|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Doug, was this you?
Doug wrote:
On 21 Sep, 08:34, "Brimstone" wrote: Doug wrote: On 20 Sep, 14:09, John Wright wrote: Doug wrote: On 19 Sep, 13:51, Judith M Smith wrote: On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT), BrianW wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...andorder/62070... Are you *sure* you are not obsessed with him? What is it - a sexual attraction? Blackhead is blinded by obsessive love turned sour. So much so in his confused state he has targeted the wrong person! There must be a sexual component there surely? Anyway, back on topic, I have been posting elsewhere about discrimination against disabled cyclists and this case clearly illustrates my point. Cars and mobility scooters on pavements are much more dangerous that bicycles but all we seem to hear about is cycling on pavements. Cars don't drive on pavements unless something is seriously amiss or there is a legal arrangement in place for them to drive over the pavement. Cyclists and mobility scooters appear to do it as a matter of course. But the least dangerous are cyclists. Wrong again Doug. The least dangerous traffic are pedestrians. Everything else can cause harm to others. A car could easily run over a small child and kill them even at very slow speed. And a bicycle can knock down and kill an adult. Your point? Dangerous cars are allowed on some pavements where disabled cyclists are not. What has cars being allowed got to do with bicycles not being? I never cease to be amazed that motorists have been allowed to street garage their cars 24/7 on public roads, often for free, but allowing them legally on pavements is the giddy limit! Places where they are legally allowed on the pavement are remarkably few in the UK. I've never seen one. There are plenty in London plus all the illegal ones too. Which sounds like a good reason for not living in London. You are likely to find them where there are narrow, neighbourhood streets with no front gardens or home garages. You mean in the Catford slums? It is obviously assumed by the government that everyone should have the right to own a car regardless of the circumstances and harmful impact on others and despite not having somewhere to keep one. Where did you keep yours when you owned cars Doug? |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Doug, was this you?
Adrian wrote:
Same as everybody has the right to own a TV, house, pogo stick, bicycle. Please Dad, can I have a pogo stick, Dad. Can I please? It says here it's my Yuman Right. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Doug, was this you?
On 21 Sep, 07:19, Doug wrote:
On 20 Sep, 10:30, BrianW wrote: On 20 Sep, 06:59, Doug wrote: On 19 Sep, 13:51, Judith M Smith wrote: On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT), BrianW wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...andorder/62070... Are you *sure* you are not obsessed with him? What is it - a sexual attraction? Blackhead is blinded by obsessive love turned sour. So much so in his confused state he has targeted the wrong person! There must be a sexual component there surely? Yup, I'm in lurve with this old turd: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8737107@N04/3742475633/ Next time you see him, Doug, would you tell him? I think he probably knows and finds it embarrassing. Oh, I'm *positive* "he" knows, Mr Bollen. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Doug, was this you?
On Sep 21, 8:53*am, Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Dangerous cars are allowed on some pavements where disabled cyclists are not. Give us ONE example. Just one. It is obviously assumed by the government that everyone should have the right to own a car regardless of the circumstances Not quite. Everybody should have the right to own a car provided it fulfils all the relevant legal requirements. Of course they should. Why shouldn't they? Same as everybody has the right to own a TV, house, pogo stick, bicycle. How would you ration them? and harmful impact on others As well as MOT emission testing for existing cars and ever more stringent emission requirements for new cars, there's umpty-seven driving laws (some of which you've argued against the introduction of) to try to minimise "harmful impact". and despite not having somewhere to keep one. Nope. Leave a car somewhere it's not legal to leave it, and you WILL get fined. Fail to pay the fines, and it WILL get confiscated. So - apart from any of those many, all completely incorrect, points - is there ANY evidence to back up your claims? Proper, hard evidence from credible sources. You know the stuff - same as you demand off everybody who points out that you're talking ********. Again. I have now got in my head a picture of Doug on a pogo stick. PeterG |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Doug, was this you?
PeterG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: I have now got in my head a picture of Doug on a pogo stick. And Brimstone. Don't forget Brimstone. Is there such a thing as a tandem pogo? |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Doug, was this you?
Adrian wrote:
PeterG gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: I have now got in my head a picture of Doug on a pogo stick. And Brimstone. Don't forget Brimstone. Is there such a thing as a tandem pogo? Now,'that' would be amusing to see. Bod |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Doug, was this you?
Bod wrote:
Adrian wrote: PeterG gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: I have now got in my head a picture of Doug on a pogo stick. And Brimstone. Don't forget Brimstone. Is there such a thing as a tandem pogo? Now,'that' would be amusing to see. Bod Here's a pic of Doug practising his pogo technique: http://papaherman.files.wordpress.co...o-stick-11.jpg Bod |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Doug, was this you?
On 21 Sep, 08:53, "Brimstone" wrote:
It is obviously assumed by the government that everyone should have the right to own a car regardless of the circumstances and harmful impact on others and despite not having somewhere to keep one. Where did you keep yours when you owned cars Doug?- Gollum actually dumped his Land Rover by the sie of the road when it finally gave up the ghost. What a revolting, hypocritical old turd he is. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Doug, was this you?
Matt B wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:14:55 +0100, Matt B wrote: Ask your council what is the main cause of damage to pavements. And they'll inevitably say "cars" - rather than admit the true reason. The real reason is usually poor installation. No, the real reason is that it's cars (and lorries). The evidence is that they are /also/ damaged in places where cars cannot physically get. Take a look next time you are walking on one. There will be cracked and uneven slabs behind telephone boxes, in-between the two poles of road signs, behind bollards, up steps, behind and between planters, under benches... That would make sense if it were suggested that cars are the only source of damage. They are not. To blame cars is to attempt to create a scapegoat for bad workmanship and poor maintenance. No, you only need to look at the buiding standards for a motor road and a pavement to realise that pavements are not built to take motor traffic. You appear to want pavements to be built to motor road standards. Are you willing to pay the extra in your taxes for that, just so that the drivers who illegally mount the pavement don't damage it so badly? There is a difference between constant and high-speed motor traffic use - particularly involving trucks and buses, and the occasional incursion onto a pavement by a light vehicle. Road building standards cater for the former, and a /correctly/ laid pavement should be expected to tolerate the latter. I expect my tax money to be spend wisely, and for pavements laid using it to be able to withstand the odd Post Office van, council road repair or sweeper vehicle being driven on it, without suffering any harm. Cars cannot be blamed for damaged pavements. ********. The standards for ordinary pavement sub-surface is completely different from occasional vehicle use and footway use. Your expectations of councils spending money on things they are not supposed to encourage (or can ticket drivers for) are rather wide. Is it not possible for Post Office drivers to use the road like ordinary people? They've just finished re-doing the pavement near where I live. We were asked about wanting to have pavement crossings as these would require a bit of dosh from the residents in order to upgrade the sub-surface from foot traffic to vehicular traffic. Car drivers ignore the double-yellow and park half up on the pavement and already there are cracked slabs. I don't think it's the baby-buggies doing it or the pavement cyclists or people with heavy bags of shopping - that tends to leave only the car drivers and thier selfish habits of saying '**** you' to anyone else. You are right it's notthe cars - just the drivers who don't give a toss until thier dear old mum(tm) goes over. -- Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Doug, was this you?
Judith M Smith wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:55:57 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote: On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:09:33 +0100, John Wright wrote: Cars don't drive on pavements unless something is seriously amiss or there is a legal arrangement in place for them to drive over the pavement. I think you'll find on investigation that that is what is technically known as "complete ********". The most common reason for car drivers using the pavement is to park on it, but they also use it to get round queues at traffic lights and in other situations. That's whe there are bollards on the pavement edge near my house, and bollards up the pavement along the North Circular Road, to name just two locations. Ask your council what is the main cause of damage to pavements. Who do we ask to find out how many pedestrians are hit by cyclists on pavements and how many are hit by cars? Who do we ask to find out how many people are forced to walk in the road to get round cars parked on pavements? Who do we ask to find out how much extra is lumped on our council tax to pay for broken pavements caused by cars? Who do we ask to find out how many kids are scared at having to walk in the road just because someone 'popped in to the shop'? -- Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
This should please Doug | Steve Firth | UK | 261 | August 26th 09 10:20 PM |
Doug | PeterG | UK | 18 | June 28th 09 11:23 AM |
Roll in the Doug $$$ | Stephen Baker | Mountain Biking | 0 | October 25th 04 10:54 AM |
Old Doug Fattic | drako | Marketplace | 0 | October 3rd 04 02:45 AM |
Old Doug Fattic | drako | Marketplace | 4 | October 2nd 04 09:11 AM |