|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Is this a cycle or footpath?
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 12:45:52 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
wrote: On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 9:36:49 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: Nobody "supports" pavement cycling. Some of us just don't think it is something to get worked up about. Indeed. Here is an example of a car opposite my house that ALWAYS parks ***completely*** on the footpath. It does not concern me in the slightest, despite it breaking the law several times a day. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3yaGWVXoAAYr59.jpg That is not on! It is a young lady that parks there and I do not want to appear Victor Meldrew like by asking her not to drive her car over the footpath every day and block it. I have to live around here, remember. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Is this a cycle or footpath?
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 2:18:01 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
Have you heard the word "gammon" used in current parlance? Like this lot? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3s5RdLWsAEvm59.jpg |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Is this a cycle or footpath?
On 10/04/2019 14:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/04/2019 12:02, JNugent wrote: On 10/04/2019 09:36, TMS320 wrote: On 10/04/2019 02:12, JNugent wrote: *IF* you don't support pavement cycling, there is nothing to stop you saying so, explicitly. Nobody "supports" pavement cycling. Some of us just don't think it is something to get worked up about. In other (more honest and less weaselly) words, "some of" you don't think - and refuse to accept - that there is anything wrong with it. To the extent that such a stance is distinct from supporting it, the distinction is purely semantic. You are projecting. Not in the slightest. I have no difficulty in expressing clearly those things I condemn, irrespective of road-user class. It is you and Jester who cannot bring yourself to blame cyclists for cycling on the footway. Have you heard the word "gammon" used in current parlance? We rarely buy it. It's usually too salty. But you don't say it, which tells its own tale. As the lawyers have it: silence gives consent. It's not a binary issue. It's a plain breach of the law designed to protect all of us when we are pedestrians, which is most of the time. Rubbish. The official figures show that most people go by car if their journey is further than the fridge. That's gibberish. It may be a technical breach of the law but I am giving you my opinion that it is nothing to get worked up about. TRANSLATION: "The danger and inconvenience caused to third parties is completely acceptable when I and other cyclists ride our bikes along the pavement or in other pedestrian-only areas. The only issue is whether I gain utility from it, and I do". |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Is this a cycle or footpath?
JNugent wrote:
On 10/04/2019 12:45, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: wrote: On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 9:36:49 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: Nobody "supports" pavement cycling. Some of us just don't think it is something to get worked up about. Indeed. Here is an example of a car opposite my house that ALWAYS parks ***completely*** on the footpath. It does not concern me in the slightest, despite it breaking the law several times a day. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3yaGWVXoAAYr59.jpg That is not on! Of course it isn't. There is a bloke over the road who I think is knocking off the lady of the house. He blocks the footpath every day as in that I cannot walk on the footpath. There is a school down the road and the bimbos walk down the footpath. I can see a key being used on his car. That's where we don't agree. Doing that is a crime - criminal damage* - and the correct way to deal with the problem is for the police to issue a FPN or a summons. [* Something like that in one's history causes all sorts of problems.] Yes, of course it is a crime. But, the parents pushing prams may not see it that way, after they have been forced to walk in the road. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Is this a cycle or footpath?
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 2:12:25 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 09/04/2019 16:35, Simon Jester wrote: On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 2:05:48 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 09/04/2019 09:13, Simon Jester wrote: On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 1:56:50 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 08/04/2019 12:09, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 11:15:53 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 07/04/2019 21:58, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 2:03:17 PM UTC+1, wrote: Nobody seems to know what it is. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...otpath-2386098 It's not a road and that is the only thing that matters. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/34 No doubt Nugent will cry 'But Mummy cyclists ride on pavements and it's not faaayeeeerrr' You are projecting again. Anyone who drives a motor vehicle or rides a bicycle on a pedestrian-only part of the highway (especially a footway) should be prosecuted. It's only people like you who think it's acceptable to drive and/or ride where driving and riding are prohibited. Please cite the post where I have said this is acceptable. If you have condemned pavement cyclists (unequivocally), I missed that post. Perhaps you could conveniently repeat the condemnation now, then I can give you the applause which would then be necessary. We'll soon see... Just answer the question and leave the goalposts alone. Where did I say pavement cycling is acceptable? See what I mean? You don't condemn pavement cycling and never have. If you had, and if you were posting in good faith, you'd have no difficulty in repeating it. Not condemning something and saying it is acceptable are completely different. I have never universally condemned drink driving on this group, does that mean I find it acceptable? Now, are you going to provide evidence or not? *IF* you don't support pavement cycling, there is nothing to stop you saying so, explicitly. But you don't say it, which tells its own tale. As the lawyers have it: silence gives consent. We also have presumption of innocence. You have accused me of posting that I find pavement cycling acceptable/ You need to provide evidence to support this accusation. Since I know no such evidence exists and you are too childish to admit you are wrong there is no point in continuing this. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Is this a cycle or footpath?
On 10/04/2019 17:14, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 2:12:25 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 09/04/2019 16:35, Simon Jester wrote: On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 2:05:48 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 09/04/2019 09:13, Simon Jester wrote: On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 1:56:50 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 08/04/2019 12:09, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 11:15:53 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 07/04/2019 21:58, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 2:03:17 PM UTC+1, wrote: Nobody seems to know what it is. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...otpath-2386098 It's not a road and that is the only thing that matters. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/34 No doubt Nugent will cry 'But Mummy cyclists ride on pavements and it's not faaayeeeerrr' You are projecting again. Anyone who drives a motor vehicle or rides a bicycle on a pedestrian-only part of the highway (especially a footway) should be prosecuted. It's only people like you who think it's acceptable to drive and/or ride where driving and riding are prohibited. Please cite the post where I have said this is acceptable. If you have condemned pavement cyclists (unequivocally), I missed that post. Perhaps you could conveniently repeat the condemnation now, then I can give you the applause which would then be necessary. We'll soon see... Just answer the question and leave the goalposts alone. Where did I say pavement cycling is acceptable? See what I mean? You don't condemn pavement cycling and never have. If you had, and if you were posting in good faith, you'd have no difficulty in repeating it. Not condemning something and saying it is acceptable are completely different. I have never universally condemned drink driving on this group, does that mean I find it acceptable? Now, are you going to provide evidence or not? *IF* you don't support pavement cycling, there is nothing to stop you saying so, explicitly. But you don't say it, which tells its own tale. As the lawyers have it: silence gives consent. We also have presumption of innocence. You have accused me of posting that I find pavement cycling acceptable/ You need to provide evidence to support this accusation. Since I know no such evidence exists and you are too childish to admit you are wrong there is no point in continuing this. You are trying to rely upon semantics to "cover" the fact that you regard cyclists as free to do anything they like, including riding along footways. You don't care for that quite reasonable interpretation and summary of your position? That'sa difficult one because I'm not going to falsify my perception of your twisting and turning in order to please you. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Is this a cycle or footpath?
On 10/04/2019 15:49, JNugent wrote:
On 10/04/2019 14:17, TMS320 wrote: On 10/04/2019 12:02, JNugent wrote: On 10/04/2019 09:36, TMS320 wrote: On 10/04/2019 02:12, JNugent wrote: *IF* you don't support pavement cycling, there is nothing to stop you saying so, explicitly. Nobody "supports" pavement cycling. Some of us just don't think it is something to get worked up about. In other (more honest and less weaselly) words, "some of" you don't think - and refuse to accept - that there is anything wrong with it. To the extent that such a stance is distinct from supporting it, the distinction is purely semantic. You are projecting. Not in the slightest. I have no difficulty in expressing clearly those things I condemn, irrespective of road-user class. It is you and Jester who cannot bring yourself to blame cyclists for cycling on the footway. "...blame cyclists for cycling on the footway". Huh? Have you heard the word "gammon" used in current parlance? We rarely buy it. It's usually too salty. Your pretend ignorance isn't convincing. But you don't say it, which tells its own tale. As the lawyers have it: silence gives consent. It's not a binary issue. It's a plain breach of the law designed to protect all of us when we are pedestrians, which is most of the time. Rubbish. The official figures show that most people go by car if their journey is further than the fridge. That's gibberish. This might help - http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/scouse-translator.asp It may be a technical breach of the law but I am giving you my opinion that it is nothing to get worked up about. TRANSLATION: It is not a big deal. "The danger and inconvenience caused to third parties is completely acceptable when I and other cyclists ride our bikes along the pavement or in other pedestrian-only areas. The only issue is whether I gain utility from it, and I do". You accuse me of riding along pavements with not a shred of evidence. Do you know what libel is? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Is this a cycle or footpath?
On 10/04/2019 21:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/04/2019 15:49, JNugent wrote: On 10/04/2019 14:17, TMS320 wrote: On 10/04/2019 12:02, JNugent wrote: On 10/04/2019 09:36, TMS320 wrote: On 10/04/2019 02:12, JNugent wrote: *IF* you don't support pavement cycling, there is nothing to stop you saying so, explicitly. Nobody "supports" pavement cycling. Some of us just don't think it is something to get worked up about. In other (more honest and less weaselly) words, "some of" you don't think - and refuse to accept - that there is anything wrong with it. To the extent that such a stance is distinct from supporting it, the distinction is purely semantic. You are projecting. Not in the slightest. I have no difficulty in expressing clearly those things I condemn, irrespective of road-user class. It is you and Jester who cannot bring yourself to blame cyclists for cycling on the footway. "...blame cyclists for cycling on the footway". Huh? Have you heard the word "gammon" used in current parlance? We rarely buy it. It's usually too salty. Your pretend ignorance isn't convincing. But you don't say it, which tells its own tale. As the lawyers have it: silence gives consent. It's not a binary issue. It's a plain breach of the law designed to protect all of us when we are pedestrians, which is most of the time. Rubbish. The official figures show that most people go by car if their journey is further than the fridge. That's gibberish. This might help - http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/scouse-translator.asp It may be a technical breach of the law but I am giving you my opinion that it is nothing to get worked up about. TRANSLATION: It is not a big deal. "The danger and inconvenience caused to third parties is completely acceptable when I and other cyclists ride our bikes along the pavement or in other pedestrian-only areas. The only issue is whether I gain utility from it, and I do". You accuse me of riding along pavements with not a shred of evidence. Do you know what libel is? Libel to point out that you defend an illegal, dangerous and anti-social practice as "no big deal"? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Is this a cycle or footpath?
On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 9:52:21 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 7:59:54 PM UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote: On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 6:59:26 PM UTC+1, wrote: On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 9:58:03 PM UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 2:03:17 PM UTC+1, wrote: Nobody seems to know what it is. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news...otpath-2386098 It's not a road and that is the only thing that matters. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/34 No doubt Nugent will cry 'But Mummy cyclists ride on pavements and it's not faaayeeeerrr' Guess what? I dropped my car off for its MOT today and walking back home, we passed a parked car half on the footpath in the village of Worlaby. IT HAD A FPN STUCK TO ITS WINDSCREEN! (((APPLAUSE))) The driver was forced to park on the footway to avoid an unlit cyclist in Tierra Del Fuego. Judging by the amount of bird droppings it had on it, it may have been there for some time. Might be able to get a photo tomorrow if it is still there. Just been past the spot and the perp has shifted it off the footway at last. A few quid lighter in the pocket though! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Don't cycle on the footpath | Alycidon | UK | 2 | October 14th 15 09:38 AM |
Look where you are going and don't ride on a footpath | Mrcheerful | UK | 0 | March 1st 14 01:46 PM |
On the footpath? | Mr Pounder | UK | 3 | December 14th 11 05:10 PM |
footpath riding | Zebee Johnstone | Australia | 27 | October 13th 07 04:36 AM |
Prize for narrowest combined cycle lane/footpath. | David W.E. Roberts | UK | 5 | August 31st 04 11:32 AM |