Doug, was this you?

Mike P gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

My mum's driven over the pavement outside her house at least twice a
day, probably nearly every day bar when she's been on holiday, for
the last 20 years. It's not damaged, and it's still in the same state
it was before she started. Â*It's the access to her garage, and
there's no dropped kerb. The council granted planning permission for
a garage, but wouldn't let her put a dropped kerb in.

So your mum's the one who illegally drives over pavements with no
vehicular access rights, then?

Indeed, digusting isn't it. Though she does have vehicular access
rights, they just won't let her put a dropped kerb in. She owns the road
, but not the bit in between her house and the road. Is that odd?

Sounds odd to me.

Just as well she's not a disabled cyclist, else she wouldn't be allowed
to do that. And that'd be discrimination. Apparently.

Good, the ****ers shouldn't be allowed to ride on pavements, and
certainley not on railway platforms where they could knock over
vunerable pedestrians.

How about "round supermarkets"? Apparently, that's discrimination, too.

On 21 Sep, 15:16, Adrian wrote:
Mike P gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

My mum's driven over the pavement outside her house at least twice a
day, probably nearly every day bar when she's been on holiday, for
the last 20 years. It's not damaged, and it's still in the same state
it was before she started. *It's the access to her garage, and
there's no dropped kerb. The council granted planning permission for
a garage, but wouldn't let her put a dropped kerb in.
So your mum's the one who illegally drives over pavements with no
vehicular access rights, then?
Indeed, digusting isn't it. Though she does have vehicular access
rights, they just won't let her put a dropped kerb in. She owns the road
, but not the bit in between her house and the road. *Is that odd?

Sounds odd to me.

Yes, it's here

http://tinyurl.com/m3hy6e. Her garage can be seen opposite the "e" of
New road, hiding behind a tree just on the left and up a bit from the
marker. The pavement is in between the garage and New Road. New Road
is a 1:3 hill sloping leftright. She owns the road, but not the
pathway. Weird. That's local councils and ancient land registration I
suppose.


Just as well she's not a disabled cyclist, else she wouldn't be allowed
to do that. And that'd be discrimination. Apparently.
Good, the ****ers shouldn't be allowed to ride on pavements, and
certainley not on railway platforms where they could knock over
vunerable pedestrians.

How about "round supermarkets"? Apparently, that's discrimination, too.

No, not "round supermarket" either. My gran is now registered blind
and has a blue badge that my mum uses when she takes her shopping.
What the **** does Doug think would happen if you mixed real disabled
people, or the blind with cyclists in a supermarket. Silly old sod..

Mike p

Mike P gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Just as well she's not a disabled cyclist, else she wouldn't be
allowed to do that. And that'd be discrimination. Apparently.
Good, the ****ers shouldn't be allowed to ride on pavements, and
certainley not on railway platforms where they could knock over
vunerable pedestrians.

How about "round supermarkets"? Apparently, that's discrimination, too.

No, not "round supermarket" either. My gran is now registered blind and
has a blue badge that my mum uses when she takes her shopping. What the
**** does Doug think would happen if you mixed real disabled people, or
the blind with cyclists in a supermarket. Silly old sod..

You seem to think he cares?

On 21 Sep, 15:25, Adrian wrote:
Mike P gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Just as well she's not a disabled cyclist, else she wouldn't be
allowed to do that. And that'd be discrimination. Apparently.
Good, the ****ers shouldn't be allowed to ride on pavements, and
certainley not on railway platforms where they could knock over
vunerable pedestrians.
How about "round supermarkets"? Apparently, that's discrimination, too.
No, not "round supermarket" either. My gran is now registered blind and
has a blue badge that my mum uses when she takes her shopping. What the
**** does Doug think would happen if you mixed real disabled people, or
the blind with cyclists in a supermarket. Silly old sod..

You seem to think he cares?

Ah, I'd forgotten about that. Obviously not.

Mike P

On 21 Sep, 14:50, Mike P wrote:
On 21 Sep, 10:09, BrianW wrote:

On 21 Sep, 08:53, "Brimstone" wrote:

It is obviously assumed by the government that everyone should have
the right to own a car regardless of the circumstances and harmful
impact on others and despite not having somewhere to keep one.

Where did you keep yours when you owned cars Doug?-

Gollum actually dumped his Land Rover by the sie of the road when it
finally gave up the ghost. �What a revolting, hypocritical old turd he
is.

I wonder how long he kept it after rolling it over, and whether it was
in a safe condition to be used on the road after the accident?

You don't seriously think Gollum would have given two hoots about
that, do you?

On 21 Sep, 16:13, BrianW wrote:
On 21 Sep, 14:50, Mike P wrote:



On 21 Sep, 10:09, BrianW wrote:

On 21 Sep, 08:53, "Brimstone" wrote:

It is obviously assumed by the government that everyone should have
the right to own a car regardless of the circumstances and harmful
impact on others and despite not having somewhere to keep one.

Where did you keep yours when you owned cars Doug?-

Gollum actually dumped his Land Rover by the sie of the road when it
finally gave up the ghost. What a revolting, hypocritical old turd he
is.

I wonder how long he kept it after rolling it over, and whether it was
in a safe condition to be used on the road after the accident?

You don't seriously think Gollum would have given two hoots about
that, do you?

Maybe we can get in touch with his friend, Mr Bollen, and ask him?

Mike P

On 21 Sep, 16:19, Mike P wrote:
On 21 Sep, 16:13, BrianW wrote:





On 21 Sep, 14:50, Mike P wrote:

On 21 Sep, 10:09, BrianW wrote:

On 21 Sep, 08:53, "Brimstone" wrote:

It is obviously assumed by the government that everyone should have
the right to own a car regardless of the circumstances and harmful
impact on others and despite not having somewhere to keep one.

Where did you keep yours when you owned cars Doug?-

Gollum actually dumped his Land Rover by the sie of the road when it
finally gave up the ghost. What a revolting, hypocritical old turd he
is.

I wonder how long he kept it after rolling it over, and whether it was
in a safe condition to be used on the road after the accident?

You don't seriously think Gollum would have given two hoots about
that, do you?

Maybe we can get in touch with his friend, Mr Bollen, and ask him?

I am given to understand that they see each other from time to time,
so "our" Doug will probably ask Mr Bollen not to speak to us.

On 21 Sep, 08:53, Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Dangerous cars are allowed on some pavements where disabled cyclists are
not.

Give us ONE example. Just one.

Try looking for a change.

It is obviously assumed by the government that everyone should have the
right to own a car regardless of the circumstances

Not quite.

Everybody should have the right to own a car provided it fulfils all the
relevant legal requirements. Of course they should. Why shouldn't they?
Same as everybody has the right to own a TV, house, pogo stick, bicycle.

So you think its OK to own something bulky with nowhere to keep it
except in a public space?

How would you ration them?

Not allowed unless they have somewhere to keep it off a road/pavement.
What would happen if we all decided to keep some of or more bulky
possessions in the street outside? How long do you think we would be
allowed to do that? Just because its a car what makes it so special?

and harmful impact on others

As well as MOT emission testing for existing cars and ever more stringent
emission requirements for new cars, there's umpty-seven driving laws
(some of which you've argued against the introduction of) to try to
minimise "harmful impact".

The DfT mentions the unwelcome impact of parking on pavements.

"Parking on the pavement can cause inconvenience to pedestrians. It
can create hazards for visually impaired, disabled and elderly people
or those with prams or pushchairs. It may also cause damage to the
kerb, the pavement, or the services underneath. Repairing such damage
can be costly and local authorities may face claims for compensation
for injuries received resulting from damaged or defective pavements."

And of course cars street garaged 24/7 are a constant menace and
inconvenience to pedestrians and other road users, causing congestion,
oil puddles, obscuring the view of drivers of part of the road ahead,
and flinging doors open in front of cyclists.

and despite not having somewhere to keep one.

Nope. Leave a car somewhere it's not legal to leave it, and you WILL get
fined. Fail to pay the fines, and it WILL get confiscated.

The problem is that much 24/7 street garaging and some pavement
parking IS legal but shouldn't be.

So - apart from any of those many, all completely incorrect, points - is
there ANY evidence to back up your claims?

What are you on about? Evidence of what?

Here is the DfT evidence of pavement parking with pictures and what
the pictures show is typical.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/...avementparking

Proper, hard evidence from credible sources.

You know the stuff - same as you demand off everybody who points out that
you're talking ********. Again.

Maybe if you tried to clarify your point it might help.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

On Sep 21, 3:23*pm, Mike P wrote:
On 21 Sep, 15:16, Adrian wrote:



Mike P gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

My mum's driven over the pavement outside her house at least twice a
day, probably nearly every day bar when she's been on holiday, for
the last 20 years. It's not damaged, and it's still in the same state
it was before she started. *It's the access to her garage, and
there's no dropped kerb. The council granted planning permission for
a garage, but wouldn't let her put a dropped kerb in.
So your mum's the one who illegally drives over pavements with no
vehicular access rights, then?
Indeed, digusting isn't it. Though she does have vehicular access
rights, they just won't let her put a dropped kerb in. She owns the road
, but not the bit in between her house and the road. *Is that odd?

Sounds odd to me.

Yes, it's here

*http://tinyurl.com/m3hy6e. Her garage can be seen opposite the "e" of
New road, hiding behind a tree just on the left and up a bit from the
marker. The pavement is in between the garage and New Road. New Road
is a 1:3 hill sloping leftright. She owns the road, but not the
pathway. Weird. That's local councils and ancient land registration I
suppose.

Just as well she's not a disabled cyclist, else she wouldn't be allowed
to do that. And that'd be discrimination. Apparently.
Good, the ****ers shouldn't be allowed to ride on pavements, and
certainley not on railway platforms where they could knock over
vunerable pedestrians.

How about "round supermarkets"? Apparently, that's discrimination, too.

No, not "round supermarket" either. My gran is now registered blind
and has a blue badge that my mum uses when she takes her shopping.
What the **** does Doug think would happen if you mixed real disabled
people, or the blind with cyclists in a supermarket. Silly old sod..

Mike p

Doug does not care for her rights, it's only Dougs right that count.

PeterG

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Dangerous cars are allowed on some pavements where disabled cyclists
are not.

Give us ONE example. Just one.

Try looking for a change.

Try answering the request for evidence for a change. Just once.

Everybody should have the right to own a car provided it fulfils all
the relevant legal requirements. Of course they should. Why shouldn't
they? Same as everybody has the right to own a TV, house, pogo stick,
bicycle.

So you think its OK to own something bulky with nowhere to keep it
except in a public space?

Yes, where it's been explicitly deemed to be legal to do so, I do.

How would you ration them?

Not allowed unless they have somewhere to keep it off a road/pavement.

So you want to discriminate against the less well-off, and restrict car
use based on wealth?

What would happen if we all decided to keep some of or more bulky
possessions in the street outside? How long do you think we would be
allowed to do that?

You're more than welcome to leave a wardrobe on the road outside my house
if you so wish, whilst it's in regular use. Just don't abandon it there
for an extended period of time.

Just because its a car what makes it so special?

It's legal to leave a car on the road, providing certain legal
requirements are met. End of.

The DfT mentions the unwelcome impact of parking on pavements.

"Parking on the pavement can cause inconvenience to pedestrians. It can
create hazards for visually impaired, disabled and elderly people or
those with prams or pushchairs. It may also cause damage to the kerb,
the pavement, or the services underneath. Repairing such damage can be
costly and local authorities may face claims for compensation for
injuries received resulting from damaged or defective pavements."

Do you ever _read_ Usenet threads? If so, you'll have seen the thread on
EXACTLY this subject. You know, the one pointing out that motor vehicles
considerably heavier than cars have perfectly legitimate access to the
pavement frequently - for perfectly sensible and valid reasons that not
even you would argue with - and that therefore a pavement that's damaged
by light motor vehicle use has been constructed so badly as to be unfit
for purpose. But I also suspect you'll ignore that convenient FACT, and
witter on endlessly about something irrelevant.

And of course cars street garaged 24/7 are a constant menace and
inconvenience to pedestrians and other road users, causing congestion,
oil puddles, obscuring the view of drivers of part of the road ahead,
and flinging doors open in front of cyclists.

yawn

and despite not having somewhere to keep one.

Nope. Leave a car somewhere it's not legal to leave it, and you WILL
get fined. Fail to pay the fines, and it WILL get confiscated.

The problem is that much 24/7 street garaging and some pavement parking
IS legal but shouldn't be.

Tough. "It's legal" is all that matters. And if it's legal to park a car
there, then it's legal to leave a cycle there, too - AND to manouvre the
cycle from road to parking space. You've claimed there's places where
it's legal to park a car, but not to leave a cycle. I'm asking you to
provide evidence of that.

So - apart from any of those many, all completely incorrect, points -
is there ANY evidence to back up your claims?

What are you on about? Evidence of what?

Evidence of the claims you're making.

Here is the DfT evidence of pavement parking with pictures and what the
pictures show is typical.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/...avementparking

Gosh. Some photos of illegal parking. Migawd. I never realised it
happened. Thank you so much for enlightening me. You ****wit.

Nobody's ever claimed that people don't park illegally. You ****wit.

What we're asking you to do is to back up your claims that cars can
LEGALLY park places where cyclists cannot LEGALLY cycle. Which you're not
desperately attempting to not do. You ****wit.

Proper, hard evidence from credible sources.

You know the stuff - same as you demand off everybody who points out
that you're talking ********. Again.

Maybe if you tried to clarify your point it might help.

My point is that you're either lying through your teeth or very, very
confused. You are making claims that are blatantly false. Either provide
some evidence to support your claims, or stop wittering on. Please.