Cycling wrong way up one way street

®i©ardo

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.

No one is being evasive. Responses were given relating to a specific
scenario, although you decided to expand things by including *your*
hobbyhorse of "hate the motorist" in a non-comparative situation.

Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when leaving
a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally riding on the
pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a similar exercise.
The fact that pedestrians may, in order to avoid personal injury, wish
to take action against said cyclist is up to the individual. Most
pedestrians will be aware that regardless of the course of action that
they take in attempting to avoid being harmed, they will more than
likely to be the recipients of a gob full of abuse from some moron who
thinks his actions are saving the planet.

If you wish to introduce something more in line with your individual
prejudices please start a new thread on why it is morally justified to
throw rocks at the windscreens of cars that, in your opinion, are speeding.
--
Moving things in still pictures!

®i©ardo

Alang wrote:
> 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

LOL!

--
Moving things in still pictures!

®i©ardo

John Kane wrote:
> 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
>

No, I'm sure that you'll find somewhere here to get your rocks off...

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Mark

On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:36:34 +0100, ®i©ardo <here@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when leaving
>a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally riding on the
>pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a similar exercise.

So how come there are more injuries reported involving motor vehicles
on the pavement than involving cycles?

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Alan Braggins

In article <qboa445qofhvie4kakd67tq67n632via97@4ax.com>, Mark wrote:
>On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:36:34 +0100, ®i©ardo <here@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when leaving
>>a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally riding on the
>>pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a similar exercise.
>
>So how come there are more injuries reported involving motor vehicles
>on the pavement than involving cycles?

Because the smaller number of motor vehicles being driven on the pavement
are more likely to cause a serious (and therefore reported) injury.

Pavement cyclists are a more common hazard, but pavement drivers are a
more dangerous one (or at least pavement motor vehicles are - you could
argue that someone on the pavement because he has lost control while on
the road is no longer a driver).

David Hansen

On 03 Jun 2008 17:21:20 +0100 (BST) someone who may be
armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote this:-

>you could
>argue that someone on the pavement because he has lost control while on
>the road is no longer a driver).

Some do try and argue this. It is a bogus argument which the usual
suspects would not apply to someone in a similar group, for example
a cyclist who has lost control of their vehicle.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

®i©ardo

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.

You obviously missed my reply to your original posting of the above.
Here it is again:

"No one is being evasive. Responses were given relating to a specific
scenario, although you decided to expand things by including *your*
hobbyhorse of "hate the motorist" in a non-comparative situation.

Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when leaving
a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally riding on the
pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a similar exercise.
The fact that pedestrians may, in order to avoid personal injury, wish
to take action against said cyclist is up to the individual. Most
pedestrians will be aware that regardless of the course of action that
they take in attempting to avoid being harmed, they will more than
likely to be the recipients of a gob full of abuse from some moron who
thinks his actions are saving the planet.

If you wish to introduce something more in line with your individual
prejudices please start a new thread on why it is morally justified to
throw rocks at the windscreens of cars that, in your opinion, are speeding."

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Daniel Barlow

®i©ardo <here@nowhere.com> writes:
> individual. Most pedestrians will be aware that regardless of the
> course of action that they take in attempting to avoid being harmed,
> they will more than likely to be the recipients of a gob full of abuse
> from some moron who thinks his actions are saving the planet.

May be your experience, but clearly not a general one - round here,
for example, most of the pavement cyclists are teenage BMX hoodies who
are unlikely to give a shit about saving the planet.


-dan

Nick

®i©ardo 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.
>
> You obviously missed my reply to your original posting of the above.
> Here it is again:
>

Sorry I didn't realise you expected a reply.

> "No one is being evasive. Responses were given relating to a specific
> scenario, although you decided to expand things by including *your*
> hobbyhorse of "hate the motorist" in a non-comparative situation.
>

I asked a question which was not been answered. You haven't answered it,
apart from some meaningless unexplained comment about if being a
non-comparative situation, whatever that mean?

> Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when leaving
> a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally riding on the
> pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a similar exercise.
> The fact that pedestrians may, in order to avoid personal injury, wish
> to take action against said cyclist is up to the individual. Most
> pedestrians will be aware that regardless of the course of action that
> they take in attempting to avoid being harmed, they will more than
> likely to be the recipients of a gob full of abuse from some moron who
> thinks his actions are saving the planet.
>
> If you wish to introduce something more in line with your individual
> prejudices please start a new thread on why it is morally justified to
> throw rocks at the windscreens of cars that, in your opinion, are
> speeding."

I was just examining double standards and hypocrisy by comparing two
situations. If you want to do that we can have a meaningful discussion.
You know something along the lines of why you need to stress that a car
is considered to be speeding only "in my opinion" but a cyclist riding
on the pavement is apparently wrong in absolute terms rather than just
in the "pedestrian's opinion".

®i©ardo

Nick wrote:
> ®i©ardo 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.
>>
>> You obviously missed my reply to your original posting of the above.
>> Here it is again:
>>
>
> Sorry I didn't realise you expected a reply.
>
>> "No one is being evasive. Responses were given relating to a specific
>> scenario, although you decided to expand things by including *your*
>> hobbyhorse of "hate the motorist" in a non-comparative situation.
>>
>
> I asked a question which was not been answered. You haven't answered it,
> apart from some meaningless unexplained comment about if being a
> non-comparative situation, whatever that mean?
>
>> Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when
>> leaving a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally
>> riding on the pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a
>> similar exercise. The fact that pedestrians may, in order to avoid
>> personal injury, wish to take action against said cyclist is up to the
>> individual. Most pedestrians will be aware that regardless of the
>> course of action that they take in attempting to avoid being harmed,
>> they will more than likely to be the recipients of a gob full of abuse
>> from some moron who thinks his actions are saving the planet.
>>
>> If you wish to introduce something more in line with your individual
>> prejudices please start a new thread on why it is morally justified to
>> throw rocks at the windscreens of cars that, in your opinion, are
>> speeding."
>
> I was just examining double standards and hypocrisy by comparing two
> situations. If you want to do that we can have a meaningful discussion.
> You know something along the lines of why you need to stress that a car
> is considered to be speeding only "in my opinion" but a cyclist riding
> on the pavement is apparently wrong in absolute terms rather than just
> in the "pedestrian's opinion".

The simple answer is that a cyclist riding his machine on the pavement,
in the absence of a designated cycle lane or facility, is obviously
treating the law with total contempt, and is is patently obvious that
this is so. It is likely that a speeding motorist is showing a similar
contempt of the law if they are speeding, but *you*, unlike with the
cycling situation, cannot be absolutely sure whether a car is doing 3 -
5mph over the speed limit, or is speeding at all, based solely upon the
evidence of your jaundiced eye.

Let him who is without sin cast the first rock.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:09:28 +0100, ®i©ardo <here@nowhere.com> said
in <nsS1k.68736$SA7.24488@newsfe09.ams2>:

>Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when leaving
>a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally riding on the
>pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a similar exercise.

But far more likely, statistically, to be killed by a car on said
pavement than by a bike.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

baggy1963uk@googlemail.com

On 28 May, 15:57, Nick <Nick.S...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
> > TimB <stokef...@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> > saying:
>
> >> "Thank you for bringing to my attention the two PCSO's riding on the
> >> footpath in Marsh Street on the 11th May.
>
> >> I am pleased to see
> >> that you observed the officers riding at a leisurely pace and did not
> >> appear to be in a hurry to get anywhere which comes from their training
> >> of safe cycling, safety before speed.
>
> > <rolls eyes>
> > "They weren't speeding, so they must have been safe..."
>
> Well it is the speed that normally causes the danger. What do you think
> the danger from officers riding at a leisurely pace comes from?

A Start of Motorway sign means No Entry to cyclists but it didn't
stop
2 of them being on the A57(M) westbound between the A5103 and A56.
One
of them showed me his warrant card and it seemed to be his normal
route home! I was aquainted with someone from the local police
driving
school at the time and told him what I'd seen - I've not seen another
cyclist on that stretch of road since.

Nick

®i©ardo wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>> ®i©ardo 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.
>>>
>>> You obviously missed my reply to your original posting of the above.
>>> Here it is again:
>>>
>>
>> Sorry I didn't realise you expected a reply.
>>
>>> "No one is being evasive. Responses were given relating to a specific
>>> scenario, although you decided to expand things by including *your*
>>> hobbyhorse of "hate the motorist" in a non-comparative situation.
>>>
>>
>> I asked a question which was not been answered. You haven't answered
>> it, apart from some meaningless unexplained comment about if being a
>> non-comparative situation, whatever that mean?
>>
>>> Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when
>>> leaving a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally
>>> riding on the pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a
>>> similar exercise. The fact that pedestrians may, in order to avoid
>>> personal injury, wish to take action against said cyclist is up to
>>> the individual. Most pedestrians will be aware that regardless of the
>>> course of action that they take in attempting to avoid being harmed,
>>> they will more than likely to be the recipients of a gob full of
>>> abuse from some moron who thinks his actions are saving the planet.
>>>
>>> If you wish to introduce something more in line with your individual
>>> prejudices please start a new thread on why it is morally justified
>>> to throw rocks at the windscreens of cars that, in your opinion, are
>>> speeding."
>>
>> I was just examining double standards and hypocrisy by comparing two
>> situations. If you want to do that we can have a meaningful
>> discussion. You know something along the lines of why you need to
>> stress that a car is considered to be speeding only "in my opinion"
>> but a cyclist riding on the pavement is apparently wrong in absolute
>> terms rather than just in the "pedestrian's opinion".
>
> The simple answer is that a cyclist riding his machine on the pavement,
> in the absence of a designated cycle lane or facility, is obviously
> treating the law with total contempt, and is is patently obvious that
> this is so. It is likely that a speeding motorist is showing a similar
> contempt of the law if they are speeding, but *you*, unlike with the
> cycling situation, cannot be absolutely sure whether a car is doing 3 -
> 5mph over the speed limit, or is speeding at all, based solely upon the
> evidence of your jaundiced eye.
>

There are many ways I can be sure. In a road near my house they have a
sign that shows car speeds, it is accurate. It was put up after the
second kid was run down and killed within a year. When I'm on my bike
going 30mph and cars overtake, often dangerously, I know they are
speeding. There are many ways to reliably tell if a car is speeding.
This is just more evasion.

Why not just answer the question rather than find some trivial excuse.


> Let him who is without sin cast the first rock.
>

?

®i©ardo

Nick wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>> Nick wrote:
>>> ®i©ardo 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.
>>>>
>>>> You obviously missed my reply to your original posting of the above.
>>>> Here it is again:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry I didn't realise you expected a reply.
>>>
>>>> "No one is being evasive. Responses were given relating to a
>>>> specific scenario, although you decided to expand things by
>>>> including *your* hobbyhorse of "hate the motorist" in a
>>>> non-comparative situation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I asked a question which was not been answered. You haven't answered
>>> it, apart from some meaningless unexplained comment about if being a
>>> non-comparative situation, whatever that mean?
>>>
>>>> Regardless of your obsessions, a person is far more likely, when
>>>> leaving a shop, to have a cyclist run into them whilst illegally
>>>> riding on the pavement than be hit by a motor vehicle undertaking a
>>>> similar exercise. The fact that pedestrians may, in order to avoid
>>>> personal injury, wish to take action against said cyclist is up to
>>>> the individual. Most pedestrians will be aware that regardless of
>>>> the course of action that they take in attempting to avoid being
>>>> harmed, they will more than likely to be the recipients of a gob
>>>> full of abuse from some moron who thinks his actions are saving the
>>>> planet.
>>>>
>>>> If you wish to introduce something more in line with your individual
>>>> prejudices please start a new thread on why it is morally justified
>>>> to throw rocks at the windscreens of cars that, in your opinion, are
>>>> speeding."
>>>
>>> I was just examining double standards and hypocrisy by comparing two
>>> situations. If you want to do that we can have a meaningful
>>> discussion. You know something along the lines of why you need to
>>> stress that a car is considered to be speeding only "in my opinion"
>>> but a cyclist riding on the pavement is apparently wrong in absolute
>>> terms rather than just in the "pedestrian's opinion".
>>
>> The simple answer is that a cyclist riding his machine on the
>> pavement, in the absence of a designated cycle lane or facility, is
>> obviously treating the law with total contempt, and is is patently
>> obvious that this is so. It is likely that a speeding motorist is
>> showing a similar contempt of the law if they are speeding, but *you*,
>> unlike with the cycling situation, cannot be absolutely sure whether a
>> car is doing 3 - 5mph over the speed limit, or is speeding at all,
>> based solely upon the evidence of your jaundiced eye.
>>
>
> There are many ways I can be sure. In a road near my house they have a
> sign that shows car speeds, it is accurate. It was put up after the
> second kid was run down and killed within a year. When I'm on my bike
> going 30mph and cars overtake, often dangerously, I know they are
> speeding. There are many ways to reliably tell if a car is speeding.
> This is just more evasion.
>
> Why not just answer the question rather than find some trivial excuse.
>
>
>> Let him who is without sin cast the first rock.
>>
>
> ?

You must have a very full life watching that sign light up.

--
Moving things in still pictures!