On 29 Oct, 01:02, "The Medway Handyman" davidno-spam-
wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 27 Oct, 23:27, "Steve Walker" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 26 Oct, 22:02, "Steve Walker" wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 26/10/2010 20:08, Steve Walker wrote:

I personally don't think it's realistic for busy, modern
traffic to work around anachronisms like horse-drawn
vehicles & bicycles, velocipedes, rickshaws & steam traction
engines etc.

There there.

I wasn't asking to be comforted, or patronised. This is meant
to be a discussion about traffic safety, if you want a snide
name-calling exercise then please start a new thread.

And you don't think that your personal statement was
intentionally insulting?

You mean the suggestion of a safe, intermediate lane for slower
traffic?

"Perhaps we need to experiment with a widened middle lane for
slow-moving vehicles, instead of cycle lanes. Obviously there would
be a fair bit of demolition & widening required to achieve a decent
amount of this, but we need the jobs and the end result would be
much safer."

You think that was insulting, do you? To whom, pray?

"I personally don't think it's realistic for busy, modern traffic to
work
around anachronisms like horse-drawn vehicles & bicycles, velocipedes,
rickshaws & steam traction engines etc. * *However that doesn't
justify
those vehicles moving onto the pavements, where they will in turn
intimidate
and frighten pedestrians."

I think that paragraph was insulting and I think that you meant it to
be.

The paragraph was spot on.

Insulting is me calling you a thick ****. *Actually no, thats simply an
accurate description you might not agree with, being a thick ****.


World toy production:-

http://www.worldometers.info/bicycles/

World production of ****mobiles:-

http://www.worldometers.info/cars/