Why dislike cyclists?

[RJH[_2_]]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/apr/12/no-more-hippies-and-explorers-lament-for-the-changed-world-of-cycling

http://tiny.cc/24pqay

Good article IMHO

--
Cheers, Rob

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 08:39:41 UTC+1, RJH wrote:
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/apr/12/no-more-hippies-and-explorers-lament-for-the-changed-world-of-cycling
>
> http://tiny.cc/24pqay
>
> Good article IMHO
>
> --
> Cheers, Rob

Makes me sad that I am now retired and I miss the summer afternoon rides home along the Humber, but then again, I don't miss the 0515 rides into sleet coming in off the North Sea.

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On 12.04.2016 19:39, RJH wrote:
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/apr/12/no-more-hippies-and-explorers-lament-for-the-changed-world-of-cycling
>
>
> http://tiny.cc/24pqay
>
> Good article IMHO
>

Yes.
The decrease in bicycling for fun, as a convenient economical means of
transport, wearing whatever is comfortable, being cheery about life,
"frocks on bikes" etc is a scandal.
I for one do not care what others think of me. I'll carry on using the
economical delightful bicycle for my basic transport needs. I feel
sorry for the denigrators; they are really missing out on something.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

RJH > wrote:

> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/apr/12/no-more-hippies-and-explorers-lament-for-the-changed-world-of-cycling
>
> http://tiny.cc/24pqay
>
> Good article IMHO

None of the 'negative' aspects of cycling or of cyclists' behaviour even
come close to justifying the hysterical, frothing hatred that is screamed
out of drivers' windows, snarled through clenched jaws and teeth,
spittle-flecked lips drawn back to reveal yellowing, cigarette-stained
teeth.

Some cyclists fail to stop at red lights, but the massive elephant in the
room that the drivers do their utmost to avoid talking about, is that
proportionally more drivers do so, and that because of the massive
disparities in kinetic energy between a cyclist at 15 mph and a car at the
same speed, drivers kill and maim millions of people worldwide every single
year when they do so.

Some cyclists operate their vehicles on the pavement, but the massive
elephant in the room that the drivers do their utmost to avoid talking
about, is that proportionally more drivers do so, and that because of the
massive disparities in kinetic energy between a cyclist at 15 mph and a car
at the same speed, drivers kill and maim millions of people worldwide every
single year when they do so.

Some cyclists fail to stop at Belisha beacon-controlled crossings, but the
massive elephant in the room that the drivers do their utmost to avoid
talking about, is that proportionally more drivers do so, and that because
of the massive disparities in kinetic energy between a cyclist at 15 mph
and a car at the same speed, drivers kill and maim millions of people
worldwide every single year when they do so.

Cyclists are not hated for anything that they do or do not do. They are
hated because they exist. They are hated because they are on the road that
the British driver believes belongs to him, and to him alone. Politicians,
celebrities, the police, the CPS and the courts have cemented this myth
into the public consciousness, to the extent that it is now common
knowledge that if you need to kill someone for whatever reason, do it at
the wheel of a car, and you will almost _certainly_ escape any legal
consequences of any kind.

It is for this reason that cyclists are now often described as the Jews of
the road - blamed for everything bad that happens, even when they are in no
way involved.

My posting history makes clear that I am not the most patient of men. I
believe in asking people who are being aggressive towards me, to stop, but
only asking once. British cyclists have been _begging_ the British car
driver to stop beating them up and killing them, and this begging has been
going on for decades. This grovelling - aided and abetted by the CTC, by
British Cycling and by minor politicians who think that the answer to
aggression is to ask nicely that the aggressor stop - can't go on forever.

Cyclists have already started to strike back. Needless to say, they're
labelled as the aggressor in the media and crucified in the courtroom, but
I hope that they do not allow this intimidation to stop them from
exercising their sovereign right to use the public highway, and to defend
themselves from assault. It is sad - tragic, even - but the only answer
to a driver who aims his steel box at you, is called .357 Sig.

Other than that - interesting article. My wife and I tour on a pair of
Surly LHTs - steel frames, of course. We have visited South East Asia many
times, and are setting off again this coming August, to cycle from Saigon
(as I persist in calling it..) to Hanoi.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[skate]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:39:40 +0100, RJH > wrote:

>http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/apr/12/no-more-hippies-and-explorers-lament-for-the-changed-world-of-cycling
>
>http://tiny.cc/24pqay
>
>Good article IMHO

Awesome video too. Working for 6 months and then cycling for 6 months,
for the last seven years - nice lifestyle if you can get it.

[Rob Morley]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:39:40 +0100
RJH > wrote:

> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/apr/12/no-more-hippies-and-explorers-lament-for-the-changed-world-of-cycling
>
> http://tiny.cc/24pqay
>
> Good article IMHO
>
Indeed, excellent, except perhaps for the denim shorts. :-/

[naazim palan]

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 12:46:55 PM UTC+1, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
> RJH > wrote:
>
> > http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/apr/12/no-more-hippies-and-explorers-lament-for-the-changed-world-of-cycling
> >
> > http://tiny.cc/24pqay
> >
> > Good article IMHO
>
> None of the 'negative' aspects of cycling or of cyclists' behaviour even
> come close to justifying the hysterical, frothing hatred that is screamed
> out of drivers' windows, snarled through clenched jaws and teeth,
> spittle-flecked lips drawn back to reveal yellowing, cigarette-stained
> teeth.
>
> Some cyclists fail to stop at red lights, but the massive elephant in the
> room that the drivers do their utmost to avoid talking about, is that
> proportionally more drivers do so, and that because of the massive
> disparities in kinetic energy between a cyclist at 15 mph and a car at the
> same speed, drivers kill and maim millions of people worldwide every single
> year when they do so.
>
> Some cyclists operate their vehicles on the pavement, but the massive
> elephant in the room that the drivers do their utmost to avoid talking
> about, is that proportionally more drivers do so, and that because of the
> massive disparities in kinetic energy between a cyclist at 15 mph and a car
> at the same speed, drivers kill and maim millions of people worldwide every
> single year when they do so.
>
> Some cyclists fail to stop at Belisha beacon-controlled crossings, but the
> massive elephant in the room that the drivers do their utmost to avoid
> talking about, is that proportionally more drivers do so, and that because
> of the massive disparities in kinetic energy between a cyclist at 15 mph
> and a car at the same speed, drivers kill and maim millions of people
> worldwide every single year when they do so.
>
> Cyclists are not hated for anything that they do or do not do. They are
> hated because they exist. They are hated because they are on the road that
> the British driver believes belongs to him, and to him alone. Politicians,
> celebrities, the police, the CPS and the courts have cemented this myth
> into the public consciousness, to the extent that it is now common
> knowledge that if you need to kill someone for whatever reason, do it at
> the wheel of a car, and you will almost _certainly_ escape any legal
> consequences of any kind.
>
> It is for this reason that cyclists are now often described as the Jews of
> the road - blamed for everything bad that happens, even when they are in no
> way involved.
>
> My posting history makes clear that I am not the most patient of men. I
> believe in asking people who are being aggressive towards me, to stop, but
> only asking once. British cyclists have been _begging_ the British car
> driver to stop beating them up and killing them, and this begging has been
> going on for decades. This grovelling - aided and abetted by the CTC, by
> British Cycling and by minor politicians who think that the answer to
> aggression is to ask nicely that the aggressor stop - can't go on forever..
>
> Cyclists have already started to strike back. Needless to say, they're
> labelled as the aggressor in the media and crucified in the courtroom, but
> I hope that they do not allow this intimidation to stop them from
> exercising their sovereign right to use the public highway, and to defend
> themselves from assault. It is sad - tragic, even - but the only answer
> to a driver who aims his steel box at you, is called .357 Sig.
>
> Other than that - interesting article. My wife and I tour on a pair of
> Surly LHTs - steel frames, of course. We have visited South East Asia many
> times, and are setting off again this coming August, to cycle from Saigon
> (as I persist in calling it..) to Hanoi.
>
> --
> john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
> 'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
> (Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

While all of the above may or may not be true, but as a pedestrian I have yet to have seen:-
A motor vehicle drive through a pedestrian crossing while the green man is on and dozens of people crossing
A motor vehicle start its journey on the footway, use the footway for its whole journey and end its journey on the footway.
A motor vehicle driving through a queue at a bus stop.
A motor vehicle screaming at me to get out of the way while I was walking along a pavement.

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 20:58:47 UTC+1, naazim palan wrote:

>
> While all of the above may or may not be true, but as a pedestrian I have yet to have seen:-
> A motor vehicle drive through a pedestrian crossing while the green man is on and dozens of people crossing
> A motor vehicle start its journey on the footway, use the footway for its whole journey and end its journey on the footway.


You need to get out more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMIEB29KTgU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyqhiCFQu30

[Tony Dragon]

On 12/04/2016 21:04, Alycidon wrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 20:58:47 UTC+1, naazim palan wrote:
>
>>
>> While all of the above may or may not be true, but as a pedestrian I have yet to have seen:-
>> A motor vehicle drive through a pedestrian crossing while the green man is on and dozens of people crossing
>> A motor vehicle start its journey on the footway, use the footway for its whole journey and end its journey on the footway.
>
>
> You need to get out more.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMIEB29KTgU
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyqhiCFQu30
>

I don't see any of the above in those videos.
Also you edited out:-

A motor vehicle driving through a queue at a bus stop.
A motor vehicle screaming at me to get out of the way while I was
walking along a pavement.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Mr Macaw]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 21:04:44 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 20:58:47 UTC+1, naazim palan wrote:
>
>> While all of the above may or may not be true, but as a pedestrian I have yet to have seen:-
>> A motor vehicle drive through a pedestrian crossing while the green man is on and dozens of people crossing
>> A motor vehicle start its journey on the footway, use the footway for its whole journey and end its journey on the footway.
>
> You need to get out more.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMIEB29KTgU

That is a video of a cyclist (you) stopping at a red light, not of a motorist failing to stop at a red light. Why is the video titled RLJ when nobody jumps a red? In fact nothing else is moving in the video besides you.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyqhiCFQu30

A lorry correctly parked on the pavement to avoid impeding passing cars. There were no pedestrians anywhere near him. What is the problem here?

--
Time that you enjoy wasting, is not wasted time -- Marthe Troly-Curtin

[Mr Macaw]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:51:08 +0100, Rob Morley > wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:39:40 +0100
> RJH > wrote:
>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/apr/12/no-more-hippies-and-explorers-lament-for-the-changed-world-of-cycling
>>
>> http://tiny.cc/24pqay
>>
>> Good article IMHO
>>
> Indeed, excellent, except perhaps for the denim shorts. :-/

Better than those pantomime tights most cyclists wear. If you want my respect when I drive past you, wear normal clothes.

--
A man comes out of a shopping mall to find that the side of his parked car is rammed in.
Seeing a note under the windshield, he read it.
On the paper is written: "As I'm writing this, about a dozen people are watching me. They think I'm giving you my name, phone number, and insurance company. But I'm not."

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:09:41 +0100, skate >
wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:39:40 +0100, RJH > wrote:
>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/apr/12/no-more-hippies-and-explorers-lament-for-the-changed-world-of-cycling
>>
>> http://tiny.cc/24pqay
>>
>> Good article IMHO
>
> Awesome video too. Working for 6 months and then cycling for 6 months,
> for the last seven years - nice lifestyle if you can get it.
>

It's still competitive, not relaxing on a pleasant run in the country.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[skate]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:19:39 +0100, "Kerr Mudd-John" >
wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:09:41 +0100, skate >
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:39:40 +0100, RJH > wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/apr/12/no-more-hippies-and-explorers-lament-for-the-changed-world-of-cycling
>>>
>>> http://tiny.cc/24pqay
>>>
>>> Good article IMHO
>>
>> Awesome video too. Working for 6 months and then cycling for 6 months,
>> for the last seven years - nice lifestyle if you can get it.
>>
>
>It's still competitive, not relaxing on a pleasant run in the country.

Yes but it's only as competitive as you want it to be. I would be more
than well pleased just to finish the course. Did you see Lael packing
her bike on her back and set up that Grand Canyon trail bit... who'd
want to take her on?

[Simon Jester]

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 9:52:09 PM UTC+1, Tony Dragon wrote:

> I don't see any of the above in those videos.
> Also you edited out:-
>
> A motor vehicle driving through a queue at a bus stop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm8UHWxxgCg

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:15:52 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

> > You need to get out more.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMIEB29KTgU
>
> That is a video of a cyclist (you) stopping at a red light, not of a motorist failing to stop at a red light. Why is the video titled RLJ when nobody jumps a red?

The silver car passes through the red light at 0:11s - not very observant.

[Nige Danton[_2_]]

Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen
> wrote:

> Surly LHTs - steel frames, of course. We have visited South East Asia many
> times, and are setting off again this coming August, to cycle from Saigon
> (as I persist in calling it..) to Hanoi.

Enjoy the ride. Vietnam's a marvellous place. I lived there for a few years
a while back.

--
Nige Danton - Replace the obvious with g.m.a.i.l

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

Nige Danton > wrote:
> Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen
> > wrote:
>
>> Surly LHTs - steel frames, of course. We have visited South East Asia many
>> times, and are setting off again this coming August, to cycle from Saigon
>> (as I persist in calling it..) to Hanoi.
>
> Enjoy the ride. Vietnam's a marvellous place. I lived there for a few years
> a while back.

Lucky *******.

I've had wanderlust for years, but always end up wanting to live in the
places I visit. My wife is much more settled - getting her to leave
France and come to Israel was a chore, but it was - ironically - helped by
the anti-Semitism that is now rife in France. Much like the anti-cyclist
hatred in the UK.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:20:32 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:15:52 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> > You need to get out more.
>> >
>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMIEB29KTgU
>>
>> That is a video of a cyclist (you) stopping at a red light, not of a motorist failing to stop at a red light. Why is the video titled RLJ when nobody jumps a red?
>
> The silver car passes through the red light at 0:11s - not very observant.

Since you were staring at the ground 90% of the time and shaking the camera all over the place, it wasn't that easy to see.

Anyway, what other vehicles could possibly have got in his way?

--
Law of mechanical repair: After your hands become coated with grease, your nose will begin to itch and you'll have to pee.

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:20:32 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:15:52 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> > You need to get out more.
>> >
>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMIEB29KTgU
>>
>> That is a video of a cyclist (you) stopping at a red light, not of a motorist failing to stop at a red light. Why is the video titled RLJ when nobody jumps a red?
>
> The silver car passes through the red light at 0:11s - not very observant.

Did you behave like a pathetic little child and report him?

--
Police cordoned off Liverpool City Centre this morning when a suspicious object was discovered in a car.
It later turned out to be a tax disc.

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:15:57 +0100, Mr Macaw > wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:20:32 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:15:52 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>>> > You need to get out more.
>>> >
>>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMIEB29KTgU
>>>
>>> That is a video of a cyclist (you) stopping at a red light, not of a
>>> motorist failing to stop at a red light. Why is the video titled RLJ
>>> when nobody jumps a red?
>>
>> The silver car passes through the red light at 0:11s - not very
>> observant.
>
> Did you behave like a pathetic little child and report him?
>
Do you condone illegal behaviour?

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:14:13 +0100, Kerr Mudd-John > wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:15:57 +0100, Mr Macaw > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:20:32 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:15:52 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> > You need to get out more.
>>>> >
>>>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMIEB29KTgU
>>>>
>>>> That is a video of a cyclist (you) stopping at a red light, not of a
>>>> motorist failing to stop at a red light. Why is the video titled RLJ
>>>> when nobody jumps a red?
>>>
>>> The silver car passes through the red light at 0:11s - not very
>>> observant.
>>
>> Did you behave like a pathetic little child and report him?
>>
> Do you condone illegal behaviour?

Illegality is irrelevant. The car ran a red light when the junction was completely empty, so caused no danger whatsoever. I would also never report someone unless they hurt or almost hurt me or somebody else. The car in the above video did no such thing. Do you report every single car you see speeding on the motorway? You'll have a lot of work to do....

--
What do you call 4 sheep tied to a post in Wales?
A leisure centre!

[Alycidon]

On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 13:15:42 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:20:32 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:15:52 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >
> >> > You need to get out more.
> >> >
> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMIEB29KTgU
> >>
> >> That is a video of a cyclist (you) stopping at a red light, not of a motorist failing to stop at a red light. Why is the video titled RLJ when nobody jumps a red?
> >
> > The silver car passes through the red light at 0:11s - not very observant.
>
> Since you were staring at the ground 90% of the time and shaking the camera all over the place, it wasn't that easy to see.
>
> Anyway, what other vehicles could possibly have got in his way?

Since it was the main hospital entrance - a speeding ambulance on a green light.

[Alycidon]

On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 14:45:51 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
Do you report every single car you see speeding on the motorway? You'll have a lot of work to do....

How very true - no wonder M-way workers are now having to carry body cams to film the scofflaw scum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgBf3qRlVZk

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:04:00 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 13:15:42 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:20:32 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:15:52 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> >
>> >> > You need to get out more.
>> >> >
>> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMIEB29KTgU
>> >>
>> >> That is a video of a cyclist (you) stopping at a red light, not of a motorist failing to stop at a red light. Why is the video titled RLJ when nobody jumps a red?
>> >
>> > The silver car passes through the red light at 0:11s - not very observant.
>>
>> Since you were staring at the ground 90% of the time and shaking the camera all over the place, it wasn't that easy to see.
>>
>> Anyway, what other vehicles could possibly have got in his way?
>
> Since it was the main hospital entrance - a speeding ambulance on a green light.

That would have had flashing lights, then the car would have stopped. Anyway, ambulances go through reds.

--
HELP WANTED:
Baiters. Local fishing boats need 4 baiters to bate hooks for tourists. Must have strong hands and work hard. Good pay-$15 per hour, and benefits.
After 6 weeks, 2 best baiters will be promoted to masterbaiters. Apply in person to Jon at the Gulf Marina.

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:17:59 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 14:45:51 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> Do you report every single car you see speeding on the motorway? You'll have a lot of work to do....
>
> How very true - no wonder M-way workers are now having to carry body cams to film the scofflaw scum.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgBf3qRlVZk

They only appear to be going too fast because your brain is slow. I have no problem controlling my car at 70mph in a coned area.

--
I am sorry I offended you - I should have lied.

[Nige Danton[_2_]]

Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen
> wrote:
> Nige Danton > wrote:

> Lucky *******.
>
> I've had wanderlust for years, but always end up wanting to live in the
> places I visit. My wife is much more settled - getting her to leave
> France and come to Israel was a chore, but it was - ironically - helped by
> the anti-Semitism that is now rife in France. Much like the anti-cyclist
> hatred in the UK.

Thanks. We move home and country every couple of years or so. We like the
lifestyle although it does have disadvantages too. We were on the French
Rivera for a few months a couple f years ago. Fabulous cycling culture
there of course. Tbh I wasn't aware of any anti-Semitism, but then we do
tend to keep to ourselves a fair bit.

--
Nige Danton - Replace the obvious with g.m.a.i.l

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:43:34 +0100, Phil W Lee > wrote:

> "Mr Macaw" > considered Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:15:48 +0100
> the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 21:04:44 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 20:58:47 UTC+1, naazim palan wrote:
>>>
>>>> While all of the above may or may not be true, but as a pedestrian I have yet to have seen:-
>>>> A motor vehicle drive through a pedestrian crossing while the green man is on and dozens of people crossing
>>>> A motor vehicle start its journey on the footway, use the footway for its whole journey and end its journey on the footway.
>>>
>>> You need to get out more.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMIEB29KTgU
>>
>> That is a video of a cyclist (you) stopping at a red light, not of a motorist failing to stop at a red light. Why is the video titled RLJ when nobody jumps a red? In fact nothing else is moving in the video besides you.
>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyqhiCFQu30
>>
>> A lorry correctly parked on the pavement to avoid impeding passing cars. There were no pedestrians anywhere near him. What is the problem here?
>
> You could start with the fact that it is illegal, but I suppose like
> most psychopaths, you don't regard the law is a significant factor
> compared to your own convenience.

The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry doing?

--
A bloke walks into a Glasgow library and says to the prim librarian,
"Excuse me Miss, dey ye hae ony books on suicide?"
To which she stops doing her tasks, looks at him over the top of her glasses and says,
"Buggeroff, ye'll no bring it back!"

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:45:16 +0100, Phil W Lee > wrote:

> Alycidon > considered Tue, 12 Apr 2016 23:20:32
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:15:52 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>>> > You need to get out more.
>>> >
>>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMIEB29KTgU
>>>
>>> That is a video of a cyclist (you) stopping at a red light, not of a motorist failing to stop at a red light. Why is the video titled RLJ when nobody jumps a red?
>>
>> The silver car passes through the red light at 0:11s - not very observant.
>
> It explains why the psychopaths never see the endemic criminality of
> other psychopaths rather well though.
>
> I wonder if the DVLA have been informed about his eyesight?

Simon's neck needs a brace, the ****ing camera won't stay still.

--
A bloke walks into a Glasgow library and says to the prim librarian,
"Excuse me Miss, dey ye hae ony books on suicide?"
To which she stops doing her tasks, looks at him over the top of her glasses and says,
"Buggeroff, ye'll no bring it back!"

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:45:16 +0100, Phil W Lee > wrote:

> Alycidon > considered Tue, 12 Apr 2016 23:20:32
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:15:52 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>>> > You need to get out more.
>>> >
>>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMIEB29KTgU
>>>
>>> That is a video of a cyclist (you) stopping at a red light, not of a motorist failing to stop at a red light. Why is the video titled RLJ when nobody jumps a red?
>>
>> The silver car passes through the red light at 0:11s - not very observant.
>
> It explains why the psychopaths never see the endemic criminality of
> other psychopaths rather well though.
>
> I wonder if the DVLA have been informed about his eyesight?

I have 20:20 vision and the hearing of a 16 year old (according to doctors).

--
Billy bashed bandy Brian's ******** because bandy Brian broke Billy's big brown blowup boy before breakfast began.
Bigtits Beryl bit Barry's boner because Barry banged black Barbara's bare bruised bottom beside Brighton beach's battered blue bandstand.

[Alycidon]

On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 23:07:30 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

>
> The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry doing?

Damaging the footway and the utilities beneath,increasing my council tax.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

Nige Danton > wrote:
> Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen
> > wrote:
>> Nige Danton > wrote:

>> Lucky *******.
>>
>> I've had wanderlust for years, but always end up wanting to live in the
>> places I visit. My wife is much more settled - getting her to leave
>> France and come to Israel was a chore, but it was - ironically - helped
>> by the anti-Semitism that is now rife in France. Much like the
>> anti-cyclist hatred in the UK.

> Thanks. We move home and country every couple of years or so. We like the
> lifestyle although it does have disadvantages too. We were on the French
> Rivera for a few months a couple f years ago. Fabulous cycling culture
> there of course. Tbh I wasn't aware of any anti-Semitism, but then we do
> tend to keep to ourselves a fair bit.

It's worse in Paris. Any Jew who wears a kippa in Paris is virtually
guaranteed to get abuse shouted at him in the street. If he's lucky. If
he's unlucky, he's getting a beating.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AltyhmrIFgo> (SFW)
--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:23:43 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 23:07:30 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>>
>> The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry doing?
>
> Damaging the footway and the utilities beneath,increasing my council tax.

The footway is quite capable of taking the weight of a large vehicle. Probably not day in day out at driving speeds. But a slow moving lorry now and again is fine. Otherwise you'd constantly see the pavement subsiding.

--
The remarkable thing about my mother is that for 30 years she served us nothing but leftovers. The original meal has never been found. -- Calvin Trillin

[jnugent]

On 14/04/2016 11:28, Mr Macaw wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:23:43 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 23:07:30 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>>> The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry
>>> doing?
>
>> Damaging the footway and the utilities beneath,increasing my council tax.

> The footway is quite capable of taking the weight of a large vehicle.
> Probably not day in day out at driving speeds. But a slow moving lorry
> now and again is fine. Otherwise you'd constantly see the pavement
> subsiding.

Guess what?

<https://pedestrianliberation.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/img_1303.jpg>

<http://callylabourcouncillors.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/tilloch-street-pavement-broken-paving-web.jpg>

<http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.4105165.1433851807!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg>

<https://publicrealmdotorg1.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/slabs-2-e1421511434690.jpg>

[Alycidon]

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 11:28:43 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:23:43 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 23:07:30 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry doing?
> >
> > Damaging the footway and the utilities beneath,increasing my council tax.

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 23:08:15 +0100, Mr Macaw > wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:45:16 +0100, Phil W Lee >
> wrote:
>
>> Alycidon > considered Tue, 12 Apr 2016 23:20:32
>> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:15:52 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> > You need to get out more.
>>>> >
>>>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMIEB29KTgU
>>>>
>>>> That is a video of a cyclist (you) stopping at a red light, not of a
>>>> motorist failing to stop at a red light. Why is the video titled RLJ
>>>> when nobody jumps a red?
>>>
>>> The silver car passes through the red light at 0:11s - not very
>>> observant.
>>
>> It explains why the psychopaths never see the endemic criminality of
>> other psychopaths rather well though.
>>
>> I wonder if the DVLA have been informed about his eyesight?
>
> I have 20:20 vision and the hearing of a 16 year old (according to
> doctors).
>

and the social skills of a 14 year old.



--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:43:34 +0100, Phil W Lee >
wrote:

> "Mr Macaw" > considered Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:15:48 +0100
> the perfect time to write:

[]
>>
>> A lorry correctly parked on the pavement to avoid impeding passing
>> cars. There were no pedestrians anywhere near him. What is the
>> problem here?
>
> You could start with the fact that it is illegal, but I suppose like
> most psychopaths, you don't regard the law is a significant factor
> compared to your own convenience.

He is a flagrant scofflaw. You can't educate him.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:44:14 +0100, Kerr Mudd-John > wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 23:08:15 +0100, Mr Macaw > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:45:16 +0100, Phil W Lee >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Alycidon > considered Tue, 12 Apr 2016 23:20:32
>>> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:15:52 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > You need to get out more.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMIEB29KTgU
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a video of a cyclist (you) stopping at a red light, not of a
>>>>> motorist failing to stop at a red light. Why is the video titled RLJ
>>>>> when nobody jumps a red?
>>>>
>>>> The silver car passes through the red light at 0:11s - not very
>>>> observant.
>>>
>>> It explains why the psychopaths never see the endemic criminality of
>>> other psychopaths rather well though.
>>>
>>> I wonder if the DVLA have been informed about his eyesight?
>>
>> I have 20:20 vision and the hearing of a 16 year old (according to
>> doctors).
>
> and the social skills of a 14 year old.

I am known as a very kind and friendly person (to normal people). If someone does something stupid, then I can be a ****.

--
What do lawyers and sperm have in common?
1 in 50 million has a chance of becoming a human being.

[Alycidon]

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:22:04 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:53:32 +0100, Kerr Mudd-John > wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:43:34 +0100, Phil W Lee >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Mr Macaw" > considered Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:15:48 +0100
> >> the perfect time to write:
> >
> > []
> >>>
> >>> A lorry correctly parked on the pavement to avoid impeding passing
> >>> cars. There were no pedestrians anywhere near him. What is the
> >>> problem here?
> >>
> >> You could start with the fact that it is illegal, but I suppose like
> >> most psychopaths, you don't regard the law is a significant factor
> >> compared to your own convenience.
> >
> > He is a flagrant scofflaw. You can't educate him.
>
> I am MORE educated, that's why I have the ability to choose which laws are sensible.

The jails are full of criminal "masterminds" who think in the way you do.

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:26:54 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:22:04 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:53:32 +0100, Kerr Mudd-John > wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:43:34 +0100, Phil W Lee >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Mr Macaw" > considered Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:15:48 +0100
>> >> the perfect time to write:
>> >
>> > []
>> >>>
>> >>> A lorry correctly parked on the pavement to avoid impeding passing
>> >>> cars. There were no pedestrians anywhere near him. What is the
>> >>> problem here?
>> >>
>> >> You could start with the fact that it is illegal, but I suppose like
>> >> most psychopaths, you don't regard the law is a significant factor
>> >> compared to your own convenience.
>> >
>> > He is a flagrant scofflaw. You can't educate him.
>>
>> I am MORE educated, that's why I have the ability to choose which laws are sensible.
>
> The jails are full of criminal "masterminds" who think in the way you do.

About 95% of the population breaks at least one of the following laws regularly:

Speed limits.
Smoking marijuana.
Downloading mp3s.
Parking on double yellows.
Countless other petty offences.

It's very rare you find someone who breaks NO laws.

--
A recent study found that the average Aussie walks about 900 miles a year.
Another study found that Aussies drink, on average, 22 gallons of alcohol a year.
That means that, on average, Aussies get about 41 miles to the gallon!

[Alycidon]

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:38:08 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

>
> About 95% of the population breaks at least one of the following laws regularly:
>
> Speed limits.
NOT ME.
> Smoking marijuana.
DREADFUL STUFF
> Downloading mp3s.
I'VE PAID FOR THEM IN VINYL AND CD.
> Parking on double yellows.
NO - I PARK AND WALK.

I did use parent and child today, with my grandson.
Possible abuse?

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:47:10 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:38:08 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>>
>> About 95% of the population breaks at least one of the following laws regularly:
>>
>> Speed limits.
> NOT ME.
>> Smoking marijuana.
> DREADFUL STUFF
>> Downloading mp3s.
> I'VE PAID FOR THEM IN VINYL AND CD.
>> Parking on double yellows.
> NO - I PARK AND WALK.

You are one of the 5%. You have OCD. I only know you and one other person like this. And the other person disagrees with half the laws, but only obeys them because he doesn't want to get into trouble and lose his job (which is fussy about such things).

> I did use parent and child today, with my grandson.
> Possible abuse?

I don't know what "parent and child" is when used as a verb. But everything is considered abuse nowadays, the world has gone stupidly soft.

--
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:53:32 +0100, Kerr Mudd-John >
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:43:34 +0100, Phil W Lee
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Mr Macaw" > considered Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:15:48 +0100
>>> the perfect time to write:
>>
>> []
>>>>
>>>> A lorry correctly parked on the pavement to avoid impeding passing
>>>> cars. There were no pedestrians anywhere near him. What is the
>>>> problem here?
>>>
>>> You could start with the fact that it is illegal, but I suppose like
>>> most psychopaths, you don't regard the law is a significant factor
>>> compared to your own convenience.
>>
>> He is a flagrant scofflaw. You can't educate him.
>
> I am MORE educated, that's why I have the ability to choose which
> laws are sensible.

Hmmmmm.
I've lost interest with this group and only read and post on the odd
occasion.
Having said that, Peter Hucker, the well known troll socked up as Mr Macaw,
would you like me to post here some of your insane quotes and opinions?
I have your lies to Bod and your retraction to me.
All you have to say is yes.
I don't like liars, spongers, pikeys and ******s.
I really don't like you.
All you have to say is yes.
Btw, you are a piece of ****.

[jnugent]

On 14/04/2016 19:26, Alycidon wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:22:04 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:53:32 +0100, Kerr Mudd-John > wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:43:34 +0100, Phil W Lee >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mr Macaw" > considered Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:15:48 +0100
>>>> the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>> []
>>>>>
>>>>> A lorry correctly parked on the pavement to avoid impeding passing
>>>>> cars. There were no pedestrians anywhere near him. What is the
>>>>> problem here?
>>>>
>>>> You could start with the fact that it is illegal, but I suppose like
>>>> most psychopaths, you don't regard the law is a significant factor
>>>> compared to your own convenience.
>>>
>>> He is a flagrant scofflaw. You can't educate him.
>>
>> I am MORE educated, that's why I have the ability to choose which laws are sensible.
>
> The jails are full of criminal "masterminds" who think in the way you do...

....almost all of whom are apparently innocent.

[Mr Macaw]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:47:48 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 14/04/2016 19:26, Alycidon wrote:
>> On Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:22:04 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:53:32 +0100, Kerr Mudd-John > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:43:34 +0100, Phil W Lee >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Mr Macaw" > considered Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:15:48 +0100
>>>>> the perfect time to write:
>>>>
>>>> []
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lorry correctly parked on the pavement to avoid impeding passing
>>>>>> cars. There were no pedestrians anywhere near him. What is the
>>>>>> problem here?
>>>>>
>>>>> You could start with the fact that it is illegal, but I suppose like
>>>>> most psychopaths, you don't regard the law is a significant factor
>>>>> compared to your own convenience.
>>>>
>>>> He is a flagrant scofflaw. You can't educate him.
>>>
>>> I am MORE educated, that's why I have the ability to choose which laws are sensible.
>>
>> The jails are full of criminal "masterminds" who think in the way you do...
>
> ...almost all of whom are apparently innocent.

In America most of them just nicked a chocolate bar from a shop a few times, then get locked up for 30 years.

--
How many potheads does it take to change a light bulb?
Two. One to hold the bulb against the socket, and the other to smoke up until the room starts spinning.

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 14:35:55 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Thursday, 14 April 2016 11:28:43 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:23:43 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 23:07:30 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry doing?
>> >
>> > Damaging the footway and the utilities beneath,increasing my council tax.
>>
>> The footway is quite capable of taking the weight of a large vehicle. Probably not day in day out at driving speeds. But a slow moving lorry now and again is fine. Otherwise you'd constantly see the pavement subsiding.
>
> Why does this law quote the opposite then and these are only cars damaging them - not 44T trucks?
> QUOTE:
> "The average cost to repair one square metre of footpath is £100 and last year we repaired about two miles of footpath. That compares to £25 to repair one metre of road. It's much more expensive because of the utilities that run underneath.
>
> "The council is responsible for any damage to utilities that run underneath public pathways. If cables are broken, the council has to pay for that and that is council taxpayer's money.
>
> "If people continually drive over pavements and damage utilities, reclaiming the cost of repairing that from the property owner is something we would look at through the legal department."
>
> http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/residents-face-bills-thousands-drive-10729510

You can't take the law seriously when they think this will reduce crime:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2288329/Community-slams-police-hanging-knitted-pom-poms-trees-help-reduce-fear-crime.html

Anyway, as I've said before, the Council is responsible for maintaining a proper pavement. If it cannot allow someone to access their drive, it is unfit for purpose and the council needs to fix their own problem at their own expense.

But my driveway has WAY LESS hardcore than a pavement, and it doesn't sink with a car PARKED on it! A pavement isn't weak, it's the council using that as an excuse for ****ty workmanship, and gullible prats like you fell for it hook line and sinker.

--
Little Sally came home from school with a smile on her face, and told her mother, "Frankie Brown showed me his penis today at the playground!" Before the mother could raise a concern, "Sally went on to say, "It reminded me of a peanut." Relaxing with a hidden smile, Sally's mum asked, "Really small, was it?" Sally replied, "No, salty." Mum fainted.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:53:32 +0100, Kerr Mudd-John >
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 22:43:34 +0100, Phil W Lee
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mr Macaw" > considered Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:15:48 +0100
>>>> the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>> []
>>>>>
>>>>> A lorry correctly parked on the pavement to avoid impeding passing
>>>>> cars. There were no pedestrians anywhere near him. What is the
>>>>> problem here?
>>>>
>>>> You could start with the fact that it is illegal, but I suppose
>>>> like most psychopaths, you don't regard the law is a significant
>>>> factor compared to your own convenience.
>>>
>>> He is a flagrant scofflaw. You can't educate him.
>>
>> I am MORE educated, that's why I have the ability to choose which
>> laws are sensible.
>
> Hmmmmm.
> I've lost interest with this group and only read and post on the odd
> occasion.
> Having said that, Peter Hucker, the well known troll socked up as Mr
> Macaw, would you like me to post here some of your insane quotes and
> opinions? I have your lies to Bod and your retraction to me.
> All you have to say is yes.
> I don't like liars, spongers, pikeys and ******s.
> I really don't like you.
> All you have to say is yes.
> Btw, you are a piece of ****.

So, it's no then, you don't want me to post your insanity here.
Okay, I won't do it..
You always were a yellow gutless piece of ****.

[Simon Jester]

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 12:52:16 AM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

> In America most of them just nicked a chocolate bar from a shop a few times, then get locked up for 30 years.

The majority of leftpondian prisoners are there because they used a harmless naturally growing herb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coYUFJLSOm8

Of course when you have a private prison system where the state guarantees that prisons will always be at a minimum of 95% capacity judges are under pressure to send non violent offenders to jail.

[jnugent]

On 15/04/2016 23:54, Simon Jester wrote:

> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 12:52:16 AM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> In America most of them just nicked a chocolate bar from a shop a few times, then get locked up for 30 years.
>
> The majority of leftpondian prisoners are there because they used a harmless naturally growing herb.

What... they aren't allowed to use the sage when stuffing a turkey?

Truly, one can learn something every day.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coYUFJLSOm8
>
> Of course when you have a private prison system where the state guarantees that prisons will always be at a minimum of 95% capacity judges are under pressure to send non violent offenders to jail.

[Simon Jester]

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 11:57:36 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 15/04/2016 23:54, Simon Jester wrote:
>
> > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 12:52:16 AM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >
> >> In America most of them just nicked a chocolate bar from a shop a few times, then get locked up for 30 years.
> >
> > The majority of leftpondian prisoners are there because they used a harmless naturally growing herb.
>
> What... they aren't allowed to use the sage when stuffing a turkey?
>
> Truly, one can learn something every day.
>

More dishonest snipping, hypocrite.

[Mr Macaw]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 00:20:49 +0100, Simon Jester > wrote:

> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 11:57:36 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 15/04/2016 23:54, Simon Jester wrote:
>>
>> > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 12:52:16 AM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> >
>> >> In America most of them just nicked a chocolate bar from a shop a few times, then get locked up for 30 years.
>> >
>> > The majority of leftpondian prisoners are there because they used a harmless naturally growing herb.
>>
>> What... they aren't allowed to use the sage when stuffing a turkey?
>>
>> Truly, one can learn something every day.
>>
>
> More dishonest snipping, hypocrite.

Are you currently using some of that herb? Because he quoted your post in its entirety, completely unaltered.

--
Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.

[jnugent]

On 16/04/2016 00:20, Simon Jester wrote:

> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 11:57:36 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 15/04/2016 23:54, Simon Jester wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 12:52:16 AM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>>>> In America most of them just nicked a chocolate bar from a shop a few times, then get locked up for 30 years.
>
>>> The majority of leftpondian prisoners are there because they used a harmless naturally growing herb.

>> What... they aren't allowed to use the sage when stuffing a turkey?
>> Truly, one can learn something every day.

> More dishonest snipping, hypocrite.

You have dishonestly snipped my post, but I had snipped nothing from
yours. Your whole post was intact when it left me.

This is how it looked when I posted it (compare with your dishonestly
snipped version above):

QUOTE:
On 15/04/2016 23:54, Simon Jester wrote:

> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 12:52:16 AM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

>> In America most of them just nicked a chocolate bar from a shop
>> a few times, then get locked up for 30 years.

> The majority of leftpondian prisoners are there because they used a
harmless naturally growing herb.

What... they aren't allowed to use the sage when stuffing a turkey?

Truly, one can learn something every day.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coYUFJLSOm8

> Of course when you have a private prison system where the state
guarantees that prisons will always be at a minimum of 95% capacity
judges are under pressure to send non violent offenders to jail.
ENDQUOTE

So you are either stupid or a liar.

And there is always the possibility that both of those apply.

[jnugent]

On 16/04/2016 00:37, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 00:20:49 +0100, Simon Jester >
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 11:57:36 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 15/04/2016 23:54, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 12:52:16 AM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> In America most of them just nicked a chocolate bar from a shop a
>>> few times, then get locked up for 30 years.
>>> >
>>> > The majority of leftpondian prisoners are there because they used a
>>> harmless naturally growing herb.
>>>
>>> What... they aren't allowed to use the sage when stuffing a turkey?
>>>
>>> Truly, one can learn something every day.
>>>
>>
>> More dishonest snipping, hypocrite.
>
> Are you currently using some of that herb? Because he quoted your post
> in its entirety, completely unaltered.

Thank you for that.

[Mr Macaw]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 23:54:42 +0100, Simon Jester > wrote:

> On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 12:52:16 AM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> In America most of them just nicked a chocolate bar from a shop a few times, then get locked up for 30 years.
>
> The majority of leftpondian prisoners are there because they used a harmless naturally growing herb.

https://youtu.be/7H8Cz9woC2A

--
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

[Simon Jester]

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 12:37:49 AM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 00:20:49 +0100, Simon Jester > wrote:
>

> > More dishonest snipping, hypocrite.
>
> Are you currently using some of that herb? Because he quoted your post in its entirety, completely unaltered.
>

That is not how it appeared on my computer, unlike you I can afford a Mac.
To anyone else other than Nugent I would apologise.

[Mr Macaw]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 00:50:51 +0100, Simon Jester > wrote:

> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 12:37:49 AM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 00:20:49 +0100, Simon Jester > wrote:
>
>> > More dishonest snipping, hypocrite.
>>
>> Are you currently using some of that herb? Because he quoted your post in its entirety, completely unaltered.
>
> That is not how it appeared on my computer, unlike you I can afford a Mac.
> To anyone else other than Nugent I would apologise.

So what you're saying is your Mac showed you the post incorrectly. You are stupid enough to pay more for an incompatible computer.

--
With her marriage, she got a new name and a dress.

[jnugent]

On 16/04/2016 00:50, Simon Jester wrote:

> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 12:37:49 AM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 00:20:49 +0100, Simon Jester > wrote:

>>> More dishonest snipping, hypocrite.

>> Are you currently using some of that herb? Because he quoted your post in its entirety, completely unaltered.

> That is not how it appeared on my computer, unlike you I can afford a Mac.

Your post was intact. On yoiur Mac as well as on any proper computer.

You are, of course, a liar.

> To anyone else other than Nugent I would apologise.

I don't expect apologies from liars.

[jnugent]

On 16/04/2016 00:54, Mr Macaw wrote:

> Simon Jester > wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 12:37:49 AM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> Simon Jester > wrote:

>>> > More dishonest snipping, hypocrite.

>>> Are you currently using some of that herb? Because he quoted your
>>> post in its entirety, completely unaltered.

>> That is not how it appeared on my computer, unlike you I can afford a
>> Mac. To anyone else other than Nugent I would apologise.

> So what you're saying is your Mac showed you the post incorrectly. You
> are stupid enough to pay more for an incompatible computer.

That is what he's saying.

But it isn't true.

[Simon Jester]

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 1:01:24 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

> Your post was intact. On yoiur Mac as well as on any proper computer.

So now you are saying you have installed spyware on my computer?
In this case your post said

<show quoted text>
Your text



Sorry for the inconvenient fact

[jnugent]

On 16/04/2016 01:12, Simon Jester wrote:

> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 1:01:24 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

>> Your post was intact. On yoiur Mac as well as on any proper computer.

> So now you are saying you have installed spyware on my computer?

You are utterly mad. But we knew that already.

> In this case your post said

> <show quoted text>
> Your text

No, it did not. I have already posted an exact quote of what my post
looked like.

It would be *most* odd if that particular posting - appearing quite
properly on Mr Macaw's computer, and on mine - somehow appeared
differently on yours.

> Sorry for the inconvenient fact

I dare say you are. But you cannot think of a credible way around the
facts, so you had to resort to the lies you posted.

Seething?

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 22:49:17 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire
> wrote:

> Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

>> Hmmmmm.
>> I've lost interest with this group and only read and post on the odd
>> occasion.
>> Having said that, Peter Hucker, the well known troll socked up as Mr
>> Macaw, would you like me to post here some of your insane quotes and
>> opinions? I have your lies to Bod and your retraction to me.
>> All you have to say is yes.
>> I don't like liars, spongers, pikeys and ******s.
>> I really don't like you.
>> All you have to say is yes.
>> Btw, you are a piece of ****.
>
> So, it's no then, you don't want me to post your insanity here.
> Okay, I won't do it..
> You always were a yellow gutless piece of ****.

Usenet: It's not just for pouring your hatred out on.


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[Mr Macaw]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 01:12:01 +0100, Simon Jester > wrote:

> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 1:01:24 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>
>> Your post was intact. On yoiur Mac as well as on any proper computer.
>
> So now you are saying you have installed spyware on my computer?

You can't really be that thick. Clearly he meant if you replied to it with all the words intact, then you must have seen them ok.

> In this case your post said
>
> <show quoted text>
> Your text
>
>
>
> Sorry for the inconvenient fact

None of his posts looked like that.

--
With her marriage, she got a new name and a dress.

[Mr Macaw]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 01:02:13 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 16/04/2016 00:54, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> Simon Jester > wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 12:37:49 AM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> Simon Jester > wrote:
>
>>>> > More dishonest snipping, hypocrite.
>
>>>> Are you currently using some of that herb? Because he quoted your
>>>> post in its entirety, completely unaltered.
>
>>> That is not how it appeared on my computer, unlike you I can afford a
>>> Mac. To anyone else other than Nugent I would apologise.
>
>> So what you're saying is your Mac showed you the post incorrectly. You
>> are stupid enough to pay more for an incompatible computer.
>
> That is what he's saying.
>
> But it isn't true.

Oh I don't know, I've seen Macs do some incredibly stupid and illogical things. They're incompatible with the rest of us. I remember copying a file from a Mac to a PC and back to the same Mac and the Mac couldn't interpret its own file anymore, even though the PC read it perfectly well.

--
Bumper sticker seen on a B-2 Stealth Bomber:
"IF YOU CAN READ THIS, THEN WE WASTED 50 BILLION BUCKS."

[jnugent]

On 16/04/2016 14:49, Mr Macaw wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 16/04/2016 00:54, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> Simon Jester > wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 12:37:49 AM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>> Simon Jester > wrote:
>
>>>>> > More dishonest snipping, hypocrite.
>
>>>>> Are you currently using some of that herb? Because he quoted your
>>>>> post in its entirety, completely unaltered.
>
>>>> That is not how it appeared on my computer, unlike you I can afford a
>>>> Mac. To anyone else other than Nugent I would apologise.
>
>>> So what you're saying is your Mac showed you the post incorrectly. You
>>> are stupid enough to pay more for an incompatible computer.
>
>> That is what he's saying.
>> But it isn't true.
>
> Oh I don't know, I've seen Macs do some incredibly stupid and illogical
> things. They're incompatible with the rest of us. I remember copying a
> file from a Mac to a PC and back to the same Mac and the Mac couldn't
> interpret its own file anymore, even though the PC read it perfectly well.

I know that usenet on Google Groups (neé Deja) looks a bit odd, even on
Windows.

But it's more or less the same on a Mac usenet app as it is (or was) on
Outlook Express, Thunderbird, Gravity, etc. There are differences, but
they are not major.

[Mr Macaw]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 15:07:16 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 16/04/2016 14:49, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> JNugent > wrote:
>>> On 16/04/2016 00:54, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> Simon Jester > wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 12:37:49 AM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>> Simon Jester > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> > More dishonest snipping, hypocrite.
>>
>>>>>> Are you currently using some of that herb? Because he quoted your
>>>>>> post in its entirety, completely unaltered.
>>
>>>>> That is not how it appeared on my computer, unlike you I can afford a
>>>>> Mac. To anyone else other than Nugent I would apologise.
>>
>>>> So what you're saying is your Mac showed you the post incorrectly. You
>>>> are stupid enough to pay more for an incompatible computer.
>>
>>> That is what he's saying.
>>> But it isn't true.
>>
>> Oh I don't know, I've seen Macs do some incredibly stupid and illogical
>> things. They're incompatible with the rest of us. I remember copying a
>> file from a Mac to a PC and back to the same Mac and the Mac couldn't
>> interpret its own file anymore, even though the PC read it perfectly well.
>
> I know that usenet on Google Groups (neé Deja) looks a bit odd, even on
> Windows.
>
> But it's more or less the same on a Mac usenet app as it is (or was) on
> Outlook Express, Thunderbird, Gravity, etc. There are differences, but
> they are not major.

Then the only conclusion I can come to is Simon is an idiot.

--
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs."

[jnugent]

The thread raises an interesting question...

....do cyclists have a right to be liked?

[Mr Macaw]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:02:25 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> The thread raises an interesting question...
>
> ...do cyclists have a right to be liked?

I was about to say they aren't human, but then we like lesser animals like rabbits.

--
When eating a tongue sandwich, how do you know when you've finished?

[Simon Jester]

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 11:21:18 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:02:25 +0100, JNugent > wrote:
>
> > The thread raises an interesting question...
> >
> > ...do cyclists have a right to be liked?
>
> I was about to say they aren't human

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On 17.04.2016 10:02, JNugent wrote:
> The thread raises an interesting question...
>
> ...do cyclists have a right to be liked?

No.

Nobody has a right to be regarded favorably by other people.

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On 17.04.2016 10:21, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:02:25 +0100, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>> The thread raises an interesting question...
>>
>> ...do cyclists have a right to be liked?
>
> I was about to say they aren't human, but then we like lesser animals
> like rabbits.
>

Thank you very much kind sir for that great compliment. especially as
it has come from you.

Now please show your true colours by ejaculating to me from you the
further great accolade of being a mistake of nature and a heavy-metal
bagpipe player.

It really is a very great compliment to be called a rabbit by you.
Especially by you.
And I have no ****ing interest in looking good in your eyes.
After all I ride a ****ing bicycle.
And we all know what you think of ****ing bicyclists.
And because it is you who think that, that is an extremely great
compliment.
We must be doing something right.

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On 17.04.2016 12:11, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 11:21:18 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:02:25 +0100, JNugent > wrote:
>>
>>> The thread raises an interesting question...
>>>
>>> ...do cyclists have a right to be liked?
>>
>> I was about to say they aren't human
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y
>
Great!

[skate]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:02:25 +0100, JNugent >
wrote:

>The thread raises an interesting question...
>
>...do cyclists have a right to be liked?

No, but then again, I would have thought most cyclists appreciate that
anyway. What is also an interesting question, though, is should they
be so disliked?

Cyclists must sometimes wonder what it is about them that seems to
provoke such fury in other road users. There is a theory that it's not
because cyclists are annoying nor even because we have a selective
memory for that one stand-out annoying cyclist over the hundreds of
boring, non-annoying ones (isn't that a factor?). The theory goes that
drivers hate cyclists because they think they offend the moral order.

We know there are good and bad drivers, but driving is still is a very
moral activity - there are rules of the road, both legal and informal.
Then along come cyclists doing things that drivers aren't allowed, or
able, to (it's all too easy for them to cheat basically).

Well, one global hallmark of us human beings, is an anger at people
who are perceived to be rule breakers. In addition, we humans can get
quite annoyed over those we perceive as taking benefits without
contributing to the cost.

These angers and annoyances can be triggered by just the mere presence
of cyclists on the roads and this, according to the theory, explains
what is pushing drivers towards their hatred of cyclists.

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 01:11:36 +0100, Simon Jester > wrote:

> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 11:21:18 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:02:25 +0100, JNugent > wrote:
>>
>> > The thread raises an interesting question...
>> >
>> > ...do cyclists have a right to be liked?
>>
>> I was about to say they aren't human
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y

Oh that's funny as ****. I can't believe you posted that. Everything they say is perfectly true.

--
Take notice: when this sign is under water, this road is impassable.

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 11:38:41 +0100, skate > wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:02:25 +0100, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>> The thread raises an interesting question...
>>
>> ...do cyclists have a right to be liked?
>
> No, but then again, I would have thought most cyclists appreciate that
> anyway. What is also an interesting question, though, is should they
> be so disliked?
>
> Cyclists must sometimes wonder what it is about them that seems to
> provoke such fury in other road users. There is a theory that it's not
> because cyclists are annoying nor even because we have a selective
> memory for that one stand-out annoying cyclist over the hundreds of
> boring, non-annoying ones (isn't that a factor?). The theory goes that
> drivers hate cyclists because they think they offend the moral order.
>
> We know there are good and bad drivers, but driving is still is a very
> moral activity - there are rules of the road, both legal and informal.
> Then along come cyclists doing things that drivers aren't allowed, or
> able, to (it's all too easy for them to cheat basically).
>
> Well, one global hallmark of us human beings, is an anger at people
> who are perceived to be rule breakers. In addition, we humans can get
> quite annoyed over those we perceive as taking benefits without
> contributing to the cost.
>
> These angers and annoyances can be triggered by just the mere presence
> of cyclists on the roads and this, according to the theory, explains
> what is pushing drivers towards their hatred of cyclists.

What annoys me about cyclists is:

1) Pantomime skin hugging outfits that make you look gay.

2) Pansy helmets because you think you're going to fall off.

3) Trying to take up the same width as a car because you wobble too much and should have stabilisers.

4) Using flashing headlights (some of which are so bright and with a blue tint that motorists mistake you for an ambulance) yet cars are not allowed to do so.

When I see a normal person in jeans and tshirt and no helmet, cycling along on the left not taking up a whole lane, without using lights in broad daylight, I treat them as an everyday human being. Be normal, get respected.

--
The Post Office just recalled their latest stamps. They had pictures
of lawyers on them, and people couldn't figure out which side to spit
on.

[jnugent]

On 17/04/2016 11:38, skate wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:

>> The thread raises an interesting question...
>> ...do cyclists have a right to be liked?

> No, but then again, I would have thought most cyclists appreciate that
> anyway. What is also an interesting question, though, is should they
> be so disliked?

Surely the amount of dislike for a certain group of people engaging in a
voluntary pursuit is (and should be) proportional to the unacceptability
of their behaviour whilst doing it?

> Cyclists must sometimes wonder what it is about them that seems to
> provoke such fury in other road users. There is a theory that it's not
> because cyclists are annoying nor even because we have a selective
> memory for that one stand-out annoying cyclist over the hundreds of
> boring, non-annoying ones (isn't that a factor?). The theory goes that
> drivers hate cyclists because they think they offend the moral order.

I'm not familiar with that theory.

Do you have a citation for any paper in which it is expounded?

> We know there are good and bad drivers, but driving is still is a very
> moral activity - there are rules of the road, both legal and informal.
> Then along come cyclists doing things that drivers aren't allowed, or
> able, to (it's all too easy for them to cheat basically).

> Well, one global hallmark of us human beings, is an anger at people
> who are perceived to be rule breakers. In addition, we humans can get
> quite annoyed over those we perceive as taking benefits without
> contributing to the cost.
>
> These angers and annoyances can be triggered by just the mere presence
> of cyclists on the roads and this, according to the theory, explains
> what is pushing drivers towards their hatred of cyclists.

Sounds plausible. I'd really like to read the arguments in the original.

[jnugent]

On 17/04/2016 12:51, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 11:38:41 +0100, skate
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:02:25 +0100, JNugent >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The thread raises an interesting question...
>>>
>>> ...do cyclists have a right to be liked?
>>
>> No, but then again, I would have thought most cyclists appreciate that
>> anyway. What is also an interesting question, though, is should they
>> be so disliked?
>>
>> Cyclists must sometimes wonder what it is about them that seems to
>> provoke such fury in other road users. There is a theory that it's not
>> because cyclists are annoying nor even because we have a selective
>> memory for that one stand-out annoying cyclist over the hundreds of
>> boring, non-annoying ones (isn't that a factor?). The theory goes that
>> drivers hate cyclists because they think they offend the moral order.
>>
>> We know there are good and bad drivers, but driving is still is a very
>> moral activity - there are rules of the road, both legal and informal.
>> Then along come cyclists doing things that drivers aren't allowed, or
>> able, to (it's all too easy for them to cheat basically).
>>
>> Well, one global hallmark of us human beings, is an anger at people
>> who are perceived to be rule breakers. In addition, we humans can get
>> quite annoyed over those we perceive as taking benefits without
>> contributing to the cost.
>>
>> These angers and annoyances can be triggered by just the mere presence
>> of cyclists on the roads and this, according to the theory, explains
>> what is pushing drivers towards their hatred of cyclists.
>
> What annoys me about cyclists is:
>
> 1) Pantomime skin hugging outfits that make you look gay.

That doesn't annoy me and it's hard to see why it should annoy anyone.

> 2) Pansy helmets because you think you're going to fall off.

That too doesn't annoy me and it's hard to see why it should annoy
anyone sensible.

> 3) Trying to take up the same width as a car because you wobble too much
> and should have stabilisers.

That's different. Any road user taking up more road space than is
necessary, failing to share the road, is going to cause legitimate
annoyance.

> 4) Using flashing headlights (some of which are so bright and with a
> blue tint that motorists mistake you for an ambulance) yet cars are not
> allowed to do so.

Two points:

(a) you don't see so many cyclists out at night, and

(b) when you do, they're more often not lawfully illuminated than
illuminated.

I don't recognise your description of flashing blue lights at all.

> When I see a normal person in jeans and tshirt and no helmet, cycling
> along on the left not taking up a whole lane, without using lights in
> broad daylight, I treat them as an everyday human being. Be normal, get
> respected.

There's something in that, but the T-shirt isn't really it.

[skate]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:28:53 +0100, JNugent >
wrote:

>On 17/04/2016 11:38, skate wrote:
>
>> JNugent > wrote:
>
>>> The thread raises an interesting question...
>>> ...do cyclists have a right to be liked?
>
>> No, but then again, I would have thought most cyclists appreciate that
>> anyway. What is also an interesting question, though, is should they
>> be so disliked?
>
>Surely the amount of dislike for a certain group of people engaging in a
>voluntary pursuit is (and should be) proportional to the unacceptability
>of their behaviour whilst doing it?

It's not quite as clear as that when "altruistic punishment" (a term
introduced by Ernst Fehr and Simon Gachter) is involved:

QUOTE
Humans seem to have evolved one way of enforcing order onto
potentially chaotic social arrangements. This is known as "altruistic
punishment", a term used by Ernst Fehr and Simon Gachter in a landmark
paper published in 2002. An altruistic punishment is a punishment that
costs you as an individual, but doesn"t bring any direct benefit. As
an example, imagine I"m at a football match and I see someone climb in
without buying a ticket. I could sit and enjoy the game (at no cost to
myself), or I could try to find security to have the guy thrown out
(at the cost of missing some of the game). That would be altruistic
punishment.
UNQUOTE

>> Cyclists must sometimes wonder what it is about them that seems to
>> provoke such fury in other road users. There is a theory that it's not
>> because cyclists are annoying nor even because we have a selective
>> memory for that one stand-out annoying cyclist over the hundreds of
>> boring, non-annoying ones (isn't that a factor?). The theory goes that
>> drivers hate cyclists because they think they offend the moral order.
>
>I'm not familiar with that theory.

Strictly speaking, it's more of a hypothesis that a theory.

>Do you have a citation for any paper in which it is expounded?

I do have a citation for the BBC website where I first came across the
"theory".

>> We know there are good and bad drivers, but driving is still is a very
>> moral activity - there are rules of the road, both legal and informal.
>> Then along come cyclists doing things that drivers aren't allowed, or
>> able, to (it's all too easy for them to cheat basically).
>
>> Well, one global hallmark of us human beings, is an anger at people
>> who are perceived to be rule breakers. In addition, we humans can get
>> quite annoyed over those we perceive as taking benefits without
>> contributing to the cost.
>>
>> These angers and annoyances can be triggered by just the mere presence
>> of cyclists on the roads and this, according to the theory, explains
>> what is pushing drivers towards their hatred of cyclists.
>
>Sounds plausible. I'd really like to read the arguments in the original.

I have to say that is impressively fair-minded of you.

The argument that a few rule-breaking cyclists can compel drivers to
hate all of cyclist collectively is seemingly very weak. But Tom
Stafford has a theory (as he so-calls it) in which he argues that
human nature is far more complex and subconscious, and he goes on to
take a bit from evolutionary theory and social psychology to give a
explanation of this driver/cyclist phenomenon here:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-why-you-really-hate-cyclists

Alright, I shouldn't have really called it a theory (even though the
writer did), but it is something to consider.

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 17:54:20 +0100, skate > wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:28:53 +0100, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>> On 17/04/2016 11:38, skate wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>
>>>> The thread raises an interesting question...
>>>> ...do cyclists have a right to be liked?
>>
>>> No, but then again, I would have thought most cyclists appreciate that
>>> anyway. What is also an interesting question, though, is should they
>>> be so disliked?
>>
>> Surely the amount of dislike for a certain group of people engaging in a
>> voluntary pursuit is (and should be) proportional to the unacceptability
>> of their behaviour whilst doing it?
>
> It's not quite as clear as that when "altruistic punishment" (a term
> introduced by Ernst Fehr and Simon Gachter) is involved:
>
> QUOTE
> Humans seem to have evolved one way of enforcing order onto
> potentially chaotic social arrangements. This is known as "altruistic
> punishment", a term used by Ernst Fehr and Simon Gachter in a landmark
> paper published in 2002. An altruistic punishment is a punishment that
> costs you as an individual, but doesn"t bring any direct benefit. As
> an example, imagine I"m at a football match and I see someone climb in
> without buying a ticket. I could sit and enjoy the game (at no cost to
> myself), or I could try to find security to have the guy thrown out
> (at the cost of missing some of the game). That would be altruistic
> punishment.
> UNQUOTE

The second option is stupid, just like people getting upset about someone who's managed to evade taxes.

>>> We know there are good and bad drivers, but driving is still is a very
>>> moral activity - there are rules of the road, both legal and informal.
>>> Then along come cyclists doing things that drivers aren't allowed, or
>>> able, to (it's all too easy for them to cheat basically).
>>
>>> Well, one global hallmark of us human beings, is an anger at people
>>> who are perceived to be rule breakers. In addition, we humans can get
>>> quite annoyed over those we perceive as taking benefits without
>>> contributing to the cost.
>>>
>>> These angers and annoyances can be triggered by just the mere presence
>>> of cyclists on the roads and this, according to the theory, explains
>>> what is pushing drivers towards their hatred of cyclists.
>>
>> Sounds plausible. I'd really like to read the arguments in the original.
>
> I have to say that is impressively fair-minded of you.
>
> The argument that a few rule-breaking cyclists can compel drivers to
> hate all of cyclist collectively is seemingly very weak.

I don't hate cyclists for breaking rules. I break rules all the time as a driver. What annoys me is people getting in my way by stopping at a red when it's perfectly clear.

--
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:33:19 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 17/04/2016 12:51, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 11:38:41 +0100, skate
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:02:25 +0100, JNugent >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The thread raises an interesting question...
>>>>
>>>> ...do cyclists have a right to be liked?
>>>
>>> No, but then again, I would have thought most cyclists appreciate that
>>> anyway. What is also an interesting question, though, is should they
>>> be so disliked?
>>>
>>> Cyclists must sometimes wonder what it is about them that seems to
>>> provoke such fury in other road users. There is a theory that it's not
>>> because cyclists are annoying nor even because we have a selective
>>> memory for that one stand-out annoying cyclist over the hundreds of
>>> boring, non-annoying ones (isn't that a factor?). The theory goes that
>>> drivers hate cyclists because they think they offend the moral order.
>>>
>>> We know there are good and bad drivers, but driving is still is a very
>>> moral activity - there are rules of the road, both legal and informal.
>>> Then along come cyclists doing things that drivers aren't allowed, or
>>> able, to (it's all too easy for them to cheat basically).
>>>
>>> Well, one global hallmark of us human beings, is an anger at people
>>> who are perceived to be rule breakers. In addition, we humans can get
>>> quite annoyed over those we perceive as taking benefits without
>>> contributing to the cost.
>>>
>>> These angers and annoyances can be triggered by just the mere presence
>>> of cyclists on the roads and this, according to the theory, explains
>>> what is pushing drivers towards their hatred of cyclists.
>>
>> What annoys me about cyclists is:
>>
>> 1) Pantomime skin hugging outfits that make you look gay.
>
> That doesn't annoy me and it's hard to see why it should annoy anyone.

If I walked down the street in a frilly pink bikini, I'd get laughed at, and rightly so. Same applies to the cyclists.

And the main reason for me is that they seem to think they have to wear them. They go to the trouble of buying an extra outfit, and spend time changing into and out of it each time they cycle. This is conclusive proof that they're stupid, and I can't stand stupid people.

>> 2) Pansy helmets because you think you're going to fall off.
>
> That too doesn't annoy me and it's hard to see why it should annoy
> anyone sensible.

Because they're scared of something which will probably never happen. People wearing hi vis jackets also **** me off. For ****'s sake grow a pair of balls.

>> 3) Trying to take up the same width as a car because you wobble too much
>> and should have stabilisers.
>
> That's different. Any road user taking up more road space than is
> necessary, failing to share the road, is going to cause legitimate
> annoyance.

I came across 6 cyclists once who were cycling three abreast. Not only were they holding up cars, but they were breaking their own rule and not leaving enough wobble space. I overtook leaving a 6 inch gap and there was a loud discussion between them as they all warned each other. It was quite funny to watch the ensuing panic in my rearview mirror.

>> 4) Using flashing headlights (some of which are so bright and with a
>> blue tint that motorists mistake you for an ambulance) yet cars are not
>> allowed to do so.
>
> Two points:
>
> (a) you don't see so many cyclists out at night, and
>
> (b) when you do, they're more often not lawfully illuminated than
> illuminated.

Not round here, they use too MUCH light. Not enough light doesn't bother me at all, if they get squashed that's their problem, but shining a bright flashing light at me in broad daylight when you need no lights at all is ****ing annoying, and downright dangerously distracting. Funny thing is, when I flash my car lights back at them, they seem to get annoyed. Why? I'm doing exactly what they're doing.

> I don't recognise your description of flashing blue lights at all.

You've never come across a flashing LED cycle light which is at least as bright as a car headlamp on full beam?

>> When I see a normal person in jeans and tshirt and no helmet, cycling
>> along on the left not taking up a whole lane, without using lights in
>> broad daylight, I treat them as an everyday human being. Be normal, get
>> respected.
>
> There's something in that, but the T-shirt isn't really it.

Agreed, I normally don't wear anything above the waist, it's pointless.

--
Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! ..But He loves you. -- George Carlin

[Alycidon]

On Sunday, 17 April 2016 18:02:37 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

>
> I don't hate cyclists for breaking rules. I break rules all the time as a driver. What annoys me is people getting in my way by stopping at a red when it's perfectly clear.

I thought cyclists didn't stop at red lights?
Another hoary old myth exploded.

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 18:28:07 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Sunday, 17 April 2016 18:02:37 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't hate cyclists for breaking rules. I break rules all the time as a driver. What annoys me is people getting in my way by stopping at a red when it's perfectly clear.
>
> I thought cyclists didn't stop at red lights?
> Another hoary old myth exploded.

I've never said that. Round here everybody obeys red lights except me, on bikes or cars. Running a red light means you're intelligent enough to watch for conflicts of position all by yourself.

--
Many of the world's greatest runners come from Kenya because they have a unique training program there -- it's called a lion.

[MrCheerful]

On 17/04/2016 19:45, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 18:28:07 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, 17 April 2016 18:02:37 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't hate cyclists for breaking rules. I break rules all the time
>>> as a driver. What annoys me is people getting in my way by stopping
>>> at a red when it's perfectly clear.
>>
>> I thought cyclists didn't stop at red lights?
>> Another hoary old myth exploded.
>
> I've never said that. Round here everybody obeys red lights except me,
> on bikes or cars. Running a red light means you're intelligent enough
> to watch for conflicts of position all by yourself.
>


That does not apply to cyclists, they rely on the skills of others to
keep them safe.

[MrCheerful]

On 17/04/2016 22:28, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:17:58 +0100, MrCheerful
> > wrote:
>
>> On 17/04/2016 19:45, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 18:28:07 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, 17 April 2016 18:02:37 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't hate cyclists for breaking rules. I break rules all the time
>>>>> as a driver. What annoys me is people getting in my way by stopping
>>>>> at a red when it's perfectly clear.
>>>>
>>>> I thought cyclists didn't stop at red lights?
>>>> Another hoary old myth exploded.
>>>
>>> I've never said that. Round here everybody obeys red lights except me,
>>> on bikes or cars. Running a red light means you're intelligent enough
>>> to watch for conflicts of position all by yourself.
>>
>> That does not apply to cyclists, they rely on the skills of others to
>> keep them safe.
>
> Indeed, they're always bleating about cars not avoiding them. We
> wouldn't have to if they cycled in a sensible direction. I scared one
> recently when he was cycling along the pavement and then across a zebra
> without any indication. It appears they can do an emergency stop if
> they have to :-)
>

I managed to make one doing the same thing fall off !!
Another shouted at me for not stopping for him, I followed him home and
explained about 'pedestrian' crossings and the Highway Code.
My sister hooted at a couple on push bikes that were about to ride
across a Zebra, they followed her to my house and were very abusive,
typical serial lawbreakers, but they ran away when I appeared.

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:17:58 +0100, MrCheerful > wrote:

> On 17/04/2016 19:45, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 18:28:07 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, 17 April 2016 18:02:37 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't hate cyclists for breaking rules. I break rules all the time
>>>> as a driver. What annoys me is people getting in my way by stopping
>>>> at a red when it's perfectly clear.
>>>
>>> I thought cyclists didn't stop at red lights?
>>> Another hoary old myth exploded.
>>
>> I've never said that. Round here everybody obeys red lights except me,
>> on bikes or cars. Running a red light means you're intelligent enough
>> to watch for conflicts of position all by yourself.
>
> That does not apply to cyclists, they rely on the skills of others to
> keep them safe.

Indeed, they're always bleating about cars not avoiding them. We wouldn't have to if they cycled in a sensible direction. I scared one recently when he was cycling along the pavement and then across a zebra without any indication. It appears they can do an emergency stop if they have to :-)

--
What is the punishment for bigamy?
Two mother-in-laws.

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 21:00:30 +0100, MrCheerful > wrote:

> On 17/04/2016 22:28, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:17:58 +0100, MrCheerful
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/04/2016 19:45, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 18:28:07 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, 17 April 2016 18:02:37 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't hate cyclists for breaking rules. I break rules all the time
>>>>>> as a driver. What annoys me is people getting in my way by stopping
>>>>>> at a red when it's perfectly clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought cyclists didn't stop at red lights?
>>>>> Another hoary old myth exploded.
>>>>
>>>> I've never said that. Round here everybody obeys red lights except me,
>>>> on bikes or cars. Running a red light means you're intelligent enough
>>>> to watch for conflicts of position all by yourself.
>>>
>>> That does not apply to cyclists, they rely on the skills of others to
>>> keep them safe.
>>
>> Indeed, they're always bleating about cars not avoiding them. We
>> wouldn't have to if they cycled in a sensible direction. I scared one
>> recently when he was cycling along the pavement and then across a zebra
>> without any indication. It appears they can do an emergency stop if
>> they have to :-)
>>
>
> I managed to make one doing the same thing fall off !!
> Another shouted at me for not stopping for him, I followed him home and
> explained about 'pedestrian' crossings and the Highway Code.
> My sister hooted at a couple on push bikes that were about to ride
> across a Zebra, they followed her to my house and were very abusive,
> typical serial lawbreakers, but they ran away when I appeared.

I have nothing against cyclists using the pavement to cycle on, or even cycling over a zebra. As long as they stop and wait for the traffic to stop first, like pedestrians do (well most of them). Cycling over a Zebra gets them to the other side quicker, so holds the cars up less, it's a good thing.

If you had come to my house and explained the highway code to me, I would have told you I don't believe in rules and used the phrase "**** off".

--
Does the Little Mermaid wear an algebra?

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 21:00:30 +0100, MrCheerful
> > wrote:
>> On 17/04/2016 22:28, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:17:58 +0100, MrCheerful
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/04/2016 19:45, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 18:28:07 +0100, Alycidon >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, 17 April 2016 18:02:37 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't hate cyclists for breaking rules. I break rules all
>>>>>>> the time as a driver. What annoys me is people getting in my
>>>>>>> way by stopping at a red when it's perfectly clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought cyclists didn't stop at red lights?
>>>>>> Another hoary old myth exploded.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never said that. Round here everybody obeys red lights
>>>>> except me, on bikes or cars. Running a red light means you're
>>>>> intelligent enough to watch for conflicts of position all by
>>>>> yourself.
>>>>
>>>> That does not apply to cyclists, they rely on the skills of others
>>>> to keep them safe.
>>>
>>> Indeed, they're always bleating about cars not avoiding them. We
>>> wouldn't have to if they cycled in a sensible direction. I scared
>>> one recently when he was cycling along the pavement and then across
>>> a zebra without any indication. It appears they can do an
>>> emergency stop if they have to :-)
>>>
>>
>> I managed to make one doing the same thing fall off !!
>> Another shouted at me for not stopping for him, I followed him home
>> and explained about 'pedestrian' crossings and the Highway Code.
>> My sister hooted at a couple on push bikes that were about to ride
>> across a Zebra, they followed her to my house and were very abusive,
>> typical serial lawbreakers, but they ran away when I appeared.
>
> I have nothing against cyclists using the pavement to cycle on, or
> even cycling over a zebra. As long as they stop and wait for the
> traffic to stop first, like pedestrians do (well most of them). Cycling
> over a Zebra gets them to the other side quicker, so holds
> the cars up less, it's a good thing.
> If you had come to my house and explained the highway code to me, I
> would have told you I don't believe in rules and used the phrase
> "**** off".

No you wouldn't.
This is because you are a cowardly little piece of ****, always have been
and always will be.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

Simon Jester > wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 11:21:18 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:02:25 +0100, JNugent > wrote:
>>
>> > The thread raises an interesting question...
>> >
>> > ...do cyclists have a right to be liked?
>>
>> I was about to say they aren't human
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y

Well, isn't he playing you lot like a Stradivarius..?

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 23:00:09 +0100, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen > wrote:

> Simon Jester > wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 11:21:18 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:02:25 +0100, JNugent > wrote:
>>>
>>> > The thread raises an interesting question...
>>> >
>>> > ...do cyclists have a right to be liked?
>>>
>>> I was about to say they aren't human
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y
>
> Well, isn't he playing you lot like a Stradivarius..?

Huh?

--
The female gangbang world record is held by Lisa Sparks who had sex with 919 men on October 16, 2004 in Warsaw, Poland as part of the Third Annual World Gangbang Championship and Eroticon 2004

[MrCheerful]

On 17/04/2016 23:08, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 21:00:30 +0100, MrCheerful
> > wrote:
>
>> On 17/04/2016 22:28, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:17:58 +0100, MrCheerful
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/04/2016 19:45, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 18:28:07 +0100, Alycidon >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sunday, 17 April 2016 18:02:37 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't hate cyclists for breaking rules. I break rules all the
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>> as a driver. What annoys me is people getting in my way by stopping
>>>>>>> at a red when it's perfectly clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought cyclists didn't stop at red lights?
>>>>>> Another hoary old myth exploded.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never said that. Round here everybody obeys red lights except
>>>>> me,
>>>>> on bikes or cars. Running a red light means you're intelligent enough
>>>>> to watch for conflicts of position all by yourself.
>>>>
>>>> That does not apply to cyclists, they rely on the skills of others to
>>>> keep them safe.
>>>
>>> Indeed, they're always bleating about cars not avoiding them. We
>>> wouldn't have to if they cycled in a sensible direction. I scared one
>>> recently when he was cycling along the pavement and then across a zebra
>>> without any indication. It appears they can do an emergency stop if
>>> they have to :-)
>>>
>>
>> I managed to make one doing the same thing fall off !!
>> Another shouted at me for not stopping for him, I followed him home and
>> explained about 'pedestrian' crossings and the Highway Code.
>> My sister hooted at a couple on push bikes that were about to ride
>> across a Zebra, they followed her to my house and were very abusive,
>> typical serial lawbreakers, but they ran away when I appeared.
>
> I have nothing against cyclists using the pavement to cycle on, or even
> cycling over a zebra. As long as they stop and wait for the traffic to
> stop first, like pedestrians do (well most of them). Cycling over a
> Zebra gets them to the other side quicker, so holds the cars up less,
> it's a good thing.
>
> If you had come to my house and explained the highway code to me, I
> would have told you I don't believe in rules and used the phrase "****
> off".
>

I wouldn't bother, except when the tosser tried to intimate that I was
the one in the wrong !!

[jnugent]

On 17/04/2016 17:54, skate wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:28:53 +0100, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>> On 17/04/2016 11:38, skate wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>
>>>> The thread raises an interesting question...
>>>> ...do cyclists have a right to be liked?
>>
>>> No, but then again, I would have thought most cyclists appreciate that
>>> anyway. What is also an interesting question, though, is should they
>>> be so disliked?
>>
>> Surely the amount of dislike for a certain group of people engaging in a
>> voluntary pursuit is (and should be) proportional to the unacceptability
>> of their behaviour whilst doing it?
>
> It's not quite as clear as that when "altruistic punishment" (a term
> introduced by Ernst Fehr and Simon Gachter) is involved:
>
> QUOTE
> Humans seem to have evolved one way of enforcing order onto
> potentially chaotic social arrangements. This is known as "altruistic
> punishment", a term used by Ernst Fehr and Simon Gachter in a landmark
> paper published in 2002. An altruistic punishment is a punishment that
> costs you as an individual, but doesn"t bring any direct benefit. As
> an example, imagine I"m at a football match and I see someone climb in
> without buying a ticket. I could sit and enjoy the game (at no cost to
> myself), or I could try to find security to have the guy thrown out
> (at the cost of missing some of the game). That would be altruistic
> punishment.
> UNQUOTE
>
>>> Cyclists must sometimes wonder what it is about them that seems to
>>> provoke such fury in other road users. There is a theory that it's not
>>> because cyclists are annoying nor even because we have a selective
>>> memory for that one stand-out annoying cyclist over the hundreds of
>>> boring, non-annoying ones (isn't that a factor?). The theory goes that
>>> drivers hate cyclists because they think they offend the moral order.
>>
>> I'm not familiar with that theory.
>
> Strictly speaking, it's more of a hypothesis that a theory.
>
>> Do you have a citation for any paper in which it is expounded?
>
> I do have a citation for the BBC website where I first came across the
> "theory".
>
>>> We know there are good and bad drivers, but driving is still is a very
>>> moral activity - there are rules of the road, both legal and informal.
>>> Then along come cyclists doing things that drivers aren't allowed, or
>>> able, to (it's all too easy for them to cheat basically).
>>
>>> Well, one global hallmark of us human beings, is an anger at people
>>> who are perceived to be rule breakers. In addition, we humans can get
>>> quite annoyed over those we perceive as taking benefits without
>>> contributing to the cost.
>>>
>>> These angers and annoyances can be triggered by just the mere presence
>>> of cyclists on the roads and this, according to the theory, explains
>>> what is pushing drivers towards their hatred of cyclists.
>>
>> Sounds plausible. I'd really like to read the arguments in the original.
>
> I have to say that is impressively fair-minded of you.
>
> The argument that a few rule-breaking cyclists can compel drivers to
> hate all of cyclist collectively is seemingly very weak. But Tom
> Stafford has a theory (as he so-calls it) in which he argues that
> human nature is far more complex and subconscious, and he goes on to
> take a bit from evolutionary theory and social psychology to give a
> explanation of this driver/cyclist phenomenon here:
>
> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-why-you-really-hate-cyclists
>
> Alright, I shouldn't have really called it a theory (even though the
> writer did), but it is something to consider.

Many thanks for the link.

I shall follow it with interest.

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On 17.04.2016 23:51, Mr Macaw wrote:
> When I see a normal person in jeans and tshirt and no helmet, cycling
> along on the left not taking up a whole lane, without using lights in
> broad daylight, I treat them as an everyday human being. Be normal, get
> respected.

I am all of those, but in no way do I consider myself "normal".

And I have no ****ing interest in looking good in your eyes.
After all I ride a ****ing bicycle.
And we all know what you think of ****ing bicyclists.
And because it is you who think that, that is an extremely great
compliment.
We must be doing something right.

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On 18.04.2016 05:19, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:33:19 +0100, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>> On 17/04/2016 12:51, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 11:38:41 +0100, skate
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 23:02:25 +0100, JNugent >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The thread raises an interesting question...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...do cyclists have a right to be liked?
>>>>
>>>> No, but then again, I would have thought most cyclists appreciate that
>>>> anyway. What is also an interesting question, though, is should they
>>>> be so disliked?
>>>>
>>>> Cyclists must sometimes wonder what it is about them that seems to
>>>> provoke such fury in other road users. There is a theory that it's not
>>>> because cyclists are annoying nor even because we have a selective
>>>> memory for that one stand-out annoying cyclist over the hundreds of
>>>> boring, non-annoying ones (isn't that a factor?). The theory goes that
>>>> drivers hate cyclists because they think they offend the moral order.
>>>>
>>>> We know there are good and bad drivers, but driving is still is a very
>>>> moral activity - there are rules of the road, both legal and informal.
>>>> Then along come cyclists doing things that drivers aren't allowed, or
>>>> able, to (it's all too easy for them to cheat basically).
>>>>
>>>> Well, one global hallmark of us human beings, is an anger at people
>>>> who are perceived to be rule breakers. In addition, we humans can get
>>>> quite annoyed over those we perceive as taking benefits without
>>>> contributing to the cost.
>>>>
>>>> These angers and annoyances can be triggered by just the mere presence
>>>> of cyclists on the roads and this, according to the theory, explains
>>>> what is pushing drivers towards their hatred of cyclists.
>>>
>>> What annoys me about cyclists is:
>>>
>>> 1) Pantomime skin hugging outfits that make you look gay.
>>
>> That doesn't annoy me and it's hard to see why it should annoy anyone.
>
> If I walked down the street in a frilly pink bikini, I'd get laughed at,
> and rightly so. Same applies to the cyclists.

It is not against the law to walk down the street in a frilly pink bikini.
>
> And the main reason for me is that they seem to think they have to wear
> them. They go to the trouble of buying an extra outfit, and spend time
> changing into and out of it each time they cycle. This is conclusive
> proof that they're stupid, and I can't stand stupid people.

Thanks greatly for the compliment, especially as it comes from you.
>
>>> 2) Pansy helmets because you think you're going to fall off.
>>
>> That too doesn't annoy me and it's hard to see why it should annoy
>> anyone sensible.
>
> Because they're scared of something which will probably never happen.
> People wearing hi vis jackets also **** me off. For ****'s sake grow a
> pair of balls.

Having no balls is not against the law.
>
>>> 3) Trying to take up the same width as a car because you wobble too much
>>> and should have stabilisers.
>>
>> That's different. Any road user taking up more road space than is
>> necessary, failing to share the road, is going to cause legitimate
>> annoyance.
>
> I came across 6 cyclists once who were cycling three abreast. Not only
> were they holding up cars, but they were breaking their own rule and not
> leaving enough wobble space. I overtook leaving a 6 inch gap and there
> was a loud discussion between them as they all warned each other. It
> was quite funny to watch the ensuing panic in my rearview mirror.
>
>>> 4) Using flashing headlights (some of which are so bright and with a
>>> blue tint that motorists mistake you for an ambulance) yet cars are not
>>> allowed to do so.
>>
>> Two points:
>>
>> (a) you don't see so many cyclists out at night, and
>>
>> (b) when you do, they're more often not lawfully illuminated than
>> illuminated.
>
> Not round here, they use too MUCH light. Not enough light doesn't
> bother me at all, if they get squashed that's their problem, but shining
> a bright flashing light at me in broad daylight when you need no lights
> at all is ****ing annoying, and downright dangerously distracting.
> Funny thing is, when I flash my car lights back at them, they seem to
> get annoyed. Why? I'm doing exactly what they're doing.

I am pleased if a car flashes its lights at me. Then I know that it has
seen me.
>
>> I don't recognise your description of flashing blue lights at all.
>
> You've never come across a flashing LED cycle light which is at least as
> bright as a car headlamp on full beam?
>
>>> When I see a normal person in jeans and tshirt and no helmet, cycling
>>> along on the left not taking up a whole lane, without using lights in
>>> broad daylight, I treat them as an everyday human being. Be normal, get
>>> respected.
>>
>> There's something in that, but the T-shirt isn't really it.
>
> Agreed, I normally don't wear anything above the waist, it's pointless.
>
Thank God you wear something below the waist.

And I have no ****ing interest in looking good in your eyes.
After all I ride a ****ing bicycle.
And we all know what you think of ****ing bicyclists.
And because it is you who think that, that is an extremely great
compliment.
We must be doing something right.

[jnugent]

On 17/04/2016 18:19, Mr Macaw wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 17/04/2016 12:51, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> skate > wrote:
>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>
>>>>> The thread raises an interesting question...
>>>>> ...do cyclists have a right to be liked?
>
>>>> No, but then again, I would have thought most cyclists appreciate that
>>>> anyway. What is also an interesting question, though, is should they
>>>> be so disliked?
>>>> Cyclists must sometimes wonder what it is about them that seems to
>>>> provoke such fury in other road users. There is a theory that it's not
>>>> because cyclists are annoying nor even because we have a selective
>>>> memory for that one stand-out annoying cyclist over the hundreds of
>>>> boring, non-annoying ones (isn't that a factor?). The theory goes that
>>>> drivers hate cyclists because they think they offend the moral order.
>>>> We know there are good and bad drivers, but driving is still is a very
>>>> moral activity - there are rules of the road, both legal and informal.
>>>> Then along come cyclists doing things that drivers aren't allowed, or
>>>> able, to (it's all too easy for them to cheat basically).
>>>> Well, one global hallmark of us human beings, is an anger at people
>>>> who are perceived to be rule breakers. In addition, we humans can get
>>>> quite annoyed over those we perceive as taking benefits without
>>>> contributing to the cost.
>>>> These angers and annoyances can be triggered by just the mere presence
>>>> of cyclists on the roads and this, according to the theory, explains
>>>> what is pushing drivers towards their hatred of cyclists.
>
>>> What annoys me about cyclists is:
>>> 1) Pantomime skin hugging outfits that make you look gay.
>
>> That doesn't annoy me and it's hard to see why it should annoy anyone.
>
> If I walked down the street in a frilly pink bikini, I'd get laughed at,
> and rightly so. Same applies to the cyclists.

It does. But to be honest, I've never seen a cyclist (of either sex) in
a frilly pink bikini. And even if I had, I doubt that it would annoy me.

> And the main reason for me is that they seem to think they have to wear
> them. They go to the trouble of buying an extra outfit, and spend time
> changing into and out of it each time they cycle. This is conclusive
> proof that they're stupid, and I can't stand stupid people.

>>> 2) Pansy helmets because you think you're going to fall off.
>
>> That too doesn't annoy me and it's hard to see why it should annoy
>> anyone sensible.
>
> Because they're scared of something which will probably never happen.
> People wearing hi vis jackets also **** me off. For ****'s sake grow a
> pair of balls.

The wearing of hi-viz by cyclists seems to me to be a very useful and
low-cost safety feature, which has advantages for all road-users.

>>> 3) Trying to take up the same width as a car because you wobble too much
>>> and should have stabilisers.
>
>> That's different. Any road user taking up more road space than is
>> necessary, failing to share the road, is going to cause legitimate
>> annoyance.
>
> I came across 6 cyclists once who were cycling three abreast. Not only
> were they holding up cars, but they were breaking their own rule and not
> leaving enough wobble space. I overtook leaving a 6 inch gap and there
> was a loud discussion between them as they all warned each other. It
> was quite funny to watch the ensuing panic in my rearview mirror.
>
>>> 4) Using flashing headlights (some of which are so bright and with a
>>> blue tint that motorists mistake you for an ambulance) yet cars are not
>>> allowed to do so.
>>
>> Two points:
>>
>> (a) you don't see so many cyclists out at night, and
>>
>> (b) when you do, they're more often not lawfully illuminated than
>> illuminated.
>
> Not round here, they use too MUCH light. Not enough light doesn't
> bother me at all, if they get squashed that's their problem, but shining
> a bright flashing light at me in broad daylight when you need no lights
> at all is ****ing annoying, and downright dangerously distracting.
> Funny thing is, when I flash my car lights back at them, they seem to
> get annoyed. Why? I'm doing exactly what they're doing.
>
>> I don't recognise your description of flashing blue lights at all.
>
> You've never come across a flashing LED cycle light which is at least as
> bright as a car headlamp on full beam?

No.

>>> When I see a normal person in jeans and tshirt and no helmet, cycling
>>> along on the left not taking up a whole lane, without using lights in
>>> broad daylight, I treat them as an everyday human being. Be normal, get
>>> respected.
>
>> There's something in that, but the T-shirt isn't really it.
>
> Agreed, I normally don't wear anything above the waist, it's pointless.

I see.

[Mr Macaw]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:38:58 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 17/04/2016 18:19, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> JNugent > wrote:
>>> On 17/04/2016 12:51, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> skate > wrote:
>>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> The thread raises an interesting question...
>>>>>> ...do cyclists have a right to be liked?
>>
>>>>> No, but then again, I would have thought most cyclists appreciate that
>>>>> anyway. What is also an interesting question, though, is should they
>>>>> be so disliked?
>>>>> Cyclists must sometimes wonder what it is about them that seems to
>>>>> provoke such fury in other road users. There is a theory that it's not
>>>>> because cyclists are annoying nor even because we have a selective
>>>>> memory for that one stand-out annoying cyclist over the hundreds of
>>>>> boring, non-annoying ones (isn't that a factor?). The theory goes that
>>>>> drivers hate cyclists because they think they offend the moral order.
>>>>> We know there are good and bad drivers, but driving is still is a very
>>>>> moral activity - there are rules of the road, both legal and informal.
>>>>> Then along come cyclists doing things that drivers aren't allowed, or
>>>>> able, to (it's all too easy for them to cheat basically).
>>>>> Well, one global hallmark of us human beings, is an anger at people
>>>>> who are perceived to be rule breakers. In addition, we humans can get
>>>>> quite annoyed over those we perceive as taking benefits without
>>>>> contributing to the cost.
>>>>> These angers and annoyances can be triggered by just the mere presence
>>>>> of cyclists on the roads and this, according to the theory, explains
>>>>> what is pushing drivers towards their hatred of cyclists.
>>
>>>> What annoys me about cyclists is:
>>>> 1) Pantomime skin hugging outfits that make you look gay.
>>
>>> That doesn't annoy me and it's hard to see why it should annoy anyone.
>>
>> If I walked down the street in a frilly pink bikini, I'd get laughed at,
>> and rightly so. Same applies to the cyclists.
>
> It does. But to be honest, I've never seen a cyclist (of either sex) in
> a frilly pink bikini. And even if I had, I doubt that it would annoy me.

Skin tight shorts is just as bad. It's more that they have them as some kind of religion than anything else. If they all different funny clothes, I'd accept that. But that every cyclist thinks they must wear the same weird shorts is ridiculous.

>> And the main reason for me is that they seem to think they have to wear
>> them. They go to the trouble of buying an extra outfit, and spend time
>> changing into and out of it each time they cycle. This is conclusive
>> proof that they're stupid, and I can't stand stupid people.
>
>>>> 2) Pansy helmets because you think you're going to fall off.
>>
>>> That too doesn't annoy me and it's hard to see why it should annoy
>>> anyone sensible.
>>
>> Because they're scared of something which will probably never happen.
>> People wearing hi vis jackets also **** me off. For ****'s sake grow a
>> pair of balls.
>
> The wearing of hi-viz by cyclists seems to me to be a very useful and
> low-cost safety feature, which has advantages for all road-users.

Do you have a severe eyesight defect? What is preventing you from seeing a normally clothed cyclist? Everyone driving a car should have reasonable eyesight.

>>>> 3) Trying to take up the same width as a car because you wobble too much
>>>> and should have stabilisers.
>>
>>> That's different. Any road user taking up more road space than is
>>> necessary, failing to share the road, is going to cause legitimate
>>> annoyance.
>>
>> I came across 6 cyclists once who were cycling three abreast. Not only
>> were they holding up cars, but they were breaking their own rule and not
>> leaving enough wobble space. I overtook leaving a 6 inch gap and there
>> was a loud discussion between them as they all warned each other. It
>> was quite funny to watch the ensuing panic in my rearview mirror.
>>
>>>> 4) Using flashing headlights (some of which are so bright and with a
>>>> blue tint that motorists mistake you for an ambulance) yet cars are not
>>>> allowed to do so.
>>>
>>> Two points:
>>>
>>> (a) you don't see so many cyclists out at night, and
>>>
>>> (b) when you do, they're more often not lawfully illuminated than
>>> illuminated.
>>
>> Not round here, they use too MUCH light. Not enough light doesn't
>> bother me at all, if they get squashed that's their problem, but shining
>> a bright flashing light at me in broad daylight when you need no lights
>> at all is ****ing annoying, and downright dangerously distracting.
>> Funny thing is, when I flash my car lights back at them, they seem to
>> get annoyed. Why? I'm doing exactly what they're doing.
>>
>>> I don't recognise your description of flashing blue lights at all.
>>
>> You've never come across a flashing LED cycle light which is at least as
>> bright as a car headlamp on full beam?
>
> No.

Simon Mason uses one. And I've seen several up here.

--
Capitalism: Man exploiting man.
Socialism: The reverse.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 17/04/2016 11:38, skate wrote:
>> JNugent > wrote:

>>> The thread raises an interesting question... ...do cyclists have a
>>> right to be liked?

>> No, but then again, I would have thought most cyclists appreciate that
>> anyway. What is also an interesting question, though, is should they be
>> so disliked?

> Surely the amount of dislike for a certain group of people engaging in a
> voluntary pursuit is (and should be) proportional to the unacceptability
> of their behaviour whilst doing it?

Nugent can't get away from his victim-blaming.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 23:58:45 +0100, MrCheerful > wrote:

> On 17/04/2016 23:08, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 21:00:30 +0100, MrCheerful
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/04/2016 22:28, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:17:58 +0100, MrCheerful
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 17/04/2016 19:45, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 18:28:07 +0100, Alycidon >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, 17 April 2016 18:02:37 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't hate cyclists for breaking rules. I break rules all the
>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>> as a driver. What annoys me is people getting in my way by stopping
>>>>>>>> at a red when it's perfectly clear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought cyclists didn't stop at red lights?
>>>>>>> Another hoary old myth exploded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've never said that. Round here everybody obeys red lights except
>>>>>> me,
>>>>>> on bikes or cars. Running a red light means you're intelligent enough
>>>>>> to watch for conflicts of position all by yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> That does not apply to cyclists, they rely on the skills of others to
>>>>> keep them safe.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, they're always bleating about cars not avoiding them. We
>>>> wouldn't have to if they cycled in a sensible direction. I scared one
>>>> recently when he was cycling along the pavement and then across a zebra
>>>> without any indication. It appears they can do an emergency stop if
>>>> they have to :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I managed to make one doing the same thing fall off !!
>>> Another shouted at me for not stopping for him, I followed him home and
>>> explained about 'pedestrian' crossings and the Highway Code.
>>> My sister hooted at a couple on push bikes that were about to ride
>>> across a Zebra, they followed her to my house and were very abusive,
>>> typical serial lawbreakers, but they ran away when I appeared.
>>
>> I have nothing against cyclists using the pavement to cycle on, or even
>> cycling over a zebra. As long as they stop and wait for the traffic to
>> stop first, like pedestrians do (well most of them). Cycling over a
>> Zebra gets them to the other side quicker, so holds the cars up less,
>> it's a good thing.
>>
>> If you had come to my house and explained the highway code to me, I
>> would have told you I don't believe in rules and used the phrase "****
>> off".
>>
>
> I wouldn't bother, except when the tosser tried to intimate that I was
> the one in the wrong !!

Pedestrians can be as bad sometimes, walking along the pavement with their pushchair, then suddenly veer right straight across the road, pushchair first of course, assuming cars can stop instantaneously.

--
A teacher wanted to teach her students about self-esteem, so she asked anyone who thought they were stupid to stand up. One kid stood up and the teacher was surprised. She didn’t think anyone would stand up so she asked him, “Why did you stand up?� He answered, “I didn’t want to leave you standing up by yourself.�

[Mr Macaw]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 01:19:16 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 17/04/2016 17:54, skate wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:28:53 +0100, JNugent >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/04/2016 11:38, skate wrote:
>>>
>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The thread raises an interesting question...
>>>>> ...do cyclists have a right to be liked?
>>>
>>>> No, but then again, I would have thought most cyclists appreciate that
>>>> anyway. What is also an interesting question, though, is should they
>>>> be so disliked?
>>>
>>> Surely the amount of dislike for a certain group of people engaging in a
>>> voluntary pursuit is (and should be) proportional to the unacceptability
>>> of their behaviour whilst doing it?
>>
>> It's not quite as clear as that when "altruistic punishment" (a term
>> introduced by Ernst Fehr and Simon Gachter) is involved:
>>
>> QUOTE
>> Humans seem to have evolved one way of enforcing order onto
>> potentially chaotic social arrangements. This is known as "altruistic
>> punishment", a term used by Ernst Fehr and Simon Gachter in a landmark
>> paper published in 2002. An altruistic punishment is a punishment that
>> costs you as an individual, but doesn"t bring any direct benefit. As
>> an example, imagine I"m at a football match and I see someone climb in
>> without buying a ticket. I could sit and enjoy the game (at no cost to
>> myself), or I could try to find security to have the guy thrown out
>> (at the cost of missing some of the game). That would be altruistic
>> punishment.
>> UNQUOTE
>>
>>>> Cyclists must sometimes wonder what it is about them that seems to
>>>> provoke such fury in other road users. There is a theory that it's not
>>>> because cyclists are annoying nor even because we have a selective
>>>> memory for that one stand-out annoying cyclist over the hundreds of
>>>> boring, non-annoying ones (isn't that a factor?). The theory goes that
>>>> drivers hate cyclists because they think they offend the moral order.
>>>
>>> I'm not familiar with that theory.
>>
>> Strictly speaking, it's more of a hypothesis that a theory.
>>
>>> Do you have a citation for any paper in which it is expounded?
>>
>> I do have a citation for the BBC website where I first came across the
>> "theory".
>>
>>>> We know there are good and bad drivers, but driving is still is a very
>>>> moral activity - there are rules of the road, both legal and informal.
>>>> Then along come cyclists doing things that drivers aren't allowed, or
>>>> able, to (it's all too easy for them to cheat basically).
>>>
>>>> Well, one global hallmark of us human beings, is an anger at people
>>>> who are perceived to be rule breakers. In addition, we humans can get
>>>> quite annoyed over those we perceive as taking benefits without
>>>> contributing to the cost.
>>>>
>>>> These angers and annoyances can be triggered by just the mere presence
>>>> of cyclists on the roads and this, according to the theory, explains
>>>> what is pushing drivers towards their hatred of cyclists.
>>>
>>> Sounds plausible. I'd really like to read the arguments in the original.
>>
>> I have to say that is impressively fair-minded of you.
>>
>> The argument that a few rule-breaking cyclists can compel drivers to
>> hate all of cyclist collectively is seemingly very weak. But Tom
>> Stafford has a theory (as he so-calls it) in which he argues that
>> human nature is far more complex and subconscious, and he goes on to
>> take a bit from evolutionary theory and social psychology to give a
>> explanation of this driver/cyclist phenomenon here:
>>
>> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-why-you-really-hate-cyclists
>>
>> Alright, I shouldn't have really called it a theory (even though the
>> writer did), but it is something to consider.
>
> Many thanks for the link.
>
> I shall follow it with interest.

I don't see why anyone should hate a rulebreaker if it doesn't affect them. I hate cyclists because they get in my way and think they're better than anyone in a car.

--
FIGHT BACK! Fill out your tax forms with Roman numerals.

[Mr Macaw]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:27:26 +0100, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen > wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 17/04/2016 11:38, skate wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>
>>>> The thread raises an interesting question... ...do cyclists have a
>>>> right to be liked?
>
>>> No, but then again, I would have thought most cyclists appreciate that
>>> anyway. What is also an interesting question, though, is should they be
>>> so disliked?
>
>> Surely the amount of dislike for a certain group of people engaging in a
>> voluntary pursuit is (and should be) proportional to the unacceptability
>> of their behaviour whilst doing it?
>
> Nugent can't get away from his victim-blaming.

A cyclist is never a victim. If a little thing goes in front of a big thing and gets squashed, it should have looked out for itself instead of being a blame-everyone-else-American.

--
19 Brits have died in the last 3 years believing that christmas decorations were chocolate.

[Alycidon]

On Monday, 18 April 2016 11:52:53 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

> Skin tight shorts is just as bad. It's more that they have them as some kind of religion than anything else. If they all different funny clothes, I'd accept that. But that every cyclist thinks they must wear the same weird shorts is ridiculous.

At least we are riding bikes and can fit into the clothes, unlike him.

http://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/photos/217000/620x/283217.jpg

> Simon Mason uses one. And I've seen several up here.

Here is mine.

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/exposure-six-pack-mk6-front-light/

[Mr Macaw]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:54:56 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Monday, 18 April 2016 11:52:53 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> Skin tight shorts is just as bad. It's more that they have them as some kind of religion than anything else. If they all different funny clothes, I'd accept that. But that every cyclist thinks they must wear the same weird shorts is ridiculous.
>
> At least we are riding bikes and can fit into the clothes, unlike him.
>
> http://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/photos/217000/620x/283217.jpg

So what? Why is him being fat a problem for you?

>> Simon Mason uses one. And I've seen several up here.
>
> Here is mine.
>
> http://www.wiggle.co.uk/exposure-six-pack-mk6-front-light/

And you're proud of distracting motorists are you?

When I saw "six pack" in the link, I thought you were following on from above and about to compare your body with the fat guys :-)

--
Why is bra singular and panties plural?

[Alycidon]

On Monday, 18 April 2016 14:00:19 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:54:56 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 18 April 2016 11:52:53 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >
> >> Skin tight shorts is just as bad. It's more that they have them as some kind of religion than anything else. If they all different funny clothes, I'd accept that. But that every cyclist thinks they must wear the same weird shorts is ridiculous.
> >
> > At least we are riding bikes and can fit into the clothes, unlike him.
> >
> > http://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/photos/217000/620x/283217.jpg
>
> So what? Why is him being fat a problem for you?

What is he doing wearing a football shirt - he cannot play football, he is too fat.

[Mr Macaw]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:05:24 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Monday, 18 April 2016 14:00:19 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:54:56 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>
>> > On Monday, 18 April 2016 11:52:53 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> >
>> >> Skin tight shorts is just as bad. It's more that they have them as some kind of religion than anything else. If they all different funny clothes, I'd accept that. But that every cyclist thinks they must wear the same weird shorts is ridiculous.
>> >
>> > At least we are riding bikes and can fit into the clothes, unlike him.
>> >
>> > http://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/photos/217000/620x/283217.jpg
>>
>> So what? Why is him being fat a problem for you?
>
> What is he doing wearing a football shirt - he cannot play football, he is too fat.

So you know which team he supports. Cyclists aren't watching a cycling race, and they don't usually have teams on their clothes.

--
Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same. -- Oscar Wilde

[Alycidon]

On Monday, 18 April 2016 14:09:06 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:05:24 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 18 April 2016 14:00:19 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:54:56 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Monday, 18 April 2016 11:52:53 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Skin tight shorts is just as bad. It's more that they have them as some kind of religion than anything else. If they all different funny clothes, I'd accept that. But that every cyclist thinks they must wear the same weird shorts is ridiculous.
> >> >
> >> > At least we are riding bikes and can fit into the clothes, unlike him.
> >> >
> >> > http://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/photos/217000/620x/283217.jpg
> >>
> >> So what? Why is him being fat a problem for you?
> >
> > What is he doing wearing a football shirt - he cannot play football, he is too fat.
>
> So you know which team he supports. Cyclists aren't watching a cycling race, and they don't usually have teams on their clothes.

People who watch cricket don't have whites on.
People who watch F1, don't wear fireproof suits.
People who watch horse racing don't wear silks.

But, people who actually do cycle wear cycling clothes.

[Mr Macaw]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:28:58 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Monday, 18 April 2016 14:09:06 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:05:24 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>
>> > On Monday, 18 April 2016 14:00:19 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:54:56 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Monday, 18 April 2016 11:52:53 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Skin tight shorts is just as bad. It's more that they have them as some kind of religion than anything else. If they all different funny clothes, I'd accept that. But that every cyclist thinks they must wear the same weird shorts is ridiculous.
>> >> >
>> >> > At least we are riding bikes and can fit into the clothes, unlike him.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://cdn.images.dailystar.co.uk/dynamic/1/photos/217000/620x/283217.jpg
>> >>
>> >> So what? Why is him being fat a problem for you?
>> >
>> > What is he doing wearing a football shirt - he cannot play football, he is too fat.
>>
>> So you know which team he supports. Cyclists aren't watching a cycling race, and they don't usually have teams on their clothes.
>
> People who watch cricket don't have whites on.

Cricket matches don't have two team colours. So you couldn't specify a team by wearing whites.

> People who watch F1, don't wear fireproof suits.

A bit clumsy. Football shirts are basically just shirts, all that differs is the logo and the colour.

> People who watch horse racing don't wear silks.
> But, people who actually do cycle wear cycling clothes.

You don't need special clothes to cycle. The same clothes as if you were walking or running will suffice.

--
Customer explaining flooded car to insurance claim investigator:
"It didn't look that deep at first glance - it only came half way up the ducks."

[Alycidon]

On Monday, 18 April 2016 14:39:46 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

> You don't need special clothes to cycle. The same clothes as if you were walking or running will suffice.

Try cycling for 100 miles in jeans and a t-shirt first then report back.

[Mr Macaw]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:44:45 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Monday, 18 April 2016 14:39:46 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> You don't need special clothes to cycle. The same clothes as if you were walking or running will suffice.
>
> Try cycling for 100 miles in jeans and a t-shirt first then report back.

Already done many a time. Since I was about 13 I've often gone cycling for 8 hours a day. Your problem was?

--
Maybe the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence because that is where the leaky septic tank is buried.

[Alycidon]

On Monday, 18 April 2016 15:14:17 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:44:45 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 18 April 2016 14:39:46 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >
> >> You don't need special clothes to cycle. The same clothes as if you were walking or running will suffice.
> >
> > Try cycling for 100 miles in jeans and a t-shirt first then report back.
>
> Already done many a time. Since I was about 13 I've often gone cycling for 8 hours a day. Your problem was?

Nasty saddle sores due to chafing, solved by wearing proper padded shorts.

[Mr Macaw]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 15:21:01 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Monday, 18 April 2016 15:14:17 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:44:45 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>
>> > On Monday, 18 April 2016 14:39:46 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> >
>> >> You don't need special clothes to cycle. The same clothes as if you were walking or running will suffice.
>> >
>> > Try cycling for 100 miles in jeans and a t-shirt first then report back.
>>
>> Already done many a time. Since I was about 13 I've often gone cycling for 8 hours a day. Your problem was?
>
> Nasty saddle sores due to chafing, solved by wearing proper padded shorts.

Have you got excessively large testicles or something?

Why don't you just buy a saddle made of the same stuff as the padded shorts?

Why do padded shorts have to look different to ordinary shorts on the outside? There's no need for them to look like tights.

--
Why isn't 11 pronounced onety one?

[Nick[_4_]]

On 18/04/2016 15:25, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 15:21:01 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 18 April 2016 15:14:17 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:44:45 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Monday, 18 April 2016 14:39:46 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> You don't need special clothes to cycle. The same clothes as if
>>> you were walking or running will suffice.
>>> >
>>> > Try cycling for 100 miles in jeans and a t-shirt first then report
>>> back.
>>>
>>> Already done many a time. Since I was about 13 I've often gone
>>> cycling for 8 hours a day. Your problem was?
>>
>> Nasty saddle sores due to chafing, solved by wearing proper padded
>> shorts.
>
> Have you got excessively large testicles or something?
>
> Why don't you just buy a saddle made of the same stuff as the padded
> shorts?
>
> Why do padded shorts have to look different to ordinary shorts on the
> outside? There's no need for them to look like tights.
>

Being tight means they are less likely to ride up or rub. For club
riders there is also less wind resistance.

Why should they not to look like tights?

[Alycidon]

On Monday, 18 April 2016 19:30:11 UTC+1, Nick wrote:

> >
> > Why do padded shorts have to look different to ordinary shorts on the
> > outside? There's no need for them to look like tights.
> >
>
> Being tight means they are less likely to ride up or rub. For club
> riders there is also less wind resistance.
>
> Why should they not to look like tights?

Highway Code.

Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights.

[Mr Macaw]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:41:36 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Monday, 18 April 2016 19:30:11 UTC+1, Nick wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Why do padded shorts have to look different to ordinary shorts on the
>> > outside? There's no need for them to look like tights.
>> >
>>
>> Being tight means they are less likely to ride up or rub. For club
>> riders there is also less wind resistance.
>>
>> Why should they not to look like tights?
>
> Highway Code.

Do you read that to get to sleep at night or something? Nobody gives a **** about the opinions of the author. Grow a brain and work out for yourself what you should do.

> Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights.

What's wrong with normal shorts then? Or ankle clips? Or stuffing your jeans into your socks? I've never had my jeans stuck in a chain. And those that do didn't, they just got oily jeans.

--
During the weekly Lamaze class, the instructor emphasized the importance of exercise, hinting strongly that husbands need to get out and start walking with their wives.
From the back of the room one expectant father inquired, "Would it be okay if she carries a bag of golf clubs while she walks?"

[Mr Macaw]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:30:09 +0100, Nick > wrote:

> On 18/04/2016 15:25, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 15:21:01 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, 18 April 2016 15:14:17 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:44:45 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Monday, 18 April 2016 14:39:46 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> You don't need special clothes to cycle. The same clothes as if
>>>> you were walking or running will suffice.
>>>> >
>>>> > Try cycling for 100 miles in jeans and a t-shirt first then report
>>>> back.
>>>>
>>>> Already done many a time. Since I was about 13 I've often gone
>>>> cycling for 8 hours a day. Your problem was?
>>>
>>> Nasty saddle sores due to chafing, solved by wearing proper padded
>>> shorts.
>>
>> Have you got excessively large testicles or something?
>>
>> Why don't you just buy a saddle made of the same stuff as the padded
>> shorts?
>>
>> Why do padded shorts have to look different to ordinary shorts on the
>> outside? There's no need for them to look like tights.
>
> Being tight means they are less likely to ride up or rub. For club
> riders there is also less wind resistance.
>
> Why should they not to look like tights?

Because I've ridden all day in normal shorts and they don't do any of the above. Plus they look normal, and allow you to lose more bodyheat, which you make a lot of when cycling, especially around the thighs, which your stupid "shorts" cover up.

--
Why is Michael Jackson's album entitled "Bad?"
Because he couldn't spell "Pathetic."

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:48:14 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 14/04/2016 11:28, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:23:43 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 23:07:30 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>>>> The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry
>>>> doing?
>>
>>> Damaging the footway and the utilities beneath,increasing my council tax.
>
>> The footway is quite capable of taking the weight of a large vehicle.
>> Probably not day in day out at driving speeds. But a slow moving lorry
>> now and again is fine. Otherwise you'd constantly see the pavement
>> subsiding.
>
> Guess what?
>
> <https://pedestrianliberation.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/img_1303.jpg>
>
> <http://callylabourcouncillors.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/tilloch-street-pavement-broken-paving-web.jpg>
>
> <http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.4105165.1433851807!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg>
>
> <https://publicrealmdotorg1.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/slabs-2-e1421511434690.jpg>

You have delieberately selected very old PAVED pavements. If they were newer they'd be tarmacked. Everything wears out, and I see roads being redone MUCH more often than pavements.

--
Why was the guitar teacher arrested?
For fingering A minor.

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:48:14 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 14/04/2016 11:28, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:23:43 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 23:07:30 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>>>> The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry
>>>> doing?
>>
>>> Damaging the footway and the utilities beneath,increasing my council tax.
>
>> The footway is quite capable of taking the weight of a large vehicle.
>> Probably not day in day out at driving speeds. But a slow moving lorry
>> now and again is fine. Otherwise you'd constantly see the pavement
>> subsiding.
>
> Guess what?
>
> <https://pedestrianliberation.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/img_1303.jpg>
>
> <http://callylabourcouncillors.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/tilloch-street-pavement-broken-paving-web.jpg>
>
> <http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.4105165.1433851807!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg>
>
> <https://publicrealmdotorg1.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/slabs-2-e1421511434690.jpg>

Why is my monoblock driveway not collapsing? It has a car driven over it way more often than a pavement. And it didn't have that much hardcore put down, I watched them do it. Comparing the price of that to it's size, I'd say a pavement would cost £100 a metre at most.

--
Why was the guitar teacher arrested?
For fingering A minor.

[Alycidon]

On Thursday, 21 April 2016 20:24:52 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

> Why is my monoblock driveway not collapsing? It has a car driven over it way more often than a pavement. And it didn't have that much hardcore put down, I watched them do it. Comparing the price of that to it's size, I'd say a pavement would cost £100 a metre at most.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/residents-face-bills-thousands-drive-10729510

Square metre.

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 20:30:54 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Thursday, 21 April 2016 20:24:52 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> Why is my monoblock driveway not collapsing? It has a car driven over it way more often than a pavement. And it didn't have that much hardcore put down, I watched them do it. Comparing the price of that to it's size, I'd say a pavement would cost £100 a metre at most.
>
> http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/residents-face-bills-thousands-drive-10729510
>
> Square metre.

A pavement is about a metre wide, so the same thing.

--
The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency -- Eugene McCarthy

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On 18.04.2016 22:52, Mr Macaw wrote:
> But that every cyclist thinks they must wear the same weird shorts is
> ridiculous.

Wrong.
Not every bicyclist thinks s/he must wear weird shorts.

[jnugent]

On 21/04/2016 20:09, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:48:14 +0100, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>> On 14/04/2016 11:28, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:23:43 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 23:07:30 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry
>>>>> doing?
>>>
>>>> Damaging the footway and the utilities beneath,increasing my council
>>>> tax.
>>
>>> The footway is quite capable of taking the weight of a large vehicle.
>>> Probably not day in day out at driving speeds. But a slow moving lorry
>>> now and again is fine. Otherwise you'd constantly see the pavement
>>> subsiding.
>>
>> Guess what?
>>
>> <https://pedestrianliberation.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/img_1303.jpg>
>>
>> <http://callylabourcouncillors.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/tilloch-street-pavement-broken-paving-web.jpg>
>>
>>
>> <http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.4105165.1433851807!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg>
>>
>>
>> <https://publicrealmdotorg1.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/slabs-2-e1421511434690.jpg>
>>
>
> You have delieberately selected very old PAVED pavements.

Just a few out of the very many photographs returned by a Google image
search for "damaged footways" (maybe it was "damaged pavements").

They were by no means atypical.

> If they were
> newer they'd be tarmacked. Everything wears out, and I see roads being
> redone MUCH more often than pavements.

There's a difference between wear and damage.

I am with those who oppose vehicles on footways (ALL vehicles).
>

[jnugent]

On 21/04/2016 20:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:48:14 +0100, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>> On 14/04/2016 11:28, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:23:43 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 23:07:30 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry
>>>>> doing?
>>>
>>>> Damaging the footway and the utilities beneath,increasing my council
>>>> tax.
>>
>>> The footway is quite capable of taking the weight of a large vehicle.
>>> Probably not day in day out at driving speeds. But a slow moving lorry
>>> now and again is fine. Otherwise you'd constantly see the pavement
>>> subsiding.
>>
>> Guess what?
>>
>> <https://pedestrianliberation.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/img_1303.jpg>
>>
>> <http://callylabourcouncillors.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/tilloch-street-pavement-broken-paving-web.jpg>
>>
>>
>> <http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.4105165.1433851807!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg>
>>
>>
>> <https://publicrealmdotorg1.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/slabs-2-e1421511434690.jpg>
>>
>
> Why is my monoblock driveway not collapsing? It has a car driven over
> it way more often than a pavement.

At a guess, it's designed for the purpose, whereas a footway is not
designed for vehicular traffic heavier than a pusch-chair?

[Mr Macaw]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:24:05 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 21/04/2016 20:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:48:14 +0100, JNugent >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/04/2016 11:28, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:23:43 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 23:07:30 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry
>>>>>> doing?
>>>>
>>>>> Damaging the footway and the utilities beneath,increasing my council
>>>>> tax.
>>>
>>>> The footway is quite capable of taking the weight of a large vehicle.
>>>> Probably not day in day out at driving speeds. But a slow moving lorry
>>>> now and again is fine. Otherwise you'd constantly see the pavement
>>>> subsiding.
>>>
>>> Guess what?
>>>
>>> <https://pedestrianliberation.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/img_1303.jpg>
>>>
>>> <http://callylabourcouncillors.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/tilloch-street-pavement-broken-paving-web.jpg>
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.4105165.1433851807!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg>
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://publicrealmdotorg1.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/slabs-2-e1421511434690.jpg>
>>>
>>
>> Why is my monoblock driveway not collapsing? It has a car driven over
>> it way more often than a pavement.
>
> At a guess, it's designed for the purpose, whereas a footway is not
> designed for vehicular traffic heavier than a pusch-chair?

My driveway is not some expensive fancy thing, there wasn't a huge amount of hardcore, just 4 inches I think.

--
My wife was standing nude, looking in the bedroom mirror. She was not happy with what she saw and said to me, "I feel horrible. I look old, fat and ugly. I really need you to pay me a compliment."
I replied, "Your eyesight's damn near perfect."
And then the fight started.......

[Mr Macaw]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:24:05 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 21/04/2016 20:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:48:14 +0100, JNugent >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/04/2016 11:28, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:23:43 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 23:07:30 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry
>>>>>> doing?
>>>>
>>>>> Damaging the footway and the utilities beneath,increasing my council
>>>>> tax.
>>>
>>>> The footway is quite capable of taking the weight of a large vehicle.
>>>> Probably not day in day out at driving speeds. But a slow moving lorry
>>>> now and again is fine. Otherwise you'd constantly see the pavement
>>>> subsiding.
>>>
>>> Guess what?
>>>
>>> <https://pedestrianliberation.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/img_1303.jpg>
>>>
>>> <http://callylabourcouncillors.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/tilloch-street-pavement-broken-paving-web.jpg>
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.4105165.1433851807!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg>
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://publicrealmdotorg1.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/slabs-2-e1421511434690.jpg>
>>>
>>
>> Why is my monoblock driveway not collapsing? It has a car driven over
>> it way more often than a pavement.
>
> At a guess, it's designed for the purpose, whereas a footway is not
> designed for vehicular traffic heavier than a pusch-chair?

The builders of pavements must realise cars will park on them. I see them parked on them everywhere round here, and I've never seen a sunk pavement. Maybe English engineers are ****?

--
My wife and I went to a hotel where we got a waterbed. My wife calls it the Dead Sea .

[jnugent]

On 22/04/2016 14:42, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:24:05 +0100, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/04/2016 20:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:48:14 +0100, JNugent >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/04/2016 11:28, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:23:43 +0100, Alycidon >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 23:07:30 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry
>>>>>>> doing?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Damaging the footway and the utilities beneath,increasing my council
>>>>>> tax.
>>>>
>>>>> The footway is quite capable of taking the weight of a large vehicle.
>>>>> Probably not day in day out at driving speeds. But a slow moving
>>>>> lorry
>>>>> now and again is fine. Otherwise you'd constantly see the pavement
>>>>> subsiding.
>>>>
>>>> Guess what?
>>>>
>>>> <https://pedestrianliberation.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/img_1303.jpg>
>>>>
>>>> <http://callylabourcouncillors.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/tilloch-street-pavement-broken-paving-web.jpg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.4105165.1433851807!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://publicrealmdotorg1.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/slabs-2-e1421511434690.jpg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why is my monoblock driveway not collapsing? It has a car driven over
>>> it way more often than a pavement.
>>
>> At a guess, it's designed for the purpose, whereas a footway is not
>> designed for vehicular traffic heavier than a pusch-chair?
>
> My driveway is not some expensive fancy thing, there wasn't a huge
> amount of hardcore, just 4 inches I think.

It isn't paving slabs (designed only for the weight of a human and hand
luggage), though.

[jnugent]

On 22/04/2016 14:43, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:24:05 +0100, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/04/2016 20:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:48:14 +0100, JNugent >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/04/2016 11:28, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:23:43 +0100, Alycidon >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 23:07:30 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry
>>>>>>> doing?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Damaging the footway and the utilities beneath,increasing my council
>>>>>> tax.
>>>>
>>>>> The footway is quite capable of taking the weight of a large vehicle.
>>>>> Probably not day in day out at driving speeds. But a slow moving
>>>>> lorry
>>>>> now and again is fine. Otherwise you'd constantly see the pavement
>>>>> subsiding.
>>>>
>>>> Guess what?
>>>>
>>>> <https://pedestrianliberation.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/img_1303.jpg>
>>>>
>>>> <http://callylabourcouncillors.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/tilloch-street-pavement-broken-paving-web.jpg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.4105165.1433851807!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://publicrealmdotorg1.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/slabs-2-e1421511434690.jpg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why is my monoblock driveway not collapsing? It has a car driven over
>>> it way more often than a pavement.
>>
>> At a guess, it's designed for the purpose, whereas a footway is not
>> designed for vehicular traffic heavier than a pusch-chair?
>
> The builders of pavements must realise cars will park on them. I see
> them parked on them everywhere round here, and I've never seen a sunk
> pavement. Maybe English engineers are ****?

It doesn't matters what the builders of footways "realise".

They don't design or specify footways. They build them according to
specified standards for a specified price.
>

[Mr Macaw]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 23:58:58 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 22/04/2016 14:42, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:24:05 +0100, JNugent >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/04/2016 20:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:48:14 +0100, JNugent >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/04/2016 11:28, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:23:43 +0100, Alycidon >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 23:07:30 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry
>>>>>>>> doing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Damaging the footway and the utilities beneath,increasing my council
>>>>>>> tax.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The footway is quite capable of taking the weight of a large vehicle.
>>>>>> Probably not day in day out at driving speeds. But a slow moving
>>>>>> lorry
>>>>>> now and again is fine. Otherwise you'd constantly see the pavement
>>>>>> subsiding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Guess what?
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://pedestrianliberation.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/img_1303.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://callylabourcouncillors.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/tilloch-street-pavement-broken-paving-web.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.4105165.1433851807!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://publicrealmdotorg1.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/slabs-2-e1421511434690.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why is my monoblock driveway not collapsing? It has a car driven over
>>>> it way more often than a pavement.
>>>
>>> At a guess, it's designed for the purpose, whereas a footway is not
>>> designed for vehicular traffic heavier than a pusch-chair?
>>
>> My driveway is not some expensive fancy thing, there wasn't a huge
>> amount of hardcore, just 4 inches I think.
>
> It isn't paving slabs (designed only for the weight of a human and hand
> luggage), though.

My point is that for not much cost I have something that can support cars. So councils have no excuse for making ****ty pavements. And round here I have never see one sink, so you're worrying abut nothing.

--
Customer explaining flooded car to insurance claim investigator:
"It didn't look that deep at first glance - it only came half way up the ducks."

[Mr Macaw]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 00:00:10 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 22/04/2016 14:43, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:24:05 +0100, JNugent >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/04/2016 20:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:48:14 +0100, JNugent >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/04/2016 11:28, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:23:43 +0100, Alycidon >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 23:07:30 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry
>>>>>>>> doing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Damaging the footway and the utilities beneath,increasing my council
>>>>>>> tax.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The footway is quite capable of taking the weight of a large vehicle.
>>>>>> Probably not day in day out at driving speeds. But a slow moving
>>>>>> lorry
>>>>>> now and again is fine. Otherwise you'd constantly see the pavement
>>>>>> subsiding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Guess what?
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://pedestrianliberation.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/img_1303.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://callylabourcouncillors.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/tilloch-street-pavement-broken-paving-web.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.4105165.1433851807!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://publicrealmdotorg1.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/slabs-2-e1421511434690.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why is my monoblock driveway not collapsing? It has a car driven over
>>>> it way more often than a pavement.
>>>
>>> At a guess, it's designed for the purpose, whereas a footway is not
>>> designed for vehicular traffic heavier than a pusch-chair?
>>
>> The builders of pavements must realise cars will park on them. I see
>> them parked on them everywhere round here, and I've never seen a sunk
>> pavement. Maybe English engineers are ****?
>
> It doesn't matters what the builders of footways "realise".
>
> They don't design or specify footways. They build them according to
> specified standards for a specified price.

Clearly not, as they build them to withstand cars round here.

--
"I went to a fight the other night and a hockey game broke out." -- Rodney Dangerfield.

[jnugent]

On 23/04/2016 00:16, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 23:58:58 +0100, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>> On 22/04/2016 14:42, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:24:05 +0100, JNugent >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/04/2016 20:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:48:14 +0100, JNugent >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/04/2016 11:28, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:23:43 +0100, Alycidon >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 23:07:30 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry
>>>>>>>>> doing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Damaging the footway and the utilities beneath,increasing my
>>>>>>>> council
>>>>>>>> tax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The footway is quite capable of taking the weight of a large
>>>>>>> vehicle.
>>>>>>> Probably not day in day out at driving speeds. But a slow moving
>>>>>>> lorry
>>>>>>> now and again is fine. Otherwise you'd constantly see the pavement
>>>>>>> subsiding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guess what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://pedestrianliberation.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/img_1303.jpg>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://callylabourcouncillors.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/tilloch-street-pavement-broken-paving-web.jpg>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.4105165.1433851807!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://publicrealmdotorg1.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/slabs-2-e1421511434690.jpg>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is my monoblock driveway not collapsing? It has a car driven over
>>>>> it way more often than a pavement.
>>>>
>>>> At a guess, it's designed for the purpose, whereas a footway is not
>>>> designed for vehicular traffic heavier than a pusch-chair?
>>>
>>> My driveway is not some expensive fancy thing, there wasn't a huge
>>> amount of hardcore, just 4 inches I think.
>>
>> It isn't paving slabs (designed only for the weight of a human and hand
>> luggage), though.
>
> My point is that for not much cost I have something that can support
> cars. So councils have no excuse for making ****ty pavements. And
> round here I have never see one sink, so you're worrying abut nothing.

Footways are in no way substandard for being susceptible to damage from
the weight of motor vehicles whilst easily able to carry the weight of
pedestrians. Paving slabs, in particular, are very prone to cracking
under stress.

The building standard for footways is what it is. It would cost far too
much for all part of all footways to be constructed to carriageway
standards.

[jnugent]

On 23/04/2016 00:16, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 00:00:10 +0100, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>> On 22/04/2016 14:43, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:24:05 +0100, JNugent >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/04/2016 20:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:48:14 +0100, JNugent >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/04/2016 11:28, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:23:43 +0100, Alycidon >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 23:07:30 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry
>>>>>>>>> doing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Damaging the footway and the utilities beneath,increasing my
>>>>>>>> council
>>>>>>>> tax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The footway is quite capable of taking the weight of a large
>>>>>>> vehicle.
>>>>>>> Probably not day in day out at driving speeds. But a slow moving
>>>>>>> lorry
>>>>>>> now and again is fine. Otherwise you'd constantly see the pavement
>>>>>>> subsiding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guess what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://pedestrianliberation.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/img_1303.jpg>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://callylabourcouncillors.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/tilloch-street-pavement-broken-paving-web.jpg>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.4105165.1433851807!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://publicrealmdotorg1.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/slabs-2-e1421511434690.jpg>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is my monoblock driveway not collapsing? It has a car driven over
>>>>> it way more often than a pavement.
>>>>
>>>> At a guess, it's designed for the purpose, whereas a footway is not
>>>> designed for vehicular traffic heavier than a pusch-chair?
>>>
>>> The builders of pavements must realise cars will park on them. I see
>>> them parked on them everywhere round here, and I've never seen a sunk
>>> pavement. Maybe English engineers are ****?
>>
>> It doesn't matters what the builders of footways "realise".
>>
>> They don't design or specify footways. They build them according to
>> specified standards for a specified price.
>
> Clearly not, as they build them to withstand cars round here.

In that case, the council has decided to build footways to an
unnecessarily-high standard.

It's only your council tax they're wasting.
>

[Mr Macaw]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 00:28:24 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 23/04/2016 00:16, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 23:58:58 +0100, JNugent >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/04/2016 14:42, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:24:05 +0100, JNugent >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21/04/2016 20:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:48:14 +0100, JNugent >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/04/2016 11:28, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:23:43 +0100, Alycidon >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 23:07:30 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry
>>>>>>>>>> doing?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Damaging the footway and the utilities beneath,increasing my
>>>>>>>>> council
>>>>>>>>> tax.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The footway is quite capable of taking the weight of a large
>>>>>>>> vehicle.
>>>>>>>> Probably not day in day out at driving speeds. But a slow moving
>>>>>>>> lorry
>>>>>>>> now and again is fine. Otherwise you'd constantly see the pavement
>>>>>>>> subsiding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Guess what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://pedestrianliberation.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/img_1303.jpg>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://callylabourcouncillors.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/tilloch-street-pavement-broken-paving-web.jpg>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.4105165.1433851807!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://publicrealmdotorg1.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/slabs-2-e1421511434690.jpg>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is my monoblock driveway not collapsing? It has a car driven over
>>>>>> it way more often than a pavement.
>>>>>
>>>>> At a guess, it's designed for the purpose, whereas a footway is not
>>>>> designed for vehicular traffic heavier than a pusch-chair?
>>>>
>>>> My driveway is not some expensive fancy thing, there wasn't a huge
>>>> amount of hardcore, just 4 inches I think.
>>>
>>> It isn't paving slabs (designed only for the weight of a human and hand
>>> luggage), though.
>>
>> My point is that for not much cost I have something that can support
>> cars. So councils have no excuse for making ****ty pavements. And
>> round here I have never see one sink, so you're worrying abut nothing.
>
> Footways are in no way substandard for being susceptible to damage from
> the weight of motor vehicles whilst easily able to carry the weight of
> pedestrians. Paving slabs, in particular, are very prone to cracking
> under stress.
>
> The building standard for footways is what it is. It would cost far too
> much for all part of all footways to be constructed to carriageway
> standards.

Funny how the pavements round here do not crumble when cars park on them.

--
Peter is listening to "DJ Splash - New life"

[Mr Macaw]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 00:29:24 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 23/04/2016 00:16, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 00:00:10 +0100, JNugent >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/04/2016 14:43, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 13:24:05 +0100, JNugent >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21/04/2016 20:24, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:48:14 +0100, JNugent >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/04/2016 11:28, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 06:23:43 +0100, Alycidon >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 23:07:30 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The law is no factor at all. I ask again, what harm was the lorry
>>>>>>>>>> doing?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Damaging the footway and the utilities beneath,increasing my
>>>>>>>>> council
>>>>>>>>> tax.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The footway is quite capable of taking the weight of a large
>>>>>>>> vehicle.
>>>>>>>> Probably not day in day out at driving speeds. But a slow moving
>>>>>>>> lorry
>>>>>>>> now and again is fine. Otherwise you'd constantly see the pavement
>>>>>>>> subsiding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Guess what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://pedestrianliberation.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/img_1303.jpg>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://callylabourcouncillors.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/tilloch-street-pavement-broken-paving-web.jpg>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.4105165.1433851807!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://publicrealmdotorg1.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/slabs-2-e1421511434690.jpg>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is my monoblock driveway not collapsing? It has a car driven over
>>>>>> it way more often than a pavement.
>>>>>
>>>>> At a guess, it's designed for the purpose, whereas a footway is not
>>>>> designed for vehicular traffic heavier than a pusch-chair?
>>>>
>>>> The builders of pavements must realise cars will park on them. I see
>>>> them parked on them everywhere round here, and I've never seen a sunk
>>>> pavement. Maybe English engineers are ****?
>>>
>>> It doesn't matters what the builders of footways "realise".
>>>
>>> They don't design or specify footways. They build them according to
>>> specified standards for a specified price.
>>
>> Clearly not, as they build them to withstand cars round here.
>
> In that case, the council has decided to build footways to an
> unnecessarily-high standard.
>
> It's only your council tax they're wasting.

It's allowing the roads not to be blocked by people occupying a whole lane to park their car. And it's not a lot of money, as I've stated earlier, a driveway doesn't cost much to do and that supports a parked car.

--
My ex-wife was temperamental.
90% temper and 10% mental.