08:10, Doug > wrote:
>>
>> > > You would never have guessed previously would you who would be on the
>> > > side of cyclists.
>>
>> > Its funny that you object to free car parking but you think cyclists
>> > should have a right to chain bikes to whatever handy object is around,
>> > usually on the pavement.
>>
>> Given that many motorists are allowed to street garage their cars 24/7
>> for free, sometimes on pavements, I see no reason why cyclists
>> shouldn't be allowed something similar, particularly as they take up
>> much less space.
>
>Do you know WHY they "street garage" Doug? It's because green ****wits
>on councils led by government guidlelines decided to build smaller
>garages to try and tempt people not to use cars. So there's all these
>garages that CARS CAN'T FIT INTO. So, of course they're going to park
>on the road.
>
>If you want a source for this, go to iPlayer and watch last night's
>local London news. There was a long article about it. Cars all over
>the place in one part of essex, blocking roads up. All because of some
>green initiative to build smaller garages. There was one guy with a
>lotus Elise (hardly a huge car) who could barely fit it into his
>garage. Now, they're changing the rules to allow developers to build
>garages that cars can actually fit it.
>
>Yet another stupid idea from the green lot. Garages that cars can't
>fit in. Wasted space, wasted energy building them.
>
It's a bit late now for the UK, but I like the system which I believe
applies in Japan. You're not allowed to keep a vehicle unless you have
a place to put it. So, other than visitors, there would be no
requirement to park on the street.

[Adrian]

Peter Grange > gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

> It's a bit late now for the UK, but I like the system which I believe
> applies in Japan. You're not allowed to keep a vehicle unless you have a
> place to put it. So, other than visitors, there would be no requirement
> to park on the street.

In most areas, that applies to all cars except the "Kei" class, which
have a legally defined maximum footprint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car

[Rob Morley]

On 18 Mar 2009 14:37:17 GMT
Adrian > wrote:

> Peter Grange > gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>
> > It's a bit late now for the UK, but I like the system which I
> > believe applies in Japan. You're not allowed to keep a vehicle
> > unless you have a place to put it. So, other than visitors, there
> > would be no requirement to park on the street.
>
> In most areas, that applies to all cars except the "Kei" class, which
> have a legally defined maximum footprint.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car

I want one of these http://www.subarusambar.co.uk/ but I probably
wouldn't fit in it.

[Mark[_15_]]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:29:55 +0000, Peter Grange
> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:15:16 -0700 (PDT), Mike P
> wrote:
>
>>On 18 Mar, 09:57, Doug > wrote:
>>> On 18 Mar, 09:46, > wrote:
>>> > On 18 Mar, 08:10, Doug > wrote:
>>>
>>> > > You would never have guessed previously would you who would be on the
>>> > > side of cyclists.
>>>
>>> > Its funny that you object to free car parking but you think cyclists
>>> > should have a right to chain bikes to whatever handy object is around,
>>> > usually on the pavement.
>>>
>>> Given that many motorists are allowed to street garage their cars 24/7
>>> for free, sometimes on pavements, I see no reason why cyclists
>>> shouldn't be allowed something similar, particularly as they take up
>>> much less space.
>>
>>Do you know WHY they "street garage" Doug? It's because green ****wits
>>on councils led by government guidlelines decided to build smaller
>>garages to try and tempt people not to use cars. So there's all these
>>garages that CARS CAN'T FIT INTO. So, of course they're going to park
>>on the road.
>>
>>If you want a source for this, go to iPlayer and watch last night's
>>local London news. There was a long article about it. Cars all over
>>the place in one part of essex, blocking roads up. All because of some
>>green initiative to build smaller garages. There was one guy with a
>>lotus Elise (hardly a huge car) who could barely fit it into his
>>garage. Now, they're changing the rules to allow developers to build
>>garages that cars can actually fit it.
>>
>>Yet another stupid idea from the green lot. Garages that cars can't
>>fit in. Wasted space, wasted energy building them.
>>
>It's a bit late now for the UK, but I like the system which I believe
>applies in Japan. You're not allowed to keep a vehicle unless you have
>a place to put it. So, other than visitors, there would be no
>requirement to park on the street.

I'd support such a move. A large number of households in my street
have more cars than people and, hence, they have no convenient place
to store them.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

[JNugent[_5_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 18 Mar, 09:46, "
> > wrote:
>> On 18 Mar, 08:10, Doug > wrote:
>>
>>> You would never have guessed previously would you who would be on the
>>> side of cyclists.
>> Its funny that you object to free car parking but you think cyclists
>> should have a right to chain bikes to whatever handy object is around,
>> usually on the pavement.
>>
> Given that many motorists are allowed to street garage their cars 24/7
> for free, sometimes on pavements, I see no reason why cyclists
> shouldn't be allowed something similar, particularly as they take up
> much less space.

Then let them leave their cycles on the carriageway.

Not on the footway and not chained to private property.

[POHB]

"JNugent" wrote
>
> Then let them leave their cycles on the carriageway.
>
> Not on the footway and not chained to private property.

I like the idea, maybe someone could come up with a kickstand that locks
itself to drain covers

[POHB]

"Peter Grange" wrote
> It's a bit late now for the UK, but I like the system which I believe
> applies in Japan. You're not allowed to keep a vehicle unless you have
> a place to put it. So, other than visitors, there would be no
> requirement to park on the street.

So ordinary folks in victorian terraces and flats have to clear the streets
so the rich folks with their big houses and garages can drive down faster
down the streets where the poor folk live?

Legally parked cars are generally only an inconvenience to other motorists.

[JNugent[_5_]]

POHB wrote:
> "Peter Grange" wrote
>> It's a bit late now for the UK, but I like the system which I believe
>> applies in Japan. You're not allowed to keep a vehicle unless you have
>> a place to put it. So, other than visitors, there would be no
>> requirement to park on the street.
>
> So ordinary folks in victorian terraces and flats have to clear the streets
> so the rich folks with their big houses and garages can drive down faster
> down the streets where the poor folk live?
>
> Legally parked cars are generally only an inconvenience to other motorists.

<sigh>

The "Japanese" rule isn't *only about* parking (though it is about parking).

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

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:15:16 -0700 (PDT), Mike P
> said in
>:

>Do you know WHY they "street garage" Doug? It's because green ****wits
>on councils led by government guidlelines decided to build smaller
>garages to try and tempt people not to use cars. So there's all these
>garages that CARS CAN'T FIT INTO.

You can't fit cars into my garage because it's full of things that
(unlike the car) are not waterproof. My priceless collection of
come-in-handy wood, for example.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Contents packed by intellectual weight and may settle
after posting. May contain traces of irony.

[Martin[_2_]]

Rob Morley wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2009 14:37:17 GMT
> Adrian > wrote:
>
>> Peter Grange > gurgled happily, sounding
>> much like they were saying:
>>
>>> It's a bit late now for the UK, but I like the system which I
>>> believe applies in Japan. You're not allowed to keep a vehicle
>>> unless you have a place to put it. So, other than visitors, there
>>> would be no requirement to park on the street.
>> In most areas, that applies to all cars except the "Kei" class, which
>> have a legally defined maximum footprint.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car
>
> I want one of these http://www.subarusambar.co.uk/ but I probably
> wouldn't fit in it.
>

I would love one of these, but it is probably unsuitable for the
inclines where I live:

http://www.bikeforest.com/rhoades_car.php

The video at the bottom is well worth a watch.

[Peter Grange]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:43:04 -0000, "POHB"
> wrote:

>"Peter Grange" wrote
>> It's a bit late now for the UK, but I like the system which I believe
>> applies in Japan. You're not allowed to keep a vehicle unless you have
>> a place to put it. So, other than visitors, there would be no
>> requirement to park on the street.
>
>So ordinary folks in victorian terraces and flats have to clear the streets
>so the rich folks with their big houses and garages can drive down faster
>down the streets where the poor folk live?

See the first 8 words of my post.

>
>Legally parked cars are generally only an inconvenience to other motorists.

And cyclists, but less so.
>

[JNugent[_5_]]

POHB wrote:

> "Peter Grange" wrote

>> It's a bit late now for the UK, but I like the system which I believe
>> applies in Japan. You're not allowed to keep a vehicle unless you have
>> a place to put it. So, other than visitors, there would be no
>> requirement to park on the street.

> So ordinary folks in victorian terraces and flats have to clear the streets
> so the rich folks with their big houses and garages can drive down faster
> down the streets where the poor folk live?

I would put it differently: the road outside your house is not yours to do as
you like with, just like the road outside my house is not mine to do as I
like with. We should both make arrangements for the storing of our
possessions away from the public thoroughfare. So should everyone.

> Legally parked cars are generally only an inconvenience to other motorists.

But if the law were changed so as to require off-street garaging to be
provided and used, parking a car in the street outside your house would *not*
be lawful parking. That's the whole point.

[Conor[_2_]]

In article <7f4eca40-e374-4e61-9e55-9c1b1f8450e7
@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> Railings are just about the only place to park a bike in many places
> in the capital.

And they're frequently adjacent to pavements, requiring the bicycle to
be on the pavement.

What a surprise. Hypocrite Doug supports parking on pavements by
bicycles yet lambasts cars.

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

[Conor[_2_]]

In article <76868a11-d02e-4df3-a0d1-27a401e47851@
41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...

> Given that many motorists are allowed to street garage their cars 24/7
> for free, sometimes on pavements, I see no reason why cyclists
> shouldn't be allowed something similar, particularly as they take up
> much less space.
>
The difference is that cars parking on pavements do so in designated
areas which ensures a minimum width for pedestrians whereas cyclists
abandon theirs without thought, obstructing the path for many of those
who are poor of sight who injure themselves on the very sharp sticking
out pedals and handlebars.


--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

[Andy Leighton]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:55:17 -0000, Conor > wrote:
> In article <76868a11-d02e-4df3-a0d1-27a401e47851@
> 41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>
>> Given that many motorists are allowed to street garage their cars 24/7
>> for free, sometimes on pavements, I see no reason why cyclists
>> shouldn't be allowed something similar, particularly as they take up
>> much less space.
>>
> The difference is that cars parking on pavements do so in designated
> areas which ensures a minimum width for pedestrians

Are you living in the real world? There are loads of streets where cars
park on the pavement (normal pavements not designated parking areas) and
leave a gap too small for a wheelchair or a mum with a wide pram to get
through.

--
Andy Leighton =>
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[Rob Morley]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:05:54 +0000
Martin > wrote:

> I would love one of these, but it is probably unsuitable for the
> inclines where I live:
>
> http://www.bikeforest.com/rhoades_car.php
>
A steel body is overkill for that application - you could use composite
rods for the frame and stretched fabric for the skin (and pray for a
tailwind).

[Doug[_3_]]

On 18 Mar, 12:05, Adrian > wrote:
> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >> >> Mind you i've noticed that you rarely seem bothered about
> >> >> pedestrians, just cyclists.
> >> > What gives you that idea?
> >> The content and tone of your posts?
> > Such as?
>
> Look, I know you rarely bother to actually read other people's posts all
> the way through, but I assumed you did at least read your own.
>
No example then, as usual. Just your usual empty assertions.

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"More bikes, fewer cars!".

[Doug[_3_]]

On 18 Mar, 12:58, francis > wrote:
> On 18 Mar, 11:59, Doug > wrote:
>
> > On 18 Mar, 10:25, Adrian > wrote:> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > > saying:
>
> > > >> Mind you i've noticed that you rarely seem bothered about pedestrians,
> > > >> just cyclists.
> > > > What gives you that idea?
>
> > > The content and tone of your posts?
>
> > Such as?
>
> > --
> > World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
> > Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
> How about 'cyclists only use the pavements because the roads are
> dangerous'
>
Proves nothing. Cars use pavements too.

I have frequently complained about railings which prevent peds
accessing roads, street furniture which impedes them, particularly
road signs, cars parked on pavements, and consider that peds are as
hard done by as cyclists in this car dominated world.

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"More bikes, fewer cars!".

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:05:18 -0500 someone who may be Andy Leighton
> wrote this:-

>Are you living in the real world? There are loads of streets where cars
>park on the pavement

No, it is the motorists who do the parking.

>(normal pavements not designated parking areas) and
>leave a gap too small for a wheelchair or a mum with a wide pram to get
>through.

Often these motorists leave a "gap" which is too small for anyone to
pass by on the pavement. Other motorists then appear to get upset
when people walk in the road to get past the obstruction.


--
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

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, David Hansen > wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:05:18 -0500 someone who may be Andy Leighton
> > wrote this:-
>
> >(normal pavements not designated parking areas) and
> >leave a gap too small for a wheelchair or a mum with a wide pram to get
> >through.
>
> Often these motorists leave a "gap" which is too small for anyone to
> pass by on the pavement. Other motorists then appear to get upset
> when people walk in the road to get past the obstruction.

http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/parking/

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

[Marc[_2_]]

Abo wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>
>> side of cyclists. I bet it won't apply though to the vicinity of
>> Parliament or Downing Street, where chaining to railings elicits a
>> prompt response from the cops.
>
> Never heard of 'This Bike Is A Pipe Bomb'?

The SOE was wrapped up in 1946, but their legacy seems to linger on in
this one Heath Robinsonesque idea. Back in the 1940's, in wartime,
occupied Europe, where cars were scarce, petrol scarcer and cars were
registered to owners(compared with bicycles were common place,didn't
need petrol and didn't need to be registered) , then a bicycle bomb
might have seemed like a good idea, and in fact DID seem like a good
idea to the SOE who included in their sabotage manual. Of course if they
had actually tried it beofre suggesting it then they would have found
that all that happens is that the seat post and saddle go off on a
parabolic journey. If you want to make a big bang it's much , much, much
easier and more effective to use a car, or even better a lorry.Just ask
the IRA,PLO, EOKA,Lehi,OAS,UVF or DINA each of them seemed to eschew the
"bike bomb", in fact the only people who seemed to recomend if were SOE,
who dissolved into MI5 , who are now warning about the danger of bike
bombs, refering no boubt to their own inherited old wives tale?

[Clive George]

"Marc" > wrote in message
...
> Abo wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>
>>> side of cyclists. I bet it won't apply though to the vicinity of
>>> Parliament or Downing Street, where chaining to railings elicits a
>>> prompt response from the cops.
>>
>> Never heard of 'This Bike Is A Pipe Bomb'?
>
> The SOE was wrapped up in 1946, but their legacy seems to linger on in
> this one Heath Robinsonesque idea. Back in the 1940's, in wartime,
> occupied Europe, where cars were scarce, petrol scarcer and cars were
> registered to owners(compared with bicycles were common place,didn't need
> petrol and didn't need to be registered) , then a bicycle bomb might have
> seemed like a good idea, and in fact DID seem like a good idea to the SOE
> who included in their sabotage manual. Of course if they had actually
> tried it beofre suggesting it then they would have found that all that
> happens is that the seat post and saddle go off on a parabolic journey. If
> you want to make a big bang it's much , much, much easier and more
> effective to use a car, or even better a lorry.Just ask the IRA,PLO,
> EOKA,Lehi,OAS,UVF or DINA each of them seemed to eschew the "bike bomb",
> in fact the only people who seemed to recomend if were SOE, who dissolved
> into MI5 , who are now warning about the danger of bike bombs, refering
> no boubt to their own inherited old wives tale?

It's also the name of a USian band, and one of their stickers caused
predictable over-reaction in a recent case in the US. (actually it seems to
have done so several times :-) )

[Brimstone[_6_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 18 Mar, 10:25, Adrian > wrote:
>> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were saying:
>>
>>>> Mind you i've noticed that you rarely seem bothered about
>>>> pedestrians, just cyclists.
>>> What gives you that idea?
>>
>> The content and tone of your posts?
>>
> Such as?
>
How about the ones that got you kicked out by your previous ISP?

[Adrian]

Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> >> >> Mind you i've noticed that you rarely seem bothered about
>> >> >> pedestrians, just cyclists.

>> >> > What gives you that idea?

>> >> The content and tone of your posts?

>> > Such as?

>> Look, I know you rarely bother to actually read other people's posts
>> all the way through, but I assumed you did at least read your own.

> No example then, as usual. Just your usual empty assertions.

I could post a dozen examples, easily. But you wouldn't know what to do
with the MessageIDs.

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

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:55:17 -0000, Conor >
said in >:

>The difference is that cars parking on pavements do so in designated
>areas which ensures a minimum width for pedestrians whereas cyclists
>abandon theirs without thought

Only in the case of designated pavement parking bays. Most pavement
parking does not seem to be in such bays. Around here the typical
pavement parking offender is a BMW with hazard lights on who puts
two wheels slightly on the kerb in order to maintain the fiction
that he is then somehow not obstructing traffic. But I will
acknowledge that pavement parking is second best, used only when
there are cars parked all round the junction by the paper shop.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Contents packed by intellectual weight and may settle
after posting. May contain traces of irony.

[[email protected]]

On 18 Mar, 17:26, Doug > wrote:
> On 18 Mar, 12:58, francis > wrote:
>
> > On 18 Mar, 11:59, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > On 18 Mar, 10:25, Adrian > wrote:> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > > > saying:
>
> > > > >> Mind you i've noticed that you rarely seem bothered about pedestrians,
> > > > >> just cyclists.
> > > > > What gives you that idea?
>
> > > > The content and tone of your posts?
>
> > > Such as?
>
> > > --
> > > World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
> > > Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
> > How about 'cyclists only use the pavements because the roads are
> > dangerous'
>
> Proves nothing. Cars use pavements too.
>
> I have frequently complained about railings which prevent peds
> accessing roads, street furniture which impedes them, particularly
> road signs, cars parked on pavements, and consider that peds are as
> hard done by as cyclists in this car dominated world.
>
> --
> Critical Mass Londonhttp://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> "More bikes, fewer cars!".

oh we've got it far worse. we get abused by drivers and cyclists....

Fod

[Nick Kew]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:52:42 +0000
David Hansen > wrote:

> >(normal pavements not designated parking areas) and
> >leave a gap too small for a wheelchair or a mum with a wide pram to
> >get through.
>
> Often these motorists leave a "gap" which is too small for anyone to
> pass by on the pavement. Other motorists then appear to get upset
> when people walk in the road to get past the obstruction.

The motorists in my road don't seem to mind me momentarily blocking
their path as I (on foot) pass cars blocking the pavement.

But it's really not fair on the elderly and disabled, who lack the
confidence to walk out in the middle of the road, and are consequently
kept housebound by thoughtless motorists. Mrs B, at well under 1mph on
her two sticks, wouldn't stand a chance if some idiot came at her too
fast in the downhill direction.

--
not me guv

[Brian RobertsOn]

Why don't you stop cross posting to uk.transport, you retard.

[Nuxx Bar]

On Mar 18, 4:01*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:15:16 -0700 (PDT), Mike P
> > said in
> >:
>
> >Do you know WHY they "street garage" Doug? It's because green ****wits
> >on councils led by government guidlelines decided to build smaller
> >garages to try and tempt people not to use cars. So there's all these
> >garages that CARS CAN'T FIT INTO.
>
> You can't fit cars into my garage because it's full of things that
> (unlike the car) are not waterproof. *My priceless collection of
> come-in-handy wood, for example.

Neatly avoiding the point, as always. You know perfectly well that
current rules dictate that new residential developments provide
inadequate parking in yet another completely failed attempt to bully
people out of their cars. But admitting that would be admitting that
anti-motorist measures exist in this country, and you don't want to do
that, do you? Much better to pretend that neither you nor the
government has any sort of problem with cars. Like anyone actually
believes that.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 18 Mar, 18:47, Adrian > wrote:
> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >> >> >> Mind you i've noticed that you rarely seem bothered about
> >> >> >> pedestrians, just cyclists.
> >> >> > What gives you that idea?
> >> >> The content and tone of your posts?
> >> > Such as?
> >> Look, I know you rarely bother to actually read other people's posts
> >> all the way through, but I assumed you did at least read your own.
> > No example then, as usual. Just your usual empty assertions.
>
> I could post a dozen examples, easily. But you wouldn't know what to do
> with the MessageIDs.
>
Still nothing from you then? How long do you think you can keep this
up?

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"More bikes, fewer cars!".

[Adrian]

Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> > No example then, as usual. Just your usual empty assertions.

>> I could post a dozen examples, easily. But you wouldn't know what to do
>> with the MessageIDs.

> Still nothing from you then?

No, I cannot be bothered to post a ****load of irrefutable proof that
you'll completely ignore. Again.

> How long do you think you can keep this up?

You've been managing for years.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 19 Mar, 07:16, Adrian > wrote:
> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >> > No example then, as usual. Just your usual empty assertions.
> >> I could post a dozen examples, easily. But you wouldn't know what to do
> >> with the MessageIDs.
> > Still nothing from you then?
>
> No, I cannot be bothered to post a ****load of irrefutable proof that
> you'll completely ignore. Again.
>
What you really mean is you can't and I can't be bothered to keep on
responding to your endless evasions.
>
> > How long do you think you can keep this up?
>
> You've been managing for years.
>
So you are following my alleged example instead of trying to hack it
on your own?

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"More bikes, fewer cars!".

[Adrian]

Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>> >> > No example then, as usual. Just your usual empty assertions.

>> >> I could post a dozen examples, easily. But you wouldn't know what to
>> >> do with the MessageIDs.

>> > Still nothing from you then?

>> No, I cannot be bothered to post a ****load of irrefutable proof that
>> you'll completely ignore. Again.

> What you really mean is you can't

Correct. I can't be bothered.

[[email protected]]

On 18 Mar, 23:02, Nick Kew > wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:52:42 +0000
>
> David Hansen > wrote:
> > >(normal pavements not designated parking areas) and
> > >leave a gap too small for a wheelchair or a mum with a wide pram to
> > >get through.
>
> > Often these motorists leave a "gap" which is too small for anyone to
> > pass by on the pavement. Other motorists then appear to get upset
> > when people walk in the road to get past the obstruction.
>
> The motorists in my road don't seem to mind me momentarily blocking
> their path as I (on foot) pass cars blocking the pavement.
>
> But it's really not fair on the elderly and disabled, who lack the
> confidence to walk out in the middle of the road, and are consequently
> kept housebound by thoughtless motorists. *Mrs B, at well under 1mph on
> her two sticks, wouldn't stand a chance if some idiot came at her too
> fast in the downhill direction.
>

And she's not wearing a helmet? Contributory negligence. 15% bonus to
the guilty motorist and his lawyer. I don't know! Some people!

[Alan Braggins]

In article >, Conor wrote:
>>
>The difference is that cars parking on pavements do so in designated
>areas which ensures a minimum width for pedestrians

Oink, flap, oink, flap.

[Colin McKenzie]

Marc wrote:
> Abo wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> side of cyclists. I bet it won't apply though to the vicinity of
>>> Parliament or Downing Street, where chaining to railings elicits a
>>> prompt response from the cops.
>>
>> Never heard of 'This Bike Is A Pipe Bomb'?
>
> The SOE was wrapped up in 1946, but their legacy seems to linger on in
> this one Heath Robinsonesque idea. Back in the 1940's, in wartime,
> occupied Europe, where cars were scarce, petrol scarcer and cars were
> registered to owners(compared with bicycles were common place,didn't
> need petrol and didn't need to be registered) , then a bicycle bomb
> might have seemed like a good idea, and in fact DID seem like a good
> idea to the SOE who included in their sabotage manual. Of course if they
> had actually tried it beofre suggesting it then they would have found
> that all that happens is that the seat post and saddle go off on a
> parabolic journey.

There are 'bike bombs' in Sri Lanka from time to time. I checked: they
strap things called Claymore mines to the bikes. Claymore mines are a
couple of feet long, like a large hand grenade with a stalk.

I don't think anyone has even tried to conceal a bomb inside a bike frame.

The ban is stupid, pointless, and anti-cycling.

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.

[lardyninja]

Colin McKenzie wrote, On 19/03/2009 09:10:
> There are 'bike bombs' in Sri Lanka from time to time. I checked: they
> strap things called Claymore mines to the bikes. Claymore mines are a
> couple of feet long, like a large hand grenade with a stalk.
>

Are you thinking of a rocket propelled grenade? Cos this is a Claymore mine:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/M18_Claymore_Mine.jpg


> The ban is stupid, pointless, and anti-cycling.
>

Yes that's true.

LN


--

Professor of Madeupology at
the University of Myhouse

[[email protected]]

On 19 Mar, 08:01, Doug > wrote:
> On 19 Mar, 07:16, Adrian > wrote:> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > saying:
>
> > >> > No example then, as usual. Just your usual empty assertions.
> > >> I could post a dozen examples, easily. But you wouldn't know what to do
> > >> with the MessageIDs.
> > > Still nothing from you then?
>
> > No, I cannot be bothered to post a ****load of irrefutable proof that
> > you'll completely ignore. Again.
>
> What you really mean is you can't and I can't be bothered to keep on
> responding to your endless evasions.

That would certainly be different from how you normally deal with me
which starts with you doing the above, me taking time to post things
and then you ignoring it. A few weeks later you do the same again.
Oddly everyone remembers you doing it so I'm not sure why you think
its such a great tactic.

Combined with the fact that there is an archive of years of this
behavior its hard to see how it could work.

I recally you defend the silences by saying your to busy to respond to
all posts. Which is funny as you seem able to respond to a lot until
they do what you ask and post the proof of your previous claims...
Odd that.

Fod

[Mark[_15_]]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:02:30 +0000, Nick Kew
> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:52:42 +0000
>David Hansen > wrote:
>
>> >(normal pavements not designated parking areas) and
>> >leave a gap too small for a wheelchair or a mum with a wide pram to
>> >get through.
>>
>> Often these motorists leave a "gap" which is too small for anyone to
>> pass by on the pavement. Other motorists then appear to get upset
>> when people walk in the road to get past the obstruction.
>
>The motorists in my road don't seem to mind me momentarily blocking
>their path as I (on foot) pass cars blocking the pavement.
>
>But it's really not fair on the elderly and disabled, who lack the
>confidence to walk out in the middle of the road, and are consequently
>kept housebound by thoughtless motorists. Mrs B, at well under 1mph on
>her two sticks, wouldn't stand a chance if some idiot came at her too
>fast in the downhill direction.

And small children going to school.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

[Mark[_15_]]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:07:20 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:55:17 -0000, Conor >
>said in >:
>
>>The difference is that cars parking on pavements do so in designated
>>areas which ensures a minimum width for pedestrians whereas cyclists
>>abandon theirs without thought
>
>Only in the case of designated pavement parking bays. Most pavement
>parking does not seem to be in such bays. Around here the typical
>pavement parking offender is a BMW with hazard lights on who puts
>two wheels slightly on the kerb in order to maintain the fiction
>that he is then somehow not obstructing traffic. But I will
>acknowledge that pavement parking is second best, used only when
>there are cars parked all round the junction by the paper shop.

A lot of people leave their cars almost permanently parked on the
pavement, even if there's room to park on the road!

People should not park on pavement *ever*.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

[[email protected]]

On 18 Mar, 12:05, Adrian > wrote:
> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >> >> Mind you i've noticed that you rarely seem bothered about
> >> >> pedestrians, just cyclists.
> >> > What gives you that idea?
> >> The content and tone of your posts?
> > Such as?
>
> Look, I know you rarely bother to actually read other people's posts all
> the way through, but I assumed you did at least read your own.

Here are some of Dougs previous claims. I'll back them up with links
if he decides he wants to distance himself from them.

I proposed a way of improving road safety by introducing a jaywalking
law within a certain radius of pedestrian crossings. Doug decryed it
as a violation of his rights.

Doug has complained about barriers, designed to protect young
children, as curtailing his right of access to the road.

Doug wants to get rid of "hitler like" motorways which would mean more
traffic on roads used by pedestrains rather than the bulk of the car
journey being done well away from the pedestrain.

Doug promotes cycling behavior that is dangerous to pedestrians.
Regardless of his justification the fact remains that he's happy to
put pedestrians at risk rather than cycle within the law.

Doug wants the right to cycle on train station platforms which would
put pedestrians at risk.

There is problably more but I think this gives a good sense of Dougs
"As long as I'm alright" attitude. When he could drive ( medical
reasons stop him now) he drove a gas guzzling 4x4 for instance, which
was fine at the time.

I see he's now got an electric mobility device. I hope he uses it in
a more responsible manner than some people as they to are a risk to
pedestrians.

Fod

[David Hansen]

On 18 Mar 2009 18:08:51 GMT someone who may be Ian Smith
> wrote this:-

>http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/parking/

A superb page, which makes the point well.



--
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

[Brimstone[_6_]]

wrote:

> There is problably more but I think this gives a good sense of Dougs
> "As long as I'm alright" attitude. When he could drive ( medical
> reasons stop him now) he drove a gas guzzling 4x4 for instance, which
> was fine at the time.
>
I think you've missed an important point there. He drove the said 4x4 off
road for no reason other than his own pleasure. He wasn't even using it for
any productive purpose, such as going to work.

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:06:11 +0000 someone who may be Mark
> wrote this:-

>>But it's really not fair on the elderly and disabled, who lack the
>>confidence to walk out in the middle of the road, and are consequently
>>kept housebound by thoughtless motorists. Mrs B, at well under 1mph on
>>her two sticks, wouldn't stand a chance if some idiot came at her too
>>fast in the downhill direction.
>
>And small children going to school.

They should be in cars:-)


--
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[_15_]]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:01:11 +0000, David Hansen
> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:06:11 +0000 someone who may be Mark
> wrote this:-
>
>>>But it's really not fair on the elderly and disabled, who lack the
>>>confidence to walk out in the middle of the road, and are consequently
>>>kept housebound by thoughtless motorists. Mrs B, at well under 1mph on
>>>her two sticks, wouldn't stand a chance if some idiot came at her too
>>>fast in the downhill direction.
>>
>>And small children going to school.
>
>They should be in cars:-)

Some people really believe this!

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:56:40 +0000 someone who may be Mark
> wrote this:-

>>>>But it's really not fair on the elderly and disabled, who lack the
>>>>confidence to walk out in the middle of the road, and are consequently
>>>>kept housebound by thoughtless motorists. Mrs B, at well under 1mph on
>>>>her two sticks, wouldn't stand a chance if some idiot came at her too
>>>>fast in the downhill direction.
>>>
>>>And small children going to school.
>>
>>They should be in cars:-)
>
>Some people really believe this!

Indeed. Particularly road "safety" officials.


--
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

[Rob Morley]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:09:00 +0000
Mark > wrote:

> People should not park on pavement *ever*.
>
******** - there are plenty of places where it's OK to do so, and some
where it's officially sanctioned.

[Mark[_15_]]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:54:28 +0000, Rob Morley >
wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:09:00 +0000
>Mark > wrote:
>
>> People should not park on pavement *ever*.
>>
>******** - there are plenty of places where it's OK to do so, and some
>where it's officially sanctioned.

Then it's not a pavement. It's a parking space.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

[Colin McKenzie]

lardyninja wrote:
> Colin McKenzie wrote, On 19/03/2009 09:10:
>> There are 'bike bombs' in Sri Lanka from time to time. I checked: they
>> strap things called Claymore mines to the bikes. Claymore mines are a
>> couple of feet long, like a large hand grenade with a stalk.
>
> Are you thinking of a rocket propelled grenade? Cos this is a Claymore
> mine:
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/M18_Claymore_Mine.jpg

Possibly. My source was pictures in Sri Lankan newspapers.

But the point stands!

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.

[judith smith]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:47:55 +0000, Colin McKenzie
> wrote:

>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.


Incorrect:

--

Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured:
Pedal Cyclists : 533 Pedestrians : 384
All casualties:
Pedal Cyclists : 3739 Pedestrians : 1795

Which do you think is the most dangerous?

[_[_9_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 18 Mar, 18:47, Adrian > wrote:
>> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>>>>>>> Mind you i've noticed that you rarely seem bothered about
>>>>>>>> pedestrians, just cyclists.
>>>>>>> What gives you that idea?
>>>>>> The content and tone of your posts?
>>>>> Such as?
>>>> Look, I know you rarely bother to actually read other people's posts
>>>> all the way through, but I assumed you did at least read your own.
>>> No example then, as usual. Just your usual empty assertions.
>> I could post a dozen examples, easily. But you wouldn't know what to do
>> with the MessageIDs.
>>
> Still nothing from you then? How long do you think you can keep this
> up?
>
Well he's got MILES to go to catch up with you Duhg, eh?

[_[_9_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 19 Mar, 07:16, Adrian > wrote:
>> Doug > gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>>>> No example then, as usual. Just your usual empty assertions.
>>>> I could post a dozen examples, easily. But you wouldn't know what to do
>>>> with the MessageIDs.
>>> Still nothing from you then?
>> No, I cannot be bothered to post a ****load of irrefutable proof that
>> you'll completely ignore. Again.
>>
> What you really mean is you can't and I can't be bothered to keep on
> responding to your endless evasions.
>>> How long do you think you can keep this up?
>> You've been managing for years.
>>
> So you are following my alleged example instead of trying to hack it
> on your own?
>
Nah, I think I'll just get you thrown off (yet another) ISP instead...

[_[_9_]]

wrote:
>
> I see he's now got an electric mobility device. I hope he uses it in
> a more responsible manner than some people as they to are a risk to
> pedestrians.
>
I hope it short circuits and boils him in his own ****.

[Dave Larrington]

In news:20090319155428.4e04bf1c@bluemoon,
Rob Morley > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:09:00 +0000
> Mark > wrote:
>
>> People should not park on pavement *ever*.
>>
> ******** - there are plenty of places where it's OK to do so, and some
> where it's officially sanctioned.

Another triumph for Magic Paint(tm).

http://www.legslarry.org.uk/BikeStull/MagicPaint.jpg

See how slapping a couple of lines can magically transform a pavement into
not-a-pavement!

Unfortunately, Google Street View doesn't extend far enough round the corner
to show the place where Magic Paint(tm) can transform a pavement into a
not-a-pavement narrow enough to preclude passage for prams, wheelchairs and
the plumber from number 4.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
May you have an accident shaped like an umbrella.

[Mark[_15_]]

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:37:33 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
> wrote:

>In news:20090319155428.4e04bf1c@bluemoon,
>Rob Morley > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:09:00 +0000
>> Mark > wrote:
>>
>>> People should not park on pavement *ever*.
>>>
>> ******** - there are plenty of places where it's OK to do so, and some
>> where it's officially sanctioned.
>
>Another triumph for Magic Paint(tm).
>
>http://www.legslarry.org.uk/BikeStull/MagicPaint.jpg
>
>See how slapping a couple of lines can magically transform a pavement into
>not-a-pavement!

Looks like some resident has slapped a bit of white emulsion on the
pavement, rather than an official "conversion".

Is that a cycle lane that cars are parked in on the other side of the
road?

> Unfortunately, Google Street View doesn't extend far enough round the corner
> to show the place where Magic Paint(tm) can transform a pavement into a
> not-a-pavement narrow enough to preclude passage for prams, wheelchairs and
> the plumber from number 4.

Can't have them park their precious cars in the road can we? Perhaps
we are moving towards cars driving on the pavement and the pedestrains
walking in the road?

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
Mark > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:37:33 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
> > wrote:
>
>> In news:20090319155428.4e04bf1c@bluemoon,
>> Rob Morley > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
>> us:
>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:09:00 +0000
>>> Mark > wrote:
>>>
>>>> People should not park on pavement *ever*.
>>>>
>>> ******** - there are plenty of places where it's OK to do so, and
>>> some where it's officially sanctioned.
>>
>> Another triumph for Magic Paint(tm).
>>
>> http://www.legslarry.org.uk/BikeStull/MagicPaint.jpg
>>
>> See how slapping a couple of lines can magically transform a
>> pavement into not-a-pavement!
>
> Looks like some resident has slapped a bit of white emulsion on the
> pavement, rather than an official "conversion".

It's official - there is, or at least was, a sign somewhere telling people
to park on the
not-a-pavement but I and GSV have not been able to find it so far.

> Is that a cycle lane that cars are parked in on the other side of the
> road?

No. You can't see it from that angle but there's more Magic Paint(tm) on
the not-a-pavement.

http://www.legslarry.org.uk/BikeStull/MoreMagicPaint.jpg

Curiously, in the side road a hundred yards south of the above, putting even
one wheel on the pavement will get you a ticket, unless you go a bit further
along, this being where the place mentioned below is.

>> Unfortunately, Google Street View doesn't extend far enough round
>> the corner to show the place where Magic Paint(tm) can transform a
>> pavement into a not-a-pavement narrow enough to preclude passage for
>> prams, wheelchairs and the plumber from number 4.
>
> Can't have them park their precious cars in the road can we? Perhaps
> we are moving towards cars driving on the pavement and the pedestrians
> walking in the road?

If Wednesday evening was in any way typical, this is already being done by
the police. I'd have thought that H&S considerations would have encouraged
Plod to keep his Well-Polished Size Tens on the pavement rather than
Proceeding along what is a rather narrow road (not the one in the picture,
BTW), but they seemed to think otherwise. I nearly found myself giving them
a lift to the newsagents on my bonnet.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Never give a gun to ducks.

[Mark[_15_]]

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:02:57 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
> wrote:

>In ,
>Mark > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:37:33 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> In news:20090319155428.4e04bf1c@bluemoon,
>>> Rob Morley > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
>>> us:
>>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:09:00 +0000
>>>> Mark > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> People should not park on pavement *ever*.
>>>>>
>>>> ******** - there are plenty of places where it's OK to do so, and
>>>> some where it's officially sanctioned.
>>>
>>> Another triumph for Magic Paint(tm).
>>>
>>> http://www.legslarry.org.uk/BikeStull/MagicPaint.jpg
>>>
>>> See how slapping a couple of lines can magically transform a
>>> pavement into not-a-pavement!
>>
>> Looks like some resident has slapped a bit of white emulsion on the
>> pavement, rather than an official "conversion".
>
>It's official - there is, or at least was, a sign somewhere telling people
>to park on the
>not-a-pavement but I and GSV have not been able to find it so far.
>
>> Is that a cycle lane that cars are parked in on the other side of the
>> road?
>
>No. You can't see it from that angle but there's more Magic Paint(tm) on
>the not-a-pavement.
>
>http://www.legslarry.org.uk/BikeStull/MoreMagicPaint.jpg
>
>Curiously, in the side road a hundred yards south of the above, putting even
>one wheel on the pavement will get you a ticket, unless you go a bit further
>along, this being where the place mentioned below is.
>
>>> Unfortunately, Google Street View doesn't extend far enough round
>>> the corner to show the place where Magic Paint(tm) can transform a
>>> pavement into a not-a-pavement narrow enough to preclude passage for
>>> prams, wheelchairs and the plumber from number 4.
>>
>> Can't have them park their precious cars in the road can we? Perhaps
>> we are moving towards cars driving on the pavement and the pedestrians
>> walking in the road?
>
>If Wednesday evening was in any way typical, this is already being done by
>the police. I'd have thought that H&S considerations would have encouraged
>Plod to keep his Well-Polished Size Tens on the pavement rather than
>Proceeding along what is a rather narrow road (not the one in the picture,
>BTW), but they seemed to think otherwise. I nearly found myself giving them
>a lift to the newsagents on my bonnet.

At least you have some police presence.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

[judith smith]

On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:37:33 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
> wrote:

>In news:20090319155428.4e04bf1c@bluemoon,
>Rob Morley > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:09:00 +0000
>> Mark > wrote:
>>
>>> People should not park on pavement *ever*.
>>>
>> ******** - there are plenty of places where it's OK to do so, and some
>> where it's officially sanctioned.
>
>Another triumph for Magic Paint(tm).


"tm" - indeed - see point 4 below from OED:

Noun - Psycholist
Pronunciation Key : psy·cho·list.
Origin: based on the outbursts of a rabid Psycholist called Guy
Chapman

A cyclist who is one of a small group who frequent the news group
uk.rec.cycling they have invented their own "language" to justify
their views:

Examples:
1) "cycle helmet" - they would rather pretend that such devices
do not exist; they will try and overcome their problem by using the
alternative "h*l*et" - or just "h".
2) They cannot bring themselves to use the word: "facility" in
the context of a "cycling facility". Whatever the facility - they
must try and ridicule it as they will not be able to fully comprehend
the benefits as seen for all road users. This is achieved by using
the alternative "farcility".
3) "Cager" is used provocatively instead of the word "motorist",
in the hope that it irritates motorists; it doesn't - it makes them
laugh at the psycholist's inadequacies.
4) "Magic paint" - only used by the most inflicted psycholists.
Used to describe signage to cyclist on pavements. Origin unknown.

--

Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured:
Pedal Cyclists : 533 Pedestrians : 384
All casualties:
Pedal Cyclists : 3739 Pedestrians : 1795

Which do you think is the most dangerous?

[Dave Larrington]

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

> At least you have some police presence.

They're more likely to be doing 80 along that road with their woo-woos on,
or hanging out mob-handed in the kebab shop by the station...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
(I'm off to the shops, anyone want anything? - Ed).

[Doug[_3_]]

On 20 Mar, 10:23, Mark > wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:37:33 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >Innews:20090319155428.4e04bf1c@bluemoon,
> >Rob Morley > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> >> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:09:00 +0000
> >> Mark > wrote:
>
> >>> People should not park on pavement *ever*.
>
> >> ******** - there are plenty of places where it's OK to do so, and some
> >> where it's officially sanctioned.
>
> >Another triumph for Magic Paint(tm).
>
> >http://www.legslarry.org.uk/BikeStull/MagicPaint.jpg
>
> >See how slapping a couple of lines can magically transform a pavement into
> >not-a-pavement!
>
> Looks like some resident has slapped a bit of white emulsion on the
> pavement, rather than an official "conversion".
>
> Is that a cycle lane that cars are parked in on the other side of the
> road?
>
> > Unfortunately, Google Street View doesn't extend far enough round the corner
> > to show the place where Magic Paint(tm) can transform a pavement into a
> > not-a-pavement narrow enough to preclude passage for prams, wheelchairs and
> > the plumber from number 4.
>
> Can't have them park their precious cars in the road can we? *Perhaps
> we are moving towards cars driving on the pavement and the pedestrains
> walking in the road?
>
No they wouldn't be allowed to walk in the road, if mass car use
continues to encroach on every aspect of our lives. It will probably
be assumed that all adults will eventually become motorists, or their
passengers, in order to survive. Pavements will be eliminated in order
to provide greater road space for cars and there will be special
footways straight from car parks to shops, as with many supermarkets.
We are already witnessing the demise of the High Street retailer in
favour of shopping malls and supermarkets. In this dark vision of the
future the car will reign supreme, even more so than it does now.

--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.

[_[_9_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 20 Mar, 10:23, Mark > wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:37:33 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> Innews:20090319155428.4e04bf1c@bluemoon,
>>> Rob Morley > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:09:00 +0000
>>>> Mark > wrote:
>>>>> People should not park on pavement *ever*.
>>>> ******** - there are plenty of places where it's OK to do so, and some
>>>> where it's officially sanctioned.
>>> Another triumph for Magic Paint(tm).
>>> http://www.legslarry.org.uk/BikeStull/MagicPaint.jpg
>>> See how slapping a couple of lines can magically transform a pavement into
>>> not-a-pavement!
>> Looks like some resident has slapped a bit of white emulsion on the
>> pavement, rather than an official "conversion".
>>
>> Is that a cycle lane that cars are parked in on the other side of the
>> road?
>>
>>> Unfortunately, Google Street View doesn't extend far enough round the corner
>>> to show the place where Magic Paint(tm) can transform a pavement into a
>>> not-a-pavement narrow enough to preclude passage for prams, wheelchairs and
>>> the plumber from number 4.
>> Can't have them park their precious cars in the road can we? Perhaps
>> we are moving towards cars driving on the pavement and the pedestrains
>> walking in the road?
>>
> No they wouldn't be allowed to walk in the road, if mass car use
> continues to encroach on every aspect of our lives. It will probably
> be assumed that all adults will eventually become motorists, or their
> passengers, in order to survive. Pavements will be eliminated in order
> to provide greater road space for cars and there will be special
> footways straight from car parks to shops, as with many supermarkets.
> We are already witnessing the demise of the High Street retailer in
> favour of shopping malls and supermarkets. In this dark vision of the
> future the car will reign supreme, even more so than it does now.
>
Sounds great! Can we have it tomorrow? Starting in Catford?

[John Wright]

Doug wrote:

> Given that many cyclists are allowed to street garage their bicycles 24/7
> for free, sometimes on pavements, I see no reason why motorists
> shouldn't be allowed something similar.

There, paraphrased to the topic it sounds almost plausible.

> particularly as they take up much less space

So what? Goalposts too moveable for you?

--
John Wright

I used to drive a car a lot also. Duhg Bollen.

It didn't happen. The whole thing was fabricated in a movie studio by
Jewish film directors using realistic dummies to gain international
sympathy and thus grab and retain a chunk of Arab territory and
accumulate weapons of mass destruction with help from a complicit US.
Duhg Bollens view of the Holocaust.

Duhg Bollen promised a report on how Vince can reduce his carbon
emissions by moving in November 2007. We're still waiting.