Nice to see cyclists fighting back.

On 22/09/2013 02:48, Phil W Lee wrote:

So you've noticed that the most popular places for shopping are those
that ban motor vehicles entirely.
So much so that the shop owners are willing to pay a large premium for
a position there.
A few town and city centres are discovering that the same approach
works in the high street - stick car parks around the edge and keep
them out of the middle, and all the shoppers come back.

But that's not on Planet Earth, is it?

On 23/09/2013 20:54, Phil W Lee wrote:


The overwhelming majority of shopping precincts and malls do not
provide free car parking (at least this side of the Atlantic).

Just how wrong is it possible for you to be?

Of course, you'll wriggle and claim that any old parade of suburban
shops near a railways station is a "shopping mall".

On 21/09/2013 13:32, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/09/2013 13:24, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...

A comparison would be "would I report someone for calling me a
****** in
the street?". And the answer is no.

Would you report a drunk driver? Answer the question. You have already
stated that you would not report a coach driver who was committing a
serious - and possibly imprisonable - offence, so how would you feel
about someone who you knew to be drunk getting behind the wheel of a
car?

Would I report a rape? Would I report a murder??

Whether I would or not is entirely irrelevant to this issue, which is
about cyclists snivelling to the Police when a driver drives a bit too
close to them or calls them a ****** on Twitter. Apples and oranges.

These are very minor "crimes", if indeed any crime has been committed.
Therefore we must logically assume that cyclists film and report their
friends and neighbours for other petty alleged crimes like leaving their
bin on the pavement on the wrong day, or using a hosepipe during a ban.
There's nothing to convince me that a cyclist wearing a ****-cam to
catch other people's transgressions while he's cycling, doesn't have the
same mentality during the rest of his day. Sad, petty losers whose only
joy is to make trouble for other people. And trainspotting.

PS Funny how you still think you have got one over on me by calling me a
train spotter. I have boxes and bookshelves full of books about trains.
I'm hardly likely to take the term as an insult.

That's good.

But most people *would* take it as put-down, if not an actual insult.

Cf: "anorak".

On 21/09/2013 16:27, Terence Appleby wrote:
On 21/09/2013 16:23, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Roberts0n" wrote in message
...

No point. You would get away with it on the grounds of diminished
responsibility.

No, I would get away with it on the grounds that you are a cowardly
little **** who hides behind a screen name.

Exactly the same as you, then, except he doesn't gob off at people and
threaten them. If I posted as "Tarquin Appleby", does that mean my real
name is Tarquin Appleby?

Your real name could be Terence Appleby for all anyone knows.

You're the only one round here who keeps changing his username, that's
about the fourth time. What are you trying to hide from, coward?

Just for you, I will call myself Terence Appleby then.

chuckle

So THAT'S where that name came from all of a sudden...

"JNugent" wrote in message ...

On 23/09/2013 20:54, Phil W Lee wrote:


The overwhelming majority of shopping precincts and malls do not
provide free car parking (at least this side of the Atlantic).

Just how wrong is it possible for you to be?

Of course, you'll wriggle and claim that any old parade of suburban
shops near a railways station is a "shopping mall".

Yes, but he doesn't realise that even if he were right, which he's not -
that would actually strengthen the case.
Imagine, paying for parking but STILL preferring the out of town centre with
ample spaces to the dying high street where you have to struggle to park at
all.
I'm sure he never thinks through what he's saying.

"JNugent" wrote in message ...

On 21/09/2013 12:01, brianrob1961 wrote:


A tiny, tiny, vocal group of morons does not make a majority.

Correct.

And that is one more reason by the ever more shrill demands of (some)
cyclists should be resisted.

Hold on, if you go round saying things like that, they'll all be on here
calling you a killer, motorscum or just using foul language at you.

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 13:24:31 +0100, Brian Robertson
wrote:

On 21/09/2013 13:17, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...
On 21/09/2013 13:09, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...


I hope the extra cost of a reinforced frame is coming out of your
pocket.

As I have tried oh so patiently to explain to you on more than one
occasion, the majority of my travel needs are met by my bike.

Please don't make me look for the post where you admitted that you
"hardly cycle any more".

Compared to when I was doing 200 miles a week for leisure, I hardly
cycle any more.

Riggghhhhtt..

You really are a thick ****, aren't you. I was reading a few months ago
about a group of drivers from Virgin trains who set off from Manchester
at 5am to London on a charity ride and caught a train back the same day
at about 22.00. 200 miles in a week is challenging, but easy to achieve
for most moderately fit cyclist. A lot of cyclists can do 100 miles in a
morning.

This is preposterous. After a hearty breakfast and ensuring panniers are
properly loaded one should reckon on a 10am start. Pausing only for a
modest 2 hour luncheon at noon, one will need to arrive at ones
destination by 5pm for tea. One must also make allowances for any pubs one
encounters 'en route'. So I suggest that at an average 15mph, one can
travel 65 miles in a day. This will allow a trip between London and
Cambridge. (Obviously your man-servant will have to bring the motor and
punt).

Less of the expletives please.

--
It's a money /life balance.

On 24/09/2013 14:17, Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 13:24:31 +0100, Brian Robertson
wrote:

On 21/09/2013 13:17, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...
On 21/09/2013 13:09, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...


I hope the extra cost of a reinforced frame is coming out of your
pocket.

As I have tried oh so patiently to explain to you on more than one
occasion, the majority of my travel needs are met by my bike.

Please don't make me look for the post where you admitted that you
"hardly cycle any more".

Compared to when I was doing 200 miles a week for leisure, I hardly
cycle any more.

Riggghhhhtt..

You really are a thick ****, aren't you. I was reading a few months
ago about a group of drivers from Virgin trains who set off from
Manchester at 5am to London on a charity ride and caught a train back
the same day at about 22.00. 200 miles in a week is challenging, but
easy to achieve for most moderately fit cyclist. A lot of cyclists can
do 100 miles in a morning.

This is preposterous. After a hearty breakfast and ensuring panniers are
properly loaded one should reckon on a 10am start. Pausing only for a
modest 2 hour luncheon at noon, one will need to arrive at ones
destination by 5pm for tea. One must also make allowances for any pubs
one encounters 'en route'. So I suggest that at an average 15mph, one
can travel 65 miles in a day. This will allow a trip between London and
Cambridge. (Obviously your man-servant will have to bring the motor and
punt).

Less of the expletives please.


So I can't tell you to go **** yourself, you pompous little ****?

On 24/09/2013 01:22, JNugent wrote:
On 21/09/2013 13:46, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/09/2013 13:42, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
news
I rather suspected that you were the type to put your hands over your
ears and go "la-la".
This confirms it.

As distinct from motorists who do the equivalent while they are
driving.

I've never seen a driver driving with his or her hands over their ears.
Do you have an example that would support your claim?

Sorry, my mistake. Driving in a sealed tin box with music playing and a
blue tooth ear piece shoved in yer lug hole (while listening to
instructions from a satnav) obviously doesn't reduce your ability to
hear what is going on around you.

If it did, it wouldn't matter anything like as much as you seem to think.

Since it is perfectly permissible and lawful to drive even if profoundly
deaf, being able to hear "what is going on around you" cannot possibly
be a legal requirement. And neither should it be one.


Had I said the same thing about deaf cyclist you would have had a
contrary opinion, no doubt.

On 24/09/2013 23:47, Brian R0bertson wrote:

On 24/09/2013 01:22, JNugent wrote:
On 21/09/2013 13:46, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/09/2013 13:42, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
"Brian Robertson" wrote:

I rather suspected that you were the type to put your hands over your
ears and go "la-la".
This confirms it.

As distinct from motorists who do the equivalent while they are
driving.

I've never seen a driver driving with his or her hands over their ears.
Do you have an example that would support your claim?

Sorry, my mistake. Driving in a sealed tin box with music playing and a
blue tooth ear piece shoved in yer lug hole (while listening to
instructions from a satnav) obviously doesn't reduce your ability to
hear what is going on around you.

If it did, it wouldn't matter anything like as much as you seem to think.
Since it is perfectly permissible and lawful to drive even if profoundly
deaf, being able to hear "what is going on around you" cannot possibly
be a legal requirement. And neither should it be one.

Had I said the same thing about deaf cyclist you would have had a
contrary opinion, no doubt.

The same thing applies to drivers and riders. There is no requirement to
be able to hear anything.

The reason why loud music is a problem is not that it drowns out traffic
noise, but that for some drivers and riders, it creates a psychological,
and perhaps a physiological, elation effect and may cause them to be
reckless or careless.