On Nov 15, 5:37*pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:
On 14/11/2011 21:13, Mrcheerful wrote:







JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2011 20:10, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 14/11/2011 19:14, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2011 17:16, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

It is covered in motorcycle training. On motorways, the legality
of it has
always been debatable but the police “allow” it so long as is done
with care.
In traffic, the things to watch for are unannounced, all of a
sudden right
turns or u-turns from cars. Traffic pulling out from the left, (ie
they are
turning right but will be looking for traffic to their left and not
expecting
a two wheeled vehicle coming up on the outside). Oncoming traffic
(obviously). Doors, it is rare that a driver will throw open their
door in
traffic but it does happen. Fag ends are a particular problem when
they get
thrown out of the window but when they are, and they just miss you
if you shout “thanks” straight away as you pass the car, it freaks
the hell out of
the driver. PS chucking fag ends out of cars is illegal.
Pedal cyclists filtering on the left have additional problems such
as oncoming traffic turning right and the traffic they are passing
turning left.
Getting doored by a passenger getting out is a very real problem.
Don’t be
fooled by the provision of a cycle lane, a cycle lane in this
instance is a
very dangerous place. Then if you do get to the front, you need to
get in front of the car in front to make sure they see you. If it
is a larger vehicle, especially with a high cab, DON’T DO IT, wait
behind. For others it
was the last thing they did. Don’t be fooled by cycle lanes
either, they offer no protection.
And…
Never ever ever (no never) filter on the left if there are
railings, even if
there is a cycle lane. If the traffic moves left or turns left you
will die
by crushing.

All well and good.

Which Road Traffic Act defines it?

Probably none

Where is it mentioned in the Highway Code?

Probably nowhere, it’s the kind of stuff you need to learn to stay
alive.

So it's unofficial, "folk" advice and nobody else is obliged to take
the slightest notice of it?

It is also frowned upon by insurance companies, they reduce claims for
people thought to be 'filtering'

'Filtering' is of course another name for overtaking on the inside - a
very stupid & dangerous practice.

Should I see a bicyclist intent on doing so in my mirrors, I 'take the
lane' and move to the left to prevent him from carrying out a dangerous
manouvere.

Just shows what a **** you are.

MBQ

On 16/11/2011 16:21, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Nov 15, 5:37 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:

'Filtering' is of course another name for overtaking on the inside - a
very stupid& dangerous practice.

Should I see a bicyclist intent on doing so in my mirrors, I 'take the
lane' and move to the left to prevent him from carrying out a dangerous
manouvere.

Just shows what a **** you are.

It shows he is wrong again.

Filtering *should* be done on the right. Generally speaking when cars
pull over to the left they do cyclists a favour. Problem is, some of
them pull over to the right either because they are turning right ahead
or they are leaving space on the left as a courtesy.

Pulling over to the left is what drivers *should* do, Dave is so
incredibly thick that he thinks by doing so he is somehow annoying the
cyclists. He is actually doing them a favour. I bet, after having it
explained to him he still won’t see it.

And he thinks pulling over to the left is 'taking the lane'. How wrong
can anyone be? This is a cracker, even by Dave's standards.

I am just glad he does not fit together flat-pack furniture for me :-)

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

On 16/11/2011 16:21, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Nov 15, 5:37 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:
On 14/11/2011 21:13, Mrcheerful wrote:







JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2011 20:10, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 14/11/2011 19:14, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2011 17:16, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

It is covered in motorcycle training. On motorways, the legality
of it has
always been debatable but the police “allow” it so long as is done
with care.
In traffic, the things to watch for are unannounced, all of a
sudden right
turns or u-turns from cars. Traffic pulling out from the left, (ie
they are
turning right but will be looking for traffic to their left and not
expecting
a two wheeled vehicle coming up on the outside). Oncoming traffic
(obviously). Doors, it is rare that a driver will throw open their
door in
traffic but it does happen. Fag ends are a particular problem when
they get
thrown out of the window but when they are, and they just miss you
if you shout “thanks” straight away as you pass the car, it freaks
the hell out of
the driver. PS chucking fag ends out of cars is illegal.
Pedal cyclists filtering on the left have additional problems such
as oncoming traffic turning right and the traffic they are passing
turning left.
Getting doored by a passenger getting out is a very real problem.
Don’t be
fooled by the provision of a cycle lane, a cycle lane in this
instance is a
very dangerous place. Then if you do get to the front, you need to
get in front of the car in front to make sure they see you. If it
is a larger vehicle, especially with a high cab, DON’T DO IT, wait
behind. For others it
was the last thing they did. Don’t be fooled by cycle lanes
either, they offer no protection.
And…
Never ever ever (no never) filter on the left if there are
railings, even if
there is a cycle lane. If the traffic moves left or turns left you
will die
by crushing.

All well and good.

Which Road Traffic Act defines it?

Probably none

Where is it mentioned in the Highway Code?

Probably nowhere, it’s the kind of stuff you need to learn to stay
alive.

So it's unofficial, "folk" advice and nobody else is obliged to take
the slightest notice of it?

It is also frowned upon by insurance companies, they reduce claims for
people thought to be 'filtering'

'Filtering' is of course another name for overtaking on the inside - a
very stupid& dangerous practice.

Should I see a bicyclist intent on doing so in my mirrors, I 'take the
lane' and move to the left to prevent him from carrying out a dangerous
manouvere.

Just shows what a **** you are.

How so? Some cyclists here openly boast of obstructing the main channel of
the road so as to prevent what they say is "dangerous overtaking" (dangerous
on their assessment only, of course).

Why is it "wrong" to take action to ensure that cyclists are not "drawn" to
the gutter to undertake dangerously close to the nearside of stopped traffic?

["Dangerous" in the assessment of one or more of the stopped drivers, of course.]

On 16/11/2011 16:53, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 16/11/2011 16:21, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Nov 15, 5:37 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:

'Filtering' is of course another name for overtaking on the inside - a
very stupid& dangerous practice.

Should I see a bicyclist intent on doing so in my mirrors, I 'take the
lane' and move to the left to prevent him from carrying out a dangerous
manouvere.

Just shows what a **** you are.

It shows he is wrong again.

Filtering *should* be done on the right.

Good point.

And that makes the word itself a simple - but totally unnecessary - synonym
for "overtaking".

Generally speaking when cars pull
over to the left they do cyclists a favour. Problem is, some of them pull
over to the right either because they are turning right ahead or they are
leaving space on the left as a courtesy.

Pulling over to the left is what drivers *should* do, Dave is so incredibly
thick that he thinks by doing so he is somehow annoying the cyclists. He is
actually doing them a favour. I bet, after having it explained to him he
still won’t see it.

Pulling over to the left is what one should do when one's side of the road is
not divided into standard-width lanes or does not consist of a single
standard-width lane.

If the road is marked in standard-width lanes (as are most modern purpose
built roads), the correct position to take up is in the centre of one's lane.
Doing so is not an invitation to overtake on the wrong side.

And he thinks pulling over to the left is 'taking the lane'. How wrong can
anyone be? This is a cracker, even by Dave's standards.

Drivers do not use such nonsensical phrases in normal life. He used it on
this occasion as a clear and witty reference to the claims made by others.

Could you not see that?

I am just glad he does not fit together flat-pack furniture for me :-)

Why? Are you better at that than he is?

On Nov 16, 4:53*pm, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:

Filtering *should* be done on the right. Generally speaking when cars
pull over to the left they do cyclists a favour. Problem is, some of
them pull over to the right either because they are turning right ahead
or they are leaving space on the left as a courtesy.


I love it when drivers move over to the left to block the cycle lane
and try and prevent you from cycling past them, as it simply frees up
more space on their offside when you can pass them with ease :-)

--
Simon Mason

On 16/11/2011 17:10, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2011 16:53, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 16/11/2011 16:21, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Nov 15, 5:37 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:

'Filtering' is of course another name for overtaking on the inside - a
very stupid& dangerous practice.

Should I see a bicyclist intent on doing so in my mirrors, I 'take the
lane' and move to the left to prevent him from carrying out a dangerous
manouvere.

Just shows what a **** you are.

It shows he is wrong again.

Filtering *should* be done on the right.

Good point.

And that makes the word itself a simple - but totally unnecessary -
synonym for "overtaking".

I get the feeling that one or two posters don’t like the term
“filtering”. It has been around for years. All it means is where narrow
vehicles filter through slow or stationary traffic. We also have “filter
lanes” and “filter” lights to help traffic jump ahead of the traffic
queue when they are turning left or right. All “filtering” does is
improve traffic flow for everyone.

If you want to call filtering overtaking, you are welcome to. It matters
not to anyone. Using the term filtering merely describes the type of
overtaking being done, i.e. in traffic.


Generally speaking when cars pull
over to the left they do cyclists a favour. Problem is, some of them pull
over to the right either because they are turning right ahead or they are
leaving space on the left as a courtesy.

Pulling over to the left is what drivers *should* do, Dave is so
incredibly
thick that he thinks by doing so he is somehow annoying the cyclists.
He is
actually doing them a favour. I bet, after having it explained to him he
still won’t see it.

Pulling over to the left is what one should do when one's side of the
road is not divided into standard-width lanes or does not consist of a
single standard-width lane.

If the road is marked in standard-width lanes (as are most modern
purpose built roads), the correct position to take up is in the centre
of one's lane. Doing so is not an invitation to overtake on the wrong side.

And he thinks pulling over to the left is 'taking the lane'. How wrong
can
anyone be? This is a cracker, even by Dave's standards.

Drivers do not use such nonsensical phrases in normal life. He used it
on this occasion as a clear and witty reference to the claims made by
others.

Drivers take the lane anyway, whereas two wheeled road users are often
tempted to stay too far over to the left because they think its safer
there. In fact, believe it or not, some *drivers* think that cyclists
should ride far over to the left too. Therefore a term was invented for
staying away from the edge and taking up safer position.

BTW AIUI, 'taking the lane' is an Americanisation. The UK equivalent is
'riding proud', 'riding wide' or John Franklin's oft repeated phrase
from Cyclcraft the 'Primary Position'. However the mere mention of
Primary Position is enough to anger a lot of drivers. More than
Filtering does :-)


Could you not see that?

I am just glad he does not fit together flat-pack furniture for me :-)

Why? Are you better at that than he is?


Probably. I can read manuals and follow instruction.

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

On 16/11/2011 17:43, Simon Mason wrote:
On Nov 16, 4:53 pm, Simon
wrote:

Filtering *should* be done on the right. Generally speaking when cars
pull over to the left they do cyclists a favour. Problem is, some of
them pull over to the right either because they are turning right ahead
or they are leaving space on the left as a courtesy.


I love it when drivers move over to the left to block the cycle lane
and try and prevent you from cycling past them, as it simply frees up
more space on their offside when you can pass them with ease :-)


It's kind of like Dave and Judith. They just *cannot* win :-)


--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

On 16/11/2011 16:21, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Nov 15, 5:37 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:

'K' key in thunderbird filters this thread quite nicely.

--
Adrian C

On 16/11/2011 17:03, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2011 16:21, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Nov 15, 5:37 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:
On 14/11/2011 21:13, Mrcheerful wrote:







JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2011 20:10, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 14/11/2011 19:14, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2011 17:16, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

It is covered in motorcycle training. On motorways, the legality
of it has
always been debatable but the police “allow” it so long as is done
with care.
In traffic, the things to watch for are unannounced, all of a
sudden right
turns or u-turns from cars. Traffic pulling out from the left, (ie
they are
turning right but will be looking for traffic to their left and not
expecting
a two wheeled vehicle coming up on the outside). Oncoming traffic
(obviously). Doors, it is rare that a driver will throw open their
door in
traffic but it does happen. Fag ends are a particular problem when
they get
thrown out of the window but when they are, and they just miss you
if you shout “thanks” straight away as you pass the car, it freaks
the hell out of
the driver. PS chucking fag ends out of cars is illegal.
Pedal cyclists filtering on the left have additional problems such
as oncoming traffic turning right and the traffic they are passing
turning left.
Getting doored by a passenger getting out is a very real problem.
Don’t be
fooled by the provision of a cycle lane, a cycle lane in this
instance is a
very dangerous place. Then if you do get to the front, you need to
get in front of the car in front to make sure they see you. If it
is a larger vehicle, especially with a high cab, DON’T DO IT, wait
behind. For others it
was the last thing they did. Don’t be fooled by cycle lanes
either, they offer no protection.
And…
Never ever ever (no never) filter on the left if there are
railings, even if
there is a cycle lane. If the traffic moves left or turns left you
will die
by crushing.

All well and good.

Which Road Traffic Act defines it?

Probably none

Where is it mentioned in the Highway Code?

Probably nowhere, it’s the kind of stuff you need to learn to stay
alive.

So it's unofficial, "folk" advice and nobody else is obliged to take
the slightest notice of it?

It is also frowned upon by insurance companies, they reduce claims for
people thought to be 'filtering'

'Filtering' is of course another name for overtaking on the inside - a
very stupid& dangerous practice.

Should I see a bicyclist intent on doing so in my mirrors, I 'take the
lane' and move to the left to prevent him from carrying out a dangerous
manouvere.

Just shows what a **** you are.

How so? Some cyclists here openly boast of obstructing the main channel
of the road so as to prevent what they say is "dangerous overtaking"
(dangerous on their assessment only, of course).


The assessment with me follows a simple logic. Is the gap wide enough
for me and a car?

If the answer is no, it means riding toward the centre of the gap.

If the answer is yes, it means riding to one side of the gap.

If ‘the gap’ is to remain ‘not wide enough’ for quite some distance, it
means riding in the middle of it and if someone needs to get past to
pull over and stop and let them pass.

Why is it "wrong" to take action to ensure that cyclists are not "drawn"
to the gutter to undertake dangerously close to the nearside of stopped
traffic?

I think you are being silly. There is very little risk compared with
higher speed and poor overtaking.

["Dangerous" in the assessment of one or more of the stopped drivers, of
course.]


--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

On 16/11/2011 17:43, Simon Mason wrote:
On Nov 16, 4:53 pm, Simon
wrote:

Filtering *should* be done on the right. Generally speaking when cars
pull over to the left they do cyclists a favour. Problem is, some of
them pull over to the right either because they are turning right ahead
or they are leaving space on the left as a courtesy.


I love it when drivers move over to the left to block the cycle lane
and try and prevent you from cycling past them, as it simply frees up
more space on their offside when you can pass them with ease :-)

Nothing wrong with that.

Off you go down the right hand side. Knock yourself out.

On 16/11/2011 18:58, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 16/11/2011 17:03, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2011 16:21, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Nov 15, 5:37 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:
On 14/11/2011 21:13, Mrcheerful wrote:







JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2011 20:10, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 14/11/2011 19:14, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2011 17:16, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

It is covered in motorcycle training. On motorways, the legality
of it has
always been debatable but the police “allow” it so long as is done
with care.
In traffic, the things to watch for are unannounced, all of a
sudden right
turns or u-turns from cars. Traffic pulling out from the left, (ie
they are
turning right but will be looking for traffic to their left and not
expecting
a two wheeled vehicle coming up on the outside). Oncoming traffic
(obviously). Doors, it is rare that a driver will throw open their
door in
traffic but it does happen. Fag ends are a particular problem when
they get
thrown out of the window but when they are, and they just miss you
if you shout “thanks” straight away as you pass the car, it freaks
the hell out of
the driver. PS chucking fag ends out of cars is illegal.
Pedal cyclists filtering on the left have additional problems such
as oncoming traffic turning right and the traffic they are passing
turning left.
Getting doored by a passenger getting out is a very real problem.
Don’t be
fooled by the provision of a cycle lane, a cycle lane in this
instance is a
very dangerous place. Then if you do get to the front, you need to
get in front of the car in front to make sure they see you. If it
is a larger vehicle, especially with a high cab, DON’T DO IT, wait
behind. For others it
was the last thing they did. Don’t be fooled by cycle lanes
either, they offer no protection.
And…
Never ever ever (no never) filter on the left if there are
railings, even if
there is a cycle lane. If the traffic moves left or turns left you
will die
by crushing.

All well and good.

Which Road Traffic Act defines it?

Probably none

Where is it mentioned in the Highway Code?

Probably nowhere, it’s the kind of stuff you need to learn to stay
alive.

So it's unofficial, "folk" advice and nobody else is obliged to take
the slightest notice of it?

It is also frowned upon by insurance companies, they reduce claims for
people thought to be 'filtering'

'Filtering' is of course another name for overtaking on the inside - a
very stupid& dangerous practice.

Should I see a bicyclist intent on doing so in my mirrors, I 'take the
lane' and move to the left to prevent him from carrying out a dangerous
manouvere.

Just shows what a **** you are.

How so? Some cyclists here openly boast of obstructing the main channel
of the road so as to prevent what they say is "dangerous overtaking"
(dangerous on their assessment only, of course).


The assessment with me follows a simple logic. Is the gap wide enough for me
and a car?

If the answer is no, it means riding toward the centre of the gap.

If the answer is yes, it means riding to one side of the gap.

If ‘the gap’ is to remain ‘not wide enough’ for quite some distance, it means
riding in the middle of it and if someone needs to get past to pull over and
stop and let them pass.

Why is it "wrong" to take action to ensure that cyclists are not "drawn"
to the gutter to undertake dangerously close to the nearside of stopped
traffic?

I think you are being silly. There is very little risk compared with higher
speed and poor overtaking.

That isn't for you to say, is it?

As I already remarked:

["Dangerous" in the assessment of one or more of the stopped drivers, of course.]

*That's* whose assessment matters - those on the spot. If they think there is
a risk of collision, then that's all the assessment that is needed. They are
under no duty to assist with the risky behaviour.

On 16/11/2011 19:13, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2011 18:58, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 16/11/2011 17:03, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2011 16:21, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Nov 15, 5:37 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:
On 14/11/2011 21:13, Mrcheerful wrote:







JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2011 20:10, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 14/11/2011 19:14, JNugent wrote:
On 14/11/2011 17:16, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

It is covered in motorcycle training. On motorways, the legality
of it has
always been debatable but the police “allow” it so long as is
done
with care.
In traffic, the things to watch for are unannounced, all of a
sudden right
turns or u-turns from cars. Traffic pulling out from the left,
(ie
they are
turning right but will be looking for traffic to their left
and not
expecting
a two wheeled vehicle coming up on the outside). Oncoming traffic
(obviously). Doors, it is rare that a driver will throw open
their
door in
traffic but it does happen. Fag ends are a particular problem
when
they get
thrown out of the window but when they are, and they just miss
you
if you shout “thanks” straight away as you pass the car, it
freaks
the hell out of
the driver. PS chucking fag ends out of cars is illegal.
Pedal cyclists filtering on the left have additional problems
such
as oncoming traffic turning right and the traffic they are
passing
turning left.
Getting doored by a passenger getting out is a very real problem.
Don’t be
fooled by the provision of a cycle lane, a cycle lane in this
instance is a
very dangerous place. Then if you do get to the front, you
need to
get in front of the car in front to make sure they see you. If it
is a larger vehicle, especially with a high cab, DON’T DO IT,
wait
behind. For others it
was the last thing they did. Don’t be fooled by cycle lanes
either, they offer no protection.
And…
Never ever ever (no never) filter on the left if there are
railings, even if
there is a cycle lane. If the traffic moves left or turns left
you
will die
by crushing.

All well and good.

Which Road Traffic Act defines it?

Probably none

Where is it mentioned in the Highway Code?

Probably nowhere, it’s the kind of stuff you need to learn to stay
alive.

So it's unofficial, "folk" advice and nobody else is obliged to take
the slightest notice of it?

It is also frowned upon by insurance companies, they reduce claims
for
people thought to be 'filtering'

'Filtering' is of course another name for overtaking on the inside - a
very stupid& dangerous practice.

Should I see a bicyclist intent on doing so in my mirrors, I 'take the
lane' and move to the left to prevent him from carrying out a
dangerous
manouvere.

Just shows what a **** you are.

How so? Some cyclists here openly boast of obstructing the main channel
of the road so as to prevent what they say is "dangerous overtaking"
(dangerous on their assessment only, of course).


The assessment with me follows a simple logic. Is the gap wide enough
for me
and a car?

If the answer is no, it means riding toward the centre of the gap.

If the answer is yes, it means riding to one side of the gap.

If ‘the gap’ is to remain ‘not wide enough’ for quite some distance,
it means
riding in the middle of it and if someone needs to get past to pull
over and
stop and let them pass.

Why is it "wrong" to take action to ensure that cyclists are not "drawn"
to the gutter to undertake dangerously close to the nearside of stopped
traffic?

I think you are being silly. There is very little risk compared with
higher
speed and poor overtaking.

That isn't for you to say, is it?

As I already remarked:

["Dangerous" in the assessment of one or more of the stopped drivers, of
course.]

*That's* whose assessment matters - those on the spot. If they think
there is a risk of collision, then that's all the assessment that is
needed. They are under no duty to assist with the risky behaviour.

The only problem is, that if you, as a cyclist allow drivers to make
poor overtaking decisions, some of them will. And by allowing them to
make those poor overtaking decisions, when they do, the one who comes
off worse is the cyclist. Therefore, the cyclist has an obligation to
himself to not allow drivers to make poor overtaking decisions where
they may be inclined to do so.

And they will, if you let them.

Frankly I would prefer drivers to be better trained…

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:43:03 -0800, Simon Mason wrote:

On Nov 16, 4:53Â*pm, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:

Filtering *should* be done on the right. Generally speaking when cars
pull over to the left they do cyclists a favour. Problem is, some of
them pull over to the right either because they are turning right ahead
or they are leaving space on the left as a courtesy.


I love it when drivers move over to the left to block the cycle lane and
try and prevent you from cycling past them, as it simply frees up more
space on their offside when you can pass them with ease :-)


The trick is to do it at the very last second.


--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:43:03 -0800, Simon Mason wrote:

On Nov 16, 4:53 pm, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:

Filtering *should* be done on the right. Generally speaking when
cars pull over to the left they do cyclists a favour. Problem is,
some of them pull over to the right either because they are turning
right ahead or they are leaving space on the left as a courtesy.


I love it when drivers move over to the left to block the cycle lane
and try and prevent you from cycling past them, as it simply frees
up more space on their offside when you can pass them with ease :-)


The trick is to do it at the very last second.

cyclists enjoy that, they wave and shout with glee as you drive away up the
road. Why they sit beside their machines I don't know, it is some 'cycling'
thing I suppose.

On 16/11/2011 20:30, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

On 16/11/2011 19:13, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2011 18:58, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 16/11/2011 17:03, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2011 16:21, Man at B&Q wrote:
Dave - Cyclists wrote:

[ ... ]

'Filtering' is of course another name for overtaking on the inside - a
very stupid& dangerous practice.
Should I see a bicyclist intent on doing so in my mirrors, I 'take the
lane' and move to the left to prevent him from carrying out a
dangerous manouvere.

Just shows what a **** you are.

How so? Some cyclists here openly boast of obstructing the main channel
of the road so as to prevent what they say is "dangerous overtaking"
(dangerous on their assessment only, of course).

The assessment with me follows a simple logic. Is the gap wide enough
for me and a car?
If the answer is no, it means riding toward the centre of the gap.
If the answer is yes, it means riding to one side of the gap.
If ‘the gap’ is to remain ‘not wide enough’ for quite some distance,
it means riding in the middle of it and if someone needs to get past
to pull over and stop and let them pass.

Why is it "wrong" to take action to ensure that cyclists are not "drawn"
to the gutter to undertake dangerously close to the nearside of stopped
traffic?

I think you are being silly. There is very little risk compared with
higher speed and poor overtaking.

That isn't for you to say, is it?
As I already remarked:

["Dangerous" in the assessment of one or more of the stopped drivers, of
course.]

*That's* whose assessment matters - those on the spot. If they think
there is a risk of collision, then that's all the assessment that is
needed. They are under no duty to assist with the risky behaviour.

The only problem is, that if you, as a cyclist allow drivers to make poor
overtaking decisions, some of them will. And by allowing them to make those
poor overtaking decisions, when they do, the one who comes off worse is the
cyclist. Therefore, the cyclist has an obligation to himself to not allow
drivers to make poor overtaking decisions where they may be inclined to do so.

Oddly (or, in fact, not oddly at all), if there is a collision between an
undertaking cyclist and a car waiting stationary at traffic lights, the one
who comes off worse is the owner of the car. Therefore, the car's driver has
an obligation to the vehicle's owner (who may be himself) to not allow
cyclists to make poor overtaking decisions where they may be inclined to do so.

And they will, if you let them.

Absolutely.

That is exactly what the PP was saying. I can't see why you disagreed with him.

Frankly I would prefer drivers to be better trained.

Many people would prefer cyclists to just be trained.

On 16/11/2011 20:32, Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:43:03 -0800, Simon Mason wrote:

On Nov 16, 4:53 pm, Simon
wrote:

Filtering *should* be done on the right. Generally speaking when cars
pull over to the left they do cyclists a favour. Problem is, some of
them pull over to the right either because they are turning right ahead
or they are leaving space on the left as a courtesy.


I love it when drivers move over to the left to block the cycle lane and
try and prevent you from cycling past them, as it simply frees up more
space on their offside when you can pass them with ease :-)


The trick is to do it at the very last second.

I must admit to doing that on occassion - not normally, but on certain
roads. For instance, I used to work in Disley and had to travel along
the A6 from the M60. There were two lanes each way and in the mornings,
taking the right lane meant getting stuck behind right turning vehicles
at each junction, while taking the left meant getting stuck behind
bikes. The trouble was that passing bikes was very difficult due to
traffic in the right lane. Crawling behind a bike inevitably meant that
by the time you got past, you got stopped at the next lights and the
bike would pass you and the whole thing would start again. If on the
other hand you blocked the cyclist from getting ahead at the red lights,
you would then have a clear run and the next set of lights would be
green and you would then be on a run of green lights.

It may be wrong, but the alternative was a very slow and frustrating
journey to work every day - plus losing money, as I was hourly paid.

I do cycle as well and can see both sides.

There is an insoluble problem, cars and slower moving bikes do not mix
well on such roads, but due to existing buildings, etc. there is no
space to add extra width and dedicated cycle lanes.

SteveW

On Nov 16, 6:58*pm, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:


How so? Some cyclists here openly boast of obstructing the main channel
of the road so as to prevent what they say is "dangerous overtaking"
(dangerous on their assessment only, of course).

The assessment with me follows a simple logic. Is the gap wide enough
for me and a car?

If the answer is no, it means riding toward the centre of the gap.

If the answer is yes, it means riding to one side of the gap.

If ‘the gap’ is to remain ‘not wide enough’ for quite some distance, it
means riding in the middle of it and if someone needs to get past to
pull over and stop and let them pass.


There is *always* a gap large enough for a cyclist to get through in
stationary traffic. Hell only yesterday when I was stuck in my car on
a dual carriageway in nose to tail traffic, motorcyclists with
panniers were driving down the centre of the lane in between the
inside and overtaking lanes with ease, so if I had been on my bike it
would have been a piece of cake to pass the lot of them.

--
Simon Mason

On 16/11/2011 20:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2011 20:30, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

On 16/11/2011 19:13, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2011 18:58, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 16/11/2011 17:03, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2011 16:21, Man at B&Q wrote:
Dave - Cyclists wrote:

[ ... ]

'Filtering' is of course another name for overtaking on the
inside - a
very stupid& dangerous practice.
Should I see a bicyclist intent on doing so in my mirrors, I
'take the
lane' and move to the left to prevent him from carrying out a
dangerous manouvere.

Just shows what a **** you are.

How so? Some cyclists here openly boast of obstructing the main
channel
of the road so as to prevent what they say is "dangerous overtaking"
(dangerous on their assessment only, of course).

The assessment with me follows a simple logic. Is the gap wide enough
for me and a car?
If the answer is no, it means riding toward the centre of the gap.
If the answer is yes, it means riding to one side of the gap.
If ‘the gap’ is to remain ‘not wide enough’ for quite some distance,
it means riding in the middle of it and if someone needs to get past
to pull over and stop and let them pass.

Why is it "wrong" to take action to ensure that cyclists are not
"drawn"
to the gutter to undertake dangerously close to the nearside of
stopped
traffic?

I think you are being silly. There is very little risk compared with
higher speed and poor overtaking.

That isn't for you to say, is it?
As I already remarked:

["Dangerous" in the assessment of one or more of the stopped drivers, of
course.]

*That's* whose assessment matters - those on the spot. If they think
there is a risk of collision, then that's all the assessment that is
needed. They are under no duty to assist with the risky behaviour.

The only problem is, that if you, as a cyclist allow drivers to make poor
overtaking decisions, some of them will. And by allowing them to make
those
poor overtaking decisions, when they do, the one who comes off worse
is the
cyclist. Therefore, the cyclist has an obligation to himself to not allow
drivers to make poor overtaking decisions where they may be inclined
to do so.

Oddly (or, in fact, not oddly at all), if there is a collision between
an undertaking cyclist and a car waiting stationary at traffic lights,
the one who comes off worse is the owner of the car. Therefore, the
car's driver has an obligation to the vehicle's owner (who may be
himself) to not allow cyclists to make poor overtaking decisions where
they may be inclined to do so.

Odd as it may seem, the driver is unlikely to suffer personal injury, at
least not from the collision itself.


And they will, if you let them.

Absolutely.

That is exactly what the PP was saying. I can't see why you disagreed
with him.

Frankly I would prefer drivers to be better trained.

Many people would prefer cyclists to just be trained.

Many are. Many are not. In fact one group of people who think that they
can be safe on a bike are drivers. There is this idea that just because
they have a driving licence and can balance on a bike they understand
cycle safety. More often than not they don’t which is what we see from
inexperienced or non-cyclists who claim all kinds of wild safety
measures which they think cyclists should follow.

I do actually believe that there should be a compulsory test for all
cyclists, and anyone who has not passed that test must be under direct
supervision (eg. children or new cyclists etc).

Meanwhile, and it seems to me, it is the cyclists who are overall better
trained, better informed and better aware of traffic law and the HC, at
least they are on URC and URD. Your local highway may be different, and
probably is.


--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

Message-ID:

It appears that the above post was an abusive or trolling messsage from
Mrcheerful, a known serial offender. We apologise for any distress this
obnoxious message may have caused, it has now been reported to http://netreport.virginmedia.com
as a violation of their acceptable use policy. This does not preclude additional
reports of this abuse, should you feel so motivated.

Thank you for your patience during this hopefully brief interruption to your usenet pleasure.
--
Mick the Moderator
pp. the Hon. Nigel P. Smallpiece (CEO), Knotty Ash Jam Butty Enterprises plc, England

In article ,
Mick the Moderator wrote:
Message-ID:

It appears that the above post was an abusive or trolling messsage from
Mrcheerful, a known serial offender. We apologise for any distress this
obnoxious message may have caused, it has now been reported to
http://netreport.virginmedia.com as a violation of their acceptable use
policy. This does not preclude additional reports of this abuse, should
you feel so motivated.

Thank you for your patience during this hopefully brief interruption to
your usenet pleasure.

What is it about cyclists that they ignore the 'law' regularly when it
suits them but want 'laws' on what is basically a free speech medium with
none?

--
*No word in the English language rhymes with month, orange, silver,purple

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mick the Moderator wrote:
Message-ID:

It appears that the above post was an abusive or trolling messsage from
Mrcheerful, a known serial offender. We apologise for any distress this
obnoxious message may have caused, it has now been reported to
http://netreport.virginmedia.com as a violation of their acceptable use
policy. This does not preclude additional reports of this abuse, should
you feel so motivated.

Thank you for your patience during this hopefully brief interruption to
your usenet pleasure.

What is it about cyclists that they ignore the 'law' regularly when it
suits them but want 'laws' on what is basically a free speech medium with
none?

Its called the paradox of the Left.

The demand for everything to be totally free and fair, except to people
who oppose them or have different views, which are banned/demonized for
the public good.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mick the Moderator wrote:
Message-ID:

It appears that the above post was an abusive or trolling messsage from
Mrcheerful, a known serial offender. We apologise for any distress this
obnoxious message may have caused, it has now been reported to
http://netreport.virginmedia.com as a violation of their acceptable use
policy. This does not preclude additional reports of this abuse, should
you feel so motivated.

Thank you for your patience during this hopefully brief interruption to
your usenet pleasure.

What is it about cyclists that they ignore the 'law' regularly when it
suits them but want 'laws' on what is basically a free speech medium with
none?

because " All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
What is it about cyclists that they ignore the 'law' regularly when it
suits them but want 'laws' on what is basically a free speech medium
with none?

Its called the paradox of the Left.

The demand for everything to be totally free and fair, except to people
who oppose them or have different views, which are banned/demonized for
the public good.

Sounds like the 'right' to me. ;-)

--
*When a clock is hungry it goes back four seconds*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 17/11/2011 07:22, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 16/11/2011 20:40, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2011 20:30, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

On 16/11/2011 19:13, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2011 18:58, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 16/11/2011 17:03, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2011 16:21, Man at B&Q wrote:
Dave - Cyclists wrote:

[ ... ]

'Filtering' is of course another name for overtaking on the
inside - a
very stupid& dangerous practice.
Should I see a bicyclist intent on doing so in my mirrors, I
'take the
lane' and move to the left to prevent him from carrying out a
dangerous manouvere.

Just shows what a **** you are.

How so? Some cyclists here openly boast of obstructing the main
channel
of the road so as to prevent what they say is "dangerous overtaking"
(dangerous on their assessment only, of course).

The assessment with me follows a simple logic. Is the gap wide enough
for me and a car?
If the answer is no, it means riding toward the centre of the gap.
If the answer is yes, it means riding to one side of the gap.
If ‘the gap’ is to remain ‘not wide enough’ for quite some distance,
it means riding in the middle of it and if someone needs to get past
to pull over and stop and let them pass.

Why is it "wrong" to take action to ensure that cyclists are not
"drawn"
to the gutter to undertake dangerously close to the nearside of
stopped
traffic?

I think you are being silly. There is very little risk compared with
higher speed and poor overtaking.

That isn't for you to say, is it?
As I already remarked:

["Dangerous" in the assessment of one or more of the stopped drivers, of
course.]

*That's* whose assessment matters - those on the spot. If they think
there is a risk of collision, then that's all the assessment that is
needed. They are under no duty to assist with the risky behaviour.

The only problem is, that if you, as a cyclist allow drivers to make poor
overtaking decisions, some of them will. And by allowing them to make
those
poor overtaking decisions, when they do, the one who comes off worse
is the
cyclist. Therefore, the cyclist has an obligation to himself to not allow
drivers to make poor overtaking decisions where they may be inclined
to do so.

Oddly (or, in fact, not oddly at all), if there is a collision between
an undertaking cyclist and a car waiting stationary at traffic lights,
the one who comes off worse is the owner of the car. Therefore, the
car's driver has an obligation to the vehicle's owner (who may be
himself) to not allow cyclists to make poor overtaking decisions where
they may be inclined to do so.

Odd as it may seem, the driver is unlikely to suffer personal injury, at
least not from the collision itself.

Did I say that he was likely to suffer personal injury?

I said he was likely to come off worst.

In fact, that is true whether he is present or not.

And they will, if you let them.

Absolutely.
That is exactly what the PP was saying. I can't see why you disagreed
with him.

Frankly I would prefer drivers to be better trained.

Many people would prefer cyclists to just be trained.

Many are. Many are not. In fact one group of people who think that they can
be safe on a bike are drivers. There is this idea that just because they have
a driving licence and can balance on a bike they understand cycle safety.
More often than not they don’t

No doubt you have some evidence to support that assertion, although there is
a small possibility that you do not and will not provide any.

which is what we see from inexperienced or
non-cyclists who claim all kinds of wild safety measures which they think
cyclists should follow.

???

I do actually believe that there should be a compulsory test for all
cyclists, and anyone who has not passed that test must be under direct
supervision (eg. children or new cyclists etc).

Good start. Rather like driving or riding a motor-bike (well, not exactly
like a motor-bike).

Meanwhile, and it seems to me, it is the cyclists who are overall better
trained, better informed and better aware of traffic law and the HC, at least
they are on URC and URD. Your local highway may be different, and probably is.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mick the Moderator wrote:
Message-ID:

It appears that the above post was an abusive or trolling messsage
from Mrcheerful, a known serial offender. We apologise for any
distress this obnoxious message may have caused, it has now been
reported to http://netreport.virginmedia.com as a violation of their
acceptable use policy. This does not preclude additional reports of
this abuse, should you feel so motivated.

Thank you for your patience during this hopefully brief interruption
to your usenet pleasure.

What is it about cyclists that they ignore the 'law' regularly when it
suits them but want 'laws' on what is basically a free speech medium
with none?

Because they are a minority?

Although I could not see anything abusive or trolling in MrC's post.

--
Adam

On Nov 17, 4:54 pm, "ARWadsworth" wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mick the Moderator wrote:
Message-ID:

It appears that the above post was an abusive or trolling messsage
from Mrcheerful, a known serial offender. We apologise for any
distress this obnoxious message may have caused, it has now been
reported tohttp://netreport.virginmedia.comas a violation of their
acceptable use policy. This does not preclude additional reports of
this abuse, should you feel so motivated.

Thank you for your patience during this hopefully brief interruption
to your usenet pleasure.

What is it about cyclists that they ignore the 'law' regularly when it
suits them but want 'laws' on what is basically a free speech medium
with none?

Because they are a minority?

Although I could not see anything abusive or trolling in MrC's post.

--
Adam- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Like JMS and Medway Man you only see their "good" sides.
In urc Cheerless dances on cyclists' graves with glee.

--
Simon Mason

In article ,
Simon Mason wrote:
Like JMS and Medway Man you only see their "good" sides.
In urc Cheerless dances on cyclists' graves with glee.

Having driven a large van in London rush hour the other day for the first
time in a while - certainly since the blue route arrived - I was
absolutely appalled by the behaviour of the majority of cyclists. They
rode with no regard for their own - or other's safety. All I can say is
thank gawd they weren't driving powered vehicles.
The *majority* failed to give way to pedestrians on zebra crossings - as
well as at traffic lights where the pedestrians had the right of way. This
on a journey from Tooting Bec to the Elephant and Castle at about 0800. It
was also common to see them undertaking at speed vehicles clearly
signalling a left turn. I'm amazed more aren't killed or seriously injured.

--
*Save a tree, eat a beaver*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 17/11/2011 17:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Simon wrote:

Like JMS and Medway Man you only see their "good" sides.
In urc Cheerless dances on cyclists' graves with glee.

Having driven a large van in London rush hour the other day for the first
time in a while - certainly since the blue route arrived - I was
absolutely appalled by the behaviour of the majority of cyclists. They
rode with no regard for their own - or other's safety. All I can say is
thank gawd they weren't driving powered vehicles.
The *majority* failed to give way to pedestrians on zebra crossings - as
well as at traffic lights where the pedestrians had the right of way. This
on a journey from Tooting Bec to the Elephant and Castle at about 0800. It
was also common to see them undertaking at speed vehicles clearly
signalling a left turn. I'm amazed more aren't killed or seriously injured.

Any more of that and you're going to end up in several killfiles.

There are sensitive souls here who simply cannot abide the truth about these
matters.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Simon Mason wrote:
Like JMS and Medway Man you only see their "good" sides.
In urc Cheerless dances on cyclists' graves with glee.

Having driven a large van in London rush hour the other day for the first
time in a while - certainly since the blue route arrived - I was
absolutely appalled by the behaviour of the majority of cyclists. They
rode with no regard for their own - or other's safety. All I can say is
thank gawd they weren't driving powered vehicles.
The *majority* failed to give way to pedestrians on zebra crossings - as
well as at traffic lights where the pedestrians had the right of way. This
on a journey from Tooting Bec to the Elephant and Castle at about 0800. It
was also common to see them undertaking at speed vehicles clearly
signalling a left turn. I'm amazed more aren't killed or seriously injured.

I've noticed during recent visits to London that the most considerate
and safest riders are the ones on the "Boris Bikes".

Ducks, and runs for cover

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Simon Mason wrote:
Like JMS and Medway Man you only see their "good" sides.
In urc Cheerless dances on cyclists' graves with glee.

Having driven a large van in London rush hour the other day for the first
time in a while - certainly since the blue route arrived - I was
absolutely appalled by the behaviour of the majority of cyclists. They
rode with no regard for their own - or other's safety. All I can say is
thank gawd they weren't driving powered vehicles.
The *majority* failed to give way to pedestrians on zebra crossings - as
well as at traffic lights where the pedestrians had the right of way. This
on a journey from Tooting Bec to the Elephant and Castle at about 0800. It
was also common to see them undertaking at speed vehicles clearly
signalling a left turn. I'm amazed more aren't killed or seriously injured.

We aren't allowed to. Not even with dogs :-(

In message
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:


[snip]


The *majority* failed to give way to pedestrians on zebra crossings - as
well as at traffic lights where the pedestrians had the right of way. This
on a journey from Tooting Bec to the Elephant and Castle at about 0800. It
was also common to see them undertaking at speed vehicles clearly
signalling a left turn. I'm amazed more aren't killed or seriously injured.

Having just resumed more extensive journeys around London, I have to
agree with Dave. The stretch through the Claphams being a case in point.
No regard for safety of other roadusers.
With all the other petty controls on our lives, shouldn't there be a
mandatory NVQ in Pedal Pushing?
--
Jim White
Wimbledon London England
I will not fake my way through life

In article ,
Jim White wrote:
The *majority* failed to give way to pedestrians on zebra crossings -
as well as at traffic lights where the pedestrians had the right of
way. This on a journey from Tooting Bec to the Elephant and Castle at
about 0800. It was also common to see them undertaking at speed
vehicles clearly signalling a left turn. I'm amazed more aren't killed
or seriously injured.

Having just resumed more extensive journeys around London, I have to
agree with Dave. The stretch through the Claphams being a case in point.
No regard for safety of other roadusers.

Yup - that was on the route I took.
It's almost as if they regard this blue route as a priority route over all
other road users. Not that they stick to it, of course.

--
*A 'jiffy' is an actual unit of time for 1/100th of a second.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Simon Mason wrote:
Like JMS and Medway Man you only see their "good" sides.
In urc Cheerless dances on cyclists' graves with glee.

Having driven a large van in London rush hour the other day for the
first time in a while - certainly since the blue route arrived - I was
absolutely appalled by the behaviour of the majority of cyclists. They
rode with no regard for their own - or other's safety. All I can say
is thank gawd they weren't driving powered vehicles.



The *majority* failed to give way to pedestrians on zebra crossings -

You saw a pedestrian using a zebra crossing?

I drove back from East Dulwich to Yorkshire yesterday afternoon and I have
to say that most pedestrians avoided the crossings like the plague. They
prefered to just cross the road at random places without looking.

--
Adam

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:00:39 -0000, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

In urc Cheerless dances on cyclists' graves with glee.

And (importantly) that's *all* he does in urc.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:58:16 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Having driven a large van in London rush hour the other day for the first
time in a while - certainly since the blue route arrived - I was
absolutely appalled by the behaviour of the majority of cyclists. They
rode with no regard for their own - or other's safety. All I can say is
thank gawd they weren't driving powered vehicles.

That was my reaction when cycling in the Netherlands. Absolute bloody
rabble. But, it turns out, just about the safest rabble on the planet,
as London's rabble are about the safest rabble in the UK.

Weird, isn't it?

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:20:44 +0000, John Williamson
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Simon Mason wrote:
Like JMS and Medway Man you only see their "good" sides.
In urc Cheerless dances on cyclists' graves with glee.

Having driven a large van in London rush hour the other day for the first
time in a while - certainly since the blue route arrived - I was
absolutely appalled by the behaviour of the majority of cyclists. They
rode with no regard for their own - or other's safety. All I can say is
thank gawd they weren't driving powered vehicles.
The *majority* failed to give way to pedestrians on zebra crossings - as
well as at traffic lights where the pedestrians had the right of way. This
on a journey from Tooting Bec to the Elephant and Castle at about 0800. It
was also common to see them undertaking at speed vehicles clearly
signalling a left turn. I'm amazed more aren't killed or seriously injured.

I've noticed during recent visits to London that the most considerate
and safest riders are the ones on the "Boris Bikes".

That's only because nobody with legs smaller than Sir Chris' can make
one of the bloody things move at more than a stately amble ;-)

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:00:39 -0000, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

In urc Cheerless dances on cyclists' graves with glee.

And (importantly) that's *all* he does in urc.

Guy

everyone needs a hobby.

Message-ID:

It appears that the above post was an abusive or trolling messsage from
Mrcheerful, a known serial offender. We apologise for any distress this
obnoxious message may have caused, it has now been reported to http://netreport.virginmedia.com
as a violation of their acceptable use policy. This does not preclude additional
reports of this abuse, should you feel so motivated.

Thank you for your patience during this hopefully brief interruption to your usenet pleasure.
--
Mick the Moderator
pp. the Hon. Nigel P. Smallpiece (CEO), Knotty Ash Enterprises plc, England

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:33:10 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

snip


That's only because nobody with legs smaller than Sir Chris' can make
one of the bloody things move at more than a stately amble ;-)

Guy

Hello Porky

Perhaps the people who use them do not want to arrive at work sweating and
smelling like a pig as I understand some people do.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:20:01 +0000, Judith wrote:



Hello Porky

This species is a good swimmer and is usually found under rocks or in
debris in the water while they digest their meals and carry their cocoons.





--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.