Scofflaw cyclists perfect their technique

[Partac]

I see the pavement cyclists have now moved up another notch in their many
methods of lawbreaking:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6c6_1358276057

Enjoy

[Simon Weissel]

Wow that was quick! I wonder if bikes could be considered �a viable
means of getaway vehicle�. Perhaps if there were compulsory registration
and licence plates, this type of thing would never happen.

Maybe I�m still asleep�

[Alex]

Simon Weissel wrote:

>On 16/01/2013 01:34, Partac wrote:
>> I see the pavement cyclists have now moved up another notch in their
>> many methods of lawbreaking:
>>
>> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6c6_1358276057
>>
>> Enjoy
>

>Wow that was quick! I wonder if bikes could be considered �a viable
>means of getaway vehicle�. Perhaps if there were compulsory registration

>and licence plates, this type of thing would never happen.

I think it would probably still happen. The scofflaw (does anybody use
that word in real life, or outside of this newsgroup, even?) would
first need to steal some unfortunate cyclist's bike.

>Maybe I�m still asleep�

A bit like that bloke who had his mobile snatched, then.

[Partac]

"Simon Weissel" wrote in message news:kd5o74$rbv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Number plates and registration would be a step in the right direction, but
if perhaps he had been stopped from pavement cycling in the first place,
maybe his law-breaking would never have escalated in the way it obviously
has.

[Simon Weissel]

I guess he started out as a pavement cyclist, and then escalated his
criminal activities to mugging.

I�d never really seen things this way. I�ll think twice when I see a kid
riding on the pavement again. Sooner or later they will be nicking,
robbing, doing drugs, perhaps even moving on to car theft, or organised
crime.

If we stamp out pavement cycling, that will stop at least some people
ending up in a life of crime.

[Partac]

"Simon Weissel" wrote in message news:kd6396$mug$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Finally, you're beginning to see sense. It took some time, but your answer
made all the effort worthwhile.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:26:15 -0000, Simon Weissel <si...@weaseltemper.invalid> wrote:

> On 16/01/2013 01:34, Partac wrote:
>> I see the pavement cyclists have now moved up another notch in their
>> many methods of lawbreaking:
>>
>> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6c6_1358276057
>>
>> Enjoy
>

> Wow that was quick! I wonder if bikes could be considered ‘a viable
> means of getaway vehicle’. Perhaps if there were compulsory registration

> and licence plates, this type of thing would never happen.

Yeah like cars are never used for bank jobs because they have reg numbers. Get real.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Confucius say: "War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left."

[Lieutenant Scott]

This has nothing to do with cycling.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:58:17 -0000, Partac <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> "Simon Weissel" wrote in message news:kd6396$mug$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> On 16/01/2013 11:10, Partac wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Simon Weissel" wrote in message news:kd5o74$rbv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>
>> On 16/01/2013 01:34, Partac wrote:
>>> I see the pavement cyclists have now moved up another notch in their
>>> many methods of lawbreaking:
>>>
>>> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6c6_1358276057
>>>
>>> Enjoy
>>

>> Wow that was quick! I wonder if bikes could be considered ‘a viable
>> means of getaway vehicle’. Perhaps if there were compulsory registration

>> and licence plates, this type of thing would never happen.
>>

>> Maybe I’m still asleep…

>>
>> Number plates and registration would be a step in the right direction,
>> but if perhaps he had been stopped from pavement cycling in the first
>> place, maybe his law-breaking would never have escalated in the way it
>> obviously has.
>
> I guess he started out as a pavement cyclist, and then escalated his
> criminal activities to mugging.
>

> I’d never really seen things this way. I’ll think twice when I see a kid

> riding on the pavement again. Sooner or later they will be nicking,
> robbing, doing drugs, perhaps even moving on to car theft, or organised
> crime.
>
> If we stamp out pavement cycling, that will stop at least some people
> ending up in a life of crime.
>
> Finally, you're beginning to see sense. It took some time, but your answer
> made all the effort worthwhile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Black holes are where god divided by zero.

[Simon Weissel]

There are plenty of good reasons to not ride on the pavement:

It can be dangerous and annoying to pedestrians.
It can be dangerous for the cyclist.
It enforces the idea that cyclists should not be on the roads.
It makes the roads less safe for other cyclists.
It is against the law.

I suppose that we could add to the list:
It means the cyclist could end up sinking into a life of crime.

[Simon Weissel]

On 16/01/2013 13:25, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:26:15 -0000, Simon Weissel
> <si...@weaseltemper.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 16/01/2013 01:34, Partac wrote:
>>> I see the pavement cyclists have now moved up another notch in their
>>> many methods of lawbreaking:
>>>
>>> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6c6_1358276057
>>>
>>> Enjoy
>>
>> Wow that was quick! I wonder if bikes could be considered ‘a viable
>> means of getaway vehicle’. Perhaps if there were compulsory registration
>> and licence plates, this type of thing would never happen.
>
> Yeah like cars are never used for bank jobs because they have reg
> numbers. Get real.
>

Yes but at least the police can trace back to the previous owner. I had
a late night knock on the door from Old Bill once. ‘Are you the owner of
vehicle xxx xxx’. ‘Err no, I sold it a few months ago and notified
DVLC’. ‘Can I ask you where you were between the hours of xx and xx?’.
‘Err, I think I was at home, why what’s the problem.’ ‘Can you give me
the details of the person you sold the car to’. Err no I don’t have them
any more, but if you check with DVLC they’ll have the details as I did
notify them’. ‘Thank you sir, sorry to trouble you goodnight’.

You see, and whatever bank-job, accident or crime the car was involved
in the police would have traced them.

Simples!

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message
news:kd6anp$a3q$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> There are plenty of good reasons to not ride on the pavement:
>
> It can be dangerous and annoying to pedestrians.
> It can be dangerous for the cyclist.
> It enforces the idea that cyclists should not be on the roads.
> It makes the roads less safe for other cyclists.
> It is against the law.
>
> I suppose that we could add to the list:
> It means the cyclist could end up sinking into a life of crime.

They already have if they're breaking any law on a regular basis.

[Simon Weissel]

Like drivers and speed limits huh? :-)

[Simon Weissel]

On 16/01/2013 13:25, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 01:34:31 -0000, Partac <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I see the pavement cyclists have now moved up another notch in their many
>> methods of lawbreaking:
>>
>> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6c6_1358276057
>
> This has nothing to do with cycling.
>

Come on Lou, the guy is on a bike, therefore he is a cyclist. Not only
that, but he is representative of most, if not all cyclists. It’s not
surprising people want cycling banned. I do for sure.

[Lieutenant Scott]

They can trace the last owner, not the person who stole it.

And crimes are usually committed with cars, not bicycles. You can put stuff into cars.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

This exchange was overheard between the separated sections of the jail.
A male voice yells over to the female side: "I got 12 inches over here you would love to have."
The female response was: "Well, spit it out it isn't yours."

[Lieutenant Scott]

CAN.

> It can be dangerous for the cyclist.

Why protect someone from themself?

> It enforces the idea that cyclists should not be on the roads.

They shouldn't be, not if the road is busy.

> It makes the roads less safe for other cyclists.

How on earth would you draw that conclusion?

> It is against the law.

That is not a reason. Circular argument. "Why shouldn't you be doing that?" "Because it's against the law" - see how silly that is?

> I suppose that we could add to the list:
> It means the cyclist could end up sinking into a life of crime.

What utter shite.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Reboot - to kick a computer in such a way that it turns off and then on again.

[Lieutenant Scott]

Oh look, a bank raid took place with a car driver. So driving cars must lead to a life of crime. Let's ban all cars now.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Birthdays are good for you. Statistics show that the people who have the most live the longest. (Rev. Larry Lorenzoni)

[Simon Weissel]

On 16/01/2013 15:37, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:42:21 -0000, Simon Weissel
> <si...@weaseltemper.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> There are plenty of good reasons to not ride on the pavement:
>>
>> It can be dangerous and annoying to pedestrians.
>
> CAN.
>

Yes it can. Not always. But it can.

>> It can be dangerous for the cyclist.
>
> Why protect someone from themself?

Because people are stupid. People need rules to stop themselves doing
stupid things and then costing the taxpayer to mop up the mess for them.

>> It enforces the idea that cyclists should not be on the roads.
>
> They shouldn't be, not if the road is busy.

No they should be, that's what roads are for.

>> It makes the roads less safe for other cyclists.
>
> How on earth would you draw that conclusion?

The more cyclists there are, the less aggressive the traffic becomes.
The more used to sharing the road with cyclists drivers become. Overall,
cyclists have a calming effect on traffic (but perhaps not the
individual drivers). Try cycling where there are lots of other cyclists,
it feels a lot different to cycling where you are the only one. I might
be wrong. This is only my experience. Don't draw conclusions.

>> It is against the law.
>
> That is not a reason. Circular argument. "Why shouldn't you be doing
> that?" "Because it's against the law" - see how silly that is?

Not entirely. As Partac has pointed out, if people start off cycling on
the pavement, they could end up mugging and involved in all-sorts of
shit. Thin end of the wedge and all that. Better off nipping it in the
bud and have a correctly ordered society, ja bitte mein freund.

>
>> I suppose that we could add to the list:
>> It means the cyclist could end up sinking into a life of crime.
>
> What utter shite.
>

You are learning :-)

[Simon Weissel]

Well that's only a minor flaw in the logic.

> And crimes are usually committed with cars, not bicycles. You can put
> stuff into cars.

But you can ride ON THE PAVEMENT on a bike, and commit further crimes
with impunity. :-)

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message

news:kd6m7p$9lb$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

If a motorist took a shortcut through a pedestrian precinct to save time,
would you think he was normally law-abiding and this was just a blip, or
would you think he's probably broken a few other laws along the way and is
quite likely to in the future?

[Simon Weissel]

On 16/01/2013 15:38, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:08:25 -0000, Simon Weissel
> <si...@weaseltemper.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 16/01/2013 13:25, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 01:34:31 -0000, Partac <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I see the pavement cyclists have now moved up another notch in their
>>>> many
>>>> methods of lawbreaking:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6c6_1358276057
>>>
>>> This has nothing to do with cycling.
>>>
>>
>> Come on Lou, the guy is on a bike, therefore he is a cyclist. Not only
>> that, but he is representative of most, if not all cyclists. It’s not
>> surprising people want cycling banned. I do for sure.
>
> Oh look, a bank raid took place with a car driver. So driving cars must
> lead to a life of crime. Let's ban all cars now.
>

Now you are being silly. People need cars to get about. If you banned
them, what would everyone do? Take the bus, train or a bike? Come on get
real. Besides cars are safer, consume less fuel, create less pollution,
are cheaper to run, and they never hurt anyone ever (let alone kill
anyone) and they are driven by god-like people who’s shit smells of
roses :-)

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message

news:kd6mfo$aqb$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>
> Now you are being silly. People need cars to get about. If you banned
> them, what would everyone do? Take the bus, train or a bike? Come on get
> real. Besides cars are safer, consume less fuel, create less pollution,
> are cheaper to run, and they never hurt anyone ever (let alone kill
> anyone) and they are driven by god-like people who’s shit smells of roses
> :-)
>

Ooh, agenda showing.

[Simon Weissel]

I would not like to hazard a guess. You see, people are different and
have different values.

Some people who are otherwise law abiding pillars of the community will
drive a car in excess of 30mph in a 30mph limit and think its OK.

I must confess I did once cut through a pedestrian zone (buses/taxis
allowed) in a car late at night, and I also confess that I have driven
at speeds in excess of the posted speed limit. But I never ride on the
pavement EVER, and have never done so since childhood.

Where cycling through a pedestrian zone fits in to all this I would
suggest lies somewhere between failing to stop at an amber light and
riding at dusk with no lights. If someone (anyone) really thinks that
cutting through a pedestrian zone on a bike is such a heinous crime,
they need to get out a bit more.

But like you say, if they don’t obey that law, it might make you wonder
what other laws they will wilfully break.

The classic one I saw was a police officer riding on the pavement.
Obviously involved in corruption at the highest level <swoon>

[JNugent]

The car itself can be traced, which can lead to the gathering of
scientific evidence of the identity of recent users.

Without registration, it's hard to see how that would work.

[JNugent]

Last night, coming home at around 23:45, I crested a hill on a dual
carriageway and saw a taxi a couple of hundred yards farther on (the
road being otherwise deserted).

It looked as though the driver was just about to drive onto the grassed
central reservation, which has a dropped kerb just at that point; he
had one front wheel on it. Had he completed the turn (heading back
towards town), he'd have saved himself about a quarter of a mile down to
the next roundabout, and the same distance on the other side.

Because I had my headlights on, the driver couldn't see what sort of
vehicle mine was.

He seemed to think better of the manoeuvre and carried on down my side
of the road to the roundabout.

> Some people who are otherwise law abiding pillars of the community will
> drive a car in excess of 30mph in a 30mph limit and think its OK.

Indeed. Even police officer, barristers and judges.

[Simon Weissel]

On 16/01/2013 17:48, JNugent wrote:
>
> Last night, coming home at around 23:45, I crested a hill on a dual
> carriageway and saw a taxi a couple of hundred yards farther on (the
> road being otherwise deserted).
>
> It looked as though the driver was just about to drive onto the grassed
> central reservation, which has a dropped kerb just at that point; he
> had one front wheel on it. Had he completed the turn (heading back
> towards town), he'd have saved himself about a quarter of a mile down to
> the next roundabout, and the same distance on the other side.
>
> Because I had my headlights on, the driver couldn't see what sort of
> vehicle mine was.
>
> He seemed to think better of the manoeuvre and carried on down my side
> of the road to the roundabout.

My experience of taxi drivers is they will break all the rules they wish
but they shit themselves when there is a risk of being caught.

>> Some people who are otherwise law abiding pillars of the community will
>> drive a car in excess of 30mph in a 30mph limit and think its OK.
>
> Indeed. Even police officer, barristers and judges.

Indeed, and these same people will think it is far worse to commit other
crimes such as cutting through a pedestrian zone.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

You are learning! A cure may be possible!

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

33,000,000 drivers on the roads, only 1,000,000 offences, in a country
with more speed cameras than the rest of Europe combined.

97% of drivers therefore don't speed.

[Simon Weissel]

On 16/01/2013 18:56, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
> On 16/01/2013 14:06, Simon Weissel wrote:
>> On 16/01/2013 13:56, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>>
>>> "Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message
>>> news:kd6anp$a3q$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>
>>>> There are plenty of good reasons to not ride on the pavement:
>>>>
>>>> It can be dangerous and annoying to pedestrians.
>>>> It can be dangerous for the cyclist.
>>>> It enforces the idea that cyclists should not be on the roads.
>>>> It makes the roads less safe for other cyclists.
>>>> It is against the law.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose that we could add to the list:
>>>> It means the cyclist could end up sinking into a life of crime.
>>>
>>> They already have if they're breaking any law on a regular basis.
>>
>> Like drivers and speed limits huh? :-)
>>
> 33,000,000 drivers on the roads, only 1,000,000 offences, in a country
> with more speed cameras than the rest of Europe combined.
>
> 97% of drivers therefore don't speed.
>

Your logic has a small flaw.

Most drivers are never caught.

There is a road near me where traffic surveys have shown that 80% of
traffic is exceeding the speed limit. I guess that means 80% of drivers
are breaking the law in that spot.

There is no speed camera there :-) or should that be :-(

[Simon Weissel]

I already have the German car. I have not had the bike out of the garage
for days now. Maybe my cycling days are over. Perhaps I can learn to
despise cyclists too.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message

news:kd6tsc$js$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Most drivers are never caught.

Neither are most cyclists.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 16/01/2013 19:09, Simon Weissel wrote:
> On 16/01/2013 18:56, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>> On 16/01/2013 14:06, Simon Weissel wrote:
>>> On 16/01/2013 13:56, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message
>>>> news:kd6anp$a3q$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>
>>>>> There are plenty of good reasons to not ride on the pavement:
>>>>>
>>>>> It can be dangerous and annoying to pedestrians.
>>>>> It can be dangerous for the cyclist.
>>>>> It enforces the idea that cyclists should not be on the roads.
>>>>> It makes the roads less safe for other cyclists.
>>>>> It is against the law.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose that we could add to the list:
>>>>> It means the cyclist could end up sinking into a life of crime.
>>>>
>>>> They already have if they're breaking any law on a regular basis.
>>>
>>> Like drivers and speed limits huh? :-)
>>>
>> 33,000,000 drivers on the roads, only 1,000,000 offences, in a country
>> with more speed cameras than the rest of Europe combined.
>>
>> 97% of drivers therefore don't speed.
>>
>
> Your logic has a small flaw.

Impossible.

>
> Most drivers are never caught.

Which bit of "a country with more speed cameras than the rest of Europe
combined" didn't you understand?

>
> There is a road near me where traffic surveys have shown that 80% of
> traffic is exceeding the speed limit. I guess that means 80% of drivers
> are breaking the law in that spot.

Innocent until proven guilty.

>
> There is no speed camera there :-) or should that be :-(
>
>

Then there can't be a problem, or they would install one.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

It time, all is possible.

I might start a business helping cyclists to stop.

[Partac]

"Simon Weissel" wrote in message news:kd6u15$js$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

It won't take long. They always give you plenty of reason.

[Peter Keller]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:56:13 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

> On 16/01/2013 14:06, Simon Weissel wrote:
>> On 16/01/2013 13:56, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>>
>>> "Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message
>>> news:kd6anp$a3q$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>
>>>> There are plenty of good reasons to not ride on the pavement:
>>>>
>>>> It can be dangerous and annoying to pedestrians.
>>>> It can be dangerous for the cyclist.
>>>> It enforces the idea that cyclists should not be on the roads. It
>>>> makes the roads less safe for other cyclists.
>>>> It is against the law.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose that we could add to the list:
>>>> It means the cyclist could end up sinking into a life of crime.
>>>
>>> They already have if they're breaking any law on a regular basis.
>>
>> Like drivers and speed limits huh? :-)
>>
> 33,000,000 drivers on the roads, only 1,000,000 offences, in a country
> with more speed cameras than the rest of Europe combined.
>
> 97% of drivers therefore don't speed.

That does not follow.
Many speeding drivers are not detected.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Peter Keller" <muzh...@centrum.sk> wrote in message
news:kd75ak$crj$1...@dont-email.me...

Many pavement cyclists aren't detected.

[JNugent]

Prove it.

[Alex]

Sorry, but in this post you sound like the motorist's (or if you
prefer, driver's) equivalent of one of those psycho-cyclists (or
whatever you call them).

[JNugent]

How sure are you that the light in the fridge goes off when you close
the door?

What is "speeding"?

It has at least three possible meanings, all different.

It is possible that some drivers break the speed limits by more than the
marginal proportion which would lead to prosecution (one meaning: there
are still two more), but "many"?

What does that mean?

[PhilO]

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:37:49 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >> 33,000,000 drivers on the roads, only 1,000,000 offences, in a country
> >> with more speed cameras than the rest of Europe combined.
> >>
> >> 97% of drivers therefore don't speed
> >

> > That does not follow.
> > Many speeding drivers are not detected.
>
> Prove it.

Really?
That's not up to your usual standard.
Are you requesting that somebody prove that more than 3% of drivers speed (and yet Dave does not have to support the original bogus calculation)?
Really?

[JNugent]

3% is not "many".

And "speeding drivers" has at least three different meanings (not all of
which would even be illegal).

[Simon Weissel]

On 16/01/2013 20:11, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
> On 16/01/2013 19:09, Simon Weissel wrote:

>>
>> There is no speed camera there :-) or should that be :-(
>>
>>
> Then there can't be a problem, or they would install one.
>

Flawed logic.

[Simon Weissel]

So how many cases of pavement cycling ends up with a ticket issued?

1 per 1000?
1 per 10,000?
1 per 100,000?
1 per Million?

According to the logic of Dave, since so few pavement cyclists are ever
prosecuted, it simply cannot be happening.

[Simon Weissel]

On 16/01/2013 21:48, Alex wrote:

Nugent can prove it to himself.

Just go for a drive. Stick within the posted limit and watch the traffic
build up behind you. Some will even overtake as you drive at the upper
end of the limit. Cars ahead will pull away into the distance, exceeding
the limit.

Or try this one! Drive on a motorway, if its safe to, cruise at 70mph,
watch the other cars overtake. There you will find all the proof you need.

Or if you have any friends, take a ride in their car, keep an eye on the
speedo, watch them exceed the limit.

Try this in a taxi too, rarely do they stick to the limits.

[Simon Weissel]

On 16/01/2013 22:14, JNugent wrote:
> On 16/01/2013 21:48, Alex wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> On 16/01/2013 21:16, Peter Keller wrote:
>>>> Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>
>>>>> 97% of drivers therefore don't speed.
>>
>>>> That does not follow.
>>>> Many speeding drivers are not detected.
>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> Sorry, but in this post you sound like the motorist's (or if you
>> prefer, driver's) equivalent of one of those psycho-cyclists (or
>> whatever you call them).
>
> How sure are you that the light in the fridge goes off when you close
> the door?
>
> What is "speeding"?

In this context, what is meant is exceeding the legal speed limit.

>
> It has at least three possible meanings, all different.
>
> It is possible that some drivers break the speed limits by more than the
> marginal proportion which would lead to prosecution (one meaning: there
> are still two more), but "many"?
>
> What does that mean?
>

The law is very clear and absolute. There are no �marginal proportions�.
Although there are tolerances, which the police *may* allow (at their
discretion) before taking action. But these tolerances have no legal
standing. It�s just if you got a ticket for 31 in a 30 limit and you put
up a good defence, the magistrate is likely to let you off. But they
don�t have to. Neither do the police.

[PhilO]

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:01:09 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
> > Really?
> > That's not up to your usual standard.
> > Are you requesting that somebody prove that more than 3% of drivers speed (and yet Dave does not have to support the original bogus calculation)?
>
> > Really?
>
> 3% is not "many".
>

Are you really claiming that not many drivers speed?

Do you think Dave is right to say because only 3% get prosecuted, the other 97% do not speed?

> And "speeding drivers" has at least three different meanings (not all of
> which would even be illegal).

Are any of your meanings so rare that it only applies to 3% of drivers?
Or was Dave wrong.

[JNugent]

On 17/01/2013 10:25, PhilO wrote:
> On Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:01:09 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>> Really?
>>> That's not up to your usual standard.
>>> Are you requesting that somebody prove that more than 3% of drivers speed (and yet Dave does not have to support the original bogus calculation)?
>>
>>> Really?
>>
>> 3% is not "many".
>>
>
> Are you really claiming that not many drivers speed?

Define "speed".

> Do you think Dave is right to say because only 3% get prosecuted, the other 97% do not speed?
>
>> And "speeding drivers" has at least three different meanings (not all of
>> which would even be illegal).
>
> Are any of your meanings so rare that it only applies to 3% of drivers?

Yes. At least one, maybe two.

[JNugent]

On 17/01/2013 10:25, Simon Weissel wrote:
> On 16/01/2013 22:14, JNugent wrote:
>> On 16/01/2013 21:48, Alex wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 16/01/2013 21:16, Peter Keller wrote:
>>>>> Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>>
>>>>>> 97% of drivers therefore don't speed.
>>>
>>>>> That does not follow.
>>>>> Many speeding drivers are not detected.
>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but in this post you sound like the motorist's (or if you
>>> prefer, driver's) equivalent of one of those psycho-cyclists (or
>>> whatever you call them).
>>
>> How sure are you that the light in the fridge goes off when you close
>> the door?
>>
>> What is "speeding"?
>
> In this context, what is meant is exceeding the legal speed limit.

How do you know what he meant?

>>
>> It has at least three possible meanings, all different.
>> It is possible that some drivers break the speed limits by more than the
>> marginal proportion which would lead to prosecution (one meaning: there
>> are still two more), but "many"?
>> What does that mean?
>>
> The law is very clear and absolute. There are no �marginal proportions�.
> Although there are tolerances, which the police *may* allow (at their
> discretion) before taking action. But these tolerances have no legal
> standing. It�s just if you got a ticket for 31 in a 30 limit and you put
> up a good defence, the magistrate is likely to let you off. But they
> don�t have to. Neither do the police.

The law is not as blind to reality (and to the laws of physics) as you
seem to think.

[DavidR]

"Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message
>

> Just go for a drive. Stick within the posted limit and watch the traffic
> build up behind you. Some will even overtake as you drive at the upper end
> of the limit. Cars ahead will pull away into the distance, exceeding the
> limit.

Are you driving at the real limit or just by the indication of your
speedometer? Speedometer watchers (particularly through motorway road works)
can be incredibly annoying.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message

news:kd8ioh$loh$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>>
>> Many pavement cyclists aren't detected.
>
> So how many cases of pavement cycling ends up with a ticket issued?
>
> 1 per 1000?
> 1 per 10,000?
> 1 per 100,000?
> 1 per Million?
>
> According to the logic of Dave, since so few pavement cyclists are ever
> prosecuted, it simply cannot be happening.

Except Dave, myself and millions of others see examples of cyclists riding
on the pavement every single day. I can't judge the speed of most cars going
along a road with the degree of accuracy needed to accuse them of speeding,
but I can tell whether a person is riding a bike on a pavement or not.

If I understand correctly, Dave's point is that we see personally (day after
day after day) cyclists breaking laws, so if we extrapolate that across the
entire UK, the number of those punished is laughably small and more needs to
be done to combat this menace.

[PhilO]

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:27:05 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>
> >> 3% is not "many".
> >>
> >
> > Are you really claiming that not many drivers speed?
>
> Define "speed".
>

Whatever Dave meant when he claimed "97% of drivers therefore don't speed"

Will you answer the question, now?

>
>
> > Do you think Dave is right to say because only 3% get prosecuted, the other 97% do not speed?
>

You missed this question - will you answer it now?

> >
>
> >> And "speeding drivers" has at least three different meanings (not all of
> >> which would even be illegal).
> >
> > Are any of your meanings so rare that it only applies to 3% of drivers?
>
> Yes. At least one, maybe two.

But it was too much trouble to list them? Are you trying to be difficult?

[John Benn]

"Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message

news:kd6pm6$kbg$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 16/01/2013 17:48, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> Last night, coming home at around 23:45, I crested a hill on a dual
>> carriageway and saw a taxi a couple of hundred yards farther on (the
>> road being otherwise deserted).
>>
>> It looked as though the driver was just about to drive onto the grassed
>> central reservation, which has a dropped kerb just at that point; he
>> had one front wheel on it. Had he completed the turn (heading back
>> towards town), he'd have saved himself about a quarter of a mile down to
>> the next roundabout, and the same distance on the other side.
>>
>> Because I had my headlights on, the driver couldn't see what sort of
>> vehicle mine was.
>>
>> He seemed to think better of the manoeuvre and carried on down my side
>> of the road to the roundabout.
>
> My experience of taxi drivers is they will break all the rules they wish
> but they shit themselves when there is a risk of being caught.

Taxi drivers are generally some of the worst drivers on our roads in my
experience. You would have thought that though the experience they gain by
being "professional" drivers, they would drive better but the only habits
they pick up seem to be bad ones.

[JNugent]

On 17/01/2013 10:51, PhilO wrote:

> On Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:27:05 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>> 3% is not "many".
>
>>> Are you really claiming that not many drivers speed?
>
>> Define "speed".
>
> Whatever Dave meant when he claimed "97% of drivers therefore don't speed"
>
> Will you answer the question, now?

You'll have to ask him what he meant.

You also seem to have misinterpreted my request for proof and a
definition as my having made a statement.

>>> Do you think Dave is right to say because only 3% get prosecuted, the other 97% do not speed?

Define "speed".

Perhaps he'll have to do as well, but another poster has already pointed
out the rather obvious distinction between som ething which has to be
measured (accurately) in order to detect a possible offence and
something which is an offence on mere observation (like cycling along a
footway or cycling through a red light). One's own eyes provide that
evidence daily.

> You missed this question - will you answer it now?

See above.

What more do you want?

>
>>>> And "speeding drivers" has at least three different meanings (not all of
>>>> which would even be illegal).
>
>>> Are any of your meanings so rare that it only applies to 3% of drivers?
>>
>> Yes. At least one, maybe two.
>
> But it was too much trouble to list them? Are you trying to be difficult?

Not at all.

I don't want to prompt or lead the person who made the suggestion. I'd
rather know what he meant.

[Simon Weissel]

On 17/01/2013 10:40, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>
> Except Dave, myself and millions of others see examples of cyclists
> riding on the pavement every single day. I can't judge the speed of most
> cars going along a road with the degree of accuracy needed to accuse
> them of speeding, but I can tell whether a person is riding a bike on a
> pavement or not.

So if you see it happening then it happens, but if you can’t see it
happening then it doesn’t.

There are plenty of ways that you can ascertain whether a vehicle is
exceeding the speed limit, not enough for prosecution mind. But then if
you complained to the police that you saw someone riding on the
pavement, that would not be enough for prosecution either.

Perhaps you lack the observation skills needed to judge speed? I can
kinda work out all by myself that if I am merrily driving along at or
around the speed limit (as calculated by my speedo and gps) and someone
drives up behind me and overtakes, that they were almost certainly
exceeding the limit. Or as pedestrian, I can be at the side of the road
watching the traffic flow by in dribs and drabs and then a vehicle
passes at a far greater speed. It is fairly easy to spot. It does not
take super human powers. All it takes is a bit of observation skill.

>
> If I understand correctly, Dave's point is that we see personally (day
> after day after day) cyclists breaking laws, so if we extrapolate that
> across the entire UK, the number of those punished is laughably small
> and more needs to be done to combat this menace.

That may well be so. But my own point is that this in not particular to
cyclists and cycling. It is equally so with drivers of all vehicles. OK
so the law flouted by cyclists tends to be riding on the pavement. But
OTOH the laws flouted by drivers are equally as bad if not worse.

[Simon Weissel]

On 17/01/2013 10:28, JNugent wrote:
> On 17/01/2013 10:25, Simon Weissel wrote:
>> On 16/01/2013 22:14, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 16/01/2013 21:48, Alex wrote:
>>>
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 16/01/2013 21:16, Peter Keller wrote:
>>>>>> Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> 97% of drivers therefore don't speed.
>>>>
>>>>>> That does not follow.
>>>>>> Many speeding drivers are not detected.
>>>>
>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but in this post you sound like the motorist's (or if you
>>>> prefer, driver's) equivalent of one of those psycho-cyclists (or
>>>> whatever you call them).
>>>
>>> How sure are you that the light in the fridge goes off when you close
>>> the door?
>>>
>>> What is "speeding"?
>>
>> In this context, what is meant is exceeding the legal speed limit.
>
> How do you know what he meant?

Context.

>>>
>>> It has at least three possible meanings, all different.
>>> It is possible that some drivers break the speed limits by more than the
>>> marginal proportion which would lead to prosecution (one meaning: there
>>> are still two more), but "many"?
>>> What does that mean?
>>>
>> The law is very clear and absolute. There are no �marginal proportions�.
>> Although there are tolerances, which the police *may* allow (at their
>> discretion) before taking action. But these tolerances have no legal
>> standing. It�s just if you got a ticket for 31 in a 30 limit and you put
>> up a good defence, the magistrate is likely to let you off. But they
>> don�t have to. Neither do the police.
>
> The law is not as blind to reality (and to the laws of physics) as you
> seem to think.

The law is absolute in this case.

[Simon Weissel]

Speedos tend to over read a bit. GPSs are bang on but they do lag
therefore cannot be relied on while accelerating/decelerating.

[Simon Weissel]

On 17/01/2013 10:27, JNugent wrote:
> On 17/01/2013 10:25, PhilO wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:01:09 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>> Really?
>>>> That's not up to your usual standard.
>>>> Are you requesting that somebody prove that more than 3% of drivers
>>>> speed (and yet Dave does not have to support the original bogus
>>>> calculation)?
>>>
>>>> Really?
>>>
>>> 3% is not "many".
>>>
>>
>> Are you really claiming that not many drivers speed?
>
> Define "speed".

Yes, rather than answer the question let's wrangle over the semantics.

[nik.morgan]

Most speedometers under read my car shows 78 when its actually doing
seventy. Unless you verify all the speeds by sat nav then such observations
are worthless, for example on motorway road works where the posted max is
fifty seldom does the traffic exceed 45.
--
ennemm

[PhilO]

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message

news:kd8n63$12o$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> On 17/01/2013 10:40, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>
>> Except Dave, myself and millions of others see examples of cyclists
>> riding on the pavement every single day. I can't judge the speed of most
>> cars going along a road with the degree of accuracy needed to accuse
>> them of speeding, but I can tell whether a person is riding a bike on a
>> pavement or not.
>
> So if you see it happening then it happens, but if you can’t see it
> happening then it doesn’t.

No, if I see it happening I can be sure it's happening, if I don't then I
can't be sure.

>
> There are plenty of ways that you can ascertain whether a vehicle is
> exceeding the speed limit,

But seeing a car go past isn't one of them.

>not enough for prosecution mind. But then if you complained to the police
>that you saw someone riding on the pavement, that would not be enough for
>prosecution either.
>
> Perhaps you lack the observation skills needed to judge speed? I can kinda
> work out all by myself that if I am merrily driving along at or around the
> speed limit (as calculated by my speedo and gps) and someone drives up
> behind me and overtakes, that they were almost certainly exceeding the
> limit.

I didn't say I was driving.

>Or as pedestrian, I can be at the side of the road watching the traffic
>flow by in dribs and drabs and then a vehicle passes at a far greater
>speed. It is fairly easy to spot. It does not take super human powers. All
>it takes is a bit of observation skill.

Yeah, I think you missed the part where I said "most" cars.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message

news:kd8nh1$12o$4...@speranza.aioe.org...

You have to with cyclists, they tend to argue that everyday phrases don't
mean what normal people accept that they mean.

[PhilO]

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:15:30 PM UTC, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>
>
> You have to with cyclists, they tend to argue that everyday phrases don't
> mean what normal people accept that they mean.

Dave said:
"97% of drivers therefore don't speed"

That is clearly a very silly statement. No idea why anyone would want to defend it.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:55:44 -0000, Simon Weissel <si...@weaseltemper.invalid> wrote:

> On 16/01/2013 15:37, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:42:21 -0000, Simon Weissel
>> <si...@weaseltemper.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are plenty of good reasons to not ride on the pavement:
>>>
>>> It can be dangerous and annoying to pedestrians.
>>

>> CAN.
>
> Yes it can. Not always. But it can.

Rarely.

>>> It can be dangerous for the cyclist.
>>

>> Why protect someone from themself?
>
> Because people are stupid. People need rules to stop themselves doing
> stupid things and then costing the taxpayer to mop up the mess for them.

Wrong wrong wrong, a million times wrong. People should never ever be prevented from harming themselves through their own stupidity.

>>> It enforces the idea that cyclists should not be on the roads.
>>

>> They shouldn't be, not if the road is busy.
>
> No they should be, that's what roads are for.

Holding up the cars? I don't think so.
Causing MORE danger? (Car hitting cyclist is worse than cyclist hitting pedestrian) I don't think so.

>>> It makes the roads less safe for other cyclists.
>>

>> How on earth would you draw that conclusion?
>
> The more cyclists there are, the less aggressive the traffic becomes.
> The more used to sharing the road with cyclists drivers become. Overall,
> cyclists have a calming effect on traffic (but perhaps not the
> individual drivers). Try cycling where there are lots of other cyclists,
> it feels a lot different to cycling where you are the only one. I might
> be wrong. This is only my experience. Don't draw conclusions.

Lots of cyclists together annoy drivers more. They tend to pair up and talk to each other, or cycle in echelons, taking up more room.

>>> It is against the law.
>>

>> That is not a reason. Circular argument. "Why shouldn't you be doing
>> that?" "Because it's against the law" - see how silly that is?
>
> Not entirely. As Partac has pointed out, if people start off cycling on
> the pavement, they could end up mugging and involved in all-sorts of
> shit. Thin end of the wedge and all that. Better off nipping it in the
> bud and have a correctly ordered society, ja bitte mein freund.

Cycling on the pavement is not a criminal act in the same way as mugging, burglary, assault, etc. It's like equating a speeding driver to a thief.

>>> I suppose that we could add to the list:
>>> It means the cyclist could end up sinking into a life of crime.
>>

>> What utter shite.
>
> You are learning :-)

No. I've always known (as I just stated above) that pavement cycling is in no way connected to "a life of crime".

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Disk Full - Press F1 to belch.

[JNugent]

There are at least three variables on the one hand and at least two on
another.

Which question (out of a minimum of six) did you want answered?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

In what way?

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Not nearly enough.

>
> 1 per 1000?
> 1 per 10,000?
> 1 per 100,000?
> 1 per Million?
>
> According to the logic of Dave, since so few pavement cyclists are ever
> prosecuted, it simply cannot be happening.

Since cyclists are an unregistered, untraceable rabble it's simply more
difficult to apprehend them.

Thank you for making a case for registration.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 17/01/2013 10:40, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>

Nail, hit, head!

(No cycle helmet on head).

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 17/01/2013 10:25, Simon Weissel wrote:

The law is also very clear and absolute about cycling on the pavement.

There are no �marginal proportions�.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Weissel can prove it to himself.

Just go for a walk. Watch the cyclists riding on the pavement.

Or try this one! Try crossing a road, if its safe to. Watch cyclists
jump red lights. There you will find all the proof you need.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 17/01/2013 09:45, PhilO wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:37:49 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>> 33,000,000 drivers on the roads, only 1,000,000 offences, in a
>>>> country with more speed cameras than the rest of Europe
>>>> combined.
>>>>
>>>> 97% of drivers therefore don't speed
>>>

>>> That does not follow. Many speeding drivers are not detected.
>>
>> Prove it.
>

> Really? That's not up to your usual standard. Are you requesting that
> somebody prove that more than 3% of drivers speed (and yet Dave does
> not have to support the original bogus calculation)? Really?
>

The calculation is not bogus. That there are 33,000,000 drivers on the
roads and only 1,000,000 offences is a matter of public record.

Google & find out - oh, I forgot, you don't know how, do you?

So, now we have "faulty questions" and "bogus calculations".

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 17/01/2013 10:25, PhilO wrote:

How many times do you have to be told. I am never wrong.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 17/01/2013 10:51, PhilO wrote:

> On Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:27:05 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>> 3% is not "many".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you really claiming that not many drivers speed?
>>
>> Define "speed".
>>
> Whatever Dave meant when he claimed "97% of drivers therefore don't speed"
>
> Will you answer the question, now?
>>
>>
>>> Do you think Dave is right to say because only 3% get prosecuted, the other 97% do not speed?
>>
>
> You missed this question - will you answer it now?

Was it one of those "faulty questions"??

>>>
>>
>>>> And "speeding drivers" has at least three different meanings (not all of
>>>> which would even be illegal).
>>>
>>> Are any of your meanings so rare that it only applies to 3% of drivers?
>>
>> Yes. At least one, maybe two.
>
> But it was too much trouble to list them? Are you trying to be difficult?
>

You could find them by using Google. Oh hang on....

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

<SIGH>

I meant exceeding the speed limit.

Does that help "yoou"?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Silly questions & now silly statements. Oh dear.

I'll try a wya you might understand;

See Janet in her shiny car.
Janet lives in a country which has more speed scameras than any other.

Janet thinks its virtually impossible to avoid the scameras

If Janet exceeds the speed limit, a scamera will note the registration
number.
Janet will get a fine.

[Peter Keller]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:21:18 +0000, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

> "Peter Keller" <muzh...@centrum.sk> wrote in message
> news:kd75ak$crj$1...@dont-email.me...

>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:56:13 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/01/2013 14:06, Simon Weissel wrote:
>>>> On 16/01/2013 13:56, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message
>>>>> news:kd6anp$a3q$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are plenty of good reasons to not ride on the pavement:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It can be dangerous and annoying to pedestrians.
>>>>>> It can be dangerous for the cyclist.
>>>>>> It enforces the idea that cyclists should not be on the roads. It
>>>>>> makes the roads less safe for other cyclists.
>>>>>> It is against the law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose that we could add to the list:
>>>>>> It means the cyclist could end up sinking into a life of crime.
>>>>>
>>>>> They already have if they're breaking any law on a regular basis.
>>>>
>>>> Like drivers and speed limits huh? :-)
>>>>

>>> 33,000,000 drivers on the roads, only 1,000,000 offences, in a country
>>> with more speed cameras than the rest of Europe combined.
>>>

>>> 97% of drivers therefore don't speed.

>>
>> That does not follow.
>> Many speeding drivers are not detected.
>

> Many pavement cyclists aren't detected.

Agreed. That does not make my posting false.

[The Medway Handyman]

On 18/01/2013 05:24, Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> considered Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:30:22

> -0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:55:44 -0000, Simon Weissel <si...@weaseltemper.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/01/2013 15:37, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:42:21 -0000, Simon Weissel
>>>> <si...@weaseltemper.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are plenty of good reasons to not ride on the pavement:
>>>>>
>>>>> It can be dangerous and annoying to pedestrians.
>>>>
>>>> CAN.
>>>
>>> Yes it can. Not always. But it can.
>>
>> Rarely.
>>
>>>>> It can be dangerous for the cyclist.
>>>>
>>>> Why protect someone from themself?
>>>
>>> Because people are stupid. People need rules to stop themselves doing
>>> stupid things and then costing the taxpayer to mop up the mess for them.
>>
>> Wrong wrong wrong, a million times wrong. People should never ever be prevented from harming themselves through their own stupidity.
>>
>>>>> It enforces the idea that cyclists should not be on the roads.
>>>>
>>>> They shouldn't be, not if the road is busy.
>>>
>>> No they should be, that's what roads are for.
>>
>> Holding up the cars? I don't think so.

> Nor do I.
> The cars should wait for their betters.

>
>> Causing MORE danger? (Car hitting cyclist is worse than cyclist hitting pedestrian) I don't think so.

> But the cyclists wouldn't be the cause of that, just the stupidly
> incompetent driver that hit them.

>>
>>>>> It makes the roads less safe for other cyclists.
>>>>
>>>> How on earth would you draw that conclusion?
>>>
>>> The more cyclists there are, the less aggressive the traffic becomes.
>>> The more used to sharing the road with cyclists drivers become. Overall,
>>> cyclists have a calming effect on traffic (but perhaps not the
>>> individual drivers). Try cycling where there are lots of other cyclists,
>>> it feels a lot different to cycling where you are the only one. I might
>>> be wrong. This is only my experience. Don't draw conclusions.
>>
>> Lots of cyclists together annoy drivers more. They tend to pair up and talk to each other, or cycle in echelons, taking up more room.
>

> Good to let the motons know their place.
> And it's nice of you to let us know that the effort is not wasted.

>>
>>>>> It is against the law.
>>>>
>>>> That is not a reason. Circular argument. "Why shouldn't you be doing
>>>> that?" "Because it's against the law" - see how silly that is?
>>>
>>> Not entirely. As Partac has pointed out, if people start off cycling on
>>> the pavement, they could end up mugging and involved in all-sorts of
>>> shit. Thin end of the wedge and all that. Better off nipping it in the
>>> bud and have a correctly ordered society, ja bitte mein freund.
>>
>> Cycling on the pavement is not a criminal act in the same way as mugging, burglary, assault, etc. It's like equating a speeding driver to a thief.
>

> I would never do that - a speeding driver is far more likely to kill
> someone, so should be regarded as far worse.

>>
>>>>> I suppose that we could add to the list:
>>>>> It means the cyclist could end up sinking into a life of crime.
>>>>
>>>> What utter shite.
>>>
>>> You are learning :-)
>>
>> No. I've always known (as I just stated above) that pavement cycling is in no way connected to "a life of crime".


--

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 18/01/2013 05:24, Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> considered Thu, 17 Jan 2013
> 12:30:22 -0000 the perfect time to write:
>

>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:55:44 -0000, Simon Weissel
>> <si...@weaseltemper.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/01/2013 15:37, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:42:21 -0000, Simon Weissel
>>>> <si...@weaseltemper.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are plenty of good reasons to not ride on the
>>>>> pavement:
>>>>>
>>>>> It can be dangerous and annoying to pedestrians.
>>>>
>>>> CAN.
>>>
>>> Yes it can. Not always. But it can.
>>
>> Rarely.
>>
>>>>> It can be dangerous for the cyclist.
>>>>
>>>> Why protect someone from themself?
>>>
>>> Because people are stupid. People need rules to stop themselves
>>> doing stupid things and then costing the taxpayer to mop up the
>>> mess for them.
>>
>> Wrong wrong wrong, a million times wrong. People should never ever
>> be prevented from harming themselves through their own stupidity.
>>
>>>>> It enforces the idea that cyclists should not be on the
>>>>> roads.
>>>>
>>>> They shouldn't be, not if the road is busy.
>>>
>>> No they should be, that's what roads are for.
>>
>> Holding up the cars? I don't think so.

> Nor do I. The cars should wait for their betters.

98% v 2%, idiot.

>
>> Causing MORE danger? (Car hitting cyclist is worse than cyclist
>> hitting pedestrian) I don't think so.

> But the cyclists wouldn't be the cause of that, just the stupidly
> incompetent driver that hit them.

The driver who has passed a written & practical test of competence? Or
the totally untrained cyclist?

>>
>>>>> It makes the roads less safe for other cyclists.
>>>>
>>>> How on earth would you draw that conclusion?
>>>
>>> The more cyclists there are, the less aggressive the traffic
>>> becomes. The more used to sharing the road with cyclists drivers
>>> become. Overall, cyclists have a calming effect on traffic (but
>>> perhaps not the individual drivers). Try cycling where there are
>>> lots of other cyclists, it feels a lot different to cycling where
>>> you are the only one. I might be wrong. This is only my
>>> experience. Don't draw conclusions.
>>
>> Lots of cyclists together annoy drivers more. They tend to pair up
>> and talk to each other, or cycle in echelons, taking up more room.
>

> Good to let the motons know their place. And it's nice of you to let
> us know that the effort is not wasted.

The place for a moton is under the armpit of a 14th century knight.

Skinny latte please.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 18/01/2013 05:19, Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> considered Wed, 16 Jan 2013

> 15:37:25 -0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:42:21 -0000, Simon Weissel
>> <si...@weaseltemper.invalid> wrote:
>>

>>> On 16/01/2013 13:26, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:58:17 -0000, Partac
>>>> <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Simon Weissel" wrote in message
>>>>> news:kd6396$mug$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16/01/2013 11:10, Partac wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Simon Weissel" wrote in message
>>>>>> news:kd5o74$rbv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/01/2013 01:34, Partac wrote:
>>>>>>> I see the pavement cyclists have now moved up another
>>>>>>> notch in their many methods of lawbreaking:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6c6_1358276057
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Enjoy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow that was quick! I wonder if bikes could be considered
>>>>>> ‘a viable means of getaway vehicle’. Perhaps if there were
>>>>>> compulsory registration and licence plates, this type of
>>>>>> thing would never happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe I’m still asleep…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Number plates and registration would be a step in the right
>>>>>> direction, but if perhaps he had been stopped from pavement
>>>>>> cycling in the first place, maybe his law-breaking would
>>>>>> never have escalated in the way it obviously has.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess he started out as a pavement cyclist, and then
>>>>> escalated his criminal activities to mugging.
>>>>>
>>>>> I’d never really seen things this way. I’ll think twice when
>>>>> I see a kid riding on the pavement again. Sooner or later
>>>>> they will be nicking, robbing, doing drugs, perhaps even
>>>>> moving on to car theft, or organised crime.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we stamp out pavement cycling, that will stop at least
>>>>> some people ending up in a life of crime.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, you're beginning to see sense. It took some time,
>>>>> but your answer made all the effort worthwhile.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

>>>>
>>>
>>> There are plenty of good reasons to not ride on the pavement:
>>>
>>> It can be dangerous and annoying to pedestrians.
>>
>> CAN.
>>

>>> It can be dangerous for the cyclist.
>>
>> Why protect someone from themself?
>>

>>> It enforces the idea that cyclists should not be on the roads.
>>
>> They shouldn't be, not if the road is busy.
>

> Of course they should - especially if it's busy. It might encourage
> some more of the drivers to cycle (and avoid getting held up in the
> traffic) as well.

The Guvmint have wasted millions trying to encourage cycling - people
simply don't want to.

>>
>>> It makes the roads less safe for other cyclists.
>>
>> How on earth would you draw that conclusion?
>

> Because it encourages morons to think that cyclists don't belong on
> the public highway.

They are entitled to use whatever roads they pay to use. e.g. None.

>>
>>> It is against the law.
>>
>> That is not a reason. Circular argument. "Why shouldn't you be
>> doing that?" "Because it's against the law" - see how silly that
>> is?
>>

>>> I suppose that we could add to the list: It means the cyclist
>>> could end up sinking into a life of crime.
>>
>> What utter shite.
>

> Don't type it then.

[PhilO]

On Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:38:19 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
> On 17/01/2013 12:26, PhilO wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:15:30 PM UTC, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

>
> > "97% of drivers therefore don't speed"
> >
> > That is clearly a very silly statement. No idea why anyone would want to defend it.
> >
> Silly questions & now silly statements. Oh dear.
>
> I'll try a wya you might understand;
>
> See Janet in her shiny car.
>
> Janet lives in a country which has more speed scameras than any other.
>
> Janet thinks its virtually impossible to avoid the scameras
>
> If Janet exceeds the speed limit, a scamera will note the registration
> number.
>
> Janet will get a fine.
>

Dave, thanks for explaining it that "wya"

It seems you believe every time anyone exceeds the speed limit, they will get a fine.
Is that true?

[PhilO]

Nujent - is that what you needed?

[Alex]

Dave - Cyclists VOR stated:

[snip]

>The Guvmint have wasted millions trying to encourage cycling - people
>simply don't want to.

Why do you think the government have done that, may I ask as a genuine
question? I mean, why would they spend so much money in an effort to
encourage cycling; if cycling is, as you believe, such a misguided
thing for people to engage in?

[Simon Weissel]

On 17/01/2013 18:15, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
> On 17/01/2013 10:04, Simon Weissel wrote:
>> On 16/01/2013 20:11, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>>> On 16/01/2013 19:09, Simon Weissel wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no speed camera there :-) or should that be :-(
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Then there can't be a problem, or they would install one.
>>>
>>
>> Flawed logic.
>>
>
> In what way?
>

Why is the logic flawed?

The logic is flawed because it is based on the assumption that wherever
there is speeding traffic, that a speed camera is installed (for the
benefit of Jnugent ‘speeding’ in this context refers to traffic
regularly exceeding the posted legal speed limit). There are additional
requirements, as well as funding required, before a speed camera will be
installed anywhere.

In my local area there is one speed camera within a radius of about 6
miles, which covers literally hundreds of miles of road. Is this because
traffic does not exceed the speed limit apart from that one particular
place? Of course not, it's just that one place is an accident blackspot
opposite a park. That’s why we often see police and community supported
mobile speed traps in other areas. That’s why ‘speeding’ traffic is
usually at the top of the agenda at our local meetings between the
police and the local community.

To argue that: ‘if there was speeding traffic, there would be a speed
camera’ is like arguing that where cyclists ride on the pavement there
will be a PCSO handing out Fixed Penalty Notices. This is of course
absurd due to funding and practicalities, as one senior officer pointed
out to me recently ‘it just ain’t gonna happen.

It would be naïve to think that our wonderful government and police
force are so well funded and efficient that as soon as a crime takes
place, then measures are installed to stop it happening or that as soon
as someone exceeds the speed limit, then a speed camera pops up.

[Simon Weissel]

On 18/01/2013 08:47, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

> The Guvmint have wasted millions trying to encourage cycling - people
> simply don't want to.

This is true.

People do not want to cycle for various reasons but I think the main
ones are:

It takes effort.
It can be scary and it’s perceived to be dangerous.
You should have training.
You get sweaty.
Having to wear ‘the gear’ (helmets hi-vis etc),
You need somewhere to store your bike (either end of the journey).
It can be cold any you get soaked if it rains.

However if you turn that around:

It helps you get fit.
It makes you stronger (mentally).
It improves your road sense.
It improves blood circulation.
It improves general well being.
It also saves you money.

If the government want people to take up cycling, they need to dwell on
the *real* benefits of cycling rather than just painting lines on the
road that are *ONLY* of benefit to drivers.

[PhilO]

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 6:56:13 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>
> 33,000,000 drivers on the roads, only 1,000,000 offences, in a country
> with more speed cameras than the rest of Europe combined.
>

> 97% of drivers therefore don't speed.
>
Dave,

Data shows that in free flowing traffic, about 50% of cars are above the speed limit. See report linked here:
http://www.pacts.org.uk/research.php?id=82

It appears your 3% was wrong.

[JNugent]

On 18/01/2013 09:03, PhilO wrote:

> On Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:32:49 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>> On 17/01/2013 12:06, PhilO wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:20:38 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 17/01/2013 10:51, PhilO wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:27:05 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> 3% is not "many".
>
>>>>>>> Are you really claiming that not many drivers speed?
>
>>>>>> Define "speed".
>
>>>>> Whatever Dave meant when he claimed "97% of drivers therefore don't speed"
>>>>> Will you answer the question, now?
>
>>>> You'll have to ask him what he meant.
>>>> You also seem to have misinterpreted my request for proof and a
>>>> definition as my having made a statement.

>>>>>>> Do you think Dave is right to say because only 3% get prosecuted, the other 97% do not speed?

>>>> Define "speed".
>>>> Perhaps he'll have to do as well, but another poster has already pointed

>>>> out the rather obvious distinction between something which has to be

>>>> measured (accurately) in order to detect a possible offence and
>>>> something which is an offence on mere observation (like cycling along a
>>>> footway or cycling through a red light). One's own eyes provide that
>>>> evidence daily.
>
>>>>> You missed this question - will you answer it now?
>
>>>> See above.
>>>> What more do you want?
>
>>>>>>>> And "speeding drivers" has at least three different meanings (not all of
>>>>>>>> which would even be illegal).
>
>>>>>>> Are any of your meanings so rare that it only applies to 3% of drivers?
>
>>>>>> Yes. At least one, maybe two.
>
>>>>> But it was too much trouble to list them? Are you trying to be difficult?
>
>>>> Not at all.
>
>>>> I don't want to prompt or lead the person who made the suggestion. I'd
>>>> rather know what he meant.
>
>>> Come on then Dave, what did you mean by "speed" when yoou said:

Why did you ask him?

>>> "97% of drivers therefore don't speed"
>
>> <SIGH>
>> I meant exceeding the speed limit.
>> Does that help "yoou"?
>
> Nujent - is that what you needed?

You aren't the head prefect.

Address me correctly and I will consider providing you with the (rather
obvious) answer to your question.

But I suspect that you don't even know where you've gone wrong.

</DavidR mode>

[Simon Weissel]

"In 1998, 69% of cars on 30 mph roads were above the limit. By 2010 the
figure had fallen to 46%."

I suspect this has fallen further since then. With the likelihood of
being caught and facing a penalty being higher than in the past and with
the natural calming effect that higher fuel prices bring.

However, that does not condone the 46% of perpetual law-scoffing
motorists who seem to think it is acceptable to exceed the speed limit,
it is far removed from Dave�s �3%�.

But you need to ask, if 46% of the traffic is exceeding the speed limit,
does that meant that it is the same 46% of drivers all the time?
Probably not. I would suggest that most drivers exceed the speed limit
only some of the time, therefore the percentage of drivers who exceed
the speed limit some of the time would be considerably higher. At a
guess I�d estimate very close to 100%.

It may be bad news for Dave, but for the rest of us it�s just a fact of
life.

[PhilO]

Whoa! You've just got far too obtuse. Don't answer anything if you like.

[JNugent]

"Obtuse" is the word I'd use for someone so inept at the use of software
that they manage (every time) to turn a 90-line post into a 300-line one.

The word you were searching for was probably "obscure".

But what I wrote was not obscure (or shouldn't be, to a reader who is
familiar with both stadard English usage and basic logic).
>

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 18/01/2013 09:39, Simon Weissel wrote:
> On 17/01/2013 18:15, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>> On 17/01/2013 10:04, Simon Weissel wrote:
>>> On 16/01/2013 20:11, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>>>> On 16/01/2013 19:09, Simon Weissel wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no speed camera there :-) or should that be :-(
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Then there can't be a problem, or they would install one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Flawed logic.
>>>
>>
>> In what way?
>>
>
> Why is the logic flawed?

Yes.

>
> The logic is flawed because it is based on the assumption that wherever
> there is speeding traffic, that a speed camera is installed (for the
> benefit of Jnugent ‘speeding’ in this context refers to traffic
> regularly exceeding the posted legal speed limit). There are additional
> requirements, as well as funding required, before a speed camera will be
> installed anywhere.

But speed scameras raise huge amounts of money, £106.4 million was the
last figure I heard.

>
> In my local area there is one speed camera within a radius of about 6
> miles, which covers literally hundreds of miles of road. Is this because
> traffic does not exceed the speed limit apart from that one particular
> place? Of course not, it's just that one place is an accident blackspot
> opposite a park. That’s why we often see police and community supported
> mobile speed traps in other areas. That’s why ‘speeding’ traffic is
> usually at the top of the agenda at our local meetings between the
> police and the local community.
>
> To argue that: ‘if there was speeding traffic, there would be a speed
> camera’ is like arguing that where cyclists ride on the pavement there
> will be a PCSO handing out Fixed Penalty Notices. This is of course
> absurd due to funding and practicalities, as one senior officer pointed
> out to me recently ‘it just ain’t gonna happen.

There should be a plastic policeman ticketing cyclists, it would raise a
huge amount.

>
> It would be naïve to think that our wonderful government and police
> force are so well funded and efficient that as soon as a crime takes
> place, then measures are installed to stop it happening or that as soon
> as someone exceeds the speed limit, then a speed camera pops up.
>

Speed scameras have nothing to do with safety, they are about soaking
the motorist. They don't reduce road casualties at all.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Probably the same ineptitude that prevents him from finding posts - but
only the ones he doesn't like.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 18/01/2013 08:59, PhilO wrote:
> On Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:38:19 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>> On 17/01/2013 12:26, PhilO wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:15:30 PM UTC, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>
>>
>>> "97% of drivers therefore don't speed"
>>>
>>> That is clearly a very silly statement. No idea why anyone would want to defend it.
>>>
>> Silly questions & now silly statements. Oh dear.
>>
>> I'll try a wya you might understand;
>>
>> See Janet in her shiny car.
>>
>> Janet lives in a country which has more speed scameras than any other.
>>
>> Janet thinks its virtually impossible to avoid the scameras
>>
>> If Janet exceeds the speed limit, a scamera will note the registration
>> number.
>>
>> Janet will get a fine.
>>
>
> Dave, thanks for explaining it that "wya"

I put that in just for you :-)

>
> It seems you believe every time anyone exceeds the speed limit, they will get a fine.
> Is that true?
>

Given the huge number of fixed & mobile scameras, they are almost
impossible to avoid.

"Janet thinks its virtually impossible to avoid the scameras"

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 18/01/2013 10:08, Phil W Lee wrote:
> PhilO <goo1...@yahoo.co.uk> considered Fri, 18 Jan 2013 00:59:39

> He can dream.
>
> So can I.
>
> Nice, isn't it?
>
Do you dream of double espressos, latte's....

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 18/01/2013 12:12, PhilO wrote:

How many times do I have to tell you? I am never wrong.