From: Peter Grange on
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:04:14 +0000, Judith M Smith
<judithmsmith(a)live.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:31:03 +0000, Peter Grange
><peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:08:30 +0000, Judith M Smith
>><judithmsmith(a)live.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:04:03 +0000, Peter Grange
>>><peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Here's something you could try to test the theory. Stop the next
>>>>>pavement cyclist that you see and ask them to ride where they belong.
>>>>
>>>>Try telling the next motorist parked on the pavement to get his
>>>>hulking great car off the pavement and on the street where it belongs.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Ah yes - what has become known as "the cyclist's riposte".
>>>
>>>
>>>It usually goes like this:
>>>
>>>There is a discussion about cycling - probably in a cycling newsgroup.
>>>
>>>Someone is losing the argument and probably the plot
>>>
>>>As a last resort - they will introduce a totally spurious and
>>>irrelevant statement about motor vehicles or motorists.
>>>
>>>Yep - welcome to "the cyclist's riposte".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>FFS, it was in answer to The Motorists Assertion.
>>
>>Any likelihood of an apology soon over your pathetic points-scoring
>>exercise over the death of a human being?
>
>
>Bollocks - it was an answer to a straight post about cyclists. It
>had nothing to do with what you think the PP may or may not be.

Rissoles.

>
>What's this you want me to apologise for?
Says it all really.
From: Steve Firth on
Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:25:03 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
>
> >Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> >Here's something you could try to test the theory. Stop the next
> >> >pavement cyclist that you see and ask them to ride where they belong.
> >>
> >> Try telling the next motorist parked on the pavement to get his
> >> hulking great car off the pavement and on the street where it belongs.
> >
> >When I see a driver driving down the pavement at 25mph I shall tell them
> >off.
>
> Good luck with stopping him.

I'd rate my chances as being about as good as those of stopping a
cyclist.
From: Steve Firth on
Judith M Smith <judithmsmith(a)live.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:04:03 +0000, Peter Grange
> <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> >>Here's something you could try to test the theory. Stop the next
> >>pavement cyclist that you see and ask them to ride where they belong.
> >
> >Try telling the next motorist parked on the pavement to get his
> >hulking great car off the pavement and on the street where it belongs.
> >
>
>
> Ah yes - what has become known as "the cyclist's riposte".

Umm actually no. Long before you appeared on the scene it was known as
"tu quoque", the cyclists' fallacy.

I realise that since you appeared you expect everyone to dumb down to
your level.
From: OG on

"NM" <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote in message
news:2f6f6db0-624c-481b-86fa-5b5f2b56f2da(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On 27 Nov, 09:35, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>> NM wrote:
>> > On 27 Nov, 00:31, Paul Weaver <use...(a)isorox.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> On 26 Nov, 18:25, johnwright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Doesn't make it legal. They probably are not enlightened just
>> >>> trying to avoid filling in the reams of paperwork they would need
>> >>> to if they stop a cyclist for any offence.
>>
>> >> Or indeed stop anyone for any offence. I've certainly been let off
>> >> with warnings while driving plenty of times.
>>
>> >> Having said that, I have delightedly seen cyclists given FPNs for
>> >> pavement cycling in London :)
>>
>> > Good, more of that is required.
>>
>> I agree, if you force them onto the roads, it will slow down the traffic
>> and
>> make it safer for everyone.
>
> And the attrition rate amoungst cyclists will increase.

Probably not - where cycling is commonplace, cycling is safe. I don't know
why, but it seems to be the case.

From: mileburner on

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1j9v1ys.9lti9jhuxsk3N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>
>> If the driver is traveling at a speed which prevents him from reacting
>> to pedestrians emerging onto the roadway, then he is driving without
>> due care.
>
> Oh look, it's Duhg.
>
>
> So you reckon that any train driver who hits a person who throws
> themselves in front of a train is "driving without due care", eh?
>
> This bus driver obviously driving without due care, according to you?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44A-inoWNUQ

Its been done to death that one.

The bus driver was driving like a c**t.

The boy jumped the railings.

Any one of the other pedestrians already on the road could have stepped
forward and been hit.

The driver would have had no chance of stopping.