From: Doug on 20 May 2010 02:24 On 20 May, 07:09, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > On 19 May, 13:55, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > >> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > > >>news:2c8e52fa-0ef4-4ca2-93d0-0ba1a2734348(a)q33g2000vbt.googlegroups.com... > > >>> On 18 May, 14:51, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > >>>> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > >>>>news:3c8080bc-d0fc-4804-87ad-ceb36d8f65bc(a)m4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > >>>> On 17 May, 18:31, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- > >>>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>> Roger Thorpe wrote: > >>>>>> Mrcheerful wrote: > >>>>>>>> the police driver would have been able to see that the cyclist had > >>>>>>>> stopped completely (and well short of the centre island, well > >>>>>>>> done!), which means the cyclist is NOT about to wobble all over the > >>>>>>>> road or suddenly jump 5 feet to the right, and therefore can be > >>>>>>>> passed quite closely without any significant danger. > >>>>>>>> if it was a horse then yes, the police should have passed much more > >>>>>>>> carefully, but this is an obviously (from the recumbent) > >>>>>>>> experienced > >>>>>>>> (probably adult) cyclist that has completely stopped. > >>>>>>> If we assume that it were safe would it still be good manners to > >>>>>>> give > >>>>>>> someone who expects not to be seen this kind of fright? > >>>>>> Why was it a fright? He must have heard the sirens. > >>>>> Because he is not protected by a metal box and is therefore a > >>>>> vulnerable road user but is not treated as such. > >>>> The police driver will have seen the adult pull over and stop as the > >>>> sirens > >>>> moved closer. He left an 18-inch gap between his car and the stationary > >>>> vehicle as he knew that the cyclist was aware of the car's presense. If > >>>> the > >>>> cyclist had not been aware of the police car, then the driver would have > >>>> left a much larger gap. > >>>>>> The man is a well known knob. He has posted dozens of films on youtube > >>>>>> to > >>>>>> show how hard done by he is. Bit like Doug, but with a camera. > >>>>> Seems like a good idea to video examples of bad driving and dangerous > >>>>> situations instead of trying to brush it all under the carpet. As I > >>>>> have cameras I might decide to start doing it, particularly drivers > >>>>> going through red lights and driving on pavements. > >>>> Good idea, then most cyclists would be banned - I rarely see a cyclist > >>>> stop > >>>> for a red light!! I have never seen a car go throught a red light or > >>>> drive > >>>> on the pavement. > >>> That's because you are not looking for it and are only obsessed by > >>> cyclists. I, OTOH, have often seen cars going through red lights and > >>> sometimes driving along pavements. Also, they have to drive along > >>> pavements to parked there. > >> I'm fairly confident that I would notice a car driving through a red light > >> or driving along a pavement! Of course cars have to cross pavements to get > >> from the road to a parking space - are you seriously telling us that when > >> you finish a journey on your bike, you dismount your bike in the road and > >> carry it over the pavement to 'park' it? I certainly don't - I ride straight > >> over the pavement and onto my drive. > > > I am talking about where cars are allowed to park on pavements, and > > some do so where they are not allowed. In order to get to a suitable > > space they sometimes have to drive ALONG the pavements. > > Can you explain then, why it is that I have not seen a car driving along > a pavement for longer than I can remember. > I don't mean where motor vehicles are driven across pavements to access > premises, or vehicles on pavements as part of utilities etc work. > > > Though why > > cars were ever allowed to park on pavements in the first place remains > > a complete mystery to me and is a sure indication of the dominance of > > the car culture in our society. > > Err, no it isant. > > > > > > >>>> The cyclist in the video has a number of clips posted on youtube. I have > >>>> just watched a few and it seems that he likes to ride along about 1m out > >>>> from the kerb which is fine. Problem is that he deliberately makes it > >>>> hard > >>>> for people to overtake him, so when they do he suddenly drifts out a > >>>> metre > >>>> or two apparently without looking or signalling. This clearly dangerous > >>>> behaviour is carefully timed to occur just as the cars go past, which > >>>> enables him to put on a frightened "waa" sound on film and then shout at > >>>> them at the next set of lights. He then carefully positions his bike in > >>>> the > >>>> middle of the lane in front of all the cars who are patiently waiting > >>>> their > >>>> turn at the lights and then sets off slowly, so as to ensnare his next > >>>> victim. He doesn't use the cycle lanes. He is clearly try to infuriate > >>>> the > >>>> car drivers who *are* able to maintain an appropriate speed for the road. > >>>> In > >>>> order to drive a car a driver must pass a test to prove their knowledge > >>>> of > >>>> the highway code, a document stating that vehicles unable to maintain a > >>>> suitable speed for the road should pull over to let faster vehicles pass > >>>> and > >>>> avoid frustration! > >>> You just love motorists don't you and hate cyclists, that much is > >>> clearly apparent, despite the fact that motorists are much, much more > >>> dangerous than cyclists. > >> Far from it, motorists and cyclists are all just people. It is you who is > >> filled with hatred for your fellow human race - you have stated numerous > >> times that everyone with a driving license is a murderer! > > > You exaggerate, for obvious reasons. I state that, due to the very > > light sentences or none handed our for road killings, a driving > > licence is a licence to kill, but only for most of those who have > > killed. > > No. you use phrases like 'killer motorists', terrorist drivers' > > >> My reply simply states facts and comment in relation to motoring laws that > >> the motor car driver has to comply with. If a few rogue cyclists think that > >> they can do anything they like, film it, then twist the truth round to imply > >> that the law abiding motorist is at fault, then you are bound to annoy > >> people and incur such responses! > > > So called 'law abiding motorists', which the majority who exceed speed > > limits are not, are in fact very much more dangerous than cyclists due > > to their chosen mode of travel and its momentum. > > > -- > > UK Radical Campaigns. > >http://www.zing.icom43.net > > A driving licence is a licence to kill. > > Surely speeding is only a numbers thing, like having an overpowered > 'e-bike'. > Wrong again. Due to the considerable difference in danger presented by a speeding car and an extra 50 Watts on an e-bike, it is much more than just a numbers thing. It is a safety thing. Particularly as the speed of the e-bike is electronically restricted and that of a car is not but certainly should be. -- UK Radical Campaigns. http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Steve Firth on 20 May 2010 02:30 JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> wrote: > I wonder why he is wearing a cycle helmet? I did wonder the same thing, after wondering about the two ugly little hobbits in the background. Smeagol and Gollum?
From: Tom Crispin on 20 May 2010 02:49 On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:30:46 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: [Snip] I really do not think that your remarks about someone's children, however much you may dislike the parent, is at all necessary.
From: Brimstone on 20 May 2010 03:56 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:32bf0ce4-e4ee-4741-a87e-3d66712664b1(a)m4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On 20 May, 07:09, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> Surely speeding is only a numbers thing, like having an overpowered >> 'e-bike'. >> > Wrong again. Due to the considerable difference in danger presented by > a speeding car and an extra 50 Watts on an e-bike, it is much more > than just a numbers thing. It is a safety thing. Particularly as the > speed of the e-bike is electronically restricted and that of a car is > not but certainly should be. > Electric bicycles are only restricted when running on the motor, otherwise there is no restriction at all.
From: Brimstone on 20 May 2010 03:57
"Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:d2d58bfd-121f-4722-b594-3abf3ab38e6a(a)r9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com... > On 20 May, 00:33, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- >> I wonder why the motor vehicle has risen to the top of the transport >> chain? >> > Peer pressure fed by mass production. > > In the beginning cars could only be afforded by the rich and then > prices came down due to mass production and the poor, ever eager to > emulate the rich, started joining in. Then not to be outdone by their > neighbours, possession of a suitably styled car became mandatory and > so car use escalated to its now vast proportions, and with it the > chaos and harm caused by such uncontrollable mass behaviour and the > widespread problem it presents today. > If car ownership is mandatory why haven't you got one? |