Disabled cycling at the Olympics but not on railway platforms wherewheelchairs are allowed.

Doug wrote:
On 19 Sep, 09:54, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 18 Sep, 11:14, francis wrote:
On Sep 18, 6:25 am, Doug wrote:
On 17 Sep, 09:11, "Brimstone"
wrote: Doug wrote:
On 15 Sep, 08:45, "Brimstone"
wrote:
Because bicycles are unstable *and a danger to other people*
Doug.
Tricycles are also banned but they are stable. Mobility buggies
are also a danger to other people but they are allowed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/23/3
"An 84-year-old woman has died after being knocked over by a
hit-and- run rider on a mobility scooter. Barbara French suffered
a broken hip when she was hit crossing a road in Sunderland."
Goalpost swerving noted Doug.
Don't try and wriggle out of it. The buggy is a dangerous vehicle
which can kill and which is allowed on pavements. Not only that but
cars on pavements are much more dangerous than bicycles and kill far
more people there than cyclists do.
So you admit to using a dangerous vehicle, why have you changed your
mind about dangerous vehicles?
I haven't. If I were to hit a pedestrian with a dangerous vehicle I
would consider myself automatically to blame.
What an empty meaningless comment, since you claim not to drive such a
vehicle. But what about if you hit someone whilst on your bicycle or in your
mobility buggy Doug, would take the blame upon yourself then?



There can be little doubt that disabled cyclists are discriminated
against. In the fullness of time no doubt this form of
discrimination will become recognised, as others have, but until
then the disabled will continue to suffer and be demonised by
people like you and the other motorists on this cycling newsgroup.
Disabled people are not demonised by anyone on this group Doug. As
usual, you only want to look at a situation from your own point of
view and stuff everyone else.
You and they are opposed to disabled cyclists enjoying the same
benefits as wheelchair users and you claim that those cyclists are
unstable and a danger to other people. Clear discrimination on your
part.
Yes you are correct, this is discrimination against cyclists using
footways & railway platforms.
Thank you.
I also don't think that cyclists should you motorways, I think that
motorists should not use railway lines, I think aircraft should be
banned from the A24,.
Hitlerian motorways should never have been built in the first place.
What is a "Hitlerian motorway" Doug and how does it differ from those we
have in the UK?

It doesn't differ. Such motorways are allowed to discriminate against
certain road users.

Are you saying that motorways should allow horse riding?

They have encouraged traffic proliferation with consequent pollution
and congestion. Agreed railway lines should be for trains only. Most
aircraft should be banned anyway because they cause serious pollution
and noise.
How did you travel to North Africa for your two-stroke motorcycle ride
across the Sahara Doug?

I didn't ride across the Sahara.
The general aim should be to minimise over-consumption of resources
and that includes travel.
So when are you going to stop insisting on imported food Doug?

When it can be grown here with a lower carbon footprint than imported.
Looks like it will be a long wait though, particularly as we have been
importing food for hundreds of years.

Of course, you eat imported food which you collect with your car,
don't you Brim. See what I mean about you criticising me from your
moral low-ground position?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Cars are the main contributor to food miles at 48%.

Can you tell us Doug, what is the country or origin of food you eat, for
instance, lettuce, tomatoes, onions, cabbage, etc

--

Tony Dragon

Doug wrote:
On 19 Sep, 09:54, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 18 Sep, 11:14, francis wrote:
On Sep 18, 6:25 am, Doug wrote:

On 17 Sep, 09:11, "Brimstone"
wrote: Doug wrote:
On 15 Sep, 08:45, "Brimstone"
wrote:
Because bicycles are unstable *and a danger to other people*
Doug.

Tricycles are also banned but they are stable. Mobility buggies
are also a danger to other people but they are allowed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/23/3

"An 84-year-old woman has died after being knocked over by a
hit-and- run rider on a mobility scooter. Barbara French
suffered a broken hip when she was hit crossing a road in
Sunderland."

Goalpost swerving noted Doug.

Don't try and wriggle out of it. The buggy is a dangerous vehicle
which can kill and which is allowed on pavements. Not only that
but cars on pavements are much more dangerous than bicycles and
kill far more people there than cyclists do.

So you admit to using a dangerous vehicle, why have you changed
your mind about dangerous vehicles?

I haven't. If I were to hit a pedestrian with a dangerous vehicle I
would consider myself automatically to blame.

What an empty meaningless comment, since you claim not to drive such
a vehicle. But what about if you hit someone whilst on your bicycle
or in your mobility buggy Doug, would take the blame upon yourself
then?


Did you miss this bit deliberately Doug?

There can be little doubt that disabled cyclists are
discriminated against. In the fullness of time no doubt this
form of discrimination will become recognised, as others have,
but until then the disabled will continue to suffer and be
demonised by people like you and the other motorists on this
cycling newsgroup.

Disabled people are not demonised by anyone on this group Doug.
As usual, you only want to look at a situation from your own
point of view and stuff everyone else.

You and they are opposed to disabled cyclists enjoying the same
benefits as wheelchair users and you claim that those cyclists are
unstable and a danger to other people. Clear discrimination on
your part.

Yes you are correct, this is discrimination against cyclists using
footways & railway platforms.

Thank you.

I also don't think that cyclists should you motorways, I think that
motorists should not use railway lines, I think aircraft should be
banned from the A24,.

Hitlerian motorways should never have been built in the first place.

What is a "Hitlerian motorway" Doug and how does it differ from
those we have in the UK?

It doesn't differ. Such motorways are allowed to discriminate against
certain road users.

Just in case you hadn't noticed, motorways are special roads built for a
specific class of road user, namely motor vehicles. Hence they're called
motorways. Why don't you understand that Doug?

They have encouraged traffic proliferation with consequent pollution
and congestion. Agreed railway lines should be for trains only. Most
aircraft should be banned anyway because they cause serious
pollution and noise.

How did you travel to North Africa for your two-stroke motorcycle
ride across the Sahara Doug?

I didn't ride across the Sahara.

Perhaps not all the way across, but are you denying that you rode around the
Sahara at all?

The general aim should be to minimise over-consumption of resources
and that includes travel.

So when are you going to stop insisting on imported food Doug?

When it can be grown here with a lower carbon footprint than imported.

We can, it's only people like you with faddy diets who insist on using
imported food. Why aren't you growing your own if you feel so strongly about
reducing carbon emmisions.

Looks like it will be a long wait though, particularly as we have been
importing food for hundreds of years.

What foods have we been importing for that long Doug?

Of course, you eat imported food which you collect with your car,
don't you Brim.

No.

See what I mean about you criticising me from your
moral low-ground position?

I have a higher moral ground than you Doug. It's not me that trying to tell
everyone else how to live their lives, unlike you. When you stop telling
other people how to behave then everyone else will stop commenting on your
behaviour.

Doug wrote in
:

Of course, you eat imported food which you collect with your car,
don't you Brim. See what I mean about you criticising me from your
moral low-ground position?

Where do you get your food from? Do you grow it all yourself?

Mr. Benn wrote:
Doug wrote in
:

Of course, you eat imported food which you collect with your car,
don't you Brim. See what I mean about you criticising me from your
moral low-ground position?

Where do you get your food from? Do you grow it all yourself?

I'm sure Doug would like to be able to emulate this lady, but ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...rgy-bills.html

Brimstone wrote:
Mr. Benn wrote:
Doug wrote in
:

Of course, you eat imported food which you collect with your car,
don't you Brim. See what I mean about you criticising me from your
moral low-ground position?
Where do you get your food from? Do you grow it all yourself?

I'm sure Doug would like to be able to emulate this lady, but ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...rgy-bills.html



Was there not a discussion about her in uk.transport a couple of years ago?

--

Tony Dragon

Tony Dragon wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Mr. Benn wrote:
Doug wrote in
:

Of course, you eat imported food which you collect with your car,
don't you Brim. See what I mean about you criticising me from your
moral low-ground position?
Where do you get your food from? Do you grow it all yourself?

I'm sure Doug would like to be able to emulate this lady, but ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...rgy-bills.html

Was there not a discussion about her in uk.transport a couple of
years ago?

It's entirely possible.

On 20 Sep, 09:02, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 19 Sep, 09:54, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 18 Sep, 11:14, francis wrote:
On Sep 18, 6:25 am, Doug wrote:
On 17 Sep, 09:11, "Brimstone"
wrote: Doug wrote:
On 15 Sep, 08:45, "Brimstone"
wrote:
Because bicycles are unstable *and a danger to other people*
Doug.
Tricycles are also banned but they are stable. Mobility buggies
are also a danger to other people but they are allowed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/23/3
"An 84-year-old woman has died after being knocked over by a
hit-and- run rider on a mobility scooter. Barbara French suffered
a broken hip when she was hit crossing a road in Sunderland."
Goalpost swerving noted Doug.
Don't try and wriggle out of it. The buggy is a dangerous vehicle
which can kill and which is allowed on pavements. Not only that but
cars on pavements are much more dangerous than bicycles and kill far
more people there than cyclists do.
So you admit to using a dangerous vehicle, why have you changed your
mind about dangerous vehicles?
I haven't. If I were to hit a pedestrian with a dangerous vehicle I
would consider myself automatically to blame.
What an empty meaningless comment, since you claim not to drive such a
vehicle. But what about if you hit someone whilst on your bicycle or in your
mobility buggy Doug, would take the blame upon yourself then?

There can be little doubt that disabled cyclists are discriminated
against. In the fullness of time no doubt this form of
discrimination will become recognised, as others have, but until
then the disabled will continue to suffer and be demonised by
people like you and the other motorists on this cycling newsgroup.
Disabled people are not demonised by anyone on this group Doug. As
usual, you only want to look at a situation from your own point of
view and stuff everyone else.
You and they are opposed to disabled cyclists enjoying the same
benefits as wheelchair users and you claim that those cyclists are
unstable and a danger to other people. Clear discrimination on your
part.
Yes you are correct, this is discrimination against cyclists using
footways & railway platforms.
Thank you.
I also don't think that cyclists should you motorways, I think that
motorists should not use railway lines, I think aircraft should be
banned from the A24,.
Hitlerian motorways should never have been built in the first place.
What is a "Hitlerian motorway" Doug and how does it differ from those we
have in the UK?

It doesn't differ. Such motorways are allowed to discriminate against
certain road users.

Are you saying that motorways should allow horse riding?

No I am saying there should be no motorways, just public roads for
all, as there used to be before Hitler got his discriminatory bright
idea and certain road users became banned from certain public
highways.


They have encouraged traffic proliferation with consequent pollution
and congestion. Agreed railway lines should be for trains only. Most
aircraft should be banned anyway because they cause serious pollution
and noise.
How did you travel to North Africa for your two-stroke motorcycle ride
across the Sahara Doug?

I didn't ride across the Sahara.
The general aim should be to minimise over-consumption of resources
and that includes travel.
So when are you going to stop insisting on imported food Doug?

When it can be grown here with a lower carbon footprint than imported.
Looks like it will be a long wait though, particularly as we have been
importing food for hundreds of years.

Of course, you eat imported food which you collect with your car,
don't you Brim. See what I mean about you criticising me from your
moral low-ground position?


Can you tell us Doug, what is the country or origin of food you eat, for
instance, lettuce, tomatoes, onions, cabbage, etc

Probably the same as yours. Don't forget approximately 50% of our food
is imported so you must eat some of it yourself.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Cars are the main contributor to food miles at 48%.

Doug wrote:

No I am saying there should be no motorways, just public roads for
all, as there used to be before Hitler got his discriminatory bright
idea and certain road users became banned from certain public
highways.

Where would you want to go by bicycle on a motorway that you can't on a
public road Doug?

Doug wrote:
On 20 Sep, 09:02, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 19 Sep, 09:54, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 18 Sep, 11:14, francis wrote:
On Sep 18, 6:25 am, Doug wrote:
On 17 Sep, 09:11, "Brimstone"
wrote: Doug wrote:
On 15 Sep, 08:45, "Brimstone"
wrote:
Because bicycles are unstable *and a danger to other people*
Doug.
Tricycles are also banned but they are stable. Mobility buggies
are also a danger to other people but they are allowed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/23/3
"An 84-year-old woman has died after being knocked over by a
hit-and- run rider on a mobility scooter. Barbara French suffered
a broken hip when she was hit crossing a road in Sunderland."
Goalpost swerving noted Doug.
Don't try and wriggle out of it. The buggy is a dangerous vehicle
which can kill and which is allowed on pavements. Not only that but
cars on pavements are much more dangerous than bicycles and kill far
more people there than cyclists do.
So you admit to using a dangerous vehicle, why have you changed your
mind about dangerous vehicles?
I haven't. If I were to hit a pedestrian with a dangerous vehicle I
would consider myself automatically to blame.
What an empty meaningless comment, since you claim not to drive such a
vehicle. But what about if you hit someone whilst on your bicycle or in your
mobility buggy Doug, would take the blame upon yourself then?
There can be little doubt that disabled cyclists are discriminated
against. In the fullness of time no doubt this form of
discrimination will become recognised, as others have, but until
then the disabled will continue to suffer and be demonised by
people like you and the other motorists on this cycling newsgroup.
Disabled people are not demonised by anyone on this group Doug. As
usual, you only want to look at a situation from your own point of
view and stuff everyone else.
You and they are opposed to disabled cyclists enjoying the same
benefits as wheelchair users and you claim that those cyclists are
unstable and a danger to other people. Clear discrimination on your
part.
Yes you are correct, this is discrimination against cyclists using
footways & railway platforms.
Thank you.
I also don't think that cyclists should you motorways, I think that
motorists should not use railway lines, I think aircraft should be
banned from the A24,.
Hitlerian motorways should never have been built in the first place.
What is a "Hitlerian motorway" Doug and how does it differ from those we
have in the UK?
It doesn't differ. Such motorways are allowed to discriminate against
certain road users.
Are you saying that motorways should allow horse riding?

No I am saying there should be no motorways, just public roads for
all, as there used to be before Hitler got his discriminatory bright
idea and certain road users became banned from certain public
highways.

Are you saying that all road users should have access to motorways, or
are you saying that you want all motorways removed?

Did Hitler invent motorways?


They have encouraged traffic proliferation with consequent pollution
and congestion. Agreed railway lines should be for trains only. Most
aircraft should be banned anyway because they cause serious pollution
and noise.
How did you travel to North Africa for your two-stroke motorcycle ride
across the Sahara Doug?
I didn't ride across the Sahara.
The general aim should be to minimise over-consumption of resources
and that includes travel.
So when are you going to stop insisting on imported food Doug?
When it can be grown here with a lower carbon footprint than imported.
Looks like it will be a long wait though, particularly as we have been
importing food for hundreds of years.
Of course, you eat imported food which you collect with your car,
don't you Brim. See what I mean about you criticising me from your
moral low-ground position?

Can you tell us Doug, what is the country or origin of food you eat, for
instance, lettuce, tomatoes, onions, cabbage, etc

Probably the same as yours. Don't forget approximately 50% of our food
is imported so you must eat some of it yourself.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Cars are the main contributor to food miles at 48%.


So that would be 'I'm not going to tell you' then.

--

Tony Dragon

Doug wrote:
On 20 Sep, 09:02, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 19 Sep, 09:54, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 18 Sep, 11:14, francis wrote:
On Sep 18, 6:25 am, Doug wrote:
On 17 Sep, 09:11, "Brimstone"
wrote: Doug wrote:
On 15 Sep, 08:45, "Brimstone"
wrote:
Because bicycles are unstable *and a danger to other people*
Doug.
Tricycles are also banned but they are stable. Mobility buggies
are also a danger to other people but they are allowed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/23/3
"An 84-year-old woman has died after being knocked over by a
hit-and- run rider on a mobility scooter. Barbara French suffered
a broken hip when she was hit crossing a road in Sunderland."
Goalpost swerving noted Doug.
Don't try and wriggle out of it. The buggy is a dangerous vehicle
which can kill and which is allowed on pavements. Not only that but
cars on pavements are much more dangerous than bicycles and kill far
more people there than cyclists do.
So you admit to using a dangerous vehicle, why have you changed your
mind about dangerous vehicles?
I haven't. If I were to hit a pedestrian with a dangerous vehicle I
would consider myself automatically to blame.
What an empty meaningless comment, since you claim not to drive such a
vehicle. But what about if you hit someone whilst on your bicycle or in your
mobility buggy Doug, would take the blame upon yourself then?
There can be little doubt that disabled cyclists are discriminated
against. In the fullness of time no doubt this form of
discrimination will become recognised, as others have, but until
then the disabled will continue to suffer and be demonised by
people like you and the other motorists on this cycling newsgroup.
Disabled people are not demonised by anyone on this group Doug. As
usual, you only want to look at a situation from your own point of
view and stuff everyone else.
You and they are opposed to disabled cyclists enjoying the same
benefits as wheelchair users and you claim that those cyclists are
unstable and a danger to other people. Clear discrimination on your
part.
Yes you are correct, this is discrimination against cyclists using
footways & railway platforms.
Thank you.
I also don't think that cyclists should you motorways, I think that
motorists should not use railway lines, I think aircraft should be
banned from the A24,.
Hitlerian motorways should never have been built in the first place.
What is a "Hitlerian motorway" Doug and how does it differ from those we
have in the UK?
It doesn't differ. Such motorways are allowed to discriminate against
certain road users.
Are you saying that motorways should allow horse riding?

No I am saying there should be no motorways, just public roads for
all, as there used to be before Hitler got his discriminatory bright
idea and certain road users became banned from certain public
highways.

You really are blinkered aren't you? I suggest you have a Google search
on "Rebecca riots" then look at the dates and work out if they are
earlier than 1933. If we don't hear from you on this subject again I'll
take that to mean you realised that the Chancellor of Germany wasn't the
first to have roads that were not for all, and that you didn't want to
admit you were wrong, again.

They have encouraged traffic proliferation with consequent pollution
and congestion. Agreed railway lines should be for trains only. Most
aircraft should be banned anyway because they cause serious pollution
and noise.
How did you travel to North Africa for your two-stroke motorcycle ride
across the Sahara Doug?
I didn't ride across the Sahara.
The general aim should be to minimise over-consumption of resources
and that includes travel.
So when are you going to stop insisting on imported food Doug?
When it can be grown here with a lower carbon footprint than imported.
Looks like it will be a long wait though, particularly as we have been
importing food for hundreds of years.
Of course, you eat imported food which you collect with your car,
don't you Brim. See what I mean about you criticising me from your
moral low-ground position?

Can you tell us Doug, what is the country or origin of food you eat, for
instance, lettuce, tomatoes, onions, cabbage, etc

Probably the same as yours. Don't forget approximately 50% of our food
is imported so you must eat some of it yourself.



There is no logic that says because 50% of anything is used in a society
that any individual must be using some portion of that.