Doug, was this you?

"Brimstone" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

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?

Not only a blind or disabled person - but a disabled cyclist, too! Mr
Bollen discriminates against disabled cyclists, such as our good friend,
the "other" Duhg...

Adrian wrote:
"Brimstone" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

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?

Not only a blind or disabled person - but a disabled cyclist, too! Mr
Bollen discriminates against disabled cyclists, such as our good
friend, the "other" Duhg...

Indeed, thank you for pointing that out.

On 21 Sep, 21:12, "Brimstone" wrote:
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?

You are quite right. Given his oft-stated concern for disabled
people, I've no doubt that Mr Bollen, oops, I mean "our" Doug will
ensure that he, oops, I mean his friend Mr Bollen never blocks the
pavement again in that manner.

Judith M Smith wrote:
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?



Why 'most odd'?

The council offered to put in access across pavements to those who had
space and wished to park off-road. This is not part of the pavement
replacement programme and requires not only dropped kerbstones and ramps
but also making the pavement crossing stronger to support the weight of
vehicles crossing the paving slabs.
Extra time and materials are required for this and the residents got it
cheaper than usual as the work teams were already in the area.


--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:17:16 +0100, Keitht KeithT wrote:

Judith M Smith wrote:
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?




Because I was surprised.

The council offered to put in access across pavements to those who had
space and wished to park off-road. This is not part of the pavement
replacement programme and requires not only dropped kerbstones and ramps
but also making the pavement crossing stronger to support the weight of
vehicles crossing the paving slabs.
Extra time and materials are required for this and the residents got it
cheaper than usual as the work teams were already in the area.


Fine - I - and others near me had dropped kerbs put in - we did not
have to pay to "reinforce" the pavement - and I had never heard of
pavements having to be upgraded in this way. Must depend on the
original condition of pavement and the LA I guess.

--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:28:48 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Cars cannot be blamed for damaged pavements.

You say. But without providing any evidence.

This is in any case a sideshow. John Wright said "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." Which is
twaddle.

It's not twaddle. Cars do park half on and off pavements - even in
places where they don't need to by way of blocking roads but that isn't
really driving on pavements is it? What other examples of driving on
pavements do you want to come up with?


--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 20 Sep 2009 18:23:21 GMT, Adrian wrote:

This is in any case a sideshow. John Wright said "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." Which is
twaddle.

OK, how about "the vast majority of cars, driven by people other than
utter selfish ****s who shouldn't be let loose with crayons, let alone a
car"

Vast majority? I'd want some figures for that. I think a lot of
drivers think nothing of putting two wheels on the pavement, for
example, especially when they are stopping somewhere they should not.

Equally, I don't think I've ever seen anybody driving onto a pavement to
avoid traffic lights or whatever.

I have, and it's enough of a problem that there are bollards all along
the pavement on one section of the North Circular.

These may just be a delineator not a deterrent. Its often the way.
--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:28:48 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Cars cannot be blamed for damaged pavements.

Nonsense.

Local to where I live is a pedestrian crossing.

For 20 metres either side of the crossing are railings that prevent
motorists mounting the pavement. The pavement is in good condition.
Further down in a kebab shop, and no railings. The pavement there is
in a lamentable state with cracked paving stones. This has been
caused by cars mounting the pavement, driving along the pavement,
before stopping on the pavement outside the kebab shop.

They are probably there to stop pedestrians from crossing anywhere other
than the crossing. Where I work there are such barriers for several
hundred yards. In Uxbridge I've seen them used extensively to separate
pedestrians from traffic.

--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

Mike P wrote:
On 21 Sep, 15:00, 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?

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.

This may come as unwelcome news to Duhg but most large stations say "no
cycling" anywhere in their vicinity. My local station has signs up that
say that - and no skateboarding as well.

Duhg also claims to know of disabilities that allow people to cycle
(even if they can't walk) but I can't think of one.


--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

John Wright wrote:
Mike P wrote:
On 21 Sep, 15:00, 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?

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.

This may come as unwelcome news to Duhg but most large stations say "no
cycling" anywhere in their vicinity. My local station has signs up that
say that - and no skateboarding as well.

Duhg also claims to know of disabilities that allow people to cycle
(even if they can't walk) but I can't think of one.


People with no or limited leg use,who use hand
cranked recumbent bicycles or trikes.

Bod