Cycling wrong way up one way street

Me

In article <6aa9tsF3780a0U1@mid.individual.net>, Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk
says...
> Periander wrote:
> > Nick <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> > news:6aa7efF36qvheU1@mid.individual.net:
> >
> > ...
> >>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
> >>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
> >
> > If they were on the pavement endangering pedistrians why not?
> >
>
> Cool.
>
> You added pavement to the statement so presumably you don't think it is
> ok if they are speeding on the road endangering pedestrians and other
> motorists?
>
> Go on I do love to see the way you mind works.
>
Pedestrians shouldn't be wandering around on the roads, you know, they
shouldn't wander on railway lines too.

Brimstone

Nick wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Tony Dragon wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> Cynic wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:35:27 +0100, "John Pitcock"
>>>>> <j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Cynic" <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:13vs34h0ucloa9a7kab2ocb4itk2t2rqrk@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:05:22 +0100, Rob Morley
>>>>>>> <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The person leaving the shop should avoid walking into the path
>>>>>>> of either pedestrians or cyclists. It only becomes an issue if
>>>>>>> the cyclist is riding fast and so is not seen by person leaving
>>>>>>> the shop in sufficient time to avoid walking into its path.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Cynic
>>>>>> My wife stepped out of a shop into the path of a speeding
>>>>>> pavement cyclist: a collision was narrowly averted, but the
>>>>>> cyclist shouted abuse at her.
>>>>> Oh dear. All part of the rich tapestry of life, I'm afraid.
>>>> And a stick placed carefully in the spokes of the speeding cyclist
>>>> can add another apect of life to that tapestry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Best to put the stick in the front wheel, you could then score the
>>> resulting somersault.
>>
>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>
>>
> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?

Under the same circumstances, yes.

Brimstone

Nick wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>
>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>
>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars
>>> too?
>>
>> Well, I certainly would if they were trying to mow me down whilst I
>> was attempting to step out of a shop onto the pavement.
>>
>
> Ah, only in that specific case? I was hoping someone would be willing
> to generalise a bit more.
>
> AIUI a number of you feel it is ok to stick some thing in the spokes
> of a bike travelling illegally and dangerously on the pavement. I had
> wanted to know if this acceptability of violent direct action extended
> to other law breakers in similar situations.

Which is what has been said.

> You all appear to being a bit evasive.

Not at all. You are now trying to stir up an argument out of agreement.

> Particularly when we know that
> motorists do kill and maim hundreds of innocents each year.

Define "innocent"?

> I can't
> remember the last case of a pedestrian being killed or maimed by being
> hit by a pavement cyclist when they were coming out of a shop? Yes I
> do know that pavement cyclists in the uk do kill a pedestrian every 4
> years or so but I can't remember it happening outside a shop.

Does it matter where it happens? Presumably you would agree that it
shouldn't happen as there is no good reason for anyone to ride at speed on a
footpath?

> I'll put it down to hypocrites and double standards shall I?

Such traits exist only in your mind, and one or two other cyclists.

> Lucky its
> only imaginary vigilante action.

What's vigilante about it?

Periander

Nick <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:6aa9tsF3780a0U1@mid.individual.net:

> Periander wrote:
>> Nick <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:6aa7efF36qvheU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>> ...
>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars
>>> too?
>>
>> If they were on the pavement endangering pedistrians why not?
>>
>
> Cool.
>
> You added pavement to the statement

Well as this thread was about cyclists endangering other road users by
cycling on the pavement I thought that I ought to in order to keep the
answer in context.

> so presumably you don't think it is
> ok if they are speeding on the road endangering pedestrians and other
> motorists?
>
> Go on I do love to see the way you mind works.

You're to simple to understand how my mind works.

--
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

Alang

On Fri, 30 May 2008 12:41:02 +0100, Nick <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Brimstone wrote:
>> Tony Dragon wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> Cynic wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:35:27 +0100, "John Pitcock"
>>>>> <j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Cynic" <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:13vs34h0ucloa9a7kab2ocb4itk2t2rqrk@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:05:22 +0100, Rob Morley
>>>>>>> <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The person leaving the shop should avoid walking into the path of
>>>>>>> either pedestrians or cyclists. It only becomes an issue if the
>>>>>>> cyclist is riding fast and so is not seen by person leaving the
>>>>>>> shop in sufficient time to avoid walking into its path.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Cynic
>>>>>> My wife stepped out of a shop into the path of a speeding pavement
>>>>>> cyclist: a collision was narrowly averted, but the cyclist shouted
>>>>>> abuse at her.
>>>>> Oh dear. All part of the rich tapestry of life, I'm afraid.
>>>> And a stick placed carefully in the spokes of the speeding cyclist
>>>> can add another apect of life to that tapestry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Best to put the stick in the front wheel, you could then score the
>>> resulting somersault.
>>
>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry than
>> putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>
>>
>Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?

I would and I include those twatswith the blue lights on top heading
back to the station. Not the ones with the blue lights on top heading
back to the hospital of course

Alang

On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:52:17 GMT, Periander <4rubbish@britwar.co.uk>
wrote:

>Nick <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>news:6aa7efF36qvheU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>...
>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>
>>>
>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>
>If they were on the pavement endangering pedistrians why not?

Or even on the roads endangering other road users

Periander

Alang <invalid@invalid.co.uk> wrote in
news:6r4044d222gdpn7i12rgv6j0gkohmb51cv@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:52:17 GMT, Periander <4rubbish@britwar.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>Nick <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>>news:6aa7efF36qvheU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>...
>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>>
>>If they were on the pavement endangering pedistrians why not?
>
> Or even on the roads endangering other road users

How about miners trying to do an honest day's work?

--

Regards,

Periander

Alang

On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:01:17 GMT, Periander <4rubbish@britwar.co.uk>
wrote:

>Alang <invalid@invalid.co.uk> wrote in
>news:6r4044d222gdpn7i12rgv6j0gkohmb51cv@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:52:17 GMT, Periander <4rubbish@britwar.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Nick <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>>>news:6aa7efF36qvheU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>...
>>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>>>
>>>If they were on the pavement endangering pedistrians why not?
>>
>> Or even on the roads endangering other road users
>
>How about miners trying to do an honest day's work?

I don't think we have any miners left round here. Thatcher's boot boys
helped close all the pits

Tony Dragon

Nick wrote:
> Periander wrote:
>> Nick <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:6aa7efF36qvheU1@mid.individual.net:
>> ...
>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>
>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>>
>> If they were on the pavement endangering pedistrians why not?
>>
>
> Cool.
>
> You added pavement to the statement so presumably you don't think it is
> ok if they are speeding on the road endangering pedestrians and other
> motorists?
>
> Go on I do love to see the way you mind works.

Pavement was what the thread was originally about, so before you start
moving goalposts, read first.
And from the way you jump in on things we can see the way your mind works.

--
Tony the Dragon

Tony Dragon

Nick wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>
>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>
>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>>
>> Well, I certainly would if they were trying to mow me down whilst I
>> was attempting to step out of a shop onto the pavement.
>>
>
> Ah, only in that specific case? I was hoping someone would be willing to
> generalise a bit more.
>
> AIUI a number of you feel it is ok to stick some thing in the spokes of
> a bike travelling illegally and dangerously on the pavement. I had
> wanted to know if this acceptability of violent direct action extended
> to other law breakers in similar situations.
>
> You all appear to being a bit evasive. Particularly when we know that
> motorists do kill and maim hundreds of innocents each year. I can't
> remember the last case of a pedestrian being killed or maimed by being
> hit by a pavement cyclist when they were coming out of a shop? Yes I do
> know that pavement cyclists in the uk do kill a pedestrian every 4 years
> or so but I can't remember it happening outside a shop.
>
> I'll put it down to hypocrites and double standards shall I? Lucky its
> only imaginary vigilante action.


Put it down to your own double standards, there was another similar
thread about three months ago just search for 'wimbledon broadway'

--
Tony the Dragon

Nick

Tony Dragon wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>> Periander wrote:
>>> Nick <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>>> news:6aa7efF36qvheU1@mid.individual.net:
>>> ...
>>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>>>
>>> If they were on the pavement endangering pedistrians why not?
>>>
>>
>> Cool.
>>
>> You added pavement to the statement so presumably you don't think it
>> is ok if they are speeding on the road endangering pedestrians and
>> other motorists?
>>
>> Go on I do love to see the way you mind works.
>
> Pavement was what the thread was originally about, so before you start
> moving goalposts, read first.
> And from the way you jump in on things we can see the way your mind works.
>

I asked a question about another common law breaking activity. Periander
introduced pavements which clearly was not the intention of my question.
So I asked him to clarify.

Threads move on if we all stuck to the exact comments in the OP there
would be nothing worth posting.

I notice you too have made no attempt to answer the question I asked but
seem to be in some way annoyed that I asked it?

So do you think it is ok to throw stones at cars if they are speeding
on the road and hence endangering pedestrians and other motorists?

Nick

Tony Dragon wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>> ®i©ardo wrote:
>>
>>>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
>>>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
>>>
>>> Well, I certainly would if they were trying to mow me down whilst I
>>> was attempting to step out of a shop onto the pavement.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, only in that specific case? I was hoping someone would be willing
>> to generalise a bit more.
>>
>> AIUI a number of you feel it is ok to stick some thing in the spokes
>> of a bike travelling illegally and dangerously on the pavement. I had
>> wanted to know if this acceptability of violent direct action extended
>> to other law breakers in similar situations.
>>
>> You all appear to being a bit evasive. Particularly when we know that
>> motorists do kill and maim hundreds of innocents each year. I can't
>> remember the last case of a pedestrian being killed or maimed by being
>> hit by a pavement cyclist when they were coming out of a shop? Yes I
>> do know that pavement cyclists in the uk do kill a pedestrian every 4
>> years or so but I can't remember it happening outside a shop.
>>
>> I'll put it down to hypocrites and double standards shall I? Lucky its
>> only imaginary vigilante action.
>
>
> Put it down to your own double standards, there was another similar
> thread about three months ago just search for 'wimbledon broadway'
>
In what way do you think I have double standards?

John Kane

On May 30, 7:41*am, Nick <Nick.S...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
> > Tony Dragon wrote:
> >> Brimstone wrote:
> >>> Cynic wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 11:35:27 +0100, "John Pitcock"
> >>>> <j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Cynic" <cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:13vs34h0ucloa9a7kab2ocb4itk2t2rqrk@4ax.com...
> >>>>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 23:05:22 +0100, Rob Morley
> >>>>>> <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> The person leaving the shop should avoid walking into the path of
> >>>>>> either pedestrians or cyclists. *It only becomes an issue if the
> >>>>>> cyclist is riding fast and so is not seen by person leaving the
> >>>>>> shop in sufficient time to avoid walking into its path.
>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Cynic
> >>>>> My wife stepped out of a shop into the path of a speeding pavement
> >>>>> cyclist: a collision was narrowly averted, but the cyclist shouted
> >>>>> abuse at her.
> >>>> Oh dear. *All part of the rich tapestry of life, I'm afraid.
> >>> And a stick placed carefully in the spokes of the speeding cyclist
> >>> can add another apect of life to that tapestry.
>
> >> Best to put the stick in the front wheel, you could then score the
> >> resulting somersault.
>
> > That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry than
> > putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
>
> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?-

Do I need to bring my own rocks?

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

s_pickle2001@yahoo.com

On May 30, 1:57*pm, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nick <Nick.S...@yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >>>> That would indeed provide a much greater enrichment to the tapestry
> >>>> than putting it into the rear wheel. However, either is acceptable.
> >>> Would you like to throw rocks at the windscreens of speeding cars too?
> >> If they were on the pavement endangering pedistrians why not?
> > Cool.
>
> > You added pavement to the statement
>
> Umm, no, the entire sub-thread was quite clearly stated to be about a
> cyclist _who was on the pavement_.
>
> > so presumably you don't think it is ok if they are speeding on the road
> > endangering pedestrians and other motorists?
>
> Does it make a difference if they're driving badly but not exceeding the
> speed limit?
>
> How about if they are exceeding the speed limit, but driving in a
> perfectly safe way?

They are still increasing to risk to children who might run onto the
road etc, so their windows should be smashed.