Driving on pavements.

On 22 Sep, 00:01, Judith M Smith wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:48:47 -0700 (PDT), BrianW

wrote:

snip



For once, Mr Bollen would not be lying if he claimed he did not live
at the address you state:

http://www.hilpers.org/..................................

I just wonder at the mentality of someone who thinks it is
funny/clever to publicise the home address of another poster.

Could you explain please?

The mentality is of one who is reacting blindly in knee-jerk fashion
against criticism of their POV or lifestyle and who therefore wishes
to censor their critic in any way possible, regardless of newsgroup
standards or internet providers' terms and conditions.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Or shall we add "centre of gravity" and "balance" to the list of things
you clearly have no clue about?

Actually the centre of gravity was lower than usual and therefore safer.
See how wrong you can be?

You seem to be forgetting something, dear.

The rider can move his mass about to balance the bicycle.

B'sides, you're still ignoring the levelling factor of the mass of the
rider etc - as well, of course, as the greater speed and poorer
braking.

The point you keep on evading is that both are potentially lethal but
only the scooter is allowed on pavements.

shrug You brought momentum into the discussion, now you seem to be
trying to ignore it. I wonder why?

It has already been demonstrated that such scooters can kill
Same as it's been demonstrated that cyclists on pavements can kill.

Again, killer scooters are allowed but disable killer cyclists are
not.

Again... So. ****ing. What?

Discriminatory, obviously.

Tell a lie enough times...

The only evidence needed is that it is a widely acknowledged fact
backed up by legislation.

I can only imagine your reaction if somebody ever tried that line when
you were demanding proof...

Unlike you I wouldn't demand proof when it was plainly obvious.

Ah, you're hilarious.

BTW, black cyclists aren't allowed to cycle on pavements, either. Is
that racism? Nor are gay cyclists. Homophobia? Or female cyclists.
Sexism?

How would you make such a case?

You seem to be trying to do exactly that.

Worse still, cars are sometimes even allowed on pavements!!!

In exactly the same places as cyclists are, yes. Able-bodied or
disabled. You're getting very predictable - and boring.

Again, motorists can legally drive along pavements to park but
disabled cyclists are not allowed legally to ride along pavements to
park.

When are you going to attempt to provide proof of that?

Well it is self-evident that a car must be driven onto a pavement to
park there and...

"Cycling on the footway (pavement) is an offence under Section 72 of the
Highways Act 1835 as amended by Section 85 (1) of the Local Government
Act 1888."

There is no mention of distance cycled so it can be safely assumed that
ANY distance cycled on a pavement must be an offence.

Correct. But, where there's legal vehicular access for parking...

You keep saying it - despite it being blatantly untrue - but when asked
to prove it, you don't.

**** or get off the pot. Now.

See above, loser.

Failure to actually do so noted. Again.

No they are not. You can't easily ride a wheelchair as far as a
bicycle so you have to put the wheelchair in a car to use it
effectively.

You could put the wheelchair in a trailer behind a bicycle. You're
always telling us how good a bicycle and trailer is as a
load-carrier. Why change that tune all of a sudden?

So now you expect a disabled cyclist to pull a heavy trailer with a
wheelchair in it

Umm, yes, if they need one. Just like you claim car drivers are spoiled
because they can do.

A disabled cyclist should not need a wheelchair when they can use their
cycle, that is the whole point.

I certainly struggle to imagine anybody who could cycle safely but relied
on a wheelchair otherwise, true.

But why should a disabled driver "need" a wheelchair when they can use
their car?

Why do you wish to discriminate against disabled cyclists by wanting
them to tow a trailer with wheelchair instead of just using their bike?

Discriminate? I thought that a bicycle plus trailer was a PERFECTLY
sensible and viable alternative to a car for load carrying...? You're
always telling us that. Now, suddenly, it's not. I do wish you'd make
your mind up.

just because disabled cyclists are discriminated against in law?

Which, of course, they aren't.

Well obviously they are because they are not treated similar to
wheelchair users.

There's a good reason for that. And it's not discrimination.

You claim that bicycle trailers are a great solution that mean nobody
needs cars - until somebody suggests using one as a solution to a
whinge of yours - in which case, they're awful heavy things.

You are being disingenuous, yet again. A trailer is a great solution for
an ABLE-BODIED cyclist who doesn't want to use a car but is NO solution
for a disabled cyclist.

So why the difference? I thought a disabled cyclist was just as capable a
cyclist as an able-bodied one. Surely you're not suggesting that a
disabled cyclist is so much more limited in their cycling ability than an
able-bodied one? Wouldn't that make them unsafe as a cyclist?

More difficult questions by Adrain deleted.

Again.

Doug wrote:
On 21 Sep, 17:57, Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Add in 10kg of shopping, and the difference drops to 35%. Oh,
wait. You can't carry 10kg of shopping on a bicycle.
Eh! I have carried 35kg.
Without a trailer? Safely? How?
Distributed front and rear.
I repeat - safely? How?
In special panniers and boxes.

I repeat - SAFELY.

Or shall we add "centre of gravity" and "balance" to the list of
things you clearly have no clue about?

Actually the centre of gravity was lower than usual and therefore
safer.

How did you arrange that?

See how wrong you can be?

Not until you demonstrate how you lowered the CoG.

See above. Have you not seen bikes abroad with large adults
sitting on the rear carrier?
I've seen bikes with people sat on the handlebars. Doesn't make
it safe.
It demonstrates the load carrying ability.
Not the SAFE load carrying capacity, it doesn't.
It gave no problems.

Oh, well, must be safe then. rolls eyes

Hmm. So an 8mph road-legal mobility scooter requires
registration etc - yet a 20mph bicycle doesn't. Again, I'm not
sure how that helps the argument that bikes shouldn't need
registering.
You have to take into account the lethal momentum of the
scooter.
That'll be the slower scooter, similar weight, with far better
brakes, right?
No much heavier than a bicycle
We've already done this. You don't think I plucked that 50kg
figure out of my arse, do you? Just because you don't do any
research, don't assume that others don't.
You of course cherry picked the smallest and lightest.

No, I didn't.

50 kg is very light for a typical mobility scooter as a simple search
will show.

Evidence?

Here is a typical scooter and by no means the heaviest at 85kg.
Much, much heavier than a typical bicycle.

So what? It still proves that a mobility scooter isn't INHERENTLY
considerably heavier than a bicycle.

B'sides, you're still ignoring the levelling factor of the mass of
the rider etc - as well, of course, as the greater speed and poorer
braking.

The point you keep on evading is that both are potentially lethal but
only the scooter is allowed on pavements.

Not true Doug. A bicycle is *not* potentially lethal. Bicycles being ridden
on the footpah have killed people, therefore bicycles *are* lethal.

Can you show any examples of footpath legal mobility buggies killing anyone?

It has already been demonstrated that such scooters can kill
Same as it's been demonstrated that cyclists on pavements can kill.
Again, killer scooters are allowed but disable killer cyclists are
not.

Again... So. ****ing. What?

Discriminatory, obviously.

Do yo mean you want 4mph mobility buggies to be forced into the road?

and yet they are allowed on pavements and disabled cyclists are
not.
Correct. And you've yet to provide any evidence as to why that's
not utterly justified. Some emotive ******** and some vague
hand-waving (easily shot down with facts), sure. But that's not
evidence, is it?
The only evidence needed is that it is a widely acknowledged fact
backed up by legislation.

I can only imagine your reaction if somebody ever tried that line
when you were demanding proof...

Unlike you I wouldn't demand proof when it was plainly obvious.

4mph scooters are allowed on pavements and cyclists are not.

Correct. Well done.

BTW, black cyclists aren't allowed to cycle on pavements, either. Is
that racism? Nor are gay cyclists. Homophobia? Or female cyclists.
Sexism?

How would you make such a case?

Creating a case out of nothing is an area in which you excel Doug. Give it a
try.

Worse still, cars are sometimes even allowed on pavements!!!
In exactly the same places as cyclists are, yes. Able-bodied or
disabled. You're getting very predictable - and boring.
Again, motorists can legally drive along pavements to park but
disabled cyclists are not allowed legally to ride along pavements
to park.

When are you going to attempt to provide proof of that?

Well it is self-evident that a car must be driven onto a pavement to
park there and...

"Cycling on the footway (pavement) is an offence under Section 72 of
the Highways Act 1835 as amended by Section 85 (1) of the Local
Government Act 1888."

There is no mention of distance cycled so it can be safely assumed
that ANY distance cycled on a pavement must be an offence.

Then how do you explain shared use foot/cycle paths Doug?

No they are not. You can't easily ride a wheelchair as far as a
bicycle so you have to put the wheelchair in a car to use it
effectively.
You could put the wheelchair in a trailer behind a bicycle. You're
always telling us how good a bicycle and trailer is as a
load-carrier. Why change that tune all of a sudden?
So now you expect a disabled cyclist to pull a heavy trailer with a
wheelchair in it

Umm, yes, if they need one. Just like you claim car drivers are
spoiled because they can do.

A disabled cyclist should not need a wheelchair when they can use
their cycle, that is the whole point. Why do you wish to discriminate
against disabled cyclists by wanting them to tow a trailer with
wheelchair instead of just using their bike?


It's you who want's to discriminate Doug. At the moment disabled cyclists
enjoy the same facilities as everyone else. Singling them out for special
treatment is discriminatory.

just because disabled cyclists are discriminated against in law?

Which, of course, they aren't.

Well obviously they are because they are not treated similar to
wheelchair users.

That's because a bicycle is not the same as a wheelchair.

You're hilarious. I point out that your claims of discrimination are
not only blatant lies but easily worked around, and you claim the
workarounds are discrimination...

You are being discriminatory.

In what way?

You claim that bicycle trailers are a great solution that mean nobody
needs cars - until somebody suggests using one as a solution to a
whinge of yours - in which case, they're awful heavy things.

You are being disingenuous, yet again. A trailer is a great solution
for an ABLE-BODIED cyclist who doesn't want to use a car but is NO
solution for a disabled cyclist.

If a bicycle and trailer are not suitable for disabled people why do you
keep on saying I should use a bicycle and trailer Doug?

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

The point you keep on evading is that both are potentially lethal but
only the scooter is allowed on pavements.

Not true Doug. A bicycle is *not* potentially lethal. Bicycles being
ridden on the footpah have killed people, therefore bicycles *are*
lethal.

Can you show any examples of footpath legal mobility buggies killing
anyone?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/h...re/8262719.stm

Of course, what Duhg fails to grasp is that it's not the vehicle which is
"lethal", but the user of it.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's been incidents where two
pedestrians have collided and one's been fatally injured, too.

BTW, black cyclists aren't allowed to cycle on pavements, either. Is
that racism? Nor are gay cyclists. Homophobia? Or female cyclists.
Sexism?

How would you make such a case?

Creating a case out of nothing is an area in which you excel Doug. Give
it a try.

Since Duhg is neither black or female, and is presumably heterosexual,
he'll have no interest at all in any of those discriminatory behaviours.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

For once, Mr Bollen would not be lying if he claimed he did not live
at the address you state:

I just wonder at the mentality of someone who thinks it is funny/clever
to publicise the home address of another poster.

An address which has been frequently posted before, and is staunchly
denied by that other poster.

Could you explain please?

The mentality is of one who is reacting blindly in knee-jerk fashion
against criticism of their POV or lifestyle and who therefore wishes to
censor their critic in any way possible, regardless of newsgroup
standards or internet providers' terms and conditions.

Oh? So is that (correction to 119a notwithstanding) the correct name and
address of a poster here, then?

On 22 Sep, 08:05, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 21 Sep, 17:57, Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Add in 10kg of shopping, and the difference drops to 35%. Oh,
wait. You can't carry 10kg of shopping on a bicycle.
Eh! I have carried 35kg.
Without a trailer? Safely? How?
Distributed front and rear.
I repeat - safely? How?
In special panniers and boxes.

I repeat - SAFELY.

Or shall we add "centre of gravity" and "balance" to the list of
things you clearly have no clue about?

Actually the centre of gravity was lower than usual and therefore
safer.

How did you arrange that?

See how wrong you can be?

Not until you demonstrate how you lowered the CoG.

Specially constructed boxes carrying weight low down.


See above. Have you not seen bikes abroad with large adults
sitting on the rear carrier?
I've seen bikes with people sat on the handlebars. Doesn't make
it safe.
It demonstrates the load carrying ability.
Not the SAFE load carrying capacity, it doesn't.
It gave no problems.

Oh, well, must be safe then. rolls eyes

Hmm. So an 8mph road-legal mobility scooter requires
registration etc - yet a 20mph bicycle doesn't. Again, I'm not
sure how that helps the argument that bikes shouldn't need
registering.
You have to take into account the lethal momentum of the
scooter.
That'll be the slower scooter, similar weight, with far better
brakes, right?
No much heavier than a bicycle
We've already done this. You don't think I plucked that 50kg
figure out of my arse, do you? Just because you don't do any
research, don't assume that others don't.
You of course cherry picked the smallest and lightest.

No, I didn't.

50 kg is very light for a typical mobility scooter as a simple search
will show.

Evidence?

Been there done that. Try your own Google search for a change and
learn to read properly while you are at it.

Here is a typical scooter and by no means the heaviest at 85kg.
Much, much heavier than a typical bicycle.

So what? It still proves that a mobility scooter isn't INHERENTLY
considerably heavier than a bicycle.

B'sides, you're still ignoring the levelling factor of the mass of
the rider etc - as well, of course, as the greater speed and poorer
braking.

The point you keep on evading is that both are potentially lethal but
only the scooter is allowed on pavements.

Not true Doug. A bicycle is *not* potentially lethal. Bicycles being ridden
on the footpah have killed people, therefore bicycles *are* lethal.

Can you show any examples of footpath legal mobility buggies killing anyone?

Been there done that. Try learning to read properly.

It has already been demonstrated that such scooters can kill
Same as it's been demonstrated that cyclists on pavements can kill.
Again, killer scooters are allowed but disable killer cyclists are
not.

Again... So. ****ing. What?

Discriminatory, obviously.

Do yo mean you want 4mph mobility buggies to be forced into the road?

Nope. I want disabled cyclists to be properly recognised.


and yet they are allowed on pavements and disabled cyclists are
not.
Correct. And you've yet to provide any evidence as to why that's
not utterly justified. Some emotive ******** and some vague
hand-waving (easily shot down with facts), sure. But that's not
evidence, is it?
The only evidence needed is that it is a widely acknowledged fact
backed up by legislation.

I can only imagine your reaction if somebody ever tried that line
when you were demanding proof...

Unlike you I wouldn't demand proof when it was plainly obvious.

4mph scooters are allowed on pavements and cyclists are not.

Correct. Well done.

BTW, black cyclists aren't allowed to cycle on pavements, either. Is
that racism? Nor are gay cyclists. Homophobia? Or female cyclists.
Sexism?

How would you make such a case?

Creating a case out of nothing is an area in which you excel Doug. Give it a
try.

Its not my case. Again, learn to read properly.


Worse still, cars are sometimes even allowed on pavements!!!
In exactly the same places as cyclists are, yes. Able-bodied or
disabled. You're getting very predictable - and boring.
Again, motorists can legally drive along pavements to park but
disabled cyclists are not allowed legally to ride along pavements
to park.

When are you going to attempt to provide proof of that?

Well it is self-evident that a car must be driven onto a pavement to
park there and...

"Cycling on the footway (pavement) is an offence under Section 72 of
the Highways Act 1835 as amended by Section 85 (1) of the Local
Government Act 1888."

There is no mention of distance cycled so it can be safely assumed
that ANY distance cycled on a pavement must be an offence.

Then how do you explain shared use foot/cycle paths Doug?

They are obviously legal exemptions. How would you explain them, Brim?


No they are not. You can't easily ride a wheelchair as far as a
bicycle so you have to put the wheelchair in a car to use it
effectively.
You could put the wheelchair in a trailer behind a bicycle. You're
always telling us how good a bicycle and trailer is as a
load-carrier. Why change that tune all of a sudden?
So now you expect a disabled cyclist to pull a heavy trailer with a
wheelchair in it

Umm, yes, if they need one. Just like you claim car drivers are
spoiled because they can do.

A disabled cyclist should not need a wheelchair when they can use
their cycle, that is the whole point. Why do you wish to discriminate
against disabled cyclists by wanting them to tow a trailer with
wheelchair instead of just using their bike?

It's you who want's to discriminate Doug. At the moment disabled cyclists
enjoy the same facilities as everyone else. Singling them out for special
treatment is discriminatory.

They do not enjoy the same facilities as disabled wheelchair users.

just because disabled cyclists are discriminated against in law?

Which, of course, they aren't.

Well obviously they are because they are not treated similar to
wheelchair users.

That's because a bicycle is not the same as a wheelchair.

It can still be a mobility aid.

You're hilarious. I point out that your claims of discrimination are
not only blatant lies but easily worked around, and you claim the
workarounds are discrimination...

You are being discriminatory.

In what way?

By choosing to treat disable cyclists differently to wheelchair users.

You claim that bicycle trailers are a great solution that mean nobody
needs cars - until somebody suggests using one as a solution to a
whinge of yours - in which case, they're awful heavy things.

You are being disingenuous, yet again. A trailer is a great solution
for an ABLE-BODIED cyclist who doesn't want to use a car but is NO
solution for a disabled cyclist.

If a bicycle and trailer are not suitable for disabled people why do you
keep on saying I should use a bicycle and trailer Doug?

Because I meant an ELECTRIC bicycle and trailer, Brim. Maybe you would
like to explain the extent of your disability instead of keep on
dodging it. How come you can drive a car and have space for one but
not use or have space for, say, a mobility buggy or electric bicycle?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

You claim that bicycle trailers are a great solution that mean
nobody needs cars - until somebody suggests using one as a solution
to a whinge of yours - in which case, they're awful heavy things.

You are being disingenuous, yet again. A trailer is a great solution
for an ABLE-BODIED cyclist who doesn't want to use a car but is NO
solution for a disabled cyclist.

If a bicycle and trailer are not suitable for disabled people why do
you keep on saying I should use a bicycle and trailer Doug?

Because I meant an ELECTRIC bicycle and trailer, Brim.

Ah. So a trailer behind a normal pedal-powered bicycle isn't a practical
proposition? Is that what you're now telling us?

Doug wrote:
On 22 Sep, 08:05, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 21 Sep, 17:57, Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Add in 10kg of shopping, and the difference drops to 35%. Oh,
wait. You can't carry 10kg of shopping on a bicycle.
Eh! I have carried 35kg.
Without a trailer? Safely? How?
Distributed front and rear.
I repeat - safely? How?
In special panniers and boxes.

I repeat - SAFELY.

Or shall we add "centre of gravity" and "balance" to the list of
things you clearly have no clue about?

Actually the centre of gravity was lower than usual and therefore
safer.

How did you arrange that?

See how wrong you can be?

Not until you demonstrate how you lowered the CoG.

Specially constructed boxes carrying weight low down.


Which part of the frame were the boxes attached to?

See above. Have you not seen bikes abroad with large adults
sitting on the rear carrier?
I've seen bikes with people sat on the handlebars. Doesn't make
it safe.
It demonstrates the load carrying ability.
Not the SAFE load carrying capacity, it doesn't.
It gave no problems.

Oh, well, must be safe then. rolls eyes

Hmm. So an 8mph road-legal mobility scooter requires
registration etc - yet a 20mph bicycle doesn't. Again, I'm
not sure how that helps the argument that bikes shouldn't
need registering.
You have to take into account the lethal momentum of the
scooter.
That'll be the slower scooter, similar weight, with far better
brakes, right?
No much heavier than a bicycle
We've already done this. You don't think I plucked that 50kg
figure out of my arse, do you? Just because you don't do any
research, don't assume that others don't.
You of course cherry picked the smallest and lightest.

No, I didn't.

50 kg is very light for a typical mobility scooter as a simple
search will show.

Evidence?

Been there done that. Try your own Google search for a change and
learn to read properly while you are at it.

So, as usual, none.

Here is a typical scooter and by no means the heaviest at 85kg.
Much, much heavier than a typical bicycle.

So what? It still proves that a mobility scooter isn't INHERENTLY
considerably heavier than a bicycle.

B'sides, you're still ignoring the levelling factor of the mass of
the rider etc - as well, of course, as the greater speed and poorer
braking.

The point you keep on evading is that both are potentially lethal
but only the scooter is allowed on pavements.

Not true Doug. A bicycle is *not* potentially lethal. Bicycles being
ridden on the footpah have killed people, therefore bicycles *are*
lethal.

Can you show any examples of footpath legal mobility buggies killing
anyone?

Been there done that. Try learning to read properly.

So that's a "No" then.

It has already been demonstrated that such scooters can kill
Same as it's been demonstrated that cyclists on pavements can
kill.
Again, killer scooters are allowed but disable killer cyclists are
not.

Again... So. ****ing. What?

Discriminatory, obviously.

Do yo mean you want 4mph mobility buggies to be forced into the road?

Nope. I want disabled cyclists to be properly recognised.

How?

and yet they are allowed on pavements and disabled cyclists are
not.
Correct. And you've yet to provide any evidence as to why that's
not utterly justified. Some emotive ******** and some vague
hand-waving (easily shot down with facts), sure. But that's not
evidence, is it?
The only evidence needed is that it is a widely acknowledged fact
backed up by legislation.

I can only imagine your reaction if somebody ever tried that line
when you were demanding proof...

Unlike you I wouldn't demand proof when it was plainly obvious.

4mph scooters are allowed on pavements and cyclists are not.

Correct. Well done.

BTW, black cyclists aren't allowed to cycle on pavements, either.
Is that racism? Nor are gay cyclists. Homophobia? Or female
cyclists. Sexism?

How would you make such a case?

Creating a case out of nothing is an area in which you excel Doug.
Give it a try.

Its not my case. Again, learn to read properly.

I didn't say it was yours. Learn to read preperly.

Worse still, cars are sometimes even allowed on pavements!!!
In exactly the same places as cyclists are, yes. Able-bodied or
disabled. You're getting very predictable - and boring.
Again, motorists can legally drive along pavements to park but
disabled cyclists are not allowed legally to ride along pavements
to park.

When are you going to attempt to provide proof of that?

Well it is self-evident that a car must be driven onto a pavement to
park there and...

"Cycling on the footway (pavement) is an offence under Section 72 of
the Highways Act 1835 as amended by Section 85 (1) of the Local
Government Act 1888."

There is no mention of distance cycled so it can be safely assumed
that ANY distance cycled on a pavement must be an offence.

Then how do you explain shared use foot/cycle paths Doug?

They are obviously legal exemptions.

Therefore your previous statement is a lie isn't it Doug?

No they are not. You can't easily ride a wheelchair as far as a
bicycle so you have to put the wheelchair in a car to use it
effectively.
You could put the wheelchair in a trailer behind a bicycle.
You're always telling us how good a bicycle and trailer is as a
load-carrier. Why change that tune all of a sudden?
So now you expect a disabled cyclist to pull a heavy trailer with
a wheelchair in it

Umm, yes, if they need one. Just like you claim car drivers are
spoiled because they can do.

A disabled cyclist should not need a wheelchair when they can use
their cycle, that is the whole point. Why do you wish to
discriminate against disabled cyclists by wanting them to tow a
trailer with wheelchair instead of just using their bike?

It's you who want's to discriminate Doug. At the moment disabled
cyclists enjoy the same facilities as everyone else. Singling them
out for special treatment is discriminatory.

They do not enjoy the same facilities as disabled wheelchair users.

That's because a bicycle is not the same as wheelchair Doug.

just because disabled cyclists are discriminated against in law?

Which, of course, they aren't.

Well obviously they are because they are not treated similar to
wheelchair users.

That's because a bicycle is not the same as a wheelchair.

It can still be a mobility aid.

What are you doing to get bicycles recognised as such?

You're hilarious. I point out that your claims of discrimination
are not only blatant lies but easily worked around, and you claim
the workarounds are discrimination...

You are being discriminatory.

In what way?

By choosing to treat disable cyclists differently to wheelchair users.

That's because a bicycle is not the same as a wheelchair Doug. If you look
carefully you'll notice some significant differences.

You claim that bicycle trailers are a great solution that mean
nobody needs cars - until somebody suggests using one as a
solution to a whinge of yours - in which case, they're awful heavy
things.

You are being disingenuous, yet again. A trailer is a great solution
for an ABLE-BODIED cyclist who doesn't want to use a car but is NO
solution for a disabled cyclist.

If a bicycle and trailer are not suitable for disabled people why do
you keep on saying I should use a bicycle and trailer Doug?

Because I meant an ELECTRIC bicycle and trailer, Brim. Maybe you would
like to explain the extent of your disability instead of keep on
dodging it. How come you can drive a car and have space for one but
not use or have space for, say, a mobility buggy or electric bicycle?

I suffer from arthritis in both legs and from a depressive illness. My car
is parked on my garden which is across the road from my house. My house
being up steps.

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

Eh! I have carried 35kg.

Distributed front and rear.

In special panniers and boxes.

Actually the centre of gravity was lower than usual and therefore
safer.

Specially constructed boxes carrying weight low down.

Which part of the frame were the boxes attached to?

I can only assume that the weight on the front was attached to the forks
- which would make the steering massively heavy and ponderous. The last
thing you need, with the extra static mass threatening the balance -
especially if the cyclist is of limited mobility and therefore slower -
and, presumably, also of restricted balance. Given Duhg's original
description of a cyclist who can only provide power with one leg, there's
really no way that this is a safe combination for road use.

A trailer would be a MUCH better solution - giving much better weight
distribution and making balance easier, not more difficult.

However, since Duhg's now decided that only an electric bicycle is safe
to tow a trailer with, that's clearly not an option - unless, of course,
this mythical "friend" of his is now riding an electric bicycle.

I wonder whether he's moved to a "green" electricity tariff yet?

On 22 Sep, 00:01, Judith M Smith wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:48:47 -0700 (PDT), BrianW

wrote:

snip



For once, Mr Bollen would not be lying if he claimed he did not live
at the address you state:

http://www.hilpers.org/..................................

I just wonder at the mentality of someone who thinks it is
funny/clever to publicise the home address of another poster.

Could you explain please?

I didn't, "judith". Why don't you learn to read, you dumb ****?