oops

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
Ben <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
> No reflectors or bell on the S-Works. No reflectors because I rarely
> ride it on the road and no bell because I'd have a job physically
> fitting one on the bars and it's just sartorially wrong to have a bell
> on a £4000 bike.
>
Shouting at idiots is always going to be more effective and rewarding
than tinkling a little bell at them anyway, and you don't have to move
your hands to do it.

 

[Ben]

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 13:23:21 +0100, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>
>Ben <[email protected]> wrote:
><snip>
>> No reflectors or bell on the S-Works. No reflectors because I rarely
>> ride it on the road and no bell because I'd have a job physically
>> fitting one on the bars and it's just sartorially wrong to have a bell
>> on a £4000 bike.
>>
>Shouting at idiots is always going to be more effective and rewarding
>than tinkling a little bell at them anyway, and you don't have to move
>your hands to do it.

For peds I go with a nice "Good Morning/Afternoon", then if that
doesn't work, an "Excuse Me!" in a cheery voice, and if that fails I
ride straight at them.

99% of the time the first one works fine.

I've given up shouting when I get a vehicle pull out on me or cut me
up, they can't hear and they don't give a toss. I just get the hell
out of the way and content myself with the knowledge that they'll die
of a heart attack long before I will. This technique was learnt
riding motorbikes where crashing is extremely expensive and tends to
hurt a lot more.
--
http://www.addict-racing.com

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
Ben <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 13:23:21 +0100, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
<snip>
> >Shouting at idiots is always going to be more effective and rewarding
> >than tinkling a little bell at them anyway, and you don't have to move
> >your hands to do it.
>
> For peds I go with a nice "Good Morning/Afternoon", then if that
> doesn't work, an "Excuse Me!" in a cheery voice, and if that fails I
> ride straight at them.
>
Depends - if they're on a clearly marked cycle path I tend to go
straight for the strafing run unless it's an OAP.

> 99% of the time the first one works fine.
>
> I've given up shouting when I get a vehicle pull out on me or cut me
> up, they can't hear and they don't give a toss.

Shout louder and look scary.

 

[Ben]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 01:57:05 +0100, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>
>Ben <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 13:23:21 +0100, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
><snip>
>> >Shouting at idiots is always going to be more effective and rewarding
>> >than tinkling a little bell at them anyway, and you don't have to move
>> >your hands to do it.
>>
>> For peds I go with a nice "Good Morning/Afternoon", then if that
>> doesn't work, an "Excuse Me!" in a cheery voice, and if that fails I
>> ride straight at them.
>>
>Depends - if they're on a clearly marked cycle path I tend to go
>straight for the strafing run unless it's an OAP.

That one does annoy me a bit. My route out to my normal training runs
takes me through a couple of parks that have shared use paths where
they've got a solid white line down the middle and the bike and peds
symbols clearly painted every 10 metres of so. I manage to keep to my
half so how hard is it for a ped to keep to theirs?

>> 99% of the time the first one works fine.
>>
>> I've given up shouting when I get a vehicle pull out on me or cut me
>> up, they can't hear and they don't give a toss.
>
>Shout louder and look scary.
>
>

6 foot 2, 220lb tattoo'd skinhead. That do? <g>
--
http://www.addict-racing.com

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:14:04 +0100, Ben <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 01:57:05 +0100, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Depends - if they're on a clearly marked cycle path I tend to go
> >straight for the strafing run unless it's an OAP.
>
> That one does annoy me a bit. My route out to my normal training runs
> takes me through a couple of parks that have shared use paths where
> they've got a solid white line down the middle and the bike and peds
> symbols clearly painted every 10 metres of so. I manage to keep to my
> half so how hard is it for a ped to keep to theirs?

Perhaps their grasp of the law is better than yours?

There isn't a pedestrian side - the whole path is for pedestrians.

When the sides are marked, cyclists must stay on the marked side,
pedestrians are at liberty to walk anywhere they like. The addition
of any number of signs or any quantity of paint does not reduce the
pedestrian rights over the entire surface of the path.

> 6 foot 2, 220lb tattoo'd skinhead. That do? <g>

Makes it easier to identify you to the police, certainly. You'll also
make a nice stereotype for the local paper to write up.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ben]

On 06 Jun 2006 18:31:23 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:14:04 +0100, Ben <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 01:57:05 +0100, Rob Morley <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Depends - if they're on a clearly marked cycle path I tend to go
>> >straight for the strafing run unless it's an OAP.
>>
>> That one does annoy me a bit. My route out to my normal training runs
>> takes me through a couple of parks that have shared use paths where
>> they've got a solid white line down the middle and the bike and peds
>> symbols clearly painted every 10 metres of so. I manage to keep to my
>> half so how hard is it for a ped to keep to theirs?
>
>Perhaps their grasp of the law is better than yours?
>
>There isn't a pedestrian side - the whole path is for pedestrians.
>
>When the sides are marked, cyclists must stay on the marked side,
>pedestrians are at liberty to walk anywhere they like. The addition
>of any number of signs or any quantity of paint does not reduce the
>pedestrian rights over the entire surface of the path.

It's not about what's right, or what's law. It's about common
courtesy. The facility is provided, and I as a cyclist am trying to
make use of it. I'm honouring my side of the deal on how it's been
laid out.

>> 6 foot 2, 220lb tattoo'd skinhead. That do? <g>
>
>Makes it easier to identify you to the police, certainly. You'll also
>make a nice stereotype for the local paper to write up.

You're a bit of a ******, aren't you?
--
http://www.addict-racing.com

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 19:58:34 +0100, Ben <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 06 Jun 2006 18:31:23 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:14:04 +0100, Ben <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> That one does annoy me a bit. My route out to my normal training runs
> >> takes me through a couple of parks that have shared use paths where
> >> they've got a solid white line down the middle and the bike and peds
> >> symbols clearly painted every 10 metres of so. I manage to keep to my
> >> half so how hard is it for a ped to keep to theirs?
> >
> >When the sides are marked, cyclists must stay on the marked side,
> >pedestrians are at liberty to walk anywhere they like. The addition
> >of any number of signs or any quantity of paint does not reduce the
> >pedestrian rights over the entire surface of the path.
>
> It's not about what's right, or what's law. It's about common
> courtesy. The facility is provided, and I as a cyclist am trying to
> make use of it. I'm honouring my side of the deal on how it's been
> laid out.

And the pedestrians are honouring their side of the deal - which is
that they are entitled to walk whichever side of the path they like.
So no problem. Everyone's happy.

Why then are you annoyed?

> >> 6 foot 2, 220lb tattoo'd skinhead. That do? <g>
> >
> >Makes it easier to identify you to the police, certainly. You'll also
> >make a nice stereotype for the local paper to write up.
>
> You're a bit of a ******, aren't you?

Oh well, suddenly, on account of you being abusive, your argument
suddenly becomes sensible and coherent. Now I find out you know a
swear word, I realise I shouldn't tangle with your obviously superior
intellect.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ben]

On 06 Jun 2006 20:00:04 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 19:58:34 +0100, Ben <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 06 Jun 2006 18:31:23 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:14:04 +0100, Ben <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> That one does annoy me a bit. My route out to my normal training runs
>> >> takes me through a couple of parks that have shared use paths where
>> >> they've got a solid white line down the middle and the bike and peds
>> >> symbols clearly painted every 10 metres of so. I manage to keep to my
>> >> half so how hard is it for a ped to keep to theirs?
>> >
>> >When the sides are marked, cyclists must stay on the marked side,
>> >pedestrians are at liberty to walk anywhere they like. The addition
>> >of any number of signs or any quantity of paint does not reduce the
>> >pedestrian rights over the entire surface of the path.
>>
>> It's not about what's right, or what's law. It's about common
>> courtesy. The facility is provided, and I as a cyclist am trying to
>> make use of it. I'm honouring my side of the deal on how it's been
>> laid out.
>
>And the pedestrians are honouring their side of the deal - which is
>that they are entitled to walk whichever side of the path they like.
>So no problem. Everyone's happy.
>
>Why then are you annoyed?

I said it makes me a bit annoyed. There is a difference.

And what's the point in trying to integrate transport methods if
people aren't even going to try?

>> >> 6 foot 2, 220lb tattoo'd skinhead. That do? <g>
>> >
>> >Makes it easier to identify you to the police, certainly. You'll also
>> >make a nice stereotype for the local paper to write up.
>>
>> You're a bit of a ******, aren't you?
>
>Oh well, suddenly, on account of you being abusive, your argument
>suddenly becomes sensible and coherent. Now I find out you know a
>swear word, I realise I shouldn't tangle with your obviously superior
>intellect.

I personally wouldn't regard "******" as a swear word. Obviously you
do. I used it because I felt that suggesting that I was committing an
arrestable offence simply by riding in a marked cycle lane was a bit
idiotic.

FWIW, I'm not attempting to have an argument, or change anyone else's
opinion. I'm simply airing my view that I don't understand why
someone would walk in a clearly marked cycle lane, irrespective of
whether they are legally allowed to.
--
http://www.addict-racing.com

 

[Clive George]

"Ben" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...

> FWIW, I'm not attempting to have an argument, or change anyone else's
> opinion. I'm simply airing my view that I don't understand why
> someone would walk in a clearly marked cycle lane, irrespective of
> whether they are legally allowed to.

Well don't gratuitously insult people then.

BTW the answer is the same as for every other activity people find
offensive, and for why dogs lick their balls - it's because they can.

The people walking don't see any great downside from walking in the cycle
bit - after all, the cyclists manage to avoid them nearly all the time. If
there were more cyclists, ie a continual stream, maybe there would be the
incentive to keep to one side. Until then, sorry, you'll just have to cope.

cheers,
clive

 

[Mike Sales]

"Ben" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On 06 Jun 2006 20:00:04 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 19:58:34 +0100, Ben <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 06 Jun 2006 18:31:23 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:14:04 +0100, Ben <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> That one does annoy me a bit. My route out to my normal training
runs
> >> >> takes me through a couple of parks that have shared use paths where
> >> >> they've got a solid white line down the middle and the bike and
peds
> >> >> symbols clearly painted every 10 metres of so. I manage to keep to
my
> >> >> half so how hard is it for a ped to keep to theirs?
> >> >
> >> >When the sides are marked, cyclists must stay on the marked side,
> >> >pedestrians are at liberty to walk anywhere they like. The addition
> >> >of any number of signs or any quantity of paint does not reduce the
> >> >pedestrian rights over the entire surface of the path.
> >>
> >> It's not about what's right, or what's law. It's about common
> >> courtesy. The facility is provided, and I as a cyclist am trying to
> >> make use of it. I'm honouring my side of the deal on how it's been
> >> laid out.
> >
> >And the pedestrians are honouring their side of the deal - which is
> >that they are entitled to walk whichever side of the path they like.
> >So no problem. Everyone's happy.
> >
> >Why then are you annoyed?
>
> I said it makes me a bit annoyed. There is a difference.
>
> And what's the point in trying to integrate transport methods if
> people aren't even going to try?
>
> >> >> 6 foot 2, 220lb tattoo'd skinhead. That do? <g>
> >> >
> >> >Makes it easier to identify you to the police, certainly. You'll also
> >> >make a nice stereotype for the local paper to write up.
> >>
> >> You're a bit of a ******, aren't you?
> >
> >Oh well, suddenly, on account of you being abusive, your argument
> >suddenly becomes sensible and coherent. Now I find out you know a
> >swear word, I realise I shouldn't tangle with your obviously superior
> >intellect.
>
> I personally wouldn't regard "******" as a swear word. Obviously you
> do. I used it because I felt that suggesting that I was committing an
> arrestable offence simply by riding in a marked cycle lane was a bit
> idiotic.
>
> FWIW, I'm not attempting to have an argument, or change anyone else's
> opinion. I'm simply airing my view that I don't understand why
> someone would walk in a clearly marked cycle lane, irrespective of
> whether they are legally allowed to.
> --
> http://www.addict-racing.com

One of the advantages of riding on the road is that the motor traffic keeps
it clear of peds.

Mike Sales

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:14:09 +0100, Ben <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 06 Jun 2006 20:00:04 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Why then are you annoyed?
>
> I said it makes me a bit annoyed. There is a difference.

Err, if you say so.

I can't imagine how I could possibly have thought you were annoyed
when you had quite clearly said that you were a bit annoyed.

Obviously being a bit annoyed is completely different from being
annoyed. How silly of me to have thought otherwise.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ben]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 22:27:51 +0100, "Mike Sales"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> >>
>> >> >On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 18:14:04 +0100, Ben <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That one does annoy me a bit. My route out to my normal training
>runs
>> >> >> takes me through a couple of parks that have shared use paths where
>> >> >> they've got a solid white line down the middle and the bike and
>peds
>> >> >> symbols clearly painted every 10 metres of so.
>> >> >
>
>One of the advantages of riding on the road is that the motor traffic keeps
>it clear of peds.

Very true. I only use this route because it's a convenient way of
getting out to some nice country lanes and avoiding some lousy dual
carriageway and a motorway junction.
--
http://www.addict-racing.com

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:14:09 +0100, Ben <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 06 Jun 2006 20:00:04 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Why then are you annoyed?
> >
> > I said it makes me a bit annoyed. There is a difference.
>
> Err, if you say so.
>
> I can't imagine how I could possibly have thought you were annoyed
> when you had quite clearly said that you were a bit annoyed.
>
> Obviously being a bit annoyed is completely different from being
> annoyed. How silly of me to have thought otherwise.
>
He's right - you do seem to be a bit of a ******.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:14:09 +0100, Ben <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 06 Jun 2006 20:00:04 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why then are you annoyed?
> > >
> > > I said it makes me a bit annoyed. There is a difference.
> >
> > Err, if you say so.
> >
> > I can't imagine how I could possibly have thought you were annoyed
> > when you had quite clearly said that you were a bit annoyed.
> >
> > Obviously being a bit annoyed is completely different from being
> > annoyed. How silly of me to have thought otherwise.
> >
> He's right - you do seem to be a bit of a ******.

Is it simultaneously annoying you a bit and yet not annoying you?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>
> > Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:14:09 +0100, Ben <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On 06 Jun 2006 20:00:04 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why then are you annoyed?
> > > >
> > > > I said it makes me a bit annoyed. There is a difference.
> > >
> > > Err, if you say so.
> > >
> > > I can't imagine how I could possibly have thought you were annoyed
> > > when you had quite clearly said that you were a bit annoyed.
> > >
> > > Obviously being a bit annoyed is completely different from being
> > > annoyed. How silly of me to have thought otherwise.
> > >
> > He's right - you do seem to be a bit of a ******.
>
> Is it simultaneously annoying you a bit and yet not annoying you?
>
Did it wander around with no regard for other path users?