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

Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 24th 13, 05:41 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bret Cahill[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 290
Default Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles

It's easy to separate motor vehicles from bicycles and pedestrians --
just use those spikes like in gated communities. *Cyclists can slip
between the spikes or stop and step over them as can pedestrians. *A
motor vehicle will get 4 damaged tires.


Separating cyclists from pedestrians is trickier. *The first obvious
solution would be to install parallel bars like on cattle stops on
sidewalks/pavements. *A good wheelman, however, will just hit these at
an angle like he does oblique railroad tracks. *Maybe some combination
of patches of ice and grates would work but that would be expensive to
install and maintain and dangerous to pedestrians as well.


Moreover the weight of a cyclist + bicycle averages about that of a
pedestrian,


What?


What distinction are you drawing between a cyclist and a pedestrian?


More to the point, why?


both an order of magnitude less massive than a motor
vehicle. *Even more compelling a motor vehicle often represents 2
orders of magnitude more kinetic energy.


As a practical matter, is there really any reason not to reclassify
cyclists as pedestrians as far as cycling on the sidewalk/pavement is
concerned?


Yes.


A bicycle is a vehicle, not a pair of feet.


Some kids' shoes have small wheels in the heels.


True, but what point is it you are struggling to make?
A person riding a cycle is a cyclist (at that point)


When does a pair of wheels become a bicycle?

When a drive chain is added?

It's wouldn't be hard to snarl up the judiciary as well as
uk.rec.cycling with a lot of inbetween designs.

Gun nuts use the classification/camels nose approach all the time with
great success. Some guy in Florida realized he would have to pay a
bigger fee to register his floating dock as a dock than if he
registered it as a boat so he registered it as a boat.

My father once got an article in _Reader's Digest_ about a Navy man
who couldn't get the Navy to pay for moving his canoe across the
country. He filled it with dirt and flowers, called it a "planter"
and the Navy was ok with that.


Bret Cahill


Ads
  #22  
Old February 24th 13, 06:22 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles

On Feb 24, 11:51 am, JNugent wrote:
On 24/02/2013 10:36, Squashme wrote:









On Feb 24, 8:29 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Bret Cahill wrote:
It's easy to separate motor vehicles from bicycles and pedestrians
-- just use those spikes like in gated communities. Cyclists can
slip between the spikes or stop and step over them as can
pedestrians. A motor vehicle will get 4 damaged tires.


Separating cyclists from pedestrians is trickier. The first obvious
solution would be to install parallel bars like on cattle stops on
sidewalks/pavements. A good wheelman, however, will just hit these
at an angle like he does oblique railroad tracks. Maybe some
combination of patches of ice and grates would work but that would
be expensive to install and maintain and dangerous to pedestrians
as well.


Moreover the weight of a cyclist + bicycle averages about that of a
pedestrian, both an order of magnitude less massive than a motor
vehicle. Even more compelling a motor vehicle often represents 2
orders of magnitude more kinetic energy.


As a practical matter, is there really any reason not to reclassify
cyclists as pedestrians as far as cycling on the sidewalk/pavement
is concerned?


Bret Cahill


wheeled traffic on the road, foot traffic on the footpath. The main
reason to keep wheeled traffic separate from foot traffic is the
speed differential, which is the same reason that car and bicycle
traffic is incompatible.


The issue is avoiding injuries from collisions. After all, who cares
about a collision where no one gets hurt?


Injuries from collisions comes from 2 major sources:


1. the relative kinetic energies of 2 objects during impacts, and,


2. the crushing weight of one object as it falls or rolls over the
other.


In the first the kinetic energy is often 2 orders of magnitude higher
with a motor vehicle than a bicycle.


In the second the crushing force is an order of magnitude higher with
a motor vehicle than a bicycle.


Bret Cahill


if there were no forces involved then there would be no collision. Any
collision (even the very slightest) with a pedestrian may be sufficient to
kill the pedestrian. Any collision of pedestrian with a wheeled vehicle on
the pavement is unacceptable. Bicycles are the most common wheeled vehicle
making journeys on footpaths.


But cars are the most common killers of pedestrians on the footpath, I
believe.


Which mode do you "believe" is involved in most injuries to pedestrians
on the footway?


If you knew anything, then you would be aware that when a bicycle hits
a pedestrian, it temporarily becomes a motor vehicle, legally
speaking. So to answer your "question", you will find the mode most
involved in injuries to pedestrians on the footway is the evil car.
Bicycles are involved in a big fat ZERO such collisions. Not the
answer you wanted, that, is it?

As I have clearly won this argument, I will not be replying to any
responses that I consider trolling. If JNugent is not prepared to
accept that what I am saying is true then he is wasting his time
posting. JUST ADMIT I'M RIGHT YOU *******! Oh, and tell Judith to stop
the URCM breaching experiments (as my legal adviser tells me they are
called by learned people).
  #23  
Old February 24th 13, 06:42 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles

On Feb 24, 3:17*pm, Squashme wrote:
On Feb 24, 11:51*am, JNugent wrote:









On 24/02/2013 10:36, Squashme wrote:


On Feb 24, 8:29 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Bret Cahill wrote:
It's easy to separate motor vehicles from bicycles and pedestrians
-- just use those spikes like in gated communities. Cyclists can
slip between the spikes or stop and step over them as can
pedestrians. A motor vehicle will get 4 damaged tires.


Separating cyclists from pedestrians is trickier. The first obvious
solution would be to install parallel bars like on cattle stops on
sidewalks/pavements. A good wheelman, however, will just hit these
at an angle like he does oblique railroad tracks. Maybe some
combination of patches of ice and grates would work but that would
be expensive to install and maintain and dangerous to pedestrians
as well.


Moreover the weight of a cyclist + bicycle averages about that of a
pedestrian, both an order of magnitude less massive than a motor
vehicle. Even more compelling a motor vehicle often represents 2
orders of magnitude more kinetic energy.


As a practical matter, is there really any reason not to reclassify
cyclists as pedestrians as far as cycling on the sidewalk/pavement
is concerned?


Bret Cahill


wheeled traffic on the road, foot traffic on the footpath. The main
reason to keep wheeled traffic separate from foot traffic is the
speed differential, which is the same reason that car and bicycle
traffic is incompatible.


The issue is avoiding injuries from collisions. * After all, who cares
about a collision where no one gets hurt?


Injuries from collisions comes from 2 major sources:


1. *the relative kinetic energies of 2 objects during impacts, and,


2. *the crushing weight of one object as it falls or rolls over the
other.


In the first the kinetic energy is often 2 orders of magnitude higher
with a motor vehicle than a bicycle.


In the second the crushing force is an order of magnitude higher with
a motor vehicle than a bicycle.


Bret Cahill


if there were no forces involved then there would be no collision. *Any
collision (even the very slightest) with a pedestrian may be sufficient to
kill the pedestrian. *Any collision of pedestrian with a wheeled vehicle on
the pavement is unacceptable. *Bicycles are the most common wheeled vehicle
making journeys on footpaths.


But cars are the most common killers of pedestrians on the footpath, I
believe.


Which mode do you "believe" is involved in most injuries to pedestrians
on the footway?


You "tell" me.


Yeah. Don't pot up with any nonsense from him.

I'm sure that when you look around and see that people like me and
Simon Mason are on your side of the "URC divide", and clearly
reasonable people like JNugent are almost always opposed to you, it
must make you very confident that you've come to the right
conclusions. Yes, clearly banning cars is the only way forward: just
look at the luminaries here who support such a policy.
  #24  
Old February 24th 13, 06:55 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
nik.morgan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 433
Default Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles

wrote:
On Feb 24, 3:17 pm, Squashme wrote:
On Feb 24, 11:51 am, JNugent wrote:









On 24/02/2013 10:36, Squashme wrote:


On Feb 24, 8:29 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Bret Cahill wrote:
It's easy to separate motor vehicles from bicycles and pedestrians
-- just use those spikes like in gated communities. Cyclists can
slip between the spikes or stop and step over them as can
pedestrians. A motor vehicle will get 4 damaged tires.


Separating cyclists from pedestrians is trickier. The first obvious
solution would be to install parallel bars like on cattle stops on
sidewalks/pavements. A good wheelman, however, will just hit these
at an angle like he does oblique railroad tracks. Maybe some
combination of patches of ice and grates would work but that would
be expensive to install and maintain and dangerous to pedestrians
as well.


Moreover the weight of a cyclist + bicycle averages about that of a
pedestrian, both an order of magnitude less massive than a motor
vehicle. Even more compelling a motor vehicle often represents 2
orders of magnitude more kinetic energy.


As a practical matter, is there really any reason not to reclassify
cyclists as pedestrians as far as cycling on the sidewalk/pavement
is concerned?


Bret Cahill


wheeled traffic on the road, foot traffic on the footpath. The main
reason to keep wheeled traffic separate from foot traffic is the
speed differential, which is the same reason that car and bicycle
traffic is incompatible.


The issue is avoiding injuries from collisions. After all, who cares
about a collision where no one gets hurt?


Injuries from collisions comes from 2 major sources:


1. the relative kinetic energies of 2 objects during impacts, and,


2. the crushing weight of one object as it falls or rolls over the
other.


In the first the kinetic energy is often 2 orders of magnitude higher
with a motor vehicle than a bicycle.


In the second the crushing force is an order of magnitude higher with
a motor vehicle than a bicycle.


Bret Cahill


if there were no forces involved then there would be no collision. Any
collision (even the very slightest) with a pedestrian may be sufficient to
kill the pedestrian. Any collision of pedestrian with a wheeled vehicle on
the pavement is unacceptable. Bicycles are the most common wheeled vehicle
making journeys on footpaths.


But cars are the most common killers of pedestrians on the footpath, I
believe.


Which mode do you "believe" is involved in most injuries to pedestrians
on the footway?


You "tell" me.


Yeah. Don't pot up with any nonsense from him.

I'm sure that when you look around and see that people like me and
Simon Mason are on your side of the "URC divide", and clearly
reasonable people like JNugent are almost always opposed to you, it
must make you very confident that you've come to the right
conclusions. Yes, clearly banning cars is the only way forward: just
look at the luminaries here who support such a policy.


Dream on, how much progress have you made already in say the last ten
years?
--
ennemm
  #25  
Old February 24th 13, 07:26 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bret Cahill[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 290
Default Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles

It's easy to separate motor vehicles from bicycles and
pedestrians -- just use those spikes like in gated communities.
Cyclists can slip between the spikes or stop and step over them
as can pedestrians. A motor vehicle will get 4 damaged tires.


Separating cyclists from pedestrians is trickier. The first
obvious solution would be to install parallel bars like on
cattle stops on sidewalks/pavements. A good wheelman, however,
will just hit these at an angle like he does oblique railroad
tracks. Maybe some combination of patches of ice and grates
would work but that would be expensive to install and maintain
and dangerous to pedestrians as well.


Moreover the weight of a cyclist + bicycle averages about that
of a pedestrian, both an order of magnitude less massive than a
motor vehicle. Even more compelling a motor vehicle often
represents 2 orders of magnitude more kinetic energy.


As a practical matter, is there really any reason not to
reclassify cyclists as pedestrians as far as cycling on the
sidewalk/pavement is concerned?


Bret Cahill


wheeled traffic on the road, foot traffic on the footpath. The
main reason to keep wheeled traffic separate from foot traffic
is the speed differential, which is the same reason that car and
bicycle traffic is incompatible.


The issue is avoiding injuries from collisions. After all, who
cares about a collision where no one gets hurt?


Injuries from collisions comes from 2 major sources:


1. the relative kinetic energies of 2 objects during impacts, and,


2. the crushing weight of one object as it falls or rolls over the
other.


In the first the kinetic energy is often 2 orders of magnitude
higher with a motor vehicle than a bicycle.


In the second the crushing force is an order of magnitude higher
with a motor vehicle than a bicycle.


Bret Cahill


if there were no forces involved then there would be no collision.
Any collision (even the very slightest) with a pedestrian may be
sufficient to kill the pedestrian. Any collision of pedestrian with
a wheeled vehicle on the pavement is unacceptable. Bicycles are the
most common wheeled vehicle making journeys on footpaths.


But cars are the most common killers of pedestrians on the
footpath, I believe.


but the cars are not making whole journeys on the footpath. imagine
how many would die every minute if cars used pavements the way
cyclists do.


Motor vehicles are threshold different and need to be at a distance
from cyclists and pedestrians.


Bret Cahill


Agreed, and the same goes for cyclists and pedestrians.


The masses are comparable and the kinetic energy is only different by
a few times at most.

What is needed is
at least three separate 'lanes' to avoid conflict. *The room for such a
scheme does not exist in the UK


Sure it does. Just listen to the most important economist of the 20th
Century and spend some public money on infrastructure.

Relocate motor vehicles in underground tunnels. This will make it a
lot easier to process the CO2.


Bret Cahill




  #26  
Old February 24th 13, 08:13 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tony Dragon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,715
Default Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles

On 24/02/2013 16:41, Bret Cahill wrote:
It's easy to separate motor vehicles from bicycles and pedestrians --
just use those spikes like in gated communities. Cyclists can slip
between the spikes or stop and step over them as can pedestrians. A
motor vehicle will get 4 damaged tires.


Separating cyclists from pedestrians is trickier. The first obvious
solution would be to install parallel bars like on cattle stops on
sidewalks/pavements. A good wheelman, however, will just hit these at
an angle like he does oblique railroad tracks. Maybe some combination
of patches of ice and grates would work but that would be expensive to
install and maintain and dangerous to pedestrians as well.


Moreover the weight of a cyclist + bicycle averages about that of a
pedestrian,


What?


What distinction are you drawing between a cyclist and a pedestrian?


More to the point, why?


both an order of magnitude less massive than a motor
vehicle. Even more compelling a motor vehicle often represents 2
orders of magnitude more kinetic energy.


As a practical matter, is there really any reason not to reclassify
cyclists as pedestrians as far as cycling on the sidewalk/pavement is
concerned?


Yes.


A bicycle is a vehicle, not a pair of feet.


Some kids' shoes have small wheels in the heels.


True, but what point is it you are struggling to make?
A person riding a cycle is a cyclist (at that point)


When does a pair of wheels become a bicycle?


Did I mention bicycle?

When a drive chain is added?

It's wouldn't be hard to snarl up the judiciary as well as
uk.rec.cycling with a lot of inbetween designs.

Gun nuts use the classification/camels nose approach all the time with
great success. Some guy in Florida realized he would have to pay a
bigger fee to register his floating dock as a dock than if he
registered it as a boat so he registered it as a boat.

My father once got an article in _Reader's Digest_ about a Navy man
who couldn't get the Navy to pay for moving his canoe across the
country. He filled it with dirt and flowers, called it a "planter"
and the Navy was ok with that.


Bret Cahill




Stop wriggling.
  #27  
Old February 24th 13, 09:17 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles

On 24/02/2013 15:17, Squashme wrote:
On Feb 24, 11:51 am, JNugent wrote:
On 24/02/2013 10:36, Squashme wrote:









On Feb 24, 8:29 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Bret Cahill wrote:
It's easy to separate motor vehicles from bicycles and pedestrians
-- just use those spikes like in gated communities. Cyclists can
slip between the spikes or stop and step over them as can
pedestrians. A motor vehicle will get 4 damaged tires.


Separating cyclists from pedestrians is trickier. The first obvious
solution would be to install parallel bars like on cattle stops on
sidewalks/pavements. A good wheelman, however, will just hit these
at an angle like he does oblique railroad tracks. Maybe some
combination of patches of ice and grates would work but that would
be expensive to install and maintain and dangerous to pedestrians
as well.


Moreover the weight of a cyclist + bicycle averages about that of a
pedestrian, both an order of magnitude less massive than a motor
vehicle. Even more compelling a motor vehicle often represents 2
orders of magnitude more kinetic energy.


As a practical matter, is there really any reason not to reclassify
cyclists as pedestrians as far as cycling on the sidewalk/pavement
is concerned?


Bret Cahill


wheeled traffic on the road, foot traffic on the footpath. The main
reason to keep wheeled traffic separate from foot traffic is the
speed differential, which is the same reason that car and bicycle
traffic is incompatible.


The issue is avoiding injuries from collisions. After all, who cares
about a collision where no one gets hurt?


Injuries from collisions comes from 2 major sources:


1. the relative kinetic energies of 2 objects during impacts, and,


2. the crushing weight of one object as it falls or rolls over the
other.


In the first the kinetic energy is often 2 orders of magnitude higher
with a motor vehicle than a bicycle.


In the second the crushing force is an order of magnitude higher with
a motor vehicle than a bicycle.


Bret Cahill


if there were no forces involved then there would be no collision. Any
collision (even the very slightest) with a pedestrian may be sufficient to
kill the pedestrian. Any collision of pedestrian with a wheeled vehicle on
the pavement is unacceptable. Bicycles are the most common wheeled vehicle
making journeys on footpaths.


But cars are the most common killers of pedestrians on the footpath, I
believe.


Which mode do you "believe" is involved in most injuries to pedestrians
on the footway?


You "tell" me.


I cannot tell you what you might or not believe.

But I note this spurious series of distinctions between
threat/intimidation, collisions, injuries and fatalities.

Why would anyone use a measure which ignores the first three as though
they were of no consequence?
  #28  
Old February 24th 13, 09:20 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles

On 24/02/2013 17:22, wrote:

On Feb 24, 11:51 am, JNugent wrote:
On 24/02/2013 10:36, Squashme wrote:
On Feb 24, 8:29 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Bret Cahill wrote:


[ ... ]

Injuries from collisions comes from 2 major sources:


1. the relative kinetic energies of 2 objects during impacts, and,
2. the crushing weight of one object as it falls or rolls over the
other.


In the first the kinetic energy is often 2 orders of magnitude higher
with a motor vehicle than a bicycle.
In the second the crushing force is an order of magnitude higher with
a motor vehicle than a bicycle.


if there were no forces involved then there would be no collision. Any
collision (even the very slightest) with a pedestrian may be sufficient to
kill the pedestrian. Any collision of pedestrian with a wheeled vehicle on
the pavement is unacceptable. Bicycles are the most common wheeled vehicle
making journeys on footpaths.


But cars are the most common killers of pedestrians on the footpath, I
believe.


Which mode do you "believe" is involved in most injuries to pedestrians
on the footway?


If you knew anything, then you would be aware that when a bicycle hits
a pedestrian, it temporarily becomes a motor vehicle, legally
speaking. So to answer your "question", you will find the mode most
involved in injuries to pedestrians on the footway is the evil car.
Bicycles are involved in a big fat ZERO such collisions. Not the
answer you wanted, that, is it?

As I have clearly won this argument, I will not be replying to any
responses that I consider trolling. If JNugent is not prepared to
accept that what I am saying is true then he is wasting his time
posting. JUST ADMIT I'M RIGHT YOU *******! Oh, and tell Judith to stop
the URCM breaching experiments (as my legal adviser tells me they are
called by learned people).


Applause.

  #29  
Old February 24th 13, 10:33 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Squashme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,146
Default Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles

On Feb 24, 5:55*pm, nik.morgan wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 24, 3:17 pm, Squashme wrote:
On Feb 24, 11:51 am, JNugent wrote:


On 24/02/2013 10:36, Squashme wrote:


On Feb 24, 8:29 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Bret Cahill wrote:
It's easy to separate motor vehicles from bicycles and pedestrians
-- just use those spikes like in gated communities. Cyclists can
slip between the spikes or stop and step over them as can
pedestrians. A motor vehicle will get 4 damaged tires.


Separating cyclists from pedestrians is trickier. The first obvious
solution would be to install parallel bars like on cattle stops on
sidewalks/pavements. A good wheelman, however, will just hit these
at an angle like he does oblique railroad tracks. Maybe some
combination of patches of ice and grates would work but that would
be expensive to install and maintain and dangerous to pedestrians
as well.


Moreover the weight of a cyclist + bicycle averages about that of a
pedestrian, both an order of magnitude less massive than a motor
vehicle. Even more compelling a motor vehicle often represents 2
orders of magnitude more kinetic energy.


As a practical matter, is there really any reason not to reclassify
cyclists as pedestrians as far as cycling on the sidewalk/pavement
is concerned?


Bret Cahill


wheeled traffic on the road, foot traffic on the footpath. The main
reason to keep wheeled traffic separate from foot traffic is the
speed differential, which is the same reason that car and bicycle
traffic is incompatible.


The issue is avoiding injuries from collisions. * After all, who cares
about a collision where no one gets hurt?


Injuries from collisions comes from 2 major sources:


1. *the relative kinetic energies of 2 objects during impacts, and,


2. *the crushing weight of one object as it falls or rolls over the
other.


In the first the kinetic energy is often 2 orders of magnitude higher
with a motor vehicle than a bicycle.


In the second the crushing force is an order of magnitude higher with
a motor vehicle than a bicycle.


Bret Cahill


if there were no forces involved then there would be no collision. *Any
collision (even the very slightest) with a pedestrian may be sufficient to
kill the pedestrian. *Any collision of pedestrian with a wheeled vehicle on
the pavement is unacceptable. *Bicycles are the most common wheeled vehicle
making journeys on footpaths.


But cars are the most common killers of pedestrians on the footpath, I
believe.


Which mode do you "believe" is involved in most injuries to pedestrians
on the footway?


You "tell" me.


Yeah. Don't pot up with any nonsense from him.


I'm sure that when you look around and see that people like me and
Simon Mason are on your side of the "URC divide", and clearly
reasonable people like JNugent are almost always opposed to you, it
must make you very confident that you've come to the right
conclusions. Yes, clearly banning cars is the only way forward: just
look at the luminaries here who support such a policy.


Dream on, how much progress have you made already in say the last ten
years?
--
ennemm


This is all most confusing. Is that a blue on blue whoosh?
  #30  
Old February 24th 13, 10:36 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bret Cahill[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 290
Default Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles

It's easy to separate motor vehicles from bicycles and pedestrians --
just use those spikes like in gated communities. *Cyclists can slip
between the spikes or stop and step over them as can pedestrians. *A
motor vehicle will get 4 damaged tires.


Separating cyclists from pedestrians is trickier. *The first obvious
solution would be to install parallel bars like on cattle stops on
sidewalks/pavements. *A good wheelman, however, will just hit these at
an angle like he does oblique railroad tracks. *Maybe some combination
of patches of ice and grates would work but that would be expensive to
install and maintain and dangerous to pedestrians as well.


Moreover the weight of a cyclist + bicycle averages about that of a
pedestrian,


What?


What distinction are you drawing between a cyclist and a pedestrian?


More to the point, why?


both an order of magnitude less massive than a motor
vehicle. *Even more compelling a motor vehicle often represents 2
orders of magnitude more kinetic energy.


As a practical matter, is there really any reason not to reclassify
cyclists as pedestrians as far as cycling on the sidewalk/pavement is
concerned?


Yes.


A bicycle is a vehicle, not a pair of feet.


Some kids' shoes have small wheels in the heels.


True, but what point is it you are struggling to make?
A person riding a cycle is a cyclist (at that point)


When does a pair of wheels become a bicycle?


Did I mention bicycle?


If you want to digress from the OP feel free to start another thread.

When a drive chain is added?


It's wouldn't be hard to snarl up the judiciary as well as
uk.rec.cycling with a lot of inbetween designs.


Gun nuts use the classification/camels nose approach all the time with
great success. *Some guy in Florida realized he would have to pay a
bigger fee to register his floating dock as a dock than if he
registered it as a boat so he registered it as a boat.


My father once got an article in _Reader's Digest_ about a Navy man
who couldn't get the Navy to pay for moving his canoe across the
country. *He filled it with dirt and flowers, called it a "planter"
and the Navy was ok with that.


 




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
Bye bye motor vehicles Bertie Wooster[_2_] UK 5 September 27th 12 10:22 AM
More pedestrians complaining just because they think the pavement isfor pedestrians Marie UK 25 January 9th 12 02:33 AM
Another pollution from motor vehicles warning. Doug[_10_] UK 43 April 29th 11 09:51 AM
IMBA Uses 50+ Motor Vehicles to Put on Its "Environmentally Friendly" Epic Ride! Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 0 May 7th 07 04:15 PM
IMBA Uses 50+ Motor Vehicles to Put on Its "Environmentally Friendly" Epic Ride! Mike Vandeman Social Issues 0 May 7th 07 04:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24 PM.


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.