Idiots on the A1

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:44:35 +0100,
I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!..... wrote:


--
In Memoriam

[snip]

To which couplet might be added another of my own composition:

"When cycling down a narrow road
Obstructing my car and heavy load,
Then wisdom should come into play
And make you get out of my way -
For if, alas, my vehicle tyre
Should knock your cycle in the mire
Before it passed over your head,
I would be fined -
But you'd be dead."

Another Mr Toad who believes he should be free to kill people on the
roads. Strange how you aren't brave enough to use your real name.

I guess that doggerel was to replace the lack of an apology for being
wrong about the two-abreast comment?

--
Andy Leighton =
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

I've lost my Marbles!..... wrote:

"When cycling down a narrow road
Obstructing my car and heavy load,
Then wisdom should come into play
And make you get out of my way -
For if, alas, my vehicle tyre
Should knock your cycle in the mire
Before it passed over your head,
I would be fined -
But you'd be dead."

I can just see the caravan carnage across the country this summer as
other vehicles start to take similar action in response to being held up
by caravans. They collapse so easily too with barely a scratch on your
car and I doubt there would even be a fine ;-^)

Tony

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:44:35 +0100 someone who may be "I've lost my
Dhobi Wallah!....." wrote this:-

One might argue that the statutes of courtesy and decency should come into
play in such a situation - but, since cyclists are (generally) entirely
ignorant of such social niceties,

Yawn. Nice try but not worth responding to in detail, especially for
someone who hides behind an "amusing" name.

it would be wiser to suggest to them that
the ancient law of self-preservation should be rigorously applied.

It may well have been precisely that law which they were applying.

See "Cyclecraft" for more details. You are aware of "Cyclecraft" I
take it?

I note that the name of "the law [which] says single file" remains
unspoken. I'm still waiting.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:05:54 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
wrote this:-

I can just see the caravan carnage across the country this summer as
other vehicles start to take similar action in response to being held up
by caravans. They collapse so easily too with barely a scratch on your
car and I doubt there would even be a fine ;-^)

Indeed. "Accidentally" bumping into a caravan with one's lorry
because the caravan owner was daring to drive it along the road and
thus holding real people up would be so amusing.

Note for the stupid - there is an amount of sarcasm in the above
posting.





--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:12:16 +0100 someone who may be "Robert
Peffers." wrote this:-

Reading between your lines, and particularly your second paragraph, I
suspect that if you could have "squeezed past" you would have - even
though
that would have been unsafe. So, IMO the cyclists' are completely
vindicated.

Then it is the opinion of an idiot - the law says single file.

Which law is that then? Feel free to post chapter and verse, so we
may check the veracity of your assertion. If you cannot do so then
we may laugh at you.

Some of us already are. If mocking the afflicted is no longer pc, is it ok
to laugh at them?

"Artleknock" wrote
I joined a long
tail back of traffic.The idiots were all the holiday makers heading home
from up north.

(Some snips)

Mike Sales

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:44:35 +0100 someone who may be "I've lost my
Dhobi Wallah!....." wrote this:-

One might argue that the statutes of courtesy and decency should come into
play in such a situation - but, since cyclists are (generally) entirely
ignorant of such social niceties,

Yawn. Nice try but not worth responding to in detail, especially for
someone who hides behind an "amusing" name.

it would be wiser to suggest to them that
the ancient law of self-preservation should be rigorously applied.

It may well have been precisely that law which they were applying.

See "Cyclecraft" for more details. You are aware of "Cyclecraft" I
take it?

I note that the name of "the law [which] says single file" remains
unspoken. I'm still waiting.

Fae whit be ye waiting, Mae bonny wee cyclisting mannie? - fae maeself tae
show you the law?

As it wisna maeself who cited the legislation (it was, in fact, another
feral Scottish creature named 'peffers') Ah cannae obglie ye - an' maw
content maeself wie simply repeating mae advice tae keep well away frae yon
motorised vehciles lest ye be the cause o' delay tae a driver as he collides
w' ye as ye wobble along, and is obliged tae stop and check his car fae
paintwork damage.

Ye ken fine it makes sense.

"Andy Leighton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:44:35 +0100,
I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!..... wrote:


To which couplet might be added another of my own composition:

"When cycling down a narrow road
Obstructing my car and heavy load,
Then wisdom should come into play
And make you get out of my way -
For if, alas, my vehicle tyre
Should knock your cycle in the mire
Before it passed over your head,
I would be fined -
But you'd be dead."

Another Mr Toad who believes he should be free to kill people on the
roads. Strange how you aren't brave enough to use your real name.

Poop-Poop!......


I guess that doggerel was to replace the lack of an apology for being
wrong about the two-abreast comment?



Nope, the doggerel was intended to demonstrate how incredibly witty and
talented I am.

Apologies I leave to others, particularly as I didn't make the claim about
single-file cycling.

As far as I'm concerned, cycling needs to be banned PDQ - especially those
bloody silly three wheel things that the real cycle-nerds lie down in!! I
howl with laughter every time I encounter one of *those* (which, mercifully,
isn't very often) The riders (or should it be Drivers?) of these absurd
machines always appear inordinately proud of their stupidity - apparently
not realising that they are candidates for a section under the metal health
act!

"I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!....." wrote in
message ...


--
In Memoriam

http://www.drypool.net/cgi-bin/system.pl?id=nfflist
"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:12:16 +0100 someone who may be "Robert
Peffers." wrote this:-

Reading between your lines, and particularly your second paragraph, I
suspect that if you could have "squeezed past" you would have - even
though
that would have been unsafe. So, IMO the cyclists' are completely
vindicated.

Then it is the opinion of an idiot - the law says single file.

Which law is that then?.........

One might argue that the statutes of courtesy and decency should come into
play in such a situation - but, since cyclists are (generally) entirely
ignorant of such social niceties, it would be wiser to suggest to them
that the ancient law of self-preservation should be rigorously applied.

You will doubtless have heard of Mike O'Day -

"Here is the grave of Mike O'Day
Who died defending his right of way.
His right was clear, his will was strong -
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong"

To which couplet might be added another of my own composition:

"When cycling down a narrow road
Obstructing my car and heavy load,
Then wisdom should come into play
And make you get out of my way -
For if, alas, my vehicle tyre
Should knock your cycle in the mire
Before it passed over your head,
I would be fined -
But you'd be dead."


Does the same attitude apply to lorry drivers who get held up by the queues
of cars on motorways at peak times?

On 16 Aug, 16:15, marc wrote:
Robert Peffers. wrote:
"Geoff Lane" wrote in message
.. .
"I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!....." wrote in
:

I crawled along behind two cyclists on a narrow Devon lane recently.
They were the epitome of 'smug' - dressed in bloody silly lycra
costumes with daft pointed pixie helmets and wrap-around sunglasses
as they slowly rode two abreast up a hill, preventing anything from
passing them.
The emanations of self-righteous 'greenness' coming from these two
gaily coloured carnival performers was almost overpowering! - and if
someone finally lost their temper and drove over them and their bloody
bicycles it would be hard to condemn them for their actions.
As a motorist, caravanner, and cyclist:

I suspect that they were just protecting themselves from unsafe motorists
and you from yourself. This was a _narrow_ lane (your assertion), where I
suspect that defensive positioning is warranted. You need road width of at
least the width of your vehicle plus 1.6m (600mm for the cyclist's
handlebars + 1m safety clearance) to pass a cyclist in safety - and that's
if the cyclist is riding "in the gutter". If the cyclist is riding
correctly in the secondary riding position (approximately where your
nearside wheels would track), you're going to need a much wider road.
Also,
it's dangerous to overtake approaching the brow of a hill.

Reading between your lines, and particularly your second paragraph, I
suspect that if you could have "squeezed past" you would have - even
though
that would have been unsafe. So, IMO the cyclists' are completely
vindicated.

--
Geoff
Then it is the opinion of an idiot - the law says single file.
Of course you would not know that as cyclists do not pass driving tests -
and it shows.

Which law is that, asking as a cyclist who has passed his driving
test,three times.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Three tests? have you been banned twice?