|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |