Another crash into a building by a pavement motorist.
Doug
caused by cars on pavements, and so few and so little caused by
cyclists on pavements.
"Two people have been injured after a car crashed through the window
of a fruit and vegetable shop.
The victims, thought to be a customer and an elderly driver of the
car, are being treated at the scene at the High Street, in Keynsham
near Bath.
Emergency services were called to the crash and Avon Fire Brigade has
sent three appliances to assist with the rescue operation.
Police have closed the High Street and Bath Hill."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8346976.stm
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Mike P
> Its amazing how many are killed and injured and so much destruction
> caused by cars on pavements, and so few and so little caused by
> cyclists on pavements.
>
> "Two people have been injured after a car crashed through the window
> of a fruit and vegetable shop.
>
> The victims, thought to be a customer and an elderly driver of the
> car, are being treated at the scene at the High Street, in Keynsham
> near Bath.
>
> Emergency services were called to the crash and Avon Fire Brigade has
> sent three appliances to assist with the rescue operation.
>
> Police have closed the High Street and Bath Hill."
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8346976.stm
I reckon a pavement cyclist at speed could easily go through a shop
window and injure himself and a customer in the shop in the process.
Mike P
Doug
Geoff
An elderly 'female' driver.
Ps Keynsham is near Bristol not Bath.
Tony Dragon
Why did you not cross post this to alt fruit & veg, the word fruit is in
the text so it must be on topic.
--
Tony Dragon
Ian
"Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:6a7b6a3c-8da2-4a1e...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Its amazing how many are killed and injured and so much destruction
> caused by cars on pavements, and so few and so little caused by
> cyclists on pavements.
>
> "Two people have been injured after a car crashed through the window
> of a fruit and vegetable shop.
>
> The victims, thought to be a customer and an elderly driver of the
> car, are being treated at the scene at the High Street, in Keynsham
> near Bath.
>
> Emergency services were called to the crash and Avon Fire Brigade
> has
> sent three appliances to assist with the rescue operation.
>
> Police have closed the High Street and Bath Hill."
>
Alex Potter
> Keynsham is near Bristol not Bath
He'd obviously never hear K - E - Y...
--
Regards
Alex
Mike Ross
>Its amazing how many are killed and injured and so much destruction
>caused by cars on pavements, and so few and so little caused by
>cyclists on pavements.
<snip>
I don't see what's so amazing about it; a car is much heavier than a bike, of
course it's going to cause much more damage if it hits something or someone.
Talk about stating the bloody obvious!
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Mrcheerful
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:01:20 -0800 (PST), Doug <jag...@riseup.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Its amazing how many are killed and injured and so much destruction
>> caused by cars on pavements, and so few and so little caused by
>> cyclists on pavements.
>
> <snip>
>
> I don't see what's so amazing about it; a car is much heavier than a
> bike, of course it's going to cause much more damage if it hits
> something or someone. Talk about stating the bloody obvious!
>
> Mike
also of course car journeys and their distance covered outnumber bicycle
journeys and their miniscule distances by many times (thousands, tens of
thousands, millions?)
Graculus
news:loo8f5ll2fokhq0ci...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:01:20 -0800 (PST), Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
>>Its amazing how many are killed and injured and so much destruction
>>caused by cars on pavements, and so few and so little caused by
>>cyclists on pavements.
>
> <snip>
>
> I don't see what's so amazing about it; a car is much heavier than a bike,
> of
> course it's going to cause much more damage if it hits something or
> someone.
> Talk about stating the bloody obvious!
The poor soul is constantly unsure whether it's the case or not, despite
no-one else having any doubt. So he has to keep reminding himself by posting
off-topic rubbish like this. It's OT for urc (though he mentions bikes, so
of course that make it OK). What relevance making such a statement is to
uk.legal, I have no idea.
Tony Dragon
Listen to Combine Harvester & make up your own mind.
--
Tony Dragon
PeterG
Are you doubting if the car legally hit the shop or not, I can think
of no other reason you posted to ukl
PeterG
Tony (UncleFista)
"Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:6a7b6a3c-8da2-4a1e...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> caused by cars on pavements, and so few and so little caused by
> cyclists on pavements.
>
> "Two people have been injured after a car crashed through the window
> of a fruit and vegetable shop.
>
> The victims, thought to be a customer and an elderly driver of the
> car, are being treated at the scene at the High Street, in Keynsham
> near Bath.
>
> Emergency services were called to the crash and Avon Fire Brigade has
> sent three appliances to assist with the rescue operation.
>
> Police have closed the High Street and Bath Hill."
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8346976.stm
Proof that if you're gonna do something stupid in a vehicle, do it one that
surrounds you in steel and make it as big and heavy as possible.
If a 77 yr-old went through a window on a push bike they'd be dead :)
--
Tony Bond / UncleFista
Love is like a snowmobile, speeding across the frozen tundra.
Which suddenly flips, pinning you underneath.
At night the ice-weasels come...
Rog
> The victims, thought to be a customer and an elderly driver of the
> car, are being treated at the scene at the High Street, in Keynsham
> near Bath.
>
Was the elderly driver Horace Bachelor??
Doug
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:01:20 -0800 (PST), Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
> >Its amazing how many are killed and injured and so much destruction
> >caused by cars on pavements, and so few and so little caused by
> >cyclists on pavements.
>
> <snip>
>
> I don't see what's so amazing about it; a car is much heavier than a bike, of
> course it's going to cause much more damage if it hits something or someone.
> Talk about stating the bloody obvious!
>
pavements and so rarely about motorists on pavements, despite the huge
difference in danger caused.
PeterSaxton
> On 6 Nov, 17:57, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:01:20 -0800 (PST), Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
> > >Its amazing how many are killed and injured and so much destruction
> > >caused by cars on pavements, and so few and so little caused by
> > >cyclists on pavements.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > I don't see what's so amazing about it; a car is much heavier than a bike, of
> > course it's going to cause much more damage if it hits something or someone.
> > Talk about stating the bloody obvious!
>
> Yes but my reason is we hear so often on newsgroups about cyclists on
> pavements and so rarely about motorists on pavements, despite the huge
> difference in danger caused.
>
whereas a lot of cyclists deliberately ride on the pavement.
Doug
there. Occasionally too cars can be seen actually driving along
pavements but these are seldom ever mentioned.
--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
Tony Dragon
Did you ever win the pools?
--
Tony Dragon
Jim A
> Nope. Loads of cars are parked on pavements
There's nothing worse than happily cycling along a pavement only to find
some inconsiderate so-and-so has parked their car on it.
Keitht
Damn you lot!
I've just remembered that my brother never gave me back an album he
'borrowed' many years ago.
No prizes for guessing which album but it's an odd boy who doesn't like
sport.
--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
Mrcheerful
> Doug wrote:
>
>> Nope. Loads of cars are parked on pavements
>
> There's nothing worse than happily cycling along a pavement only to
> find some inconsiderate so-and-so has parked their car on it.
or there is a pedestrian on it, or worse still a female with a
pushchair/brats, or those real spongers the disabled in their electric
wheelchairs, what a f@@@ing liberty !
Mike Ross
>On 6 Nov, 17:57, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:01:20 -0800 (PST), Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>> >Its amazing how many are killed and injured and so much destruction
>> >caused by cars on pavements, and so few and so little caused by
>> >cyclists on pavements.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I don't see what's so amazing about it; a car is much heavier than a bike, of
>> course it's going to cause much more damage if it hits something or someone.
>> Talk about stating the bloody obvious!
>>
>Yes but my reason is we hear so often on newsgroups about cyclists on
>pavements and so rarely about motorists on pavements, despite the huge
>difference in danger caused.
Ahh well that's a different question entirely; let's face it, it's hardly
unknown for cyclists to deliberately cycle on the pavement. It's very rare
indeed for a car to be driven on the pavement *deliberately*.
Shaun
wrote:
>On 6 Nov, 17:57, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:01:20 -0800 (PST), Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>> >Its amazing how many are killed and injured and so much destruction
>> >caused by cars on pavements, and so few and so little caused by
>> >cyclists on pavements.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I don't see what's so amazing about it; a car is much heavier than a bike, of
>> course it's going to cause much more damage if it hits something or someone.
>> Talk about stating the bloody obvious!
>>
>Yes but my reason is we hear so often on newsgroups about cyclists on
>pavements and so rarely about motorists on pavements, despite the huge
>difference in danger caused.
No, your reasoning is shoving someone is acceptable because its not as
bad as stabbing them.
Hence you have to come out with more and more extreme examples from
non-cyclists to justify dangerous and anti-social behaviour by
cyclists.
mileburner
It is fairly common to drive a car on the pavement *deliberately*.
Today I needed to enter a car park which meant crossing the pavement to do
so. As I drew up a pair of pedestrians who were walking along the pavement
stopped to allow me to go. Of course I didn't, I instead yielded to their
right of way. AFAIUI pedestrians have right of way over all traffic on the
pavement. I thought this was rather strange the they had given way to me, as
they were in the pavement and I was on the road. However, I assumed that
they were either aggressive drivers themselves who do not give way to
pedestrians on the pavement themselves, or they are used to other drivers
not giving way to them.
Mrcheerful
or sensible people that don't want to be mown down by an inattentive driver,
or they realise the road is busy and it would be beneficial for you to clear
the junction ASAP. Just because someone has a 'right of way' does not mean
that it is always wise to take advantage of it.
mileburner
"Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lFfJm.2653$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
As well as approaching slowly, I had already stopped. There was no reason to
think I would mow them down.
The road was not busy, there was nothing behind me. Just me and them.
There was no junction, I needed to cross the pavement.
DavidR
> mileburner wrote:
>>
>> Today I needed to enter a car park which meant crossing the pavement
>> to do so. As I drew up a pair of pedestrians who were walking along
>> the pavement stopped to allow me to go. Of course I didn't, I instead
>> yielded to their right of way. AFAIUI pedestrians have right of way
>> over all traffic on the pavement. I thought this was rather strange
>> the they had given way to me, as they were in the pavement and I was
>> on the road. However, I assumed that they were either aggressive
>> drivers themselves who do not give way to pedestrians on the pavement
>> themselves, or they are used to other drivers not giving way to them.
>
> or sensible people that don't want to be mown down by an inattentive
> driver,
Or perhaps most likely, don't want to be hooted at or otherwise intimidated
by a driver knowing perfectly well what they're doing but has no clue about
their obligations.
> or they realise the road is busy and it would be beneficial for you to
> clear the junction ASAP. Just because someone has a 'right of way' does
> not mean that it is always wise to take advantage of it.
Part of the problem is that when a road crosses a pavement to something like
a car park or petrol station, it is usually made to look like a continuation
of road when, to drivers, it should cause uncertainty and not look like
road.
Tony Dragon
So you were right to yield to them, but they were wrong to yield to you.
Seems to be that both of you were acting in a careful & considerate
manner, while caring about your own & others safety.
That's how it should be with all road users.
--
Tony Dragon
mileburner
"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:XoOdnQ1q3pbKBGjX...@bt.com...
I disagree, It would have been abusive and intimidating if I had assumed
that the pedestrians would get out of my way regardless. While I respect
this couples right to not proceed if they thought there might be danger or
inconvenience to anyone, the woman started to franticly wave me on and
appeared to become a little annoyed that I had not proceeded past her.
I suspect she was a car supremacist on foot. With me having yielded to their
right of way, they should have felt perfectly comfortable proceeding.
mileburner
"DavidR" <cure...@4bidden.org.uk> wrote in message
news:7llid1F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Part of the problem is that when a road crosses a pavement to something
> like
> a car park or petrol station, it is usually made to look like a
> continuation of road when, to drivers, it should cause uncertainty and not
> look like road.
Drivers often need white give way lines painted and signs telling them to
give way before they realise they should.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>Ahh well that's a different question entirely; let's face it, it's hardly
>unknown for cyclists to deliberately cycle on the pavement. It's very rare
>indeed for a car to be driven on the pavement *deliberately*.
If, on the other hand, you switch "drive on the pavement" to the more
generic "commit an offence", I'd be quite surprised if you could find
any class of road users was markedly better than any other.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc
Tony Dragon
Did you really mean that you were not acting in a careful & considerate way?
--
Tony Dragon
Paul
Thats because they are seldom ever seen, maybe thats because drivers
rarley ever do it (drive along pavements).
Jeesh, what a tosser !!!!.
>
> --
> World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
Yeah, as if thats ever going to happen.
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
A car's a tool, nay a neccesity for some of us.
mileburner
> mileburner wrote:
>>
>> I disagree, It would have been abusive and intimidating if I had assumed
>> that the pedestrians would get out of my way regardless. While I respect
>> this couples right to not proceed if they thought there might be danger
>> or inconvenience to anyone, the woman started to franticly wave me on and
>> appeared to become a little annoyed that I had not proceeded past her.
>>
>> I suspect she was a car supremacist on foot. With me having yielded to
>> their right of way, they should have felt perfectly comfortable
>> proceeding.
>
> Did you really mean that you were not acting in a careful & considerate
> way?
Not at all. I was acting carefully and with full consideration.
The point is that pedestrians don't usually expect that from drivers.
Tony Dragon
Glad we've got that clear.
--
Tony Dragon
Mike Ross
wrote:
>
>"Mike Ross" <mi...@corestore.org> wrote in message
>news:9fqaf55jjubvn740b...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 23:59:53 -0800 (PST), Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>Yes but my reason is we hear so often on newsgroups about cyclists on
>>>pavements and so rarely about motorists on pavements, despite the huge
>>>difference in danger caused.
>>
>> Ahh well that's a different question entirely; let's face it, it's hardly
>> unknown for cyclists to deliberately cycle on the pavement. It's very rare
>> indeed for a car to be driven on the pavement *deliberately*.
>
>It is fairly common to drive a car on the pavement *deliberately*.
That's on *to* the pavement, or *across* the pavement - not driving *along* the
pavement, as if it was a road! Some cyclists do at times ride *along* the
pavement as if it were a road; car drivers do this far far less often. That's
all I was saying, nothing more nothing less.
Mike Ross
You're probably quite right. But it was the specific case of driving vs. riding
on the pavement that was brought up for discussion.
Doug
pushing a pram. It never ceases to amaze me how motorists are treated
so leniently in law by being allowed to park on pavements and also
street garage their cars 24/7, mostly for free, on public roads.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.
Doug
now. Change is the only constant. I firmly believe the day will come
when harmful mass car use is regarded as antiquated folly and their
users even more as anti-social, anti-environmental pariahs than they
are at present.
--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Doug
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:15:36 -0000, "mileburner" <milebur...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Mike Ross" <m...@corestore.org> wrote in message
> >news:9fqaf55jjubvn740b...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 23:59:53 -0800 (PST), Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> >>>Yes but my reason is we hear so often on newsgroups about cyclists on
> >>>pavements and so rarely about motorists on pavements, despite the huge
> >>>difference in danger caused.
>
> >> Ahh well that's a different question entirely; let's face it, it's hardly
> >> unknown for cyclists to deliberately cycle on the pavement. It's very rare
> >> indeed for a car to be driven on the pavement *deliberately*.
>
> >It is fairly common to drive a car on the pavement *deliberately*.
>
> That's on *to* the pavement, or *across* the pavement - not driving *along* the
> pavement, as if it was a road! Some cyclists do at times ride *along* the
> pavement as if it were a road; car drivers do this far far less often. That's
> all I was saying, nothing more nothing less.
>
that cluttered pavements lacking in dropped kerbs are highly
inconvenient for cyclists, their sole motive for cycling there is to
avoid our highly dangerous roads. So, apart from parking on and
driving across pavements, motorists have little reason to do the same.
The best way to get cyclists off pavements is to make drivers safer.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
oldMaxim
>
> - Show quoted text -
..and just where are the pedestrians supposed to go if all cyclists
adopt this idea?
mileburner
> That's on *to* the pavement, or *across* the pavement - not driving
> *along* the
> pavement, as if it was a road! Some cyclists do at times ride *along* the
> pavement as if it were a road; car drivers do this far far less often.
> That's
> all I was saying, nothing more nothing less.
Tell that to the drivers I see fairly regularly who bump up on to the
pavement and drive along it to enable them to pass another vehicle waiting
to turn right at a set of lights where the road is narrow.
mileburner
"Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:8bab2fa7-eeb6-48a9...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>
> The best way to get cyclists off pavements is to make drivers safer.
I disagree, start nicking the cyclists and forcing them off the pavement.
The increase in cyclists on the road will make the roads safer.
Tony Dragon
Ah the old 'I cycle on the pavement because I am scared of the roads &
bugger the pedestrians who I scare' excuse
Now about the cyclists who were cycling around the pedestrian area of
Kingston yesterday, as there are no cars in that area, what were they
scared of?
--
Tony Dragon
Big Les Wade
>
>Tell that to the drivers I see fairly regularly who bump up on to the
>pavement and drive along it to enable them to pass another vehicle waiting
>to turn right at a set of lights where the road is narrow.
I think I have seen that *once* in the past year.
--
Les
If creating a police state saves just one child, then it will all have been
worthwhile.
Big Les Wade
>
>The best way to get cyclists off pavements is to make drivers safer.
Not true. I see plenty of cyclists jump onto pavements purely because it
is convenient for them, nothing to with safety at all. For these
cyclists, making drivers safer would not change their behaviour at all.
The best way to get cyclists off pavements is to arrest them, fine them
heavily, crush their bikes and seize their testicles. Or perhaps the
other way round.
Mike Ross
Yes and no. A horse was once a necessity for many, a luxury for some. Then came
the *railways* (not the motor car) and that changed. Then came the cars (and the
boneshaker of course!) - but they were expensive and unreliable, so until
post-WW2 motorbikes were a common primary means of transport for less well off
people. Then cars got cheaper, and we got where we are today.
Once acquired, the taste for speedy point-to-point personal transportation
provided by car-like devices is never going to be given up; it's just Too Good.
What I do see is smaller cars, alternative fuels, and less use of cars. And less
car ownership, more car rental.
As for car-free... well the first year or two I was living and working in
Cambridge, I didn't have a car. Cycled everywhere. That's practical for a young
childfree couple certainly. Changed to a job that involved travelling all over
the country, so my first car was a company car.
Moved to New York, five years without a car there - public transport everywhere,
subway and/or walked to work. Only a multi-millionaire, a masochist, a lunatic,
or a hardcore petrolhead would dream of living in Manhattan and owning a car. If
I needed a car for a weekend away, I rented one. Much more sensible. That worked
for big-city living and our lifestyle, but it isn't for everyone, nor anywhere
close. So car-free *can* be a practical option, and indeed the best option, but
the applicability is quite limited.
Now, with three young kids, I would say I would have to be a lunatic or a
masochist to live in Manhattan, and a lunatic or a masochist not to have a car!
PeterG
> mileburner <milebur...@btinternet.com> posted
You obviously don't travel around Catford, I have it on good advice
that it happens there all the time, this is the reason that cyclists
in Catford never cycle on the pavement, the only traffic on the roads
are busses (and horses).
Trucks do not deliver to shops in Catford, goods just magically appear
on the shelves.
PeterG
Paul
could work longer hours with little or no breaks.
The Car and Truck.
>You don't see many on roads
> now.
Actually **I** do see a few, that happens when you live in the
country, and generally people are riding them.
>Change is the only constant. I firmly believe the day will come
> when harmful mass car use is regarded as antiquated folly and their
> users even more as anti-social, anti-environmental pariahs than they
> are at present.
I firmly believe that you've totally lost the plot.
Cars will only be replaced if science discovers something more
efficient.
I see the future of the car as quite rosy, they will become more fuel
efficient, and will eventually be powered by a clean renewable
energy, they may even be wheel-less eventually, and have the
capability to fly (though i doubt it), regardless, they will still be
cars.
Horses will still be horses,
Bicycles will still be powered by humans......and you will still write
shite about cars being demons (actually by this time youl'l probably
be dead, but you get my drift).
>
> --
> World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
Doug
>
> The Car and Truck.
>
Its not all about what is best for individuals, hence cars with
smoking exhausts are banned as are many anti-social pursuits. What if
the 24/7 street garaging of cars was banned? Lots of people would have
to give up their cars.
>
> >You don't see many on roads
> > now.
>
> Actually **I** do see a few, that happens when you live in the
> country, and generally people are riding them.
>
>
> >Change is the only constant. I firmly believe the day will come
> > when harmful mass car use is regarded as antiquated folly and their
> > users even more as anti-social, anti-environmental pariahs than they
> > are at present.
>
> I firmly believe that you've totally lost the plot.
>
> Cars will only be replaced if science discovers something more
> efficient.
>
travel. Saw on TV the idea of massive towers in Japan which house
thousands of people and contain everything they need, including work
and recreation.
>
> I see the future of the car as quite rosy, they will become more fuel
> efficient, and will eventually be powered by a clean renewable
> energy, they may even be wheel-less eventually, and have the
> capability to fly (though i doubt it), regardless, they will still be
> cars.
>
Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone owned and used their
own airplane?
>
> Horses will still be horses,
>
> Bicycles will still be powered by humans......
>
>
> and you will still write
> shite about cars being demons (actually by this time youl'l probably
> be dead, but you get my drift).
>
detrimental effects are felt more and more.
--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.
Doug
> Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> considered Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:43:07
> -0500 the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 14:15:36 -0000, "mileburner" <milebur...@btinternet.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>news:9fqaf55jjubvn740b...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 23:59:53 -0800 (PST), Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>Yes but my reason is we hear so often on newsgroups about cyclists on
> >>>>pavements and so rarely about motorists on pavements, despite the huge
> >>>>difference in danger caused.
>
> >>> Ahh well that's a different question entirely; let's face it, it's hardly
> >>> unknown for cyclists to deliberately cycle on the pavement. It's very rare
> >>> indeed for a car to be driven on the pavement *deliberately*.
>
> >>It is fairly common to drive a car on the pavement *deliberately*.
>
> >That's on *to* the pavement, or *across* the pavement - not driving *along* the
> >pavement, as if it was a road! Some cyclists do at times ride *along* the
> >pavement as if it were a road; car drivers do this far far less often. That's
> >all I was saying, nothing more nothing less.
>
> the pavement to park necessarily includes driving along it, unless you
> park at right angles to the road.
> I'm not saying this is impossible, but it's certainly not what I see
> happening.
>
Another thing you see is parking on pavements which have continuous
kerbs which means the cars have to bump up the kerbs to get there.
The great big enormous problem with cars is always where to put them
when you are not using them.
Paul
>
> Its not all about what is best for individuals, hence cars with
> smoking exhausts are banned
No they are not !!!.
New cars have to meet stricter emission guidelines, you can still own
and use an old car with a smoking exhaust.
> as are many anti-social pursuits.
Such as ?
> What if
> the 24/7 street garaging of cars was banned? Lots of people would have
> to give up their cars.
Not going to happen.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >You don't see many on roads
> > > now.
>
> > Actually **I** do see a few, that happens when you live in the
> > country, and generally people are riding them.
>
> A few is all.
Yes, thats what I said.
Somedays it may only be one or two, but I have seen days when I've
seen lots, 50, 100..... even more.
Like I said, I live in the country, we have lots of green fields,
winding country roads, and miles between villages, bicycle travel
just isn't practical here. Getting the kids to school requires a
council provided bus, because of a) distance, and b) the danger of
walking along unlit, narrow country roads with no pavement.
>
> > >Change is the only constant. I firmly believe the day will come
> > > when harmful mass car use is regarded as antiquated folly and their
> > > users even more as anti-social, anti-environmental pariahs than they
> > > are at present.
>
> > I firmly believe that you've totally lost the plot.
>
> > Cars will only be replaced if science discovers something more
> > efficient.
>
> Or there are radical lifestyle changes which do not require excessive
> travel. Saw on TV the idea of massive towers in Japan which house
> thousands of people and contain everything they need, including work
> and recreation.
Again, not going to happen in the UK. Only considered in Japan
because of their lack of land.
>
> > I see the future of the car as quite rosy, they will become more fuel
> > efficient, and will eventually be powered by a clean renewable
> > energy, they may even be wheel-less eventually, and have the
> > capability to fly (though i doubt it), regardless, they will still be
> > cars.
>
> That doesn't solve the problem of there being far too many of them.
Your view, not everyone feels the same.
> Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone owned and used their
> own airplane?
A disaster..... probably... but you're not considering advances in
technology, so who knows.
Use your imagination.
>
> > Horses will still be horses,
>
> > Bicycles will still be powered by humans......
>
> Some are now electric.
Some are powered by petrol engines as well, called motorcycles...and
your point is ?
>
> > and you will still write
> > shite about cars being demons (actually by this time youl'l probably
> > be dead, but you get my drift).
>
> I anticipate that resistance to mass car use will grow as its
> detrimental effects are felt more and more.
I reckon the numbers will stay pretty constant. The technology will
improve, and eventually we will have cars that produce no harmful
emissions at all.
>
> --
> Car Free Citieshttp://www.carfree.com/
Paul
Thats solvable, build a building, a bit like a bike shed, only
slightly bigger, and call it.....now lets see....i know a GARAGE.
A garage is similar to a stable, only no shit to shovel.
If everyone turned en-masse to the bicycle, dont you think there would
be similar problems with where to store them ?
There's 5 in my family, we'd all need a bike each, therefore requiring
more actual space to park them than is taken up by our one car. I've
also got 3 work vehicles, all required, and would need probably over a
hundred adults to pull the weights, and carry the goods that these 3
do, HOW DO I SOLVE THAT PROBLEM ??
>
> --
> Car Free Citieshttp://www.carfree.com/
Doug
you shouldn't own a car. Also when you drive somewhere where do you
leave your car? Is a garage always available at your destination?
>
>
> If everyone turned en-masse to the bicycle, dont you think there would
> be similar problems with where to store them ?
>
>
> There's 5 in my family, we'd all need a bike each, therefore requiring
> more actual space to park them than is taken up by our one car.
>
space at destinations and of course there is always public transport
to turn to.
>
> I've
> also got 3 work vehicles, all required, and would need probably over a
> hundred adults to pull the weights, and carry the goods that these 3
> do, HOW DO I SOLVE THAT PROBLEM ??
>
that will be a problem for you. Have you considered a lifestyle
change?
--
London Carfree
http://www.london.carfree.org.uk/
1.5 million adults in London live without a car.
Tony Dragon
I remember once before when you promised to give a report on how someone
could change their lifestyle, whatever happened to 'Vince's Report'?
--
Tony Dragon
mileburner
> "mileburner" <mileb...@btinternet.com> considered Sun, 8 Nov 2009
> before that happens?
I don't actually think that road cycling is *that* dangerous, so long as you
do in properly.
AlanG
wrote:
>So you have chosen to shape your life around car dependency. Naturally
>that will be a problem for you. Have you considered a lifestyle
>change?
I can no longer ride a bike and can't walk far. A car is the only way
I can get around. How about if I come round and smash your knees so
you can experience at first hand just what the problems are?
Paul
> you shouldn't own a car.
You're making the law now are you ?, but for your info all my motors
are parked on the drive, all four of them.
>Also when you drive somewhere where do you
> leave your car?
In a designated parking space, where do you leave your bike ?,
blocking the pavement perhaps.
>Is a garage always available at your destination?
Do you really have to spout such shit ?, it's obvious there's not,
it's also obvious that there's no cover under which you can store your
bike everywhere.
>
> > If everyone turned en-masse to the bicycle, dont you think there would
> > be similar problems with where to store them ?
>
> Most can be stored indoors, particularly folders.
Most cars can be stored indoors, as i pointed out, theyre called
garages, maybe you should look up the meaning !!!
>
> > There's 5 in my family, we'd all need a bike each, therefore requiring
> > more actual space to park them than is taken up by our one car.
>
> Not necessarily.
DEFINITLEY, i wouldnt have said so otherwise.
>You can't park a car indoors
DUH !!!
> and bikes take up less
> space at destinations and of course there is always public transport
Can't you read ?, I Live in the countryside, THERES NO PUBLIC
TRANSPORT.
> to turn to.
>
> > I've
> > also got 3 work vehicles, all required, and would need probably over a
> > hundred adults to pull the weights, and carry the goods that these 3
> > do, HOW DO I SOLVE THAT PROBLEM ??
>
> So you have chosen to shape your life around car dependency.
No, I've got a business you fucking moron, and goods have to be
transported, just how exactly do you think your cornflakes get to the
local supermarket ?, by parachute ?.
>Naturally
> that will be a problem for you.
Yeah, the non existent public transport refuse to carry my goods, and
tow my two 7 metre trailers.
>Have you considered a lifestyle
> change?
And end up as stupid and unrealistic as you ?, no, not for one
nanosecond.
BTW, i **DO** own a bicycle, and do take a walk most mornings, and use
the car / van for work, travel, and pleasure.
The bikes for pleasure and keeping fit.
>
> --
> London Carfreehttp://www.london.carfree.org.uk/
PeterG
I'd forgotton about that, it must be two years ago that you promissed
that, where is that report or was it just more talk that you could not
follow up on?
PeterG
mileburner
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
news:04chf557st8q3ng6s...@4ax.com...
> "mileburner" <mileb...@btinternet.com> considered Mon, 9 Nov 2009
>>
>>I don't actually think that road cycling is *that* dangerous, so long as
>>you
>>do in properly.
>>
> "do it properly".
> Properly enforcing the laws we already have could easily change that.
Such as ticketing pavement cyclists or did you mean rigorously penalising
drivers who DWDC. Given the standard of driving overall it would be a mighty
big task to get drivers to respect cyclists; to give them enough space when
overtaking, yield to their right of way, and generally not harass and abuse
them. Sadly we have to live with this shit and deal with it accordingly.
Perhaps if the government were to run some big campaigns like they have done
for drink driving over the past 3 decades there might be some progress. As
it stands, it is difficult enough to educate drivers to stay within the
legal speed limit. Making them respect cyclists is going to take a long long
time.
Meanwhile, the best thing that cyclists can do is stay off the pavement,
ride as wide as their confidence allows and respect road law and rights of
way.
Doug
> "Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in messagenews:04chf557st8q3ng6s...@4ax.com...
>
driver at ay time? Or perhaps instead join Critical Mass or a campaign
group to protest this travesty of justice and assert themselves more
when using the road.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.
Tony Dragon
And CM really does help the cyclist to gain respect doesn't it?
I have no problem respecting other road users, but I do expect the same
from them.
I do have a problem respecting road users who do not act in a safe &
considerate way, be they motorists, cyclists, pedestrians or whatever.
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
asserting one's rights in the face of intimidatory lethal competition.
AlanG
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>AlanG <inv...@invalid.net> considered Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:40:34 +0000
>the perfect time to write:
>
>I can't walk at all on uneven ground, and only a limited distance even
>on the dead level.
>I've cycled with someone who had no leg function at all.
>So my answer to that is that you could if you tried hard enough.
No I couldn't
>It would probably even do your knees good (it did mine).
Absolutely no good at all
Tony Dragon
It's got everything to do with respecting each other, if we all do that
most problems would cease.
Do you treat with respect your fellow road users?
I do, until they loose that respect by doing something stupid or
inconsiderate, no matter what form of transport they are using.
--
Tony Dragon
mileburner
> Its nothing to do with respect, a common fallacy. Its to do with
> asserting one's rights in the face of intimidatory lethal competition.
Problem is, that drivers exercise the law of the jungle. If you try to
counteract that with intimidation all you get is a perpetual war, (and you
don't gain many allies in the process). What you do is give cyclists a Bad
Name, just like the lawbreaking pavement cyclists and RLJers do.
If cyclists want drivers to clean up their act, they need to be whiter than
white themselves.
CM is *not* whiter than white.
Tony Dragon
So if we all start treating other road users with respect, then problem
solved.
Trouble is it will take a long time, but you have to start somewhere.
And as you say CM is not the place to start.
--
Tony Dragon
Paul
> And even some parts of this country.
Really, you'll be able to give me some examples then, as well as
links.
>
>
>
> >> > >You don't see many on roads
> >> > > now.
>
> >> > Actually **I** do see a few, that happens when you live in the
> >> > country, and generally people are riding them.
>
> >> A few is all.
>
> >Yes, thats what I said.
>
> >winding country roads, and miles between villages, bicycle travel
> >just isn't practical here. Getting the kids to school requires a
> >council provided bus, because of a) distance, and b) the danger of
> >walking along unlit, narrow country roads with no pavement.
>
No, it's the truth.
> I also live in the country, and of my 4 kids the only one who can't
> travel by bike is the one who still attends the same school as before
> we moved, so that one is too far away.
> The other 3 can all travel both ways by cycle, despite one of them
> being at a secondary school several villages away.
You may feel comfortable sending your kids out on dark country lanes
with no footpaths, not street lights, and narrow roads with tight
bends in them. Some roads round here are only wide enough for one
car. One of the main roads in particular is so narrow at one point
that if two trucks pass there's less than a few inches betwwen their
mirrors.Thats the only road you can use to travel to the local school.
Are you really so small minded to think that the roads where I live
are the same as yours ?.
Would you really put your kids in danger and allow them to cycle along
such a narrow road ?.
>
>
>
> >> > >Change is the only constant. I firmly believe the day will come
> >> > > when harmful mass car use is regarded as antiquated folly and their
> >> > > users even more as anti-social, anti-environmental pariahs than they
> >> > > are at present.
>
> >> > I firmly believe that you've totally lost the plot.
>
> >> > Cars will only be replaced if science discovers something more
> >> > efficient.
>
> >> Or there are radical lifestyle changes which do not require excessive
> >> travel. Saw on TV the idea of massive towers in Japan which house
> >> thousands of people and contain everything they need, including work
> >> and recreation.
>
> >Again, not going to happen in the UK. Only considered in Japan
> >because of their lack of land.
>
> You do realise that the population density of England(383/km2) is
> higher than Japan (337/km2)?
Where did i say England ?
I think you'll find that the UK is about 246/km2.
Compare London to Tokyo though, Tokyo (5655 /km²), London (4,758/km).
So to clarify, if i stated that the major cities in Japan tend to
build tall building's because of the dense population and lack of land
upon which to build would that appease you ?.
>
>
>
> >> > I see the future of the car as quite rosy, they will become more fuel
> >> > efficient, and will eventually be powered by a clean renewable
> >> > energy, they may even be wheel-less eventually, and have the
> >> > capability to fly (though i doubt it), regardless, they will still be
> >> > cars.
>
> >> That doesn't solve the problem of there being far too many of them.
>
> >Your view, not everyone feels the same.
>
> I don't think I've ever met anyone who hasn't expressed that sentiment
> when sat in a queue of them.
I thought you lived in the country ?, we don't get big traffic jams
where I live.
And of course I was referring to dougs hate of cars, he doesnt want
them reduced, he wants them ALL to be got rid of.
> Of course, that doesn't entirely rule out the prospect that some
> strange souls may actually enjoy the congestion, but I suspect they
> are extremely rare.
>
>
>
> >> Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone owned and used their
> >> own airplane?
>
> >A disaster..... probably... but you're not considering advances in
> >technology, so who knows.
>
> >Use your imagination.
>
> >> > Horses will still be horses,
>
> >> > Bicycles will still be powered by humans......
>
> >> Some are now electric.
>
> >Some are powered by petrol engines as well, called motorcycles...and
> >your point is ?
>
> Maybe that bicycles are actually a more advanced technology than cars.
Really ?, well fuck me, I've just been outside and had a look at my
bike, it's got two wheels, made of steel, still has cables to operate
the brakes, people power to make it move, rubber for the brake pads,
and no onboard computers at all.
I bought a brand new car in the summer, it's got a computer controlled
engine management system, is very fuel efficient, hydraulic disc
brakes all round, cable free throttle system, and air conditioned.
Yet you insinuate that all bicycles are "a more advanced technology",
keep it up pal, you're making yourself look a total pratt.
>
> >> > and you will still write
> >> > shite about cars being demons (actually by this time youl'l probably
> >> > be dead, but you get my drift).
>
> >> I anticipate that resistance to mass car use will grow as its
> >> detrimental effects are felt more and more.
>
> >I reckon the numbers will stay pretty constant. The technology will
> >improve, and eventually we will have cars that produce no harmful
> >emissions at all.
>
> You will need to make a few minor adjustments in the laws of physics
> to make dragging a ton of machinery around with you even remotely
> efficient.
Do try and stop being such a blinkered wanker, cars have, and will
continue to, improve in efficiency.
Much more so now there are more incentives, greener cars are already
here, with many more on the horizon.
Technology such as LPG are already mainstream, electric is becoming
more common, and hydrogen looks promising.
Whos to say that a totally new form of renewable fuel is not just
around the corner, it's always possible.
Regardless the technology will continue to improve, probably slowly,
but it will improve eventually until we are no longer reliant upon
fossil fuels.
>
> But hey, why let a little thing like that get in the way of a good
> delusion?
You want car free cities, now thats delusional.
I do have a sort of solution for you though, move to YORK, better
still, Holland.
mileburner
"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:6tSdnbaybIGcoWTX...@bt.com...
The simplest answer is to assert yourself, without intimidating. The
impression I get from CM is that it is a stage for cyclists to get their own
back on the nasty drivers. When I first heard about CM I thought it was a
great idea. That is, to have a group of cyclists meeting up and riding
together, asserting themselves and making their presence known, and claiming
back the roads to cyclists.
But what they do is piss everyone off. They block the streets, they ride
randomly and slowly, tinging their bells and shouting. They harass and
intimidate. They look for trouble and they usually find it.
Paul
> No?
Why the fuck would i want to, it's TRANSPORT, gets me from a to b.
> What a waste of space, taking up all that valuable land area just to
> store a cage, when by definition, either the cage or the garage are
> useless.
Nope, both are very useful, you're just so blinkered you can't see it.
>
> >A garage is similar to a stable, only no shit to shovel.
>
> Nothing of value is produced then.
Nope, does a bicycle stored in a garage produce anything useful as
well, nope.
>
> >If everyone turned en-masse to the bicycle, dont you think there would
> >be similar problems with where to store them ?
>
> No.
Really,
>
> >There's 5 in my family, we'd all need a bike each, therefore requiring
> >more actual space to park them than is taken up by our one car.
>
> Utter bollocks.
> Have you seen how many bicycles can be stored in a small garage?
> You could probably have 5 EACH!> I've
You don't even know what type of car i own, so stop talking utter
shite.
> >also got 3 work vehicles, all required, and would need probably over a
> >hundred adults to pull the weights, and carry the goods that these 3
> >do, HOW DO I SOLVE THAT PROBLEM ??
>
> Better gearing, and more trips.
That will allow me to tow a 3.5 ton trailer will it ?
> See Vietnam for details on how cycles can carry big loads more
> efficiently than motor vehicles - it helped beat the yanks in the
> little unpleasantness there.
Maybe you ought to move there, sounds like paradise for you.
> But how the hell do you drive 3 work vehicles at once?
Either I'm a really clever twat, or maybe, just maybe I have someone
drive them for me ?
> Or rather, what on earth REQUIRES 3?
Ehrmmmmm, CARRYING STUFF.
One's a Landcruiser, that gets me out of the shit, when all else
fails, the other two are vans.
>
> I suppose I can understand that you'd be against controls on excessive
> vehicle use - no turkey looks forward to Christmas.
And just how do you think that turkey gets to you?, by road
transport.
But hey, as you're so much against cars, vans, trucks, don't you think
it's immoral to consume stuff that's actually been in one?.
If you're so much against them you'll stop eating food that's been
transported in them.
If not, why not ?.
Tony Dragon
Never has a truer word been uttered about CM (except they also cause
trouble, on purpose)
--
Tony Dragon
PeterG
Doug
they ever will.
>
> Do you treat with respect your fellow road users?
>
> I do, until they loose that respect by doing something stupid or
> inconsiderate, no matter what form of transport they are using.
>
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Doug
enforcement will do that.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Doug
> "Tony Dragon" <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
abreast and stopping at all red lights and always giving way to all
motorised traffic? No, they get their own back by exposing the
impatience and violence of some drivers, which underlines the
considerable risk posed to cyclists from drivers on our roads who are
out-of-control and who remain unpunished. Naturally you would expect
CM to be unpopular with such drivers.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Tony Dragon
Do you not treat the man who sells you your newspaper at the corner shop
with respect, don't forget he might kill you, you don't know.
--
Tony Dragon
Tony Dragon
Doug at last admits why he is so bigoted, it's all to do with revenge.
This might strike you as strange, but most people expect road user to
stop at red lights.
Obviously red light jumpers are out of control & most remain unpunished.
CM is unpopular with most people, what ever their form of transport.
--
Tony Dragon
Norman Wells
> Why should you treat someone who might kill you with respect?
Er, ... isn't it obvious?
Norman Wells
> You'll find yourself on a bike sooner than you think, and your kids
> would thank you for giving them the practice early (and for not
> wrecking their planet).
Kids?
They're the real reason why we're in such a mess now. Having them is the
least green thing anyone can possibly do, as it introduces a polluting
consumer of the earth's resources that will continue for the next 80 years
and make yet more.
How can the world possibly cope with a population that is increasing by over
50% every 50 years, and will be 9 billion by the year 2050? Well, I'll tell
you. It can't.
It's not having to ride bikes we need to be afraid of. It's starvation.
And it's a bit of a toss up which will happen first.
Paul
> Room for two trucks? you call that narrow?
Read what I said, "MAIN ROAD", you obviously have problems
understanding some words.
It's an "A" road that's just on the outside of a small village, theres
no footpath, and the mirrors of trucks almost touch when passing each
other. In other words, there's no room to walk let alone ride along
it safely.
>
>
>
> >Are you really so small minded to think that the roads where I live
> >are the same as yours ?.
>
> They seem to be wider!
Oh fucking do grow up, and read what I've said you total pratt.
>
> >Would you really put your kids in danger and allow them to cycle along
> >such a narrow road ?.
>
> I've trained them to ride properly.
ITS NOT FUCKING SAFE !!!! not on this road.
> Are you really so small minded as to deny your children the
> independence and exercise that they could enjoy from cycling?
>
No, but I'd prefer they lived.
>
>
>
>
> >Where did i say England ?
>
> >I think you'll find that the UK is about 246/km2.
>
> I'm sure that's relevant if you live in the highlands of Scotland.
>
> >Compare London to Tokyo though, Tokyo (5655 /km²), London (4,758/km).
>
> >So to clarify, if i stated that the major cities in Japan tend to
> >build tall building's because of the dense population and lack of land
> >upon which to build would that appease you ?.
>
> I'd say it is the other way round - the use of high-rise building
> (being apparently more culturally acceptable there) has allowed a
> higher density.
Well, YOU would wouldn't you, anything to disagree eh !!!.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > I see the future of the car as quite rosy, they will become more fuel
> >> >> > efficient, and will eventually be powered by a clean renewable
> >> >> > energy, they may even be wheel-less eventually, and have the
> >> >> > capability to fly (though i doubt it), regardless, they will still be
> >> >> > cars.
>
> >> >> That doesn't solve the problem of there being far too many of them.
>
> >> >Your view, not everyone feels the same.
>
> >> I don't think I've ever met anyone who hasn't expressed that sentiment
> >> when sat in a queue of them.
>
> >I thought you lived in the country ?, we don't get big traffic jams
> >where I live.
>
> But I bet you don't have to travel far to find one.
Really depends upon which way i travel, but i emphasise, where I live
we normally don't get big traffic jams.
In the nearest town, YES, during rush hour.
>
> >And of course I was referring to dougs hate of cars, he doesnt want
> >them reduced, he wants them ALL to be got rid of.
>
> He said there were far too many of them.
> I agree.
You know exactly what he meant.
>
> >> >Some are powered by petrol engines as well, called motorcycles...and
> >> >your point is ?
>
> >> Maybe that bicycles are actually a more advanced technology than cars.
>
> >Really ?, well fuck me, I've just been outside and had a look at my
> >bike, it's got two wheels, made of steel, still has cables to operate
> >the brakes, people power to make it move, rubber for the brake pads,
> >and no onboard computers at all.
>
> >I bought a brand new car in the summer, it's got a computer controlled
> >engine management system, is very fuel efficient, hydraulic disc
> >brakes all round, cable free throttle system, and air conditioned.
>
> >Yet you insinuate that all bicycles are "a more advanced technology",
> >keep it up pal, you're making yourself look a total pratt.
>
> You really have no concept of efficiency?
Apparently not, prove to me how bikes are "a more advanced
technology".
>
>
> >> You will need to make a few minor adjustments in the laws of physics
> >> to make dragging a ton of machinery around with you even remotely
> >> efficient.
>
> >Do try and stop being such a blinkered wanker, cars have, and will
> >continue to, improve in efficiency.
>
> I'll have a long wait for them to get in the same ballpark as
> bicycles.
I never disputed that, but it's nice to see you acknowledge it's a
possibility.
>
>
>
> >Much more so now there are more incentives, greener cars are already
> >here, with many more on the horizon.
>
> Not seen a green one yet.
That's because you're blinkered, and just see what you want to.
Open your eyes :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_vehicle
To ride your bike you have to eat food to provide energy, these types
of car don't require anything but sunlight, apparently making them
more efficient than you and your bike. I know theyre just development
vehicles, and not practical at the moment, but in the future who
knows.
I've also seen a compressed air car, noisy but it worked.
> The environmental cost of manufacture is too big a dept for low
> operating emissions to repay, and none of the so-called "green" ones
> seem to be any better in that respect.
At the moment, you know only too well that things are improving, and
that new technology is being developed and investigated all the time.
>
>
>
> >Technology such as LPG are already mainstream, electric is becoming
> >more common, and hydrogen looks promising.
>
> None of which are green.
Theyre a starting point.
>
>
>
> >Whos to say that a totally new form of renewable fuel is not just
> >around the corner, it's always possible.
>
> "Deus ex Machina" rather than accept that dragging your living room
> around with you is inefficient, and nothing can change that.
> I thought we'd progressed beyond reliance on miraculous intervention.
I want my car, you aint going to stop me, no matter what you say, or
do.
> I don't think there's as much cycling in York as there is here,
> although there is a bit more in the Netherlands than either.
http://www.york.gov.uk/cycling/
Then drive up, sorry cycle up and have a look.
>
> But don't worry, we are catching up, albeit slowly.
>
> You'll find yourself on a bike sooner than you think, and your kids
> would thank you for giving them the practice early (and for not
> wrecking their planet).
I already use a bike, cars in one way shape or form will be around as
long as man.
Unless of course a superior mode of transport is discovered, that
however WONT be bicycles.
I still can't beleive you said that "bicycles are a more advanced
technology than cars".
Doug
> with respect, don't forget he might kill you, you don't know.
>
motorised vehicles who are the most threatening and who therefore
deserve no respect.
Tony Dragon
So you have no respect for the man in the corner shop or indeed it seems
that you have no respect for anybody.
That says a lot about you.
--
Tony Dragon
Adrian
saying:
>> Do you not treat the man who sells you your newspaper at the corner
>> shop with respect, don't forget he might kill you, you don't know.
> I don't buy newspapers.
Of course not. That might involve you spending money. We all know how
reluctant you are to do that.
> No its people who race around in dangerous motorised vehicles who are
> the most threatening and who therefore deserve no respect.
No, it's people who have no respect for others - no matter what they're
doing - who deserve to have that lack of respect returned.
Paul
> Phil W Lee wrote:
> > You'll find yourself on a bike sooner than you think, and your kids
> > would thank you for giving them the practice early (and for not
> > wrecking their planet).
>
> Kids?
>
> They're the real reason why we're in such a mess now.
>Having them is the
> least green thing anyone can possibly do, as it introduces a polluting
> consumer of the earth's resources that will continue for the next 80 years
> and make yet more.
Hmm, you may have a point, Hey I've an idea, why don't you top
yourself, that way you'll make a start on reducing the pollution.
>
> How can the world possibly cope with a population that is increasing by over
> 50% every 50 years, and will be 9 billion by the year 2050?
Don't know, in the past nature has stepped in, wars have reduced the
numbers as well, maybe we'll take to the stars, maybe a plague will
wipe millions out, maybe another world war, maybe we'll cope.
And 62% of the population will live in Africa, Southern and Eastern
Asia, do you suggest we wipe those areas out now ?, stop them having
kids ?.
> Well, I'll tell you.
Yes, somehow I thought you might.
> It can't.
Time will tell.
>
> It's not having to ride bikes we need to be afraid of. It's starvation.
Not in the UK so much, especially with the current population levels,
there's still more than enough land to support us.
If we need more food, we've the technology, and more importantly the
climate to priduce it.
Currently we are about 70 per cent self sufficient, we would have to
change our diets somewhat, maybe all become vegetarian, with reduced
calorie intake, but we could support ourselves here in the UK.