World Naked Bike Ride



D

David Damerell

Guest
I dunno what other urc types are going, but the date for the London WNBR
has changed to June the 14th. I'll be there, probably on my old green
Triumph roadster...
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is First Saturday, May - a weekend.
 
On Tue, 06 May 2008 17:31:44 +0100, David Damerell wrote:

> I dunno what other urc types are going, but the date for the London WNBR
> has changed to June the 14th. I'll be there, probably on my old green
> Triumph roadster...


The day before the London-Brighton ride!

peter
 
On 06 May 2008 17:31:44 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:

> I dunno what other urc types are going, but the date for the London WNBR
> has changed to June the 14th. I'll be there, probably on my old green
> Triumph roadster...


If you think you might be exceeding the speed limit* while passing a
camera, could you manage to present your posterior? Papers would LOVE a
photo.

* yes I know there's not one for cycles, but the camera may be stupid
enough not to know what is a cycle and what is a motorcar...
 
On 06/05/2008 17:31, David Damerell wrote:
> I dunno what other urc types are going, but the date for the London WNBR
> has changed to June the 14th. I'll be there, probably on my old green
> Triumph roadster...


It's very unlikely that I'll be on the London ride this year, because I
wouldn't travel all the way to London /just/ for the ride.

There's been discussion about doing a ride along the Bristol-Bath path,
possibly this year but more likely not until next year.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis
 
Danny Colyer wrote:
> On 06/05/2008 17:31, David Damerell wrote:
>> I dunno what other urc types are going, but the date for the London WNBR
>> has changed to June the 14th. I'll be there, probably on my old green
>> Triumph roadster...

>
> It's very unlikely that I'll be on the London ride this year, because I
> wouldn't travel all the way to London /just/ for the ride.
>
> There's been discussion about doing a ride along the Bristol-Bath path,
> possibly this year but more likely not until next year.
>

I would make that!
 
David Damerell wrote:

> I dunno what other urc types are going, but the date for the London WNBR
> has changed to June the 14th. I'll be there, probably on my old green
> Triumph roadster...


Just don't do anything remotely similar in the passeneger seat of a car,
or Ian Smith will want you hung, drawn and quartered.
 
David Damerell wrote:
> I dunno what other urc types are going, but the date for the London
> WNBR has changed to June the 14th. I'll be there, probably on my old
> green Triumph roadster...


Can someone take a cordless iron down there, please, and share it out
liberally. I don't want to see all those wrinkly bodies when the inevitable
pictures pop up on my TV screen.

~PB
 
"_" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 06 May 2008 17:31:44 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:
>
>> I dunno what other urc types are going, but the date for the London WNBR
>> has changed to June the 14th. I'll be there, probably on my old green
>> Triumph roadster...

>
> If you think you might be exceeding the speed limit* while passing a
> camera, could you manage to present your posterior? Papers would LOVE a
> photo.
>
> * yes I know there's not one for cycles, but the camera may be stupid
> enough not to know what is a cycle and what is a motorcar...


I'd say it's more than likely given the fuss over this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/7378695.stm
 
Doki wrote:
>
> "_" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 06 May 2008 17:31:44 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:
>>
>>> I dunno what other urc types are going, but the date for the London WNBR
>>> has changed to June the 14th. I'll be there, probably on my old green
>>> Triumph roadster...

>>
>> If you think you might be exceeding the speed limit* while passing a
>> camera, could you manage to present your posterior? Papers would LOVE a
>> photo.
>>
>> * yes I know there's not one for cycles, but the camera may be stupid
>> enough not to know what is a cycle and what is a motorcar...

>
> I'd say it's more than likely given the fuss over this:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/7378695.stm


Oh, don't underestimate it. There are some here who think that
passenger's behaviour to be so deplorable as to warrant severe penalty.
 
On Wed, 07 May 2008 09:43:42 +0100, Doki wrote:
> I'd say it's more than likely given the fuss over this:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/7378695.stm


If the car wasn't going over the speed limit, how come it took a photo of
the car? I thought they only took (or saved) photos of cars which it
detected as going too fast?

I set off one of those flashing signs on my bike the other day - doing
about 32 mph on the approach to a 30 mph zone. If cameras use the same
sort of sensor then I guess it would take a photo of you if you went fast
enough although the potential chafing from pedalling that
fast would put me off trying!

peter
 
naked_draughtsman wrote:
> On Wed, 07 May 2008 09:43:42 +0100, Doki wrote:
>> I'd say it's more than likely given the fuss over this:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/7378695.stm

>
> If the car wasn't going over the speed limit, how come it took a photo of
> the car? I thought they only took (or saved) photos of cars which it
> detected as going too fast?
>
> I set off one of those flashing signs on my bike the other day - doing
> about 32 mph on the approach to a 30 mph zone. If cameras use the same
> sort of sensor then I guess it would take a photo of you if you went fast
> enough although the potential chafing from pedalling that
> fast would put me off trying!


You don't even have to be doing 30.

I have been flashed twice when doing less than the 30 limit (one
explanation proffered was something to do with the doppler effect,
whereas others swear that there must have been someone going over the
limit the other way).
 
naked_draughtsman wrote:
> On Wed, 07 May 2008 09:43:42 +0100, Doki wrote:
>> I'd say it's more than likely given the fuss over this:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/7378695.stm

>
> If the car wasn't going over the speed limit, how come it took a photo of
> the car? I thought they only took (or saved) photos of cars which it
> detected as going too fast?


Looking at the low angle I think you will find it wasn't a camera on a
pole but a stationary talivan.
 
Marc wrote:
> naked_draughtsman wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 May 2008 09:43:42 +0100, Doki wrote:
>>> I'd say it's more than likely given the fuss over this:
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/7378695.stm

>>
>> If the car wasn't going over the speed limit, how come it took a photo of
>> the car? I thought they only took (or saved) photos of cars which it
>> detected as going too fast?

>
> Looking at the low angle I think you will find it wasn't a camera on a
> pole but a stationary talivan.


It says "mobile camera" in the article.
 
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> Marc wrote:
> > naked_draughtsman wrote:
> >> On Wed, 07 May 2008 09:43:42 +0100, Doki wrote:
> >>> I'd say it's more than likely given the fuss over this:
> >>>
> >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/7378695.stm
> >>
> >> If the car wasn't going over the speed limit, how come it took a photo of
> >> the car? I thought they only took (or saved) photos of cars which it
> >> detected as going too fast?

> >
> > Looking at the low angle I think you will find it wasn't a camera on a
> > pole but a stationary talivan.

>
> It says "mobile camera" in the article.


few years back saw one in the layby with a lorry parked up it's ****.
must of been a nice video of the lorry's grill.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
 

Similar threads

J
Replies
9
Views
759
Road Cycling
Michael Press
M