Another attack on a cyclist

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:16:17 +0100, Brian Robertson wrote:

snip


Well I don't really cycle much these days (unfortunately) so maybe I
just support the under dog against bullies.


Have you been banned for being ****ed? Or am I confusing things with a
different form of transport?

In article ,
Judith wrote:

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:16:17 +0100, Brian Robertson wrote:

snip


Well I don't really cycle much these days (unfortunately) so maybe I
just support the under dog against bullies.


Have you been banned for being ****ed? Or am I confusing things with a
different form of transport?

No, Jim, you haven't been confused. Cyclists can't be 'banned' from
cycling on the public highway, because they use it as a matter of right,
whereas motorists use it as a matter of privilege. Hope this helps.

"Andy Watson" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Judith wrote:

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:16:17 +0100, Brian Robertson
wrote:

snip


Well I don't really cycle much these days (unfortunately) so maybe I
just support the under dog against bullies.


Have you been banned for being ****ed? Or am I confusing things with a
different form of transport?

No, Jim, you haven't been confused. Cyclists can't be 'banned' from
cycling on the public highway, because they use it as a matter of right,
whereas motorists use it as a matter of privilege. Hope this helps.

I think that qualifies as yet another massive WHOOOOSH!

In article ,
"Partac" wrote:

I think

There's your mistake, right there.

On 20/08/2013 12:51, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:16:17 +0100, Brian Robertson wrote:

snip


Well I don't really cycle much these days (unfortunately) so maybe I
just support the under dog against bullies.


Have you been banned for being ****ed? Or am I confusing things with a
different form of transport?


Have I been banned from what, Jimdeth?

On 20/08/2013 22:33, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,
Judith wrote:

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:16:17 +0100, Brian Robertson wrote:

snip


Well I don't really cycle much these days (unfortunately) so maybe I
just support the under dog against bullies.


Have you been banned for being ****ed? Or am I confusing things with a
different form of transport?

No, Jim, you haven't been confused. Cyclists can't be 'banned' from
cycling on the public highway, because they use it as a matter of right,
whereas motorists use it as a matter of privilege. Hope this helps.


Personally I have always thought that riding a bike is closer to being a
pedestrian, so we should be treated accordingly as vulnerable road users
and everything SHOULD be stacked in our favour.

Until some little dick decided to ride down a pavement at 20 mph and
bowls someone over, at which point he/she should feel the full force of
the law. I ride on pavements a lot, but only at speeds where I can stop
on a sixpence. And when pedestrians apologise and move out of my way -
as they often do - I always thank them and reply that they have no
reason to apologise for me and that they have more right to be there
than me. Same goes for dogs who often present a bit of a hazard. I
always slow right down or even stop while a dog passes and assure the
owner that it is absolutely no inconvenience to put a dog first in the
pecking order. In fact I still do the same thing on dedicated cycle
paths or bridleways. I find that kind of consideration encourages
sensible and friendly shared use of the road and pavements.

"Andy Watson" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Partac" wrote:

I think

There's your mistake, right there.

Still a massive WHOOOSH, no matter how you try to cover it up!

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:37:30 +0100, Brian Robertson
wrote:

On 20/08/2013 22:33, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,
Judith wrote:

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:16:17 +0100, Brian Robertson wrote:

snip


Well I don't really cycle much these days (unfortunately) so maybe I
just support the under dog against bullies.


Have you been banned for being ****ed? Or am I confusing things with a
different form of transport?

No, Jim, you haven't been confused. Cyclists can't be 'banned' from
cycling on the public highway, because they use it as a matter of right,
whereas motorists use it as a matter of privilege. Hope this helps.


Personally I have always thought that riding a bike is closer to being a
pedestrian, so we should be treated accordingly as vulnerable road users
and everything SHOULD be stacked in our favour.

Until some little dick decided to ride down a pavement at 20 mph and
bowls someone over, at which point he/she should feel the full force of
the law. I ride on pavements a lot, but only at speeds where I can stop
on a sixpence. And when pedestrians apologise and move out of my way -
as they often do - I always thank them and reply that they have no
reason to apologise for me and that they have more right to be there
than me. Same goes for dogs who often present a bit of a hazard. I
always slow right down or even stop while a dog passes and assure the
owner that it is absolutely no inconvenience to put a dog first in the
pecking order. In fact I still do the same thing on dedicated cycle
paths or bridleways. I find that kind of consideration encourages
sensible and friendly shared use of the road and pavements.

Yesterday, while driving, I came across two idiots on bicycles.

#1 Cycling on the pavement, and crossed the road at the junction
immediately ahead of me. But as I always give was to pavement users at
road junctions this wasn't a particular problem for me, but I can see
how the cyclist's use of the pavement may irritate some pavement
users, and the road is far quicker, and probably safer, place to
cycle.

#2 Cycling at night, no lights, and on the wrong side of the road.

On 21/08/2013 10:14, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:37:30 +0100, Brian Robertson
wrote:

On 20/08/2013 22:33, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,
Judith wrote:

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:16:17 +0100, Brian Robertson wrote:

snip


Well I don't really cycle much these days (unfortunately) so maybe I
just support the under dog against bullies.


Have you been banned for being ****ed? Or am I confusing things with a
different form of transport?

No, Jim, you haven't been confused. Cyclists can't be 'banned' from
cycling on the public highway, because they use it as a matter of right,
whereas motorists use it as a matter of privilege. Hope this helps.


Personally I have always thought that riding a bike is closer to being a
pedestrian, so we should be treated accordingly as vulnerable road users
and everything SHOULD be stacked in our favour.

Until some little dick decided to ride down a pavement at 20 mph and
bowls someone over, at which point he/she should feel the full force of
the law. I ride on pavements a lot, but only at speeds where I can stop
on a sixpence. And when pedestrians apologise and move out of my way -
as they often do - I always thank them and reply that they have no
reason to apologise for me and that they have more right to be there
than me. Same goes for dogs who often present a bit of a hazard. I
always slow right down or even stop while a dog passes and assure the
owner that it is absolutely no inconvenience to put a dog first in the
pecking order. In fact I still do the same thing on dedicated cycle
paths or bridleways. I find that kind of consideration encourages
sensible and friendly shared use of the road and pavements.

Yesterday, while driving, I came across two idiots on bicycles.

#1 Cycling on the pavement, and crossed the road at the junction
immediately ahead of me. But as I always give was to pavement users at
road junctions this wasn't a particular problem for me, but I can see
how the cyclist's use of the pavement may irritate some pavement
users, and the road is far quicker, and probably safer, place to
cycle.

#2 Cycling at night, no lights, and on the wrong side of the road.


Yes, but shared pavements - often badly signed - have tended to confuse
the issue slightly. I can think of one such pavement in Manchester that
I would never consider suitable for sharing, but shared it is. So
cyclists see themselves pushed into such places and wonder what is the
difference in using any pavement? I can also think of several places
where - with care and consideration to others - I am considerably safer
on the pavement.

Incidentally, the most regular offender I can think of for cycling on
pavements and in a pedestrianised area is the beat bobby who covers
Stockport precinct in Greater Manchester. Can't wait to catch him on my
camera phone one day. He is SO getting reported.

I would never dream of cycling on the wrong side of the road. Such
behaviour is similar to that displayed by young w*ankers in their chav
cars. You can't change human nature.

As for cycling without lights, I have been guilty a couple of times in
the last month because my back light - either through theft or just
falling off - is no longer in company with my bike. That's no excuse
though and I shall be paying a visit to Argos today to get a new one.

Brian.

On Wednesday, 21 August 2013 11:09:21 UTC+1, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 21/08/2013 10:14, Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:37:30 +0100, Brian Robertson

wrote:



On 20/08/2013 22:33, Andy Watson wrote:

In article ,

Judith wrote:



On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:16:17 +0100, Brian Robertson wrote:



snip





Well I don't really cycle much these days (unfortunately) so maybe I

just support the under dog against bullies.





Have you been banned for being ****ed? Or am I confusing things with a

different form of transport?



No, Jim, you haven't been confused. Cyclists can't be 'banned' from

cycling on the public highway, because they use it as a matter of right,

whereas motorists use it as a matter of privilege. Hope this helps.





Personally I have always thought that riding a bike is closer to being a

pedestrian, so we should be treated accordingly as vulnerable road users

and everything SHOULD be stacked in our favour.



Until some little dick decided to ride down a pavement at 20 mph and

bowls someone over, at which point he/she should feel the full force of

the law. I ride on pavements a lot, but only at speeds where I can stop

on a sixpence. And when pedestrians apologise and move out of my way -

as they often do - I always thank them and reply that they have no

reason to apologise for me and that they have more right to be there

than me. Same goes for dogs who often present a bit of a hazard. I

always slow right down or even stop while a dog passes and assure the

owner that it is absolutely no inconvenience to put a dog first in the

pecking order. In fact I still do the same thing on dedicated cycle

paths or bridleways. I find that kind of consideration encourages

sensible and friendly shared use of the road and pavements.



Yesterday, while driving, I came across two idiots on bicycles.



#1 Cycling on the pavement, and crossed the road at the junction

immediately ahead of me. But as I always give was to pavement users at

road junctions this wasn't a particular problem for me, but I can see

how the cyclist's use of the pavement may irritate some pavement

users, and the road is far quicker, and probably safer, place to

cycle.



#2 Cycling at night, no lights, and on the wrong side of the road.





Yes, but shared pavements - often badly signed - have tended to confuse

the issue slightly. I can think of one such pavement in Manchester that

I would never consider suitable for sharing, but shared it is. So

cyclists see themselves pushed into such places and wonder what is the

difference in using any pavement? I can also think of several places

where - with care and consideration to others - I am considerably safer

on the pavement.



Incidentally, the most regular offender I can think of for cycling on

pavements and in a pedestrianised area is the beat bobby who covers

Stockport precinct in Greater Manchester. Can't wait to catch him on my

camera phone one day. He is SO getting reported.



I would never dream of cycling on the wrong side of the road. Such

behaviour is similar to that displayed by young w*ankers in their chav

cars. You can't change human nature.



As for cycling without lights, I have been guilty a couple of times in

the last month because my back light - either through theft or just

falling off - is no longer in company with my bike. That's no excuse

though and I shall be paying a visit to Argos today to get a new one.



How about keeping your travels to daylight hours, in line with nature?