Re: motorist mafia?

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

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

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

Tony

[JNugent[_7_]]

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

> JNugent wrote:

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

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

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

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

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

JNugent > wrote:

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

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

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


--
Tony

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Tony Raven > wrote:

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

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


--
Tony

[Derek C]

On Dec 1, 6:28*am, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Tony Raven > wrote:
> > There are websites full of cycle paths that no-one sane could possibly
> > consider to be a cycle path so showing me photos of doorways won't
> > tell
> > you much!
>
> Damn speelchucker. *That should be footways not doorways. *A bit of
> unintended humour.
>

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

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

Derek C

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, JNugent > wrote:
> On 30/11/2010 23:45, Tony Raven wrote:
> > JNugent wrote:
>
> >> Anyone who genuinely can't tell the difference between a
> >> pedestrian footway and an off-carriageway cycle path is too
> >> stupid to be cycling.
>
> > I'll tell you what, I'll set a little test based on photographs of
> > the two over the weekend to see if you and Derek can tell the
> > difference between a pedestrian footway and an off-carriageway
> > cycle path. Lets see how stupid you are.
>
> I reserve the right to show you photographs of certain footways and
> require your attempt at an answer as to whether anyone *sane* could
> possibly take them to be cycle paths - all before answering about
> any of yours. Typically, they will be of streets in the City of
> London and similar urban locations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JNugent[_7_]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for agreeing with me.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

JNugent > wrote:

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

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


--
Tony

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C > wrote:
> On Dec 1, 6:28 am, Tony Raven > wrote:
>> Tony Raven > wrote:
>>> There are websites full of cycle paths that no-one sane could
> > > possibly
>>> consider to be a cycle path so showing me photos of doorways won't
>>> tell
>>> you much!
>>
>> Damn speelchucker. That should be footways not doorways. A bit of
>> unintended humour.
>>
>
> As a pro-helmet cyclist, I would have been crucified by the helmet
> safety deniers such as Ravin for a minor spelling mistake like that!
>

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


--
Tony

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Derek C > wrote:
> On Dec 1, 6:28Â*am, Tony Raven > wrote:
> >
> > Damn speelchucker. Â*That should be footways not doorways. Â*A bit
> > of unintended humour.
>
> As a pro-helmet cyclist, I would have been crucified by the helmet
> safety deniers such as Ravin for a minor spelling mistake like
> that!

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

Oh how we laughed.

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

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

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Derek C > wrote:
>> On Dec 1, 6:28 am, Tony Raven > wrote:
>>>
>>> Damn speelchucker. That should be footways not doorways. A bit
>>> of unintended humour.
>>
>> As a pro-helmet cyclist, I would have been crucified by the helmet
>> safety deniers such as Ravin for a minor spelling mistake like
>> that!
>
> No Derek. You were crucified for putting a spelling error in a
> spelling flame, and a grammar error in the opening sentence of a
> grammar flame. You then insisted in swearing that the grammar was
> perfect for days and days, but that was just the icing on the cake.
>
> Oh how we laughed.
>
> In fact, it still brings a smile to my face even now. Thank you.

Goodness, that is the saddest thing I have heard recently.

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 01/12/2010 21:58, Tony Raven wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> It's highly relevant, since the majority of footway cycling I see
>> takes place in highly-urbanised areas (or on narror footways) which
>> no-one same could possibly mistake for a cycle-path.
>
> Except for Local authorities looking for opportunities to make a cycle
> path. But then perhaps they're not sane.

Some clearly are not, in that they are driven by consiuderations other than
pedestrian safety, but even they manage to erect signage and paint route
delineations on the surface of the pavement. Only someone very stupid could
manage to fool themselves into thinking that a footway unmarked by such
things was a cycle path.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

JNugent > wrote:

> Some clearly are not, in that they are driven by consiuderations other
> than pedestrian safety, but even they manage to erect signage and
> paint route delineations on the surface of the pavement. Only someone
> very stupid could manage to fool themselves into thinking that a
> footway unmarked by such things was a cycle path.

I look forward to you showing how "very stupid" you are then this
weekend.

--
Tony

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 02/12/2010 07:16, Tony Raven wrote:

> > wrote:

>> Some clearly are not, in that they are driven by consiuderations other
>> than pedestrian safety, but even they manage to erect signage and
>> paint route delineations on the surface of the pavement. Only someone
>> very stupid could manage to fool themselves into thinking that a
>> footway unmarked by such things was a cycle path.

> I look forward to you showing how "very stupid" you are then this
> weekend.

That was an interesting attempt at saying something witty, even though it was
devoid of meaning or effect.

[JMS]

On 2 Dec 2010 07:16:29 GMT, Tony Raven > wrote:

>JNugent > wrote:
>
>> Some clearly are not, in that they are driven by consiuderations other
>> than pedestrian safety, but even they manage to erect signage and
>> paint route delineations on the surface of the pavement. Only someone
>> very stupid could manage to fool themselves into thinking that a
>> footway unmarked by such things was a cycle path.
>
>I look forward to you showing how "very stupid" you are then this
>weekend.


You are a fool.

Why on earth do you think that if your produce a photograph of a
footpath and it is unmarked as a cycle path - anyone is going to
suggest that it is indeed a cycle path.

Here is a clue : If you are unsure as to whether part of the pathway
is a cycle path or not - assume that it isn't and get off the pathway
and back on the road where you belong.

Is that difficult?


--

Dft figures for 2009 show that travel became safer for all modes of transport except one.

KSI per billion miles travelled was down for cars, vans, motorcycles, and pedestrians.

The KSI figure for cyclists went up.

[Doug[_3_]]

On Dec 2, 7:53*pm, JMS > wrote:
> On 2 Dec 2010 07:16:29 GMT, Tony Raven > wrote:
>
> >JNugent > wrote:
>
> >> Some clearly are not, in that they are driven by consiuderations other
> >> than pedestrian safety, but even they manage to erect signage and
> >> paint route delineations on the surface of the pavement. Only someone
> >> very stupid could manage to fool themselves into thinking that a
> >> footway unmarked by such things was a cycle path.
>
> >I look forward to you showing how "very stupid" you are then this
> >weekend.
>
> You are a fool.
>
> Why on earth do you think that if your produce a photograph of a
> footpath and it is *unmarked as a cycle path - anyone is going to
> suggest that it is indeed a cycle path.
>
> Here is a clue : If you are unsure as to whether part of the pathway
> is a cycle path or not - assume that it isn't and get off the pathway
> and back on the road where you belong.
>
> Is that difficult?
>
Yes because the roads are much too dangerous and some cyclists are
understandably fearful of them for good reason, particularly child
cyclists. Until the danger posed by incompetent drivers is properly
addressed I have little doubt that pavement cycling will continue. One
must not forget either that cars on pavements also cause serious
difficulties and dangers and there are many more of them.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Tony Dragon]

On 05/12/2010 06:00, Doug wrote:
> On Dec 2, 7:53 pm, > wrote:
>> On 2 Dec 2010 07:16:29 GMT, Tony > wrote:
>>
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Some clearly are not, in that they are driven by consiuderations other
>>>> than pedestrian safety, but even they manage to erect signage and
>>>> paint route delineations on the surface of the pavement. Only someone
>>>> very stupid could manage to fool themselves into thinking that a
>>>> footway unmarked by such things was a cycle path.
>>
>>> I look forward to you showing how "very stupid" you are then this
>>> weekend.
>>
>> You are a fool.
>>
>> Why on earth do you think that if your produce a photograph of a
>> footpath and it is unmarked as a cycle path - anyone is going to
>> suggest that it is indeed a cycle path.
>>
>> Here is a clue : If you are unsure as to whether part of the pathway
>> is a cycle path or not - assume that it isn't and get off the pathway
>> and back on the road where you belong.
>>
>> Is that difficult?
>>
> Yes because the roads are much too dangerous and some cyclists are
> understandably fearful of them for good reason, particularly child
> cyclists. Until the danger posed by incompetent drivers is properly
> addressed I have little doubt that pavement cycling will continue. One
> must not forget either that cars on pavements also cause serious
> difficulties and dangers and there are many more of them.
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

So, because a cyclist thinks the roads are dangerous & is scared, it
prevents him/her knowing that a pavement is for pedestrians, not cyclists.

--
Tony Dragon

[Derek C]

On Dec 5, 9:23*am, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> On 05/12/2010 06:00, Doug wrote:
>
> So, because a cyclist thinks the roads are dangerous & is scared, it
> prevents him/her knowing that a pavement is for pedestrians, not cyclists..
>
> --
> Tony Dragon- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In Doug's World, pedestrians are not important!

Derek C

[Tony Dragon]

On 05/12/2010 10:17, Derek C wrote:
> On Dec 5, 9:23 am, Tony > wrote:
>> On 05/12/2010 06:00, Doug wrote:
>>
>> So, because a cyclist thinks the roads are dangerous& is scared, it
>> prevents him/her knowing that a pavement is for pedestrians, not cyclists.
>>
>> --
>> Tony Dragon- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> In Doug's World, pedestrians are not important!
>
> Derek C

It would seem that that is true, he is always complaining about them
getting in cyclists way on the pavements.

--
Tony Dragon