Cyclists win police court battle!

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
Simon Hobson said:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 8:12:28 +0100, Brimstone wrote
> (in message <[email protected]>):
>
>> In news:[email protected],
>> Simon Hobson said:
>>
>>> Just another example of a vociferous minority clamouring to have
>>> something banned because it's "not something WE think should go on",
>>> and succedding because we have an authoritarian government that
>>> seems to enjoy telling people what they can't do.
>>
>> On the other hand, if the majority can't be bothered to make their
>> voices heard then those that shout the loudest are the ones who will
>> be heard.
>
> If only it were that simple, unfortunately we as a group lack the
> funding to PAY for the 'right sort of voice' - because these days
> things are getting very much like america where it all comes down to
> being able to pay the right people to say the right things in the
> right place.

You don't need to spend money, but you do need someone who knows how to use
the media to get your message across. Not everyone demands money for their
services, find a willing volunteer.

 

[Marc Brett]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:07:28 +0100, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:

>You don't need to spend money, but you do need someone who knows how to use
>the media to get your message across. Not everyone demands money for their
>services, find a willing volunteer.

A "volunteer" whose income depends on of car industry advertising, say?

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
Marc Brett said:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:07:28 +0100, "Brimstone"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You don't need to spend money, but you do need someone who knows how
>> to use the media to get your message across. Not everyone demands
>> money for their services, find a willing volunteer.
>
> A "volunteer" whose income depends on of car industry advertising,
> say?

WTF are you on about?

 

[Steve Firth]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:04:02 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 23:34:50 +0100, Simon Hobson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/3993103.stm
>>
>>Which does not even mention pavement driving
>
> How do you suppose the pavement parkers got there?

Isn't it about time that the loony lycra brigade stopped trying to equate
their own use of footpaths as dedicated cycle lanes with a driver who puts
two wheels on a path?

 

[Marc Brett]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:51:46 +0100, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In news:[email protected],
>Marc Brett said:
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:07:28 +0100, "Brimstone"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> You don't need to spend money, but you do need someone who knows how
>>> to use the media to get your message across. Not everyone demands
>>> money for their services, find a willing volunteer.
>>
>> A "volunteer" whose income depends on car industry advertising,
>> say?
>
>WTF are you on about?

Journalists. All of em.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
Marc Brett said:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:51:46 +0100, "Brimstone"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In news:[email protected],
>> Marc Brett said:
>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:07:28 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You don't need to spend money, but you do need someone who knows
>>>> how to use the media to get your message across. Not everyone
>>>> demands money for their services, find a willing volunteer.
>>>
>>> A "volunteer" whose income depends on car industry advertising,
>>> say?
>>
>> WTF are you on about?
>
> Journalists. All of em.

What about journalists?

 

[Marc Brett]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:59:24 +0100, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In news:[email protected],
>Marc Brett said:
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:51:46 +0100, "Brimstone"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In news:[email protected],
>>> Marc Brett said:
>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:07:28 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You don't need to spend money, but you do need someone who knows
>>>>> how to use the media to get your message across. Not everyone
>>>>> demands money for their services, find a willing volunteer.
>>>>
>>>> A "volunteer" whose income depends on car industry advertising,
>>>> say?
>>>
>>> WTF are you on about?
>>
>> Journalists. All of em.
>
>What about journalists?
>
They get paid by their advertisers and have to keep them sweet. Pro-car
column-inches attract more money than anti-car articles. Capiche?

 

[Huge]

On 2006-07-15, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:04:02 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 23:34:50 +0100, Simon Hobson
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/3993103.stm
>>>
>>>Which does not even mention pavement driving
>>
>> How do you suppose the pavement parkers got there?
>
> Isn't it about time that the loony lycra brigade stopped trying to equate
> their own use of footpaths as dedicated cycle lanes with a driver who puts
> two wheels on a path?

But this never happens, according to Clive George, for example.

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

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:27:15 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:04:02 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 23:34:50 +0100, Simon Hobson
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/3993103.stm
>>>
>>>Which does not even mention pavement driving
>>
>> How do you suppose the pavement parkers got there?
>
>Isn't it about time that the loony lycra brigade stopped trying to equate
>their own use of footpaths as dedicated cycle lanes with a driver who puts
>two wheels on a path?

Of course not. Putting Two wheels of a motor vehicle on a path is far
more serious than putting two wheels of a bicycle on a path, the
latter of which may well be legal.

A much fairer comparison is between cyclists on the footway and
motorists in mandatory cycle lanes.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
Marc Brett said:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:59:24 +0100, "Brimstone"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In news:[email protected],
>> Marc Brett said:
>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:51:46 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:[email protected],
>>>> Marc Brett said:
>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:07:28 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't need to spend money, but you do need someone who knows
>>>>>> how to use the media to get your message across. Not everyone
>>>>>> demands money for their services, find a willing volunteer.
>>>>>
>>>>> A "volunteer" whose income depends on car industry advertising,
>>>>> say?
>>>>
>>>> WTF are you on about?
>>>
>>> Journalists. All of em.
>>
>> What about journalists?
>>
> They get paid by their advertisers and have to keep them sweet.
> Pro-car column-inches attract more money than anti-car articles.
> Capiche?

I see what you're getting at. I think it would be beneficial if you were to
read the whole of this sub thread rather than make valiant efforts to grasp
the incorrect end of the stick.

 

[Clive Coleman.]

In message <[email protected]>, JNugent
<[email protected]> writes
> Riding on the footway may not be an offence. Riding along it probably
>is.
What's the difference?
--
Clive.

 

[Steve Firth]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:29:39 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:27:15 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:04:02 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 23:34:50 +0100, Simon Hobson
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/3993103.stm
>>>>
>>>>Which does not even mention pavement driving
>>>
>>> How do you suppose the pavement parkers got there?
>>
>>Isn't it about time that the loony lycra brigade stopped trying to equate
>>their own use of footpaths as dedicated cycle lanes with a driver who puts
>>two wheels on a path?
>
> Of course not. Putting Two wheels of a motor vehicle on a path is far
> more serious than putting two wheels of a bicycle on a path, the
> latter of which may well be legal.

Wrong on every count. Firstly I made specific reference to footpaths, not
to combined use, so it's never legal for a bicycle to be ridden in those
circumstances. It *may* however be legal to park in this way and may even
be encouraged by the local authority. Despite frequent repetition you seem
to have missed the message that pavement parking is specifically illegal
London, may be illegal by by-law in other boroughs but is mostly legal over
most of the country.

Cycling on a footway is never legal and it is never safe or even socially
acceptable.


> A much fairer comparison is between cyclists on the footway and
> motorists in mandatory cycle lanes.

A fairer comparison may be between your brain and a bucket of ****. Are you
sure you want to do "fairer"?

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:56:20 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:29:39 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:27:15 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:04:02 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 23:34:50 +0100, Simon Hobson
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/3993103.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>Which does not even mention pavement driving
>>>>
>>>> How do you suppose the pavement parkers got there?
>>>
>>>Isn't it about time that the loony lycra brigade stopped trying to equate
>>>their own use of footpaths as dedicated cycle lanes with a driver who puts
>>>two wheels on a path?
>>
>> Of course not. Putting Two wheels of a motor vehicle on a path is far
>> more serious than putting two wheels of a bicycle on a path, the
>> latter of which may well be legal.
>
>Wrong on every count. Firstly I made specific reference to footpaths, not
>to combined use, so it's never legal for a bicycle to be ridden in those
>circumstances. It *may* however be legal to park in this way and may even
>be encouraged by the local authority. Despite frequent repetition you seem
>to have missed the message that pavement parking is specifically illegal
>London, may be illegal by by-law in other boroughs but is mostly legal over
>most of the country.

I couldn't make sense of most of the above drivel.

>Cycling on a footway is never legal and it is never safe or even socially
>acceptable.

I didn't mention cycling on the footway. The phrase was "putting two
wheels of a bicycle on a path". I all circumstances, that I know of,
it is legal to push a bike on the footway.

Besides, it is socially acceptable for under 11s to cycle on the
footway, and no child of that age may be arrested for such an offence.

>> A much fairer comparison is between cyclists on the footway and
>> motorists in mandatory cycle lanes.
>
>A fairer comparison may be between your brain and a bucket of ****. Are you
>sure you want to do "fairer"?

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
Clive Coleman. said:
> In message <[email protected]>, JNugent
> <[email protected]> writes
>> Riding on the footway may not be an offence. Riding along it probably
>> is.
> What's the difference?

Because it's possible to be riding on the footway but not along it.

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>, Marc Brett
<[email protected]> writes
>On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:59:24 +0100, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>>> You don't need to spend money, but you do need someone who knows
>>>>>> how to use the media to get your message across. Not everyone
>>>>>> demands money for their services, find a willing volunteer.
>>>>>
>>>>> A "volunteer" whose income depends on car industry advertising,
>>>>> say?
>>>>
>>>> WTF are you on about?
>>>
>>> Journalists. All of em.
>>
>>What about journalists?
>>
>They get paid by their advertisers and have to keep them sweet. Pro-car
>column-inches attract more money than anti-car articles. Capiche?

Or possibly that pro-car articles are interesting, and anti-car articles
are about as much fun as a sermon on sin?

--
Steve Walker

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
Steve Walker said:
> In message <[email protected]>, Marc Brett
> <[email protected]> writes
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:59:24 +0100, "Brimstone"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> You don't need to spend money, but you do need someone who knows
>>>>>>> how to use the media to get your message across. Not everyone
>>>>>>> demands money for their services, find a willing volunteer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A "volunteer" whose income depends on car industry advertising,
>>>>>> say?
>>>>>
>>>>> WTF are you on about?
>>>>
>>>> Journalists. All of em.
>>>
>>> What about journalists?
>>>
>> They get paid by their advertisers and have to keep them sweet. Pro-car
>> column-inches attract more money than anti-car articles. Capiche?
>
> Or possibly that pro-car articles are interesting, and anti-car
> articles are about as much fun as a sermon on sin?

Depends on the level of interest of the reader surely? Not everyone is a
petrolhead.

 

[Clive Coleman.]

In message <[email protected]>, Brimstone
<[email protected]> writes
>All such surfaces are designed to take a certain weight and no more with
>regard to the normal traffic of the district. Normal traffic on a footpath
>does not include delivery lorries or cars.
I don't think it includes cyclists either, unless you have proof?
--
Clive.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
Clive Coleman. said:
> In message <[email protected]>, Brimstone
> <[email protected]> writes
>> All such surfaces are designed to take a certain weight and no more
>> with regard to the normal traffic of the district. Normal traffic on
>> a footpath does not include delivery lorries or cars.
> I don't think it includes cyclists either, unless you have proof?


Your last eight words are superfluous.

 

[Clive Coleman.]

In message <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> writes
>Of course not. Putting Two wheels of a motor vehicle on a path is far
>more serious than putting two wheels of a bicycle on a path, the
>latter of which may well be legal.
>
>A much fairer comparison is between cyclists on the footway and
>motorists in mandatory cycle lanes.
How?
--
Clive.

 

[Clive Coleman.]

In message <[email protected]>, Marc Brett
<[email protected]> writes
>>>>> A "volunteer" whose income depends on car industry advertising,
>>>>> say?
>>>>
>>>> WTF are you on about?
>>>
>>> Journalists. All of em.
>>
>>What about journalists?
>>
>They get paid by their advertisers and have to keep them sweet. Pro-car
>column-inches attract more money than anti-car articles. Capiche?
Of course the other alternative, is that they are correct, and you
aren't.
--
Clive.