heart attacks?

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 19:44:22 -0000, "half_pint"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

On Clarkson:

Quoted message said:

He makes a lot of money being a big-mouth so good luck to him.

An essential part of being a presenter is not to boring, and the fact he is
a household
name says it all.

Please remember two programmes that he made recently. The celebration
of Isambard Kingdom Brunel, which was inspiring; and his documentary
about VCs, which told the story of his father-in-law amongst others,
and was incredibly moving.

half_pint said:

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

half_pint [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Actually I love traffic jams!!
I enjoy breezeing past hundreds of queueing cars.
If there is no room to pass on the left I pass on there right
(traffic jams are usually only on one side of the road).
Failing that I use the pavement.

Its generally best to pass on the right regardless. You are less likely
to get caught out by someone opening a door on you and you get to ride
past the drivers which will torment them more!

Quoted message said:

If you are one of those cyclists who frown on cycling
on the pavement, jumping red lights etc... then maybe they
are more prone to stress. My advice is lighten up and
break the rules a bit.

Would you feel the same way about a driver taking your advice? Take
comfort in the fact that you will still reach your destination faster
without having to "break the rules". I don't get stressed by cyclists
who break the rules, I just wait for the inevitable squeal of tyres! :-)

You will be a long time waiting, in my case at least. I only jump red
lights when it is safe to so, most dirvers do not drive bad enough to
actually mount the pavement (usually).

Try standing outside the Jaguar garage in Guildford at rush hour and see how
many cars you have to dodge as they mount the pavement in order to sqeeeeze past
the jam so that they can turn left and join a different jam. I tend to join the
motorbikes on the white line between the two lines of stationary cars where
sticky out wing mirrors are the main hazard.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jon

--
Terry Duckmanton.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/terry.duckmanton
A website mostly dedicated to cycling
http://tduckmanton.bravejournal.com
A daily log of my cycling exploits

half_pint [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

You will be a long time waiting, in my case at least. I only jump red
lights when it is safe to so, most dirvers do not drive bad enough to
actually mount the pavement (usually).

This is a far more common occurence than you'd credit. Google for past
threads on the subject here.

Jon

half_pint [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

However drivers do not need to 'break the rules'.
The rules were designed by motorists for motorists, the lives of cyclists
and pedestrians are secondary.

I don't recall there being anything in the HC that condones the killing
of cyclists or pedestrians. In fact, if all drivers followed the HC,
life as a cyclist would be pleasant. The fact of the matter is that
drivers _do_ break the rules, and endanger cyclists that way.

Quoted message said:

Some streets have been reclaimed but there is a long long way to go.

Reclaimed in what way? Have cars been removed from them altogether?

Having cycled a lot in France, where drivers are on the whole very
courteous towards cyclists, I can see no problem with a mixture of
vehicles on the roads. The problem is when those using the roads (Be
they cyclists or drivers) start ignoring the rules.

Jon

half_pint said:

most dirvers do not drive bad enough to
actually mount the pavement (usually).

Do you go around with your eyes closed?

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

half_pint [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

However drivers do not need to 'break the rules'.
The rules were designed by motorists for motorists, the lives of

cyclists

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and pedestrians are secondary.

I don't recall there being anything in the HC that condones the killing
of cyclists or pedestrians. In fact, if all drivers followed the HC,
life as a cyclist would be pleasant. The fact of the matter is that
drivers _do_ break the rules, and endanger cyclists that way.

Yes the HC does mention cyclists but it our roads were built almost
exclusively
for motorists.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Some streets have been reclaimed but there is a long long way to go.

Reclaimed in what way? Have cars been removed from them altogether?

Yes they have, mainly in city centers.other parts of urban areas have been
'traffic calmed' (you will struggle to break 10mph in a car).

Quoted message said:

Having cycled a lot in France, where drivers are on the whole very
courteous towards cyclists, I can see no problem with a mixture of
vehicles on the roads. The problem is when those using the roads (Be
they cyclists or drivers) start ignoring the rules.

Many of the rules for cyclists are ridiculous.
Why shouldn't you cycle on the pavement when you are causing
no inconvienience to anyone except for some 'jobsworth'?
Prams and push chairs are allowed on pavements.

As for jumping red lights the only one likely to come to any harm is
me so I cannot see why motorists complain about it other then the
fact that they might be speeding when they hit me.

Similar for pedestrian lights, I am likely to come off worse than anyone
I might hit.

Quoted message said:

Jon

"Simonb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

half_pint said:

most dirvers do not drive bad enough to
actually mount the pavement (usually).

Do you go around with your eyes closed?

Only when jumping a dodgy red-light at speed.

Quoted message said:

"Huw Lynes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So I was watching Top Gear last night (yes, I know, but it's entertaining

in a

Quoted message said:

juvenile way) when Clarkson made an off-hand comment about something in

the

Quoted message said:

news proving that cyclists are more likely to suffer heart attacks than
motorists.

A quick googling has left me none the wiser. Does anyone know to what he

was

Quoted message said:

referring?

Actually top gear is on now, BBC2, very etertaining stuff!!

Quoted message said:

J Houston said:

Unlike most who have commented on this thread so far, I actual quite like
the current Top Gear format - it's more entertaining than the old show,
which
you can still see on C5. I dont have any interest in cars at all,
incidently.

We watch it for the comedy aspect. It is quite entertaining.. Especially
such gems as 'conkers with caravans' 'darts with volvos' and so on..

...d

half_pint said:

Yes the HC does mention cyclists but it our roads were built almost
exclusively
for motorists.

Such great foresight our remote ancestors had... or was it that roads
were only invented a hundred or so years ago? I forget.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

half_pint [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Yes the HC does mention cyclists but it our roads were built almost
exclusively
for motorists.

Not sure if the history serves you correctly here, but regardless of who
they were built for, they suit both parties quite well, as long as both
parties are behaving properly.

Quoted message said:

Yes they have, mainly in city centers.other parts of urban areas have been
'traffic calmed' (you will struggle to break 10mph in a car).

Many of the traffic calming measures are concern to cyclists. I
certainly don't like speed bumps (They slow me down!) and pinch points
make normal roads into hazardous ones at regular intervals. Slowing
drivers down is good, doing it by making the roads unusable is daft!

Quoted message said:

Many of the rules for cyclists are ridiculous.
Why shouldn't you cycle on the pavement when you are causing
no inconvienience to anyone except for some 'jobsworth'?

For the same reason that you shouldn't jump red lights when driving,
even if there is no inconvenience to other road users. At heart, because
it's illegal. In spirit, because it's just possible that you've missed
something that the planners hadn't.

What you consider to be an inconvenience may be a concern to others. You
may decide to go to the right of a pedestrian, but they may just think
that you're going to plough through them and try to dodge you. Pavements
are too narrow, too busy and too slow to warrant attempting to cycle on
them.

Quoted message said:

Prams and push chairs are allowed on pavements.

And neither generally travels much more 5mph while even the most trundly
cyclists manage to exceed that.

Quoted message said:

As for jumping red lights the only one likely to come to any harm is
me so I cannot see why motorists complain about it other then the
fact that they might be speeding when they hit me.

Because it costs them money to get the scratches fixed and the blood
off, and not everyone wants to know that they took someone's life (Even
if it genuinely wasn't their fault).

Quoted message said:

Similar for pedestrian lights, I am likely to come off worse than anyone
I might hit.

Possibly true, possibly not. But there's more than a touch of arrogance
to presume that it's your choice whether or not to hurt someone.

Jon

Tim Hall said:

And those other two monkeys. Who the hell are they? According to Mrs.
Hall the taller one is what Clarkson would look like if played by
Stephen Fry.

James May. Rides a brompton around town. Allegedly becasue he owns a
bently and the nearest garage big enough to put it in is 8 miles away
and the brompton is ideal to go in the boot. Regularly goes on about how
you must be mad to drive in the centre of London.

Richard Hammond, the little one. Did a good TV series on 'should I be
worried about..'. Included him selling his own tap water to punters in
Covent Garden.

...d

"JLB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

half_pint said:

Yes the HC does mention cyclists but it our roads were built almost
exclusively
for motorists.

Such great foresight our remote ancestors had... or was it that roads
were only invented a hundred or so years ago? I forget.

Not too sure what you mean by that, most modern roads are built almost
exclusively for cars.

Quoted message said:

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Richard Goodman said:

"Patrick Herring" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe there are laws there of which we know nothing. We do know many
Germans won't jay-walk across an empty road.

Quoted message said:

You mean, there might be a law that cyclists in Germany have to wait their
turn in the queue just like all the cars, instead of filtering between the
lanes to the lights? And they actually _follow_ that rule?? Seems it
could be a case of 'it's cycling, Jim, but not as we know it...' 😉

I know ex-patriate Germans who fled the country because German rules
and regulations were raising their blood pressure too much. This is
possibly more about Germany than cycling.
--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

half_pint [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Yes the HC does mention cyclists but it our roads were built almost
exclusively
for motorists.

Not sure if the history serves you correctly here, but regardless of who
they were built for, they suit both parties quite well, as long as both
parties are behaving properly.

Quoted message said:

Yes they have, mainly in city centers.other parts of urban areas have

been

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

'traffic calmed' (you will struggle to break 10mph in a car).

Many of the traffic calming measures are concern to cyclists. I
certainly don't like speed bumps (They slow me down!) and pinch points
make normal roads into hazardous ones at regular intervals. Slowing
drivers down is good, doing it by making the roads unusable is daft!

Some traffic calming measures are better than others, there should
be a gap in speed bumps for cyclists, pinch pointsare ok for cyclists
they cause me no problems.
In many areas making the roads virtually unuseable for motorists is a
very good idea.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Many of the rules for cyclists are ridiculous.
Why shouldn't you cycle on the pavement when you are causing
no inconvienience to anyone except for some 'jobsworth'?

For the same reason that you shouldn't jump red lights when driving,
even if there is no inconvenience to other road users. At heart, because
it's illegal. In spirit, because it's just possible that you've missed
something that the planners hadn't.

Cars endanger others lives more than their own when they break the rules,
the
same same cannot be said for cyclists.

Quoted message said:

What you consider to be an inconvenience may be a concern to others. You
may decide to go to the right of a pedestrian, but they may just think
that you're going to plough through them and try to dodge you. Pavements
are too narrow, too busy and too slow to warrant attempting to cycle on
them.

Pavements are geneally pretty empty, many people run on them faster
than I cycle on them. What kind of idiot would tick you off for riding
on an empty pavement in order to put you into fast moving traffic?

Obviously I do not speed along pavements crowded with pedestrians,
for a start I would be liable to end up in a nasty colision.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Prams and push chairs are allowed on pavements.

And neither generally travels much more 5mph while even the most trundly
cyclists manage to exceed that.

I am quite capable of cycling at less than 2-3 mph if necessary.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As for jumping red lights the only one likely to come to any harm is
me so I cannot see why motorists complain about it other then the
fact that they might be speeding when they hit me.

Because it costs them money to get the scratches fixed and the blood
off, and not everyone wants to know that they took someone's life (Even
if it genuinely wasn't their fault).

You are pretty mis-guided if you believe that care more about scratching
their car than losing their life.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Similar for pedestrian lights, I am likely to come off worse than anyone
I might hit.

Possibly true, possibly not. But there's more than a touch of arrogance
to presume that it's your choice whether or not to hurt someone.

And where did I indicate that?

Quoted message said:

Jon

Quoted message said:

I only jump red lights when it is safe to so

Funnily enough, most people who contribute towards an accident probably
thought it was "safe to do so"...

half_pint said:

Why shouldn't you cycle on the pavement when you are causing
no inconvienience to anyone except for some 'jobsworth'?
Prams and push chairs are allowed on pavements.

Because pedestrians, particuarly the old, less agile, and those in
charge of small children, are afraid of being hit when some prat like
you comes cycling along the pavement. You probably won't hit them, but
the perception is there. So, quite rightly, they get upset. (Small
children also move extremely unpredictably).

It also leads to the mentality "Well, if that cyclist is breaking the
law by cycling on the pavement, he/she can't object to me breaking the
law by driving in the cycle lane/speeding/etc."

R.

half_pint [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Some traffic calming measures are better than others, there should
be a gap in speed bumps for cyclists, pinch pointsare ok for cyclists
they cause me no problems.

On a road with many pinch points a car has less space to overtake you.
As they are unable to safely move to the other side of the white line,
they are more likely to try and squeeze past while going through a pinch
point. This endangers cyclists. If a road has pinch points that are wide
enough to not threaten cyclists in this manner, then they don't do
anything.

Quoted message said:

In many areas making the roads virtually unuseable for motorists is a
very good idea.

Most measures that have made the roads virtually unusable for motorists
have a similar effect on me as a cyclist. They also distract drivers
from the task of looking for and avoiding other hazards. Given that
drivers frequently fail to notice existing hazards, giving them more to
worry about seems a bad solution to the problem.

Quoted message said:

Cars endanger others lives more than their own when they break the rules,
the same same cannot be said for cyclists.

This is true. But while it is only your life at stake, if you get
seriously hurt that does impact on other people.

Quoted message said:

Pavements are geneally pretty empty, many people run on them faster
than I cycle on them. What kind of idiot would tick you off for riding
on an empty pavement in order to put you into fast moving traffic?

As I suggested elsewhere. You need to train more!

Quoted message said:

Obviously I do not speed along pavements crowded with pedestrians,
for a start I would be liable to end up in a nasty colision.

Good. Round these parts that would be a description of a normal
pavement.

Quoted message said:

You are pretty mis-guided if you believe that care more about scratching
their car than losing their life.

That sentence makes absolutely no sense. Your bad grammar appears to
have resurfaced with a vengeance.

If you read my post you'll see that I didn't mention them losing their
life (Which it's unlikely they will if they hit a cyclist!).

Quoted message said:

And where did I indicate that?

"Similar for pedestrian lights, I am likely to come off worse than
anyone I might hit." in combination with your comments about jumping red
lights, very strongly suggests that you have no concern for anyone but
yourself.

Jon

"half_pint" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"JLB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

half_pint said:

Yes the HC does mention cyclists but it our roads were built almost
exclusively
for motorists.

Such great foresight our remote ancestors had... or was it that roads
were only invented a hundred or so years ago? I forget.

Not too sure what you mean by that, most modern roads are built almost
exclusively for cars.

one particularly annoying Roodedoo* driver comment I get is "why do we have
to give you 6 feet of clearance when you give us 6 inches?"

* rabbit speak for cars from Watership Down; I do hope it's on this Xmas
want to watch it before the kids get too old

MartinM said:

* rabbit speak for cars from Watership Down; I do hope it's on this
Xmas want to watch it before the kids get too old

What is it with you and Watership Down, Martin? Have you got something you
want to share with us?