|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
You really couldn't make it up...
|
Ads |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
You really couldn't make it up...
On Saturday, 20 July 2013 11:11:05 UTC+1, Mrcheerful wrote:
It is far easier and safer for almost anyone to negotiate a relatively smooth stationary vehicle parked partly or even wholly on a pavement, than it is to negotiate an obscenity screaming, slobbering, smelly oaf on a moving bike (with lots of sticky out bits) that may approach from any direction . Jim, if my post pointing out the dangers of pavement parking to blind people is "hysteria", then what is this? |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
You really couldn't make it up...
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
You really couldn't make it up...
On Saturday, 20 July 2013 08:22:34 UTC+1, wrote:
On Saturday, 20 July 2013 00:59:35 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: It would be difficult to attribute *any* harm at all to cars parked on, or partly on, the footway, with the possible (and oft-cited) cracking of flagstones (do many places still use flagstones? There are certainly none hereabouts). So you're not concerned about blind people, parents with buggies etc? Flagstones are a disappearing aspect of the urban landscape simply because irresponsible drivers break them, imposing costs on the local authority. Small cars do not break correctly laid flagstones, ever. The damage is frequently due to wagons with high axle weights and the flagstones frequently are laid incorrectly on a soft substrate. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
You really couldn't make it up...
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote It is far easier and safer for almost anyone to negotiate a relatively smooth stationary vehicle parked partly or even wholly on a pavement, than it is to negotiate an obscenity screaming, slobbering, smelly oaf on a moving bike (with lots of sticky out bits) that may approach from any direction . Here's a tip. Reduce the number of bottles you buy in your weekly shop. You would be able to walk in a straighter line and the cyclist will be able to find a way round you more easily. It's even possible that you stop imagining things. Tell that to all the OAPs that suffer broken hips and worse when they are hit by these bicycle weapons. There is a far greater threat when walking anywhere. Motor vehicles. Thanks to JNugent:- That does *not* mean that I condone or recommend cyclists from ignoring traffic regulations, merely that I point out that there is little harm which actually flows from it in reality, even if there is plenty in the weird imaginations of some. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
You really couldn't make it up...
On 20/07/2013 17:06, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote It is far easier and safer for almost anyone to negotiate a relatively smooth stationary vehicle parked partly or even wholly on a pavement, than it is to negotiate an obscenity screaming, slobbering, smelly oaf on a moving bike (with lots of sticky out bits) that may approach from any direction . Here's a tip. Reduce the number of bottles you buy in your weekly shop. You would be able to walk in a straighter line and the cyclist will be able to find a way round you more easily. It's even possible that you stop imagining things. Tell that to all the OAPs that suffer broken hips and worse when they are hit by these bicycle weapons. There is a far greater threat when walking anywhere. Motor vehicles. Thanks to JNugent:- That does *not* mean that I condone or recommend cyclists from ignoring traffic regulations, merely that I point out that there is little harm which actually flows from it in reality, even if there is plenty in the weird imaginations of some. That's a silly forgery. A stationary car can do no harm to anyone (unless it's on top of them). The same cannot be said of a bicycle moving along a footway. The only way that a parked car (by which I mean one parked anywhere, not just on a footway) can disbenfit someone is via the denial for other uses of the space it occupies. True, that denial can be egregious (just think of a fire-engine unable to negotiate a narrow street, or a pedestrian forced to step out onto a carriageway with fast-moving traffic on it) but it doesn't cause those dangers itself. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
You really couldn't make it up...
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 20/07/2013 17:06, TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote in message ... TMS320 wrote: "Mrcheerful" wrote It is far easier and safer for almost anyone to negotiate a relatively smooth stationary vehicle parked partly or even wholly on a pavement, than it is to negotiate an obscenity screaming, slobbering, smelly oaf on a moving bike (with lots of sticky out bits) that may approach from any direction . Here's a tip. Reduce the number of bottles you buy in your weekly shop. You would be able to walk in a straighter line and the cyclist will be able to find a way round you more easily. It's even possible that you stop imagining things. Tell that to all the OAPs that suffer broken hips and worse when they are hit by these bicycle weapons. There is a far greater threat when walking anywhere. Motor vehicles. Thanks to JNugent:- That does *not* mean that I condone or recommend cyclists from ignoring traffic regulations, merely that I point out that there is little harm which actually flows from it in reality, even if there is plenty in the weird imaginations of some. That's a silly forgery. At least I gave you the credit. A stationary car can do no harm to anyone (unless it's on top of them). I didn't say "stationary motor vehicles represent the far greater threat to pedestrians". I said that "motor vehicles represent the far greater threat to pedestrians". Is there a factual error? |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
You really couldn't make it up...
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 13:45:27 +0100, Judith
wrote: On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 10:18:47 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: snip Guidance he https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...e-pavement.pdf Ah yes : "Guidance". Not mandatory then. Indeed. You are clever to have spotted that: most people would have interpreted "guidance" as "legal requirement" and completely misunderstood. (Was that another Pavlovian response?) |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
You really couldn't make it up...
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 13:53:54 +0100, JNugent
wrote: On 20/07/2013 13:46, wrote: On Saturday, 20 July 2013 11:55:46 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: It would be difficult to attribute *any* harm at all to cars parked on, or partly on, the footway, though it's easy enough to react with hysteria, as you are doing. Concern for others isn't one of your strong points, is it. Here's a deal if you want it: don't be such a drama queen, and I won't (have to) point out that you're a drama queen. There are many reasons why flagstones are disappearing, but parking on them is not one of them. Actually, it is. You missed out a "not" in there. Flagstones are disappearing because of their cost compared with asphalt. Flagstones last considerably longer than tarmac, if not destroyed by footway parking, and would therefore be considerably cheaper if it were not for the thoughtless and selfish behaviour of a minority of motorists. http://goo.gl/maps/LyVaE |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
You couldn't make it up! | Squashme | UK | 44 | January 15th 13 06:38 PM |
You couldn't make it up! | Squashme | UK | 13 | August 27th 11 10:29 AM |
You couldn't make it up | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 0 | August 15th 11 01:04 PM |
You couldn't make it up! | Brian Robertson | UK | 274 | May 18th 09 12:54 AM |
You Couldn't Make it Up | Sam Salt | UK | 4 | October 14th 05 09:35 PM |