Cyclists win police court battle!

[Huge]

On 2006-07-02, Al C-F <[email protected]> wrote:


>
> The perception that the roads are too dangerous is due to the careless
> and inconsiderate manner in which some motorists behave around cyclists.

<cyclist>
I always take great care near cyclists. They are entitled to their wobble.
Ergo, since *I* take great care, all motorists take great care.
</cyclist>




--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote:
>
> Same here. Cycling should never be allowed along any surface used by
> pedestrians.
>

Including roads, bridleways, byways....?

Tony

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>>>It's not OK to ride a bike on the footway unless the signage allows,
>>>however, it is a far lesser crime than to drive a motor vehicle of the
>>>footway.
>>
>>It isn't "lesser" at all.

> So you rate all crimes as equal? Murder and rape are equally serious
> as two former convicts shopping together in a supermarket?

Who said that?

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>>Same here. Cycling should never be allowed along any surface used by
>>pedestrians.
>>
>
>
> Including roads, bridleways, byways....?

> Tony

(AKA Split Hair R Us)

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> In news:[email protected],
>> JNugent said:
>>
>>
>>> I accept that there is (probably) no direct intention to harm
>>> others, but there is a recklessness - and a lack of concern - as to
>>> whether others are harmed.
>>
>>
>> YAASJAICMFP
>
> Society of Jesus member?
>
> Wrong (but in a way, close).

No, Sun Journalist.

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
> > JNugent wrote:
> >
> >>>It's not OK to ride a bike on the footway unless the signage allows,
> >>>however, it is a far lesser crime than to drive a motor vehicle of the
> >>>footway.
> >>
> >>It isn't "lesser" at all.
>
> > So you rate all crimes as equal? Murder and rape are equally serious
> > as two former convicts shopping together in a supermarket?
>
> Who said that?

You did. Or do you have another interpretation of your suggestion that
a crime that kills 70 people a year is equal to a partial crime,
condoned by government, that kills a person every four years?

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
> > JNugent wrote:
> >
> >>Same here. Cycling should never be allowed along any surface used by
> >>pedestrians.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Including roads, bridleways, byways....?
>
> > Tony
>
> (AKA Split Hair R Us)

So what differentiates roads, bridleways and byways as surfaces used by
pedestrians from shared use paths?

Tony

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>, Al C-F
<[email protected]> writes
>Steve Walker wrote:
>> In message <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
>>
>>> My friend is sure that she maintained an indicated speed between 65
>>> and 70 mph.
>> At an indicated 74mph on the speedo, my GPS reads 70. In my
>>previous car the speedo read a little over 75 at 70 by GPS.
>>
>GPS systems smooth the track followed, and will therefore read 'low'.

Not an issue within the precision of the displays, I think. Both
displays can be maintained at those numbers for protracted periods.

--
Steve Walker

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> JNugent said:
>
>>Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>>In news:[email protected],
>>>JNugent said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I accept that there is (probably) no direct intention to harm
>>>>others, but there is a recklessness - and a lack of concern - as to
>>>>whether others are harmed.
>>>
>>>
>>>YAASJAICMFP
>>
>>Society of Jesus member?
>>
>>Wrong (but in a way, close).

> No, Sun Journalist.

Is The Sun concerned about the problem of lawless cyclists (I have to ask
you since you obviously read it)?

If so, I might revise upwards my opinion of that publication.

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>>Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>>JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>It's not OK to ride a bike on the footway unless the signage allows,
>>>>>however, it is a far lesser crime than to drive a motor vehicle of the
>>>>>footway.
>>>>
>>>>It isn't "lesser" at all.
>>
>>>So you rate all crimes as equal? Murder and rape are equally serious
>>>as two former convicts shopping together in a supermarket?
>>
>>Who said that?
>
>
> You did. Or do you have another interpretation of your suggestion that
> a crime that kills 70 people a year is equal to a partial crime,
> condoned by government, that kills a person every four years?

I made no such suggestion.

You need to grow up.

And stop taking lessons in chopped logic from Brimstone.

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>>Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>>JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Same here. Cycling should never be allowed along any surface used by
>>>>pedestrians.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Including roads, bridleways, byways....?
>>
>> > Tony
>>
>>(AKA Split Hair R Us)
>
>
> So what differentiates roads, bridleways and byways as surfaces used by
> pedestrians from shared use paths?

OK... OK... public paved surfaces (don't start trying to be picky - you
know what is meant).

It doesn't advance your "argument" one iota, but hey ho..

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It's not OK to ride a bike on the footway unless the signage
>>>>>> allows, however, it is a far lesser crime than to drive a motor
>>>>>> vehicle of the footway.
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't "lesser" at all.
>>>
>>>> So you rate all crimes as equal? Murder and rape are equally
>>>> serious as two former convicts shopping together in a supermarket?
>>>
>>> Who said that?
>>
>>
>> You did. Or do you have another interpretation of your suggestion
>> that a crime that kills 70 people a year is equal to a partial crime,
>> condoned by government, that kills a person every four years?
>
> I made no such suggestion.
>
> You need to grow up.
>
> And stop taking lessons in chopped logic from Brimstone.

He can't afford my fees.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent said:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> In news:[email protected],
>> JNugent said:
>>
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:[email protected],
>>>> JNugent said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I accept that there is (probably) no direct intention to harm
>>>>> others, but there is a recklessness - and a lack of concern - as
>>>>> to whether others are harmed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> YAASJAICMFP
>>>
>>> Society of Jesus member?
>>>
>>> Wrong (but in a way, close).
>
>> No, Sun Journalist.
>
> Is The Sun concerned about the problem of lawless cyclists (I have to
> ask you since you obviously read it)?
>
> If so, I might revise upwards my opinion of that publication.

No, it's main purpose in life is scaremongering, and corrupting the minds of
impressionable people.

 

[iiiiDougiiii]

Steve Firth wrote:
> On 2 Jul 2006 21:03:10 -0700, iiiiDougiiii wrote:
>
> > Steve Firth wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 22:47:25 +0100, Brimstone wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> If the road is perceived by cyclists as "too dangerous" for them, they
> >>>> should go another way or by another mode.
> >>>
> >>> Why doesn't someone address the root cause of the problem?
> >>
> >> And issue all pedestrians with a 12 bore for dispensing summary justice to
> >> idiot cyclists? Good idea.
> >>
> > More incitement to violence from a road raging 4x4 user.
>
> More ******** from a misanthropic, benefit scrounging, lentil muncher.

Liar!

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Carbon trading is a bit like paying
to release sewage onto the streets.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
iiiiDougiiii said:
> Steve Firth wrote:
>> On 2 Jul 2006 21:03:10 -0700, iiiiDougiiii wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 22:47:25 +0100, Brimstone wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the road is perceived by cyclists as "too dangerous" for
>>>>>> them, they should go another way or by another mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why doesn't someone address the root cause of the problem?
>>>>
>>>> And issue all pedestrians with a 12 bore for dispensing summary
>>>> justice to idiot cyclists? Good idea.
>>>>
>>> More incitement to violence from a road raging 4x4 user.
>>
>> More ******** from a misanthropic, benefit scrounging, lentil
>> muncher.
>
> Liar!

Liar!

 

[iiiiDougiiii]

Steve Firth wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:53:47 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 01:25:38 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>So in the same situations, it's OK to ride a motorcycle or car down the
> >>pavement?
> >
> > Unless the signage allows, no.
> >
> > It's not OK to ride a bike on the footway unless the signage allows,
> > however, it is a far lesser crime than to drive a motor vehicle of the
> > footway. Indeed, in most cases I would describe it as a petty
> > nuisance rather than a crime, and in the special case of young
> > children, morally acceptable.
>
> Thanks for demonstrating that your argument is founded entirely on
> hypocrisy.

You obviously do not know the meaning of the word 'hypocrisy'.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Carbon trading is a bit like paying
to release sewage onto the streets.

 

[Huge]

On 2006-07-03, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> JNugent wrote:
>>
>> That is (at least) 70 too many, though another poster thought those victims
>> didn't matter.
>
> But its not 3,500 too many which is what motorists achieve on the
> pavement. Which one should we start with?

Well, if you're going to pick random irrelevant statistics, I should think
there are many other things we'd be better off "starting" with.

--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
Huge said:
> On 2006-07-02, Brimstone <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In news:[email protected],
>> JNugent said:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> In news:[email protected],
>>>> JNugent said:
>>>>
>>>>> Al C-F wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> And your line on those who generate the dangers?
>>>>>
>>>>> The cyclists?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I've made that clear enough.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Surely if that were true it would be reflected in the figures for
>>>> injuries to pedestrians caused by cyclists riding on the footpath?
>>>
>>> It is.
>>>
>>> Someone else said that 70 persons are injured (seriously enough for
>>> the matter to be reported to the police) annually. There must be
>>> several times that who just rub their bruises or stick a plaster on
>>> their cuts and who don't report the injuries.
>>>
>>> That is (at least) 70 too many, though another poster thought those
>>> victims didn't matter.
>>
>> Whislt I agree that 70 is 70 too many, the way in which you've been
>> ranting on the subject would lead any reasonable person to think
>> that thousands had been killed with many more seriously injured
>> requiring one or more nights in hospital.
>
> Given the number of passenger-miles travelled by bicycles, I suspect a
> KSI figure of 70 makes them more dangerous than cars.

You only suspect? Try posting some evidence.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
iiiiDougiiii said:
> Steve Firth wrote:

>> Thanks for demonstrating that your argument is founded entirely on
>> hypocrisy.
>
> You obviously do not know the meaning of the word 'hypocrisy'.

The irony is stunning in its brazenness.

 

[Huge]

On 2006-07-03, iiiiDougiiii <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Steve Firth wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:53:47 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 01:25:38 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>So in the same situations, it's OK to ride a motorcycle or car down the
>> >>pavement?
>> >
>> > Unless the signage allows, no.
>> >
>> > It's not OK to ride a bike on the footway unless the signage allows,
>> > however, it is a far lesser crime than to drive a motor vehicle of the
>> > footway. Indeed, in most cases I would describe it as a petty
>> > nuisance rather than a crime, and in the special case of young
>> > children, morally acceptable.
>>
>> Thanks for demonstrating that your argument is founded entirely on
>> hypocrisy.
>
> You obviously do not know the meaning of the word 'hypocrisy'.

This one's worth printing out and framing, I reckon.

> --

Your sig seperator is wrong.



--
"Other people are not your property."
[email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]