Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

"Steve Walker" gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Nigel Oldfield in Lycra

AAAAGH! YOU *******!

MINDBLEACH! NOW!

A quaint idea, but you seem to have overlooked the fact that the motoring
public hijacked the road network and assumed its exclusive use and ownership
long ago.

So now your solution is for cyclists to hijack the pavements from the
pedestrians. It seems to undermine your argument somewhat!!

Jeff

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

A quaint idea, but you seem to have overlooked the fact that the motoring
public hijacked the road network and assumed its exclusive use and
ownership
long ago.

So now your solution is for cyclists to hijack the pavements from the
pedestrians. It seems to undermine your argument somewhat!!

Not at all.

Cyclists should not be intimidated into using pavements. They should get out
on to the main carriageway.

Cyclists using the pavement, shared use paths and cycle lanes are copping
out.

Frankly, I would like to see pavement cycling totally eradicated.

On Oct 27, 8:44*am, Squashme wrote:
On 26 Oct, 22:02, "Steve Walker" wrote:

Clive George wrote:
On 26/10/2010 20:08, Steve Walker wrote:

I personally don't think it's realistic for busy, modern
traffic to work around anachronisms like horse-drawn
vehicles & bicycles, velocipedes, rickshaws & steam traction
engines etc.

There there.

I wasn't asking to be comforted, or patronised. *This is meant to be a
discussion about traffic safety, if you want a snide name-calling exercise
then please start a new thread.

And you don't think that your personal statement was intentionally
insulting?

Well he did only refer to horse-drawn bicycles - I don't think there
are many users of them on this newsgroup that would be insulted by
it. Of course if he really meant to refer to all bicycles as
anachronisms then of course it is intentionally provocative on a
cycling newsgroup. Maybe he should clarify.

Colin

On 28 Oct, 08:11, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:56:26 +0100, JNugent
wrote:



Tom Crispin *wrote:

wrote:
On 25/10/2010 23:11, JMS wrote:
Tom Crispin * wrote:

snip

No doubt you can "understand" cyclists breaking other laws as well..

Yes - and I have posted details of such circumstances before. Even
official guidance allows for cyclists to use the footway under certain
circumstances:

Rubbish - there is no such "official guidance" for cyclists to use
footways unless there are clear signs that that is the case.

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of
traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing
so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement,
acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young
people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use
of police discretion is required."
Former Home Office Minister Paul Boateng

That was *never* ever official guidance.

Quite.
And "former" says all you need to know.

It was in a letter to another MP - who chose to publish it.

And in any case, what possible "consideration" is being shown to footway (not
"pavement") users exiting their homes directly onto the footway by cyclists
speeding past?

Are we talking about the same house?

I don't know. I'm talking about the very many houses there are in the UK with
front doors opening directly onto the footway. There are a lot of them -
possibly millions. Thera re also many shops and other high-street places of
business which answer to the same description. A sensible person would grasp
instinctively that it is wrong to cycle along any of them.

But you don't, apparently.

Given that this thread was about a specific couple in a specific
house, I find it odd that you start talking about non-specific people
in non-specific houses.

He sometimes heads off from the specific and actual into "the
principle." I wonder why?

"Ah, that's all very well in practice, but how does it work out in
theory?"

On 28/10/2010 08:11, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:56:26 +0100,
wrote:

Tom wrote:

wrote:
On 25/10/2010 23:11, JMS wrote:
Tom wrote:

snip

No doubt you can "understand" cyclists breaking other laws as well.

Yes - and I have posted details of such circumstances before. Even
official guidance allows for cyclists to use the footway under certain
circumstances:

Rubbish - there is no such "official guidance" for cyclists to use
footways unless there are clear signs that that is the case.

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of
traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing
so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement,
acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young
people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use
of police discretion is required."
Former Home Office Minister Paul Boateng

That was *never* ever official guidance.

Quite.
And "former" says all you need to know.

It was in a letter to another MP - who chose to publish it.

And in any case, what possible "consideration" is being shown to footway (not
"pavement") users exiting their homes directly onto the footway by cyclists
speeding past?

Are we talking about the same house?

I don't know. I'm talking about the very many houses there are in the UK with
front doors opening directly onto the footway. There are a lot of them -
possibly millions. Thera re also many shops and other high-street places of
business which answer to the same description. A sensible person would grasp
instinctively that it is wrong to cycle along any of them.

But you don't, apparently.

Given that this thread was about a specific couple in a specific
house, I find it odd that you start talking about non-specific people
in non-specific houses.

The original post was about a house where some land which *appeared* to be
part of the footway, but was not, because it was part of the curtilage of the
property. There was a bay window occupying part of that piece of land. It was
clearly of little use to anyone passing by any means, and the occupier sought
to mark out his property in order to dissuade cyclists from cycling on it.

There would be at least two reasons for that AFAICS. One was that there might
be danger to pedestrians on the footway (which might include the occupiers).
Another was that privacy inside the house was compromised, though this could
be ameliorated by dissuading cyclists - and, it has to be said, pedestrians -
from using it. A third one might be that there is significant risk of
cosmetic damage to the exterior of the front of the property, including
breakage of windows as well as scraping.

If I were the occupier of that house, I would do what I could to prevent the
use of the private land adjacent to the wall of the house from being used by
anyone, let alone cyclists. This might involve some structure making cycling
impossible and walking very inconvenient. In an ideal world, a sign saying
"Private property" would be all that was required.

Tom Cwispin wrote:

It was in a letter to another MP - who chose to publish it.

And in any case, what possible "consideration" is being shown to
footway (not "pavement") users exiting their homes directly onto
the footway by cyclists speeding past?

Are we talking about the same house?

I don't know. I'm talking about the very many houses there are in
the UK with front doors opening directly onto the footway. There are
a lot of them - possibly millions. Thera re also many shops and
other high-street places of business which answer to the same
description. A sensible person would grasp instinctively that it is
wrong to cycle along any of them.

But you don't, apparently.

Given that this thread was about a specific couple in a specific
house, I find it odd that you start talking about non-specific people
in non-specific houses.

You would, you are a thick ****.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

Squashme wrote:
On 27 Oct, 23:27, "Steve Walker" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 26 Oct, 22:02, "Steve Walker" wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 26/10/2010 20:08, Steve Walker wrote:

I personally don't think it's realistic for busy, modern
traffic to work around anachronisms like horse-drawn
vehicles & bicycles, velocipedes, rickshaws & steam traction
engines etc.

There there.

I wasn't asking to be comforted, or patronised. This is meant
to be a discussion about traffic safety, if you want a snide
name-calling exercise then please start a new thread.

And you don't think that your personal statement was
intentionally insulting?

You mean the suggestion of a safe, intermediate lane for slower
traffic?

"Perhaps we need to experiment with a widened middle lane for
slow-moving vehicles, instead of cycle lanes. Obviously there would
be a fair bit of demolition & widening required to achieve a decent
amount of this, but we need the jobs and the end result would be
much safer."

You think that was insulting, do you? To whom, pray?

"I personally don't think it's realistic for busy, modern traffic to
work
around anachronisms like horse-drawn vehicles & bicycles, velocipedes,
rickshaws & steam traction engines etc. However that doesn't
justify
those vehicles moving onto the pavements, where they will in turn
intimidate
and frighten pedestrians."

I think that paragraph was insulting and I think that you meant it to
be.

The paragraph was spot on.

Insulting is me calling you a thick ****. Actually no, thats simply an
accurate description you might not agree with, being a thick ****.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

wrote:
On Oct 27, 8:44 am, Squashme wrote:
On 26 Oct, 22:02, "Steve Walker" wrote:

Clive George wrote:
On 26/10/2010 20:08, Steve Walker wrote:

I personally don't think it's realistic for busy, modern
traffic to work around anachronisms like horse-drawn
vehicles & bicycles, velocipedes, rickshaws & steam traction
engines etc.

There there.

I wasn't asking to be comforted, or patronised. This is meant to be
a discussion about traffic safety, if you want a snide name-calling
exercise then please start a new thread.

And you don't think that your personal statement was intentionally
insulting?

Well he did only refer to horse-drawn bicycles - I don't think there
are many users of them on this newsgroup that would be insulted by
it.

Are you completely & utterly ****ing stupid? He didn't refer to horse-drawn
bicycles at all you idiot.

The reference was to horse-drawn vehicles & bicycles which are clearly two
separate things.

Of course if he really meant to refer to all bicycles as
anachronisms then of course it is intentionally provocative on a
cycling newsgroup. Maybe he should clarify.

All bicycles are anachronisms. Relegated to childrens toys & completely
unsuitable as a form of transport - unless you are an immature schoolboy.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

mileburner wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
...

A quaint idea, but you seem to have overlooked the fact that the
motoring public hijacked the road network and assumed its exclusive
use and ownership
long ago.

So now your solution is for cyclists to hijack the pavements from the
pedestrians. It seems to undermine your argument somewhat!!

Mole****** doesn't really 'do' arguments. He spouts crap & then goes to
endless lengths to discredit anyone who reminds him of his inherent
stupidity.


Not at all.

Cyclists should not be intimidated into using pavements. They should
get out on to the main carriageway.

Cyclists should realise they are using a childrens toy as a form of
transport & keep off the roads completely.

Cyclists using the pavement, shared use paths and cycle lanes are
copping out.

Frankly, I would like to see pavement cycling totally eradicated.

As would most pedestrians who face terrorism by cyclists on a daily basis.

Frankly, I would like to see cycling totally eradicated.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.