A Cyclist Knob with a Camera
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 20 May 2010 14:17 On Thu, 20 May 2010 18:38:24 +0100, Colin Reed <colin-reed(a)no-spam.lineone.net> wrote: >JMS wrote: >> On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:37:38 +0100, NEWS(a)sarlet.com (Roger Merriman) >> wrote: >> <snip> >> >> >> >>> though the bent is unlikely to mangage that. >>> >>> roger >> >> >> >> why is that? > >You seem very interested in lots of aspects of recumbent bicycles. >Instead of asking every question under the sun, why don't you arrange to >test ride one? You'll probably find the answers to most of your >questions that way. > >Colin Sorry sun"lots of aspects of recumbents" to the degree that I would want to ride one. Why would I want to look the knob like Chapman? I only commented that the fuckwit with the camera did not put down a leg to steady himself - only relying on his hand on the pavement. No more - no less.
From: Halmyre on 20 May 2010 14:30 In article <1jis4tm.1ar05s217b8n4N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, %steve%@malloc.co.uk says... > 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? > Erm, Smeagol and Gollum were the same person. But I take your point. -- Halmyre This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your head clean off.
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 20 May 2010 14:38 On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:17:40 +0100, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > wrote: >On Thu, 20 May 2010 18:38:24 +0100, Colin Reed ><colin-reed(a)no-spam.lineone.net> wrote: > >>JMS wrote: >>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:37:38 +0100, NEWS(a)sarlet.com (Roger Merriman) >>> wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>> >>> >>>> though the bent is unlikely to mangage that. >>>> >>>> roger >>> >>> >>> >>> why is that? >> >>You seem very interested in lots of aspects of recumbent bicycles. >>Instead of asking every question under the sun, why don't you arrange to >>test ride one? You'll probably find the answers to most of your >>questions that way. >> >>Colin > > >Sorry sun"lots of aspects of recumbents" to the degree that I would >want to ride one. > >Why would I want to look the knob like Chapman? > >I only commented that the fuckwit with the camera did not put down a >leg to steady himself - only relying on his hand on the pavement. >No more - no less. Correction: Sorry sunshine - I can assure you that I am not interested in "lots of aspects of recumbents" to the slightest degree - never mind that I would want to ride one. Why would I want to look the knob like Chapman? I only commented that the fuckwit with the camera did not put down a leg to steady himself - only relying on his hand on the pavement. No more - no less. -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
From: The Medway Handyman on 20 May 2010 14:49 Doug wrote: <SNIP BOLLOX> >> >> I wonder why the motor vehicle has risen to the top of the transport >> chain? >> > Peer pressure fed by mass production. Ha ha ha ha! > 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. I rather think that the poorer realisd the efficiency of the motor vehicle and took advantage of them as soon as they became affordable. > 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. It wouldn't be anything to do with the car being efficient, convenient, safe etc? -- Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.
From: The Medway Handyman on 20 May 2010 14:53
GT wrote: > "Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message <SNIP> >>>>> >>>> Exactly - so leave in plenty of time and use a bicycle! >>> >>> And where do you propose that I put my two children and my laptop >>> bag on the >>> school run, then subsequent motorway route to my work?? >>> >> Get a triplet and fit panniers. > > Brilliant. They are allowed on motorways, right? And I could cover 37 > miles in about 40 minutes on one, right? If the answer to either of > those questions is no, then its no use. I have to drive on a motorway > to get to work - its a bridge and the alternative is to drive round, > which adds about 100miles to the trip. As far as timing goes, I have > to drop 1 son at school, then the other son at his playgroup, then > arrive at work 37 miles away on time. My work is in a different > district and to travel by bus or train would cost a fortune and take > several hours. Waste of time using common sense with Anchor Lee. He is the bloke who suggested I could run my business from a push bike. The 4m double extension ladder rather ruined that plan. -- Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport. |