Doug, was this you?

On 21 Sep, 17:32, PeterG wrote:
On Sep 21, 3:23*pm, Mike P wrote:



On 21 Sep, 15:16, Adrian wrote:

Mike P gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

My mum's driven over the pavement outside her house at least twice a
day, probably nearly every day bar when she's been on holiday, for
the last 20 years. It's not damaged, and it's still in the same state
it was before she started. *It's the access to her garage, and
there's no dropped kerb. The council granted planning permission for
a garage, but wouldn't let her put a dropped kerb in.
So your mum's the one who illegally drives over pavements with no
vehicular access rights, then?
Indeed, digusting isn't it. Though she does have vehicular access
rights, they just won't let her put a dropped kerb in. She owns the road
, but not the bit in between her house and the road. *Is that odd?

Sounds odd to me.

Yes, it's here

*http://tinyurl.com/m3hy6e. Her garage can be seen opposite the "e" of
New road, hiding behind a tree just on the left and up a bit from the
marker. The pavement is in between the garage and New Road. New Road
is a 1:3 hill sloping leftright. She owns the road, but not the
pathway. Weird. That's local councils and ancient land registration I
suppose.

Just as well she's not a disabled cyclist, else she wouldn't be allowed
to do that. And that'd be discrimination. Apparently.
Good, the ****ers shouldn't be allowed to ride on pavements, and
certainley not on railway platforms where they could knock over
vunerable pedestrians.

How about "round supermarkets"? Apparently, that's discrimination, too.

No, not "round supermarket" either. My gran is now registered blind
and has a blue badge that my mum uses when she takes her shopping.
What the **** does Doug think would happen if you mixed real disabled
people, or the blind with cyclists in a supermarket. Silly old sod..

Mike p

Doug does not care for her rights, it's only Dougs right that count.

The totally blind are obviously a special case because they cannot use
a wheeled mobility aid on their own in public places. I would hazard a
guess though that they are also discriminated against by a lack of
proper provision, much like disabled cyclists.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

The totally blind are obviously a special case because they cannot use a
wheeled mobility aid on their own in public places. I would hazard a
guess though that they are also discriminated against by a lack of
proper provision, much like disabled cyclists.

Yeh, the blind should be allowed to cycle down railway platforms and
round Tesco, too...

But only on the back of a tandem ridden by Duhg, obviously.

On 21 Sep, 17:41, Doug wrote:
On 21 Sep, 17:32, PeterG wrote:

On Sep 21, 3:23*pm, Mike P wrote:

On 21 Sep, 15:16, Adrian wrote:

Mike P gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

My mum's driven over the pavement outside her house at least twice a
day, probably nearly every day bar when she's been on holiday, for
the last 20 years. It's not damaged, and it's still in the same state
it was before she started. *It's the access to her garage, and
there's no dropped kerb. The council granted planning permission for
a garage, but wouldn't let her put a dropped kerb in.
So your mum's the one who illegally drives over pavements with no
vehicular access rights, then?
Indeed, digusting isn't it. Though she does have vehicular access
rights, they just won't let her put a dropped kerb in. She owns the road
, but not the bit in between her house and the road. *Is that odd?

Sounds odd to me.

Yes, it's here

*http://tinyurl.com/m3hy6e. Her garage can be seen opposite the "e" of
New road, hiding behind a tree just on the left and up a bit from the
marker. The pavement is in between the garage and New Road. New Road
is a 1:3 hill sloping leftright. She owns the road, but not the
pathway. Weird. That's local councils and ancient land registration I
suppose.

Just as well she's not a disabled cyclist, else she wouldn't be allowed
to do that. And that'd be discrimination. Apparently.
Good, the ****ers shouldn't be allowed to ride on pavements, and
certainley not on railway platforms where they could knock over
vunerable pedestrians.

How about "round supermarkets"? Apparently, that's discrimination, too.

No, not "round supermarket" either. My gran is now registered blind
and has a blue badge that my mum uses when she takes her shopping.
What the **** does Doug think would happen if you mixed real disabled
people, or the blind with cyclists in a supermarket. Silly old sod..

Mike p

Doug does not care for her rights, it's only Dougs right that count.

The totally blind are obviously a special case because they cannot use
a wheeled mobility aid on their own in public places. I would hazard a
guess though that they are also discriminated against by a lack of
proper provision, much like disabled cyclists.

I had a registered blind girlfriend many years ago (cue obvious
jokes). She got around perfectly ok. Buses, trains, taxis, no problem
at all. She even used to go pillion on my motorbike. Very independent,
and certainley didn't like being treated differently to anyone else if
it could be avoided.

However, She'd have been ****ed if there were cyclists in the
supermarket or zooming along pavements.

Mike P

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?

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 is such a facility on the old A2, close to, but not in, Catford (which
is a hop away along the SCR).

Mike P wrote:

is there a good reason *for* living in London?

The pleasure of escaping to somewhere civilised?

JNugent wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Doug wrote:

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 is such a facility on the old A2, close to, but not in, Catford
(which is a hop away along the SCR).

I''m happy to accept your word on that.

Any more Doug?

On 21 Sep, 17:14, Doug wrote:
On 21 Sep, 08:53, 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.

Try looking for a change.

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.

So you think its OK to own something bulky with nowhere to keep it
except in a public space?

How would you ration them?

Not allowed unless they have somewhere to keep it off a road/pavement.
What would happen if we all decided to keep some of or more bulky
possessions in the street outside?

You mean like this, Doug?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8737107@N04/3742474251/

You really must have a word with your good friend Mr Bollen about his
blocking of the pavement. What if a blind or disabled person was
passing by at the time?

BrianW wrote:
On 21 Sep, 17:14, Doug wrote:
On 21 Sep, 08:53, 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.

Try looking for a change.

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.

So you think its OK to own something bulky with nowhere to keep it
except in a public space?

How would you ration them?

Not allowed unless they have somewhere to keep it off a
road/pavement.
What would happen if we all decided to keep some of or more bulky
possessions in the street outside?

You mean like this, Doug?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8737107@N04/3742474251/

You really must have a word with your good friend Mr Bollen about his
blocking of the pavement. What if a blind or disabled person was
passing by at the time?

I'm sorry to point out your error, but how could such a person pass if the
footway were blocked in that manner? They'd trip over the obstruction
surely?

At least if it were a car they'd merely bump into it and would not suffer
any facial damage through falling and hitting the footpath.

"BrianW" wrote in message
...
On 21 Sep, 17:14, Doug wrote:
On 21 Sep, 08:53, 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.

Try looking for a change.

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.

So you think its OK to own something bulky with nowhere to keep it
except in a public space?

How would you ration them?

Not allowed unless they have somewhere to keep it off a road/pavement.
What would happen if we all decided to keep some of or more bulky
possessions in the street outside?

You mean like this, Doug?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8737107@N04/3742474251/

You really must have a word with your good friend Mr Bollen about his
blocking of the pavement. What if a blind or disabled person was
passing by at the time?

Did you notice the cracked paving slabs? That trailer must weigh a heck of a
lot. Heavy wheelchair in the trailer perhaps?
Maybe it was the Land Rover or the buggy that caused the damage outside Mr
Bollen's house at Culverley Road Catford?

--
David Kemper
Not a fan of disabled cyclists, especially if they have the initials DB.

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:37:44 +0100, Keitht KeithT wrote:

snip


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.

Oh really - most odd.

Who was asked - and what contribution were they expected to make?


--

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents