An interesting report for Australian cyclists about cycling on the pavement (specifically in NSW)

[Bod]

"Why I support the call to allow cyclists to ride on footpaths in NSW"

The constant police crackdowns on cyclists combined with some of the
world’s most expensive fines highlight Sydney’s backwards attitude
towards something that should be encouraged.
In addition to the whopping $319 fine riders face for wearing no helmet
— despite studies showing it doesn’t improve safety — the horrific crime
of riding on a footpath is also the subject of the constant police
operations.
The law stipulates that children under 12 years of age can ride on a
footpath and an adult rider supervising a cyclist under 12 can also do
the same. For everyone else there is a $106 fine for the act.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/on-the-road/why-i-support-the-call-to-allow-cyclists-to-ride-on-footpaths-in-nsw/news-story/38a6abd5a956404fcefc2eaf25080934
--
Bod

[JNugent]

It seems that the UK could learn a lot from New South Wales.

It doesn't sound 100% perfect, but it's a lot better than here.

Paying those fines is completely voluntary, of course. If you can't do
the time...

[Bod]

"Currently NSW and Victoria are the only states that do not allow riding
on the footpath."
The rest of Oz doesn't find it a problem.


--
Bod

[JNugent]

"The rest of the country has not yet addressed the problem2 is a better
way to put it.

There is no good reason to tolerate yobbish behaviour.

QUOTE (from the article):
"it’s worth noting that I am going to continue riding on the footpath
regardless of whether the law changes or not.
Sure I might be risking multiple $106 fines, but if you have ever
commuted into the city on bicycle, you will understand why.
ENDQUOTE

[To the writer of the article:]

Yes, we do understand why.

You're a self-centred yob who doesn't care about the rights of others,
especially those of pedestrians.

You're not the first one we've encountered, unfortunately.

QUOTE:
Don’t like me doing it? Build better infrastrucure for cyclists and it
won’t be an issue. Simple.
ENDQUOTE

Stick you hand in your pocket... for that fine. It sounds as though the
authorities there have blood in their veins and determination in their
hearts.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

JNugent wrote:
> On 08/12/2017 12:47, Bod wrote:
>
>> On 08/12/2017 12:18, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 08/12/2017 08:48, Bod wrote:
>
>>>> "Why I support the call to allow cyclists to ride on footpaths in
>>>> NSW" The constant police crackdowns on cyclists combined with some of
>>>> the world's most expensive fines highlight Sydney's backwards
>>>> attitude towards something that should be encouraged.
>>>> In addition to the whopping $319 fine riders face for wearing no

>>>> helmet - despite studies showing it doesn't improve safety - the

Well said Mr Nugent and it is noted that Bod has not
replied....................... sniggers ...

[Rob Morley]

The problem with /allowing/ cycling on footpaths is that it encourages
the perception that cyclists /should/ ride on footpaths - granted there
are some footpaths whose use is generally preferable to the main
carriageway, but there are many where it's not only slower but also
more hazardous.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 08:48:47 +0000
> Bod <bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Why I support the call to allow cyclists to ride on footpaths in
>> NSW"
>>
>> The constant police crackdowns on cyclists combined with some of the
>> world's most expensive fines highlight Sydney's backwards attitude
>> towards something that should be encouraged.
>> In addition to the whopping $319 fine riders face for wearing no

>> helmet - despite studies showing it doesn't improve safety - the

>> horrific crime of riding on a footpath is also the subject of the
>> constant police operations.
>> The law stipulates that children under 12 years of age can ride on a
>> footpath and an adult rider supervising a cyclist under 12 can also
>> do the same. For everyone else there is a $106 fine for the act.
>>
>> http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/on-the-road/why-i-support-the-call-to-allow-cyclists-to-ride-on-footpaths-in-nsw/news-story/38a6abd5a956404fcefc2eaf25080934
>
> The problem with /allowing/ cycling on footpaths is that it encourages
> the perception that cyclists /should/ ride on footpaths - granted
> there are some footpaths whose use is generally preferable to the main
> carriageway, but there are many where it's not only slower but also
> more hazardous.

There are no footpaths in this nation where it is "preferable" to ride a
pedal bike on.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Oh shut up you unfit useless lazy bugger who can't cycle more than 100 yards.

--
The Archbishop of Canterbury and The Royal Commission for Political Correctness announced today that the climate in the UK should no longer be referred to as "English Weather".
Rather than offend a sizeable portion of the UK population, it will now be referred to as "Muslim Weather" - (Partly Sunni, but mostly Shi'ite).

[James Wilkinson Sword]

You'd force people to protect their OWN safety with a helmet?

--
Exersize: the act of removing excess baggage

[James Wilkinson Sword]

I mainly drive and occasionally cycle. As a driver I'd prefer if the cyclists were on the footpath, so they don't impede traffic. As a cyclist I always use the footpath if the road is busier (safer and easier). As pedestrian I don't care at all, I just step to the side to let cyclists past.

--
Interesting fact number 923:
Half the world's population has seen at least one Bond movie.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Have you ever in your worthless life made any constructive contribution to
any thread?
If so, show us.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 20:16:55 -0000, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 08:48:47 +0000
>> Bod <bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> "Why I support the call to allow cyclists to ride on footpaths in
>>> NSW" The constant police crackdowns on cyclists combined with some of
>>> the
>>> world's most expensive fines highlight Sydney's backwards attitude
>>> towards something that should be encouraged.
>>> In addition to the whopping $319 fine riders face for wearing no

>>> helmet - despite studies showing it doesn't improve safety - the

>>> horrific crime of riding on a footpath is also the subject of the
>>> constant police operations.
>>> The law stipulates that children under 12 years of age can ride on a
>>> footpath and an adult rider supervising a cyclist under 12 can also
>>> do the same. For everyone else there is a $106 fine for the act.
>>>
>>> http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/on-the-road/why-i-support-the-call-to-allow-cyclists-to-ride-on-footpaths-in-nsw/news-story/38a6abd5a956404fcefc2eaf25080934
>>
>> The problem with /allowing/ cycling on footpaths is that it
>> encourages the perception that cyclists /should/ ride on footpaths -
>> granted there are some footpaths whose use is generally preferable
>> to the main carriageway, but there are many where it's not only
>> slower but also more hazardous.
>
> I mainly drive and occasionally cycle. As a driver I'd prefer if the
> cyclists were on the footpath, so they don't impede traffic. As a
> cyclist I always use the footpath if the road is busier (safer and
> easier).

This is because you are a law breaking wanker.

As pedestrian I don't care at all, I just step to the side
> to let cyclists past.

This is because you are a gutless little wanker.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

I don't see much evidence of you doing that here.

--
Doctor: "Ask the accident victim his name so we can notify his family."
Nurse: "I did! He said his family already knows his name."

[James Wilkinson Sword]

It's because I have common sense. Why obstruct cars with the bicycle? Why endanger yourself on the bicycle?

>> As pedestrian I don't care at all, I just step to the side
>> to let cyclists past.
>
> This is because you are a gutless little wanker.

It's because I don't regard cyclists as a different species. You'd step to the side of another pedestrian wouldn't you? What about a jogger/runner (going at cycling speeds)? So what's the difference?

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

That is constructive and informative.
Now get back to watching porn, you thick skint little fuck all.

[Peeler]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 20:38:20 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

>
> Oh shut up you unfit useless lazy bugger who can't cycle more than 100 yards.

YOU shut up, you filthy unwashed workshy wanker that refuses to get up
before 10 a.m. and calls it an "illness"! You are DISGUSTING!

--
Unemployable, workshy "permanently ill" Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James
Wilkinson" LOL) description of his "disease":
"It's called an illness. I cannot get out of bed before about 10am."
MID: <op.zawc9...@red.lan>

[Peeler]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 20:40:22 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

> I mainly drive and occasionally cycle.

You mainly TROLL and bait for ATTENTION, you abnormal fucked up pathological
attention whore!

[Peeler]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 21:27:36 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

>> This is because you are a law breaking wanker.
>
> It's because I have common sense.

It's because you have no brains and are a smelly unwashed WANKER, Birdbrain!

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) "wisdom":
"Look at a donkey with a 2 foot penis. Does it require underwear? No."
MID: <op.yq5fr...@red.lan>

[James Wilkinson Sword]

No, it's your pathetically stupid opinion with no facts to back it up.

--
More than 10,000 people in England and Wales required professional treatment for injuries caused by home telephones in 2002.

[Peeler]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 22:07:59 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

>

> No, it's your pathetically stupid opinion with no facts to back it up.

That's what every single retarded post of YOURS is all about, you abnormal
endlessly driveling sick idiot!

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) "knowledge" LOL:
"I heard a long time ago that it was possible to breathe water or something
similar. It was either special fluid they could use for divers instead of
gas, or it was certain people who could learn to breathe actual water, I
can't remember which. Or it could have been that babies can actually
breathe water as that's what they do in the womb."
MID: <op.y9tc2...@red.lan>

[Peter Keller]

Have you?

[Peter Keller]

Thanks greatly for the compliment.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Here is your fact, Birdbrain.

"The primary legislation which makes cycling on a footway an offence is
section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act, this provides that a person shall be
guilty of an offence if he "shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or
causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or
accommodation of foot-passengers".

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

The law does not care what YOU might prefer.

>>
>> This is because you are a law breaking wanker.
>
> It's because I have common sense. Why obstruct cars with the
> bicycle? Why endanger yourself on the bicycle?

Common sense - PMSL.

>
>>> As pedestrian I don't care at all, I just step to the side
>>> to let cyclists past.
>>
>> This is because you are a gutless little wanker.
>
> It's because I don't regard cyclists as a different species. You'd
> step to the side of another pedestrian wouldn't you? What about a
> jogger/runner (going at cycling speeds)? So what's the difference?

Joggers and runners on the footpath are *pedestrians.*
A cyclist riding on the footpath is in charge of a ROAD vehicle and should
not be riding on the footpath.
Bloody hell, you are thick.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Most people ignore the law - how many people are caught speeding every year?

>>> This is because you are a law breaking wanker.
>>
>> It's because I have common sense. Why obstruct cars with the
>> bicycle? Why endanger yourself on the bicycle?
>
> Common sense - PMSL.

Tell me why you would cycle on a busy road instead of a quiet pavement.

>>>> As pedestrian I don't care at all, I just step to the side
>>>> to let cyclists past.
>>>
>>> This is because you are a gutless little wanker.
>>
>> It's because I don't regard cyclists as a different species. You'd
>> step to the side of another pedestrian wouldn't you? What about a
>> jogger/runner (going at cycling speeds)? So what's the difference?
>
> Joggers and runners on the footpath are *pedestrians.*
> A cyclist riding on the footpath is in charge of a ROAD vehicle and should
> not be riding on the footpath.
> Bloody hell, you are thick.

SAME SPEED, read it again.

--
Cold showers/baths/swimming:
1) Cure Hayfever. Apparently this is due to the strengthening effect on the mucous membranes.
2) Help circulation by bringing blood to capilliaries and increasing circulation through the body.
3) Improve the internal furnace, be warmer when it's cold.
4) Make losing weight easier - generating heat burns loads of calories.
5) Detoxify, by contracting muscles to eliminate toxins - skin and hair also improves.
6) Save energy.
7) Increase libido (contrary to the old wives' tale).

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Look up the word preferable, it has nothing to do with the law you silly OCD moron.

--
Confucius say lion with small penis must compensate with mighty roar.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Look up section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act, Birdbrain.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Speed has nothing to do with it.
Pedestrians and road vehicles has everything to do with it.
Bloody hell you are thick. No wonder you are a delivery boy claiming tax
credits - and that is all you ever will be.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Why do you think a cyclist doing 15mph is more dangerous than a runner doing 15mph?

--
When a woman wears leather clothing, a man's heart beats quicker, his throat gets dry, he goes weak in the knees, and he begins to think irrationally.
Ever wonder why?
She smells like a new truck!

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Why? That's just the opinion of the twat that wrote it.

Take note of all the shared use pavements there are.....

[Peeler]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:33:29 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

>> Look up section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act, Birdbrain.
>
> Why? That's just the opinion of the twat that wrote it.
>
> Take note of all the shared use pavements there are.....

We take note of your invincible STUPIDITY, Birdbrain!

--
More details from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) strange
world:
"We should be allowed to do as we wish within reason. For example":
"Smoke weed in a public place, drive as fast as we like, and do both
of those stark naked. Oh and fuck in public".
(Courtesy of Mr Pounder)

[Peeler]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 22:32:50 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),

the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

>> Speed has nothing to do with it.
>> Pedestrians and road vehicles has everything to do with it.
>> Bloody hell you are thick. No wonder you are a delivery boy claiming tax
>> credits - and that is all you ever will be.
>
> Why do you think a cyclist doing 15mph is more dangerous than a runner doing 15mph?

Why are you dumber than any other dumb Usenet troll, Birdbrain?

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 21:00:49 GMT, "Mr Pounder Esquire"
<MrPo...@RationalThought.com> wrote:

[]

>
> Have you ever in your worthless life made any constructive
> contribution to any thread?
> If so, show us.
>
>

PKB