Nice to see cyclists fighting back.

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 25/09/2013 18:52, John Benn wrote:
"Brian R0bertson" wrote in message
...
On 25/09/2013 00:04, JNugent wrote:
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.

Fair enough. I would be quite happy to see listening to music banned in
cars. Likewise about smoking. And, of course, using a mobile phone
should
be an automatic 12 month ban and £1k fine.

I agree with you. Only this evening on the way back from work, a van
driver
pulled out into my path while I was on a small roundabout. All I could
see
was the right side of his face with a phone clamped against it. As a
matter
of course, I always alert the person on the other end of the phone
connection that the driver is being an idiot by sounding my horn.

I would welcome more severe punishments for drivers blatently flouting
the
law in this way. Hand amputation springs to mind!



Should I start doing the same to cyclists using the phone? some might fall
off in shock I expect.

As cyclists are more vulnerable than drivers, it is especially important
they they don't use a hand-held phone while cycling.

As for hand amputation, I think I may have been going a bit far :-)

On 25/09/2013 08:06, Brian R0bertson wrote:
On 24/09/2013 01:19, JNugent wrote:
On 21/09/2013 13:43, Brian Robertson wrote:

On 21/09/2013 13:41, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...

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.

Answer the question. Would you report a drunk driver or would you not?

Apples and oranges. Try to think of an example of behaviour that is
roughly equivalent to calling someone a ****** on Twitter and I'll
respond.

No, I want to know if you would report someone for drink driving. That
is an issue that effects us all.

Some more than others, eh?

Protecting drunk drivers now, huh?

From themselves.

But you know far more about it than I ever will. Don't you?

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:29:24 +0100, Catrap wrote:

"Peter Keller" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 01:34:59 +0100, Catrap wrote:

"Brian R0bertson" wrote in message
...

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 ****?

Psycholists SOP. When losing an argument, always revert to insults and
foul language.

Pot kettle black.

Once again, your post is making as much sense as any of your other
posts. Do you have a special button on your keyboard that generates
random glib phrases?

Thank you very much for your observations!
Am I getting under your skin?
I have lots of things to put there if you like.

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:25:07 +0100, John Benn wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 25/09/2013 18:52, John Benn wrote:
"Brian R0bertson" wrote in message
...
On 25/09/2013 00:04, JNugent wrote:
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.

Fair enough. I would be quite happy to see listening to music banned
in cars. Likewise about smoking. And, of course, using a mobile phone
should be an automatic 12 month ban and £1k fine.

I agree with you. Only this evening on the way back from work, a van
driver pulled out into my path while I was on a small roundabout. All
I could see was the right side of his face with a phone clamped
against it. As a matter of course, I always alert the person on the
other end of the phone connection that the driver is being an idiot by
sounding my horn.

I would welcome more severe punishments for drivers blatently flouting
the law in this way. Hand amputation springs to mind!



Should I start doing the same to cyclists using the phone? some might
fall off in shock I expect.

As cyclists are more vulnerable than drivers, it is especially important
they they don't use a hand-held phone while cycling.

As for hand amputation, I think I may have been going a bit far :-)

I don't think so.
As the phone is being held against the head I think a head amputation
would be in order.

"Peter Keller" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:29:24 +0100, Catrap wrote:

"Peter Keller" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 01:34:59 +0100, Catrap wrote:

"Brian R0bertson" wrote in message
...

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 ****?

Psycholists SOP. When losing an argument, always revert to insults and
foul language.

Pot kettle black.

Once again, your post is making as much sense as any of your other
posts. Do you have a special button on your keyboard that generates
random glib phrases?

Thank you very much for your observations!
Am I getting under your skin?
I have lots of things to put there if you like.

No, not at all. You can keep posting nonsense for as long as you like.

On Thursday, 26 September 2013 09:59:07 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:

No, not at all. You can keep posting nonsense for as long as you like.

That's what this group is all about.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:42:03 +0100, wrote:

On Thursday, 26 September 2013 09:59:07 UTC+1, Tarcap wrote:

No, not at all. You can keep posting nonsense for as long as you like.

That's what this group is all about.


Sadly so.

--
It's a money /life balance.

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

I would welcome more severe punishments for drivers blatently flouting
the law in this way. Hand amputation springs to mind!

Should I start doing the same to cyclists using the phone?

It's not an offence. Quite rightly so, if the only the basis for doing so
would be parity with drivers without proof of problem. (Even though I like
technology, I make an exception about the ability to hold conversations at a
distance. Even before caller display, I had no trouble ignoring a ring.)

some might fall off in shock I expect.

I expect phone using cyclists often fall off in shock. Pity drivers don't
get that kind of feedback.

On 25/09/2013 22:14, JNugent wrote:
On 25/09/2013 08:06, Brian R0bertson wrote:
On 24/09/2013 01:19, JNugent wrote:
On 21/09/2013 13:43, Brian Robertson wrote:

On 21/09/2013 13:41, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...

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.

Answer the question. Would you report a drunk driver or would you
not?

Apples and oranges. Try to think of an example of behaviour that is
roughly equivalent to calling someone a ****** on Twitter and I'll
respond.

No, I want to know if you would report someone for drink driving. That
is an issue that effects us all.

Some more than others, eh?

Protecting drunk drivers now, huh?

From themselves.

But you know far more about it than I ever will. Don't you?


Why do I know more about it than you?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:59:07 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

"Peter Keller" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:29:24 +0100, Catrap wrote:

"Peter Keller" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 01:34:59 +0100, Catrap wrote:

"Brian R0bertson" wrote in message
...

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 ****?

Psycholists SOP. When losing an argument, always revert to insults and
foul language.

Pot kettle black.

Once again, your post is making as much sense as any of your other
posts. Do you have a special button on your keyboard that generates
random glib phrases?

Thank you very much for your observations!
Am I getting under your skin?
I have lots of things to put there if you like.

No, not at all. You can keep posting nonsense for as long as you like.

Thank you. And you can read it if you like.
It is a free country.
Also for those who love bicycling and use bicycles as a very useful
convenient viable economical means of transport and recreation and
generally having fun in life.