"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2014 20:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 28/08/2014 18:26, Mr Pounder wrote:

Can you see the future by saying it won't happen then?
Your pedestrian insurance question was just silly.

What's silly about it?

You are very unlikely to injure anyone as a pedestrian.

Don't you have insurance in case you injure someone while out walking?

Nope, because I know that I wont injure anyone while out walking unless
say
I have a fit or something, in which case their injury is their problem,
not mine.

Pedestrians can harm other people,

Yes, but not seriously enough to need any insurance to cover that.

cyclists have been killed and many injured by errant pedestrians.

But the pedestrians don’t need insurance to cover that.

It is quite feasible to sue anyone that causes loss or damage to another.

But hardly anyone ever does with a pedestrian, for a reason and
**** all ever end up with significant damages when doing that.

Life time care for one person may run into millions.

**** all pedestrians ever produce anyone needing life time care.

3rd party insurance is definitely a good idea.

Bull****. And that isnt a 3rd party anyway, it’s a 2nd party.

There was one a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-28787709

Its no news that cyclists get killed and injured.

There is no evidence that that pedestrian got any advantage from having
insurance.

On 28/08/2014 21:40, Rod Speed wrote:


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2014 20:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 28/08/2014 18:26, Mr Pounder wrote:

Can you see the future by saying it won't happen then?
Your pedestrian insurance question was just silly.

What's silly about it?

You are very unlikely to injure anyone as a pedestrian.

Don't you have insurance in case you injure someone while out walking?

Nope, because I know that I wont injure anyone while out walking
unless say
I have a fit or something, in which case their injury is their problem,
not mine.

Pedestrians can harm other people,

Yes, but not seriously enough to need any insurance to cover that.

cyclists have been killed and many injured by errant pedestrians.

But the pedestrians don’t need insurance to cover that.

It is quite feasible to sue anyone that causes loss or damage to another.

But hardly anyone ever does with a pedestrian, for a reason and
**** all ever end up with significant damages when doing that.

Life time care for one person may run into millions.

**** all pedestrians ever produce anyone needing life time care.

3rd party insurance is definitely a good idea.

Bull****. And that isnt a 3rd party anyway, it’s a 2nd party.


You don't quite understand insurance terminology, do you.

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2014 21:40, Rod Speed wrote:


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2014 20:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 28/08/2014 18:26, Mr Pounder wrote:

Can you see the future by saying it won't happen then?
Your pedestrian insurance question was just silly.

What's silly about it?

You are very unlikely to injure anyone as a pedestrian.

Don't you have insurance in case you injure someone while out walking?

Nope, because I know that I wont injure anyone while out walking
unless say
I have a fit or something, in which case their injury is their problem,
not mine.

Pedestrians can harm other people,

Yes, but not seriously enough to need any insurance to cover that.

cyclists have been killed and many injured by errant pedestrians.

But the pedestrians don’t need insurance to cover that.

It is quite feasible to sue anyone that causes loss or damage to
another.

But hardly anyone ever does with a pedestrian, for a reason and
**** all ever end up with significant damages when doing that.

Life time care for one person may run into millions.

**** all pedestrians ever produce anyone needing life time care.

3rd party insurance is definitely a good idea.

Bull****. And that isnt a 3rd party anyway, it’s a 2nd party.


You don't quite understand insurance terminology, do you.

Wrong, as always.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:02:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 23/08/2014 22:24, Capitol wrote:
Dennis@home wrote:
On 23/08/2014 20:45, Uncle Peter wrote:

Then why do so many people run for exercise?


Everyone has to die some way.

True, Everyone I know who has indulged in exercise has either died
early or been injured. Mind you, pedal powered organ donors are a great
spare parts resource.

Did I ever tell you about the cyclist my daughter attended who had 'de
gloved' his penis?

Just how is that possible on a bicycle?

--
I used to work in a fire hydrant factory. You couldn't park anywhere near the place. -- Steven Wright

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:42:03 +0100, "Uncle Peter" wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:02:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 23/08/2014 22:24, Capitol wrote:
Dennis@home wrote:
On 23/08/2014 20:45, Uncle Peter wrote:

Then why do so many people run for exercise?


Everyone has to die some way.

True, Everyone I know who has indulged in exercise has either died
early or been injured. Mind you, pedal powered organ donors are a great
spare parts resource.

Did I ever tell you about the cyclist my daughter attended who had 'de
gloved' his penis?

Just how is that possible on a bicycle?


Being a cyclist, he probably put it in the spokes seeking some sort of thrill.

Why don't you try it?

On 28/08/2014 20:39, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2014 19:18, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 28/08/2014 18:26, Mr Pounder wrote:

Can you see the future by saying it won't happen then?
Your pedestrian insurance question was just silly.

What's silly about it?
Don't you have insurance in case you injure someone while out walking?

I may have. Give me a while to check my policies.



Mr Pounder has insurances for everything, including shoelace accident
insurance, in case he accidently strangles himself. ;-)

I only wear slippers these days.



I do hope they are Triple A rated for safety and you have appropriate
insurance? Remember! slippers can kill!

On 28/08/2014 20:57, John Williamson wrote:
On 28/08/2014 20:42, Mrcheerful wrote:

Pedestrians can harm other people, cyclists have been killed and many
injured by errant pedestrians. It is quite feasible to sue anyone that
causes loss or damage to another. Life time care for one person may run
into millions. 3rd party insurance is definitely a good idea.
There was one a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-28787709

Now, did the pedestrian run into the bike, or vice versa? Was the
cyclist on the pavement, or the pedestrian on the road? The article
doesn't tell us, nor do any of the others I found.

Still, it's not a bad thing to be cycling at 77.

Indeed.

On 28/08/2014 22:42, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:02:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 23/08/2014 22:24, Capitol wrote:
Dennis@home wrote:
On 23/08/2014 20:45, Uncle Peter wrote:

Then why do so many people run for exercise?


Everyone has to die some way.

True, Everyone I know who has indulged in exercise has either died
early or been injured. Mind you, pedal powered organ donors are a great
spare parts resource.

Did I ever tell you about the cyclist my daughter attended who had 'de
gloved' his penis?

Just how is that possible on a bicycle?

Hmm, the mind boggles.

On 28/08/2014 22:42, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:02:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 23/08/2014 22:24, Capitol wrote:
Dennis@home wrote:
On 23/08/2014 20:45, Uncle Peter wrote:

Then why do so many people run for exercise?


Everyone has to die some way.

True, Everyone I know who has indulged in exercise has either died
early or been injured. Mind you, pedal powered organ donors are a great
spare parts resource.

Did I ever tell you about the cyclist my daughter attended who had 'de
gloved' his penis?

Just how is that possible on a bicycle?

Entirely possible when you fall off at speed....


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 29/08/2014 07:49, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 28/08/2014 22:42, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:02:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 23/08/2014 22:24, Capitol wrote:
Dennis@home wrote:
On 23/08/2014 20:45, Uncle Peter wrote:

Then why do so many people run for exercise?


Everyone has to die some way.

True, Everyone I know who has indulged in exercise has either died
early or been injured. Mind you, pedal powered organ donors are a great
spare parts resource.

Did I ever tell you about the cyclist my daughter attended who had 'de
gloved' his penis?

Just how is that possible on a bicycle?

Entirely possible when you fall off at speed....


Or cyclists who practise extreme circumcision ;-)

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:49:20 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 28/08/2014 22:42, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:02:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 23/08/2014 22:24, Capitol wrote:
Dennis@home wrote:
On 23/08/2014 20:45, Uncle Peter wrote:



Everyone has to die some way.

True, Everyone I know who has indulged in exercise has either died
early or been injured. Mind you, pedal powered organ donors are a great
spare parts resource.

Did I ever tell you about the cyclist my daughter attended who had 'de
gloved' his penis?

Just how is that possible on a bicycle?

Entirely possible when you fall off at speed....

When I fall off something, I tend to land on my limbs. How on earth do you land on your penis?

--
How do you play Iraqi bingo?
B-52...F-16...B-2

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:53:28 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 29/08/2014 07:49, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 28/08/2014 22:42, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:02:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 23/08/2014 22:24, Capitol wrote:
Dennis@home wrote:


True, Everyone I know who has indulged in exercise has either died
early or been injured. Mind you, pedal powered organ donors are a great
spare parts resource.

Did I ever tell you about the cyclist my daughter attended who had 'de
gloved' his penis?

Just how is that possible on a bicycle?

Entirely possible when you fall off at speed....


Or cyclists who practise extreme circumcision ;-)

There's no accounting for the stupidity of religious extremists.

SIG!

--
She was engaged to a boyfriend with a wooden leg but broke it off.

On 28/08/2014 22:31, Rod Speed wrote:


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2014 21:40, Rod Speed wrote:


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2014 20:26, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 28/08/2014 18:26, Mr Pounder wrote:

Can you see the future by saying it won't happen then?
Your pedestrian insurance question was just silly.

What's silly about it?

You are very unlikely to injure anyone as a pedestrian.

Don't you have insurance in case you injure someone while out
walking?

Nope, because I know that I wont injure anyone while out walking
unless say
I have a fit or something, in which case their injury is their
problem,
not mine.

Pedestrians can harm other people,

Yes, but not seriously enough to need any insurance to cover that.

cyclists have been killed and many injured by errant pedestrians.

But the pedestrians don’t need insurance to cover that.

It is quite feasible to sue anyone that causes loss or damage to
another.

But hardly anyone ever does with a pedestrian, for a reason and
**** all ever end up with significant damages when doing that.

Life time care for one person may run into millions.

**** all pedestrians ever produce anyone needing life time care.

3rd party insurance is definitely a good idea.

Bull****. And that isnt a 3rd party anyway, it’s a 2nd party.


You don't quite understand insurance terminology, do you.

Wrong, as always.

Then tell me who the parties in an insurance agreement are.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:35:43 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 28/08/2014 22:42, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:02:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 23/08/2014 22:24, Capitol wrote:
Dennis@home wrote:
On 23/08/2014 20:45, Uncle Peter wrote:



Everyone has to die some way.

True, Everyone I know who has indulged in exercise has either died
early or been injured. Mind you, pedal powered organ donors are a great
spare parts resource.

Did I ever tell you about the cyclist my daughter attended who had 'de
gloved' his penis?

Just how is that possible on a bicycle?

Hmm, the mind boggles.

Probably those idiots that use saddles as narrow as their stupid wheels. No wonder they fall off.

--
Health and Safety Officer required to start ASAP, circa £35K:
Your main duties will include:
Hampering other staff and preventing them from carrying on with their duties.
Handing out huge quantities of pointless paperwork consuming approx 1 rainforest per year.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:23:56 +0100, Bob Henson wrote:

Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:49:20 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 28/08/2014 22:42, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:02:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 23/08/2014 22:24, Capitol wrote:




Did I ever tell you about the cyclist my daughter attended who had 'de
gloved' his penis?

Just how is that possible on a bicycle?

Entirely possible when you fall off at speed....

When I fall off something, I tend to land on my limbs. How on earth do you land on your penis?

Depends what you were doing at the time. I heard about a taxi driver who
pulled out to avoid a child and fell off the sofa.

ROTFPMSL! "Daddy, what were you doing to mummy?"

--
Why do divorces cost so much? They're worth it. *

On 29/08/2014 07:53, Bod wrote:
On 29/08/2014 07:49, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 28/08/2014 22:42, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:02:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 23/08/2014 22:24, Capitol wrote:
Dennis@home wrote:
On 23/08/2014 20:45, Uncle Peter wrote:

Then why do so many people run for exercise?


Everyone has to die some way.

True, Everyone I know who has indulged in exercise has either
died
early or been injured. Mind you, pedal powered organ donors are a
great
spare parts resource.

Did I ever tell you about the cyclist my daughter attended who had 'de
gloved' his penis?

Just how is that possible on a bicycle?

Entirely possible when you fall off at speed....


Or cyclists who practise extreme circumcision ;-)

They don't. You have to be a complete prick to ride a bike.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:21:36 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 29/08/2014 07:53, Bod wrote:
On 29/08/2014 07:49, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 28/08/2014 22:42, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:02:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 23/08/2014 22:24, Capitol wrote:


Did I ever tell you about the cyclist my daughter attended who had 'de
gloved' his penis?

Just how is that possible on a bicycle?

Entirely possible when you fall off at speed....


Or cyclists who practise extreme circumcision ;-)

They don't. You have to be a complete prick to ride a bike.

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/...es/biker-1.jpg

--
Take some good advice: Never try to baptize your cat.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...

On 29/08/2014 07:53, Bod wrote:
On 29/08/2014 07:49, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 28/08/2014 22:42, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:02:06 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 23/08/2014 22:24, Capitol wrote:
Dennis@home wrote:
On 23/08/2014 20:45, Uncle Peter wrote:

Then why do so many people run for exercise?


Everyone has to die some way.

True, Everyone I know who has indulged in exercise has either
died
early or been injured. Mind you, pedal powered organ donors are a
great
spare parts resource.

Did I ever tell you about the cyclist my daughter attended who had 'de
gloved' his penis?

Just how is that possible on a bicycle?

Entirely possible when you fall off at speed....


Or cyclists who practise extreme circumcision ;-)

They don't. You have to be a complete prick to ride a bike.

LOL

On 31/08/2014 05:01, Phil W Lee wrote:
Bod considered Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:32:50 +0100
the perfect time to write:

On 26/08/2014 19:56, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 26/08/2014 19:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bod
wrote:

On 26/08/2014 18:32, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 16:50, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of large lorries
who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang back
from any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

There you are, an organ donor!

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the silly money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

True, but cyclists don't belch out poisonous exhaust gases,
effectively carbon free by comparison to motorised vehicles.

What's that got to do with insurance? Cyclists should have this for
when they knock over or into pedestrians and other things.

I wouldn't argue with that. It should be compulsory.

Agreed!
Of course you carry such insurance.


No, like any vehicle, insurance is not required on private land.
I only cycle on private land now.
Besides, Cycle insurance is not compulsory on cycles at the moment.

Don't you have household contents insurance?
If so, that will cover you (but you do need to be aware of that to
make a claim).

Yes I do have household insurance and it does cover bicycles.

The Medway Handyman writes:

Yes, but the same could be said of young inexperienced car drivers.
Their accident rate is disproportionally high, hence the silly money
they have to fork out for car insurance.

As opposed to the zero money forked out by cyclists.

Then cycling must pose very little risk. The insurance industry would
not provide this cover for `zero money' otherwise. Not for long,
anyway...

--
Mark

Mrcheerful writes:

My household insurance covers cycles and third party claims while
cycling. I expect that a lot of them do.

25 percent of homes do not have such insurance.

How do you know it is not the same 25 percent of homes which do not have
any cycles or do any cycling?

--
Mark

JNugent writes:

He means Vehicle Excise Duty. Originally introduced to help pay off a
war debt, under the guise of paying for road improvements and
maintenance.

What is this "Vehicle Excise Duty"?

One will search in vain for the words "excise" or "duty" on a [V11]
form.

But you'll find "road" and "tax" easily enough.

Though, strangely enough, not next (or near) to each other. Most odd.

You _will_ find the word `vehicle' on there. Many times---and usually
in conjunction with `tax'. Yet you have conveniently omitted to mention
that. Also the acronym `MoT', even though this has been a bit of a
legal fiction for some decades now.

--
Mark

On 31/08/2014 18:19, Mark Williams wrote:
writes:

He means Vehicle Excise Duty. Originally introduced to help pay off a
war debt, under the guise of paying for road improvements and
maintenance.

What is this "Vehicle Excise Duty"?

One will search in vain for the words "excise" or "duty" on a [V11]
form.

But you'll find "road" and "tax" easily enough.

Though, strangely enough, not next (or near) to each other. Most odd.

You _will_ find the word `vehicle' on there. Many times---and usually
in conjunction with `tax'. Yet you have conveniently omitted to mention
that. Also the acronym `MoT', even though this has been a bit of a
legal fiction for some decades now.

Assuming you had one, and assuming that you know what it is/was (not a
safe assumption, I accept), what is your point?

Uncle Peter wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:32:49 +0100, Dennis@home
wrote:

On 08/08/2014 15:07, Tim+ wrote:


Of course a blind eye is turned to young children using the footpaths
but
really, footpaths are only for things moving at a pedestrian pace.
When I'm
running, I frequently use the road in preference to the footpath as folk
reversing out don't expect (nor should expect) faster moving traffic
on the
pavement.

They should expect pedestrians moving at whatever speed a pedestrian
can, including running for the bus or whatever else they want to run for!


These days they can reasonably expect to have cycles and scooters too.

When reversing out of my drive, I cannot see a pedestrian on the
footpath, as the footpath is obscured by my hedge (which I imagine is
the case with a lot of driveways), hence it's up to the pedestrian to
hear the car. When people all have quiet electric cars, this could be a
problem.

No it is up to you,you should remove the hedge or devise some method of
ascertaining that the way is clear.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 06:30:31 +0100, F Murtz wrote:

Uncle Peter wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:32:49 +0100, Dennis@home
wrote:

On 08/08/2014 15:07, Tim+ wrote:


Of course a blind eye is turned to young children using the footpaths
but
really, footpaths are only for things moving at a pedestrian pace.
When I'm
running, I frequently use the road in preference to the footpath as folk
reversing out don't expect (nor should expect) faster moving traffic
on the
pavement.

They should expect pedestrians moving at whatever speed a pedestrian
can, including running for the bus or whatever else they want to run for!


These days they can reasonably expect to have cycles and scooters too.

When reversing out of my drive, I cannot see a pedestrian on the
footpath, as the footpath is obscured by my hedge (which I imagine is
the case with a lot of driveways), hence it's up to the pedestrian to
hear the car. When people all have quiet electric cars, this could be a
problem.

No it is up to you,you should remove the hedge or devise some method of
ascertaining that the way is clear.

50% of houses do not have a clear view.

--
I've got trouble with the wife again - she came into the bar
looking for me and I asked for her number.

On 01/09/2014 13:56, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 06:30:31 +0100, F Murtz wrote:

Uncle Peter wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:32:49 +0100, Dennis@home
wrote:

On 08/08/2014 15:07, Tim+ wrote:


Of course a blind eye is turned to young children using the footpaths
but
really, footpaths are only for things moving at a pedestrian pace.
When I'm
running, I frequently use the road in preference to the footpath as
folk
reversing out don't expect (nor should expect) faster moving traffic
on the
pavement.

They should expect pedestrians moving at whatever speed a pedestrian
can, including running for the bus or whatever else they want to run
for!


These days they can reasonably expect to have cycles and scooters too.

When reversing out of my drive, I cannot see a pedestrian on the
footpath, as the footpath is obscured by my hedge (which I imagine is
the case with a lot of driveways), hence it's up to the pedestrian to
hear the car. When people all have quiet electric cars, this could be a
problem.

No it is up to you,you should remove the hedge or devise some method of
ascertaining that the way is clear.

50% of houses do not have a clear view.

Then they should have or at least discrete mirrors each side of the
driveway.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 15:36:06 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 01/09/2014 13:56, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 06:30:31 +0100, F Murtz wrote:

Uncle Peter wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:32:49 +0100, Dennis@home
wrote:

On 08/08/2014 15:07, Tim+ wrote:




They should expect pedestrians moving at whatever speed a pedestrian
can, including running for the bus or whatever else they want to run
for!


These days they can reasonably expect to have cycles and scooters too.

When reversing out of my drive, I cannot see a pedestrian on the
footpath, as the footpath is obscured by my hedge (which I imagine is
the case with a lot of driveways), hence it's up to the pedestrian to
hear the car. When people all have quiet electric cars, this could be a
problem.

No it is up to you,you should remove the hedge or devise some method of
ascertaining that the way is clear.

50% of houses do not have a clear view.

Then they should have or at least discrete mirrors each side of the
driveway.

What, 50% of people in the UK install a mirror, how impractical and utterly over the top.

--
Sprinter Tim Montgomery is banned 2 years for doping.
Track officials began to suspect he might be juicing.
His personal best time recently broke the record held by Chuck Yeager.

On 01/09/2014 21:08, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 15:36:06 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 01/09/2014 13:56, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 06:30:31 +0100, F Murtz wrote:

Uncle Peter wrote:
On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:32:49 +0100, Dennis@home

wrote:

On 08/08/2014 15:07, Tim+ wrote:




They should expect pedestrians moving at whatever speed a pedestrian
can, including running for the bus or whatever else they want to run
for!


These days they can reasonably expect to have cycles and scooters
too.

When reversing out of my drive, I cannot see a pedestrian on the
footpath, as the footpath is obscured by my hedge (which I imagine is
the case with a lot of driveways), hence it's up to the pedestrian to
hear the car. When people all have quiet electric cars, this could
be a
problem.

No it is up to you,you should remove the hedge or devise some method of
ascertaining that the way is clear.

50% of houses do not have a clear view.

Then they should have or at least discrete mirrors each side of the
driveway.

What, 50% of people in the UK install a mirror, how impractical and
utterly over the top.

Totally practical and a helpful aid. Either that or lower the obstacle.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 21:18:51 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 01/09/2014 21:08, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 15:36:06 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 01/09/2014 13:56, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 06:30:31 +0100, F Murtz wrote:

Uncle Peter wrote:



No it is up to you,you should remove the hedge or devise some method of
ascertaining that the way is clear.

50% of houses do not have a clear view.

Then they should have or at least discrete mirrors each side of the
driveway.

What, 50% of people in the UK install a mirror, how impractical and
utterly over the top.

Totally practical and a helpful aid. Either that or lower the obstacle.

Funny how virtually nobody does that. Why should the driver, on his own property, give way to a pedestrian?

--
The Muslim across the road started yelling "I'm going to end it all!", and started to pour petrol over himself.
As he was about to strike a match, I shouted "Abdul, no! Stop, wait, it's times like these that you need your family around you!"

On 27/08/2014 09:56, Peter Keller wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 19:33:45 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 26/08/2014 09:24, Peter Keller wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:26:38 +0100, Mr Pounder wrote:

wrote in message
...
Mr Pounder wrote:

So it is not really a viable and practical means of transport.

Careful, being truthful will get you all sorts of abuse!

This is a very polite group which is only spoilt by cyclists posting
to it.

Is that why it is called uk.rec.cycling?

And not "uk.rec.cyclists", you will note.

What sort of poster do you reckon a newsgroup called
"uk.politics.fracking" would largely call into being?

Mainly oil exploration engineers? Or a different group of people with a
different view of things?

Perhaps "fracking" has been mis-spelled.

Not in my post.

Care to venture an answer to the question?

Or is it to be left as a rhetorical observation?

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 21:18:51 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 01/09/2014 21:08, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 15:36:06 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 01/09/2014 13:56, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 06:30:31 +0100, F Murtz
wrote:

Uncle Peter wrote:



No it is up to you,you should remove the hedge or devise some
method of ascertaining that the way is clear.

50% of houses do not have a clear view.

Then they should have or at least discrete mirrors each side of the
driveway.

What, 50% of people in the UK install a mirror, how impractical and
utterly over the top.

Totally practical and a helpful aid. Either that or lower the obstacle.

Funny how virtually nobody does that. Why should the driver, on his own
property, give way to a pedestrian?

The pedestrian isn't on the motorist's propery. He's on the public highway
(the part reserved for pedestrians).

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 03/09/2014 08:54, charles wrote:

8

Funny how virtually nobody does that. Why should the driver, on his own
property, give way to a pedestrian?

The pedestrian isn't on the motorist's propery. He's on the public highway
(the part reserved for pedestrians).


If there is a dropped kerb then the adjacent bit is shared, but the
driver has to giveway.
If there is no dropped kerb the driver isn't allowed there at all, even
if he has a drive.