Totally agree with you here. I see people cycling on the pavement frequently even when the road is deserted (e.g. 11pm at night) which puzzles me as I thought people cycled on the pavement for fear of traffic.
Maybe it's because of the cyclists' fear of traffic?
It's a standard speedophile excuse to claim that late at night, the streets are empty, so of course it's toadally unfair to ticket anyone for speeding -- stealth tax and all that.
So naturally, it's reasonable for potential victims to be extra-cautious on empty roads, late at night, when SafeSpeed morons are driving at speeds "appropriate to conditions", as judged by their moronic selves.
Did you see the debate on here about the moron who was jailed for driving at 172 m.p.h.? Apparently his speed was in no way proof that he was driving unsafely.
Even some of the road cyclists don't seem to bother with lights at night which again puzzles me as you can pick up a reasonable set of lights suitable for urban riding at night for about £10. All you have to do is fit them and switch them on.
I've seen a cyclist with a hand-held torch as their light source.
Lights on bikes are a thorny issue, in my opinion. Certainly, not using lights in working order should be a good reason to earn yourself a £60 spot fine, but who is going to enforce it? Yet more bobbies off the beat filling out paperwork?
Also, and corrert me if I am wrong here, but aren't cycle lights legally limited in what strength they can be? I have a cracking set of lights on mine that people have commented upon, but technically I think they are illegal. It certainly used to be the case that anything stronger that the standard Ever Ready offering was against the law.
In message <[email hidden]>, AdamLea <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Even some of the road cyclists don't seem to bother with lights at night which again puzzles me as you can pick up a reasonable set of lights suitable for urban riding at night for about £10. All you have to do is fit them and switch them on.
Quoted message said:
I've seen a cyclist with a hand-held torch as their light source.
Shame on you for such a calumny.
Push-bike-riders are the absolute salt of the earth. They'd never do such a thing. Ask Guy if you don't believe me.
its sheer arrogant selfishness- Cyclists think that they can do whatever they like, break every traffic law, kill peedestrians and yet they somehow are saving the planet by their behaviour and are completly beyond reproach. OTOH car drivers (who subsidise cyclists by paying VAT and VED) pay for everything from the infrastructure to the NHS are portrayed as the devil incarnate.
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:00:20 -0700, Adam Lea <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Totally agree with you here. I see people cycling on the pavement frequently even when the road is deserted (e.g. 11pm at night) which puzzles me as I thought people cycled on the pavement for fear of traffic.
Quoted message said:
Maybe it's because of the cyclists' fear of traffic?
Quoted message said:
It's a standard speedophile excuse to claim that late at night, the streets are empty, so of course it's toadally unfair to ticket anyone for speeding -- stealth tax and all that.
Quoted message said:
So naturally, it's reasonable for potential victims to be extra-cautious on empty roads, late at night, when SafeSpeed morons are driving at speeds "appropriate to conditions", as judged by their moronic selves.
Did you see the debate on here about the moron who was jailed for driving at 172 m.p.h.? Apparently his speed was in no way proof that he was driving unsafely.
In message <[email hidden]>, Adam Lea <[email hidden]> wrote: > Even some of the road cyclists don't seem to bother with lights at > night which again puzzles me as you can pick up a reasonable set of > lights suitable for urban riding at night for about £10. All you have > to do is fit them and switch them on. I've seen a cyclist with a hand-held torch as their light source.
Shame on you for such a calumny.
Push-bike-riders are the absolute salt of the earth. They'd never do such a thing. Ask Guy if you don't believe me.
its sheer arrogant selfishness- Cyclists think that they can do whatever they like, break every traffic law, kill peedestrians and yet they somehow are saving the planet by their behaviour and are completly beyond reproach. OTOH car drivers (who subsidise cyclists by paying VAT and VED) pay for everything from the infrastructure to the NHS are portrayed as the devil incarnate.
Don't be so UTTERLY stupid. That's like me turning round and posting that no motorists contribute anything to society because a minority of them drive around without tax, insurance and MOTs. We ARE tax payers, you know. You want us all to sell our bikes and get cars so that your journey to work takes even longer? It is obvious that you haven't got a clue what cycling is like or the dangers that we face from people like you everyday. For Christ's sake, you are as bad as that loser, Doug. I'm only trying to get to bloody work and keep fit. That doesn't make me the arch enemy of the motorist, anymore than you getting behind the wheel of your car makes you my enemy. The roads are big enough for all of us.
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:00:20 -0700, Adam Lea <[email hidden]> wrote: > Totally agree with you here. I see people cycling on the pavement > frequently even when the road is deserted (e.g. 11pm at night) which > puzzles me as I thought people cycled on the pavement for fear of > traffic. Maybe it's because of the cyclists' fear of traffic? It's a standard speedophile excuse to claim that late at night, the streets are empty, so of course it's toadally unfair to ticket anyone for speeding -- stealth tax and all that. So naturally, it's reasonable for potential victims to be extra-cautious on empty roads, late at night, when SafeSpeed morons are driving at speeds "appropriate to conditions", as judged by their moronic selves.
Did you see the debate on here about the moron who was jailed for driving at 172 m.p.h.? Apparently his speed was in no way proof that he was driving unsafely.
Brian.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Remind us who got hurt?
His pride has certainly been hurt. Lost his job and gone to prison. Now that is SO funny.
Sorry but I am not willing to enter into a serious debate with someone who is so obviously stupid. To suggest that you have to have an accident for your speed to have been dangerous is just the noncence of a raving imbicile.
Timothy Baldwin wrote: > In message <[email hidden]>, Adam Lea > <[email hidden]> wrote: >> Even some of the road cyclists don't seem to bother with lights at >> night which again puzzles me as you can pick up a reasonable set of >> lights suitable for urban riding at night for about £10. All you have >> to do is fit them and switch them on. > I've seen a cyclist with a hand-held torch as their light source. Shame on you for such a calumny.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Push-bike-riders are the absolute salt of the earth. They'd never do such a thing. Ask Guy if you don't believe me.
Quoted message said:
its sheer arrogant selfishness- Cyclists think that they can do whatever they like, break every traffic law, kill peedestrians and yet they somehow are saving the planet by their behaviour and are completly beyond reproach. OTOH car drivers (who subsidise cyclists by paying VAT and VED) pay for everything from the infrastructure to the NHS are portrayed as the devil incarnate.
Don't be so UTTERLY stupid. That's like me turning round and posting that no motorists contribute anything to society because a minority of them drive around without tax, insurance and MOTs. We ARE tax payers, you know. You want us all to sell our bikes and get cars so that your journey to work takes even longer? It is obvious that you haven't got a clue what cycling is like or the dangers that we face from people like you everyday. For Christ's sake, you are as bad as that loser, Doug. I'm only trying to get to bloody work and keep fit. That doesn't make me the arch enemy of the motorist, anymore than you getting behind the wheel of your car makes you my enemy. The roads are big enough for all of us.
Brian.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You've missed the point, I actually agree with your last two sentences, but the attitudes displayed by Chapman, Hansen , that [censored] Spindrift et al are exactly that car drivers are the cyclists enemy and that cyclists have carte blanche to do whatever they like. Even when someone is killed by a cyclist, it somewow doesn't matter so much because car drivers are responsible for the deaths of more people than cyclists are.
As for tax- car drivers make a massive contribution to the Exchequer and subsidise the entire economy.
Marc Brett wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:00:20 -0700, Adam Lea <[email hidden]> wrote: >> Totally agree with you here. I see people cycling on the pavement >> frequently even when the road is deserted (e.g. 11pm at night) which >> puzzles me as I thought people cycled on the pavement for fear of >> traffic. > Maybe it's because of the cyclists' fear of traffic? > It's a standard speedophile excuse to claim that late at night, the > streets are empty, so of course it's toadally unfair to ticket anyone > for speeding -- stealth tax and all that. > So naturally, it's reasonable for potential victims to be extra-cautious > on empty roads, late at night, when SafeSpeed morons are driving at > speeds "appropriate to conditions", as judged by their moronic selves. Did you see the debate on here about the moron who was jailed for driving at 172 m.p.h.? Apparently his speed was in no way proof that he was driving unsafely.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Brian.- Hide quoted text -
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
- Show quoted text -
Quoted message said:
Remind us who got hurt?
His pride has certainly been hurt. Lost his job and gone to prison. Now that is SO funny.
Sorry but I am not willing to enter into a serious debate with someone who is so obviously stupid. To suggest that you have to have an accident for your speed to have been dangerous is just the noncence of a raving imbicile.
Marc Brett wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:00:20 -0700, Adam Lea <[email hidden]> wrote: >> Totally agree with you here. I see people cycling on the pavement >> frequently even when the road is deserted (e.g. 11pm at night) which >> puzzles me as I thought people cycled on the pavement for fear of >> traffic. > Maybe it's because of the cyclists' fear of traffic? > It's a standard speedophile excuse to claim that late at night, the > streets are empty, so of course it's toadally unfair to ticket anyone > for speeding -- stealth tax and all that. > So naturally, it's reasonable for potential victims to be extra-cautious > on empty roads, late at night, when SafeSpeed morons are driving at > speeds "appropriate to conditions", as judged by their moronic selves. Did you see the debate on here about the moron who was jailed for driving at 172 m.p.h.? Apparently his speed was in no way proof that he was driving unsafely.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Brian.- Hide quoted text -
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
- Show quoted text -
Quoted message said:
Remind us who got hurt?
His pride has certainly been hurt. Lost his job and gone to prison. Now that is SO funny.
Sorry but I am not willing to enter into a serious debate with someone who is so obviously stupid. To suggest that you have to have an accident for your speed to have been dangerous is just the noncence of a raving imbicile.
On 7 Oct, 02:04, JNugent <[email hidden]> wrote: > Timothy Baldwin wrote: >> In message <[email hidden]>, Adam Lea >> <[email hidden]> wrote: >>> Even some of the road cyclists don't seem to bother with lights at >>> night which again puzzles me as you can pick up a reasonable set of >>> lights suitable for urban riding at night for about £10. All youhave >>> to do is fit them and switch them on. >> I've seen a cyclist with a hand-held torch as their light source. > Shame on you for such a calumny.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> Push-bike-riders are the absolute salt of the earth. They'd never do > such a thing. Ask Guy if you don't believe me.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
its sheer arrogant selfishness- Cyclists think that they can do whatever they like, break every traffic law, kill peedestrians and yet they somehow are saving the planet by their behaviour and are completly beyond reproach. OTOH car drivers (who subsidise cyclists by paying VAT and VED) pay for everything from the infrastructure to the NHS are portrayed as the devil incarnate.
Quoted message said:
Don't be so UTTERLY stupid. That's like me turning round and posting that no motorists contribute anything to society because a minority of them drive around without tax, insurance and MOTs. We ARE tax payers, you know. You want us all to sell our bikes and get cars so that your journey to work takes even longer? It is obvious that you haven't got a clue what cycling is like or the dangers that we face from people like you everyday. For Christ's sake, you are as bad as that loser, Doug. I'm only trying to get to bloody work and keep fit. That doesn't make me the arch enemy of the motorist, anymore than you getting behind the wheel of your car makes you my enemy. The roads are big enough for all of us.
Quoted message said:
Brian.- Hide quoted text -
Quoted message said:
- Show quoted text -
You've missed the point, I actually agree with your last two sentences, but the attitudes displayed by Chapman, Hansen , that [censored] Spindrift et al are exactly that car drivers are the cyclists enemy and that cyclists have carte blanche to do whatever they like. Even when someone is killed by a cyclist, it somehow doesn't matter so much because car drivers are responsible for the deaths of more people than cyclists are.
As for tax- car drivers make a massive contribution to the Exchequer and subsidise the entire economy.- Hide quoted text -
On 7 Oct, 10:13, Brian Robertson <brian@[nospam].com> wrote: > Marc Brett wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:00:20 -0700, Adam Lea <[email hidden]> wrote: >>> Totally agree with you here. I see people cycling on the pavement >>> frequently even when the road is deserted (e.g. 11pm at night) which >>> puzzles me as I thought people cycled on the pavement for fear of >>> traffic. >> Maybe it's because of the cyclists' fear of traffic? >> It's a standard speedophile excuse to claim that late at night, the >> streets are empty, so of course it's toadally unfair to ticket anyone >> for speeding -- stealth tax and all that. >> So naturally, it's reasonable for potential victims to be extra-cautious >> on empty roads, late at night, when SafeSpeed morons are driving at >> speeds "appropriate to conditions", as judged by their moronic selves. > Did you see the debate on here about the moron who was jailed for > driving at 172 m.p.h.? Apparently his speed was in no way proof that he > was driving unsafely. > Brian.- Hide quoted text - > - Show quoted text - Remind us who got hurt?
His pride has certainly been hurt. Lost his job and gone to prison. Now that is SO funny.
Sorry but I am not willing to enter into a serious debate with someone who is so obviously stupid. To suggest that you have to have an accident for your speed to have been dangerous is just the noncence of a raving imbicile.
Brian.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
its "nonsense" and "imbecile"
I trust you to know how to spell those words, I really do.
"JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Timothy Baldwin said:
In message <[email hidden]>, Adam Lea <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Even some of the road cyclists don't seem to bother with lights at >night which again puzzles me as you can pick up a reasonable set of >lights suitable for urban riding at night for about £10. All you have >to do is fit them and switch them on.
I've seen a cyclist with a hand-held torch as their light source.
Shame on you for such a calumny.
Push-bike-riders are the absolute salt of the earth. They'd never do such a thing. Ask Guy if you don't believe me.
Are you suggesting that using a hand held torch is somehow wrong or that you would prefer that they use no light source at all?
I cannot possibly accept that any cyclist would ever do such a thing. They are absolute boy scouts - always prepared.
The benighted poster who claims to have seen such a thing must simply be mistaken. OTOH, I expect that several hundred thousand car-drivers are so cavalier about road safety that they drive around in the dark using a penlight for forward illumination, on at least three bald tyres which are so defective that [cont on p.267]
In message <[email hidden]>, Brian Robertson <brian@[nospam].com> writes
Quoted message said:
Lights on bikes are a thorny issue, in my opinion. Certainly, not using lights in working order should be a good reason to earn yourself a £60 spot fine, but who is going to enforce it? Yet more bobbies off the beat filling out paperwork?
Apparently dog wardens can enforce the law on lorry drivers smoking in their own cabs.
As a side note - we, as cyclists, really need a serious crack-down on people cycling on the pavement. It's unnecessary and unsafe. Passing through Dumfries before dawn on Monday morning I passed ten people on bikes. Eight were on the pavement. Nine had no lights at all, and most of those had no apparent reflectives either. Only one had proper lights and was riding in primary position on the road - and, surprise, he was also the only one riding a drop handlebar bike.
Well it's a message lost on many. I was out in Southampton yesterday and saw the leader of a group of cyclists encouraging her group to use the pavement, despite the number of pedestrians on the pavement, and despite the absence of road traffic. And no it wasn't a dual-use pavement.
Would that someone be a mum out cycling with her kids?
In message <[email hidden]>, Brian Robertson <brian@[nospam].com> writes
Quoted message said:
Lights on bikes are a thorny issue, in my opinion. Certainly, not using lights in working order should be a good reason to earn yourself a £60 spot fine, but who is going to enforce it? Yet more bobbies off the beat filling out paperwork?
Apparently dog wardens can enforce the law on lorry drivers smoking in their own cabs.
There's plenty of work being created for jumped-up ticket dispensers like that. Don't expect them to jump in and save your drowning kid though.
Not if they can't swim and don't know where he is.
So lets get this right, anyway: You think that cyclists should obey the law, but the people who enforce the law are "jumped-up ticket dispensers". Have I got you right?
As a side note - we, as cyclists, really need a serious crack-down on people cycling on the pavement. It's unnecessary and unsafe. Passing through Dumfries before dawn on Monday morning I passed ten people on bikes. Eight were on the pavement. Nine had no lights at all, and most of those had no apparent reflectives either. Only one had proper lights and was riding in primary position on the road - and, surprise, he was also the only one riding a drop handlebar bike.
Well it's a message lost on many. I was out in Southampton yesterday and saw the leader of a group of cyclists encouraging her group to use the pavement, despite the number of pedestrians on the pavement, and despite the absence of road traffic. And no it wasn't a dual-use pavement.
Would that someone be a mum out cycling with her kids?
They aren't driving a car and they aren't related to Steve. Worse still, they aren't Steve. Ergo, they are scum and in the wrong.
As a side note - we, as cyclists, really need a serious crack-down on people cycling on the pavement. It's unnecessary and unsafe. Passing through Dumfries before dawn on Monday morning I passed ten people on bikes. Eight were on the pavement. Nine had no lights at all, and most of those had no apparent reflectives either. Only one had proper lights and was riding in primary position on the road - and, surprise, he was also the only one riding a drop handlebar bike.
Well it's a message lost on many. I was out in Southampton yesterday and saw the leader of a group of cyclists encouraging her group to use the pavement, despite the number of pedestrians on the pavement, and despite the absence of road traffic. And no it wasn't a dual-use pavement.
How would you even be able to recognise a duel use pavement? You think that the Tour de France could be run on £60 mountain bikes from Costco. I would say that somebody as plain THICK as you have nothing to contribute to a thread about cycling.
Brian.
Your unintentional "humour" is getting better every day.
"Duel use" - I love it!
Many a true word is spoken in jest. Or, in Brian's case, inadvertently.
> As a side note - we, as cyclists, really need a serious crack-down on > people cycling on the pavement. It's unnecessary and unsafe. Passing > through Dumfries before dawn on Monday morning I passed ten people on > bikes. Eight were on the pavement. Nine had no lights at all, and > most of > those had no apparent reflectives either. Only one had proper lights > and > was riding in primary position on the road - and, surprise, he was also > the only one riding a drop handlebar bike.
Well it's a message lost on many. I was out in Southampton yesterday and saw the leader of a group of cyclists encouraging her group to use the pavement, despite the number of pedestrians on the pavement, and despite the absence of road traffic. And no it wasn't a dual-use pavement.
How would you even be able to recognise a duel use pavement? You think that the Tour de France could be run on £60 mountain bikes from Costco. I would say that somebody as plain THICK as you have nothing to contribute to a thread about cycling.
Brian.
Your unintentional "humour" is getting better every day.
"Duel use" - I love it!
Many a true word is spoken in jest. Or, in Brian's case, inadvertently.
Actually you aren't wrong there. As I have said elsewhere, I don't like them. I use them and mind my own business, but there are always pedestrian terrorists walking in front of me. (Thought it was time to introduce another class of terrorists)
its sheer arrogant selfishness- Cyclists think that they can do whatever they like, break every traffic law, kill peedestrians and yet they somehow are saving the planet by their behaviour and are completly beyond reproach. OTOH car drivers (who subsidise cyclists by paying VAT and VED) pay for everything from the infrastructure to the NHS are portrayed as the devil incarnate.
Quoted message said:
Don't be so UTTERLY stupid. That's like me turning round and posting that no motorists contribute anything to society because a minority of them drive around without tax, insurance and MOTs. We ARE tax payers, you know. You want us all to sell our bikes and get cars so that your journey to work takes even longer? It is obvious that you haven't got a clue what cycling is like or the dangers that we face from people like you everyday. For Christ's sake, you are as bad as that loser, Doug. I'm only trying to get to bloody work and keep fit. That doesn't make me the arch enemy of the motorist, anymore than you getting behind the wheel of your car makes you my enemy. The roads are big enough for all of us.
Why do so many people "turn round" before they say anything these days?
