A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old October 29th 10, 08:31 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Squashme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,146
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On 29 Oct, 01:02, "The Medway Handyman" davidno-spam-
wrote:
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 ****.


World toy production:-

http://www.worldometers.info/bicycles/

World production of ****mobiles:-

http://www.worldometers.info/cars/

Ads
  #92  
Old October 29th 10, 10:07 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Peter Keller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 802
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:08:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:



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



Utter ****ing bull****.


--
67.4% of statistics are made up.
  #93  
Old October 29th 10, 11:07 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
mileburner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,365
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property


"Peter Keller" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:08:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:



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



Utter ****ing bull****.


Clue.

Posted by: The Medway Handyman

HTH


  #94  
Old October 29th 10, 06:17 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
The Medway Handyman[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 392
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

mileburner wrote:
"Peter Keller" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:08:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:



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



Utter ****ing bull****.


Clue.

Posted by: The Medway Handyman


Clueless.

Answer from; mole******. Unable to answer the point made as usual.


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


  #95  
Old October 30th 10, 07:52 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Peter Keller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 802
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:07:54 +0100, mileburner wrote:

"Peter Keller" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:08:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:



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



Utter ****ing bull****.


Clue.

Posted by: The Medway Handyman

HTH


I know. Not news. An expected event is not news.



--
67.4% of statistics are made up.
  #96  
Old October 30th 10, 08:04 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
bod
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 273
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On 30/10/2010 07:52, Peter Keller wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:07:54 +0100, mileburner wrote:

"Peter wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:08:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:



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


Utter ****ing bull****.


Clue.

Posted by: The Medway Handyman

HTH


I know. Not news. An expected event is not news.



We knew men were going to land on the moon, did that not qualify as news
when they actually did? ie; it was expected.
Of course it was news.

Bod
  #97  
Old October 30th 10, 10:27 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
mileburner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,365
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property


"bod" wrote in message
...
On 30/10/2010 07:52, Peter Keller wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:07:54 +0100, mileburner wrote:

"Peter wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:08:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:



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


Utter ****ing bull****.

Clue.

Posted by: The Medway Handyman

HTH


I know. Not news. An expected event is not news.



We knew men were going to land on the moon, did that not qualify as news
when they actually did? ie; it was expected.
Of course it was news.


Did they *really* ever land on the moon?
http://www.clavius.org/


  #98  
Old October 30th 10, 10:52 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
webreader
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 449
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On Oct 30, 10:27*am, "mileburner" wrote:
"bod" wrote in message

...



On 30/10/2010 07:52, Peter Keller wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:07:54 +0100, mileburner wrote:


"Peter *wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:08:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:


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


Utter ****ing bull****.


Clue.


Posted by: The Medway Handyman


HTH


I know. *Not news. *An expected event is not news.


We knew men were going to land on the moon, did that not qualify as news
when they actually did? ie; it was expected.
Of course it was news.


Did they *really* ever land on the moon?http://www.clavius.org/


Stupid boy, they must have done, a friend of mine bought some of the
green cheese they brought back.
  #99  
Old October 30th 10, 11:49 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
The Medway Handyman[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 392
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

mileburner wrote:
"bod" wrote in message
...
On 30/10/2010 07:52, Peter Keller wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:07:54 +0100, mileburner wrote:

"Peter wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:08:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:



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


Utter ****ing bull****.

Clue.

Posted by: The Medway Handyman

HTH

I know. Not news. An expected event is not news.



We knew men were going to land on the moon, did that not qualify as
news when they actually did? ie; it was expected.
Of course it was news.


Did they *really* ever land on the moon?
http://www.clavius.org/


Ask your bum chum Mason, he's written a book about exploring shortwave's
dark side & strange transmissions.


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


  #100  
Old October 31st 10, 06:39 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal
Tom Crispin[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,007
Default Cyclists complain that they cant cycle on couples property

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:14:56 +0100, Jeff wrote:


What does 1835 have to do with anything? Riding bicycles on the
pavement is dangerous, so it's not allowed.


The point being made is when the law came into effect, there was no motor
traffic to avoid. We have developed a situation where we have dramatically
changed the traffic on the roads but have not taught drivers how to behave
near cyclists.


The situation has not changed at all, the risk to pedestrians from
cyclists remains the same as it was in 1835.


How many cyclists were there about in 1835?

Has the risk to pedestrians from *trucks* (shopping trolleys), changed
since 1835? Or perhaps the law was written for some reason other than
the safety of pedestrians.

On reading Section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act, I am left with the
clear impression that the intention of the lawmakers of the time is
that the footway should remain clear of obstruction and dirt left
behind by animals.


==========Section 72==========
If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the
side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of
foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass,
sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any
truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether
any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to
suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon; every person so
offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every such
offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding level 2 on the standard
scale, over and above the damages occasioned thereby.
==========/Section 72==========

The risk to cyclists on the roads may have changed, but that does not
give cyclists the right to endanger pedestrians in order to mitigate
that risk.

Jeff

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
and the cyclists complain about every little thing in the UK Mrcheerful[_2_] UK 3 June 18th 10 07:48 AM
and the cyclists complain about every little thing in the UK Mrcheerful[_2_] UK 0 June 17th 10 06:32 PM
OK to hit cyclists outside a cycle lane. spindrift UK 66 August 19th 08 10:29 AM
odd couples [email protected] Racing 4 December 11th 06 01:42 AM
Why do cyclists not use the cycle path? Tony Raven UK 30 August 13th 06 12:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.