Cycling wrong way up one way street



In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Periander wrote:
> > Nick <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >
> > ...
> >>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
> >>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
> >
> > If they were on the pavement endangering pedistrians why not?
> >
>
> Cool.
>
> You added pavement to the statement so presumably you don't think it is
> ok if they are speeding on the road endangering pedestrians and other
> motorists?
>
> Go on I do love to see the way you mind works.
>
Pedestrians shouldn't be wandering around on the roads, you know, they
shouldn't wander on railway lines too.
 
Nick wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Tony Dragon wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> Cynic wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:35:27 +0100, "John Pitcock"
>>>>> <j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Cynic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:05:22 +0100, Rob Morley
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The person leaving the shop should avoid walking into the path
>>>>>>> of either pedestrians or cyclists. It only becomes an issue if
>>>>>>> the cyclist is riding fast and so is not seen by person leaving
>>>>>>> the shop in sufficient time to avoid walking into its path.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Cynic
>>>>>> My wife stepped out of a shop into the path of a speeding
>>>>>> pavement cyclist: a collision was narrowly averted, but the
>>>>>> cyclist shouted abuse at her.
>>>>> Oh dear. All part of the rich tapestry of life, I'm afraid.
>>>> And a stick placed carefully in the spokes of the speeding cyclist
>>>> can add another apect of life to that tapestry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Best to put the stick in the front wheel, you could then score the
>>> resulting somersault.
>>
>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>
>>
> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?

Under the same circumstances, yes.
 
Nick wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>
>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>
>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars
>>> too?
>>
>> Well, I certainly would if they were trying to mow me down whilst I
>> was attempting to step out of a shop onto the pavement.
>>
>
> Ah, only in that specific case? I was hoping someone would be willing
> to generalise a bit more.
>
> AIUI a number of you feel it is ok to stick some thing in the spokes
> of a bike travelling illegally and dangerously on the pavement. I had
> wanted to know if this acceptability of violent direct action extended
> to other law breakers in similar situations.

Which is what has been said.

> You all appear to being a bit evasive.

Not at all. You are now trying to stir up an argument out of agreement.

> Particularly when we know that
> motorists do kill and maim hundreds of innocents each year.

Define "innocent"?

> I can't
> remember the last case of a pedestrian being killed or maimed by being
> hit by a pavement cyclist when they were coming out of a shop? Yes I
> do know that pavement cyclists in the uk do kill a pedestrian every 4
> years or so but I can't remember it happening outside a shop.

Does it matter where it happens? Presumably you would agree that it
shouldn't happen as there is no good reason for anyone to ride at speed on a
footpath?

> I'll put it down to hypocrites and double standards shall I?

Such traits exist only in your mind, and one or two other cyclists.

> Lucky its
> only imaginary vigilante action.

What's vigilante about it?
 
Nick <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Periander wrote:
>> Nick <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> ...
>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars
>>> too?
>>
>> If they were on the pavement endangering pedistrians why not?
>>
>
> Cool.
>
> You added pavement to the statement

Well as this thread was about cyclists endangering other road users by
cycling on the pavement I thought that I ought to in order to keep the
answer in context.

> so presumably you don't think it is
> ok if they are speeding on the road endangering pedestrians and other
> motorists?
>
> Go on I do love to see the way you mind works.

You're to simple to understand how my mind works.

--
Regards or otherwise,

Periander
 
On Fri, 30 May 2008 12:41:02 +0100, Nick <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Brimstone wrote:
>> Tony Dragon wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> Cynic wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:35:27 +0100, "John Pitcock"
>>>>> <j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Cynic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:05:22 +0100, Rob Morley
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The person leaving the shop should avoid walking into the path of
>>>>>>> either pedestrians or cyclists. It only becomes an issue if the
>>>>>>> cyclist is riding fast and so is not seen by person leaving the
>>>>>>> shop in sufficient time to avoid walking into its path.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Cynic
>>>>>> My wife stepped out of a shop into the path of a speeding pavement
>>>>>> cyclist: a collision was narrowly averted, but the cyclist shouted
>>>>>> abuse at her.
>>>>> Oh dear. All part of the rich tapestry of life, I'm afraid.
>>>> And a stick placed carefully in the spokes of the speeding cyclist
>>>> can add another apect of life to that tapestry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Best to put the stick in the front wheel, you could then score the
>>> resulting somersault.
>>
>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry than
>> putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>
>>
>Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?

I would and I include those twatswith the blue lights on top heading
back to the station. Not the ones with the blue lights on top heading
back to the hospital of course
 
On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:52:17 GMT, Periander <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Nick <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>...
>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>
>>>
>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>
>If they were on the pavement endangering pedistrians why not?

Or even on the roads endangering other road users
 
Alang <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:52:17 GMT, Periander <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Nick <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>...
>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>>
>>If they were on the pavement endangering pedistrians why not?
>
> Or even on the roads endangering other road users

How about miners trying to do an honest day's work?

--

Regards,

Periander
 
On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:01:17 GMT, Periander <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Alang <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:52:17 GMT, Periander <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Nick <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>...
>>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>>>
>>>If they were on the pavement endangering pedistrians why not?
>>
>> Or even on the roads endangering other road users
>
>How about miners trying to do an honest day's work?

I don't think we have any miners left round here. Thatcher's boot boys
helped close all the pits
 
Nick wrote:
> Periander wrote:
>> Nick <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>> ...
>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>
>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>>
>> If they were on the pavement endangering pedistrians why not?
>>
>
> Cool.
>
> You added pavement to the statement so presumably you don't think it is
> ok if they are speeding on the road endangering pedestrians and other
> motorists?
>
> Go on I do love to see the way you mind works.

Pavement was what the thread was originally about, so before you start
moving goalposts, read first.
And from the way you jump in on things we can see the way your mind works.

--
Tony the Dragon
 
Nick wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>
>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>
>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>>
>> Well, I certainly would if they were trying to mow me down whilst I
>> was attempting to step out of a shop onto the pavement.
>>
>
> Ah, only in that specific case? I was hoping someone would be willing to
> generalise a bit more.
>
> AIUI a number of you feel it is ok to stick some thing in the spokes of
> a bike travelling illegally and dangerously on the pavement. I had
> wanted to know if this acceptability of violent direct action extended
> to other law breakers in similar situations.
>
> You all appear to being a bit evasive. Particularly when we know that
> motorists do kill and maim hundreds of innocents each year. I can't
> remember the last case of a pedestrian being killed or maimed by being
> hit by a pavement cyclist when they were coming out of a shop? Yes I do
> know that pavement cyclists in the uk do kill a pedestrian every 4 years
> or so but I can't remember it happening outside a shop.
>
> I'll put it down to hypocrites and double standards shall I? Lucky its
> only imaginary vigilante action.


Put it down to your own double standards, there was another similar
thread about three months ago just search for 'wimbledon broadway'

--
Tony the Dragon
 
Tony Dragon wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>> Periander wrote:
>>> Nick <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>> ...
>>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>>>
>>> If they were on the pavement endangering pedistrians why not?
>>>
>>
>> Cool.
>>
>> You added pavement to the statement so presumably you don't think it
>> is ok if they are speeding on the road endangering pedestrians and
>> other motorists?
>>
>> Go on I do love to see the way you mind works.
>
> Pavement was what the thread was originally about, so before you start
> moving goalposts, read first.
> And from the way you jump in on things we can see the way your mind works.
>

I asked a question about another common law breaking activity. Periander
introduced pavements which clearly was not the intention of my question.
So I asked him to clarify.

Threads move on if we all stuck to the exact comments in the OP there
would be nothing worth posting.

I notice you too have made no attempt to answer the question I asked but
seem to be in some way annoyed that I asked it?

So do you think it is ok to throw stones at cars if they are speeding
on the road and hence endangering pedestrians and other motorists?
 
Tony Dragon wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>> ®i©ardo wrote:
>>
>>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>>>
>>> Well, I certainly would if they were trying to mow me down whilst I
>>> was attempting to step out of a shop onto the pavement.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, only in that specific case? I was hoping someone would be willing
>> to generalise a bit more.
>>
>> AIUI a number of you feel it is ok to stick some thing in the spokes
>> of a bike travelling illegally and dangerously on the pavement. I had
>> wanted to know if this acceptability of violent direct action extended
>> to other law breakers in similar situations.
>>
>> You all appear to being a bit evasive. Particularly when we know that
>> motorists do kill and maim hundreds of innocents each year. I can't
>> remember the last case of a pedestrian being killed or maimed by being
>> hit by a pavement cyclist when they were coming out of a shop? Yes I
>> do know that pavement cyclists in the uk do kill a pedestrian every 4
>> years or so but I can't remember it happening outside a shop.
>>
>> I'll put it down to hypocrites and double standards shall I? Lucky its
>> only imaginary vigilante action.
>
>
> Put it down to your own double standards, there was another similar
> thread about three months ago just search for 'wimbledon broadway'
>
In what way do you think I have double standards?
 
On May 30, 7:41 am, Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
> > Tony Dragon wrote:
> >> Brimstone wrote:
> >>> Cynic wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:35:27 +0100, "John Pitcock"
> >>>> <j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Cynic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:05:22 +0100, Rob Morley
> >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> The person leaving the shop should avoid walking into the path of
> >>>>>> either pedestrians or cyclists.  It only becomes an issue if the
> >>>>>> cyclist is riding fast and so is not seen by person leaving the
> >>>>>> shop in sufficient time to avoid walking into its path.
>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Cynic
> >>>>> My wife stepped out of a shop into the path of a speeding pavement
> >>>>> cyclist: a collision was narrowly averted, but the cyclist shouted
> >>>>> abuse at her.
> >>>> Oh dear.  All part of the rich tapestry of life, I'm afraid.
> >>> And a stick placed carefully in the spokes of the speeding cyclist
> >>> can add another apect of life to that tapestry.
>
> >> Best to put the stick in the front wheel, you could then score the
> >> resulting somersault.
>
> > That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry than
> > putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>
> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?-

Do I need to bring my own rocks?

John Kane Kingston ON Canada
 
On May 30, 1:57 pm, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nick <[email protected]> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
> >>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
> >>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
> >> If they were on the pavement endangering pedistrians why not?
> > Cool.
>
> > You added pavement to the statement
>
> Umm, no, the entire sub-thread was quite clearly stated to be about a
> cyclist _who was on the pavement_.
>
> > so presumably you don't think it is ok if they are speeding on the road
> > endangering pedestrians and other motorists?
>
> Does it make a difference if they're driving badly but not exceeding the
> speed limit?
>
> How about if they are exceeding the speed limit, but driving in a
> perfectly safe way?

They are still increasing to risk to children who might run onto the
road etc, so their windows should be smashed.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On May 30, 1:57 pm, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Nick <[email protected]> gurgled happily, sounding much like
>> they were saying:
>>
>>>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the
>>>>>> tapestry than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is
>>>>>> acceptable.
>>>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars
>>>>> too?
>>>> If they were on the pavement endangering pedistrians why not?
>>> Cool.
>>
>>> You added pavement to the statement
>>
>> Umm, no, the entire sub-thread was quite clearly stated to be about a
>> cyclist _who was on the pavement_.
>>
>>> so presumably you don't think it is ok if they are speeding on the
>>> road endangering pedestrians and other motorists?
>>
>> Does it make a difference if they're driving badly but not exceeding
>> the speed limit?
>>
>> How about if they are exceeding the speed limit, but driving in a
>> perfectly safe way?
>
> They are still increasing to risk to children who might run onto the
> road etc, so their windows should be smashed.

Is it likely that children will be playing on a motorway or on an "A" class
road where there are no houses for several miles?
 
Nick wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>
>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>
>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>>
>> Well, I certainly would if they were trying to mow me down whilst I
>> was attempting to step out of a shop onto the pavement.
>>
>
> Ah, only in that specific case? I was hoping someone would be willing to
> generalise a bit more.
>
> AIUI a number of you feel it is ok to stick some thing in the spokes of
> a bike travelling illegally and dangerously on the pavement. I had
> wanted to know if this acceptability of violent direct action extended
> to other law breakers in similar situations.
>
> You all appear to being a bit evasive. Particularly when we know that
> motorists do kill and maim hundreds of innocents each year. I can't
> remember the last case of a pedestrian being killed or maimed by being
> hit by a pavement cyclist when they were coming out of a shop? Yes I do
> know that pavement cyclists in the uk do kill a pedestrian every 4 years
> or so but I can't remember it happening outside a shop.
>
> I'll put it down to hypocrites and double standards shall I? Lucky its
> only imaginary vigilante action.

No one is being evasive. Responses were given relating to a specific
scenario, although you decided to expand things by including *your*
hobbyhorse of "hate the motorist" in a non-comparative situation.

Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when leaving
a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally riding on the
pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a similar exercise.
The fact that pedestrians may, in order to avoid personal injury, wish
to take action against said cyclist is up to the individual. Most
pedestrians will be aware that regardless of the course of action that
they take in attempting to avoid being harmed, they will more than
likely to be the recipients of a gob full of abuse from some moron who
thinks his actions are saving the planet.

If you wish to introduce something more in line with your individual
prejudices please start a new thread on why it is morally justified to
throw rocks at the windscreens of cars that, in your opinion, are speeding.
--
Moving things in still pictures!
 
Alang wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:01:17 GMT, Periander <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Alang <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:52:17 GMT, Periander <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nick <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>>>> If they were on the pavement endangering pedistrians why not?
>>> Or even on the roads endangering other road users
>> How about miners trying to do an honest day's work?
>
> I don't think we have any miners left round here. Thatcher's boot boys
> helped close all the pits

LOL!

--
Moving things in still pictures!
 
John Kane wrote:
> On May 30, 7:41 am, Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Tony Dragon wrote:
>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>> Cynic wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:35:27 +0100, "John Pitcock"
>>>>>> <j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Cynic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:05:22 +0100, Rob Morley
>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The person leaving the shop should avoid walking into the path of
>>>>>>>> either pedestrians or cyclists. It only becomes an issue if the
>>>>>>>> cyclist is riding fast and so is not seen by person leaving the
>>>>>>>> shop in sufficient time to avoid walking into its path.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Cynic
>>>>>>> My wife stepped out of a shop into the path of a speeding pavement
>>>>>>> cyclist: a collision was narrowly averted, but the cyclist shouted
>>>>>>> abuse at her.
>>>>>> Oh dear. All part of the rich tapestry of life, I'm afraid.
>>>>> And a stick placed carefully in the spokes of the speeding cyclist
>>>>> can add another apect of life to that tapestry.
>>>> Best to put the stick in the front wheel, you could then score the
>>>> resulting somersault.
>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry than
>>> putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?-
>
> Do I need to bring my own rocks?
>
> John Kane Kingston ON Canada
>

No, I'm sure that you'll find somewhere here to get your rocks off...

--
Moving things in still pictures!
 
On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:36:34 +0100, ®i©ardo <[email protected]> wrote:

>Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when leaving
>a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally riding on the
>pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a similar exercise.

So how come there are more injuries reported involving motor vehicles
on the pavement than involving cycles?

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org
 
In article <[email protected]>, Mark wrote:
>On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:36:34 +0100, ®i©ardo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when leaving
>>a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally riding on the
>>pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a similar exercise.
>
>So how come there are more injuries reported involving motor vehicles
>on the pavement than involving cycles?

Because the smaller number of motor vehicles being driven on the pavement
are more likely to cause a serious (and therefore reported) injury.

Pavement cyclists are a more common hazard, but pavement drivers are a
more dangerous one (or at least pavement motor vehicles are - you could
argue that someone on the pavement because he has lost control while on
the road is no longer a driver).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Cycling wrong way up one way streets to be made legal
Replies
65
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Adam Lea
A
Vincent_CFC
Do you know charities organizing cycling ride?
Replies
0
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Vincent_CFC
Vincent_CFC
Joe Johnson
Share your cycling videos and where they were taken!
Replies
0
Views
7K
UK and Europe
Joe Johnson
Joe Johnson
A
Cycling trainer for youth in birmingham - where to find?
Replies
0
Views
2K
UK and Europe
aksle
A
neil16377
Cycling hills of wales. !!project!!
Replies
3
Views
3K
UK and Europe
Joe Johnson
Joe Johnson
Top Bottom Back