Doug, was this you?

John Wright wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 01:27:46 -0700 (PDT), Doug put finger to keyboard
and typed:

On 27 Sep, 08:51, Mark Goodge
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:02:14 -0700 (PDT), Doug put finger to keyboard
and typed:

Just because you can't think of one doesn't mean they don't exist. I
have already pointed out that walking involves heavy load-bearing on
an arthritic hip but sitting on a saddle doesn't. Also gout has been
mentioned. There must be numerous joint, nerve and muscle conditions
which are much less painful when cycling than walking.
There are also a lot of conditions which are less painful when driving
than walking. That doesn't give me an excuse to drive my car on a
station platform.

No you would get out your wheelchair from the car and use that
instead, an option not available for the disabled cyclist.

Nearly all manned railways stations have wheelchairs available for the
use of passengers who need them.

And just about all trains carry ramps to help wheelchairs get onto the
train, which the conductor/guard can arrange if needed. (They also use
them to get catering trolleys on and off when this is done).

Having said that, probably all wheelchair bound people will get a free
bus pass (at least in Scotland they do - I don't know about England) if
of course they can use it - many buses these days have wheelchair lifts
to help people get on, though I must say I've never seen one used.

The disabled persons railcard gives you only a 30% discount on fares, so
use of the train becomes very much an expensive option for any disabled
person.


My local bus does have wheelchair ramps.
It is regularly used by one man at the same time every morning, I have
once seen the driver extend the ramp & then find that tha man was not there.
Said wheelchair user gets off the bus at the station, uses the station
lift & with help from the station staff catches the train to London.
Although I have not seen it I presume he gets help at Waterloo.

--

Tony Dragon

Tony Dragon wrote:
John Wright wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:

Nearly all manned railways stations have wheelchairs available for the
use of passengers who need them.

And just about all trains carry ramps to help wheelchairs get onto the
train, which the conductor/guard can arrange if needed. (They also use
them to get catering trolleys on and off when this is done).

Having said that, probably all wheelchair bound people will get a free
bus pass (at least in Scotland they do - I don't know about England)
if of course they can use it - many buses these days have wheelchair
lifts to help people get on, though I must say I've never seen one used.

The disabled persons railcard gives you only a 30% discount on fares,
so use of the train becomes very much an expensive option for any
disabled person.

My local bus does have wheelchair ramps.
It is regularly used by one man at the same time every morning, I have
once seen the driver extend the ramp & then find that tha man was not
there.
Said wheelchair user gets off the bus at the station, uses the station
lift & with help from the station staff catches the train to London.
Although I have not seen it I presume he gets help at Waterloo.

Our local operator - Stagecoach - either runs low floor buses on urban
routes or when they run coach style buses on longer distance routes they
all have what appear to be stairlift type wheelchair assistance machines
installed. (The entrance to these tends to be up 3 steps typically).

There appears to be a bus shortage at the moment so what you get on any
route depends on what is available! Last week I saw a "CityLink" coach
on an urban service.

--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:45:49 +0100, John Wright
wrote:

Hang on yourself. They probably (depending on the driver) go a very
short distance along the pavement. I still don't consider that driving
along the pavement and never will.

I think you'll find that the law makes no such distinction.

Perhaps it doesn't but that's not what a policeman will charge you with
in the case that you are charged with anything - more likely illegal
parking.

So? You seem to be asserting - no, you /are/ asserting - that driving
on the pavement is not driving on the pavement if it's only a little
bit, and if you ignore all the little bits then people hardly ever
drive on the pavement. That is not quite in the humpty-dumpty world
of Nugent where words mean exactly what he chooses them to mean, but
it's not far off. A car moving on the pavement under its own power is
driving, there is no other word for it.

In any case (he said mounting his soapbox - not in that way you fool for
thinking it...) the lawmakers hold no brief round here for being right.
They have made far too many cockups (Dangerous Dogs Act on one side and
Hunting Act on the other as examples) to have any confidence given to
them. A plague on all their houses is what I say.

shrug. I share your contempt for the dangerous dogs act but I think
hunting is institutionalised animal cruelty, and I think I'm in a
majority in thinking that, albeit that the pro-hunting minority is
loud and well-connected.

It is true that governments are incredibly resistant to admitting they
are wrong or repealing laws, even their predecessors' laws. PACTS
right now is saying that seat belts have "saved 60,000 lives" - if
this were true then by now we would have people rising from their
graves. http://john-adams.co.uk/

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

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:16:22 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

Nearly all manned railways stations have wheelchairs available for the
use of passengers who need them.

Nearly all sane people realise that Doug is talking complete ********.
Riding along the platform at Paddington would be close to suicidal on
a wet day and not far off any other time, to say nothing of being
grossly antisocial.

It's not discrimination against disabled cyclists, no cyclist,
disabled or otherwise, is allowed to cycle on a station. Nor is it
discrimination against disabled people who happen to be cyclists,
being able to cycle is a pretty clear indication that you could
probably manage the length of the train using the bike as support and
for the unknown but small number of people who cannot manage that
there will be assistance available. How many people are we talking
about here?

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

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:53:40 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:16:22 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

Nearly all manned railways stations have wheelchairs available for the
use of passengers who need them.

Nearly all sane people realise that Doug is talking complete ********.
Riding along the platform at Paddington would be close to suicidal on a
wet day and not far off any other time, to say nothing of being grossly
antisocial.

It's not discrimination against disabled cyclists, no cyclist, disabled
or otherwise, is allowed to cycle on a station. Nor is it
discrimination against disabled people who happen to be cyclists, being
able to cycle is a pretty clear indication that you could probably
manage the length of the train using the bike as support and for the
unknown but small number of people who cannot manage that there will be
assistance available. How many people are we talking about here?

We are talking about one person here. Doug.

Mike P

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:45:49 +0100, John Wright
wrote:

Hang on yourself. They probably (depending on the driver) go a very
short distance along the pavement. I still don't consider that driving
along the pavement and never will.

I think you'll find that the law makes no such distinction.

Perhaps it doesn't but that's not what a policeman will charge you with
in the case that you are charged with anything - more likely illegal
parking.

So? You seem to be asserting - no, you /are/ asserting - that driving
on the pavement is not driving on the pavement if it's only a little
bit, and if you ignore all the little bits then people hardly ever
drive on the pavement. That is not quite in the humpty-dumpty world
of Nugent where words mean exactly what he chooses them to mean, but
it's not far off. A car moving on the pavement under its own power is
driving, there is no other word for it.

If a policeman sees you doing it s/he might charge you with it. It is
much more likely you will be done for illegal parking, whatever the law
says. I'm not asserting that it is not illegal, just that it won't be
witnessed too often by the police. In any case the act of parking does
not imply any great movement.

In any case (he said mounting his soapbox - not in that way you fool for
thinking it...) the lawmakers hold no brief round here for being right.
They have made far too many cockups (Dangerous Dogs Act on one side and
Hunting Act on the other as examples) to have any confidence given to
them. A plague on all their houses is what I say.

shrug. I share your contempt for the dangerous dogs act but I think
hunting is institutionalised animal cruelty, and I think I'm in a
majority in thinking that, albeit that the pro-hunting minority is
loud and well-connected.

It is institutionalised animal cruelty and I would like to see it
banned, but the legislation is not good, it has too many holes and get
outs in it and the like.

It is true that governments are incredibly resistant to admitting they
are wrong or repealing laws, even their predecessors' laws. PACTS
right now is saying that seat belts have "saved 60,000 lives" - if
this were true then by now we would have people rising from their
graves. http://john-adams.co.uk/

Indeed. We also have the examnple that Barack Obama's party have not
repealed the Patriot Act despite the fact that we now know that very few
of the people that voted for it had actually read it or really knew what
it implied.

--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:57:52 +0100, John Wright
wrote:


So? You seem to be asserting - no, you /are/ asserting - that driving
on the pavement is not driving on the pavement if it's only a little
bit, and if you ignore all the little bits then people hardly ever
drive on the pavement. That is not quite in the humpty-dumpty world
of Nugent where words mean exactly what he chooses them to mean, but
it's not far off. A car moving on the pavement under its own power is
driving, there is no other word for it.

If a policeman sees you doing it s/he might charge you with it. It is
much more likely you will be done for illegal parking, whatever the law
says. I'm not asserting that it is not illegal, just that it won't be
witnessed too often by the police. In any case the act of parking does
not imply any great movement.

You're missing the point. But it's not worth arguing about it any
further.

It is true that governments are incredibly resistant to admitting they
are wrong or repealing laws, even their predecessors' laws. PACTS
right now is saying that seat belts have "saved 60,000 lives" - if
this were true then by now we would have people rising from their
graves. http://john-adams.co.uk/

Indeed. We also have the examnple that Barack Obama's party have not
repealed the Patriot Act despite the fact that we now know that very few
of the people that voted for it had actually read it or really knew what
it implied.

Of course. They can make use of it while blaming the previous venal
*******s for it. But maybe one day.

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

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:08:26 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:57:52 +0100, John Wright
wrote:


So? You seem to be asserting - no, you /are/ asserting - that driving
on the pavement is not driving on the pavement if it's only a little
bit, and if you ignore all the little bits then people hardly ever
drive on the pavement. That is not quite in the humpty-dumpty world
of Nugent where words mean exactly what he chooses them to mean, but
it's not far off. A car moving on the pavement under its own power is
driving, there is no other word for it.

If a policeman sees you doing it s/he might charge you with it. It is
much more likely you will be done for illegal parking, whatever the law
says. I'm not asserting that it is not illegal, just that it won't be
witnessed too often by the police. In any case the act of parking does
not imply any great movement.

You're missing the point. But it's not worth arguing about it any
further.


Ah yes - the classic Chapman "I have lost the argument" - we see it
time and time again.


You are a fool.

--

I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
--

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:20:16 +0100, John Wright
wrote:

Hang on yourself. They probably (depending on the driver) go a very
short distance along the pavement. I still don't consider that driving
along the pavement and never will.

I think you'll find that the law makes no such distinction.

The law does make a distinction for driving up to 15 yards to reach a
parking spot where it would generally be illegal to drive.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:16:22 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

Nearly all manned railways stations have wheelchairs available for the
use of passengers who need them.

Nearly all sane people realise that Doug is talking complete ********.
Riding along the platform at Paddington would be close to suicidal on
a wet day and not far off any other time, to say nothing of being
grossly antisocial.

It's not discrimination against disabled cyclists, no cyclist,
disabled or otherwise, is allowed to cycle on a station. Nor is it
discrimination against disabled people who happen to be cyclists,
being able to cycle is a pretty clear indication that you could
probably manage the length of the train using the bike as support and
for the unknown but small number of people who cannot manage that
there will be assistance available. How many people are we talking
about here?

Guy

Doug, listen to the voice of sense.

--

Tony Dragon