Bloody idiot! What a bully - shouting at children.

West London cyclists could be forgiven for thinking that Christmas has come early for a second year running – almost a year to the day after the opening of the first section of Cycleway 9, the remainder of the route was officially opened this weekend. But as this video by broadcaster Jeremy Vine shows, parents and children riding their bikes on the new cycle lane on Saturday got a bit of Grinch-like treatment, being shouted at to “Get off your bikes!” – by an opponent of local active travel infrastructure who is also a former local Conservative chairman.

David Giles was suspended as chairman of the Chiswick Riverside Ward Conservatives in October after describing Labour-run Hounslow council as the ‘Brentford Taliban’ on Facebook.

Local news website ChiswickW4.com (link is external) said that at the time that Giles – a former Tory councillor in Hounslow and also now involved in the OneChiswick group opposed to low traffic neighbourhoods and the cycleway that runs along Chiswick High Road – had previously been warned by his party about his comments on social media.

On Saturday, he was filmed by Vine, who lives locally, shouting at people taking part in a ride to celebrate the opening of the new section of cycleway from King Street to Goldhawk Road, where the Hammersmith & Fulham his its boundary with Hounslow, and onwards to Turnham Green.

Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant out of his window and shouted “Get off your bikes!” at riders including children, some riding bicycles on their own, others in cargo bikes.

As Vine, who was taking part on the ride on his penny-farthing and has regularly tweeted videos of the section of cycleway opened last year along Chiswick High Road says in his tweet, “There's a lot of politicians round my way who are angry about cycle lanes, I get that. Most are decent people. But it comes to something when one of the most vocal activists starts yelling at children who are on a cycle ride. Words fail. Have a look.”

Twitter user Roger Adams, who retweeted Vine’s tweet, wrote: “Just to be clear: this isn't unusual for those of us who ride bikes, to have some random just shout at us. This one is a classic – going the opposite direction, no possible moment of obstruction. I've had that a couple of times. It's very odd behaviour.”

Hundreds of people took part on Saturday’s ride and local website The Chiswick Calendar has a huge gallery of photographs including many taken by Paul James, who said: “I wrote to the council 20 years ago telling it I felt unsafe gong straight on to Chiswick High Rd at Chiswick Lane with drivers often left hooking me in a hurry to get past. It’s great to see it’s safe now for the next generation …

“It was such a life affirming event to see all the smiles on those kids faces, even the smallest ones rode for miles without complaining once …

“It’s so good to see this sort of thing happening on our streets,” he added.

Leo Murray of the campaign group W6 Safe Cycling Families, who helped organise the ride, said: “It was a lot of fun! The mayor of Hammersmith and Fulham PJ Murphy cut the ribbon, held by kids on both sides, and then came on the whole ride with us, which was lovely.”

https://road.cc/content/news/anti-cycleway-campaigner-yells-kids-using-new-route-288885

On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant out of his
> window and shouted “Get off your bikes!” at riders including
> children, some riding bicycles on their own, others in cargo bikes.

It's possible that some cycle lanes are not intended to be used for cycling.

I was recently told of a cycle lane that has been created in Reading. I
couldn't think what purpose it was supposed to serve because amongst the
existing roads it is not a natural cycle route - and middle class adults
will never be riding up and down it with their children.

Yesterday, I turned off my normal route to take a look at it in the
flesh. I still can't work out what purpose it is supposed to serve.
https://goo.gl/maps/vZ5GWmcxLzVJGnda6
After looking at the junction for some time I decided it wasn't even
worth the bother of trying to reach it.

And here is a view to assist with Nugent's blood pressure
https://goo.gl/maps/afjQkFosjApvNmku7

On 22/12/2021 11:41 am, TMS320 wrote:

> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant out of his
>> window and shouted “Get off your bikes!” at riders including
>> children, some riding fairy-bicycles on their own, others in cargo fairy-bikes.

"...*in* cargo fairy-bikes..."?

> It's possible that some fairy-cycle lanes are not intended to be used for
> fairy-cycling.
>
> I was recently told of a fairy-cycle lane that has been created in Reading. I
> couldn't think what purpose it was supposed to serve because amongst the
> existing roads it is not a natural fairy-cycle route - and middle class adults
> will never be riding up and down it with their children.
>
> Yesterday, I turned off my normal route to take a look at it in the
> flesh. I still can't work out what purpose it is supposed to serve.
> https://goo.gl/maps/vZ5GWmcxLzVJGnda6
> After looking at the junction for some time I decided it wasn't even
> worth the bother of trying to reach it.

That was quite nicely done.

You managed to at least imply that fairy-cyclists would not pass the "No
Entry" signs - without actually lying.

> And here is a view to assist with Nugent's blood pressure
> https://goo.gl/maps/afjQkFosjApvNmku7

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 11:41:40 AM UTC, TMS320 wrote:
> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant out of his
> > window and shouted “Get off your bikes!” at riders including
> > children, some riding bicycles on their own, others in cargo bikes.
> It's possible that some cycle lanes are not intended to be used for cycling.

No - it was some jumped up ex-Tory Colonel Blimp that had not only lost his futile campaign to get CS9 banned, but also been booted out of the Tory party for anti cyclist comments he had made on social media.

QUOTE:
Avatar
Kendalred | 596 posts | 1 hour ago
6 likes

Just how much of an arsehole do you have to be to be expelled by the Tory party? It's like being thrown out of the KKK for being too racist.

eburtthebike | 2726 posts | 21 hours ago
20 likes

In exciting news today, the Gammon of the Year Award late entry from David Giles has thrown the competition into disarray, zooming immediately into the lead. With such a short time to go, it is unlikely he'll be overtaken unless someone even more obnoxious does something worse than shouting at kids for daring to ride their bikes on his road.

One of the organisers of the competition for the BBC said "Even though we hate bikes, this tiny penised little skid mark has set a new low in the competition, and we can't see him being beaten."

reply quote

Avatar
TheBillder replied to eburtthebike | 971 posts | 15 hours ago
4 likes

Could we have a Strictly Come Gammoning TV show? Professional gammons drawn from Talk Radio staff could mentor celebrities like Laurence Fox, and judging could come from the most experienced in the field, like Paul Dacre and Nick Griffin. Top rated telly channel GB News could cover it. Sure fire hit with the common sense brigade, and you could advertise over 50s plans in the breaks.

swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> Bloody idiot! What a bully - shouting at children.
>
> West London cyclists could be forgiven for thinking that Christmas
> has come early for a second year running - almost a year to the day
> after the opening of the first section of Cycleway 9, the remainder
> of the route was officially opened this weekend. But as this video by
> broadcaster Jeremy Vine shows, parents and children riding their
> bikes on the new cycle lane on Saturday got a bit of Grinch-like
> treatment, being shouted at to "Get off your bikes!" - by an opponent
> of local active travel infrastructure who is also a former local
> Conservative chairman.
>
> David Giles was suspended as chairman of the Chiswick Riverside Ward
> Conservatives in October after describing Labour-run Hounslow council
> as the 'Brentford Taliban' on Facebook.
>
> Local news website ChiswickW4.com (link is external) said that at the
> time that Giles - a former Tory councillor in Hounslow and also now
> involved in the OneChiswick group opposed to low traffic
> neighbourhoods and the cycleway that runs along Chiswick High Road -
> had previously been warned by his party about his comments on social
> media.
>
> On Saturday, he was filmed by Vine, who lives locally, shouting at
> people taking part in a ride to celebrate the opening of the new
> section of cycleway from King Street to Goldhawk Road, where the
> Hammersmith & Fulham his its boundary with Hounslow, and onwards to
> Turnham Green.
>
> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant out of his
> window and shouted "Get off your bikes!" at riders including
> children, some riding bicycles on their own, others in cargo bikes.
>
> As Vine, who was taking part on the ride on his penny-farthing and
> has regularly tweeted videos of the section of cycleway opened last
> year along Chiswick High Road says in his tweet, "There's a lot of
> politicians round my way who are angry about cycle lanes, I get that.
> Most are decent people. But it comes to something when one of the
> most vocal activists starts yelling at children who are on a cycle
> ride. Words fail. Have a look."
>
> Twitter user Roger Adams, who retweeted Vine's tweet, wrote: "Just to
> be clear: this isn't unusual for those of us who ride bikes, to have
> some random just shout at us. This one is a classic - going the
> opposite direction, no possible moment of obstruction. I've had that
> a couple of times. It's very odd behaviour."
>
> Hundreds of people took part on Saturday's ride and local website The
> Chiswick Calendar has a huge gallery of photographs including many
> taken by Paul James, who said: "I wrote to the council 20 years ago
> telling it I felt unsafe gong straight on to Chiswick High Rd at
> Chiswick Lane with drivers often left hooking me in a hurry to get
> past. It's great to see it's safe now for the next generation .
>
> "It was such a life affirming event to see all the smiles on those
> kids faces, even the smallest ones rode for miles without complaining
> once .
>
> "It's so good to see this sort of thing happening on our streets," he
> added.
>
> Leo Murray of the campaign group W6 Safe Cycling Families, who helped
> organise the ride, said: "It was a lot of fun! The mayor of
> Hammersmith and Fulham PJ Murphy cut the ribbon, held by kids on both
> sides, and then came on the whole ride with us, which was lovely."
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/anti-cycleway-campaigner-yells-kids-using-new-route-288885

Boring cunt.

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 at 2:19:02 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> >
> > https://road.cc/content/news/anti-cycleway-campaigner-yells-kids-using-new-route-288885
> Boring cunt.

The angry driver certainly looks to be short of useful things to do besides shouting at startled children, yes.

https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/david-giles-jeremy-vine-twitter.png

On 22/12/2021 11:51, JNugent wrote:
> On 22/12/2021 11:41 am, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant out of
>>> his window and shouted “Get off your bikes!” at riders including
>>> children, some riding bicycles on their own, others in
>>> cargo bikes.
>
> "...*in* cargo bikes..."?

??

>> It's possible that some cycle lanes are not intended to be
>> used for cycling.
>>
>> I was recently told of a cycle lane that has been created in
>> Reading. I couldn't think what purpose it was supposed to serve
>> because amongst the existing roads it is not a natural cycle
>> route - and middle class adults will never be riding up and down
>> it with their children.
>>
>> Yesterday, I turned off my normal route to take a look at it in the
>> flesh. I still can't work out what purpose it is supposed to
>> serve. https://goo.gl/maps/vZ5GWmcxLzVJGnda6 After looking at the
>> junction for some time I decided it wasn't even worth the bother of
>> trying to reach it.
>
> That was quite nicely done.
>
> You managed to at least imply that cyclists would not pass the
> "No Entry" signs - without actually lying.

You obviously missed the bit about "I turned off my normal route". Had I
crossed, I would still have been on a diversion.

But if you look at the date at the bottom of the picture it says
October 2020 and suprisingly enough, the traffic level shown is not
usual. Normally there isn't a significant enough gap in traffic to cross
in one. The prospect of death under a motor vehicle or death from old
age while waiting for a gap are significant trump cards.

I could have turned left from here and rejoined my original route but I
went back to complete my normal (quiet) route, which involves going the
wrong way down the length of a one way street.

On 22/12/2021 05:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 22/12/2021 11:51, JNugent wrote:
>> On 22/12/2021 11:41 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant out of
>>>> his window and shouted “Get off your bikes!” at riders including
>>>> children, some riding bicycles on their own, others in
>>>> cargo bikes.
>
>> "...*in* cargo bikes..."?
>
> ??

What do you mean... "??".

It's the idea of someone being *in* a cargo bike rather than *on* it
which is odd. Did you miss that even after I signposted it?

>>> It's possible that some cycle lanes are not intended to be
>>> used for cycling.
>>>
>>> I was recently told of a cycle lane that has been created in
>>>  Reading. I couldn't think what purpose it was supposed to serve
>>> because amongst the existing roads it is not a natural cycle
>>>  route - and middle class adults will never be riding up and down
>>> it with their children.
>
>>> Yesterday, I turned off my normal route to take a look at it in the
>>>  flesh. I still can't work out what purpose it is supposed to
>>> serve. https://goo.gl/maps/vZ5GWmcxLzVJGnda6 After looking at the
>>> junction for some time I decided it wasn't even worth the bother of
>>> trying to reach it.
>
>> That was quite nicely done.
>
>> You managed to at least imply that cyclists would not pass the
>> "No Entry" signs - without actually lying.
>
> You obviously missed the bit about "I turned off my normal route". Had I
> crossed, I would still have been on a diversion.

That doesn't disapply a No Entry sign (unless Berkshire has its own Road
Traffic legislation).

> But if you look at the  date at the bottom of the picture it says
> October 2020 and suprisingly enough, the traffic level shown is not
> usual. Normally there isn't a significant enough gap in traffic to cross
> in one. The prospect of death under a motor vehicle or death from old
> age while waiting for a gap are significant trump cards.

Possibly a problem (difficult to say in the absence of a movie), but
nothing to do with my point about the No Entry signs.

Nice try at further diversion.

> I could have turned left from here and rejoined my original route but I
> went back to complete my normal (quiet) route, which involves going the
> wrong way down the length of a one way street.

I don't doubt it. Why would I?

It still takes away nothing from the effect of a No Entry sign (to the
xtent that a fairy-cyclist can be bothered to obey it, that is).

On 22/12/2021 18:24, JNugent wrote:
> On 22/12/2021 05:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> On 22/12/2021 11:51, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 22/12/2021 11:41 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant out
>>>>> of his window and shouted “Get off your bikes!” at riders
>>>>> including children, some riding bicycles on their own, others
>>>>> in cargo bikes.
>>
>>> "...*in* cargo bikes..."?
>>
>> ??
>
> What do you mean... "??".
>
> It's the idea of someone being *in* a cargo bike rather than *on* it
> which is odd. Did you miss that even after I signposted it?

Nothing odd about it.

>>>> It's possible that some cycle lanes are not intended to be used
>>>> for cycling.
>>>>
>>>> I was recently told of a cycle lane that has been created in
>>>> Reading. I couldn't think what purpose it was supposed to serve
>>>> because amongst the existing roads it is not a natural cycle
>>>> route - and middle class adults will never be riding up and
>>>> down it with their children.
>>
>>>> Yesterday, I turned off my normal route to take a look at it in
>>>> the flesh. I still can't work out what purpose it is supposed
>>>> to serve. https://goo.gl/maps/vZ5GWmcxLzVJGnda6 After looking
>>>> at the junction for some time I decided it wasn't even worth
>>>> the bother of trying to reach it.
>>
>>> That was quite nicely done.
>>
>>> You managed to at least imply that cyclists would not pass the
>>> "No Entry" signs - without actually lying.
>>
>> You obviously missed the bit about "I turned off my normal route".
>> Had I crossed, I would still have been on a diversion.
>
> That doesn't disapply a No Entry sign (unless Berkshire has its own
> Road Traffic legislation).
>
>> But if you look at the date at the bottom of the picture it says
>> October 2020 and suprisingly enough, the traffic level shown is not
>> usual. Normally there isn't a significant enough gap in traffic to
>> cross in one. The prospect of death under a motor vehicle or death
>> from old age while waiting for a gap are significant trump cards.
>
> Possibly a problem (difficult to say in the absence of a movie), but
> nothing to do with my point about the No Entry signs.

You don't have a point.

> Nice try at further diversion.
>
>> I could have turned left from here and rejoined my original route
>> but I went back to complete my normal (quiet) route, which involves
>> going the wrong way down the length of a one way street.
>
> I don't doubt it. Why would I?
>
> It still takes away nothing from the effect of a No Entry sign (to
> the xtent that a cyclist can be bothered to obey it, that is).

The Highway Code says "Cutting the number of deaths and injuries that
occur on our roads every day is a responsibility we all share." I assume
you want me to follow the Highway Code?

On 22/12/2021 07:38 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> On 22/12/2021 18:24, JNugent wrote:
>> On 22/12/2021 05:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/12/2021 11:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:41 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant out
>>>>>> of his window and shouted “Get off your bikes!” at riders
>>>>>> including children, some riding bicycles on their own, others
>>>>>> in cargo bikes.
>>>
>>>> "...*in* cargo bikes..."?
>>>
>>> ??
>>
>> What do you mean... "??".
>>
>> It's the idea of someone being *in* a cargo bike rather than *on* it
>>  which is odd. Did you miss that even after I signposted it?
>
> Nothing odd about it.

Nothing odd, you say, with the concept of someone being *in* a bike?

Weird.

But on reflection, perhaps you are referring to something similar to
that case of a few years ago, where a fairy-cyclist was discovered (by a
chambermaid) having sex with his fairy-cycle in a hotel room?

That must be it.

>>>>> It's possible that some cycle lanes are not intended to be used
>>>>> for cycling.
>>>>> I was recently told of a cycle lane that has been created in
>>>>> Reading. I couldn't think what purpose it was supposed to serve
>>>>>  because amongst the existing roads it is not a natural cycle route
>>>>> - and middle class adults will never be riding up and
>>>>> down it with their children.
>
>>>>> Yesterday, I turned off my normal route to take a look at it in
>>>>> the flesh. I still can't work out what purpose it is supposed
>>>>> to serve. https://goo.gl/maps/vZ5GWmcxLzVJGnda6 After looking
>>>>> at the junction for some time I decided it wasn't even worth
>>>>> the bother of trying to reach it.
>
>>>> That was quite nicely done.
>>>> You managed to at least imply that cyclists would not pass the "No
>>>> Entry" signs - without actually lying.
>
>>> You obviously missed the bit about "I turned off my normal route".
>>> Had I crossed, I would still have been on a diversion.
>
>> That doesn't disapply a No Entry sign (unless Berkshire has its own
>> Road Traffic legislation).
>
>>> But if you look at the  date at the bottom of the picture it says
>>> October 2020 and suprisingly enough, the traffic level shown is not
>>>  usual. Normally there isn't a significant enough gap in traffic to
>>>  cross in one. The prospect of death under a motor vehicle or death
>>>  from old age while waiting for a gap are significant trump cards.
>
>> Possibly a problem (difficult to say in the absence of a movie), but
>> nothing to do with my point about the No Entry signs.
>
> You don't have a point.

Apart from the one I made and then had to explain for you, you mean?

>> Nice try at further diversion.
>
>>> I could have turned left from here and rejoined my original route
>>> but I went back to complete my normal (quiet) route, which involves
>>> going the wrong way down the length of a one way street.
>
>> I don't doubt it. Why would I?
>
>> It still takes away nothing from the effect of a No Entry sign (to
>> the xtent that a cyclist can be bothered to obey it, that is).
>
> The Highway Code says "Cutting the number of deaths and injuries that
> occur on our roads every day is a responsibility we all share." I assume
> you want me to follow the Highway Code?

That certainly includes NOT passing between No Entry signs, doesn't it?

On 23/12/2021 03:49, JNugent wrote:
> On 22/12/2021 07:38 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 22/12/2021 18:24, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 22/12/2021 05:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:41 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant
>>>>>>> out of his window and shouted “Get off your bikes!” at
>>>>>>> riders including children, some riding bicycles on their
>>>>>>> own, others in cargo bikes.
>>>>
>>>>> "...*in* cargo bikes..."?
>>>>
>>>> ??
>>>
>>> What do you mean... "??".
>>>
>>> It's the idea of someone being *in* a cargo bike rather than *on*
>>> it which is odd. Did you miss that even after I signposted it?
>>
>> Nothing odd about it.
>
> Nothing odd, you say, with the concept of someone being *in* a bike?

Nothing at all odd when "bike" is prefaced by "cargo".

> Weird.
>
> But on reflection, perhaps you are referring to something similar to
> that case of a few years ago, where a cyclist was discovered
> (by a chambermaid) having sex with his cycle in a hotel room?
>
> That must be it.

Ah, now it's easier to understand what your fairy-cycle is. You have
merely been cautious enough not to have been seen by a chambermaid. You
are in the wrong newsgroup.

>>>>>> It's possible that some cycle lanes are not intended to be
>>>>>> used for cycling. I was recently told of a cycle lane that
>>>>>> has been created in Reading. I couldn't think what purpose
>>>>>> it was supposed to serve because amongst the existing roads
>>>>>> it is not a natural cycle route - and middle class adults
>>>>>> will never be riding up and down it with their children.
>>
>>>>>> Yesterday, I turned off my normal route to take a look at
>>>>>> it in the flesh. I still can't work out what purpose it is
>>>>>> supposed to serve. https://goo.gl/maps/vZ5GWmcxLzVJGnda6
>>>>>> After looking at the junction for some time I decided it
>>>>>> wasn't even worth the bother of trying to reach it.
>>
>>>>> That was quite nicely done. You managed to at least imply
>>>>> that cyclists would not pass the "No Entry" signs - without
>>>>> actually lying.
>>
>>>> You obviously missed the bit about "I turned off my normal
>>>> route". Had I crossed, I would still have been on a diversion.
>>
>>> That doesn't disapply a No Entry sign (unless Berkshire has its
>>> own Road Traffic legislation).
>>
>>>> But if you look at the date at the bottom of the picture it
>>>> says October 2020 and suprisingly enough, the traffic level
>>>> shown is not usual. Normally there isn't a significant enough
>>>> gap in traffic to cross in one. The prospect of death under a
>>>> motor vehicle or death from old age while waiting for a gap are
>>>> significant trump cards.
>>
>>> Possibly a problem (difficult to say in the absence of a movie),
>>> but nothing to do with my point about the No Entry signs.
>>
>> You don't have a point.
>
> Apart from the one I made and then had to explain for you, you mean?

To remind you, the matter at hand was about checking out a new cycle
facility, found to be not useful.

>>> Nice try at further diversion.
Yes, I diverted to look at it.

>>>> I could have turned left from here and rejoined my original
>>>> route but I went back to complete my normal (quiet) route,
>>>> which involves going the wrong way down the length of a one way
>>>> street.
>>
>>> I don't doubt it. Why would I?
>>
>>> It still takes away nothing from the effect of a No Entry sign
>>> (to the xtent that a cyclist can be bothered to obey it, that
>>> is).
>>
>> The Highway Code says "Cutting the number of deaths and injuries
>> that occur on our roads every day is a responsibility we all
>> share." I assume you want me to follow the Highway Code?
>
> That certainly includes NOT passing between No Entry signs, doesn't
> it?

A prime directive always overrules. Staying safe, when not surrounded by
one and a half tons of metal and padding, requires intelligence and
initiative, not blind faith.

On 23/12/21 03:18, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> Boring cunt.

Thanks greatly for that excellent compliment. Now please spew to me the
further accolade of cockered bum-bailey poofter.

I have no fucking interest in looking good in YOUR eyes.
After all I ride a bicycle, a very convenient delightful economical
viable means of transport.
And we all know what YOU think of bicyclists. You think they are the
fuckwitted pits of humanity.
And because it is YOU who think that, that is an extremely great
compliment.
We must be doing something right.

On 23/12/2021 08:56 am, TMS320 wrote:

> On 23/12/2021 03:49, JNugent wrote:
>> On 22/12/2021 07:38 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 22/12/2021 18:24, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 22/12/2021 05:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:41 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant
>>>>>>>> out of his window and shouted “Get off your bikes!” at
>>>>>>>> riders including children, some riding bicycles on their
>>>>>>>> own, others in cargo bikes.
>
>>>>>> "...*in* cargo bikes..."?
>
>>>>> ??

>>>> What do you mean... "??".
>
>>>> It's the idea of someone being *in* a cargo bike rather than *on*
>>>> it which is odd. Did you miss that even after I signposted it?
>
>>> Nothing odd about it.
>
>> Nothing odd, you say, with the concept of someone being *in* a bike?
>
> Nothing at all odd when "bike" is prefaced by "cargo".

The words were: "riders including children". No mention of "cargo"
except as an adjective apparently describing some sort of fairy-cycle.

Try again?

>> Weird.
>>
>> But on reflection, perhaps you are referring to something similar to
>> that case of a few years ago, where a fairy-cyclist was discovered
>> (by a chambermaid) having sex with his fairy-cycle in a hotel room?
>>
>> That must be it.
>
> Ah, now it's easier to understand what your fairy-cycle is. You have
> merely been cautious enough not to have been seen by a chambermaid. You
> are in the wrong newsgroup.

You're too late with the attempt at witticism.
>
>>>>>>> It's possible that some cycle lanes are not intended to be
>>>>>>> used for cycling. I was recently told of a cycle lane that
>>>>>>> has been created in Reading. I couldn't think what purpose
>>>>>>> it was supposed to serve because amongst the existing roads
>>>>>>> it is not a natural cycle route - and middle class adults
>>>>>>> will never be riding up and down it with their children.
>>>>>>> Yesterday, I turned off my normal route to take a look at
>>>>>>> it in the flesh. I still can't work out what purpose it is
>>>>>>> supposed to serve. https://goo.gl/maps/vZ5GWmcxLzVJGnda6
>>>>>>> After looking at the junction for some time I decided it
>>>>>>> wasn't even worth the bother of trying to reach it.
>
>>>>>> That was quite nicely done. You managed to at least imply
>>>>>> that fairy-cyclists would not pass the "No Entry" signs -
>>>>>> without actually lying.
>
>>>>> You obviously missed the bit about "I turned off my normal
>>>>> route". Had I crossed, I would still have been on a diversion.
>
>>>> That doesn't disapply a No Entry sign (unless Berkshire has its
>>>> own Road Traffic legislation).
>
>>>>> But if you look at the  date at the bottom of the picture it
>>>>> says October 2020 and suprisingly enough, the traffic level
>>>>> shown is not usual. Normally there isn't a significant enough
>>>>> gap in traffic to cross in one. The prospect of death under a
>>>>> motor vehicle or death from old age while waiting for a gap are
>>>>> significant trump cards.
>
>>>> Possibly a problem (difficult to say in the absence of a movie),
>>>> but nothing to do with my point about the No Entry signs.
>
>>> You don't have a point.
>
>> Apart from the one I made and then had to explain for you, you mean?
>
> To remind you, the matter at hand was about checking out a new cycle
> facility, found to be not useful...

....ilustrated with an image showing a pair of No Entry signs between the
camera position and the fairy-cycle lane.

>>>> Nice try at further diversion.

> Yes, I diverted to look at it.

You're too late with the attempt at witticism.

>>>>> I could have turned left from here and rejoined my original
>>>>> route but I went back to complete my normal (quiet) route,
>>>>> which involves going the wrong way down the length of a one way
>>>>> street.
>
>>>> I don't doubt it. Why would I?
>
>>>> It still takes away nothing from the effect of a No Entry sign
>>>> (to the xtent that a cyclist can be bothered to obey it, that
>>>> is).
>
>>> The Highway Code says "Cutting the number of deaths and injuries
>>> that occur on our roads every day is a responsibility we all
>>> share." I assume you want me to follow the Highway Code?
>
>> That certainly includes NOT passing between No Entry signs, doesn't
>> it?
>
> A prime directive always overrules. Staying safe, when not surrounded by
> one and a half tons of metal and padding, requires intelligence and
> initiative, not blind faith.

TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
obeying the law".

On 23/12/2021 12:12, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/12/2021 08:56 am, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 23/12/2021 03:49, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 22/12/2021 07:38 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 22/12/2021 18:24, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 22/12/2021 05:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:41 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles
>>>>>>>>> leant out of his window and shouted “Get off your
>>>>>>>>> bikes!” at riders including children, some riding
>>>>>>>>> bicycles on their own, others in cargo bikes.
>>
>>>>>>> "...*in* cargo bikes..."?
>>
>>>>>> ??
>
>>>>> What do you mean... "??".
>>
>>>>> It's the idea of someone being *in* a cargo bike rather than
>>>>> *on* it which is odd. Did you miss that even after I
>>>>> signposted it?
>>
>>>> Nothing odd about it.
>>
>>> Nothing odd, you say, with the concept of someone being *in* a
>>> bike?
>>
>> Nothing at all odd when "bike" is prefaced by "cargo".
>
> The words were: "riders including children". No mention of "cargo"
> except as an adjective apparently describing some sort of cycle.
>
> Try again?

A computer operates in a completely literal manner. A human does not.

Which do you claim to be?

>>> Weird.
>>>
>>> But on reflection, perhaps you are referring to something
>>> similar to that case of a few years ago, where a cyclist was
>>> discovered (by a chambermaid) having sex with his cycle in a
>>> hotel room?
>>>
>>> That must be it.
>>
>> Ah, now it's easier to understand what your fairy-cycle is. You
>> have merely been cautious enough not to have been seen by a
>> chambermaid. You are in the wrong newsgroup.
>
> You're too late with the attempt at witticism.

You're not denying the allegation.

<...>

>> A prime directive always overrules. Staying safe, when not
>> surrounded by one and a half tons of metal and padding, requires
>> intelligence and initiative, not blind faith.
>
> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
> obeying the law".

Most of the time, dying isn't considered to be a particularly cool idea.

On 23/12/2021 02:22 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 23/12/2021 12:12, JNugent wrote:
>> On 23/12/2021 08:56 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 23/12/2021 03:49, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 22/12/2021 07:38 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 22/12/2021 18:24, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 05:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:41 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant out of
>>>>>>>>>> his window and shouted “Get off your bikes!” at riders
>>>>>>>>>> including children, some riding bicycles on their own, others
>>>>>>>>>> in cargo bikes.
>>>
>>>>>>>> "...*in* cargo bikes..."?
>>>
>>>>>>> ??
>>
>>>>>> What do you mean... "??".
>>>
>>>>>> It's the idea of someone being *in* a cargo bike rather than *on*
>>>>>> it which is odd. Did you miss that even after I signposted it?
>>>
>>>>> Nothing odd about it.
>>>
>>>> Nothing odd, you say, with the concept of someone being *in* a bike?
>>>
>>> Nothing at all odd when "bike" is prefaced by "cargo".
>>
>> The words were: "riders including children". No mention of "cargo"
>> except as an adjective apparently describing some sort of cycle.
>>
>> Try again?
>
> A computer operates in a completely literal manner. A human does not.
>
> Which do you claim to be?

I'm sorry you have to wriggle so much.

>>>> Weird.
>>>>
>>>> But on reflection, perhaps you are referring to something
>>>> similar to that case of a few years ago, where a cyclist was
>>>> discovered (by a chambermaid) having sex with his cycle in a
>>>> hotel room?
>>>>
>>>> That must be it.
>>>
>>> Ah, now it's easier to understand what your fairy-cycle is. You
>>> have merely been cautious enough not to have been seen by a
>>> chambermaid. You are in the wrong newsgroup.
>>
>> You're too late with the attempt at witticism.
>
> You're not denying the allegation.

Not dignifying your pathetic attempt at wit with a response.

> <...>
>
>>> A prime directive always overrules. Staying safe, when not
>>> surrounded by one and a half tons of metal and padding, requires
>>> intelligence and initiative, not blind faith.
>>
>> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
>> obeying the law".
>
> Most of the time, dying isn't considered to be a particularly cool idea.

TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
obeying the law; all we have to to do is claim that we know better than
everyone else including Parliament and try to close down discussion of
our transgressions by referring to "safety". Other peoples' safety -
especially that of pedestrians unreasonably using footways as though
they were for pedestrians - is totally unimportant".

JNugent wrote:
> On 23/12/2021 02:22 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> On 23/12/2021 12:12, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 23/12/2021 08:56 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 23/12/2021 03:49, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 22/12/2021 07:38 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 18:24, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 05:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:41 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant out
>>>>>>>>>>> of his window and shouted "Get off your bikes!" at riders
>>>>>>>>>>> including children, some riding bicycles on their own,
>>>>>>>>>>> others in cargo bikes.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "...*in* cargo bikes..."?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> ??
>>>
>>>>>>> What do you mean... "??".
>>>>
>>>>>>> It's the idea of someone being *in* a cargo bike rather than
>>>>>>> *on* it which is odd. Did you miss that even after I signposted
>>>>>>> it?
>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing odd about it.
>>>>
>>>>> Nothing odd, you say, with the concept of someone being *in* a
>>>>> bike?
>>>>
>>>> Nothing at all odd when "bike" is prefaced by "cargo".
>>>
>>> The words were: "riders including children". No mention of "cargo"
>>> except as an adjective apparently describing some sort of cycle.
>>>
>>> Try again?
>>
>> A computer operates in a completely literal manner. A human does not.
>>
>> Which do you claim to be?
>
> I'm sorry you have to wriggle so much.
>
>>>>> Weird.
>>>>>
>>>>> But on reflection, perhaps you are referring to something
>>>>> similar to that case of a few years ago, where a cyclist was
>>>>> discovered (by a chambermaid) having sex with his cycle in a
>>>>> hotel room?
>>>>>
>>>>> That must be it.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, now it's easier to understand what your fairy-cycle is. You
>>>> have merely been cautious enough not to have been seen by a
>>>> chambermaid. You are in the wrong newsgroup.
>>>
>>> You're too late with the attempt at witticism.
>>
>> You're not denying the allegation.
>
> Not dignifying your pathetic attempt at wit with a response.
>
>> <...>
>>
>>>> A prime directive always overrules. Staying safe, when not
>>>> surrounded by one and a half tons of metal and padding, requires
>>>> intelligence and initiative, not blind faith.
>>>
>>> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
>>> obeying the law".
>>
>> Most of the time, dying isn't considered to be a particularly cool
>> idea.
>
> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
> obeying the law; all we have to to do is claim that we know better
> than everyone else including Parliament and try to close down
> discussion of our transgressions by referring to "safety". Other
> peoples' safety - especially that of pedestrians unreasonably using
> footways as though they were for pedestrians - is totally
> unimportant".

Do you not get bored of beating these wankers up? I know that they are easy
meat and fun to play with, but even so.

On 23/12/2021 14:48, JNugent wrote:
> On 23/12/2021 02:22 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 23/12/2021 12:12, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 23/12/2021 08:56 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 23/12/2021 03:49, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 22/12/2021 07:38 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 18:24, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 05:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:41 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant out of
>>>>>>>>>>> his window and shouted “Get off your bikes!” at riders
>>>>>>>>>>> including children, some riding bicycles on their own, others
>>>>>>>>>>> in cargo bikes.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "...*in* cargo bikes..."?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> ??
>>>
>>>>>>> What do you mean... "??".
>>>>
>>>>>>> It's the idea of someone being *in* a cargo bike rather than *on*
>>>>>>> it which is odd. Did you miss that even after I signposted it?
>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing odd about it.
>>>>
>>>>> Nothing odd, you say, with the concept of someone being *in* a bike?
>>>>
>>>> Nothing at all odd when "bike" is prefaced by "cargo".
>>>
>>> The words were: "riders including children". No mention of "cargo"
>>> except as an adjective apparently describing some sort of cycle.
>>>
>>> Try again?
>>
>> A computer operates in a completely literal manner. A human does not.
>>
>> Which do you claim to be?
>
> I'm sorry you have to wriggle so much.

You fail the Turing test again.

>>>>> Weird.
>>>>>
>>>>> But on reflection, perhaps you are referring to something
>>>>> similar to that case of a few years ago, where a cyclist was
>>>>> discovered (by a chambermaid) having sex with his cycle in a
>>>>> hotel room?
>>>>>
>>>>> That must be it.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, now it's easier to understand what your fairy-cycle is. You
>>>> have merely been cautious enough not to have been seen by a
>>>> chambermaid. You are in the wrong newsgroup.
>>>
>>> You're too late with the attempt at witticism.
>>
>> You're not denying the allegation.
>
> Not dignifying your pathetic attempt at wit with a response.

You brought the matter into the conversation. You obviously thought you
were being clever.

>> <...>
>>
>>>> A prime directive always overrules. Staying safe, when not
>>>> surrounded by one and a half tons of metal and padding, requires
>>>> intelligence and initiative, not blind faith.
>>>
>>> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
>>> obeying the law".
>>
>> Most of the time, dying isn't considered to be a particularly cool idea.
>
> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
> obeying the law; all we have to to do is claim that we know better than
> everyone else including Parliament and try to close down discussion of
> our transgressions by referring to "safety". Other peoples' safety -
> especially that of pedestrians unreasonably using footways as though
> they were for pedestrians - is totally unimportant".

Have you never broken a speed limit? I know it's a tough question for
you but there is a simple answer - choose one of the following:
~ yes
~ no

On 24/12/21 05:34, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>> On 23/12/2021 02:22 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/12/2021 12:12, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 23/12/2021 08:56 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 23/12/2021 03:49, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 07:38 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 18:24, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 05:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:41 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant out
>>>>>>>>>>>> of his window and shouted "Get off your bikes!" at riders
>>>>>>>>>>>> including children, some riding bicycles on their own,
>>>>>>>>>>>> others in cargo bikes.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "...*in* cargo bikes..."?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ??
>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you mean... "??".
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's the idea of someone being *in* a cargo bike rather than
>>>>>>>> *on* it which is odd. Did you miss that even after I signposted
>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing odd about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing odd, you say, with the concept of someone being *in* a
>>>>>> bike?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing at all odd when "bike" is prefaced by "cargo".
>>>>
>>>> The words were: "riders including children". No mention of "cargo"
>>>> except as an adjective apparently describing some sort of cycle.
>>>>
>>>> Try again?
>>>
>>> A computer operates in a completely literal manner. A human does not.
>>>
>>> Which do you claim to be?
>>
>> I'm sorry you have to wriggle so much.
>>
>>>>>> Weird.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But on reflection, perhaps you are referring to something
>>>>>> similar to that case of a few years ago, where a cyclist was
>>>>>> discovered (by a chambermaid) having sex with his cycle in a
>>>>>> hotel room?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That must be it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, now it's easier to understand what your fairy-cycle is. You
>>>>> have merely been cautious enough not to have been seen by a
>>>>> chambermaid. You are in the wrong newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>> You're too late with the attempt at witticism.
>>>
>>> You're not denying the allegation.
>>
>> Not dignifying your pathetic attempt at wit with a response.
>>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>>> A prime directive always overrules. Staying safe, when not
>>>>> surrounded by one and a half tons of metal and padding, requires
>>>>> intelligence and initiative, not blind faith.
>>>>
>>>> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
>>>> obeying the law".
>>>
>>> Most of the time, dying isn't considered to be a particularly cool
>>> idea.
>>
>> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
>> obeying the law; all we have to to do is claim that we know better
>> than everyone else including Parliament and try to close down
>> discussion of our transgressions by referring to "safety". Other
>> peoples' safety - especially that of pedestrians unreasonably using
>> footways as though they were for pedestrians - is totally
>> unimportant".
>
>
> Do you not get bored of beating these wankers up? I know that they are easy
> meat and fun to play with, but even so.
>
>
Obviously not.
But what is it to you?

On 23/12/2021 04:34 pm, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>> On 23/12/2021 02:22 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/12/2021 12:12, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 23/12/2021 08:56 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 23/12/2021 03:49, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 07:38 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 18:24, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 05:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:41 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant out
>>>>>>>>>>>> of his window and shouted "Get off your bikes!" at riders
>>>>>>>>>>>> including children, some riding bicycles on their own,
>>>>>>>>>>>> others in cargo bikes.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "...*in* cargo bikes..."?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ??
>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you mean... "??".
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's the idea of someone being *in* a cargo bike rather than
>>>>>>>> *on* it which is odd. Did you miss that even after I signposted
>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing odd about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing odd, you say, with the concept of someone being *in* a
>>>>>> bike?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing at all odd when "bike" is prefaced by "cargo".
>>>>
>>>> The words were: "riders including children". No mention of "cargo"
>>>> except as an adjective apparently describing some sort of cycle.
>>>>
>>>> Try again?
>>>
>>> A computer operates in a completely literal manner. A human does not.
>>>
>>> Which do you claim to be?
>>
>> I'm sorry you have to wriggle so much.
>>
>>>>>> Weird.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But on reflection, perhaps you are referring to something
>>>>>> similar to that case of a few years ago, where a cyclist was
>>>>>> discovered (by a chambermaid) having sex with his cycle in a
>>>>>> hotel room?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That must be it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, now it's easier to understand what your fairy-cycle is. You
>>>>> have merely been cautious enough not to have been seen by a
>>>>> chambermaid. You are in the wrong newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>> You're too late with the attempt at witticism.
>>>
>>> You're not denying the allegation.
>>
>> Not dignifying your pathetic attempt at wit with a response.
>>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>>> A prime directive always overrules. Staying safe, when not
>>>>> surrounded by one and a half tons of metal and padding, requires
>>>>> intelligence and initiative, not blind faith.
>>>>
>>>> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
>>>> obeying the law".
>>>
>>> Most of the time, dying isn't considered to be a particularly cool
>>> idea.
>>
>> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
>> obeying the law; all we have to to do is claim that we know better
>> than everyone else including Parliament and try to close down
>> discussion of our transgressions by referring to "safety". Other
>> peoples' safety - especially that of pedestrians unreasonably using
>> footways as though they were for pedestrians - is totally
>> unimportant".
>
>
> Do you not get bored of beating these wankers up? I know that they are easy
> meat and fun to play with, but even so.

That is not my objective! ;-)

Marry Christmas, by the way.

And that goes to everyone reading (or pretending not to but always
answering just the same).

On 24/12/2021 09:14 am, TMS320 wrote:
> On 23/12/2021 14:48, JNugent wrote:
>> On 23/12/2021 02:22 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 23/12/2021 12:12, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 23/12/2021 08:56 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 23/12/2021 03:49, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 07:38 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 18:24, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 05:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:41 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant out
>>>>>>>>>>>> of his window and shouted “Get off your bikes!” at riders
>>>>>>>>>>>> including children, some riding bicycles on their own,
>>>>>>>>>>>> others in cargo bikes.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "...*in* cargo bikes..."?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ??
>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you mean... "??".
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's the idea of someone being *in* a cargo bike rather than
>>>>>>>> *on* it which is odd. Did you miss that even after I signposted it?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing odd about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing odd, you say, with the concept of someone being *in* a bike?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing at all odd when "bike" is prefaced by "cargo".
>>>>
>>>> The words were: "riders including children". No mention of "cargo"
>>>> except as an adjective apparently describing some sort of cycle.
>>>>
>>>> Try again?
>>>
>>> A computer operates in a completely literal manner. A human does not.
>>>
>>> Which do you claim to be?
>>
>> I'm sorry you have to wriggle so much.
>
> You fail the Turing test again.
>
>>>>>> Weird.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But on reflection, perhaps you are referring to something
>>>>>> similar to that case of a few years ago, where a cyclist was
>>>>>> discovered (by a chambermaid) having sex with his cycle in a
>>>>>> hotel room?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That must be it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, now it's easier to understand what your fairy-cycle is. You
>>>>> have merely been cautious enough not to have been seen by a
>>>>> chambermaid. You are in the wrong newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>> You're too late with the attempt at witticism.
>>>
>>> You're not denying the allegation.
>>
>> Not dignifying your pathetic attempt at wit with a response.
>
> You brought the matter into the conversation. You obviously thought you
> were being clever.
>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>>> A prime directive always overrules. Staying safe, when not
>>>>> surrounded by one and a half tons of metal and padding, requires
>>>>> intelligence and initiative, not blind faith.
>>>>
>>>> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
>>>> obeying the law".
>>>
>>> Most of the time, dying isn't considered to be a particularly cool idea.
>>
>> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
>> obeying the law; all we have to to do is claim that we know better
>> than everyone else including Parliament and try to close down
>> discussion of our transgressions by referring to "safety". Other
>> peoples' safety - especially that of pedestrians unreasonably using
>> footways as though they were for pedestrians - is totally unimportant".
>
> Have you never broken a speed limit?

Why would that ever matter?

If the answer were "Yes", would it mean that you are free to break the law?

A straight "Yes" or "No" would be helpful.

> I know it's a tough question for
> you but there is a simple answer - choose one of the following:
> ~ yes
> ~ no

It is a great pity that fairy-cyclists have so little regard for the
safety - and rights - of other groups, especially pedestrians.

Isn't it?

Peter Keller wrote:
> On 24/12/21 05:34, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> On 23/12/2021 02:22 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/12/2021 12:12, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 23/12/2021 08:56 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/12/2021 03:49, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 07:38 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 18:24, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 05:52 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:51, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/12/2021 11:41 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/12/2021 14:02, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Driving his car in the opposite direction, Giles leant out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of his window and shouted "Get off your bikes!" at riders
>>>>>>>>>>>>> including children, some riding bicycles on their own,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> others in cargo bikes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "...*in* cargo bikes..."?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ??
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you mean... "??".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's the idea of someone being *in* a cargo bike rather than
>>>>>>>>> *on* it which is odd. Did you miss that even after I
>>>>>>>>> signposted it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing odd about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing odd, you say, with the concept of someone being *in* a
>>>>>>> bike?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing at all odd when "bike" is prefaced by "cargo".
>>>>>
>>>>> The words were: "riders including children". No mention of "cargo"
>>>>> except as an adjective apparently describing some sort of cycle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try again?
>>>>
>>>> A computer operates in a completely literal manner. A human does
>>>> not.
>>>>
>>>> Which do you claim to be?
>>>
>>> I'm sorry you have to wriggle so much.
>>>
>>>>>>> Weird.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But on reflection, perhaps you are referring to something
>>>>>>> similar to that case of a few years ago, where a cyclist was
>>>>>>> discovered (by a chambermaid) having sex with his cycle in a
>>>>>>> hotel room?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That must be it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, now it's easier to understand what your fairy-cycle is. You
>>>>>> have merely been cautious enough not to have been seen by a
>>>>>> chambermaid. You are in the wrong newsgroup.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're too late with the attempt at witticism.
>>>>
>>>> You're not denying the allegation.
>>>
>>> Not dignifying your pathetic attempt at wit with a response.
>>>
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>>> A prime directive always overrules. Staying safe, when not
>>>>>> surrounded by one and a half tons of metal and padding, requires
>>>>>> intelligence and initiative, not blind faith.
>>>>>
>>>>> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things
>>>>> like obeying the law".
>>>>
>>>> Most of the time, dying isn't considered to be a particularly cool
>>>> idea.
>>>
>>> TRANSLATION: "Us fairy-cyclists are too cool to do petty things like
>>> obeying the law; all we have to to do is claim that we know better
>>> than everyone else including Parliament and try to close down
>>> discussion of our transgressions by referring to "safety". Other
>>> peoples' safety - especially that of pedestrians unreasonably using
>>> footways as though they were for pedestrians - is totally
>>> unimportant".
>>
>>
>> Do you not get bored of beating these wankers up? I know that they
>> are easy meat and fun to play with, but even so.
>>
>>
> Obviously not.
> But what is it to you?

What is it to you?
Come along ya wanker, tell us.

On 24/12/2021 13:04, JNugent wrote:
>>
>> Have you never broken a speed limit?
>
> Why would that ever matter?
>
> If the answer were "Yes", would it mean that you are free to break the law?

Sigh. Standard Nugent response. Reply to a question with a question.

On 24/12/2021 02:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 24/12/2021 13:04, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> Have you never broken a speed limit?
>
>> Why would that ever matter?
>> If the answer were "Yes", would it mean that you are free to break the
>> law?
>
> Sigh. Standard Nugent response. Reply to a question with a question.

It's a reasonable enough question.

None of the three conceivable answers would make any difference to your
"argument" because none of them would help justify the atrociously
selfish behaviour of too many fairy-cyclists, would they?

So why do you want to know?

It isn't about me. It's about you and the rest of the fairy-cyclists.

On 24/12/2021 16:03, JNugent wrote:
> On 24/12/2021 02:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> On 24/12/2021 13:04, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Have you never broken a speed limit?
>>
>>> Why would that ever matter?
>>> If the answer were "Yes", would it mean that you are free to break
>>> the law?
>>
>> Sigh. Standard Nugent response. Reply to a question with a question.
>
> It's a reasonable enough question.

It is not. Answer my question.

On 24/12/2021 04:39 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 24/12/2021 16:03, JNugent wrote:
>> On 24/12/2021 02:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 24/12/2021 13:04, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>> Have you never broken a speed limit?
>
>>>> Why would that ever matter?
>>>> If the answer were "Yes", would it mean that you are free to break
>>>> the law?
>
>>> Sigh. Standard Nugent response. Reply to a question with a question.
>
>> It's a reasonable enough question.
>
> It is not. Answer my question.

I shall not do so at the very least unless you tell me what you want the
answer for and what you propose to do with it.

Even then, I might not provide an answer if I decide that your reasons
are malicious, mischievous or both.

This isn't about me. It's about fairy-cyclists breaking the law and
endangering other road-users.