J
Jnugent
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>> What none of us have ever seen - because it doesn't happen is a motor-vehicle merrily trundling
>>>> along a footway at 30mph, four wheels on the pavement.
>>> I've never seen a bike doing 30mph on a pavement either.
>> You have certainly seen many bicycles bowling along at their normal road speed on the footway. If
>> you hadn't, you would not find it necessary to condemn it "even when legal", to use your own
>> phrase.
> I have never seen a bicycle travelling at anywhere near my normal road speed on a footway.
Come off it.
That is a pathetic evasion even by your standards.
[ ... ]
>> ...the obscenity-screeaming cyclists do seem to have decreased in the last year or two; possibly
>> the too-tight Lycra was restricting the flow of blood to their brains.
> Ah, so it's fitness envy. I thought as much.
Actually, it is disdain for fashion victims (or obsessive Spiderman fans).
Lycra does seem to have fallen into disuse though, doesn't it?
>>> Me? I'm not the one laying down detailed (and in some cases impossible) criteria which must be
>>> met before I'll condemn pavement cycling.
>> There is nothing impossible about condemning footway cycling without reference to any other
>> road users.
> Nothing, other than the fact that it would be hypocritical,
You surprise me.
>> I did it, and two other self-avowed cyclist contributors also did so.
> So did I, in a thread in uk.rec.cycling
No, as we all know, you did not do so (at least, not if that was in a thread x-posted to ukrd - I do
not subscribe to ukrc and so cannot comment upon non-x-posted contributions). I make the reasonable
observation that if you had posted what you claim to have posted, you would have no difficulty in
bringing yourself to repeat it. But you do not "repeat" it.
What you did was the equivalent of keeping your fingers crossed behind your back. You hedged
your "condemnation" about with restrictions and reservations to the effect that you thought that
other motoring law should be enforced as a priority, with no priority being given to combatting
lawless cycling.
>> The reason you say you "can't" condemn footway cyclists is that you don't *want to*.
> No, the reason you *can't* accept my condemnation of pavament cyclists, along with all traffic
> infractions by all road users, is that *you* don't want to.
Because what you say - as you well know - is meaningless.
I have no difficulty with accepting condemnation of traffic violations (and even other violations -
like driving without road tax or without insurance or without a licence) by drivers. What I will not
do (because it would be ridiculous to do so) is link support for enforcement of those laws with
enforcement of other laws first.
>> You aren't fooling anyone (except possibly yourself).
> Nop, nobody is fooled at all. Everybody apart form you is entirely clear on my views on pavement
> cycling.
I am perfectly clear on your view of it. You don't think there should be any enforcement of the law
against it. At least, not while there is the slightest chance that a driver somewhere might be
getting away with 31mph in a built-up area, or perhaps driving with the nearside rear tyre a pound
over-inflated or something. In fact, the offence itself is unimportant, because *any possibility* of
a law infraction by a driver will suffice for you to withhold support for law enforcement against
footway-cycling, cycling at night without lights, cycling through red traffic lights or cycling the
wrong way along a one-way street.
Why you connect these two concepts is something only you can answer to. What is patently true is
that you will not condemn lawless cycling without reservation. If you were prepared to do it, you'd
have done it. You haven't done it (yet), though two other cyclist posters have and saw no difficulty
in doing so.
> You aren't because you seem intent on exempting the major source of risk from the exercise
The "exercise" is a discussion on cycling and on the offences committed by some cyclists.
Offences which may or may not be committed by others are irrelevant to it.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/04
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>> What none of us have ever seen - because it doesn't happen is a motor-vehicle merrily trundling
>>>> along a footway at 30mph, four wheels on the pavement.
>>> I've never seen a bike doing 30mph on a pavement either.
>> You have certainly seen many bicycles bowling along at their normal road speed on the footway. If
>> you hadn't, you would not find it necessary to condemn it "even when legal", to use your own
>> phrase.
> I have never seen a bicycle travelling at anywhere near my normal road speed on a footway.
Come off it.
That is a pathetic evasion even by your standards.
[ ... ]
>> ...the obscenity-screeaming cyclists do seem to have decreased in the last year or two; possibly
>> the too-tight Lycra was restricting the flow of blood to their brains.
> Ah, so it's fitness envy. I thought as much.
Actually, it is disdain for fashion victims (or obsessive Spiderman fans).
Lycra does seem to have fallen into disuse though, doesn't it?
>>> Me? I'm not the one laying down detailed (and in some cases impossible) criteria which must be
>>> met before I'll condemn pavement cycling.
>> There is nothing impossible about condemning footway cycling without reference to any other
>> road users.
> Nothing, other than the fact that it would be hypocritical,
You surprise me.
>> I did it, and two other self-avowed cyclist contributors also did so.
> So did I, in a thread in uk.rec.cycling
No, as we all know, you did not do so (at least, not if that was in a thread x-posted to ukrd - I do
not subscribe to ukrc and so cannot comment upon non-x-posted contributions). I make the reasonable
observation that if you had posted what you claim to have posted, you would have no difficulty in
bringing yourself to repeat it. But you do not "repeat" it.
What you did was the equivalent of keeping your fingers crossed behind your back. You hedged
your "condemnation" about with restrictions and reservations to the effect that you thought that
other motoring law should be enforced as a priority, with no priority being given to combatting
lawless cycling.
>> The reason you say you "can't" condemn footway cyclists is that you don't *want to*.
> No, the reason you *can't* accept my condemnation of pavament cyclists, along with all traffic
> infractions by all road users, is that *you* don't want to.
Because what you say - as you well know - is meaningless.
I have no difficulty with accepting condemnation of traffic violations (and even other violations -
like driving without road tax or without insurance or without a licence) by drivers. What I will not
do (because it would be ridiculous to do so) is link support for enforcement of those laws with
enforcement of other laws first.
>> You aren't fooling anyone (except possibly yourself).
> Nop, nobody is fooled at all. Everybody apart form you is entirely clear on my views on pavement
> cycling.
I am perfectly clear on your view of it. You don't think there should be any enforcement of the law
against it. At least, not while there is the slightest chance that a driver somewhere might be
getting away with 31mph in a built-up area, or perhaps driving with the nearside rear tyre a pound
over-inflated or something. In fact, the offence itself is unimportant, because *any possibility* of
a law infraction by a driver will suffice for you to withhold support for law enforcement against
footway-cycling, cycling at night without lights, cycling through red traffic lights or cycling the
wrong way along a one-way street.
Why you connect these two concepts is something only you can answer to. What is patently true is
that you will not condemn lawless cycling without reservation. If you were prepared to do it, you'd
have done it. You haven't done it (yet), though two other cyclist posters have and saw no difficulty
in doing so.
> You aren't because you seem intent on exempting the major source of risk from the exercise
The "exercise" is a discussion on cycling and on the offences committed by some cyclists.
Offences which may or may not be committed by others are irrelevant to it.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/04
