Blackpool sees cyclists as low risk on footways

[Alycidon]

QUOTE:
"A council report admits it is safer in some instances for cyclists to use the footway but more needs to be done to clarify which pavements are shared use.

It says: "Statistics tell us that we are more likely to have an injured cyclist on the road with the relevant consequences, than pedestrians injured by a bike on the footway."

Read more: http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/pedestrians-share-paths-with-cyclists-1-7869327#ixzz46XgM4Sgy

[MrCheerful]

So what? Pavement (footway) cycling is illegal.

It is safer for everyone, no matter what their mode of transport, if all
bicycles are left at home, so that should be the advice, and it is not
contrary to any law.

[JNugent]

"Safer" for whim?

Unless it means "safer for pedestrians", what would be the point (or its
justification)?

[JNugent]

<weary resignation>

"whim" should, of course, read as "whom".

[Alycidon]

QUOTE:

"when you go to holland you see, how with proper planning cyclists, pedestrians and motorists co - exist in harmony. just painting a line 2 foot from the kerb for a cycle lane is pointless and dangerous."

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

MrCheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 22/04/2016 10:30, Alycidon wrote:
>> QUOTE:
>> "A council report admits it is safer in some instances for cyclists to use the footway but more needs to be done to clarify which pavements are shared use.
>>
>> It says: "Statistics tell us that we are more likely to have an injured cyclist on the road with the relevant consequences, than pedestrians injured by a bike on the footway."
>>
>> Read more: http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/pedestrians-share-paths-with-cyclists-1-7869327#ixzz46XgM4Sgy

> So what? Pavement (footway) cycling is illegal.

So is footway driving, and that occurs _far_ more often than does footway
cycling, and the results are far more dangerous than cycling.

So piss off, you fucking stupid troll.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[MrCheerful]

On 23/04/2016 06:05, Phil W Lee wrote:
> MrCheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> considered Fri, 22 Apr 2016

> 12:37:02 +0200 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On 22/04/2016 10:30, Alycidon wrote:
>>> QUOTE:
>>> "A council report admits it is safer in some instances for cyclists to use the footway but more needs to be done to clarify which pavements are shared use.
>>>
>>> It says: "Statistics tell us that we are more likely to have an injured cyclist on the road with the relevant consequences, than pedestrians injured by a bike on the footway."
>>>
>>> Read more: http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/pedestrians-share-paths-with-cyclists-1-7869327#ixzz46XgM4Sgy
>>>
>>
>> So what? Pavement (footway) cycling is illegal.
>>
>> It is safer for everyone, no matter what their mode of transport, if all

>> cars are left at home, so that should be the advice, and it is not
>> contrary to any law.
>
> IFTFY
>
That would be lovely if we still had a tiny population that worked on
the land.

In the real world : banning cycling would save at least a hundred lives
a year, at no cost, and no practical loss of mobility and utility for
the country.

[Peter Keller]

On 22.04.2016 22:37, MrCheerful wrote:
>
> It is safer for everyone, no matter what their mode of transport, if all
> bicycles are left at home,

Wrong.

[Peter Keller]

Bullshit

[Peter Keller]

NP.

I understood you the first time :)

[JNugent]

Afraid not.

In the UK, it is the simple truth.

[MrCheerful]

On 23/04/2016 15:33, Phil W Lee wrote:
> MrCheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> considered Sat, 23 Apr 2016

> Absolute cobblers.
> Almost all cities and even large towns would be gridlocked, public
> transport would be rammed to dangerous levels, causing massive delays
> for all.
> One of the greatest threats in the various cycling campaigns' arsenal
> is to have a "no cycling" day, for exactly that reason.
> And of course, orders of magnitude more lives would be saved by a
> motoring ban than a cycling one, particularly if it were extended for
> long enough to have long term effects on fitness and pollution levels.
> Even without the improved fitness, you would be looking at around
> 20,000 lives a year from pollution plus those slaughtered directly by
> trauma. The savings to the country from having people stay fitter
> into old age and needing a shorter period of dependent care at the end
> of life would be astronomical, to say nothing of the benefit to those
> people themselves.
>

Like I said, with our present population and increase, 'no cars' will
not happen. It is a lovely utopian idea that everyone would bimble
around on bicycles, but do allow reality to seep in.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

MrCheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> In the real world : banning cycling would save at least a hundred lives a
> year, at no cost, and no practical loss of mobility and utility for the
> country.

Since 'in the real world', the majority of those who die whilst cycling are
killed after being struck by a psychopath in his car, banning the private
car would save most of those 100 lives. It would also save the million
people killed worldwide every year by pollution linked to the internal
combustion engine, and by blunt force trauma.

[JNugent]

On 24/04/2016 00:28, Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen wrote:

> MrCheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>> In the real world : banning cycling would save at least a hundred lives a
>> year, at no cost, and no practical loss of mobility and utility for the
>> country.

> Since 'in the real world', the majority of those who die whilst cycling are
> killed after being struck by a psychopath in his car, banning the private
> car would save most of those 100 lives. It would also save the million
> people killed worldwide every year by pollution linked to the internal
> combustion engine, and by blunt force trauma.

But not at no cost. And not at no practical loss of mobility and utility
for any country in which such a misguided policy was put into effect.

[Sorry about the twin double-negs.]

[Peter Keller]

I think we have different opinions.
I take into account the health and lifestyle effects of bicycling also,
which in my opinion more than offset the 100 or so bicyclists who
would not be killed because they don't exist.

[Alycidon]

On Sunday, 24 April 2016 09:45:06 UTC+1, Peter Keller wrote:

> I take into account the health and lifestyle effects of bicycling also,
> which in my opinion more than offset the 100 or so bicyclists who
> would not be killed because they don't exist.

Indeed - the biggest killers are on the left which cycling reduces.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/howwillyoudie.jpg

Got to look at the big picture.

[skate]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 20:45:04 +1200, Peter Keller <muzh...@centrum.sk>
wrote:

I would agree with that, too. There are real risks related to cycling
(especially on busy roads) but these have to be considered along with
the benefits and advantages associated with cycling overall.

[MrCheerful]

and it is quite impossible for anyone to exercise in equal or better
ways to cycling, or walk.

[skate]

I would never say that, it's not true. People who cycle tend to get a
lot of exercise they may otherwise miss out on, yet other people cycle
purely for the exercise it so provides. Cycling and exercise are
matters of free choice, and rightly so.

[Alycidon]

On Sunday, 24 April 2016 12:21:18 UTC+1, skate wrote:
People who cycle tend to get a
> lot of exercise they may otherwise miss out on, yet other people cycle
> purely for the exercise it so provides. Cycling and exercise are
> matters of free choice, and rightly so.

Indeed - my commute of 24 miles a day would have been impossible by walking, but it only took up 90mins by cycling. No gym fees required.

[JNugent]

There are other ways of taking exercise. Banning cycling would not be
the same thing as banning exercise.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 24/04/2016 00:28, Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>> MrCheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>> In the real world : banning cycling would save at least a hundred lives
>>> a year, at no cost, and no practical loss of mobility and utility for
>>> the country.
>
>> Since 'in the real world', the majority of those who die whilst cycling
>> are killed after being struck by a psychopath in his car, banning the
>> private car would save most of those 100 lives. It would also save the
>> million people killed worldwide every year by pollution linked to the
>> internal combustion engine, and by blunt force trauma.

> But not at no cost.

The net 'cost' of the motor car is in the red (to coin a phrase). There
are undoubtedly those who are able to get medical assistance faster than by
any other method, but this is offset by the one million killed every single
year by the private car.

But I said ban the private car, not the ambulance, police car or fire
engine.

> And not at no practical loss of mobility and utility for any country in
> which such a misguided policy was put into effect.

Any 'loss' would be minimal and short-lived. Maybe fat tory filth like you
would lose some mobility, but with luck, you'd die of a heart attack within
weeks anyway.

A fitter population (and without a private car, many people would have no
option but to consider active means of transport such as cycling or -
shock, horro! - walking) would be a more mobile population. For longer
distances, there is public transport, which is far less damaging to the
environment.

Win-win.

[Peter Keller]

For a lot of people it would be, especially if one uses a bike for
commuting, basic transport or similar. This is a form of compulsory
exercise for otherwise lazy people.
I am lazy. Biking has been especially good for me.

[MrCheerful]

I like to walk, but it is difficult to do so safely because of the high
volume of pavement cyclists. Banning bicycles would be very popular
with a huge swathe of the population, and would encourage a huge number
to walk more.

[JNugent]

No, it would not be and could not be.

> ... especially if one uses a bike for

> commuting, basic transport or similar. This is a form of compulsory
> exercise for otherwise lazy people.
> I am lazy. Biking has been especially good for me.

If you had to, you would another way to take exercise.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

Needless to say, the above is blatantly untrue.

[Peter Keller]

> volume of pavement cyclists. Banning bicycles on pavements would be very popular

> with a huge swathe of the population, and would encourage a huge number
> to walk more.

IFYPFY
Whatever gave you the idea that I support bicycling on pavements?

[Peter Keller]

I do not agree.
Bicycling is so easy and convenient and takes a lot less time than many
other forms of exercise. (see below). It is also very pleasant.

>
>> ... especially if one uses a bike for
>> commuting, basic transport or similar. This is a form of compulsory
>> exercise for otherwise lazy people.
>> I am lazy. Biking has been especially good for me.
>
> If you had to, you would another way to take exercise.

Which takes a lot more time.
I have to get to work anyway.
It takes me 40 mins by bicycle to get to work, and 25 mins by car.
So I get 40 minutes of good exercise and cardio etc for only 15 minutes
of my time. Sounds like a good deal for me.

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 26 April 2016 10:04:01 UTC+1, Peter Keller wrote:

>
> Which takes a lot more time.
> I have to get to work anyway.
> It takes me 40 mins by bicycle to get to work, and 25 mins by car.
> So I get 40 minutes of good exercise and cardio etc for only 15 minutes
> of my time. Sounds like a good deal for me.

Same here. I took 90 mins a day, had a BMI of 14 and saved £15k on petrol alone.
Drivers the same age as me are keeling over dead according to my retirees magazine.

[JNugent]

On 26/04/2016 10:03, Peter Keller wrote:

> On 25.04.2016 21:59, JNugent wrote:
>> On 25/04/2016 09:37, Peter Keller wrote:
>>> On 25.04.2016 04:38, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 24/04/2016 09:45, Peter Keller wrote:
>>>>> On 23.04.2016 22:47, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/04/2016 09:51, Peter Keller wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23.04.2016 18:05, MrCheerful wrote:

[ ... ]

>>>>>>>> In the real world : banning cycling would save at least a hundred
>>>>>>>> lives a year, at no cost, and no practical loss of mobility and utility
>>>>>>>> for the country.
>
>>>>>>> Bullshit
>
>>>>>> Afraid not.
>>>>>> In the UK, it is the simple truth.
>
>>>>> I think we have different opinions.
>>>>> I take into account the health and lifestyle effects of bicycling
>>>>> also, which in my opinion more than offset the 100 or so bicyclists
>>>>> who would not be killed because they don't exist.

>>>> There are other ways of taking exercise. Banning cycling would not be
>>>> the same thing as banning exercise.

>>> For a lot of people it would be,

>> No, it would not be and could not be.

> I do not agree.

Well, it's hard to see how you can realistically disagree with the
reasonable proposition that there ways, other than cycling, of taking
exercise. As a statement, it is palpably true.

> Bicycling is so easy and convenient and takes a lot less time than many
> other forms of exercise. (see below). It is also very pleasant.

I'm not going to disagree with a word of that.

I don't need to in order to validate my previous proposition ("banning

cycling would not be the same thing as banning exercise".

It might be an easy form of exercise to take, and it might well be
convenient, but that is not the same thing as being the only exercise
which could be taken.

>>> ... especially if one uses a bike for
>>> commuting, basic transport or similar. This is a form of compulsory
>>> exercise for otherwise lazy people.
>>> I am lazy. Biking has been especially good for me.
>
>> If you had to, you would another way to take exercise.
>
> Which takes a lot more time.
> I have to get to work anyway.
> It takes me 40 mins by bicycle to get to work, and 25 mins by car.
> So I get 40 minutes of good exercise and cardio etc for only 15 minutes
> of my time. Sounds like a good deal for me.

All accepted without demur.

It does not militate against what I said.

[MrCheerful]

It is very rude to alter someone else's post.

In the UK pavement (footway) cycling is already banned. Totally
banning bicycles from use in public would prevent any conflict between
any road users, including pedestrians, at any place. A total ban would
make bicycles easy to spot and confiscate without any delay.

[skate]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 11:22:45 +0200, MrCheerful
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>and it is quite impossible for anyone to exercise in equal or better

>ways to cycling...

I have just chanced upon this Presentation for Making Cycling Viable
New Zealand Cycling Symposium undertaken in 2000. Interestingly, a key
message was that:

QUOTE:

Cycling is arguably the "perfect" physical activity to promote health
for individuals, the community - and the planet.

UNQUOTE

So, there you have it, you can't beat better than perfection.

Incidentally, the symposium publication also mentions that, overall,
the evidence appears to be fairly consistent that the benefits of
cycling still outweigh the risks and costs":

www.cycle-helmets.com/bloomfield.pdf

[Alycidon]

Oops - my BMI was 21, the 14% was my body fat content.

[JNugent]

Shouldn't the benefits and the risks/costs all accrue to the same people?

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 26 April 2016 18:50:57 UTC+1, skate wrote:

>
> QUOTE:
>
> Cycling is arguably the "perfect" physical activity to promote health
> for individuals, the community - and the planet.
>
> UNQUOTE
>
> So, there you have it, you can't beat better than perfection.
>

Quite - here are a few Danes.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CgO10rnWIAAjQti.jpg

The most green, healthy and happy nation on Earth.

[skate]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 19:04:04 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

The benefits of cycling are not only reaped by cyclists themselves,
and thus it is only fair that costs should be shared by the other
beneficiaries. Risks, also, have to be considered for all concerned,
not only the cyclists.

[skate]

...and to think there are those who would seek to banish such joy!

[Alycidon]

The late anti-cycling mayor, Bob Ford who died aged 46 was a cycle hater who wanted to scrap cycle lanes in Toronto.

http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/ford_video_20131114_topix2.jpg?w=620&quality=65&strip=all&h=450

Can't see why he was so anti.

[skate]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 11:41:15 -0700 (PDT), Alycidon

:) I can't decide if that's a moustache on his upper lip or just the
remains of his cappuccino.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Alycidon wrote:
> QUOTE:
> "A council report admits it is safer in some instances for cyclists
> to use the footway but more needs to be done to clarify which
> pavements are shared use.
>
> It says: "Statistics tell us that we are more likely to have an
> injured cyclist on the road with the relevant consequences, than
> pedestrians injured by a bike on the footway."
>
> Read more:
> http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/pedestrians-share-paths-with-cyclists-1-7869327#ixzz46XgM4Sgy

Blackpool is a sink town with very high unemployment.
The scum cyclists love living there as they are all on the dole and are too
stupid to be able to afford a car.
The police are very aware of the scum cyclist problem. They are also aware
that the scum cyclists are on the dole and do not have any money.
Trust me on this one.

Btw, I forced another footpath riding scum cyclist into the gutter last
night whilst I was walking my little dog.
It was an ape, but the yellow lump of shit did not argue with me.
Are all cyclists cowards?
I had my dog on her lead in my left hand, my right hand was free. The
cyclist backed down.
Scum.

[JNugent]

Is that a "Yes" or a "No"?

[skate]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 01:24:14 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

It is a "Yes". As, indeed, is the case with cycling in the UK where it
is our society to whom the benefits and risks/costs all accrue.

[Peter Keller]

Possible yes.
But bicycling gives good value for time expended. I get 40 minutes of
good exercise for 15 minutes of time if I use my bike to commute.

[Peter Keller]

I am really glad you consider me rude. I take that as a compliment.
Now please ejaculate to me the further compliment of vulgar little
maggot. That would really make me ecstatic.

[Peter Keller]

I was going to say -- what?
A BMI of <19 is worse than a BMI of >30!

[Peter Keller]

Fair enough.
Biking works great for me.
I could not get so much exercise in so little time with anything else.

[Peter Keller]

On 27.04.2016 07:51, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> The scum cyclists love living there as they are all on the dole and are too
> stupid to be able to afford a car.

It really is a great compliment to be labelled as too stupid by the Pounder.
Now please vomit to me the further compliment of worthless bag of filth.

It really is a very great compliment to be called a stupid by you.
Especially by you.
And I have no fucking interest in looking good in your eyes.
After all I ride a fucking bicycle.
And we all know what you think of fucking bicyclists.
And because it is you who think that, that is an extremely great
compliment.
We must be doing something right.

[JNugent]

> It is a "Yes".As, indeed, is the case with cycling in the UK where it

> is our society to whom the benefits and risks/costs all accrue.

I utterly reject any and every unfounded assertion to the effect that I
derive the slightest benefit from people cycle-commuting from (say)
Clapham) to (say) Blackfriars.

If there is a benefit, it is delivered purely to the cyclist.

But others have to bear the cost(s).

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 20:51:40 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire
<MrPo...@rationalthought.com> wrote:

[]

> Btw, I forced another footpath riding scum cyclist into the gutter last
> night whilst I was walking my little dog.
> It was an ape, but the yellow lump of shit did not argue with me.
> Are all cyclists cowards?
> I had my dog on her lead in my left hand, my right hand was free. The
> cyclist backed down.
> Scum.

Would you have been happier knocked black and blue?


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

Still believe that anyone cares a shit what you 'reject', eh?

> any and every unfounded assertion to the effect that I derive the
> slightest benefit from people cycle-commuting from (say) Clapham) to
> (say) Blackfriars.
>
> If there is a benefit, it is delivered purely to the cyclist.

No, it results in reduced pollution levels, which benefits everyone.
Cyclists also take up less room than psychopaths (may of whom drive around
alone in their cars), so that benefits everyone else, too.

> But others have to bear the cost(s).

The 'cost(s)' are caused by others. No cyclist needs segregated cycleways
to protect him from pedestrians and/or from other cyclists. If it were not
for your kind, the 'cost(s)' would be non-existent.

And since the car driver does not pay any costs related to the vehicle
which get ringfenced for the roads, it is therefore obvious that he is a
sponging freeloader. Why should the costs of the car be borne by
non-psychopaths?

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

MrCheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> It is very rude to alter someone else's post.

It is also 'very rude' to troll a cycling newsgroup when you're not a
cyclist.

> In the UK pavement (footway) cycling is already banned.

It is also illegal to drive a car on the footway, yet as has been
demonstrated, this is done far, far more often by psychopaths than by
cyclists. And when it _is_ done by either class of road user, the injuries
inflicted - as well as the damage to 'furniture' - is far greater when the
psychopath hits someone or something.

The use of the private motor car is indefensible. As long as that is the
case, you will keep losing arguments on this newsgroup.

> Totally banning bicycles from use in public would prevent any conflict
> between any road users, including pedestrians, at any place. A total ban
> would make bicycles easy to spot and confiscate without any delay.

The day that happens, I hope that British cyclists begin a campaign of
armed resistance.

[skate]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:49:27 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

That is a clever little sentence, I don't think it is unreasonable for
anyone to reject any unfounded assertion they take a dislike to.

>If there is a benefit, it is delivered purely to the cyclist.
>
>But others have to bear the cost(s).

Despite what you say, however, there is an abundance of documented,
scientific based evidence to demonstrate the benefits of cycling for
the individual and *society* as a whole. It is all over the world wide
web, for example:

http://cyclehelmets.org/1015.html#207

This web site should not, of course, be regarded as an authoritative
treatment of the subject but it does rely on primary sources which are
well referenced, and these reference provide much more detailed
information and even fuller references.

Even if cycling is not the only way for people to achieve good health
and fitness (as you appear keen to point out) it is certainly one of
the best. And really, all of this stuff is widely acknowledged.

[MrCheerful]

swimming is a far better exercise.

[JNugent]

That's a matter of opinion at best. There are certainly opposing
viewpoints on the subject.

> It is all over the world wide web, for example:
>
> http://cyclehelmets.org/1015.html#207

Er... don't expect too many people to be impressed by that source.

But look... just stop where you are for a moment and think.

*Anyone* can make assertions about the supposed societal benefits of
anything at all. Making the case as a theoretical exercise is not the
same thing as proof.

Even if there *were* proof of it, it would still be a matter on which
public opinion would be split (putting it mildly) and where the
democratic process was the proper forum for deciding how society treats it.

Anyone could quite easily make a case for abolishing the tax - all of it
- on fuel, and even for subsidising the factor price. That motor
transport provides a societal benefit so huge that you cannot even
*think* of adequately measuring it is beyond argument, for instance.

> This web site should not, of course, be regarded as an authoritative
> treatment of the subject

Have no fear of that, especially that site. ;-)

> but it does rely on primary sources which are
> well referenced, and these reference provide much more detailed
> information and even fuller references.

> Even if cycling is not the only way for people to achieve good health
> and fitness (as you appear keen to point out) it is certainly one of
> the best. And really, all of this stuff is widely acknowledged.

And it is fine as long as the costs are properly identified and borne by
the recipients of the benefit.

[skate]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 18:18:21 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

As, indeed, there seem to be on most subjects.

>> It is all over the world wide web, for example:
>>
>> http://cyclehelmets.org/1015.html#207
>
>Er... don't expect too many people to be impressed by that source.

This site must have a notoriety of which I am unaware, plenty of
source references listed, though. Anyway, it is not difficult to find
supporting views all over the net.

>But look... just stop where you are for a moment and think.
>
>*Anyone* can make assertions about the supposed societal benefits of
>anything at all. Making the case as a theoretical exercise is not the
>same thing as proof.

The government is encouraging more people to cycle more safely and
more often. Are the favourable assertions they make about cycling
wrong, too?

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/cycling

>Even if there *were* proof of it, it would still be a matter on which
>public opinion would be split (putting it mildly) and where the
>democratic process was the proper forum for deciding how society treats it.
>
>Anyone could quite easily make a case for abolishing the tax - all of it
>- on fuel, and even for subsidising the factor price. That motor
>transport provides a societal benefit so huge that you cannot even
>*think* of adequately measuring it is beyond argument, for instance.

The democratic process in this country seems to treat cycling quite
well, given all these opposing views, that is.

>> This web site should not, of course, be regarded as an authoritative
>> treatment of the subject
>
>Have no fear of that, especially that site. ;-)
>
>> but it does rely on primary sources which are
>> well referenced, and these reference provide much more detailed
>> information and even fuller references.
>
>> Even if cycling is not the only way for people to achieve good health
>> and fitness (as you appear keen to point out) it is certainly one of
>> the best. And really, all of this stuff is widely acknowledged.
>
>And it is fine as long as the costs are properly identified and borne by
>the recipients of the benefit.

And you don't think that is sufficiently the case at present?

[skate]

Not if you can't swim, it isn't. Anyway, it's dangerous stuff water,
you can drown in it! Look what happened to Whitney Houston.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> On 27/04/2016 17:49, skate wrote:

>> Despite what you say, however, there is an abundance of documented,
>> scientific based evidence to demonstrate the benefits of cycling for the
>> individual and *society* as a whole.

> That's a matter of opinion at best. There are certainly opposing
> viewpoints on the subject.

There are 'opposing viewpoints' as to whether the earth is round and
whether evolution exists, you demented fucktard.

>> It is all over the world wide web, for example:
>>
>> http://cyclehelmets.org/1015.html#207

> Er... don't expect too many people to be impressed by that source.

Racking up the logical fallacies...

[Peter Keller]

But impracticable for me getting to work.

[TMS320]

"MrCheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

> swimming is a far better exercise.

How do I swim to the shops or cafes deep in the countryside? It is
completely irrelevant whether another form of exercise is "better". I don't
ride a bicycle for exercise - exercise just happens to be a useful by
product.

[MrCheerful]

My point was not about transport, but about exercise. Cycling is a poor
form of exercise compared to thers, swimming is particularly good.

[Alycidon]

On Thursday, 28 April 2016 10:44:11 UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
It is
> completely irrelevant whether another form of exercise is "better". I don't
> ride a bicycle for exercise - exercise just happens to be a useful by
> product.

Indeed - my reasoning in using my bike to commute was manifold. Certain journey times with no worries about traffic jams, no fuels costs, ability to cycle along riverbank or railtracks, not sitting in polluted air, only owning one car.

Being super fit was just an added bonus, but probably the most important one.

[MrCheerful]

can you let us know how much cycling saved you?

[TMS320]

"MrCheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

> On 28/04/2016 11:43, TMS320 wrote:
>> "MrCheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>
>>> swimming is a far better exercise.
>>
>> How do I swim to the shops or cafes deep in the countryside? It is
>> completely irrelevant whether another form of exercise is "better". I
>> don't
>> ride a bicycle for exercise - exercise just happens to be a useful by
>> product.
>
> My point was not about transport, but about exercise.

This is a cycle newsgroup, as you keep telling us when you don't like horror
stories about motorists.

> Cycling is a poor form of exercise compared to thers, swimming is
> particularly good.

You need to tell us how good/poor are defined. It rather depends on what one
wants get out of them, doesn't it?

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Respect
This is something that cyclists will never get.

[JNugent]

On 28/04/2016 20:00, TMS320 wrote:

> "MrCheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>> On 28/04/2016 11:43, TMS320 wrote:
>>> "MrCheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>
>>>> swimming is a far better exercise.
>
>>> How do I swim to the shops or cafes deep in the countryside? It is
>>> completely irrelevant whether another form of exercise is "better". I
>>> don't ride a bicycle for exercise - exercise just happens to be a
>>> useful by product.

>> My point was not about transport, but about exercise.

> This is a cycle newsgroup, as you keep telling us when you don't like horror
> stories about motorists.

If exercise is not, in your opinion, a proper topic in ukrc, please
remember that it was raised in the context of a proposition that banning
cycling on the highways would save about a hundred lives per year.

That seems fairly undisputable (and, indeed, has not been disputed). The
only counter-argument made was the exercise claim.

So if you object to claims about exercise, it would seem better to make
your objections known to those who advocate road-cycling (in spite of
all the danger), because of the claimed health benefits.

So it has to be either on-topic or off-topic to address those claims.
Which is it?

>> Cycling is a poor form of exercise compared to thers, swimming is
>> particularly good.

> You need to tell us how good/poor are defined. It rather depends on what one
> wants get out of them, doesn't it?

Oh... it seems to be on-topic after all.

[Alycidon]

On Thursday, 28 April 2016 20:01:58 UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

> This is a cycle newsgroup, as you keep telling us when you don't like horror
> stories about motorists.

Here is a photo of the cycle hating mayor, Bob Ford who wanted to rip up cycle lanes - a sort of reverse Boris.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChJSv9eWMAAWMix.jpg

Dead at 46 - no comment required.

[MrCheerful]

22 and dead, nuff said:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/29/belgian-cyclist-dan-myngheer-dies-heart-attack-criterium-international

[TMS320]

"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote

> On 28/04/2016 20:00, TMS320 wrote:
>> "MrCheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>> On 28/04/2016 11:43, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> "MrCheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>
>>>>> swimming is a far better exercise.
>>
>>>> How do I swim to the shops or cafes deep in the countryside? It is
>>>> completely irrelevant whether another form of exercise is "better". I
>>>> don't ride a bicycle for exercise - exercise just happens to be a
>>>> useful by product.
>
>>> My point was not about transport, but about exercise.
>
>> This is a cycle newsgroup, as you keep telling us when you don't like
>> horror
>> stories about motorists.
>
> If exercise is not, in your opinion, a proper topic in ukrc, please

Replying in the spirit of MrC's opinion that certain subjects are not proper
topics in ukrc is not expressing an opinion. Off you go again, taking one
thing and making somethng else out of it..

> remember that it was raised in the context of a proposition that banning
> cycling on the highways would save about a hundred lives per year.

Since you have butted in, perhaps you would answer the question I raised at
the top.

[JNugent]

On 28/04/2016 22:02, TMS320 wrote:

> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote
>> On 28/04/2016 20:00, TMS320 wrote:
>>> "MrCheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>>> On 28/04/2016 11:43, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> "MrCheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>
>>>>>> swimming is a far better exercise.
>
>>>>> How do I swim to the shops or cafes deep in the countryside? It is
>>>>> completely irrelevant whether another form of exercise is "better". I
>>>>> don't ride a bicycle for exercise - exercise just happens to be a
>>>>> useful by product.
>
>>>> My point was not about transport, but about exercise.
>
>>> This is a cycle newsgroup, as you keep telling us when you don't like
>>> horror stories about motorists.
>
>> If exercise is not, in your opinion, a proper topic in ukrc, please
>
> Replying in the spirit of MrC's opinion that certain subjects are not proper
> topics in ukrc is not expressing an opinion. Off you go again, taking one
> thing and making somethng else out of it..

Is this - changing the subject and denying that the previous subject
ever existed - to be your normal MO from now on?

>> remember that it was raised in the context of a proposition that banning
>> cycling on the highways would save about a hundred lives per year.
>
> Since you have butted in, perhaps you would answer the question I raised at
> the top.

You have, of course, and as per usual, snipped too much for your
question to be easily identified.

If you repeat it clearly, I'll answer it as best I can.

[MrCheerful]

If 'no bicycles' were to be reality, is it possible that there are other
ways that you could still get to the shops or your cafe in the woods?

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 28/04/2016 20:00, TMS320 wrote:
>> "MrCheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>> On 28/04/2016 11:43, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> "MrCheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

>>>>> swimming is a far better exercise.
>>
>>>> How do I swim to the shops or cafes deep in the countryside? It is
>>>> completely irrelevant whether another form of exercise is "better". I
>>>> don't ride a bicycle for exercise - exercise just happens to be a
>>>> useful by product.
>
>>> My point was not about transport, but about exercise.
>
>> This is a cycle newsgroup, as you keep telling us when you don't like
>> horror stories about motorists.
>
> If exercise is not, in your opinion, a proper topic in ukrc, please
> remember that it was raised in the context of a proposition that banning
> cycling on the highways would save about a hundred lives per year.

.. whilst glossing over the fact that banning the private car would save
four deaths per _day_, plus countless seriously injured, and tens of
thousands of deaths from pollution.

[TMS320]

"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote
> On 28/04/2016 22:02, TMS320 wrote:
>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote
>>> On 28/04/2016 20:00, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> "MrCheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>>>> On 28/04/2016 11:43, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> "MrCheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>
>>>>>>> swimming is a far better exercise.
>>
>>>>>> How do I swim to the shops or cafes deep in the countryside? It is
>>>>>> completely irrelevant whether another form of exercise is "better". I
>>>>>> don't ride a bicycle for exercise - exercise just happens to be a
>>>>>> useful by product.
>>
>>>>> My point was not about transport, but about exercise.
>>
>>>> This is a cycle newsgroup, as you keep telling us when you don't like
>>>> horror stories about motorists.
>>
>>> If exercise is not, in your opinion, a proper topic in ukrc, please
>>
>> Replying in the spirit of MrC's opinion that certain subjects are not
>> proper
>> topics in ukrc is not expressing an opinion. Off you go again, taking one
>> thing and making somethng else out of it..
>
> Is this - changing the subject and denying that the previous subject ever
> existed - to be your normal MO from now on?

Only following your example.

>>> remember that it was raised in the context of a proposition that banning
>>> cycling on the highways would save about a hundred lives per year.
>>
>> Since you have butted in, perhaps you would answer the question I raised
>> at
>> the top.
>
> You have, of course, and as per usual, snipped too much for your question
> to be easily identified.
>
> If you repeat it clearly, I'll answer it as best I can.

As ever, the clue is in the words "the question I raised at the top." Is it
your brain or the up/down arrows on your keyboard that are faulty?

[TMS320]

"MrCheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

> On 28/04/2016 23:02, TMS320 wrote:

>>>>>> "MrCheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> swimming is a far better exercise.
>>>>
>>>>>> How do I swim to the shops or cafes deep in the countryside? It is
>>>>>> completely irrelevant whether another form of exercise is "better". I
>>>>>> don't ride a bicycle for exercise - exercise just happens to be a
>>>>>> useful by product.

> If 'no bicycles' were to be reality, is it possible that there are other
> ways that you could still get to the shops or your cafe in the woods?

I can get to the shops, but my back can't cope with 10kg of shopping and I
would be forced (*) to use the car. As far as cafes are concerned, it's very
straightforward - I would not visit them.

(*) It is worth emphasising this word.

[JNugent]

There is too much scope for identifying the wrong text.

Please just repeat your question.

I will do my best to give you an answer, though possibly not the one you
were hoping for.
>
>
>

[TMS320]

"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote

Then the brain it is.

> Please just repeat your question.
>
> I will do my best to give you an answer, though possibly not the one you
> were hoping for.

It would be interesting to get any sort of answer.

[JNugent]

You clearly don't want an answer to your question, whatever it was.

[MrCheerful]

On 03/05/2016 04:10, Phil W Lee wrote:
> MrCheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> considered Tue, 26 Apr 2016
> 18:34:09 +0200 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On 26/04/2016 11:00, Peter Keller wrote:
>>> On 25.04.2016 20:21, MrCheerful wrote:
>>>> On 25/04/2016 10:37, Peter Keller wrote:
>>>>> On 25.04.2016 04:38, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/04/2016 09:45, Peter Keller wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23.04.2016 22:47, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 23/04/2016 09:51, Peter Keller wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 23.04.2016 18:05, MrCheerful wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 23/04/2016 06:05, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> MrCheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> considered Fri, 22 Apr 2016
>>>>>>>>>>> 12:37:02 +0200 the perfect time to write:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/04/2016 10:30, Alycidon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> QUOTE:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A council report admits it is safer in some instances for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cyclists
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use the footway but more needs to be done to clarify which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pavements are shared use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It says: "Statistics tell us that we are more likely to have an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> injured cyclist on the road with the relevant consequences, than
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pedestrians injured by a bike on the footway."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read more:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/pedestrians-share-paths-with-cyclists-1-7869327#ixzz46XgM4Sgy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So what? Pavement (footway) cycling is illegal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is safer for everyone, no matter what their mode of
>>>>>>>>>>>> transport, if
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> cars are left at home, so that should be the advice, and it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> contrary to any law.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> IFTFY
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That would be lovely if we still had a tiny population that
>>>>>>>>>> worked on
>>>>>>>>>> the land.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the real world : banning cycling would save at least a hundred
>>>>>>>>>> lives
>>>>>>>>>> a year, at no cost, and no practical loss of mobility and utility
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> the country.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bullshit
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Afraid not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the UK, it is the simple truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we have different opinions.
>>>>>>> I take into account the health and lifestyle effects of bicycling
>>>>>>> also,
>>>>>>> which in my opinion more than offset the 100 or so bicyclists who
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> not be killed because they don't exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are other ways of taking exercise. Banning cycling would not be
>>>>>> the same thing as banning exercise.
>>>>>>
>>>>> For a lot of people it would be, especially if one uses a bike for
>>>>> commuting, basic transport or similar. This is a form of compulsory
>>>>> exercise for otherwise lazy people.
>>>>> I am lazy. Biking has been especially good for me.
>>>>
>>>> I like to walk, but it is difficult to do so safely because of the high
>>>> volume of pavement cyclists. Banning bicycles on pavements would be
>>>> very popular
>>>> with a huge swathe of the population, and would encourage a huge number
>>>> to walk more.
>>>
>>> IFYPFY
>>> Whatever gave you the idea that I support bicycling on pavements?
>>
>> It is very rude to alter someone else's post.
>>
>> In the UK pavement (footway) cycling is already banned. Totally
>> banning bicycles from use in public would prevent any conflict between
>> any road users, including pedestrians, at any place. A total ban would
>> make bicycles easy to spot and confiscate without any delay.
>
> You do know that a vastly greater number of pedestrians are killed ON
> THE FOOTWAY by motor vehicles than cyclists, don't you?
> Oh yes, of course you do - you've been told that dozens of times.
> So we'll have to put your statements down to either stupidity or
> dishonesty - which is it?
>

This is a cycling group, I believe. I have made no mention of motor
vehicles in this thread, why are you trying to divert the subject?

[MrCheerful]

> You post is still thee, completely unaltered for anyone who wants to
> pollute their mind with it.

But altered in the post I mention, thereby giving the impression that I
had written it, by all means write a rebuttal, but altering someone
else's post is rude and unnecessary.

> It is rude to complain about someone proof reading it and providing a
> corrected version, particularly when they do so at no charge to
> yourself.
>>

My post was not incorrect, therefore needed no correction.

>> In the UK pavement (footway) cycling is already banned. Totally
>> banning bicycles from use in public would prevent any conflict between
>> any road users, including pedestrians, at any place.
>

> Pray tell how it would prevent conflict between pedestrians and motor
> vehicles, which is a vastly greater problem?

This is a cycling group, so I was remaining on topic.

>> A total ban would
>> make bicycles easy to spot and confiscate without any delay.
>

> Do it for the greatest offenders first.
> Cars are easier to spot as well.
>

This is a cycling group.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

MrCheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> altering someone else's post is rude and unnecessary.

As is trolling on a cycling newsgroup when you're not a cyclist.

So piss off, cunt.

[Peter Keller]

> else's post is rude and necessary.

IFYPFY

It really is a great honour to be labelled rude by you. Especially by you.
It really is a very great compliment to be called rude by you.
Especially by you.
And I have no fucking interest in looking good in your eyes.
After all I ride a fucking bicycle.
And we all know what you think of fucking bicyclists.
And because it is you who think that, that is an extremely great
compliment.
We must be doing something right.

>
>> It is rude to complain about someone proof reading it and providing a
>> corrected version, particularly when they do so at no charge to
>> yourself.
>>>
>

> My post was not incorrect, therefore needed correction.

IFYPFY

[Peter Keller]

On 03.05.2016 19:48, Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen wrote:
> MrCheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> altering someone else's post is rude and unnecessary.
>
> As is trolling on a cycling newsgroup when you're not a cyclist.
>
> So piss off, cunt.
>

Nah
Keep him here. He is entertaining.

[MrCheerful]

On 04/05/2016 01:22, Phil W Lee wrote:
> MrCheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> considered Tue, 3 May 2016

> YOUR POST IS STILL THERE< COMPLETELY UNALTERED.
> Keep reading that sentence until you understand it!
> See you next year.



My original post is still there, but PK altered it for the follow up,
you will see the added words: 'on pavements' which makes it look as
though that is what I said. By all means add an altered version as a
new post after mine, but altering my apparent post is not acceptable.

See my original post at 10.21 on the 25/04/16

[Peter Keller]

Your original post is not acceptable.

[MrCheerful]

Most of yours are not, but I would not dream of altering one of them.

[Peter Keller]

Thanks for that.

[MrCheerful]

What relevance is that diatribe?

[Peter Keller]

That you hate bicyclists and think they should be shot.
Because it is you that think that I take it as an honour from you that I
ride a bicycle. and am shit in your eyes.

[MrCheerful]

I don't remember suggesting that cyclists should be shot. I have never
made any aspersions as to you or your mode of transport.

I do not think about fucking cyclists.

I just wish cyclists would learn to use the roads sensibly, then
everyone would tolerate them.

[Peter Keller]

Well you did.
At least you showed sympathy when someone advocated shooting bicyclists.

[Peter Keller]

On 06.05.2016 23:07, MrCheerful wrote:

In this message
[quote]
"MrCheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

>
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/take-cyclists-shoot-says-ryanair-boss-223806

[/quote]

[MrCheerful]

How does that become me saying cyclists should be shot? Or do you
suppose that I am the boss of ryanair? Bit of a long shot that one,
even for you.

[Peter Keller]

On 07.05.2016 21:48, MrCheerful wrote:
> Bit of a long shot that one, even for you.

Thank you extremely much for that great compliment, especially as it
has come from you.
Now please ejaculate to me the further honour from you of a putrescent
mass and a walking vomit. That is a great accalade as you have said it.

And I have no fucking interest in looking good in your eyes.
After all I ride a fucking bicycle.

And we all know what you think of bicyclists.