On 6 July, 21:32, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
saying something like:

Let's see Dennis's hysterical response.

Look out the grammer police will get you.

It's perfectly correct, you ignoramus.

I thought it should read Dennis'

Wrong.

So you are lumping all the people named Dennis in one with me, what a
surprise.

What are you burbling about now?
The 'hysterical response' belongs to 'Dennis' and the apostrophe 's'
denotes such. Simple rule. If I had chosen to include all the
'Dennises', it would be, "Let's see the Dennises hysterical response."

Now get back to your signwriting business; your apostrophe' need's you.

erm... "responseS" shurely ;)

Jim K

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Jul 5, 10:24 pm, dave wrote:
On 05/07/2010 21:11, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
saying something like:

Let's see Dennis's hysterical response.

Look out the grammer police will get you.

It's perfectly correct, you ignoramus.

I thought it should read Dennis'

Wrong.

So you are lumping all the people named Dennis in one with me, what a
surprise.
I think you are probably a crim like ARW and all those that support his
crim acts probably are too.
I hope he gets caught..
that would be

fines for driving without insurance
penalty points for driving without insurance
forgery
wasting police time
conspiracy to commit a crime
being stupid enough to claim to have done, it in public

I am not sure that I could be done for wasting police time if I am arrested
for any of the other offences.

Officer "He wasted my time"
Me" You were already at my house arresting me for other crimes, how was I
wasting your time?"

I leave all the legal talk to my solicitor:-)

Cheers

Adam

In message , Grimly
Curmudgeon writes
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
saying something like:

Let's see Dennis's hysterical response.

Look out the grammer police will get you.

It's perfectly correct, you ignoramus.

I thought it should read Dennis'

Wrong.

So you are lumping all the people named Dennis in one with me, what a
surprise.

What are you burbling about now?
The 'hysterical response' belongs to 'Dennis' and the apostrophe 's'
denotes such. Simple rule. If I had chosen to include all the
'Dennises', it would be, "Let's see the Dennises hysterical response."

Now get back to your signwriting business; your apostrophe' need's you.

I would have put a comma after out.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
saying something like:

Let's see Dennis's hysterical response.
Look out the grammer police will get you.
It's perfectly correct, you ignoramus.
I thought it should read Dennis'
Wrong.
So you are lumping all the people named Dennis in one with me, what a
surprise.

What are you burbling about now?
The 'hysterical response' belongs to 'Dennis' and the apostrophe 's'
denotes such. Simple rule. If I had chosen to include all the
'Dennises', it would be, "Let's see the Dennises hysterical response."

Now get back to your signwriting business; your apostrophe' need's you.

From Wiki

If a singular noun ends with an /s/ or a /z/ sound (spelled with -s,
-se, -z, -ce, for example), practice varies as to whether to add 's or
the apostrophe alone. A widely accepted practice is to follow whichever
spoken form is judged better: the boss's shoes, Mrs Jones' hat (or Mrs
Jones's hat, if that spoken form is preferred). In many cases, both
spoken and written forms differ between writers. (See details below.)

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Jim K
saying something like:

'Dennises', it would be, "Let's see the Dennises hysterical response."

Now get back to your signwriting business; your apostrophe' need's you.

erm... "responseS" shurely ;)

Of course; it's utterly requisite to include an error in a grammar
flambeaux. Otoh, I could argue the class of 'Dennises' is a singular
collective and to spin Den's head around, only requires a singular
'response', but that might be stretching it a bit. The point, not his
head; although he might have a pointy head for all I know; in which case
it might be a moot point.

I claim no particular skill at this - there are many more accomplished
at it than me. (All I fall back on is a Scottish education, which if
nothing else instilled a sneaking regard for corporal punishment at the
hands of psychotic individuals for getting it wrong. Fear is the key.)


A pedant truly worthy of the title will be along soon, I've no doubt.

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
news:gBMYn.132742$_F1.96292@hurricane...


I am not sure that I could be done for wasting police time if I am
arrested for any of the other offences.

You have already caused a PCO to visit the neighbour so you have wasted
police time.
If they arrest you and charge you then they may waive it as they have no
longer wasted their time as they have caught you.
Go and try it as a defence.


Officer "He wasted my time"
Me" You were already at my house arresting me for other crimes, how was I
wasting your time?"

I leave all the legal talk to my solicitor:-)

Before or after you sh!t through his letter box?

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


Tell him it was all Dennis' idea - I am sure there are plenty here who
will back you up!

You do remember that this group is archived?

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
news:gBMYn.132742$_F1.96292@hurricane...


I am not sure that I could be done for wasting police time if I am
arrested for any of the other offences.

You have already caused a PCO to visit the neighbour so you have wasted
police time.
If they arrest you and charge you then they may waive it as they have no
longer wasted their time as they have caught you.
Go and try it as a defence.


Its a shame that the police wasting my time is not an offence.

Adam

On Jul 6, 8:19*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in ...



On Jul 5, 10:24 pm, dave wrote:
On 05/07/2010 21:11, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
*saying something like:

Let's see Dennis's hysterical response.

Look out the grammer police will get you.

It's perfectly correct, you ignoramus.

I thought it should read Dennis'

Wrong.

So you are lumping all the people named Dennis in one with me

No, you are one of a kind. You are not plural, therefore adding 's for
the possesive is correct.

MBQ

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Jul 6, 8:19 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in ...



On Jul 5, 10:24 pm, dave wrote:
On 05/07/2010 21:11, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
saying something like:
Let's see Dennis's hysterical response.
Look out the grammer police will get you.
It's perfectly correct, you ignoramus.
I thought it should read Dennis'
Wrong.
So you are lumping all the people named Dennis in one with me

No, you are one of a kind. You are not plural, therefore adding 's for
the possesive is correct.


Not necessarily. Opinions are divided.

The general guide - not rule - is to follow the spoken form. If you
would say 'denisses schizophrenia' then dennis's is the most apprropiate
form, but of you were to say 'dumars books' you would make it Dumas' books.

Since no one hear ever talks about dennis, its hard to say which would
work better.


MBQ

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:12:42 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
news:gBMYn.132742$_F1.96292@hurricane...


I am not sure that I could be done for wasting police time if I am
arrested for any of the other offences.

You have already caused a PCO to visit the neighbour so you have wasted
police time.

How do you know that? Maybe they had nothing else to do at that
particular moment and welcomed the opportunity to go and chat with a
numpty. Perhaps Adam gave them a welcome sense of job satisfaction and
self-worth, along with the opportunity to further hone their PCO skills.

If they arrest you and charge you then they may waive it as they have no
longer wasted their time as they have caught you. Go and try it as a
defence.

If they haul him in and release him, does the neighbour who originally
made the call get charged with wasting poice time instead?

I leave all the legal talk to my solicitor:-)

Before or after you sh!t through his letter box?

I'm failing to see the link between talking to a legal representative and
your scatalogical fantasies. Besides, the act of defecating through a
letter-slot could surely be quite tricky; might the act of turd delivery
not be better left to one of the courier companies?

cheers

Jules

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:15:02 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


Tell him it was all Dennis' idea - I am sure there are plenty here who
will back you up!

You do remember that this group is archived?

Although the post where you said that it was all your idea appears to be
missing from the aforementioned archive. Covering your tracks, are you?

"Jules Richardson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:12:42 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
news:gBMYn.132742$_F1.96292@hurricane...


I am not sure that I could be done for wasting police time if I am
arrested for any of the other offences.

You have already caused a PCO to visit the neighbour so you have wasted
police time.

How do you know that? Maybe they had nothing else to do at that
particular moment and welcomed the opportunity to go and chat with a
numpty. Perhaps Adam gave them a welcome sense of job satisfaction and
self-worth, along with the opportunity to further hone their PCO skills.

It PCSO not PCO:-). That means pantomime bobby.

Cheers

Adam

"Jules Richardson" wrote in message
...


I'm failing to see the link between talking to a legal representative and
your scatalogical fantasies. Besides, the act of defecating through a
letter-slot could surely be quite tricky; might the act of turd delivery
not be better left to one of the courier companies?

Do try to keep up.
Ask ARW he is the one that stated he wanted to sh!t through a letter box.

"Jules Richardson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:15:02 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


Tell him it was all Dennis' idea - I am sure there are plenty here who
will back you up!

You do remember that this group is archived?

Although the post where you said that it was all your idea appears to be
missing from the aforementioned archive. Covering your tracks, are you?


OK as you think its missing shall we ask BY to look into their server
problem?
I can ask abuse to have a look to see if someone is tampering.

On 7 July, 20:33, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Jules Richardson" wrote in message

...

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:15:02 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Tell him it was all Dennis' idea - I am sure there are plenty here who
will back you up!

You do remember that this group is archived?

Although the post where you said that it was all your idea appears to be
missing from the aforementioned archive. Covering your tracks, are you?

OK as you think its missing shall we ask BY to look into their server
problem?
I can ask abuse to have a look to see if someone is tampering.

Risky ground dennis, using "abuse" "tampering" "look" "into" "problem"
in same post .....you never know who's listening do you???

Jim K

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Jules Richardson" wrote in message
...


I'm failing to see the link between talking to a legal representative and
your scatalogical fantasies. Besides, the act of defecating through a
letter-slot could surely be quite tricky; might the act of turd delivery
not be better left to one of the courier companies?

Do try to keep up.
Ask ARW he is the one that stated he wanted to sh!t through a letter box.


Dennis

**** is spelt "****" not "sh!t".

You are the **** if you believe that think it if OK to poison cats or
suggest that is is OK to do so.

I also remember your posts where you suggested it was OK punch women and you
were going sue other posters etc for ripping off old women etc (or was that
your spell checker that played up?)

I'll stand by by decision to **** through your letterbox if I ever get your
address.

You are a first class ****. And I am well known for ****ing ****s - even the
ugly ones.

Cheers

Adam

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


Tell him it was all Dennis' idea - I am sure there are plenty here
who will back you up!

You do remember that this group is archived?

FFS Dennis

Are you really so humourless and stupid

Well, yes, you are, but do you really need to show it EVERY time?


--
geoff

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home"
saying something like:

I leave all the legal talk to my solicitor:-)

Before or after you sh!t through his letter box?

Why would he want to **** through his solicitor's letter box?

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "ARWadsworth"
saying something like:

It PCSO not PCO:-). That means pantomime bobby.

Quite. Hardly wasting 'police' time, is it?
More like giving them something to do while taking them away from
harrassing photographers on the main street.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

The general guide - not rule - is to follow the spoken form. If you
would say 'denisses schizophrenia' then dennis's is the most apprropiate
form, but of you were to say 'dumars books' you would make it Dumas' books.

Since no one hear ever talks about dennis, its hard to say which would
work better.

"Dennis's arse in parsley" sounds about right.

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


Tell him it was all Dennis' idea - I am sure there are plenty here who
will back you up!

You do remember that this group is archived?

FFS Dennis

Are you really so humourless and stupid

There is no humour in these posts, the fact that you think there is just
shows that you are warped.

dennis@home wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


Tell him it was all Dennis' idea - I am sure there are plenty here
who will back you up!

You do remember that this group is archived?

FFS Dennis

Are you really so humourless and stupid

There is no humour in these posts, the fact that you think there is
just shows that you are warped.

Please find your humour gene.

I recall that once you were helpful to me regarding glasses but most times
you knock folk and have shown that you are completely virtuous! Killing
cats!

ARW found a highly suitable way to try to resolve a situation. I'm sure that
even the police would have found the approach amusing.

Were you perchance a civil servant that had "out of the box" attitudes
drummed out of you? It sounds like it.

I think we should ensure that cyclists are not allowed to speed anywhere!

"Clot" wrote in message
news:6V8Zn.85266$9c1.822@hurricane...
dennis@home wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


Tell him it was all Dennis' idea - I am sure there are plenty here
who will back you up!

You do remember that this group is archived?

FFS Dennis

Are you really so humourless and stupid

There is no humour in these posts, the fact that you think there is
just shows that you are warped.

Please find your humour gene.

I recall that once you were helpful to me regarding glasses but most times
you knock folk and have shown that you are completely virtuous! Killing
cats!

I don't kill cats, I grow flowers.
You may notice that the web site I posted is a cat lovers site and gave
details of the symptoms and advised on what to do if the cat has them. What
others choose to do with that information is up to them.


ARW found a highly suitable way to try to resolve a situation. I'm sure
that even the police would have found the approach amusing.

If you are so sure go and tell them so they can enjoy the joke.
Tell the victim too so he can have a good laugh.
Its only a joke because it isn't being done to you.
Harassing neighbours will never be a joke.
People that think its a joke need treatment.

ARW doesn't have the balls to go talk to him all he thinks about is how can
I get even.
Even in his warped judgement I add.

Were you perchance a civil servant that had "out of the box" attitudes
drummed out of you? It sounds like it.

Wrong again, I just don't like bullies like ARW.
Yes, sneaking about harassing people anonymously is bullying.
Its not being funny even if the neighbour actually did what ARW said.
I wouldn't trust what he said in the first place, there are always two sides
to a story and you are a clot for thinking there isn't.


I think we should ensure that cyclists are not allowed to speed anywhere!

They aren't, they are subject to the same speed limits as cars.

dennis@home wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message

I think we should ensure that cyclists are not allowed to speed
anywhere!

They aren't, they are subject to the same speed limits as cars.

As there is no legal requirement for bicycles to have speedometers cyclists
cannot be charged with speeding.

Tim

"Tim Downie" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

As there is no legal requirement for bicycles to have speedometers
cyclists cannot be charged with speeding.

Not all motor vehicles are legally required to have speedometers, either.
Wouldn't stop you being charged.

Tim Downie wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message

I think we should ensure that cyclists are not allowed to speed
anywhere!

They aren't, they are subject to the same speed limits as cars.

As there is no legal requirement for bicycles to have speedometers
cyclists cannot be charged with speeding.


They can.
And they have been

Even horse riders have been done for speeding.

Tim

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Tim Downie" wrote:

dennis@home wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message

I think we should ensure that cyclists are not allowed to speed
anywhere!

They aren't, they are subject to the same speed limits as cars.

As there is no legal requirement for bicycles to have speedometers
cyclists cannot be charged with speeding.

Wrong. There was a loony cyclist in Cambridge who got done. And quite
right too - it's about expectations.

If I'm stooging along the motorway at 65, look in the mirror, and decide
to overtake as the klod behind is a long way off, my expectation is that
he will still be a long way behind after I've moved to the fast lane. I
don't expect to find him up my exhaust because the **** was doing 110.


Then you had better watch out in Germany.

Equally an old granny crossing the road is not going to expect to be
knocked over by the 35mph cyclist as she steps into the road.

She will be if she has lived in Cambridge any length of time.

Tim Streater gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

If I'm stooging along the motorway at 65, look in the mirror, and decide
to overtake as the klod behind is a long way off, my expectation is that
he will still be a long way behind after I've moved to the fast lane. I
don't expect to find him up my exhaust because the **** was doing 110.

If you're "looking", but not for long enough to gauge their rate of
approach, then you're not looking properly.

Tim Streater gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

If I'm stooging along the motorway at 65, look in the mirror, and
decide to overtake as the klod behind is a long way off, my
expectation is that he will still be a long way behind after I've
moved to the fast lane. I don't expect to find him up my exhaust
because the **** was doing 110.

If you're "looking", but not for long enough to gauge their rate of
approach, then you're not looking properly.

There is that, but if their rate of approach is low you may have to look
for too long.

Umm, you'd be able to tell their rate of approach was slow enough not to
be an issue, wouldn't you...?

On 8 July, 10:20, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim Downie wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message

I think we should ensure that cyclists are not allowed to speed
anywhere!

They aren't, they are subject to the same speed limits as cars.

As there is no legal requirement for bicycles to have speedometers
cyclists cannot be charged with speeding.

They can.
And they have been

Even horse riders have been done for speeding.



Tim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I had a plod point a radar gun at me whilst on horseback but when I
asked what speed I was doing he said I wouldn't register on radar and
nor would the horse unless we carried something reflective to a radar
signal. Shame really as my horses (Icelandics) can cover ground at a
high rate of knots and the speed would have been interesting

Tim Streater gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

If I'm stooging along the motorway at 65, look in the mirror, and
decide to overtake as the klod behind is a long way off, my
expectation is that he will still be a long way behind after I've
moved to the fast lane. I don't expect to find him up my exhaust
because the **** was doing 110.

If you're "looking", but not for long enough to gauge their rate of
approach, then you're not looking properly.

There is that, but if their rate of approach is low you may have to
look for too long.

Umm, you'd be able to tell their rate of approach was slow enough not
to be an issue, wouldn't you...?

Normally yes, but if the clown is going really fast then he may not be
that visible when you look.

If your eyesight is so poor that you are unable to see somebody closing
at a difference of 45mph (20 metres per second), then I wonder how you
cope with pulling out of a side junction onto an NSL road?

And then I'd rather focus on the lorry I'm overtaking, thanks.

Your hazard perception priorities are wrong. The truck is a far more
predictable, and therefore lower, risk.

Tim Streater gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

If I'm stooging along the motorway at 65, look in the mirror,
and decide to overtake as the klod behind is a long way off, my
expectation is that he will still be a long way behind after
I've moved to the fast lane. I don't expect to find him up my
exhaust because the **** was doing 110.

If you're "looking", but not for long enough to gauge their rate
of approach, then you're not looking properly.

There is that, but if their rate of approach is low you may have
to look for too long.

Umm, you'd be able to tell their rate of approach was slow enough
not to be an issue, wouldn't you...?

Normally yes, but if the clown is going really fast then he may not
be that visible when you look.

If your eyesight is so poor that you are unable to see somebody closing
at a difference of 45mph (20 metres per second), then I wonder how you
cope with pulling out of a side junction onto an NSL road?

I mean he may not even have been in sight.

sigh
It's basic mathematics, Tim.

You're doing 65. He's doing 110. That's a difference of 45mph.
45mph is 72kph.
72,000 metres in an hour is 1.2km in a minute is 20 metres per second.

If he's "not in sight", then he's not going to be right up on your arse
THAT quickly, is he?

And then I'd rather focus on the lorry I'm overtaking, thanks.

Your hazard perception priorities are wrong. The truck is a far more
predictable, and therefore lower, risk.

You wouldn't say that if you lived anywhere near the A14 between
Cambridge and Huntingdon.

Ooh, let me think - it's a whole five days since I was last on that
stretch of A14.

Tim Streater gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

If I'm stooging along the motorway at 65, look in the
mirror, and decide to overtake as the klod behind is a long
way off, my expectation is that he will still be a long way
behind after I've moved to the fast lane. I don't expect to
find him up my exhaust because the **** was doing 110.

If you're "looking", but not for long enough to gauge their
rate of approach, then you're not looking properly.

There is that, but if their rate of approach is low you may
have to look for too long.

Umm, you'd be able to tell their rate of approach was slow enough
not to be an issue, wouldn't you...?

Normally yes, but if the clown is going really fast then he may
not be that visible when you look.

If your eyesight is so poor that you are unable to see somebody
closing at a difference of 45mph (20 metres per second), then I
wonder how you cope with pulling out of a side junction onto an NSL
road?

I mean he may not even have been in sight.

sigh
It's basic mathematics, Tim.

You're doing 65. He's doing 110. That's a difference of 45mph. 45mph is
72kph.
72,000 metres in an hour is 1.2km in a minute is 20 metres per second.

If he's "not in sight", then he's not going to be right up on your arse
THAT quickly, is he?

Well IME they are. Anyway, don't confuse me with facts, OK? :-)

Mmm...

You know the pedal furthest right? It can be pressed a bit harder to help
you get past the wagon and back left again more quickly...

And then I'd rather focus on the lorry I'm overtaking, thanks.

Your hazard perception priorities are wrong. The truck is a far more
predictable, and therefore lower, risk.

You wouldn't say that if you lived anywhere near the A14 between
Cambridge and Huntingdon.

Ooh, let me think - it's a whole five days since I was last on that
stretch of A14.

Then you really should know what I mean, especially when its busy, nose
to tail lorries in the inside lane. Having seen the regular stream of
accidents on that section of road as reported in the Cambridge Evening
News I used to make detours rather than take that stretch, if it looked
at all busy.

Despite the fact that closing speeds are VERY unlikely to be higher than
10mph or so when it's busy - precisely BECAUSE it's busy...?

Again, though, that just reinforces the suggestion that the wagon is a
lower risk than the car you may have missed seeing coming from behind
fast. He's just going to bimble along merrily nose-to-tail with the one
in front. If he's going to pull out, then you can see that - because you
can see him closing on the one in front. Wagon drivers tend not to do
unpredictable things.

In article , Tim Downie wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message

I think we should ensure that cyclists are not allowed to speed
anywhere!

They aren't, they are subject to the same speed limits as cars.

Almost all speed limits only legally apply to motor vehicles.
(In practice of course almost all cyclists keep below the limits
anyway.)


As there is no legal requirement for bicycles to have speedometers cyclists
cannot be charged with speeding.

Other way around - there is no legal requirement for bicycles to have
speedometers because there's no real reason to have them.

But in the very few cases, like royal parks, where bylaws do apply speed
limits to bicycles, then not having a working speedometer is not an excuse
for breaking them, any more than it is in a vintage car which predates the
construction and use requirements.

Adrian wrote:
Tim Streater gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

If I'm stooging along the motorway at 65, look in the mirror,
and decide to overtake as the klod behind is a long way off, my
expectation is that he will still be a long way behind after
I've moved to the fast lane. I don't expect to find him up my
exhaust because the **** was doing 110.

If you're "looking", but not for long enough to gauge their rate
of approach, then you're not looking properly.

There is that, but if their rate of approach is low you may have
to look for too long.

Umm, you'd be able to tell their rate of approach was slow enough
not to be an issue, wouldn't you...?

Normally yes, but if the clown is going really fast then he may not
be that visible when you look.

If your eyesight is so poor that you are unable to see somebody closing
at a difference of 45mph (20 metres per second), then I wonder how you
cope with pulling out of a side junction onto an NSL road?

I mean he may not even have been in sight.

sigh
It's basic mathematics, Tim.

You're doing 65. He's doing 110. That's a difference of 45mph.
45mph is 72kph.
72,000 metres in an hour is 1.2km in a minute is 20 metres per second.

If he's "not in sight", then he's not going to be right up on your arse
THAT quickly, is he?

take time on an autobahn and see for yourself.

I've done both..the 110mph+ and the 65mph puulling out.

You need a whole new set of assumptions ..which of course most German
drivers acquire. The ones that survive, anyway.



And then I'd rather focus on the lorry I'm overtaking, thanks.

Your hazard perception priorities are wrong. The truck is a far more
predictable, and therefore lower, risk.

You wouldn't say that if you lived anywhere near the A14 between
Cambridge and Huntingdon.

Ooh, let me think - it's a whole five days since I was last on that
stretch of A14.

as long as that?

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Tim Downie" wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message

I think we should ensure that cyclists are not allowed to speed
anywhere!

They aren't, they are subject to the same speed limits as cars.

As there is no legal requirement for bicycles to have speedometers
cyclists cannot be charged with speeding.
Wrong. There was a loony cyclist in Cambridge who got done. And
quite right too - it's about expectations.
If I'm stooging along the motorway at 65, look in the mirror, and
decide to overtake as the klod behind is a long way off, my
expectation is that he will still be a long way behind after I've
moved to the fast lane. I don't expect to find him up my exhaust
because the **** was doing 110.

Then you had better watch out in Germany.

Last time I went to Germany I saw three road accidents within a 24hr
period. One was a woman outside our hotel did a U-turn from the kerb
into oncoming traffic.

At 110mph? I take my hat off to her!


Equally an old granny crossing the road is not going to expect to be
knocked over by the 35mph cyclist as she steps into the road.
She will be if she has lived in Cambridge any length of time.

Well there is that. I've seen people knocked into at ped crossings (with
lights at red for the biker). I count myself lucky I never hit a cyclist
while working there; many of them seem to have a death wish.


Its a 'death to everyone else' wish.

cynic wrote:
On 8 July, 10:20, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Tim Downie wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
I think we should ensure that cyclists are not allowed to speed
anywhere!
They aren't, they are subject to the same speed limits as cars.
As there is no legal requirement for bicycles to have speedometers
cyclists cannot be charged with speeding.
They can.
And they have been

Even horse riders have been done for speeding.



Tim- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I had a plod point a radar gun at me whilst on horseback but when I
asked what speed I was doing he said I wouldn't register on radar and
nor would the horse unless we carried something reflective to a radar
signal. Shame really as my horses (Icelandics) can cover ground at a
high rate of knots and the speed would have been interesting

stop watch and known marks. Horses can gallop up to about 40mph in short
bursts. Not sure what a flat racer will do..

There are signs all around here saying 'Race Horses for 5 miles' but
none have ever come up to challenge me.

In article , Tim Streater wrote:
"Tim Downie" wrote:

I think we should ensure that cyclists are not allowed to speed
anywhere!

They aren't, they are subject to the same speed limits as cars.

As there is no legal requirement for bicycles to have speedometers cyclists
cannot be charged with speeding.

Wrong. There was a loony cyclist in Cambridge who got done. And quite
right too - it's about expectations.

He was done for "riding furiously", not for exceeding the speed limit,
because not only does the speed limit not apply to cyclists, he wasn't
exceeding it: http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newslette...article14.html

Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , Tim Downie wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
I think we should ensure that cyclists are not allowed to speed
anywhere!
They aren't, they are subject to the same speed limits as cars.

Almost all speed limits only legally apply to motor vehicles.
(In practice of course almost all cyclists keep below the limits
anyway.)


I think you are actually wrong. Speed limits apply to everything.


As there is no legal requirement for bicycles to have speedometers cyclists
cannot be charged with speeding.

Other way around - there is no legal requirement for bicycles to have
speedometers because there's no real reason to have them.

But in the very few cases, like royal parks, where bylaws do apply speed
limits to bicycles, then not having a working speedometer is not an excuse
for breaking them, any more than it is in a vintage car which predates the
construction and use requirements.