On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:14:02 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 23/08/2014 11:16, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham

wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land Access
laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent
wording) hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used
that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats
bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

Are you sure about nearly running as fast as 26mph ?
The fastest runner in the world (Usain Bolt) reaches 27mph.
Most top (in the world) sprinters can only reach about 24mph.

"close to"

--
Remember when you were kid and you used to blow bubbles?
Well, I saw him the other day and he says hello.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:16:33 +0100, "Uncle Peter" wrote:

snip
I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I treated as a car?




"my bike can do 26mph"

The fastest among us can sprint 100m at a speed of 15.9 mph

Usain Bolt look out: the fat Hucker is close behind you.

(Sorry about the spelling mistake)

On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:16:14 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 11:16, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham

wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land Access laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent wording) hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats
bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

You can't be able to cycle very fast!

I was talking about comfortable speeds, not racing speeds.

Then compare walking with cycling.

I can comfortably cycle faster than I can uncomfortably run, as most
cyclists can. You must be the exception.

On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:15:15 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham
wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land Access laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent wording)
hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

Well if you're on the road, you should obey the highway code - such as
stopping at red lights, giving way at major roads, etc. D'ye do that?

When running? WTF? You're insane.

As insane as your suggestion you should be compared with a car.

On 23/08/14 15:40, Fredxxx wrote:
On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:16:14 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 11:16, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham

wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land
Access laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent
wording) hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used
that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats
bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

You can't be able to cycle very fast!

I was talking about comfortable speeds, not racing speeds.

Then compare walking with cycling.

I can comfortably cycle faster than I can uncomfortably run, as most
cyclists can. You must be the exception.

Indeed. 15mph is a 4 minute mile and is serious running at world class.
It's a piece of **** on a flat road with a bike.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 16:28:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 23/08/14 15:40, Fredxxx wrote:
On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:16:14 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 11:16, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:



I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

You can't be able to cycle very fast!

I was talking about comfortable speeds, not racing speeds.

Then compare walking with cycling.

I can comfortably cycle faster than I can uncomfortably run, as most
cyclists can. You must be the exception.

Indeed. 15mph is a 4 minute mile and is serious running at world class.
It's a piece of **** on a flat road with a bike.

Consider running for a bus, that's not a mile.

--
The sailor does not pray for wind, he learns to sail -- Gustaf Lindborg

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 15:40:44 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:16:14 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 11:16, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter
wrote:





And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

You can't be able to cycle very fast!

I was talking about comfortable speeds, not racing speeds.

Then compare walking with cycling.

No. Because it's comfortable to run.

--
The sailor does not pray for wind, he learns to sail -- Gustaf Lindborg

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 16:24:59 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:15:15 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham
wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land Access laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent wording)
hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

Well if you're on the road, you should obey the highway code - such as
stopping at red lights, giving way at major roads, etc. D'ye do that?

When running? WTF? You're insane.

As insane as your suggestion you should be compared with a car.

I never said I should be. I said it would be insane to compare a runner to a car, just as it is insane to compare a bicycle to a car.

--
Scots are tightwads who are saving up to become Jewish.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 17:54:39 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 16:24:59 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:15:15 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham

wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land Access
laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent
wording)
hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used
that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats
bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

Well if you're on the road, you should obey the highway code - such as
stopping at red lights, giving way at major roads, etc. D'ye do that?

When running? WTF? You're insane.

As insane as your suggestion you should be compared with a car.

I never said I should be. I said it would be insane to compare a runner
to a car, just as it is insane to compare a bicycle to a car.

Well you're the one doing it. So what does that make *you*? Well, OK, I
think we know the answer.

I'm not the one doing it. Can't you follow simple English?

--
Sat opposite an Indian lady on the train today, she shut her eyes and stopped breathing. I thought she was dead, until I saw the red spot on her forehead and realised she was just on standby.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 17:54:39 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 16:24:59 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:15:15 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham

wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land Access
laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent
wording)
hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used
that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats
bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

Well if you're on the road, you should obey the highway code - such as
stopping at red lights, giving way at major roads, etc. D'ye do that?

When running? WTF? You're insane.

As insane as your suggestion you should be compared with a car.

I never said I should be. I said it would be insane to compare a runner
to a car, just as it is insane to compare a bicycle to a car.

Well you're the one doing it. So what does that make *you*? Well, OK, I
think we know the answer.

I'm not the one doing it. Can't you follow simple English?

--
Sat opposite an Indian lady on the train today, she shut her eyes and stopped breathing. I thought she was dead, until I saw the red spot on her forehead and realised she was just on standby.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 19:09:06 +0100, Bob Henson wrote:

Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham
wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land Access laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent wording) hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

My car can do 110mph on the flat, my bike can do 26mph. My car weighs
1000kg, my bike weighs 100kg. See the difference? E=.5mv^2 so the car
has 179 times more kinetic energy to impart to what it hits.

But your car cannot do 110 mph anywhere a pedestrian is walking.

Of course it can. And the fact is cars go faster than bikes in a built up area, breaking the law or not, they get overtaken.

At the
legal speed limit in town there is precious little difference between being
struck by a car at 30 mph (shortly to be 20 mph in many places, they tell
us) and a bicycle at 26 mph. The bike has far more spiky bits sticking out
than a car, and is likely to inflict nearly as much, if not more, damage
than a car. The cyclist is much more likely to not be looking where he/she
is going too, as they seem to think their special green status gives them
authority to ignore normal rules - especially red lights.

Absolute twaddle. The laws of physics state that if a 100kg object is struck by a 1000kg object, it's gonna get hurt a lot more than if both objects were 100kg. Look up the conservation of momentum, and you'll find that with a car, the car does not change speed significantly, but the pedestrian is accelerated to the speed of the car almost instantly. If a bike hits a pedestrian (with a similar weight), then the pedestrian and the cyclist will both be accelerated/decelerated by half the speed of the cyclist.

On 23/08/2014 14:12, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:18:03 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham

wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land
Access laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent
wording)
hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used
that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats
bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

My car can do 110mph on the flat, my bike can do 26mph. My car weighs
1000kg, my bike weighs 100kg. See the difference? E=.5mv^2 so the
car has
179 times more kinetic energy to impart to what it hits.

Gosh, so E equals a half m v-squared? Well, who'd-a thunk it, eh?

Try driving and riding sensibly, not hitting things, and obeying the
rules of the road. Then we shall get on.

How does your argument change the fact that a bike is nowhere near as
dangerous as a car?

It is on the pavement.



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

On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:14:02 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 23/08/2014 11:16, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham

wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land Access
laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent
wording) hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used
that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats
bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

Are you sure about nearly running as fast as 26mph ?
The fastest runner in the world (Usain Bolt) reaches 27mph.
Most top (in the world) sprinters can only reach about 24mph.

"close to"

27mph for a very short period....

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

On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:15:15 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham

wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land
Access laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent
wording)
hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used
that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats
bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

Well if you're on the road, you should obey the highway code - such as
stopping at red lights, giving way at major roads, etc. D'ye do that?

When running? WTF? You're insane.

Typical cyclist - avoids the awkward question.

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

On 23/08/2014 20:26, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:14:02 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 23/08/2014 11:16, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham

wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land Access
laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent
wording) hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used
that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats
bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

Are you sure about nearly running as fast as 26mph ?
The fastest runner in the world (Usain Bolt) reaches 27mph.
Most top (in the world) sprinters can only reach about 24mph.

"close to"

27mph for a very short period....

Yes, that's the nature of sprinting.....short distances.

On 23/08/2014 17:47, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 16:28:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/08/14 15:40, Fredxxx wrote:
On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:16:14 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 11:16, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:



I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running
am I
treated as a car?

You can't be able to cycle very fast!

I was talking about comfortable speeds, not racing speeds.

Then compare walking with cycling.

I can comfortably cycle faster than I can uncomfortably run, as most
cyclists can. You must be the exception.

Indeed. 15mph is a 4 minute mile and is serious running at world class.
It's a piece of **** on a flat road with a bike.

Consider running for a bus, that's not a mile.

Then the cycling speed would be proportionately faster.

If the distance is ultra short, a few yards as in in your scenario of
running for a bus, I will agree that by the time I have mounted the
bike, you might well have reached the bus. Is that what you are trying
to say?

On 23/08/2014 17:47, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 15:40:44 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:16:14 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 11:16, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter
wrote:





And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running
am I
treated as a car?

You can't be able to cycle very fast!

I was talking about comfortable speeds, not racing speeds.

Then compare walking with cycling.

No. Because it's comfortable to run.

The percussive effect of running on ones knees suggest to me and most
others that is not the case.

Or don't you have knees?

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:42:21 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 17:47, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 15:40:44 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:16:14 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 11:16, Uncle Peter wrote:






You can't be able to cycle very fast!

I was talking about comfortable speeds, not racing speeds.

Then compare walking with cycling.

No. Because it's comfortable to run.

The percussive effect of running on ones knees suggest to me and most
others that is not the case.

Or don't you have knees?

Then why do so many people run for exercise?

--
Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason -- Mark Twain

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:41:31 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 17:47, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 16:28:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/08/14 15:40, Fredxxx wrote:
On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:16:14 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:





I was talking about comfortable speeds, not racing speeds.

Then compare walking with cycling.

I can comfortably cycle faster than I can uncomfortably run, as most
cyclists can. You must be the exception.

Indeed. 15mph is a 4 minute mile and is serious running at world class.
It's a piece of **** on a flat road with a bike.

Consider running for a bus, that's not a mile.

Then the cycling speed would be proportionately faster.

If the distance is ultra short, a few yards as in in your scenario of
running for a bus, I will agree that by the time I have mounted the
bike, you might well have reached the bus. Is that what you are trying
to say?

The cyclist will most likely be travelling 5 or 10 miles. The runner will most likely be travelling 100 yards.

--
Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason -- Mark Twain

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:26:27 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:14:02 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 23/08/2014 11:16, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter
wrote:





And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

Are you sure about nearly running as fast as 26mph ?
The fastest runner in the world (Usain Bolt) reaches 27mph.
Most top (in the world) sprinters can only reach about 24mph.

"close to"

27mph for a very short period....

Correct. Most people probably go 15-20mph to catch a bus. Which is close to what most people cycle at, which is usually 20mph.

--
A waiter brings the customer the steak he ordered with his thumb over the meat.
"Are you crazy?" yelled the customer, "with your hand on my steak?"
"What" answers the waiter, "You want it to fall on the floor again?"

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:36:22 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 23/08/2014 20:26, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:14:02 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 23/08/2014 11:16, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:



I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

Are you sure about nearly running as fast as 26mph ?
The fastest runner in the world (Usain Bolt) reaches 27mph.
Most top (in the world) sprinters can only reach about 24mph.

"close to"

27mph for a very short period....

Yes, that's the nature of sprinting.....short distances.

At least you don't get so bored watching the race.

--
We cannot see the future.
We cannot change the past.
We can only live in the now, with an eye towards gaining enough
power in the future to wreck revenge on everyone who ever screwed
us in the past.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:27:14 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:15:15 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham

wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land
Access laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent
wording)
hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used
that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats
bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

Well if you're on the road, you should obey the highway code - such as
stopping at red lights, giving way at major roads, etc. D'ye do that?

When running? WTF? You're insane.

Typical cyclist - avoids the awkward question.

He was asking the question of me as a RUNNER, not a cyclist.

--
Confucius say man who speak with forked tongue satisfy two women at once.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:24:46 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 23/08/2014 14:12, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:18:03 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham

wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land
Access laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent
wording)
hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used
that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats
bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

My car can do 110mph on the flat, my bike can do 26mph. My car weighs
1000kg, my bike weighs 100kg. See the difference? E=.5mv^2 so the
car has
179 times more kinetic energy to impart to what it hits.

Gosh, so E equals a half m v-squared? Well, who'd-a thunk it, eh?

Try driving and riding sensibly, not hitting things, and obeying the
rules of the road. Then we shall get on.

How does your argument change the fact that a bike is nowhere near as
dangerous as a car?

It is on the pavement.

Bicycles are safer on the pavements, then they are out of the bloody way of the cars. Now if only buses would fit on pavements....

--
Peter is listening to The Who - Behind Blue Eyes

On 23/08/2014 20:45, Uncle Peter wrote:

Then why do so many people run for exercise?


Everyone has to die some way.

On 23/08/2014 20:46, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:41:31 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 17:47, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 16:28:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/08/14 15:40, Fredxxx wrote:
On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:16:14 +0100, Fredxxx
wrote:





I was talking about comfortable speeds, not racing speeds.

Then compare walking with cycling.

I can comfortably cycle faster than I can uncomfortably run, as most
cyclists can. You must be the exception.

Indeed. 15mph is a 4 minute mile and is serious running at world class.
It's a piece of **** on a flat road with a bike.

Consider running for a bus, that's not a mile.

Then the cycling speed would be proportionately faster.

If the distance is ultra short, a few yards as in in your scenario of
running for a bus, I will agree that by the time I have mounted the
bike, you might well have reached the bus. Is that what you are trying
to say?

The cyclist will most likely be travelling 5 or 10 miles. The runner
will most likely be travelling 100 yards.

No, in order to get to the same destination most people will travel the
same distances whether they walk or cycle.

I can now see why you can run faster than you can cycle.

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

Then why do so many people run for exercise?


Everyone has to die some way.

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

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 22:24:21 +0100, Capitol wrote:

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

Then why do so many people run for exercise?


Everyone has to die some way.

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

People who don't exercise die of heart failure.

--
Should crematoriums give discounts for burn victims?

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 22:14:38 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 20:46, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:41:31 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 17:47, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 16:28:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/08/14 15:40, Fredxxx wrote:






Indeed. 15mph is a 4 minute mile and is serious running at world class.
It's a piece of **** on a flat road with a bike.

Consider running for a bus, that's not a mile.

Then the cycling speed would be proportionately faster.

If the distance is ultra short, a few yards as in in your scenario of
running for a bus, I will agree that by the time I have mounted the
bike, you might well have reached the bus. Is that what you are trying
to say?

The cyclist will most likely be travelling 5 or 10 miles. The runner
will most likely be travelling 100 yards.

No, in order to get to the same destination most people will travel the
same distances whether they walk or cycle.

I can now see why you can run faster than you can cycle.

Who said anything about the same destination? People use different transport methods for different destinations. For example I wouldn't run from Scotland to London, or cycle to catch a bus 100 yards away.

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

On 23/08/2014 23:19, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 22:14:38 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 20:46, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:41:31 +0100, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/08/2014 17:47, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 16:28:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/08/14 15:40, Fredxxx wrote:






Indeed. 15mph is a 4 minute mile and is serious running at world
class.
It's a piece of **** on a flat road with a bike.

Consider running for a bus, that's not a mile.

Then the cycling speed would be proportionately faster.

If the distance is ultra short, a few yards as in in your scenario of
running for a bus, I will agree that by the time I have mounted the
bike, you might well have reached the bus. Is that what you are trying
to say?

The cyclist will most likely be travelling 5 or 10 miles. The runner
will most likely be travelling 100 yards.

No, in order to get to the same destination most people will travel the
same distances whether they walk or cycle.

I can now see why you can run faster than you can cycle.

Who said anything about the same destination? People use different
transport methods for different destinations. For example I wouldn't run
from Scotland to London, or cycle to catch a bus 100 yards away.

You said "I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at". Are you
suggesting that is no longer the case?

You didn't mention comfort or distance in that rather myopic thing to
say and now seem to be trying badly to qualify the statement. *FAIL*

On 23/08/2014 22:45, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 22:24:21 +0100, Capitol wrote:

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

Then why do so many people run for exercise?


Everyone has to die some way.

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

People who don't exercise die of heart failure.

And people that do don't die of heart failure?

On 23/08/14 23:53, Fredxxx wrote:
On 23/08/2014 22:45, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 22:24:21 +0100, Capitol wrote:

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

Then why do so many people run for exercise?


Everyone has to die some way.

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

People who don't exercise die of heart failure.

And people that do don't die of heart failure?

People with heart conditions generally end up avoiding heavy exercise.

Every marathon some poor sucker dies of a heart attack.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 00:28:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 23/08/14 23:53, Fredxxx wrote:
On 23/08/2014 22:45, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 22:24:21 +0100, Capitol wrote:

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



Everyone has to die some way.

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

People who don't exercise die of heart failure.

And people that do don't die of heart failure?

People with heart conditions generally end up avoiding heavy exercise.

Every marathon some poor sucker dies of a heart attack.

They'd have died of it anyway. We're supposed to exercise, it's not natural to sit on a chair all day.

--
A bleached blonde and a natural blonde were on top of the Empire State Building.
How do you tell them apart?
The bleached blonde would never throw bread to the helicopters.

On 23/08/2014 20:51, Uncle Peter wrote:


How does your argument change the fact that a bike is nowhere near as
dangerous as a car?

It is on the pavement.

Bicycles are safer on the pavements, then they are out of the bloody way
of the cars. Now if only buses would fit on pavements....

Pedestrians however are at a huge risk of being injured by an
inconsiderate, serial law breaking, silent menace. A cyclist on the
pavement.

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

On 23/08/2014 20:45, Uncle Peter wrote:



You can't be able to cycle very fast!

I was talking about comfortable speeds, not racing speeds.

Then compare walking with cycling.

No. Because it's comfortable to run.

The percussive effect of running on ones knees suggest to me and most
others that is not the case.

Or don't you have knees?

Then why do so many people run for exercise?

Because runners look less of a tit than cyclists.


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

On 23/08/2014 23:53, Fredxxx wrote:
On 23/08/2014 22:45, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 22:24:21 +0100, Capitol wrote:

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

Then why do so many people run for exercise?


Everyone has to die some way.

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

People who don't exercise die of heart failure.

And people that do don't die of heart failure?

Of course not. They become immortal.


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

On 24/08/2014 00:32, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 00:28:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/08/14 23:53, Fredxxx wrote:
On 23/08/2014 22:45, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 22:24:21 +0100, Capitol
wrote:

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



Everyone has to die some way.

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

People who don't exercise die of heart failure.

And people that do don't die of heart failure?

People with heart conditions generally end up avoiding heavy exercise.

Every marathon some poor sucker dies of a heart attack.

They'd have died of it anyway. We're supposed to exercise, it's not
natural to sit on a chair all day.

Its not natural for a grown man to ride a push bike.

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

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 19:38:44 +0100, "Uncle Peter" wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 19:09:06 +0100, Bob Henson wrote:

Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham
wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land Access laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent wording) hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

My car can do 110mph on the flat, my bike can do 26mph. My car weighs
1000kg, my bike weighs 100kg. See the difference? E=.5mv^2 so the car
has 179 times more kinetic energy to impart to what it hits.

But your car cannot do 110 mph anywhere a pedestrian is walking.

Of course it can. And the fact is cars go faster than bikes in a built up area, breaking the law or not, they get overtaken.

At the
legal speed limit in town there is precious little difference between being
struck by a car at 30 mph (shortly to be 20 mph in many places, they tell
us) and a bicycle at 26 mph. The bike has far more spiky bits sticking out
than a car, and is likely to inflict nearly as much, if not more, damage
than a car. The cyclist is much more likely to not be looking where he/she
is going too, as they seem to think their special green status gives them
authority to ignore normal rules - especially red lights.

Absolute twaddle. The laws of physics state that if a 100kg object is struck by a 1000kg object, it's gonna get hurt a lot more than if both objects were 100kg.

You are a fool.

Which particular law of physics defines the hurt which something can suffer.

If a block of titanium hits something which is quite fragile - I think you will
find that the block of titanium will come off best - irrespective of their
weights.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:47:34 +0100, "Uncle Peter" wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:26:27 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 23/08/2014 14:13, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:14:02 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 23/08/2014 11:16, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter
wrote:





And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

I can run close to the speed to what I can cycle at. When running am I
treated as a car?

Are you sure about nearly running as fast as 26mph ?
The fastest runner in the world (Usain Bolt) reaches 27mph.
Most top (in the world) sprinters can only reach about 24mph.

"close to"

27mph for a very short period....

Correct. Most people probably go 15-20mph to catch a bus.

As usual you spout ********: please provide a link which substantiates your
claim.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 17:48:37 +0100, "Uncle Peter" wrote:

snip


As insane as your suggestion you should be compared with a car.

... just as it is insane to compare a bicycle to a car.


Says the fool who previously posted: "..... a bike is nowhere near as
dangerous as a car?"

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 10:23:34 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 24/08/2014 00:32, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 00:28:34 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/08/14 23:53, Fredxxx wrote:
On 23/08/2014 22:45, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 22:24:21 +0100, Capitol
wrote:





People who don't exercise die of heart failure.

And people that do don't die of heart failure?

People with heart conditions generally end up avoiding heavy exercise.

Every marathon some poor sucker dies of a heart attack.

They'd have died of it anyway. We're supposed to exercise, it's not
natural to sit on a chair all day.

Its not natural for a grown man to ride a push bike.

It's more natural than driving a car operated by an internal combustion engine, and is easier than running for long distances.

--
Apparently Jimmy Savile isn't dead, he was recently seen off the Scarborough coast bobbing up and down on a small buoy.