When will they take away this lethal street furniture?

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_from_Kidderminster_crash_s cene/

[Marie]

On Jun 12, 12:50*pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...

This must be misreported, I've checked on Google Maps & the lamposts
are on the footway not on the road.

[OG]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_from_Kidderminster_crash_s cene/

lethal?

[Squashme]

On 12 June, 13:05, Marie > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 12:50*pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> >http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>
> This must be misreported, I've checked on Google Maps & the lamposts
> are on the footway not on the road.

Yes, or else cars would be always crashing into them, wouldn't they?
Oh, wait a minute ...

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

OG wrote:
> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
>> http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_from_Kidderminster_crash_s cene/
>
> lethal?

potentially, yes.

[Squashme]

On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> OG wrote:
> > "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> >news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> >>http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>
> > lethal?
>
> potentially, yes.

Street?
No, pavement.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> > OG wrote:
> > > "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> > >news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> > >>http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>
> > > lethal?
>
> > potentially, yes.
>
> Street?
> No, pavement.
>
And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
place don't we?

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean mob.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>
>>> OG wrote:
>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>> news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
>>>>> http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>>>> lethal?
>>> potentially, yes.
>> Street?
>> No, pavement.
>>
> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
> and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
> all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
> place don't we?
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean mob.

Where would you suggest that these signs be put?

--
Tony Dragon

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>
>>> OG wrote:
>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>> news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
>>>>> http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>>
>>>> lethal?
>>
>>> potentially, yes.
>>
>> Street?
>> No, pavement.
>>
> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
> and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
> all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
> place don't we?

Cyclists are road users, they need road signs too. This story illustrates
why they should NOT ride on the pavement.

[Squashme]

On 13 June, 08:58, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
> >> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> >>> OG wrote:
> >>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> >>>>news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> >>>>>http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
> >>>> lethal?
> >>> potentially, yes.
> >> Street?
> >> No, pavement.
>
> > And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
> > and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
> > all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
> > place don't we?
>
> > --
> > UK Radical Campaigns.
> >http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean mob.
>
> Where would you suggest that these signs be put?
>

In the road with the majority of their users, along with whatever
railings are worth having.

[Squashme]

On 13 June, 09:13, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
> >> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> >>> OG wrote:
> >>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> >>>>news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> >>>>>http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>
> >>>> lethal?
>
> >>> potentially, yes.
>
> >> Street?
> >> No, pavement.
>
> > And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
> > and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
> > all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
> > place don't we?
>
> Cyclists are road users, they need road signs too. *This story illustrates
> why they should NOT ride on the pavement.

So when a car collides with a lamp-post, it must have been travelling
along the pavement then?

[webreader]

On Jun 13, 12:20*pm, Squashme > wrote:
> On 13 June, 09:13, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
> > >> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> > >>> OG wrote:
> > >>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> > >>>>news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> > >>>>>http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>
> > >>>> lethal?
>
> > >>> potentially, yes.
>
> > >> Street?
> > >> No, pavement.
>
> > > And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
> > > and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
> > > all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
> > > place don't we?
>
> > Cyclists are road users, they need road signs too. *This story illustrates
> > why they should NOT ride on the pavement.
>
> So when a car collides with a lamp-post, it must have been travelling
> along the pavement then?

But probably not travelling along the pavement on purpose.

[webreader]

On Jun 13, 12:20*pm, Squashme > wrote:
> On 13 June, 08:58, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
> > >> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> > >>> OG wrote:
> > >>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> > >>>>news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> > >>>>>http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
> > >>>> lethal?
> > >>> potentially, yes.
> > >> Street?
> > >> No, pavement.
>
> > > And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
> > > and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
> > > all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
> > > place don't we?
>
> > > --
> > > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > >http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean mob.
>
> > Where would you suggest that these signs be put?
>
> In the road with the majority of their users, along with whatever
> railings are worth having.

So they would be a danger to all road users (and that includes
cyclists)

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Squashme wrote:
> On 13 June, 09:13, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
>>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>
>>>>> OG wrote:
>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>>>> news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
>>>>>>> http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>>
>>>>>> lethal?
>>
>>>>> potentially, yes.
>>
>>>> Street?
>>>> No, pavement.
>>
>>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
>>> and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
>>> all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
>>> place don't we?
>>
>> Cyclists are road users, they need road signs too. This story
>> illustrates why they should NOT ride on the pavement.
>
> So when a car collides with a lamp-post, it must have been travelling
> along the pavement then?

for the vast majority of cases : sometimes it will have mounted or been
forced onto the pavement before crashing into a lamp post, perhaps while
avoiding an unlit cyclist. but it won't have been 'making a journey' or be
deliberately on the pavement (unlike cyclists) .

[Squashme]

On 13 June, 12:59, webreader > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 12:20*pm, Squashme > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 13 June, 09:13, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> > > Doug wrote:
> > > > On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
> > > >> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> > > >>> OG wrote:
> > > >>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> > > >>>>news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> > > >>>>>http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>
> > > >>>> lethal?
>
> > > >>> potentially, yes.
>
> > > >> Street?
> > > >> No, pavement.
>
> > > > And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
> > > > and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
> > > > all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
> > > > place don't we?
>
> > > Cyclists are road users, they need road signs too. *This story illustrates
> > > why they should NOT ride on the pavement.
>
> > So when a car collides with a lamp-post, it must have been travelling
> > along the pavement then?
>
> But probably not travelling along the pavement on purpose.

Do we know that this cyclist was? Could have been distracted by the
car accident for instance.
I believe that motorists tend to gawp and slow down when passing
crashes, and sometimes have their own little accidents as a result.

[Squashme]

On 13 June, 13:00, webreader > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 12:20*pm, Squashme > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 13 June, 08:58, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>
> > > Doug wrote:
> > > > On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
> > > >> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> > > >>> OG wrote:
> > > >>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> > > >>>>news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> > > >>>>>http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
> > > >>>> lethal?
> > > >>> potentially, yes.
> > > >> Street?
> > > >> No, pavement.
>
> > > > And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
> > > > and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
> > > > all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
> > > > place don't we?
>
> > > > --
> > > > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > > >http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > > One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean mob.
>
> > > Where would you suggest that these signs be put?
>
> > In the road with the majority of their users, along with whatever
> > railings are worth having.
>
> So they would be a danger to all road users (and that includes
> cyclists)

The signs are for the benefit of motorists. They should pay the cost
in possible extra hazards. Signs warning of the hazard could be put in
front of the signs (or they could have warnings on their little GISs,
as they are apparently allowed to for speed and red light cameras).
Strange that such criminal behaviour by motorists is allowed, but the
idea of using similar technology to remotely regulate the speed of
motorists' vehicles would be seen as some sort of breach of some sort
of "right".

It would surely not increase the danger for cyclists. The majority
apparently cycle on pavements already, and so would be used to dodging
these signs.

[Squashme]

On 13 June, 13:05, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 13 June, 09:13, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
> >>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> >>>>> OG wrote:
> >>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> >>>>>>>http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>
> >>>>>> lethal?
>
> >>>>> potentially, yes.
>
> >>>> Street?
> >>>> No, pavement.
>
> >>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
> >>> and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
> >>> all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
> >>> place don't we?
>
> >> Cyclists are road users, they need road signs too. This story
> >> illustrates why they should NOT ride on the pavement.
>
> > So when a car collides with a lamp-post, it must have been travelling
> > along the pavement then?
>
> for the vast majority of cases : sometimes it will have mounted or been
> forced onto the pavement before crashing into a lamp post, perhaps while
> avoiding an unlit cyclist. but it won't have been 'making a journey' or be
> deliberately on the pavement (unlike cyclists) .

Was this cyclist?

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Squashme wrote:
> On 13 June, 13:05, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 13 June, 09:13, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> OG wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
>>>>>>>>> http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>>
>>>>>>>> lethal?
>>
>>>>>>> potentially, yes.
>>
>>>>>> Street?
>>>>>> No, pavement.
>>
>>>>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for
>>>>> drivers and other pavement furniture specifically for road users.
>>>>> Still, we all know who is given priority when it comes to moving
>>>>> from place to place don't we?
>>
>>>> Cyclists are road users, they need road signs too. This story
>>>> illustrates why they should NOT ride on the pavement.
>>
>>> So when a car collides with a lamp-post, it must have been
>>> travelling along the pavement then?
>>
>> for the vast majority of cases : sometimes it will have mounted or
>> been forced onto the pavement before crashing into a lamp post,
>> perhaps while avoiding an unlit cyclist. but it won't have been
>> 'making a journey' or be deliberately on the pavement (unlike
>> cyclists) .
>
> Was this cyclist?

What?

[Squashme]

On 13 June, 17:26, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 13 June, 13:05, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >> Squashme wrote:
> >>> On 13 June, 09:13, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> OG wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>
> >>>>>>>> lethal?
>
> >>>>>>> potentially, yes.
>
> >>>>>> Street?
> >>>>>> No, pavement.
>
> >>>>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for
> >>>>> drivers and other pavement furniture specifically for road users.
> >>>>> Still, we all know who is given priority when it comes to moving
> >>>>> from place to place don't we?
>
> >>>> Cyclists are road users, they need road signs too. This story
> >>>> illustrates why they should NOT ride on the pavement.
>
> >>> So when a car collides with a lamp-post, it must have been
> >>> travelling along the pavement then?
>
> >> for the vast majority of cases : sometimes it will have mounted or
> >> been forced onto the pavement before crashing into a lamp post,
> >> perhaps while avoiding an unlit cyclist. but it won't have been
> >> 'making a journey' or be deliberately on the pavement (unlike
> >> cyclists) .
>
> > Was this cyclist?
>
> What?

"'making a journey or be deliberately on the pavement" (come on, your
words, aren't they?)

[Squashme]

On 13 June, 13:05, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 13 June, 09:13, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
> >>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> >>>>> OG wrote:
> >>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> >>>>>>>http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>
> >>>>>> lethal?
>
> >>>>> potentially, yes.
>
> >>>> Street?
> >>>> No, pavement.
>
> >>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
> >>> and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
> >>> all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
> >>> place don't we?
>
> >> Cyclists are road users, they need road signs too. This story
> >> illustrates why they should NOT ride on the pavement.
>
> > So when a car collides with a lamp-post, it must have been travelling
> > along the pavement then?
>
> for the vast majority of cases : sometimes it will have mounted or been
> forced onto the pavement before crashing into a lamp post, perhaps while
> avoiding an unlit cyclist. but it won't have been 'making a journey' or be
> deliberately on the pavement (unlike cyclists) .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484076/The-moment-teen-driver-mows-pedestrian-hit-run.html

"The car mounted the pavement and smashed into Mr Hill - flinging him
against a brick wall.

Patel then sped away, leaving the 50-year-old lying motionless on the
floor suffering neck and back injuries."

[Tony Dragon]

Squashme wrote:
> On 13 June, 13:00, webreader > wrote:
>> On Jun 13, 12:20 pm, Squashme > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 13 June, 08:58, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>>>>> OG wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
>>>>>>>>> http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>>>>>>>> lethal?
>>>>>>> potentially, yes.
>>>>>> Street?
>>>>>> No, pavement.
>>>>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
>>>>> and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
>>>>> all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
>>>>> place don't we?
>>>>> --
>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean mob.
>>>> Where would you suggest that these signs be put?
>>> In the road with the majority of their users, along with whatever
>>> railings are worth having.
>> So they would be a danger to all road users (and that includes
>> cyclists)
>
> The signs are for the benefit of motorists. They should pay the cost
> in possible extra hazards. Signs warning of the hazard could be put in
> front of the signs

Signs could be put in front of signs, did you mean that?

> (or they could have warnings on their little GISs,

Which most do not have

> as they are apparently allowed to for speed and red light cameras).
> Strange that such criminal behaviour by motorists is allowed,

Could you quote what law they are breaking if you say they are allowed?

> but the
> idea of using similar technology to remotely regulate the speed of
> motorists' vehicles would be seen as some sort of breach of some sort
> of "right".

Could you quote where that has been said?

>
> It would surely not increase the danger for cyclists. The majority
> apparently cycle on pavements already, and so would be used to dodging
> these signs.

Well in parts of big cities you have got that right.


--
Tony Dragon

[Squashme]

On 13 June, 18:03, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 13 June, 13:00, webreader > wrote:
> >> On Jun 13, 12:20 pm, Squashme > wrote:
>
> >>> On 13 June, 08:58, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >>>>>>> OG wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
> >>>>>>>> lethal?
> >>>>>>> potentially, yes.
> >>>>>> Street?
> >>>>>> No, pavement.
> >>>>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
> >>>>> and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
> >>>>> all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
> >>>>> place don't we?
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
> >>>>>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> >>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean mob.
> >>>> Where would you suggest that these signs be put?
> >>> In the road with the majority of their users, along with whatever
> >>> railings are worth having.
> >> So they would be a danger to all road users (and that includes
> >> cyclists)
>
> > The signs are for the benefit of motorists. They should pay the cost
> > in possible extra hazards. Signs warning of the hazard could be put in
> > front of the signs
>
> Signs could be put in front of signs, did you mean that?

Yes. Why not? Its as good an idea as VED and plates for cyclists.

>
> > (or they could have warnings on their little GISs,
>
> Which most do not have

Sob!

>
> > as they are apparently allowed to for speed and red light cameras).
> > Strange that such criminal behaviour by motorists is allowed,
>
> Could you quote what law they are breaking if you say they are allowed?

The moral law. Are you a tax adviser?

>
> > but the
> > idea of using similar technology to remotely regulate the speed of
> > motorists' vehicles would be seen as some sort of breach of some sort
> > of "right".
>
> Could you quote where that has been said?

uk.rec... passim

>
>
>
> > It would surely not increase the danger for cyclists. The majority
> > apparently cycle on pavements already, and so would be used to dodging
> > these signs.
>
> Well in parts of big cities you have got that right.
>

Well I knew that I wouldn't get any other agreement.

[Tony Dragon]

Squashme wrote:
> On 13 June, 18:03, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 13 June, 13:00, webreader > wrote:
>>>> On Jun 13, 12:20 pm, Squashme > wrote:
>>>>> On 13 June, 08:58, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> OG wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>>>>>>>>>> lethal?
>>>>>>>>> potentially, yes.
>>>>>>>> Street?
>>>>>>>> No, pavement.
>>>>>>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
>>>>>>> and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
>>>>>>> all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
>>>>>>> place don't we?
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean mob.
>>>>>> Where would you suggest that these signs be put?
>>>>> In the road with the majority of their users, along with whatever
>>>>> railings are worth having.
>>>> So they would be a danger to all road users (and that includes
>>>> cyclists)
>>> The signs are for the benefit of motorists. They should pay the cost
>>> in possible extra hazards. Signs warning of the hazard could be put in
>>> front of the signs
>> Signs could be put in front of signs, did you mean that?
>
> Yes. Why not?

And then we could put signs in front of the signs that we put in front
of the signs, and in front of those signs we could put signs & the put
signs in .......

> Its as good an idea as VED and plates for cyclists.

I'm not sure yet if that would be a bad thing.

>
>>> (or they could have warnings on their little GISs,
>> Which most do not have
>
> Sob!
>
>>> as they are apparently allowed to for speed and red light cameras).
>>> Strange that such criminal behaviour by motorists is allowed,
>> Could you quote what law they are breaking if you say they are allowed?
>
> The moral law. Are you a tax adviser?

But you said "criminal behaviour' so it must be a criminal law.

>
>>> but the
>>> idea of using similar technology to remotely regulate the speed of
>>> motorists' vehicles would be seen as some sort of breach of some sort
>>> of "right".
>> Could you quote where that has been said?
>
> uk.rec... passim
>

So that would be a no then?

>>
>>
>>> It would surely not increase the danger for cyclists. The majority
>>> apparently cycle on pavements already, and so would be used to dodging
>>> these signs.
>> Well in parts of big cities you have got that right.
>>
>
> Well I knew that I wouldn't get any other agreement.
>

I must be a disappointment to you.


--
Tony Dragon

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Squashme wrote:
> On 13 June, 17:26, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 13 June, 13:05, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>> Squashme wrote:
>>>>> On 13 June, 09:13, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> OG wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>>
>>>>>>>>>> lethal?
>>
>>>>>>>>> potentially, yes.
>>
>>>>>>>> Street?
>>>>>>>> No, pavement.
>>
>>>>>>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for
>>>>>>> drivers and other pavement furniture specifically for road
>>>>>>> users. Still, we all know who is given priority when it comes
>>>>>>> to moving from place to place don't we?
>>
>>>>>> Cyclists are road users, they need road signs too. This story
>>>>>> illustrates why they should NOT ride on the pavement.
>>
>>>>> So when a car collides with a lamp-post, it must have been
>>>>> travelling along the pavement then?
>>
>>>> for the vast majority of cases : sometimes it will have mounted or
>>>> been forced onto the pavement before crashing into a lamp post,
>>>> perhaps while avoiding an unlit cyclist. but it won't have been
>>>> 'making a journey' or be deliberately on the pavement (unlike
>>>> cyclists) .
>>
>>> Was this cyclist?
>>
>> What?
>
> "'making a journey or be deliberately on the pavement" (come on, your
> words, aren't they?)

I am not a psychic, so questions need to be complete.

Since the cycling youth collided with a lamp post it is my supposition that
he was cycling (deliberately) on the pavement. (since the lamp posts are
not in the road)

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Squashme wrote:
> On 13 June, 13:05, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 13 June, 09:13, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> OG wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
>>>>>>>>> http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>>
>>>>>>>> lethal?
>>
>>>>>>> potentially, yes.
>>
>>>>>> Street?
>>>>>> No, pavement.
>>
>>>>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for
>>>>> drivers and other pavement furniture specifically for road users.
>>>>> Still, we all know who is given priority when it comes to moving
>>>>> from place to place don't we?
>>
>>>> Cyclists are road users, they need road signs too. This story
>>>> illustrates why they should NOT ride on the pavement.
>>
>>> So when a car collides with a lamp-post, it must have been
>>> travelling along the pavement then?
>>
>> for the vast majority of cases : sometimes it will have mounted or
>> been forced onto the pavement before crashing into a lamp post,
>> perhaps while avoiding an unlit cyclist. but it won't have been
>> 'making a journey' or be deliberately on the pavement (unlike
>> cyclists) .
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484076/The-moment-teen-driver-mows-pedestrian-hit-run.html
>
> "The car mounted the pavement and smashed into Mr Hill - flinging him
> against a brick wall.
>
> Patel then sped away, leaving the 50-year-old lying motionless on the
> floor suffering neck and back injuries."

looks like he lost control, skidded around and accidentally went onto the
pavement, paniced and ran away. Very unfortunate, lucky they were able to
trace the vehicle and the driver. The car driver was not making a journey
on the pavement when he hit the pedestrian.

[Squashme]

On 13 June, 18:51, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 13 June, 18:03, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> >> Squashme wrote:
> >>> On 13 June, 13:00, webreader > wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 13, 12:20 pm, Squashme > wrote:
> >>>>> On 13 June, 08:58, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> >>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> OG wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
> >>>>>>>>>> lethal?
> >>>>>>>>> potentially, yes.
> >>>>>>>> Street?
> >>>>>>>> No, pavement.
> >>>>>>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
> >>>>>>> and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
> >>>>>>> all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
> >>>>>>> place don't we?
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
> >>>>>>>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> >>>>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean mob.
> >>>>>> Where would you suggest that these signs be put?
> >>>>> In the road with the majority of their users, along with whatever
> >>>>> railings are worth having.
> >>>> So they would be a danger to all road users (and that includes
> >>>> cyclists)
> >>> The signs are for the benefit of motorists. They should pay the cost
> >>> in possible extra hazards. Signs warning of the hazard could be put in
> >>> front of the signs
> >> Signs could be put in front of signs, did you mean that?
>
> > Yes. Why not?
>
> And then we could put signs in front of the signs that we put in front
> of the signs, and in front of those signs we could put signs & the put
> signs in .......

Less room for cars.

>
> > Its as good an idea as VED and plates for cyclists.
>
> I'm not sure yet if that would be a bad thing.

I don't worry. I can pay it. It'll probably cost more to collect than
it can potentially raise, but it will doubtless please the idiot
majority. It will make some stupid cyclists behave even more illegally
than now. It will probably discourage others. Perhaps they'll become
motorists and add to the jams. Which will make things worse for me
too. The only fun may be the metal number plate on the front of my
bike, or "ped-neuterer" as it will doubtless become.

>
>
>
> >>> (or they could have warnings on their little GISs,
> >> Which most do not have
>
> > Sob!
>
> >>> as they are apparently allowed to for speed and red light cameras).
> >>> Strange that such criminal behaviour by motorists is allowed,
> >> Could you quote what law they are breaking if you say they are allowed?
>
> > The moral law. Are you a tax adviser?
>
> But you said "criminal behaviour' so it must be a criminal law.

Crime definition:-
"1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or
commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime
to squander our country's natural resources."

Was slavery a crime when it was legal?

>
>
>
> >>> but the
> >>> idea of using similar technology to remotely regulate the speed of
> >>> motorists' vehicles would be seen as some sort of breach of some sort
> >>> of "right".
> >> Could you quote where that has been said?
>
> > uk.rec... passim
>
> So that would be a no then?

Just wait and see what happens if it ever gets close to being
implemented.
>
>
>
> >>> It would surely not increase the danger for cyclists. The majority
> >>> apparently cycle on pavements already, and so would be used to dodging
> >>> these signs.
> >> Well in parts of big cities you have got that right.
>
> > Well I knew that I wouldn't get any other agreement.
>
> I must be a disappointment to you.
>

I wouldn't want you to be any other way.

[Squashme]

On 13 June, 19:29, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 13 June, 17:26, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >> Squashme wrote:
> >>> On 13 June, 13:05, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >>>> Squashme wrote:
> >>>>> On 13 June, 09:13, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> OG wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>
> >>>>>>>>>> lethal?
>
> >>>>>>>>> potentially, yes.
>
> >>>>>>>> Street?
> >>>>>>>> No, pavement.
>
> >>>>>>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for
> >>>>>>> drivers and other pavement furniture specifically for road
> >>>>>>> users. Still, we all know who is given priority when it comes
> >>>>>>> to moving from place to place don't we?
>
> >>>>>> Cyclists are road users, they need road signs too. This story
> >>>>>> illustrates why they should NOT ride on the pavement.
>
> >>>>> So when a car collides with a lamp-post, it must have been
> >>>>> travelling along the pavement then?
>
> >>>> for the vast majority of cases : sometimes it will have mounted or
> >>>> been forced onto the pavement before crashing into a lamp post,
> >>>> perhaps while avoiding an unlit cyclist. but it won't have been
> >>>> 'making a journey' or be deliberately on the pavement (unlike
> >>>> cyclists) .
>
> >>> Was this cyclist?
>
> >> What?
>
> > "'making a journey or be deliberately on the pavement" (come on, your
> > words, aren't they?)
>
> I am not a psychic, so questions need to be complete.

Like: "What?"

I'm not a psychic either, but I understood you, even in your
incompleteness..

>
> Since the cycling youth collided with a lamp post it is my supposition that
> he was cycling (deliberately) on the pavement. *(since the lamp posts are
> not in the road)

But you don't know that. You just have this strong belief about
cyclists and pavements.

[Squashme]

On 13 June, 19:33, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 13 June, 13:05, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >> Squashme wrote:
> >>> On 13 June, 09:13, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> OG wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>
> >>>>>>>> lethal?
>
> >>>>>>> potentially, yes.
>
> >>>>>> Street?
> >>>>>> No, pavement.
>
> >>>>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for
> >>>>> drivers and other pavement furniture specifically for road users.
> >>>>> Still, we all know who is given priority when it comes to moving
> >>>>> from place to place don't we?
>
> >>>> Cyclists are road users, they need road signs too. This story
> >>>> illustrates why they should NOT ride on the pavement.
>
> >>> So when a car collides with a lamp-post, it must have been
> >>> travelling along the pavement then?
>
> >> for the vast majority of cases : sometimes it will have mounted or
> >> been forced onto the pavement before crashing into a lamp post,
> >> perhaps while avoiding an unlit cyclist. but it won't have been
> >> 'making a journey' or be deliberately on the pavement (unlike
> >> cyclists) .
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484076/The-moment-teen-driver...
>
> > "The car mounted the pavement and smashed into Mr Hill - flinging him
> > against a brick wall.
>
> > Patel then sped away, leaving the 50-year-old lying motionless on the
> > floor suffering neck and back injuries."
>
> looks like he lost control, skidded around and accidentally went onto the
> pavement, paniced and ran away. *Very unfortunate, lucky they were able to
> trace the vehicle and the driver. *The car driver was not making a journey
> on the pavement when he hit the pedestrian.

Yes, not a crime, just an unfortunate accident. An unfortunate
speeding, then an unfortunate careering around a corner, then an
unfortunate mounting of the pavement, then an unfortunate hitting of a
very unfortunate pedestrian. Then an unfortunate panic, and an
unfortunate fleeing from the scene, then abandoning the car
unfortunately. Not like the wicked cyclist who hit the lamppost. He
must have been cycling on the pavement, on purpose. A real crime.

Very understanding of you.

[Tony Dragon]

Squashme wrote:
> On 13 June, 18:51, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 13 June, 18:03, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>>> Squashme wrote:
>>>>> On 13 June, 13:00, webreader > wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 13, 12:20 pm, Squashme > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13 June, 08:58, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> OG wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>>>>>>>>>>>> lethal?
>>>>>>>>>>> potentially, yes.
>>>>>>>>>> Street?
>>>>>>>>>> No, pavement.
>>>>>>>>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
>>>>>>>>> and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
>>>>>>>>> all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
>>>>>>>>> place don't we?
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>>>>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>>>>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean mob.
>>>>>>>> Where would you suggest that these signs be put?
>>>>>>> In the road with the majority of their users, along with whatever
>>>>>>> railings are worth having.
>>>>>> So they would be a danger to all road users (and that includes
>>>>>> cyclists)
>>>>> The signs are for the benefit of motorists. They should pay the cost
>>>>> in possible extra hazards. Signs warning of the hazard could be put in
>>>>> front of the signs
>>>> Signs could be put in front of signs, did you mean that?
>>> Yes. Why not?
>> And then we could put signs in front of the signs that we put in front
>> of the signs, and in front of those signs we could put signs & the put
>> signs in .......
>
> Less room for cars.
>
>>> Its as good an idea as VED and plates for cyclists.
>> I'm not sure yet if that would be a bad thing.
>
> I don't worry. I can pay it. It'll probably cost more to collect than
> it can potentially raise, but it will doubtless please the idiot
> majority. It will make some stupid cyclists behave even more illegally
> than now. It will probably discourage others. Perhaps they'll become
> motorists and add to the jams. Which will make things worse for me
> too. The only fun may be the metal number plate on the front of my
> bike, or "ped-neuterer" as it will doubtless become.
>
>>
>>
>>>>> (or they could have warnings on their little GISs,
>>>> Which most do not have
>>> Sob!
>>>>> as they are apparently allowed to for speed and red light cameras).
>>>>> Strange that such criminal behaviour by motorists is allowed,
>>>> Could you quote what law they are breaking if you say they are allowed?
>>> The moral law. Are you a tax adviser?
>> But you said "criminal behaviour' so it must be a criminal law.
>
> Crime definition:-
> "1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or
> commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
> 2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
> 3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
> 4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime
> to squander our country's natural resources."
>
> Was slavery a crime when it was legal?
>
>>
>>
>>>>> but the
>>>>> idea of using similar technology to remotely regulate the speed of
>>>>> motorists' vehicles would be seen as some sort of breach of some sort
>>>>> of "right".
>>>> Could you quote where that has been said?
>>> uk.rec... passim
>> So that would be a no then?
>
> Just wait and see what happens if it ever gets close to being
> implemented.
>>
>>
>>>>> It would surely not increase the danger for cyclists. The majority
>>>>> apparently cycle on pavements already, and so would be used to dodging
>>>>> these signs.
>>>> Well in parts of big cities you have got that right.
>>> Well I knew that I wouldn't get any other agreement.
>> I must be a disappointment to you.
>>
>
> I wouldn't want you to be any other way.
>

I bow to your wriggles.


--
Tony Dragon

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Squashme wrote:
> On 13 June, 19:33, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 13 June, 13:05, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>> Squashme wrote:
>>>>> On 13 June, 09:13, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> OG wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>>
>>>>>>>>>> lethal?
>>
>>>>>>>>> potentially, yes.
>>
>>>>>>>> Street?
>>>>>>>> No, pavement.
>>
>>>>>>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for
>>>>>>> drivers and other pavement furniture specifically for road
>>>>>>> users. Still, we all know who is given priority when it comes
>>>>>>> to moving from place to place don't we?
>>
>>>>>> Cyclists are road users, they need road signs too. This story
>>>>>> illustrates why they should NOT ride on the pavement.
>>
>>>>> So when a car collides with a lamp-post, it must have been
>>>>> travelling along the pavement then?
>>
>>>> for the vast majority of cases : sometimes it will have mounted or
>>>> been forced onto the pavement before crashing into a lamp post,
>>>> perhaps while avoiding an unlit cyclist. but it won't have been
>>>> 'making a journey' or be deliberately on the pavement (unlike
>>>> cyclists) .
>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484076/The-moment-teen-driver...
>>
>>> "The car mounted the pavement and smashed into Mr Hill - flinging
>>> him against a brick wall.
>>
>>> Patel then sped away, leaving the 50-year-old lying motionless on
>>> the floor suffering neck and back injuries."
>>
>> looks like he lost control, skidded around and accidentally went
>> onto the pavement, paniced and ran away. Very unfortunate, lucky
>> they were able to trace the vehicle and the driver. The car driver
>> was not making a journey on the pavement when he hit the pedestrian.
>
> Yes, not a crime, just an unfortunate accident. An unfortunate
> speeding, then an unfortunate careering around a corner, then an
> unfortunate mounting of the pavement, then an unfortunate hitting of a
> very unfortunate pedestrian. Then an unfortunate panic, and an
> unfortunate fleeing from the scene, then abandoning the car
> unfortunately. Not like the wicked cyclist who hit the lamppost. He
> must have been cycling on the pavement, on purpose. A real crime.
>
> Very understanding of you.

I made no mention of the cyclist on the pavement or the legality of such, I
asked for the removal of street furniture to avoid injuring others. Are you
always this paranoid?

[Squashme]

On 13 June, 21:31, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 13 June, 19:33, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >> Squashme wrote:
> >>> On 13 June, 13:05, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >>>> Squashme wrote:
> >>>>> On 13 June, 09:13, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> OG wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>
> >>>>>>>>>> lethal?
>
> >>>>>>>>> potentially, yes.
>
> >>>>>>>> Street?
> >>>>>>>> No, pavement.
>
> >>>>>>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for
> >>>>>>> drivers and other pavement furniture specifically for road
> >>>>>>> users. Still, we all know who is given priority when it comes
> >>>>>>> to moving from place to place don't we?
>
> >>>>>> Cyclists are road users, they need road signs too. This story
> >>>>>> illustrates why they should NOT ride on the pavement.
>
> >>>>> So when a car collides with a lamp-post, it must have been
> >>>>> travelling along the pavement then?
>
> >>>> for the vast majority of cases : sometimes it will have mounted or
> >>>> been forced onto the pavement before crashing into a lamp post,
> >>>> perhaps while avoiding an unlit cyclist. but it won't have been
> >>>> 'making a journey' or be deliberately on the pavement (unlike
> >>>> cyclists) .
>
> >>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484076/The-moment-teen-driver....
>
> >>> "The car mounted the pavement and smashed into Mr Hill - flinging
> >>> him against a brick wall.
>
> >>> Patel then sped away, leaving the 50-year-old lying motionless on
> >>> the floor suffering neck and back injuries."
>
> >> looks like he lost control, skidded around and accidentally went
> >> onto the pavement, paniced and ran away. Very unfortunate, lucky
> >> they were able to trace the vehicle and the driver. The car driver
> >> was not making a journey on the pavement when he hit the pedestrian.
>
> > Yes, not a crime, just an unfortunate accident. An unfortunate
> > speeding, then an unfortunate careering around a corner, then an
> > unfortunate mounting of the pavement, then an unfortunate hitting of a
> > very unfortunate pedestrian. Then an unfortunate panic, and an
> > unfortunate fleeing from the scene, then abandoning the car
> > unfortunately. Not like the wicked cyclist who hit the lamppost. He
> > must have been cycling on the pavement, on purpose. A real crime.
>
> > Very understanding of you.
>
> I made no mention of the cyclist on the pavement or the legality of such, I
> asked for the removal of street furniture to avoid injuring others.

******** and you know it.

>*Are you
> always this paranoid?

With people who write:-
"He should have mown the unlit cyclist down."

I wonder why?

[Squashme]

On 13 June, 21:24, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Squashme wrote:
> > On 13 June, 18:51, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> >> Squashme wrote:
> >>> On 13 June, 18:03, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> >>>> Squashme wrote:
> >>>>> On 13 June, 13:00, webreader > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jun 13, 12:20 pm, Squashme > wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 13 June, 08:58, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> OG wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> lethal?
> >>>>>>>>>>> potentially, yes.
> >>>>>>>>>> Street?
> >>>>>>>>>> No, pavement.
> >>>>>>>>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
> >>>>>>>>> and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
> >>>>>>>>> all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
> >>>>>>>>> place don't we?
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> >>>>>>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean mob.
> >>>>>>>> Where would you suggest that these signs be put?
> >>>>>>> In the road with the majority of their users, along with whatever
> >>>>>>> railings are worth having.
> >>>>>> So they would be a danger to all road users (and that includes
> >>>>>> cyclists)
> >>>>> The signs are for the benefit of motorists. They should pay the cost
> >>>>> in possible extra hazards. Signs warning of the hazard could be put in
> >>>>> front of the signs
> >>>> Signs could be put in front of signs, did you mean that?
> >>> Yes. Why not?
> >> And then we could put signs in front of the signs that we put in front
> >> of the signs, and in front of those signs we could put signs & the put
> >> signs in .......
>
> > Less room for cars.
>
> >>> Its as good an idea as VED and plates for cyclists.
> >> I'm not sure yet if that would be a bad thing.
>
> > I don't worry. I can pay it. It'll probably cost more to collect than
> > it can potentially raise, but it will doubtless please the idiot
> > majority. It will make some stupid cyclists behave even more illegally
> > than now. It will probably discourage others. Perhaps they'll become
> > motorists and add to the jams. Which will make things worse for me
> > too. The only fun may be the metal number plate on the front of my
> > bike, or "ped-neuterer" as it will doubtless become.
>
> >>>>> (or they could have warnings on their little GISs,
> >>>> Which most do not have
> >>> Sob!
> >>>>> as they are apparently allowed to for speed and red light cameras).
> >>>>> Strange that such criminal behaviour by motorists is allowed,
> >>>> Could you quote what law they are breaking if you say they are allowed?
> >>> The moral law. Are you a tax adviser?
> >> But you said "criminal behaviour' so it must be a criminal law.
>
> > Crime definition:-
> > "1. *An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or
> > commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
> > 2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
> > 3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
> > 4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime
> > to squander our country's natural resources."
>
> > Was slavery a crime when it was legal?
>
> >>>>> but the
> >>>>> idea of using similar technology to remotely regulate the speed of
> >>>>> motorists' vehicles would be seen as some sort of breach of some sort
> >>>>> of "right".
> >>>> Could you quote where that has been said?
> >>> uk.rec... passim
> >> So that would be a no then?
>
> > Just wait and see what happens if it ever gets close to being
> > implemented.
>
> >>>>> It would surely not increase the danger for cyclists. The majority
> >>>>> apparently cycle on pavements already, and so would be used to dodging
> >>>>> these signs.
> >>>> Well in parts of big cities you have got that right.
> >>> Well I knew that I wouldn't get any other agreement.
> >> I must be a disappointment to you.
>
> > I wouldn't want you to be any other way.
>
> I bow to your wriggles.
>

A ten-pound note would be more acceptable than outdated continental
courtesy. A lady has to eat.

[OG]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_from_Kidderminster_crash_s cene/

Interesting that a 14 year old cyclist receiving minor injuries treated at
the site warrants a headline, whereas an 11 year old receiving serious leg
injuries requiring airlifting to hospital doesn't.

[Tony Dragon]

Squashme wrote:
> On 13 June, 21:24, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 13 June, 18:51, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>>> Squashme wrote:
>>>>> On 13 June, 18:03, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>>>>> Squashme wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13 June, 13:00, webreader > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 13, 12:20 pm, Squashme > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 13 June, 08:58, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OG wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lethal?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially, yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Street?
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, pavement.
>>>>>>>>>>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
>>>>>>>>>>> and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
>>>>>>>>>>> all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
>>>>>>>>>>> place don't we?
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>>>>>>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean mob.
>>>>>>>>>> Where would you suggest that these signs be put?
>>>>>>>>> In the road with the majority of their users, along with whatever
>>>>>>>>> railings are worth having.
>>>>>>>> So they would be a danger to all road users (and that includes
>>>>>>>> cyclists)
>>>>>>> The signs are for the benefit of motorists. They should pay the cost
>>>>>>> in possible extra hazards. Signs warning of the hazard could be put in
>>>>>>> front of the signs
>>>>>> Signs could be put in front of signs, did you mean that?
>>>>> Yes. Why not?
>>>> And then we could put signs in front of the signs that we put in front
>>>> of the signs, and in front of those signs we could put signs & the put
>>>> signs in .......
>>> Less room for cars.
>>>>> Its as good an idea as VED and plates for cyclists.
>>>> I'm not sure yet if that would be a bad thing.
>>> I don't worry. I can pay it. It'll probably cost more to collect than
>>> it can potentially raise, but it will doubtless please the idiot
>>> majority. It will make some stupid cyclists behave even more illegally
>>> than now. It will probably discourage others. Perhaps they'll become
>>> motorists and add to the jams. Which will make things worse for me
>>> too. The only fun may be the metal number plate on the front of my
>>> bike, or "ped-neuterer" as it will doubtless become.
>>>>>>> (or they could have warnings on their little GISs,
>>>>>> Which most do not have
>>>>> Sob!
>>>>>>> as they are apparently allowed to for speed and red light cameras).
>>>>>>> Strange that such criminal behaviour by motorists is allowed,
>>>>>> Could you quote what law they are breaking if you say they are allowed?
>>>>> The moral law. Are you a tax adviser?
>>>> But you said "criminal behaviour' so it must be a criminal law.
>>> Crime definition:-
>>> "1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or
>>> commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
>>> 2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
>>> 3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
>>> 4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime
>>> to squander our country's natural resources."
>>> Was slavery a crime when it was legal?
>>>>>>> but the
>>>>>>> idea of using similar technology to remotely regulate the speed of
>>>>>>> motorists' vehicles would be seen as some sort of breach of some sort
>>>>>>> of "right".
>>>>>> Could you quote where that has been said?
>>>>> uk.rec... passim
>>>> So that would be a no then?
>>> Just wait and see what happens if it ever gets close to being
>>> implemented.
>>>>>>> It would surely not increase the danger for cyclists. The majority
>>>>>>> apparently cycle on pavements already, and so would be used to dodging
>>>>>>> these signs.
>>>>>> Well in parts of big cities you have got that right.
>>>>> Well I knew that I wouldn't get any other agreement.
>>>> I must be a disappointment to you.
>>> I wouldn't want you to be any other way.
>> I bow to your wriggles.
>>
>
> A ten-pound note would be more acceptable than outdated continental
> courtesy. A lady has to eat.
>

Send me your fax number & I will fax you one.
If not will two of these do
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/42/Forgednote.jpg


--
Tony Dragon

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Squashme wrote:

>
> The signs are for the benefit of motorists. They should pay the cost
> in possible extra hazards.

They already do **** for brains. Its called Road Tax.

> Signs warning of the hazard could be put in
> front of the signs (or they could have warnings on their little GISs,
> as they are apparently allowed to for speed and red light cameras).

Correct. Law abiding motorists like advanced warnings so they can obey
traffic laws. Its not illegal at all.

> Strange that such criminal behaviour by motorists is allowed, but the
> idea of using similar technology to remotely regulate the speed of
> motorists' vehicles would be seen as some sort of breach of some sort
> of "right".

Motorists are already regulated by speed cameras. They work by recording
the registration plates. Cyclists get away with breaking the law since they
don't have registration plates.

> It would surely not increase the danger for cyclists. The majority
> apparently cycle on pavements already, and so would be used to dodging
> these signs.

I'm glad you finally agree that cyclist scum are serial law breakers.


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

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Squashme wrote:

>>
>>> Its as good an idea as VED and plates for cyclists.
>>
>> I'm not sure yet if that would be a bad thing.
>
> I don't worry. I can pay it. It'll probably cost more to collect than
> it can potentially raise, but it will doubtless please the idiot
> majority.

It wouldn't cost more to collect if it were high enough.

>It will make some stupid cyclists behave even more illegally
> than now.

Oh go on, this is going to be good.

> It will probably discourage others. Perhaps they'll become
> motorists and add to the jams.

Anything that discourages idiot cyclists has to be a good thing.

> Which will make things worse for me
> too. The only fun may be the metal number plate on the front of my
> bike, or "ped-neuterer" as it will doubtless become.

I can't wait for the day...


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

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Squashme wrote:

>
> A ten-pound note would be more acceptable than outdated continental
> courtesy. A lady has to eat.

FFS! Are you of the female persuasion? The inhabitant of a bumpy jumper?


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

[Doug[_3_]]

On 13 June, 08:58, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
> >> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> >>> OG wrote:
> >>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
> >>>>news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
> >>>>>http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
> >>>> lethal?
> >>> potentially, yes.
> >> Street?
> >> No, pavement.
>
> > And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
> > and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
> > all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
> > place don't we?
>
>
> Where would you suggest that these signs be put?
>
They could be suspended on cables over the road, as happens in some
parts of the world, and thus freeing up space for pedestrians by
removing most of the many obstructions on pavements which solely
benefit drivers.

> > -- .
> > UK Radical Campaigns.
> >http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean mob.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Squashme wrote:
> On 13 June, 21:31, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 13 June, 19:33, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>> Squashme wrote:
>>>>> On 13 June, 13:05, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>>>> Squashme wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13 June, 09:13, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OG wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> lethal?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> potentially, yes.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Street?
>>>>>>>>>> No, pavement.
>>
>>>>>>>>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for
>>>>>>>>> drivers and other pavement furniture specifically for road
>>>>>>>>> users. Still, we all know who is given priority when it comes
>>>>>>>>> to moving from place to place don't we?
>>
>>>>>>>> Cyclists are road users, they need road signs too. This story
>>>>>>>> illustrates why they should NOT ride on the pavement.
>>
>>>>>>> So when a car collides with a lamp-post, it must have been
>>>>>>> travelling along the pavement then?
>>
>>>>>> for the vast majority of cases : sometimes it will have mounted
>>>>>> or been forced onto the pavement before crashing into a lamp
>>>>>> post, perhaps while avoiding an unlit cyclist. but it won't have
>>>>>> been 'making a journey' or be deliberately on the pavement
>>>>>> (unlike cyclists) .
>>
>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484076/The-moment-teen-driver...
>>
>>>>> "The car mounted the pavement and smashed into Mr Hill - flinging
>>>>> him against a brick wall.
>>
>>>>> Patel then sped away, leaving the 50-year-old lying motionless on
>>>>> the floor suffering neck and back injuries."
>>
>>>> looks like he lost control, skidded around and accidentally went
>>>> onto the pavement, paniced and ran away. Very unfortunate, lucky
>>>> they were able to trace the vehicle and the driver. The car driver
>>>> was not making a journey on the pavement when he hit the
>>>> pedestrian.
>>
>>> Yes, not a crime, just an unfortunate accident. An unfortunate
>>> speeding, then an unfortunate careering around a corner, then an
>>> unfortunate mounting of the pavement, then an unfortunate hitting
>>> of a very unfortunate pedestrian. Then an unfortunate panic, and an
>>> unfortunate fleeing from the scene, then abandoning the car
>>> unfortunately. Not like the wicked cyclist who hit the lamppost. He
>>> must have been cycling on the pavement, on purpose. A real crime.
>>
>>> Very understanding of you.
>>
>> I made no mention of the cyclist on the pavement or the legality of
>> such, I asked for the removal of street furniture to avoid injuring
>> others.
>
> ******** and you know it.
>
>> Are you
>> always this paranoid?
>
> With people who write:-
> "He should have mown the unlit cyclist down."
>
> I wonder why?

Do you ride round at night without lights?

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Squashme wrote:
> On 13 June, 21:31, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> On 13 June, 19:33, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>> Squashme wrote:
>>>>> On 13 June, 13:05, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>>>> Squashme wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13 June, 09:13, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OG wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> lethal?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> potentially, yes.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Street?
>>>>>>>>>> No, pavement.
>>
>>>>>>>>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for
>>>>>>>>> drivers and other pavement furniture specifically for road
>>>>>>>>> users. Still, we all know who is given priority when it comes
>>>>>>>>> to moving from place to place don't we?
>>
>>>>>>>> Cyclists are road users, they need road signs too. This story
>>>>>>>> illustrates why they should NOT ride on the pavement.
>>
>>>>>>> So when a car collides with a lamp-post, it must have been
>>>>>>> travelling along the pavement then?
>>
>>>>>> for the vast majority of cases : sometimes it will have mounted
>>>>>> or been forced onto the pavement before crashing into a lamp
>>>>>> post, perhaps while avoiding an unlit cyclist. but it won't have
>>>>>> been 'making a journey' or be deliberately on the pavement
>>>>>> (unlike cyclists) .
>>
>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484076/The-moment-teen-driver...
>>
>>>>> "The car mounted the pavement and smashed into Mr Hill - flinging
>>>>> him against a brick wall.
>>
>>>>> Patel then sped away, leaving the 50-year-old lying motionless on
>>>>> the floor suffering neck and back injuries."
>>
>>>> looks like he lost control, skidded around and accidentally went
>>>> onto the pavement, paniced and ran away. Very unfortunate, lucky
>>>> they were able to trace the vehicle and the driver. The car driver
>>>> was not making a journey on the pavement when he hit the
>>>> pedestrian.
>>
>>> Yes, not a crime, just an unfortunate accident. An unfortunate
>>> speeding, then an unfortunate careering around a corner, then an
>>> unfortunate mounting of the pavement, then an unfortunate hitting
>>> of a very unfortunate pedestrian. Then an unfortunate panic, and an
>>> unfortunate fleeing from the scene, then abandoning the car
>>> unfortunately. Not like the wicked cyclist who hit the lamppost. He
>>> must have been cycling on the pavement, on purpose. A real crime.
>>
>>> Very understanding of you.
>>
>> I made no mention of the cyclist on the pavement or the legality of
>> such, I asked for the removal of street furniture to avoid injuring
>> others.
>
> ********

oh, good comeback.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 13 June, 08:58, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 12 June, 23:49, Squashme > wrote:
>>>> On 12 June, 23:32, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>>>> OG wrote:
>>>>>> "Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
>>>>>> news:6wKQn.7103$Hs4.3775@hurricane...
>>>>>>> http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/8171692.Boy_hurt_metres_fr...
>>>>>> lethal?
>>>>> potentially, yes.
>>>> Street?
>>>> No, pavement.
>>> And a dammed nuisance they are, particularly road signs for drivers
>>> and other pavement furniture specifically for road users. Still, we
>>> all know who is given priority when it comes to moving from place to
>>> place don't we?
>>
>> Where would you suggest that these signs be put?
>>
> They could be suspended on cables over the road, as happens in some
> parts of the world, and thus freeing up space for pedestrians by
> removing most of the many obstructions on pavements which solely
> benefit drivers.
>
>>> -- .
>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>> One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean mob.
>

While waiting for the bus tonight I looked at the various bits of street
furniture

Lamposts, we don't need them let every body walk/cycle/drive in the dark.
BT Cabinet don't need that lets get rid of phones etc
Bus stop, well we can do without that, get rid of buses, everybody can
cycle instead
Bus shelter, if there are no buses we don't need a bus shelter.
Post box, let everybody walk to the post office then we can get rid of
those nasty red boxes.
Litter bins, just throw it on the floor.
Seats/benches, let the old/infirm walk.
Cycle racks, well if there are no buses etc the shops will close, so
there will be no use for bikes, so no cycle racks.

Or perhaps we could use Dougs idea, anybody for a bus shelter hanging by
a wire.



--
Tony Dragon