|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
On 06/09/2019 11:46, JNugent wrote:
On 06/09/2019 08:38, TMS320 wrote: On 06/09/2019 00:31, JNugent wrote: On 06/09/2019 00:20, TMS320 wrote: On 05/09/2019 12:15, JNugent wrote: On 05/09/2019 00:06, TMS320 wrote: On 04/09/2019 12:37, JNugent wrote: The report clearly states that the victim was on foot on the "pavement" (properly known as the "footway" for good and rather obvious reasons) and that the offender was also on the footway, on a bicycle. What did the "offender" do to the "victim"? The "victim" was threatened by the "offender's" dangerous behaviour, of course. (Note I have put back the quotes.) You can do as you like. It doesn't make cycling along the "pavement" lawful. Whether or not they did something against the rules is irrelevant to final situation. What "final situation"? Oh, you didn't finish reading the article. No wonder you got victim and offender the wrong way round. You're making a rather big leap to assume that if something is not permitted it is necessarily dangerous. Shared paths, created by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen on previously ordinary footways, demonstrate it is not so. Ask the victim whether he was in danger from the illegal cycling, not me. He's the only one who can judge it. And he had a right to remonstrate at the very least. I was telling you not asking. That's even sillier than your previous position. What was my previous position? There's a reason why cycling along footways is not allowed. Have a think and see whether you can guess what it is. The reason is a law going back to 1835. The basic idea being to provide an area that would be clear of animal ****. You're really scraping that barrel. Or was it 1885? I can't remember. Either way it was long before bicycles, cars and 44t lorries. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
On 06/09/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 8:38:21 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: Whether or not they did something against the rules is irrelevant to final situation. You are wasting your time. Nugents will never admit he is wrong. They will keep reducing the discussion to the tiny, tiny kernel of argument he has not lost and pretend that was what the argument was all about. Yes, but eventually it falls into a vortex of its own anti-logic. Unfortunately it's not possible to do anything about it reappearing on the other side. There is no evidence in the report that the victim was cycling on the footway. 'Pushed into the road' could mean many things. Well, it means that the person was going slowly and carefully. It is only possible to attack that sort. A woman too. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 12:10:04 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 06/09/2019 16:12, Simon Jester wrote: There is no evidence in the report that the victim was cycling on the footway. 'Pushed into the road' could mean many things. Well, it means that the person was going slowly and carefully. It is only possible to attack that sort. A woman too. It could be just sloppy reporting by a motorist. The victim was most likely cycling along the edge of the carriageway and was pushed over into the part of the carriageway used by 'traffic'. The police are calling the cyclist the victim and absent evidence to the contrary we must assume the victim was cycling legally. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:20:40 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
You're making a rather big leap to assume that if something is not permitted it is necessarily dangerous. Shared paths, created by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen on previously ordinary footways, demonstrate it is not so. Good point. The Nugents and the Pounders rant about pavement cyclists until the council workers and their can of Magic White Paint create a shared use path, then we are told cyclists should not be on the carriageway. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
On 07/09/2019 14:22, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:20:40 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: You're making a rather big leap to assume that if something is not permitted it is necessarily dangerous. Shared paths, created by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen on previously ordinary footways, demonstrate it is not so. Good point. The Nugents and the Pounders rant about pavement cyclists until the council workers and their can of Magic White Paint create a shared use path, then we are told cyclists should not be on the carriageway. Not by me, you aren't. Footways are sometimes used - lazily and cheaply - as cycle routes by local authorities, but no-one sensible agrees with it. Cyclists belong on the carriageway, taking their chances with the rest of the traffic and complying with traffic law. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
JNugent wrote:
On 07/09/2019 14:22, Simon Jester wrote: On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:20:40 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: You're making a rather big leap to assume that if something is not permitted it is necessarily dangerous. Shared paths, created by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen on previously ordinary footways, demonstrate it is not so. Good point. The Nugents and the Pounders rant about pavement cyclists until the council workers and their can of Magic White Paint create a shared use path, then we are told cyclists should not be on the carriageway. Not by me, you aren't. Footways are sometimes used - lazily and cheaply - as cycle routes by local authorities, but no-one sensible agrees with it. Cyclists belong on the carriageway, taking their chances with the rest of the traffic and complying with traffic law. Is it not fun to watch the cyclists squirm? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
On 07/09/2019 14:22, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:20:40 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: You're making a rather big leap to assume that if something is not permitted it is necessarily dangerous. Shared paths, created by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen on previously ordinary footways, demonstrate it is not so. Good point. Thank you. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
On 07/09/2019 15:18, JNugent wrote:
On 07/09/2019 14:22, Simon Jester wrote: On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:20:40 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: You're making a rather big leap to assume that if something is not permitted it is necessarily dangerous. Shared paths, created by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen on previously ordinary footways, demonstrate it is not so. Good point. The Nugents and the Pounders rant about pavement cyclists until the council workers and their can of Magic White Paint create a shared use path, then we are told cyclists should not be on the carriageway. Not by me, you aren't. Footways are sometimes used - lazily and cheaply - as cycle routes by local authorities, And I bet you never walk along any of them. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
On 07/09/2019 21:26, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/09/2019 15:18, JNugent wrote: On 07/09/2019 14:22, Simon Jester wrote: On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:20:40 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: You're making a rather big leap to assume that if something is not permitted it is necessarily dangerous. Shared paths, created by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen on previously ordinary footways, demonstrate it is not so. Good point. The Nugents and the Pounders rant about pavement cyclists until the council workers and their can of Magic White Paint create a shared use path, then we are told cyclists should not be on the carriageway. Not by me, you aren't. Footways are sometimes used - lazily and cheaply - as cycle routes by local authorities, And I bet you never walk along any of them. Assuming you know (perhaps not the safest of assumptions), what are you talking about? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Pedestrian takes the law into his own hands
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 15:29:00 GMT, "Mr Pounder Esquire"
wrote: JNugent wrote: On 07/09/2019 14:22, Simon Jester wrote: On Friday, September 6, 2019 at 12:20:40 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: You're making a rather big leap to assume that if something is not permitted it is necessarily dangerous. Shared paths, created by the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen on previously ordinary footways, demonstrate it is not so. Good point. The Nugents and the Pounders rant about pavement cyclists until the council workers and their can of Magic White Paint create a shared use path, then we are told cyclists should not be on the carriageway. Not by me, you aren't. Footways are sometimes used - lazily and cheaply - as cycle routes by local authorities, but no-one sensible agrees with it. Cyclists belong on the carriageway, taking their chances with the rest of the traffic and complying with traffic law. Is it not fun to watch the cyclists squirm? Perv. -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Giro d'Italia Stage 3: Goss takes win as crash brings downCavendish and takes out leader Phinney too | Simon Mason[_4_] | UK | 0 | May 8th 12 12:43 PM |
Hands | gagtape | Unicycling | 13 | August 9th 07 12:00 AM |
Look Ma! No hands! | Paul Weaver | UK | 33 | August 4th 06 05:29 PM |
Look, Ma. No hands! | Henry | Recumbent Biking | 18 | August 13th 04 07:36 PM |
ok, hands up | jim beam | Techniques | 58 | September 13th 03 03:00 PM |