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
> >>> On 18 May, 14:51, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote:
> >>>> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message
> >>>> 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.
> > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
> Surely speeding is only a numbers thing, like having an overpowered
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.
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, %firstname.lastname@example.org (Steve Firth)
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
> On 20 May, 07:09, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Surely speeding is only a numbers thing, like having an overpowered
> 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
> 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
> 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?