On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:02:33 +0100, Adrian wrote:

In message , Tim Lamb
writes
In message , John Williamson
writes
On 12/08/2014 10:37, fred wrote:
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:28:02 AM UTC+1, The Other Mike wrote:
rant snipped

The point is of course that as cyclists they pay no cycling related
tax, not as ordinary citizens where of course they pay taxes like
anyone else. Whereas motorists pay taxes through the nose for all
motoring AND they still pay tax as an ordinary tax payer.

How did you miss this simple point ?

He's a cyclist? Who doesn't own a car?

Slightly different direction.... motorists who seem unable to overtake
cyclists on *A* standard roads if there is an approaching vehicle in
sight!



Hmm, I followed a cyclist on an A road last year for several miles
before I felt it safe to overtake him, and that was without traffic
coming the other way. As he was doing 35-40 most of the time

It must have been a very long hill down which you were travelling.

Dennis@home wrote:
On 14/08/2014 15:41, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:03:09 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 12/08/2014 22:45, The Other Mike wrote:

Motorists could be taxed more to keep the riff raff and heavy goods
vehicles off the road, to reduce road wear, pollution and congestion,
leaving more space for cyclists

Fine. As long as you don't want a plumber, an ambulance, or any goods
in the shops.

Which bit of could and did you not understand?

But I really couldn't give a toss about a plumber, let the lazy
overcharging
incompetent ****ers walk or ride a bike, taxing riff raff off the road
would
vastly improve ambulance response times and removing HGV's would
revive the
concept of local shops sourcing locally and it would hammer the parasitic
supermarkets that all have a mission statement to screw farmers and
suppliers in
the pursuit of low prices regardless. Bring it on!


Well we only produce 60% of the food we need so which members of your
family are you going to eliminate so we don't need to move the imported
food?

We don't need imported food to be self sufficient. Set aside guarantees
that food production is inefficient. Get out of the EU and watch
productivity soar.

On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 01:12:14 +0100, mcp wrote:

On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 18:32:29 +0100, Jabba wrote:

An 'innocent' cyclist who injures their head in an accident and wasn't
wearing a helmet is going to receive a lower settlement. Ditto horse
riders.

Only if it can be proved that it would have made a difference.
Insurance companies like to try it on but it's never stood up in
court.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1.

Denis Moore, 50 admitted causing death by dangerous driving when he collided
with cyclist James Jorgensen, 55, in September 2008 on a roundabout in Seaham,
County Durham. Jorgensen died eight days later of severe head injuries.
Although the court was told that Moore was only driving at around 20mph,
Moore’s solicitor acknowledged that his client had suffered a “momentary lapse
of concentration”.

At Durham Crown Court last Friday, Judge Richard Lowden gave Moore a 24-week
suspended prison sentence. He said the fact that Jorgensen had not been wearing
a helmet was a “mitigating factor” and Moore’s sentence was reduced accordingly

================================================== ==================

Case 2.

However, when ruling on the case Justice Williams expressed the view that not
wearing a helmet could put a cyclist at fault and make them partly responsible
for their own brain damage. “There can be no doubt that the failure to wear a
helmet may expose the cyclist to risk of greater injury,” he stated. Subject to
limitations, “any injury sustained may be the cyclist’s own fault.”

In article , Capitol
wrote:
Dennis@home wrote:
On 14/08/2014 15:41, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:03:09 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 12/08/2014 22:45, The Other Mike wrote:

Motorists could be taxed more to keep the riff raff and heavy goods
vehicles off the road, to reduce road wear, pollution and
congestion, leaving more space for cyclists

Fine. As long as you don't want a plumber, an ambulance, or any goods
in the shops.

Which bit of could and did you not understand?

But I really couldn't give a toss about a plumber, let the lazy
overcharging incompetent ****ers walk or ride a bike, taxing riff raff
off the road would vastly improve ambulance response times and
removing HGV's would revive the concept of local shops sourcing
locally and it would hammer the parasitic supermarkets that all have a
mission statement to screw farmers and suppliers in the pursuit of low
prices regardless. Bring it on!


Well we only produce 60% of the food we need so which members of your
family are you going to eliminate so we don't need to move the imported
food?

We don't need imported food to be self sufficient. Set aside guarantees
that food production is inefficient. Get out of the EU and watch
productivity soar.

we certainly needed imported food in both World Wars. We weren't in the EU
in either

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

charles wrote:
In articleC5qdncfo0qnkjnDOnZ2dnUVZ7oudnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk, Capitol
wrote:
Dennis@home wrote:
On 14/08/2014 15:41, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:03:09 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 12/08/2014 22:45, The Other Mike wrote:

Motorists could be taxed more to keep the riff raff and heavy goods
vehicles off the road, to reduce road wear, pollution and
congestion, leaving more space for cyclists

Fine. As long as you don't want a plumber, an ambulance, or any goods
in the shops.

Which bit of could and did you not understand?

But I really couldn't give a toss about a plumber, let the lazy
overcharging incompetent ****ers walk or ride a bike, taxing riff raff
off the road would vastly improve ambulance response times and
removing HGV's would revive the concept of local shops sourcing
locally and it would hammer the parasitic supermarkets that all have a
mission statement to screw farmers and suppliers in the pursuit of low
prices regardless. Bring it on!


Well we only produce 60% of the food we need so which members of your
family are you going to eliminate so we don't need to move the imported
food?

We don't need imported food to be self sufficient. Set aside guarantees
that food production is inefficient. Get out of the EU and watch
productivity soar.

we certainly needed imported food in both World Wars. We weren't in the EU
in either


That's why food self suffiency was targeted and achieved half a century
ago. We've gone backwards since, largely due to the EU.

Ay but they don't use the bloody cycle lanes. Local town had new by pass built some years back. It includes a dedicated cycle lane, behind a kerb separating it from the bus lane.

Use it ?

Nah, only for wimps

We'll use the bus lane, preferably two abreast, and force the buses out into the inside traffic lane.

Effing selfish pillocks

On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 18:57:49 +0100, "Dennis@home"
wrote:

Well we only produce 60% of the food we need so which members of your
family are you going to eliminate so we don't need to move the imported
food?

Maybe no one needs to be eliminated to start with as it helps to solve the
obesity crisis, saving the NHS billions.

But when the culling starts it's the greens and those in receipt of FIT payments
that are at the front of the queue regardless of their BMI.


--

On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 15:54:55 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

While we're at it, can we tax cyclists off the road so that buses can
deliver their cargo of people as quickly and efficiently as possible? I
get held up unnecessarily more in the rush hour by cyclists than any
other group of road users, due in general to their inconsiderate use of
road space. One of these days, I'm going to remember to put a dashboard
camera in place to show just how this happens and how badly many
cyclists behave on the road.

Getting buses off the roads would leave far more space those who can afford to
drive in their own vehicles (and for cyclists and pedestrians)

Every time I visit a big town or city I'm always stuck behind a queue of buses,
each with a maximum of two people onboard, one being the driver and the other a
passenger who has probably been dead for 20 years.

--

On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 17:22:39 +0100, Capitol wrote:

When I were a lad, the local plumber used a bicycle with a front load
carrier.

Exactly. A return to local tradespeople that had no option but to do a good job
at a fair price or they'd get beaten to a pulp in the local pub.

The days of the white van man flitting from job to job and polluting the
atmosphere would be consigned to the past in a fast reacting truly local
economy.

--

On Friday, 8 August 2014 19:04:30 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:

Are bicycles supposed to have lights and bells too?
Bikes must be sold with lights and a bell. What the purchaser chooses to do after that is unregulated, though riding at night on the road without lights is an offence (ISTR)

And if you see the bobby in time hop off you bike and put it up on your shoulder as even if you are wheeling it you still need lights

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
It would also help the lycra brigade understand that the
roads are not there just for them to race around on.

I can understand the frustration and fear some cyclists
develop when their lives are put at risk by other (sometimes
inconsiderate) road users.

I can understand the frustration that some drivers (and
pedestrians) feel from the (sometimes inconsiderate)
behaviour of cyclists.

Perhaps if there were weekly 'bike free' days and all those
cyclists travelled to work (and back home) in their cars
then the sudden addition of thousands of 'extra' cars into
the rush hour traffic might ease the situation.

))

John

--
John Mulrooney
NOTE Email address IS correct but might not be checked for a while.

War does not determine who is right - only who is left

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
It would also help the lycra brigade understand that the
roads are not there just for them to race around on.

Pity that *all* drivers don't understand that the roads are
not there just for them to race around on.

John

--
John Mulrooney
NOTE Email address IS correct but might not be checked for a while.

No matter how early you arrive, someone else is in line first.

On 15/08/2014 12:44, The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 15:54:55 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

While we're at it, can we tax cyclists off the road so that buses can
deliver their cargo of people as quickly and efficiently as possible? I
get held up unnecessarily more in the rush hour by cyclists than any
other group of road users, due in general to their inconsiderate use of
road space. One of these days, I'm going to remember to put a dashboard
camera in place to show just how this happens and how badly many
cyclists behave on the road.

Getting buses off the roads would leave far more space those who can afford to
drive in their own vehicles (and for cyclists and pedestrians)

Every time I visit a big town or city I'm always stuck behind a queue of buses,
each with a maximum of two people onboard, one being the driver and the other a
passenger who has probably been dead for 20 years.

The bus would be moving a lot faster if a cyclist wasn't wobbling all
over the road while a constant stream of cars was overtaking it or
coming the other way, preventing it from overtaking the cyclist.

Buses are the most efficient motorised way to move people round the
average town or city, and can fit over 50 passengers in the space
occupied by a dozen cyclists displaying their normal behaviour.

Loading for most bus services was about 40% of nominal vehicle capacity
at the last firm I worked for when averaged over a full day's work. So
if all you see is the driver and one passenger on board you must be
visiting either some very strange towns or normal towns at some very
strange times.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 15/08/2014 18:10, John Williamson wrote:
On 15/08/2014 12:44, The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 15:54:55 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

While we're at it, can we tax cyclists off the road so that buses can
deliver their cargo of people as quickly and efficiently as possible? I
get held up unnecessarily more in the rush hour by cyclists than any
other group of road users, due in general to their inconsiderate use of
road space. One of these days, I'm going to remember to put a dashboard
camera in place to show just how this happens and how badly many
cyclists behave on the road.

Getting buses off the roads would leave far more space those who can
afford to
drive in their own vehicles (and for cyclists and pedestrians)

Every time I visit a big town or city I'm always stuck behind a queue
of buses,
each with a maximum of two people onboard, one being the driver and
the other a
passenger who has probably been dead for 20 years.

The bus would be moving a lot faster if a cyclist wasn't wobbling all
over the road while a constant stream of cars was overtaking it or
coming the other way, preventing it from overtaking the cyclist.

Buses are the most efficient motorised way to move people round the
average town or city, and can fit over 50 passengers in the space
occupied by a dozen cyclists displaying their normal behaviour.

Loading for most bus services was about 40% of nominal vehicle capacity
at the last firm I worked for when averaged over a full day's work. So
if all you see is the driver and one passenger on board you must be
visiting either some very strange towns or normal towns at some very
strange times.

Other than at school time, most of the buses around here are as TOM
described.

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

On 15/08/2014 17:31, JTM wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
It would also help the lycra brigade understand that the
roads are not there just for them to race around on.

I can understand the frustration and fear some cyclists
develop when their lives are put at risk by other (sometimes
inconsiderate) road users.

Then they shouldn't use a child's toy as transport.

I can understand the frustration that some drivers (and
pedestrians) feel from the (sometimes inconsiderate)
behaviour of cyclists.

Road lice.

Perhaps if there were weekly 'bike free' days and all those
cyclists travelled to work (and back home) in their cars
then the sudden addition of thousands of 'extra' cars into
the rush hour traffic might ease the situation.

It wouldn't be thousands. Less than 2% of journeys are made by push
bike. The reduction in cyclists would improve traffic speed.


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

On 15/08/2014 17:33, JTM wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
It would also help the lycra brigade understand that the
roads are not there just for them to race around on.

Pity that *all* drivers don't understand that the roads are
not there just for them to race around on.

John

If drivers commit an offence, they are highly likely to be apprehended.
They have registration plates.

Cyclists commit traffic offences willy nilly because they know they
won't be apprehended.


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

On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 05:38:55 -0700 (PDT), larkim
wrote:

Bikes must be sold with lights and a bell.

I thought the bell one had been revoked a couple of years ago but have you got a
link to the legislation that says that about lights?

Trivia that might be relevant:

A 'bike' no longer legally remains a 'bike' when initially sold to an end user
without pedals (or wheels or saddle etc) being fitted.

Lights are definitely not a legal required for fitment or use on the road during
daylight hours or times of good visibilty.

The bell had (had?) to be supplied if a complete bike was supplied

A reflector at the rear (and maybe at the front) are possibly required, but
again only outside the periods of daylight hours / good visibility

But iirc reflectors on pedals are a *must* on a supply of a complete bike,
hence a common work around of selling 'almost a bike' without pedals then
supplying as a separate contract, compliant or far more usually non compliant
pedals in order for the customer to use the 'almost a bike' they bought a few
minutes previously. That the shop then fits them before the customer exits the
shop possibly removes the requirement for them to carry any pedal reflectors.

There are cycles and bikes where the reflectors on the pedals would never be
seen by another road user either from the rear or the front.
--

In article , John
Williamson wrote:
Buses are the most efficient motorised way to move people
round the average town or city, and can fit over 50
passengers in the space occupied by a dozen cyclists
displaying their normal behaviour.
Or 4 cars with drivers (at least vans often have an
apprentice)

John

--
John Mulrooney
NOTE Email address IS correct but might not be checked for a while.

The new girl in the slaughter-house is a real stunner

In article , The Medway
Handyman wrote:
Other than at school time, most of the buses around here
are as TOM described.
The bus is usually about half full when I use it - these bus
passes are great!

(Since getting the bus pass I have done *much* more walking)

John

--
John Mulrooney
NOTE Email address IS correct but might not be checked for a while.

You can't beat a boiled egg

On 15/08/2014 18:10, John Williamson wrote:

Buses are the most efficient motorised way to move people round the
average town or city, and can fit over 50 passengers in the space
occupied by a dozen cyclists displaying their normal behaviour.

The hell they are.
Outside rush hour they are empty unless you reduce the service to a
tenth of rush hour.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 02:56:07 -0700 (PDT), fred
wrote:

We'll use the bus lane, preferably two abreast, and force the buses out into the inside traffic lane.

The cycle lane is likely (or has been) laden with broken glass, from
what I've seen of them.
Otoh, the cars and buses do a wonderful job of sweeping the tarmac
clear of it.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 18:34:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

Then they shouldn't use a child's toy as transport.

When, exactly, did you turn into an arsehole?
I mean, go over to uk.rec.cycling and troll to your heart's content
all you like, but **** off with it, here.

On 15/08/2014 20:43, Dennis@home wrote:
On 15/08/2014 18:10, John Williamson wrote:

Buses are the most efficient motorised way to move people round the
average town or city, and can fit over 50 passengers in the space
occupied by a dozen cyclists displaying their normal behaviour.

The hell they are.
Outside rush hour they are empty unless you reduce the service to a
tenth of rush hour.

Have you looked at a bus closely lately? Most services now are purely
commercial and if they don't carry enough passengers to pay (Average
about 30% of the potential maximum over the route length), they're
removed from the timetable. There are still some subsidised services,
but they are getting fewer by the year.

And I didn't say they *always* fit 50 or more passengers into the space,
I said they *can* fit over 50 passengers into the space. IME this only
matters in the rush hour periods, when cyclists are also more common,
and cause more holdups.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote:

Have you looked at a bus closely lately? Most services now are purely
commercial and if they don't carry enough passengers to pay (Average
about 30% of the potential maximum over the route length), they're
removed from the timetable. There are still some subsidised services,
but they are getting fewer by the year.

I've been on 3 buses in the past month (in fact I've probably been on 3
in the past decade) one was mid-day between city centre and an out of
town shopping park, doubt it was 20% full, the other two were early
evening rural village into city centre, literally a handful of
passengers each time.

They might do themselves a favour if the phone app vs website vs printed
at bus-stop vs SMS timetables agreed with each other.

in 1329034 20140815 183635 The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 15/08/2014 17:33, JTM wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
It would also help the lycra brigade understand that the
roads are not there just for them to race around on.

Pity that *all* drivers don't understand that the roads are
not there just for them to race around on.

John

If drivers commit an offence, they are highly likely to be apprehended.
They have registration plates.

Cyclists commit traffic offences willy nilly because they know they
won't be apprehended.

You have a curiously biased view of the world.
I see dozens of drivers committing offences every day, from speeding
to using mobile phones, with impunity. Hardly ever see a cop doing anything.

Maybe you should direct your ire at mobility scooters.
A few days ago one came hurtling towards me, on the pavement, at about
10 mph, scattering children walking to school. I stopped her and told her
she was limited to 4 mph on the pavement. She said "I wasn't even doing
4 mph". Most are uninsured and will do real damage if they hit anything.

On 16/08/2014 06:40, John Williamson wrote:
On 15/08/2014 20:43, Dennis@home wrote:
On 15/08/2014 18:10, John Williamson wrote:

Buses are the most efficient motorised way to move people round the
average town or city, and can fit over 50 passengers in the space
occupied by a dozen cyclists displaying their normal behaviour.

The hell they are.
Outside rush hour they are empty unless you reduce the service to a
tenth of rush hour.

Have you looked at a bus closely lately? Most services now are purely
commercial and if they don't carry enough passengers to pay (Average
about 30% of the potential maximum over the route length), they're
removed from the timetable. There are still some subsidised services,
but they are getting fewer by the year.

Nearly all the services are subsidised at some time of the day around here.
They run empty a lot.
The only times they might be full is rush hour (thats the 30 minute
after and before the t'wirlys can get on BTW).


And I didn't say they *always* fit 50 or more passengers into the space,
I said they *can* fit over 50 passengers into the space. IME this only
matters in the rush hour periods, when cyclists are also more common,
and cause more holdups.



You will be lucky to ever see 50 passengers on a bus around here.

Anyway cyclists holding buses up in the bus lane is a good thing. It
shows the planners how futile bus lanes are and helps to get them closed
so other people can use the roads.

On 16/08/2014 10:19, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1329034 20140815 183635 The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 15/08/2014 17:33, JTM wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
It would also help the lycra brigade understand that the
roads are not there just for them to race around on.

Pity that *all* drivers don't understand that the roads are
not there just for them to race around on.

John

If drivers commit an offence, they are highly likely to be apprehended.
They have registration plates.

Cyclists commit traffic offences willy nilly because they know they
won't be apprehended.

You have a curiously biased view of the world.
I see dozens of drivers committing offences every day, from speeding
to using mobile phones, with impunity. Hardly ever see a cop doing anything.

Maybe you should direct your ire at mobility scooters.
A few days ago one came hurtling towards me, on the pavement, at about
10 mph, scattering children walking to school. I stopped her and told her
she was limited to 4 mph on the pavement. She said "I wasn't even doing
4 mph". Most are uninsured and will do real damage if they hit anything.


AFAIK you are wrong, the scooter is not allowed on the pavement if it
can do more than 4 mph.
If its top speed is higher than that its a leisure scooter and you can't
use it on the pavement.

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 18:34:49 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

Then they shouldn't use a child's toy as transport.

When, exactly, did you turn into an arsehole?
I mean, go over to uk.rec.cycling and troll to your heart's content
all you like, but **** off with it, here.

Just like you could...

On 16/08/2014 10:34, Dennis@home wrote:
On 16/08/2014 10:19, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1329034 20140815 183635 The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 15/08/2014 17:33, JTM wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
It would also help the lycra brigade understand that the
roads are not there just for them to race around on.

Pity that *all* drivers don't understand that the roads are
not there just for them to race around on.

John

If drivers commit an offence, they are highly likely to be apprehended.
They have registration plates.

Cyclists commit traffic offences willy nilly because they know they
won't be apprehended.

You have a curiously biased view of the world.
I see dozens of drivers committing offences every day, from speeding
to using mobile phones, with impunity. Hardly ever see a cop doing
anything.

Maybe you should direct your ire at mobility scooters.
A few days ago one came hurtling towards me, on the pavement, at about
10 mph, scattering children walking to school. I stopped her and told
her
she was limited to 4 mph on the pavement. She said "I wasn't even doing
4 mph". Most are uninsured and will do real damage if they hit anything.


AFAIK you are wrong, the scooter is not allowed on the pavement if it
can do more than 4 mph.
If its top speed is higher than that its a leisure scooter and you can't
use it on the pavement.

The high speed ones mostly, if not all, have a mode switch for pavement
or road use. Correct selection of mode and speed is the responsibility
of the user.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article , Bob Martin
scribeth thus
in 1329034 20140815 183635 The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 15/08/2014 17:33, JTM wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
It would also help the lycra brigade understand that the
roads are not there just for them to race around on.

Pity that *all* drivers don't understand that the roads are
not there just for them to race around on.

John

If drivers commit an offence, they are highly likely to be apprehended.
They have registration plates.

Cyclists commit traffic offences willy nilly because they know they
won't be apprehended.

You have a curiously biased view of the world.
I see dozens of drivers committing offences every day, from speeding
to using mobile phones, with impunity. Hardly ever see a cop doing anything.


Simples!, there are very very few on patrol out on the roads;!..

Maybe you should direct your ire at mobility scooters.
A few days ago one came hurtling towards me, on the pavement, at about
10 mph, scattering children walking to school. I stopped her and told her
she was limited to 4 mph on the pavement. She said "I wasn't even doing
4 mph". Most are uninsured and will do real damage if they hit anything.


I warrant you to wait in any large main street in Cambridge at night and
count 20 push bikes go by at least 50% of them or more will not be
carrying lights....

--
Tony Sayer

In article , John Williamson
scribeth thus
On 15/08/2014 20:43, Dennis@home wrote:
On 15/08/2014 18:10, John Williamson wrote:

Buses are the most efficient motorised way to move people round the
average town or city, and can fit over 50 passengers in the space
occupied by a dozen cyclists displaying their normal behaviour.

The hell they are.
Outside rush hour they are empty unless you reduce the service to a
tenth of rush hour.

Have you looked at a bus closely lately? Most services now are purely
commercial and if they don't carry enough passengers to pay (Average
about 30% of the potential maximum over the route length), they're
removed from the timetable. There are still some subsidised services,
but they are getting fewer by the year.

And I didn't say they *always* fit 50 or more passengers into the space,
I said they *can* fit over 50 passengers into the space. IME this only
matters in the rush hour periods, when cyclists are also more common,
and cause more holdups.



Always the way with most Any transport system during rush hours, hardly
standing room, rest of the day might just as well run a few people
carriers around for the passenger traffic level.

Same on the trains I don't know just how those poor unfortunates cope
with the rail journey from Cambridge to London during the rush hours the
return of which seem in the evening to be getting ever later.

Most of the day theres a very long queue of idling taxis, come rush hour
you can't get one for love or money!...

--
Tony Sayer

On 16/08/2014 10:19, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1329034 20140815 183635 The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 15/08/2014 17:33, JTM wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
It would also help the lycra brigade understand that the
roads are not there just for them to race around on.

Pity that *all* drivers don't understand that the roads are
not there just for them to race around on.

John

If drivers commit an offence, they are highly likely to be apprehended.
They have registration plates.

Cyclists commit traffic offences willy nilly because they know they
won't be apprehended.

You have a curiously biased view of the world.

No I don't :-)

I see dozens of drivers committing offences every day, from speeding
to using mobile phones, with impunity. Hardly ever see a cop doing anything.

They are a minority. IME cyclists commit offences 100% of the time.

Maybe you should direct your ire at mobility scooters.

They are a necessity, not a choice.

A few days ago one came hurtling towards me, on the pavement, at about
10 mph, scattering children walking to school. I stopped her and told her
she was limited to 4 mph on the pavement. She said "I wasn't even doing
4 mph". Most are uninsured and will do real damage if they hit anything.



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

On 16/08/2014 13:17, John Williamson wrote:
On 16/08/2014 10:34, Dennis@home wrote:
On 16/08/2014 10:19, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1329034 20140815 183635 The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 15/08/2014 17:33, JTM wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
It would also help the lycra brigade understand that the
roads are not there just for them to race around on.

Pity that *all* drivers don't understand that the roads are
not there just for them to race around on.

John

If drivers commit an offence, they are highly likely to be apprehended.
They have registration plates.

Cyclists commit traffic offences willy nilly because they know they
won't be apprehended.

You have a curiously biased view of the world.
I see dozens of drivers committing offences every day, from speeding
to using mobile phones, with impunity. Hardly ever see a cop doing
anything.

Maybe you should direct your ire at mobility scooters.
A few days ago one came hurtling towards me, on the pavement, at about
10 mph, scattering children walking to school. I stopped her and told
her
she was limited to 4 mph on the pavement. She said "I wasn't even doing
4 mph". Most are uninsured and will do real damage if they hit
anything.


AFAIK you are wrong, the scooter is not allowed on the pavement if it
can do more than 4 mph.
If its top speed is higher than that its a leisure scooter and you can't
use it on the pavement.

The high speed ones mostly, if not all, have a mode switch for pavement
or road use. Correct selection of mode and speed is the responsibility
of the user.


I don't think that makes them legal to use on the pavement.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 17:06:22 +0100, "Dennis@home"
wrote:



AFAIK you are wrong, the scooter is not allowed on the pavement if it
can do more than 4 mph.
If its top speed is higher than that its a leisure scooter and you can't
use it on the pavement.

The high speed ones mostly, if not all, have a mode switch for pavement
or road use. Correct selection of mode and speed is the responsibility
of the user.


I don't think that makes them legal to use on the pavement.

One day Dennis you may get something correct. Keep trying until you do
though.

Cat 3 scooters have two settings: 4mph for use on pavements and 8mph
for use on the road. If they are switched to 4mph they are perfectly
legal to use on the pavement.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 21:19:59 +0100, Capitol wrote:

charles wrote:
In articleC5qdncfo0qnkjnDOnZ2dnUVZ7oudnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk, Capitol
wrote:
Dennis@home wrote:
On 14/08/2014 15:41, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:03:09 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 12/08/2014 22:45, The Other Mike wrote:

Motorists could be taxed more to keep the riff raff and heavy goods
vehicles off the road, to reduce road wear, pollution and
congestion, leaving more space for cyclists

Fine. As long as you don't want a plumber, an ambulance, or any goods
in the shops.

Which bit of could and did you not understand?

But I really couldn't give a toss about a plumber, let the lazy
overcharging incompetent ****ers walk or ride a bike, taxing riff raff
off the road would vastly improve ambulance response times and
removing HGV's would revive the concept of local shops sourcing
locally and it would hammer the parasitic supermarkets that all have a
mission statement to screw farmers and suppliers in the pursuit of low
prices regardless. Bring it on!


Well we only produce 60% of the food we need so which members of your
family are you going to eliminate so we don't need to move the imported
food?

We don't need imported food to be self sufficient. Set aside guarantees
that food production is inefficient. Get out of the EU and watch
productivity soar.

we certainly needed imported food in both World Wars. We weren't in the EU
in either


That's why food self suffiency was targeted and achieved half a century
ago. We've gone backwards since, largely due to the EU.


Rubbish. We were not self sufficient in 1964 and never have been since at
least the war - unless you have some figures which back up your claim?

On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 05:38:55 -0700 (PDT), larkim
wrote:

On Friday, 8 August 2014 19:04:30 UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:

Are bicycles supposed to have lights and bells too?
Bikes must be sold with lights and a bell. What the purchaser chooses to do after that is unregulated, though riding at night on the road without lights is an offence (ISTR)


Yes - but when you buy a new bike with lights and a bell fitted, you need to
remove that extra weight as soon as possible as you could probably gain that
all important 0.15 mph when going flat out.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:33:54 +0100, JTM wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
It would also help the lycra brigade understand that the
roads are not there just for them to race around on.

Pity that *all* drivers don't understand that the roads are
not there just for them to race around on.

John


I don't think cars are allowed to race on roads - but of course cyclists are
and do.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 07:59:23 -0700 (PDT), fred wrote:

And if you see the bobby in time hop off you bike and put it up on your shoulder as even if you are wheeling it you still need lights


wrong

On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 19:35:40 +0100, The Other Mike
wrote:

snip


There are cycles and bikes where the reflectors on the pedals would never be
seen by another road user either from the rear or the front.


Do you mean those things called recumbents which some knobs ride?